10 thoughts on soccer and the World Cup
 Italy fan, courtesy BBC |
- Portugal is a bunch of candy asses. I've never seen a team in any sport take so many falls as they did in their game against England. It was clearly their game strategy to control the tempo by taking a fall and stopping action every time England got the ball. It was like clockwork. An England player brushes a Portuguese on the elbow and the Portugal player collapses to the ground grasping his shin in "pain". It was completely ridiculous.
- I really, really tried to enjoy the sport. And I did enjoy the pageantry and emotion of the tournament. But the sport itself? Soccer? Still as blah as ever. A sport where nil-nil ties are considered not only acceptable, but exciting, is a sport that needs some tweaking. And I say that as someone who enjoys a good pitcher's duel more than a home run derby.
- The consensus has been that the US showed poorly, but our side played the eventual champs better than anyone except France in the final. On a good day, US soccer is world class. We've just got to have more good days.
- Thank god someone eliminated Brazil. From the American announcers you'd think they were gods. It wasn't until stoppage time of France's victory that the announcers finally shut up with the "just you wait, Brazil will take it to them and Zidane will have played his last".
- Speaking of Zidane, what a dumbass. It doesn't matter if that Italian player called him a terrorist. Zidane let a trash talker get him thrown out of the most important match of the last 4 years. He should have controlled himself.
- After the US was eliminated, I pulled for England. After they were eliminated, I pulled for anyone who wasn't Brazil or Germany. After they were both eliminated, I pulled for anyone who wasn't dive-taking Portugal. In the final I supported Italy, since a victory by them would cast American soccer in a better light.
- It's clear that any world cup on European soil produces an unnatural and unfair home field advantage for all European teams. I realize it's logistically impossible, since Europe is soccer's most lucrative market, but in a fair system it would never be held there again. True, someone will always have a home advantage, but it usually only affects the play of one or two teams. In Europe it makes too substantial a difference.
- Beckham, aka the only soccer play who's a household name in the United States, says he may come to play in the MLS when his current contract is up in Europe. Wouldn't that be interesting.
- Turns out in addition to DC United, America's most successful club team, there's a minor league team in Northern Virginia called the Royals. Who knew?
- South Africa in 2010? I've always thought an Olympics on African soil would be interesting. I guess this is the next best thing.
posted by Cirrus of Malla @ 2:56 PM ⢠Permalink
2 comments
2 Comments:
You're right about home field advantage of the European, but next time the tournament is not in European soil. Any prediction? The American TV announcers are really novice about the game, and that is why they praised the Brazilians. Any one who watches soccer and follows the game knows that Brazil (this year) had major weeakness and could be beaten. If you followed the internet chat, you might aware that quiet a few people predicted that Brazil would be out. That does not deny the fact that in general individual Brazillian players are very good, and it's beautiful watching them play with the ball. However to win the World Cup the team has to play effectively, not just beautifully play by individuals. In my personal opinion, I don't really mind about tie at nil-nil as long as both teams are playing their best.
I don't know enough about the state of the game or players to make predictions about which teams might do well in South Africa, except that I expect non-traditional powers to do better relative to the European teams.
Post a Comment
<< Home