Kaizero

looks like a combination of both games actually. No, only America have any significance to anything on a global level. Well, given the amount of English vs. Americans and the time of the spike, that's pretty much correct. Huh? Aye, but the headline and article read as if Americans had done it all by themselves, with perhaps a slight outside influence by anyone interested in England. I'm just saying the article isn't wrong saying just the US caused the spike, you can tell that by the number of people from North America vs. Europe. But it's not "wrong" in the sense I was talking about, it's the dramatic ending to that match which caused it. The England game ended basically the same time as the US goal, all I can see is a biased headline/news article. The World Cup caused an internet spike. 8 Million in North America 2 Million in Europe 1.6 Rest of world There wouldn't have been 8 million in North America on at that time, nor any other time in the WC if something like that ending didn't happen. Were there spikes when they played England? No. Were there spikes when they played Slovenia? No. Were there spikes when you played Algerie? No. Were there spikes when you played them? No. Easy. The ending of their match caused the spike, and Europe/ROW participated to it for whatever reason they had, be it England or something else. USA! USA! USA! Still think its a shit article. I'm not disputing that the article is shit, just that there wouldn't have been as many Yanks on at that time if it wasn't for the goal, and thus no major spike.

USA and Argentina.

looks like a combination of both games actually. No, only America have any significance to anything on a global level. Well, given the amount of English vs. Americans and the time of the spike, that's pretty much correct. Huh? Aye, but the headline and article read as if Americans had done it all by themselves, with perhaps a slight outside influence by anyone interested in England. I'm just saying the article isn't wrong saying just the US caused the spike, you can tell that by the number of people from North America vs. Europe. But it's not "wrong" in the sense I was talking about, it's the dramatic ending to that match which caused it. The England game ended basically the same time as the US goal, all I can see is a biased headline/news article. The World Cup caused an internet spike. 8 Million in North America 2 Million in Europe 1.6 Rest of world There wouldn't have been 8 million in North America on at that time, nor any other time in the WC if something like that ending didn't happen. Were there spikes when they played England? No. Were there spikes when they played Slovenia? No. Were there spikes when you played Algerie? No. Were there spikes when you played them? No. Easy. The ending of their match caused the spike, and Europe/ROW participated to it for whatever reason they had, be it England or something else.

Ronaldinho is apparently off to LA Galaxy.

looks like a combination of both games actually. No, only America have any significance to anything on a global level. Well, given the amount of English vs. Americans and the time of the spike, that's pretty much correct. Huh? Aye, but the headline and article read as if Americans had done it all by themselves, with perhaps a slight outside influence by anyone interested in England. I'm just saying the article isn't wrong saying just the US caused the spike, you can tell that by the number of people from North America vs. Europe. But it's not "wrong" in the sense I was talking about, it's the dramatic ending to that match which caused it.

looks like a combination of both games actually. No, only America have any significance to anything on a global level. Well, given the amount of English vs. Americans and the time of the spike, that's pretty much correct.

Donovan's goal makes the Internet spike at the second highest amount of traffic in history, beating the announcement of the US 08 President election in the process: http://mashable.com/2010/06/23/usa-vs-algeria-world-cup/

"Big teams" at the WC is bull. It's a short tourney once every four years, and if the "lesser known" teams outpreform the "big" teams and get a better playoff route, it's because they've (in most cases) earnt it. Which in my eyes makes them the "bigger" teams at this particular WC tournament. Obviously not as fun to watch as "major" nations, but they're the ones that's done the best so far, so give them some credit, they've earnt their "easy" route. I see what you're saying, but the major nations have such a reputation because they are the best in the world and are generally more difficult to beat. South Africa beat France yesterday, but in theory I know France are more capable of beating England. Maybe Ghana/Uruguay will end up being more difficult than Argentina/Germany, but I know who I'd rather face. Yeah, I get that. But they're still the "big teams" going by their WC 2010 performance, what I'm getting it at is just a pet hate of mine how people I've spoken to today are going on about how the "small" teams lucked out. I mean, lucked out? They've deservedly gone through, they've played themselves to the "easy" route. Not aimed at you btw, you just reminded me of some heated arguments I've had today.

"Big teams" at the WC is bull. It's a short tourney once every four years, and if the "lesser known" teams outpreform the "big" teams and get a better playoff route, it's because they've (in most cases) earnt it. Which in my eyes makes them the "bigger" teams at this particular WC tournament. Obviously not as fun to watch as "major" nations, but they're the ones that's done the best so far, so give them some credit, they've earnt their "easy" route.

Forster should take another season at Norwich, Krul should get some game time in the cups and then either Krul or Forster should take over after next season.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs020.snc4/34359_1509669942642_1261146307_1372632_7701947_n.jpg

I was saying this long before the WC. Not that it means anything.

US in with a great shot at getting to the semis. "Miracle on Grass" out on cinemas in 2012 anyone?

Nah we can do it man. Germans have looked impressive but they have weaknesses we can exploit for sure. yeah they cant play against immobile overrated clueless players. To be honest, I think you'll be a different team against Germany (if your players have common sense, which they probably don't) as I think England have serious troubles really controlling a match against a lesser team. Against a "better" side, you'll not be expected to attack and can be more controlled and sneak a winner.

Easy way for the Germans to the quarters then.

Also, congrats England.

Well chuffed for the US and my wallet.

US have been raping the green surrender monkeys, really need and deserve a goal soon.

I thought you lived in Norway? How the fuck do you get our channels you thieving cunt? I pay for them. Livesport? FilmOn

I thought you lived in Norway? How the fuck do you get our channels you thieving cunt? I pay for them.

This WC has ruined me. Before the WC I'd not hesitate going £80 in on the US to beat Algeria, but now, now I'm fucked up emotionally from the win/loss rollercoaster.

Which channel is the US vs Slovenia on in England? ITV or th Beeb?

Sent an enquiry on Aliadiere. "Newcastle like. You wanna come to Newcastle like? WE GONNA WIN DA LEEEGEEEE LIKE."

Insurance companies won't pay out if someone gets damaged hearing at the WC, so I doubt they can get anything from FIFA as they'd just say "they knew the danger" and so on.