maybe_next_year Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 van persie scores, good finish from someone whos missed quite a few half decent chances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I was going to suggest that we sign keisuke Honda then found out that Cska Moscow spent 10m on him! Robbed. I saw one on Autotrader for less than a grand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QBG Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Get in Van Persie. Fantasy points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I Can't believe a World Cup teams best weapon is Geremi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Interesting that both of the teams that England were criticized for beating in the warm ups are in the round of 16. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QBG Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Holland's away kit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro111 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Holland's away kit Is dreadful. Argie and Jorman ones are wayyyyy nicer tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Be interesting for a real break down and not just 'North America' - Who were Canada watching? Who were Mexico watching? Argh, I hate blogs passing as news Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 http://www.trefor.net/2010/06/23/uk-is-21-3-of-global-internet-traffic-during-england-v-slovenia-match-according-to-akamai/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Be interesting for a real break down and not just 'North America' - Who were Canada watching? Who were Mexico watching? Argh, I hate blogs passing as news Probably the US, given how the spike came when Donovan scored. Don't recall any other major events taking place at that time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Fuck sake the photo of the traffic is so small its pointless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Sorensen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Be interesting for a real break down and not just 'North America' - Who were Canada watching? Who were Mexico watching? Argh, I hate blogs passing as news Probably the US, given how the spike came when Donovan scored. Don't recall any other major events taking place at that time. How does he know this though? The goal and end of England game was basically within the same minute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 s*** keeping tbh. Should've lined up in the middle of the net instead of off to the other side. Or perhaps set up the wall like a keeper should do. Sørensen to blame for both goals anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Nearly a third Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QBG Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Just realised I've got Benaglio in net on my fantasy team and not Sorensen. Thank fuck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maybe_next_year Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 there is something quite nice about seeing Sørensen fail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Be interesting for a real break down and not just 'North America' - Who were Canada watching? Who were Mexico watching? Argh, I hate blogs passing as news Probably the US, given how the spike came when Donovan scored. Don't recall any other major events taking place at that time. How does he know this though? The goal and end of England game was basically within the same minute. Because the Yanks/Canada/Mexico probably wouldn't have watched England? And the amount vs. Europe at the time? Usually, looking at the net usage index right now, Europe is ahead of the North America. How is this a big deal anyways, man? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/06/24/record-breaking-uk-broadband-internet-traffic-during-england-v-slovenia-match.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 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/ 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. Be interesting for a real break down and not just 'North America' - Who were Canada watching? Who were Mexico watching? Argh, I hate blogs passing as news Probably the US, given how the spike came when Donovan scored. Don't recall any other major events taking place at that time. How does he know this though? The goal and end of England game was basically within the same minute. Because the Yanks/Canada/Mexico probably wouldn't have watched England? And the amount vs. Europe at the time? Usually, looking at the net usage index right now, Europe is ahead of the North America. How is this a big deal anyways, man? No idea, I'm totally fed up of discussing it after my first reply Just hate shite articles on blogs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now