triggs Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 They wouldn't have won at a canter either because even if they had have got one goal in normal time, they would have retreated and let USA have the ball like they did in extra time I was, quite obviously, not being serious. That post wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at incognito. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza ladra Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 It's dangerous to assume that football will become mainstream just because the World Cup was incredibly popular this time around. The WC is more about nationalism than it is about football. For football to really take off you need a healthy domestic league, but it's difficult to sell the MLS when anyone who's into the game knows that a vastly superior product exists in Europe. Massive amounts of money helps, so I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are limits. I'm sorry but this is a bunch of nonsense. Do Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina have healthy domestic leagues? Why do the Belgians and Dutch bother with their domestic leagues when a clearly superior product is just across the border? Its not about just about money. Its about having a football culture. We're getting there-- that takes time. My ten year old son plays football every day. When he's not playing football, he's playing futsal. He's all football crazy. And that's true of most of the young athletes in his school. (That was to the case when I was his age--we were all playing baseball and basketball all summer.) The World Cup is a big deal. Every four years it generates new fanatics. I saw something about that fool running around dressed as Teddy Roosevelt. Turns out he wasn't a fan until the 2006 World Cup -- had disdain for the game and US fans before then. I think there are a whole bunch of young athletes who are right now deciding to dedicate themselves to playing football/soccer instead of basketball, American football, baseball or whatever. We've missed a big opportunity by passing on playing in the Copa America in the past few decades. 2016 is going to be huge. And like this World Cup, it's going to create new fans and produce a larger pool of players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker........ On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances I'll not hear a bad word spoken about DaMarcus Beasley. He more than held his own against some of the best wing players in the tournament and still got forward relatively often. Hardly the worst LB in the tournament, and I'd go so far as to say he was comfortably in the top half of LBs who appeared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza ladra Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker........ On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances I'll not hear a bad word spoken about DaMarcus Beasley. He more than held his own against some of the best wing players in the tournament and still got forward relatively often. Hardly the worst LB in the tournament, and I'd go so far as to say he was comfortably in the top half of LBs who appeared. This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker........ On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances I'll not hear a bad word spoken about DaMarcus Beasley. He more than held his own against some of the best wing players in the tournament and still got forward relatively often. Hardly the worst LB in the tournament, and I'd go so far as to say he was comfortably in the top half of LBs who appeared. Complete hyperbole on my part obviously but I was just trying to emphasise how much better Rodriguez is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Belgium will definitely beat Argentina IMO. I agree, I think the European teams left in the tournament have shown a bit more than the South American big guns. Argentina play too slowly and Brazil are playing long ball when it's not natural to their game. Columbia are the exception, they've been the best team from that part of the world IMO. Don't see what Belgium have shown. They were average in the group and struggled to beat USA They flattered to deceive in the groups but were impressive last night imo, created a ton of chances. From an attacking perspective, Argentina haven't shown that sort of penetrative quality yet - imo it's mostly been hopeful give and go's just outside the penalty area that lead to nothing more often than not. Probably because basically every team Argentina has played as stuck 10 men in the box, while Belgium will be aware of Argentina's threat they will try and take the game to them. That is a factor, but even so I haven't been impressed by Argentina's efforts to break these defences down. It should be interesting to see if Belgium play a more open game and that allows Argentina players to show more. The likes of Higuain could hardly show less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 It's dangerous to assume that football will become mainstream just because the World Cup was incredibly popular this time around. The WC is more about nationalism than it is about football. For football to really take off you need a healthy domestic league, but it's difficult to sell the MLS when anyone who's into the game knows that a vastly superior product exists in Europe. Massive amounts of money helps, so I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are limits. I'm sorry but this is a bunch of nonsense. Do Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina have healthy domestic leagues? Why do the Belgians and Dutch bother with their domestic leagues when a clearly superior product is just across the border? Its not about just about money. Its about having a football culture. We're getting there-- that takes time. My ten year old son plays football every day. When he's not playing football, he's playing futsal. He's all football crazy. And that's true of most of the young athletes in his school. (That was to the case when I was his age--we were all playing baseball and basketball all summer.) The World Cup is a big deal. Every four years it generates new fanatics. I saw something about that fool running around dressed as Teddy Roosevelt. Turns out he wasn't a fan until the 2006 World Cup -- had disdain for the game and US fans before then. I think there are a whole bunch of young athletes who are right now deciding to dedicate themselves to playing football/soccer instead of basketball, American football, baseball or whatever. We've missed a big opportunity by passing on playing in the Copa America in the past few decades. 2016 is going to be huge. And like this World Cup, it's going to create new fans and produce a larger pool of players. Those leagues are still healthy because they were built up ages ago when football was less international in countries which have long, rich footballing histories. You're trying to build something from the bottom up with the MLS in a world where every Premier League game is live on TV. The two cases are not even remotely comparable. Trust me, I've seen this movie before in Korea after 2002. Of course MLS has a much better shot given that they can throw around much more money, but if you think America's rise to a footballing superpower is some sort of manifest destiny you're liable to be grossly disappointed come 2018. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible. But it will be hard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 It's dangerous to assume that football will become mainstream just because the World Cup was incredibly popular this time around. The WC is more about nationalism than it is about football. For football to really take off you need a healthy domestic league, but it's difficult to sell the MLS when anyone who's into the game knows that a vastly superior product exists in Europe. Massive amounts of money helps, so I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are limits. I'm sorry but this is a bunch of nonsense. Do Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina have healthy domestic leagues? Why do the Belgians and Dutch bother with their domestic leagues when a clearly superior product is just across the border? Its not about just about money. Its about having a football culture. We're getting there-- that takes time. My ten year old son plays football every day. When he's not playing football, he's playing futsal. He's all football crazy. And that's true of most of the young athletes in his school. (That was to the case when I was his age--we were all playing baseball and basketball all summer.) The World Cup is a big deal. Every four years it generates new fanatics. I saw something about that fool running around dressed as Teddy Roosevelt. Turns out he wasn't a fan until the 2006 World Cup -- had disdain for the game and US fans before then. I think there are a whole bunch of young athletes who are right now deciding to dedicate themselves to playing football/soccer instead of basketball, American football, baseball or whatever. We've missed a big opportunity by passing on playing in the Copa America in the past few decades. 2016 is going to be huge. And like this World Cup, it's going to create new fans and produce a larger pool of players. Spot on to the above. By the way, I grew up playing baseball and basketball. I didn't start playing football until I was about 11-12 years old. I was pretty casual in my play and dedication, but was vastly superior athletically then others and flourished later and came into my own in high school. Was recruited to play small college ball and chose not to do it for sake of my career ambitions. There are probably thousands of people my generation (28 years old) who had spotty coaching, late starts, terrible youth systems, etc which is now all being changed. My club I played for outside of my high school team had 1 head coach and 1 assistant - now the same club has technical, skills, fitness coaches who work in during practice weeks. The game is changing, the casual fan or casual player as a kid is getting better trained now over here - the whole system is evolving - like the post above - kids are smarter, better coached and all that in the game. Casual fans are now turning into fanatics, annoying to hear at the bars I'm sure, but its ridiculous and exciting. And I've lived in Orlando for some 10 years, Florida my whole life - there has NEVER been a buzz quite like it is now, and sure its a World Cup buzz, but it'll translate into Orlando City (MLS), and the other clubs and the USL teams, and the youth and high school teams etc. Yesterday 10,000+ people were packed into a small area to watch the match and the new local MLS team decided to also unveil Kaka to the masses. Brilliant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 They wouldn't have won at a canter either because even if they had have got one goal in normal time, they would have retreated and let USA have the ball like they did in extra time So for you fatigue doesn't come into it. Why Belgium sat back in the second period of extra time. Youre stating stuff as fact despite the circumstances not occurring. Belgium would've sat back had they scored. [emoji1] I'm not criticising the US team here. They worked their bollocks off and with a little bit of luck could even have won it. But it would be silly to say Belgium didnt deserve it after being dominant for most of the game. Many of the US players were gassed after 55 minutes while Belgium looked fresh. IMO it was pretty clear Belgium just shat their pants after Green scored. Belgium obviously deserved their win but hats off to the USA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Belgium did deserve it for sure, no mistake about that. We should and could have snatched it in injury time and almost fought our way back to force penalties in the last 15 minutes of extra time. Lukaku changed the match for them and De Bruyne is an excellent player - 2 well taken goals man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza ladra Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 It's dangerous to assume that football will become mainstream just because the World Cup was incredibly popular this time around. The WC is more about nationalism than it is about football. For football to really take off you need a healthy domestic league, but it's difficult to sell the MLS when anyone who's into the game knows that a vastly superior product exists in Europe. Massive amounts of money helps, so I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are limits. I'm sorry but this is a bunch of nonsense. Do Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina have healthy domestic leagues? Why do the Belgians and Dutch bother with their domestic leagues when a clearly superior product is just across the border? Its not about just about money. Its about having a football culture. We're getting there-- that takes time. My ten year old son plays football every day. When he's not playing football, he's playing futsal. He's all football crazy. And that's true of most of the young athletes in his school. (That was to the case when I was his age--we were all playing baseball and basketball all summer.) The World Cup is a big deal. Every four years it generates new fanatics. I saw something about that fool running around dressed as Teddy Roosevelt. Turns out he wasn't a fan until the 2006 World Cup -- had disdain for the game and US fans before then. I think there are a whole bunch of young athletes who are right now deciding to dedicate themselves to playing football/soccer instead of basketball, American football, baseball or whatever. We've missed a big opportunity by passing on playing in the Copa America in the past few decades. 2016 is going to be huge. And like this World Cup, it's going to create new fans and produce a larger pool of players. Those leagues are still healthy because they were built up ages ago when football was less international in countries which have long, rich footballing histories. You're trying to build something from the bottom up with the MLS in a world where every Premier League game is live on TV. The two cases are not even remotely comparable. Trust me, I've seen this movie before in Korea after 2002. Of course MLS has a much better shot given that they can throw around much more money, but if you think America's rise to a footballing superpower is some sort of manifest destiny you're liable to be grossly disappointed come 2018. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible. But it will be hard. The Premier League is the least of our worries. More people watch the Mexican League than English football in these parts. Obviously, I neglected to mention the changing demographics of this country. That's another factor-- its not quite manifest destiny In any case, I know people who watch the Premier League, and the Mexican League, and MLS and anything else they can manage to stream online. It's not one or the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 It's dangerous to assume that football will become mainstream just because the World Cup was incredibly popular this time around. The WC is more about nationalism than it is about football. For football to really take off you need a healthy domestic league, but it's difficult to sell the MLS when anyone who's into the game knows that a vastly superior product exists in Europe. Massive amounts of money helps, so I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are limits. I'm sorry but this is a bunch of nonsense. Do Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina have healthy domestic leagues? Why do the Belgians and Dutch bother with their domestic leagues when a clearly superior product is just across the border? Its not about just about money. Its about having a football culture. We're getting there-- that takes time. My ten year old son plays football every day. When he's not playing football, he's playing futsal. He's all football crazy. And that's true of most of the young athletes in his school. (That was to the case when I was his age--we were all playing baseball and basketball all summer.) The World Cup is a big deal. Every four years it generates new fanatics. I saw something about that fool running around dressed as Teddy Roosevelt. Turns out he wasn't a fan until the 2006 World Cup -- had disdain for the game and US fans before then. I think there are a whole bunch of young athletes who are right now deciding to dedicate themselves to playing football/soccer instead of basketball, American football, baseball or whatever. We've missed a big opportunity by passing on playing in the Copa America in the past few decades. 2016 is going to be huge. And like this World Cup, it's going to create new fans and produce a larger pool of players. Those leagues are still healthy because they were built up ages ago when football was less international in countries which have long, rich footballing histories. You're trying to build something from the bottom up with the MLS in a world where every Premier League game is live on TV. The two cases are not even remotely comparable. Trust me, I've seen this movie before in Korea after 2002. Of course MLS has a much better shot given that they can throw around much more money, but if you think America's rise to a footballing superpower is some sort of manifest destiny you're liable to be grossly disappointed come 2018. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible. But it will be hard. The Premier League is the least of our worries. More people watch the Mexican League than English football in these parts. Obviously, I neglected to mention the changing demographics of this country. That's another factor-- its not quite manifest destiny In any case, I know people who watch the Premier League, and the Mexican League, and MLS and anything else they can manage to stream online. It's not one or the other. I'd say it's at least something of a concern given that the last day of the Premier League drew over twice the amount of viewers of the MLS Cup last year. Obviously there are junkies out there who will watch everything, but that's not what keeps a business afloat. Casual fans are, and they have limited mindshare to go around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 They wouldn't have won at a canter either because even if they had have got one goal in normal time, they would have retreated and let USA have the ball like they did in extra time So for you fatigue doesn't come into it. Why Belgium sat back in the second period of extra time. Youre stating stuff as fact despite the circumstances not occurring. Belgium would've sat back had they scored. [emoji1] I'm not criticising the US team here. They worked their bollocks off and with a little bit of luck could even have won it. But it would be silly to say Belgium didnt deserve it after being dominant for most of the game. Many of the US players were gassed after 55 minutes while Belgium looked fresh. IMO it was pretty clear Belgium just shat their pants after Green scored. Belgium obviously deserved their win but hats off to the USA. Murphy pointed out that Witsel and Fellaini could hardly walk in extra time and couldn't understand them staying on whilst Hazard was pulled. Chadli was cack when he came on too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. There is given that it happens in every single game ffs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 As much as people complain about the way that Football is perceived over in America, and that it won't change anytime soon. None of us are really in a position to judge until we've been over there for a sustained period of time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. There is given that it happens in every single game ffs They scored the winner 2 minutes from the end in one game, ten minutes from the end in another and twelve from the end in the other......and you think they'd do the same if they scored early on as they nearly did last night? You're fucking hatstand man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. There is given that it happens in every single game ffs They scored the winner 2 minutes from the end in one game, ten minutes from the end in another and twelve from the end in the other......and you think they'd do the same if they scored early on as they nearly did last night? You're fucking hatstand man. Hatstand? And no they wouldn't have laid siege on the USA goal if they scored after a minute. They wouldn't go as defensive but they wouldn't be committing as many men forward as they would before the goal. And if USA conceded after a minute they would start to get on the ball more and try to take the initiative Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. There is given that it happens in every single game ffs They scored the winner 2 minutes from the end in one game, ten minutes from the end in another and twelve from the end in the other......and you think they'd do the same if they scored early on as they nearly did last night? You're fucking hatstand man. Hatstand? And no they wouldn't have laid siege on the USA goal if they scored after a minute. They wouldn't go as defensive but they wouldn't be committing as many men forward as they would before the goal. And if USA conceded after a minute they would start to get on the ball more and try to take the initiative That's me...I'm out. You're doing it again, stating fact on a hypothetical happening by comparing it to a totally different situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. There is given that it happens in every single game ffs They scored the winner 2 minutes from the end in one game, ten minutes from the end in another and twelve from the end in the other......and you think they'd do the same if they scored early on as they nearly did last night? You're fucking hatstand man. Hatstand? And no they wouldn't have laid siege on the USA goal if they scored after a minute. They wouldn't go as defensive but they wouldn't be committing as many men forward as they would before the goal. And if USA conceded after a minute they would start to get on the ball more and try to take the initiative That's me...I'm out. You're doing it again, stating fact on a hypothetical happening by comparing it to a totally different situation. You're the very person that started this by saying Belgium would have won at a canter but for Howard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Incidentally, this doesn't mean I think Argentina are going to facerape them or owt. I think half the reason this WC has been class is that the TOP teams have had flaws, and it's made every game a toss up. It's class. Such a difference from Man City vs Cardiff etc. Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. There is given that it happens in every single game ffs They scored the winner 2 minutes from the end in one game, ten minutes from the end in another and twelve from the end in the other......and you think they'd do the same if they scored early on as they nearly did last night? You're fucking hatstand man. Hatstand? And no they wouldn't have laid siege on the USA goal if they scored after a minute. They wouldn't go as defensive but they wouldn't be committing as many men forward as they would before the goal. And if USA conceded after a minute they would start to get on the ball more and try to take the initiative That's me...I'm out. You're doing it again, stating fact on a hypothetical happening by comparing it to a totally different situation. You're the very person that started this by saying Belgium would have won at a canter but for Howard But he broke the World Cup record for saves in a match...there is substance behind what I'm saying...I'm sorry, I don't have the need to continue with this banal debate. Especially as you didn't even see the fucking game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Belgium will definitely beat Argentina IMO. I agree, I think the European teams left in the tournament have shown a bit more than the South American big guns. Argentina play too slowly and Brazil are playing long ball when it's not natural to their game. Columbia are the exception, they've been the best team from that part of the world IMO. Don't see what Belgium have shown. They were average in the group and struggled to beat USA They flattered to deceive in the groups but were impressive last night imo, created a ton of chances. From an attacking perspective, Argentina haven't shown that sort of penetrative quality yet - imo it's mostly been hopeful give and go's just outside the penalty area that lead to nothing more often than not. Probably because basically every team Argentina has played as stuck 10 men in the box, while Belgium will be aware of Argentina's threat they will try and take the game to them. This is not true, tbf. Bosnia and Nigeria both attacked them fairly aggressively and they struggled defensively in those matches. Both styles have given them trouble thus far. The only consistent has been brilliance from Messi. I think that his brilliance will be enough to get them from the final. For some reason, I still foresee Argentina-Brasil at Maracana. also, Belgium created an absurd amount of decent chances last match. The first one coming 40 seconds in. They didn't stop coming for the next 110 minutes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 But the point I'm making has very little to do with the match last night. I am just disagreeing with your opinion that Belgium would have created as many chances if they had gone 1 up because it rarely works out like that 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