2014 World Cup

[Tambourine Man]

Ha! As much as I'd like to be known around here as a World Cup historian, I just happened to hear that story on the radio right before I read that post. Looked it up on Wiki, and bam!

Yeah, I generally remember the Final from 1990 onward, but the rest just turns to haze. My mom's church choir toured Italy that year, and she brought back a ton of soccer souvenirs.

[Schlich]

[JCShutout]

I don't know much about soccer, and I was listening on radio, not watching.

My analysis is... I'm sad we didn't win. I was hopeful we would after that late goal... but then they tied it. Darn.

[Felix The Cat]

Can someone explain to me why people morph into an entirely different language when discussing soccer? Is that like some sort of dog whistle to other True Fans(tm)?

Isn't it awful? "Equalizer." TYING GOAL. WE FOUGHT THE REVOLUTION FOR THAT, DAMMIT.

Equalizer sounds much better than tying goal IMO. Pitch, on the other hand...

[Tambourine Man]

Can someone explain to me why people morph into an entirely different language when discussing soccer? Is that like some sort of dog whistle to other True Fans(tm)?

Isn't it awful? "Equalizer." TYING GOAL. WE FOUGHT THE REVOLUTION FOR THAT, DAMMIT.

Equalizer sounds much better than tying goal IMO. Pitch, on the other hand...

Stuart Scott on Upton getting tossed, "Get off the pitch, Mr. Upton!"

Imagine being an Aussie or Brit trying to figure out baseball lingo on your own. Pulling a guy off the bag? Soccer players pull guys offsides. Digging for two, throwing from the stretch, suicide squeeze...

Anyway, if Ghana can exploit the right side (or was Portugal conceding it?) like the US did, then Ghana wins.

[Vidor]

Imagine being an Aussie or Brit trying to figure out baseball lingo on your own. Pulling a guy off the bag? Soccer players pull guys offsides. Digging for two, throwing from the stretch, suicide squeeze...

Is that the same, really? We have our own words for these terms. Field. Game. Team. Tie. And for God's sake, we still follow 1500 years of basic English grammar and associate singular verbs with singular nouns.

Eh, I'm complaining too much. Hopefully we emerge from the Germany game with all our players still alive, and the tiebreakers break our way.

[Fat Strat]

I would have to watch the second match again, but I didn't see the "Bradley was terrible" narrative.

Bradley was terrible if you look at two things:
1) The cross (by Johnson, I think) that Bradley shot right into the legs of the defender. Had the goalie beat, just had to put it on goal. Bradley struck it well with pace (soccer lingo!) but he should have put it into the corner.
* Bad play? I suppose. More unlucky than bad. Bradley scores on that same ball 99 times out of 100. The last thing you want to do in that situation is try to get fancy and end up missing.

2) The midfield giveaway that led to the equalizer. (No analysis needed.)

Obviously, those two plays made the difference in the game's outcome. The rest of the game, Bradley did an excellent job of setting up the attack and controlling the center of the midfield. He was much better than the first match. He had multiple quality passes that could have easily ended in goals. I thought overall he had a very good game with two costly and unusual mistakes.

I guess you could equate his performance to a guy who went 2-3 in a baseball game, but his one out was a K with runners in scoring position, and he had a costly error in the field that led to a run.

[Schlich]

I would have to watch the second match again, but I didn't see the "Bradley was terrible" narrative.

Bradley was terrible if you look at two things:
1) The cross (by Johnson, I think) that Bradley shot right into the legs of the defender. Had the goalie beat, just had to put it on goal. Bradley struck it well with pace (soccer lingo!) but he should have put it into the corner.
* Bad play? I suppose. More unlucky than bad. Bradley scores on that same ball 99 times out of 100. The last thing you want to do in that situation is try to get fancy and end up missing.

2) The midfield giveaway that led to the equalizer. (No analysis needed.)

Obviously, those two plays made the difference in the game's outcome. The rest of the game, Bradley did an excellent job of setting up the attack and controlling the center of the midfield. He was much better than the first match. He had multiple quality passes that could have easily ended in goals. I thought overall he had a very good game with two costly and unusual mistakes.

I guess you could equate his performance to a guy who went 2-3 in a baseball game, but his one out was a K with runners in scoring position, and he had a costly error in the field that led to a run.

++

[go birds]

im STILL pissed!!!!!!

[jim]

This morning I heard a guy talking to a British guy and he asked him "How much time was left when they scored?". His answer - "Hard to say".

What the hell kind of bull [expletive] is that?

Soccer seems very receptive to using technology - instant replay for goals and stuff like that. So why on earth do they not put the freaking time left in a game on a clock? Does everyone just trust that mofo with the watch? I don't.