GK photo wrote:

so the seeding isn't a 1 through (insert last team allowed) hierarchy? double-elimination tourneys are--and always have been--hogwash. if some teams are way better than others, they should get a bye...like the nfl does for the highest two ranked teams in each conference.

that, or lose, and you go home...as it should be. ties are for regular season, and only for hockey. and ONLY after a shootout. once the playoffs start, it's score to win.

wtf happens if there's a tie in the final game? both teams go home with a ribbon? it sounds like there are too many teams involved here.

i've got an idea for a tie breaker. at he end of regulation, the team with the least amount of stretcher runs wins.

The seeding goes like this: the 7 top-ranked FIFA teams + the host team - or the top 8 if the host team is already in the top-ranked FIFA teams - get put into their own groups.  Then they add a team from the Americas, a team from Africa/Island countries, and a team from Europe/Asia/Oceania into each group.  And there's your groups.

During group play, matches can end in a draw, and teams advance based on overall number of goals scored.  After group play, any draw is decided based on penalty shots, like hockey.  Unlike hockey, they don't keep shooting until somebody gets one; they do 5 each, and compare numbers.  If they're still tied, they do another 5 each.

I think the idea of giving out byes is silly.  FIFA gives out 'soft byes' with the group system, but that's still silly.

The reason I love (non-American) football so much is that it is the only team sport where everyone plays both offense and defense, almost nobody gets a rest, and the whole world plays by the same rules.  That means that unlike basketball or cricket, there are elements of endurance and morale that aren't found in other games.  You can be a great baseball player just because you hit or pitch well, even if that's all you can do; to be a great football player you need to be good at everything, and you need to stay focused and work your ass off for the entire game.  Hockey is the only other game like it, and that's basically just played by countries in the Northern hemisphere.  They're very much 'warrior' sports, in that regard - nobody with a weak will is going to excel at football or hockey.

I like football over hockey because anybody can play - they just need a ball.  No ice rink, no special gear, no bats and mitts, no wooden court, no $3,000 bicycles - just a ball.  So you see these teams like Ghana, Mexico, and Croatia that just totally come out of left field and kick ass.  And I think that's why it's the best game in the world.  People win because they practice hard and work hard, and they will themselves in front of the ball - not because they happen to live somewhere that can afford to buy them all the gear they need to train and win.

It's strange that America doesn't like soccer, because it really is the personification of the American Dream - coming up from nothing, and winning despite all the odds.

Zack Zoll wrote:
The seeding goes like this: the 7 top-ranked FIFA teams + the host team - or the top 8 if the host team is already in the top-ranked FIFA teams - get put into their own groups.  Then they add a team from the Americas, a team from Africa/Island countries, and a team from Europe/Asia/Oceania into each group.  And there's your groups.

During group play, matches can end in a draw, and teams advance based on overall number of goals scored.  After group play, any draw is decided based on penalty shots, like hockey.  Unlike hockey, they don't keep shooting until somebody gets one; they do 5 each, and compare numbers.  If they're still tied, they do another 5 each.

I think the idea of giving out byes is silly.  FIFA gives out 'soft byes' with the group system, but that's still silly.

The reason I love (non-American) football so much is that it is the only team sport where everyone plays both offense and defense, almost nobody gets a rest, and the whole world plays by the same rules.  That means that unlike basketball or cricket, there are elements of endurance and morale that aren't found in other games.  You can be a great baseball player just because you hit or pitch well, even if that's all you can do; to be a great football player you need to be good at everything, and you need to stay focused and work your ass off for the entire game.  Hockey is the only other game like it, and that's basically just played by countries in the Northern hemisphere.  They're very much 'warrior' sports, in that regard - nobody with a weak will is going to excel at football or hockey.

I like football over hockey because anybody can play - they just need a ball.  No ice rink, no special gear, no bats and mitts, no wooden court, no $3,000 bicycles - just a ball.  So you see these teams like Ghana, Mexico, and Croatia that just totally come out of left field and kick ass.  And I think that's why it's the best game in the world.  People win because they practice hard and work hard, and they will themselves in front of the ball - not because they happen to live somewhere that can afford to buy them all the gear they need to train and win.

It's strange that America doesn't like soccer, because it really is the personification of the American Dream - coming up from nothing, and winning despite all the odds.

Rugby is the same. In fact rugby players run on average as much as Football players. Rugby players carry more weight too.

Allen Carbon wrote:

Rugby is the same. In fact rugby players run on average as much as Football players. Rugby players carry more weight too.

You cant play rugby in hot countries without an irrigated pitch. You need soft ground to land on.

Zack Zoll wrote:

There are tiebreakers, but not at the group level.  Essentially it's a super-complicated double elimination in the group stages, and single elimination after that.

But yes, it is rigged.  The whole 'group stage' idea is specifically designed to make sure that the more famous teams and players get plenty of pitch time.  That's why Spain was such a massive upset - they were paired with three teams that they were supposed to walk all over.  If it was a random pairing system and Spain got knocked out in the first round, we'd just write it off as an unlucky match.

Today's game was fantastic, and a total nail-biter.  I watched it at my local brewpub, and the bartender gave me a free round when Portugal scored at the end.  I think she was as upset as I was.

The Ghana/Germany game was amazing too.  The guys from Ghana played incredibly well, and I think they have a real shot against Portugal if they keep it up.

I hope somebody fouls Renaldo right in his smug face though.  He's like the A-Rod of football, and I'd really like to see Vinnie Jones come out of retirement for the Ghana side.

We love Vinnie Jones.

DA PHOTO wrote:
way to go america

+1

For the thread theme, this is the proper summary.

Zack Zoll wrote:

The seeding goes like this: the 7 top-ranked FIFA teams + the host team - or the top 8 if the host team is already in the top-ranked FIFA teams - get put into their own groups.  Then they add a team from the Americas, a team from Africa/Island countries, and a team from Europe/Asia/Oceania into each group.  And there's your groups.

During group play, matches can end in a draw, and teams advance based on overall number of goals scored.  After group play, any draw is decided based on penalty shots, like hockey.  Unlike hockey, they don't keep shooting until somebody gets one; they do 5 each, and compare numbers.  If they're still tied, they do another 5 each.

I think the idea of giving out byes is silly.  FIFA gives out 'soft byes' with the group system, but that's still silly.

The reason I love (non-American) football so much is that it is the only team sport where everyone plays both offense and defense, almost nobody gets a rest, and the whole world plays by the same rules.  That means that unlike basketball or cricket, there are elements of endurance and morale that aren't found in other games.  You can be a great baseball player just because you hit or pitch well, even if that's all you can do; to be a great football player you need to be good at everything, and you need to stay focused and work your ass off for the entire game.  Hockey is the only other game like it, and that's basically just played by countries in the Northern hemisphere.  They're very much 'warrior' sports, in that regard - nobody with a weak will is going to excel at football or hockey.

I like football over hockey because anybody can play - they just need a ball.  No ice rink, no special gear, no bats and mitts, no wooden court, no $3,000 bicycles - just a ball.  So you see these teams like Ghana, Mexico, and Croatia that just totally come out of left field and kick ass.  And I think that's why it's the best game in the world.  People win because they practice hard and work hard, and they will themselves in front of the ball - not because they happen to live somewhere that can afford to buy them all the gear they need to train and win.

It's strange that America doesn't like soccer, because it really is the personification of the American Dream - coming up from nothing, and winning despite all the odds.

Just a point of order. Cricket has over 100 nations playing and even the Vatican has a team; it can be quite a test of endurance to stand defending a wicket in blistering heat of say Karachi stadium  for many long hours; and many great players are actually what they call "all rounders". Everyone has to bat and field anyway even if not bowl or keep wicket.
I used to find cricket a little boring until I discovered the IPL

Virtual Studio wrote:


We love Vinnie Jones.

Thank you so much for that.  I do believe you've just made my day.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Just a point of order. Cricket has over 100 nations playing and even the Vatican has a team; it can be quite a test of endurance to stand defending a wicket in blistering heat of say Karachi stadium  for many long hours; and many great players are actually what they call "all rounders". Everyone has to bat and field anyway even if not bowl or keep wicket.
I used to find cricket a little boring until I discovered the IPL

I will admit that I don't understand cricket, so I may have been unfair with it.  I mostly lumped it into other sports based on the fact that you need a bunch of gear, and not because of the 'quality' of the sport.

It is most certainly an international sport - especially in the last few decades, when it started to work its way out of the English colonies.  And as an international sport, I have the utmost respect for it, regardless of how entertaining it is or isn't to me personally.  I think it's so much more interesting to watch Australia play India than to watch Boston play New York, regardless of the sport.  There's a lot more at stake(since you're playing for your country), and the geographical differences mean that the teams will have much different strategies and playing styles.

Toto Photo wrote:
Can someone who understands football better than I please explain something. Why didn't everyone on the USA team just run back to defend their goal at the end? Was it just a colossal mistake or was there a reason to be hanging back like they did?

yes, it was a colossal fuck up. it's the equivalent of the blue line players (defense men)  in hockey turning the puck over, with nobody back to cover.

the dude who made the last pass had been cheating back for most of the game anyway, and it paid off for him at that moment.

this hombre (lex luther) fucked up.

GK photo wrote:

yes, it was a colossal fuck up. it's the equivalent of the blue line players (defense men)  in hockey turning the puck over, with nobody back to cover.

the dude who made the last pass had been cheating back for most of the game anyway, and it paid off for him at that moment.

this hombre (lex luther) fucked up.

+1

It was a massive screw up.
Everyone should have been back and not leave the defenders to themselves. They probably thought the possibility of scoring so late in the game is unlikely. Oh Hubris.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
The matches tomorrow I am very much looking forward to!

May I offer best wishes to the USA against Germany! They were so unlucky against Portugal not to win and I hope they do enough tomorrow to knock them out.

I concur with Eliza...we will be watching with great anticipation - good luck later today guys!

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
The matches tomorrow I am very much looking forward to!

May I offer best wishes to the USA against Germany!

the germans have been looking for revenge against the us since jesse owens. they'll probably get it tomorrow.

and, for pete's sake! it's soccer. who gives a rat's....oh, never mind.

GK photo wrote:
and, for pete's sake! it's soccer. who gives a rat's....oh, never mind.

Yeah, it's an old argument. But to answer the unfinished question, a lot more people than who care about the Super Bowl, the inaptly named World Series, or the Masters.

Seriously. It's a game. If you like the game, cheer. If you don't like the game, watch something else or nothing at all. If you like to talk about the game, find people to talk with. If you don't want to hear about the game, there are crowds who feel the same way.

I love soccer/football. I like other sports, too. I do get amused at some affected sanctimony about liking or not liking the game. It's a game. There's no moral superiority to be found in your choice of games to watch.

And by the way, American football used kicking far more when it originated in the 1860's, hence the name "football," and that name preceded the other "football" by a few years. The term "soccer" was originally a Brit term. So while the sports world has evolved where "football" is more accurate a descriptor for the world game, there's still a previous legacy for American "football," and you can't expect a country to easily surrender such a term that's been around for 150 years, more or less.

Justin wrote:
Seriously. It's a game. If you like the game, cheer. If you don't like the game, watch something else

i've watched two no hitters pitched since this whole shebang began. i don't watch soccer. i'm just commenting.

Justin wrote:
Seriously. It's a game. If you like the game, cheer. If you don't like the game, watch something else

GK photo wrote:
i've watched two no hitters pitched since this whole shebang began. i don't watch soccer. i'm just commenting.

Oh, it was a general statement about whole piousness about being pro- or anti-soccer. Not directed at you specifically. Sorry if it seemed that it was. Not my intention.

Justin wrote:
And by the way, American football used kicking far more when it originated in the 1860's, hence the name "football," and that name preceded the other "football" by a few years. The term "soccer" was originally a Brit term. So while the sports world has evolved where "football" is more accurate a descriptor for the world game, there's still a previous legacy for American "football," and you can't expect a country to easily surrender such a term that's been around for 150 years, more or less.

If I'm not mistaken, 'soccer' was originally a combination of today's soccer, and rugby.  Some teams would kick the ball to score, and others would carry it.  When the sport split off into two separate games, it became football and rugby.