The U.S Football Performance against Belgium... - GoFuckYourself.com

Adult-biz · 07-01-2014, 04:12 PM

I`m a huge football fan and I just have to say that the U.S were fantastic against Belgium and have shown terrific character in their 4 World Cup games. Belgium`s quality shone through in the end but that is to be expected with the stars in their squad.

The U.S truly put us (the English) to shame with their performances.

polipie · 07-01-2014, 04:17 PM

ScrollDog · 07-01-2014, 04:17 PM

Sad to see the U.S.A lose, not much of a soccer fan myself, but for some reason this year I really got into it. And it wasn't just me, there we're a lot of other people who were more into it this year than any other. I think that soccer is really starting to pick up steam here in the states, especially regarding the world-cup. We're a patriotic bunch and rooting for the USA was fun. First time I ever watched a full match was the USA vs. Portugal. I must say that it was intense down to the last 5 second goal made by Port.

Looking forward to the next World Cup!

MaDalton · 07-01-2014, 04:21 PM

well played, indeed. you just need more efficiency in scoring

Adult-biz · 07-01-2014, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

well played, indeed. you just need more efficiency in scoring

Dempsey is a quality striker. His movement off the ball is as good as anybody. A couple of useful looking young players too (the attacking right back who came on early as a sub showed loads of pace and skill). Howard was in fantastic form also and made countless saves.

Klinsmann is clearly doing a first class job getting the team working well as a unit.

Sly · 07-01-2014, 04:31 PM

This Cup's run has boosted American soccer, let's see if it carries through past this summer. There is a sports bar in the building that I live in. This afternoon there was absolutely zero parking. The bar was packed.

Eric · 07-01-2014, 04:37 PM

Toughest part of the sport in the US is that there are no true stars for the country to get behind or loathe.

Till their is a Lebron or a ARod or a Manning. US fans will be fans every 4 years when the media tells them to be.

ScrollDog · 07-01-2014, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Till their is a Lebron or a ARod or a Manning. US fans will be fans every 4 years when the media tells them to be.

Or a Manziel...

Johnny Manziel that is

Relentless · 07-01-2014, 04:54 PM

The two best US players are our goalkeeper (who seems to be the best in the world) and Altidore who was hurt almost the entire time. The team showed a lot of heart, had a very tough draw and the worst travel schedule of any team in the competition. I'm proud of them and plan to start watching some MLS games now that I can see the league isn't rubbish. What we need is a playmaker. We have never had one.

When I was a kid I used to watch New York cosmos games and watch Pele, Giorgio Canalia and a bunch of world class players who came there after their prime years. I've never seen a US player in his prime set up other players as well as those guys did in their 40s. It doesn't have to be Messi or Ronaldo, it just needs to be a world class midfield player who can create chances. It didn't look like any of ours were top 25 in the world and that makes it really hard to score against any good team.

Barry-xlovecam · 07-01-2014, 05:15 PM

mineistaken · 07-01-2014, 05:16 PM

You must be joing? They played very well for the last 15 minutes.
For the first 90 minutes they were terrible... The whole game it was clear that they can do absolutely nothing while Belgium was doing everything. 30:5 shots after 90 minutes. Every non US and non Belgium spectator was waiting for when finally Belgium would officially mark their dominance by the goal. Nobody even expected US to win watching the game... Announcer on the TV even trashed this game as the biggest cat and mouse game (as in Belgium was totally dominating the US).
They had nothing for the whole game (except the good shot at 89th minute or so).
This was the most one sided eight-final game out of all....

mineistaken · 07-01-2014, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

This Cup's run has boosted American soccer, let's see if it carries through past this summer.

I remember the exact similar thing being said after WC 2010

mineistaken · 07-01-2014, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Toughest part of the sport in the US is that there are no true stars for the country to get behind or loathe.

Till their is a Lebron or a ARod or a Manning. US fans will be fans every 4 years when the media tells them to be.

This is a sad thing as it is a team sport. US citizens for some reason are crazed about "stars". They even do say stuff like not Miami Heat VS LA Lakers, but Lebron VS Kobe. As if nobody else matters.
Too star-centered when the sports are team sports...

Relentless · 07-01-2014, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

You must be joing? They played very well for the last 15 minutes.
For the first 90 minutes they were terrible... The whole game it was clear that they can do absolutely nothing while Belgium was doing everything. 30:5 shots after 90 minutes. Every non US and non Belgium spectator was waiting for when finally Belgium would officially mark their dominance by the goal. Nobody even expected US to win watching the game... Announcer on the TV even trashed this game as the biggest cat and mouse game (as in Belgium was totally dominating the US). They had nothing for the whole game (except the good shot at 89th minute or so).This was the most one sided eight-final game out of all....

And yet at the end of regulation it was a tie game.

I watched Bill Parcells beat better teams on the playoffs and SuperBowl by 'taking air out of the ball' and dragging better opponents into close games where they would crack and lose. Almost worked this time and the effort was a good one. Winning a Texas holdem with 8 6 off suit isn't easy, but it can be done. Congrats to Belgium. They have no chance against Germany, unless they play the same cat and mouse game from the opposite POV.

georgeyw · 07-01-2014, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

This is a sad thing as it is a team sport. US citizens for some reason are crazed about "stars". They even do say stuff like not Miami Heat VS LA Lakers, but Lebron VS Kobe. As if nobody else matters.
Too star-centered when the sports are team sports...

WTF are you talking about?

Every bloody team has star players, no matter the country of origin.

Stars are what people want to see in any sport - they want to see the *BEST*, the guy/girl that can do what no one else can do. The person who can perform what seem like miracles....

The WORLD is crazed about stars and it doesn't just apply to sports - all these reality talen shows are a great example of this

dehash · 07-01-2014, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScrollDog

Sad to see the U.S.A lose, not much of a soccer fan myself, but for some reason this year I really got into it. And it wasn't just me, there we're a lot of other people who were more into it this year than any other. I think that soccer is really starting to pick up steam here in the states, especially regarding the world-cup. We're a patriotic bunch and rooting for the USA was fun. First time I ever watched a full match was the USA vs. Portugal. I must say that it was intense down to the last 5 second goal made by Port.

Looking forward to the next World Cup!

I just was about to write same post. In my little town are so many soccer teams for kids. At work in empl. cafeteria all ppl watching soccer, all bar and lobby TVs are on soccer channels.

mineistaken · 07-01-2014, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgeyw

WTF are you talking about?

Every bloody team has star players, no matter the country of origin.

Stars are what people want to see in any sport - they want to see the *BEST*, the guy/girl that can do what no one else can do. The person who can perform what seem like miracles....

The WORLD is crazed about stars and it doesn't just apply to sports - all these reality talen shows are a great example of this

I meant that even if they don't have stars people love their teams. Star is good, but if you do not have a star at that time period you still cheer for your team with just as much passion. You do not need a star to follow/cheer your team.
And since I follow basketball I pretty well know what I am saying. It is like a cult in NBA, "fans" are talking about clashes of the stars and not so much about teams.. It is different in other countries. Of course they like stars as well, but they are more centered on the team than on the stars.

mineistaken · 07-01-2014, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

And yet at the end of regulation it was a tie game.

I watched Bill Parcells beat better teams on the playoffs and SuperBowl by 'taking air out of the ball' and dragging better opponents into close games where they would crack and lose. Almost worked this time and the effort was a good one. Winning a Texas holdem with 8 6 off suit isn't easy, but it can be done. Congrats to Belgium. They have no chance against Germany, unless they play the same cat and mouse game from the opposite POV.

I agree, what I mean that for the whole 90 minutes it was full on dominance by Belgium. So not sure how someone can say that it was a good game by US. In fact that was the worst US appearance out of all 4 matches they played.
And yes, they could have won it anyways with that missed goal at +-89 min

That's football - one team can dominate 89 minutes and lose by one goal suddenly made by another team

robfantasy · 07-01-2014, 10:12 PM

I thought the match was boring... have you seen the Colombia matches.. non stop action.. they are all over the place the whole game and its really exciting to watch, fans cheering the WHOLE game.. Friday will be a monster

TheMaster · 07-01-2014, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

well played, indeed. you just need more efficiency in scoring

same for Belgium, jeez

rastan · 07-02-2014, 12:17 AM

Fair play to the yanks yesterday. For guts, effort and no small degree of ability, they ALMOST made it through to the QFs. Hats off to them

adultchatpay · 07-02-2014, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Toughest part of the sport in the US is that there are no true stars for the country to get behind or loathe.

Till their is a Lebron or a ARod or a Manning. US fans will be fans every 4 years when the media tells them to be.

... his name is Tim Howard.

Adult-biz · 07-02-2014, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

I agree, what I mean that for the whole 90 minutes it was full on dominance by Belgium. So not sure how someone can say that it was a good game by US. In fact that was the worst US appearance out of all 4 matches they played.
And yes, they could have won it anyways with that missed goal at +-89 min

That's football - one team can dominate 89 minutes and lose by one goal suddenly made by another team

Sounds to me like you no nothing about the beautiful game. The U.S defended resolutely for 90 minutes against a top quality International team that is packed with stars. The beauty of what Klinsmann is forcing through is to try and play open football (and committing men forward which left them exposed at the back hence why most pundits stating it was probably the game of the tournament).

Take the earlier game for example (Switzerland v Argentina). Absolutely dire game with the Swiss sitting back and looking to defend in numbers against a very ordinary Argentina.

Simon · 07-02-2014, 05:21 AM

Perhaps something that would help many Americans understand the game better is if someone could explain why there are such low scores when "for the whole 90 minutes it was full on dominance by Belgium."

When "full on dominance" results in nothing better than a tie, or at best a winning score of 2 to 1, it seems there may be some liberties taken in the way that phrase is used here. Wouldn't another way of signaling dominance be to actually score a lot of goals? Why isn't that what happens when one team full-on dominates another team?

So if someone who really understand the intricacies of the game could explain how both of those things can be true, that would be great.

Thanks!

arock10 · 07-02-2014, 05:33 AM

http://m.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/r...tatistics.html

USA actually had good possession numbers, was just way outshot by the Belgians. We had our few chances that could've easily made goals too though. Again, happy with the results

slapass · 07-02-2014, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Online Marketing Services

Dempsey is a quality striker. His movement off the ball is as good as anybody. A couple of useful looking young players too (the attacking right back who came on early as a sub showed loads of pace and skill). Howard was in fantastic form also and made countless saves.

Klinsmann is clearly doing a first class job getting the team working well as a unit.

How many goals does Dempsey have? He makes a lot of bad passes in good situations. Our inability to generate shots in key moments is very telling.

Just a heads up but the USA team really looked horrible. The goalie is not supposed to make that huge number of spectacular saves. The Belgium team then moved to a prevent defense that allowed us to get a lot more pressure in the closing minutes. Think in terms of American football. The rookie comes off the bench and throws for a 150 yards in a quarter but still loses as the other team was playing back. The game was already over and he is the only one who didn't know it so he looks good.

arock10 · 07-02-2014, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon

Perhaps something that would help many Americans understand the game better is if someone could explain why there are such low scores when "for the whole 90 minutes it was full on dominance by Belgium."

When "full on dominance" results in nothing better than a tie, or at best a winning score of 2 to 1, it seems there may be some liberties taken in the way that phrase is used here. Wouldn't another way of signaling dominance be to actually score a lot of goals? Why isn't that what happens when one team full-on dominates another team?

So if someone who really understand the intricacies of the game could explain how both of those things can be true, that would be great.

Thanks!

High scoring games typically only matter in the end, for basketball you really need to only watch the last 2 minutes of a game. With these low scoring games, anything can happen at anytime, so I find it makes the game a lot more intense

The dominance from the Belgians came from their shot ratio with the United States. But Tim Howard kept turning that back almost all night long

michael.kickass · 07-02-2014, 05:40 AM

The English put to shame all by themselves. =)

EngineCash · 07-02-2014, 05:41 AM

Very good game... It's nice to see that soccer is growing and it's more popular daily... Just keep on.

seeandsee · 07-02-2014, 05:45 AM

they should play like last 10minutes hole game

slapass · 07-02-2014, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon

Perhaps something that would help many Americans understand the game better is if someone could explain why there are such low scores when "for the whole 90 minutes it was full on dominance by Belgium."

When "full on dominance" results in nothing better than a tie, or at best a winning score of 2 to 1, it seems there may be some liberties taken in the way that phrase is used here. Wouldn't another way of signaling dominance be to actually score a lot of goals? Why isn't that what happens when one team full-on dominates another team?

So if someone who really understand the intricacies of the game could explain how both of those things can be true, that would be great.

Thanks!

Great defense by the goalie. One player kept us in the game with his personal effort. Too bad you didn't see or understand that as it was sport at its best.

Adult-biz · 07-02-2014, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

How many goals does Dempsey have? He makes a lot of bad passes in good situations. Our inability to generate shots in key moments is very telling.

Just a heads up but the USA team really looked horrible. The goalie is not supposed to make that huge number of spectacular saves. The Belgium team then moved to a prevent defense that allowed us to get a lot more pressure in the closing minutes. Think in terms of American football. The rookie comes off the bench and throws for a 150 yards in a quarter but still loses as the other team was playing back. The game was already over and he is the only one who didn't know it so he looks good.

Most strikers thrives on service from the midfield and the flanks. They often drop deep but strikers play in various positions in the final third (some for example play in what is known as the hole behind the front two). The lack of goals in the U.S team is most likely due to the lack of creativity in the midfield and not due to Dempsey`s poor distribution.

Adult-biz · 07-02-2014, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon

Perhaps something that would help many Americans understand the game better is if someone could explain why there are such low scores when "for the whole 90 minutes it was full on dominance by Belgium."

When "full on dominance" results in nothing better than a tie, or at best a winning score of 2 to 1, it seems there may be some liberties taken in the way that phrase is used here. Wouldn't another way of signaling dominance be to actually score a lot of goals? Why isn't that what happens when one team full-on dominates another team?

So if someone who really understand the intricacies of the game could explain how both of those things can be true, that would be great.

Thanks!

Dominance in a match doesn`t have to necessarily mean a goal fest. A team can dominate the game in terms of possession and play some great attacking football but still fail to find the back of the net.

TheMaster · 07-02-2014, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon

Wouldn't another way of signaling dominance be to actually score a lot of goals? Why isn't that what happens when one team full-on dominates another team?

best way to understand the why, is to try and play it
you'll see it's just so much harder to score in football than in many other sports and that's against your buddies, who probably aren't that great at defense or being a goalie

your feet are also far less precise than your hands, the skill to get that ball in isn't easy, that's why, I would say

CDSmith · 07-02-2014, 06:23 AM

The US made a great showing in this world cup. They got a lot farther and won more games than a lot of so-called veteran fans from so-called 'elite soccer nations' thought they would. Which makes me kind of smile, only in that it seems to piss a lot of foriegn SOCCER fans off. :D

I can only wait in hopes that one day perhaps Canada can field a men's team that is as much of a threat as the US was this year. But sadly I think our women's team could beat our men's side. :D

Anyway, dominated or not, the US held their own for the full 90 minutes, and even when down by 2 they never gave up until the final whistle and even damn near tied the game again which would have sent it to penalty kicks. And by "damn near tied it again" I mean that it was one hell of a close chance they had. I'd wager that every damn Belgian on earth had a slight arythmia for a few seconds there.

Anyone who can't concede the USA did well and played well above expectations just doesn't know jack about shit regarding this game.

oppoten · 07-02-2014, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon

Perhaps something that would help many Americans understand the game better is if someone could explain why there are such low scores when "for the whole 90 minutes it was full on dominance by Belgium."!

Because you still have to score and you still have to win.

Belgium's shooting in 90 minutes was wasteful, so they didn't deserve to win in normal time despite their dominance.

Simon · 07-02-2014, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Too bad you didn't see or understand that as it was sport at its best.

I understand how you could assume that from the question I posted. I just hope you'll be able to understand that not all assumptions are true. .

See... you don't like it either when someone assumes you may not be able to understand something. So let' agree not to play that way together...okay?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Online Marketing Services

Dominance in a match doesn't have to necessarily mean a goal fest. A team can dominate the game in terms of possession and play some great attacking football but still fail to find the back of the net.

Yes, I definitely agree that's possible. I guess what I was saying was that I'm not sure we'd refer to that as "full on dominance" by one team. Which comes from people here being used to watching games where if a dominant attacking team can be held to a tie score (before "sudden death" events), that says something good about both teams.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMaster

best way to understand the why, is to try and play it
you'll see it's just so much harder to score in football than in many other sports and that's against your buddies, who probably aren't that great at defense or being a goalie
your feet are also far less precise than your hands, the skill to get that ball in isn't easy, that's why, I would say

Good explanation. But I don't want to take up playing at 59 to learn something that I can see with my own eyes is true. And since I'd never be playing with or against players of World Cup ability, I'd only learn what you already mentioned: my buddies suck at playing the game.

And just to lend some transparency. I don't watch football of any other kind. Except for the Super Bowl (for religious reasons, per Lewis Black). And I don't have an opinion about whether footBall is better than handEgg. But I tend to pay attention any time a country with a buying population the size of this one gets interested in something they weren't very interested in before.

So I'd like to understand this game a little better, without having to invest any time into watching games. And something I hear a lot is that the low scores don't seem to make sense to the people who do watch, and that it's also a reason why some people here don't get interested enough to watch.

It's like the game is designed that way. So I'm looking for a better understanding of the fans who *like* the fact that's it works that way. Versus the people who prefer games where there's a lot of scoring.

Anyway, thanks for the replies and I do understand what you were both saying. Maybe some of the answer is that aggressive dominance is valued higher than successful defense. At least that would explain the idea that a team can totally dominate a game yet barely score in all that time on the field.

bronco67 · 07-02-2014, 06:56 AM

Maybe they could win if some of the players act like they got shot by a sniper. Whole sport is ridiculous anyway with their childish fake injury bullshit -- so unsportsmanlike and shows no character. I'm glad our team won't play along with those antics.

It would be better to lose and not act like a pussy.

Adult-biz · 07-02-2014, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon

I understand how you could assume that from the question I posted. I just hope you'll be able to understand that not all assumptions are true. .

See... you don't like it either when someone assumes you may not be able to understand something. So let' agree not to play that way together...okay?

Yes, I definitely agree that's possible. I guess what I was saying was that I'm not sure we'd refer to that as "full on dominance" by one team. Which comes from people here being used to watching games where if a dominant attacking team can be held to a tie score (before "sudden death" events), that says something good about both teams.

Good explanation. But I don't want to take up playing at 59 to learn something that I can see with my own eyes is true. And since I'd never be playing with or against players of World Cup ability, I'd only learn what you already mentioned: my buddies suck at playing the game.

And just to lend some transparency. I don't watch football of any other kind. Except for the Super Bowl (for religious reasons, per Lewis Black). And I don't have an opinion about whether footBall is better than handEgg. But I tend to pay attention any time a country with a buying population the size of this one gets interested in something they weren't very interested in before.

So I'd like to understand this game a little better, without having to invest any time into watching games. And something I hear a lot is that the low scores don't seem to make sense to the people who do watch, and that it's also a reason why some people here don't get interested enough to watch.

It's like the game is designed that way. So I'm looking for a better understanding of the fans who *like* the fact that's it works that way. Versus the people who prefer games where there's a lot of scoring.

Anyway, thanks for the replies and I do understand what you were both saying. Maybe some of the answer is that aggressive dominance is valued higher than successful defense. At least that would explain the idea that a team can totally dominate a game yet barely score in all that time on the field.

The majority of football supporters love to watch open attacking football. Many teams try to play this way. Liverpool is a good example last season (I believe they ended up top scorers in the Premier League and finished second in the league). Their football is very attack minded with lots of pace and good passing. Some leagues in the world however are very defensive (the Argentina Torneo very rarely sees high scoring games yet the quality of football can be good to watch with the emphasis also on a quick passing game).

Clubs tend to build their teams around their organised tight defences.

TheMaster · 07-02-2014, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon

I understand how you could assume that from the question I posted. I just hope you'll be able to understand that not all assumptions are true. .

See... you don't like it either when someone assumes you may not be able to understand something. So let' agree not to play that way together...okay?

Yes, I definitely agree that's possible. I guess what I was saying was that I'm not sure we'd refer to that as "full on dominance" by one team. Which comes from people here being used to watching games where if a dominant attacking team can be held to a tie score (before "sudden death" events), that says something good about both teams.

Good explanation. But I don't want to take up playing at 59 to learn something that I can see with my own eyes is true. And since I'd never be playing with or against players of World Cup ability, I'd only learn what you already mentioned: my buddies suck at playing the game.

And just to lend some transparency. I don't watch football of any other kind. Except for the Super Bowl (for religious reasons, per Lewis Black). And I don't have an opinion about whether footBall is better than handEgg. But I tend to pay attention any time a country with a buying population the size of this one gets interested in something they weren't very interested in before.

So I'd like to understand this game a little better, without having to invest any time into watching games. And something I hear a lot is that the low scores don't seem to make sense to the people who do watch, and that it's also a reason why some people here don't get interested enough to watch.

It's like the game is designed that way. So I'm looking for a better understanding of the fans who *like* the fact that's it works that way. Versus the people who prefer games where there's a lot of scoring.

Anyway, thanks for the replies and I do understand what you were both saying. Maybe some of the answer is that aggressive dominance is valued higher than successful defense. At least that would explain the idea that a team can totally dominate a game yet barely score in all that time on the field.

now that I thought about it more: I think it's because coordinatiing where the ball goes is a lot more difficult with your feet instead of your hands

arock10 · 07-02-2014, 08:56 AM

I always enjoyed playing defense over offense in soccer, because it is much easier to reject the attackers from scoring. So over and over you get to tell them to fuck off. It is harder to beat someone with a soccer ball (and harder to move as fast) then without.

Playing forward is much less exciting, cause you are pretty much waiting for and trying to setup that one perfect play to finally get a goal. While scoring goals gets most of the attention, it is a less exciting position to play. Also, you are dealing with the play being behind you, versus defense where the play is in front of you

Playing midfield will have a lot of activity too, but fuck doing all that running

Of course, with soccer at this level you'll get most of the players covering most of the field...

DerekMister33 · 07-02-2014, 08:22 PM

Belgium did such a stellar job!!! I was rooting for US though..

07-01-2014, 04:12 PM	#1
Adult-biz Service Provider Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 2,139	The U.S Football Performance against Belgium... I`m a huge football fan and I just have to say that the U.S were fantastic against Belgium and have shown terrific character in their 4 World Cup games. Belgium`s quality shone through in the end but that is to be expected with the stars in their squad. The U.S truly put us (the English) to shame with their performances.

07-01-2014, 04:17 PM	#2
polipie Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 81	__________________ TrafficMansion.com

07-01-2014, 04:21 PM	#4
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,828	well played, indeed. you just need more efficiency in scoring __________________ AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003 Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you! Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

07-01-2014, 04:31 PM	#6
Sly Let's do some business! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 31,327	This Cup's run has boosted American soccer, let's see if it carries through past this summer. There is a sports bar in the building that I live in. This afternoon there was absolutely zero parking. The bar was packed. __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted Windows VPS now available Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc. Click here for more details.

07-01-2014, 04:37 PM	#7
Eric Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Helm! Posts: 8,818	Toughest part of the sport in the US is that there are no true stars for the country to get behind or loathe. Till their is a Lebron or a ARod or a Manning. US fans will be fans every 4 years when the media tells them to be. __________________ No One

07-01-2014, 04:17 PM	#3
ScrollDog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 67	Sad to see the U.S.A lose, not much of a soccer fan myself, but for some reason this year I really got into it. And it wasn't just me, there we're a lot of other people who were more into it this year than any other. I think that soccer is really starting to pick up steam here in the states, especially regarding the world-cup. We're a patriotic bunch and rooting for the USA was fun. First time I ever watched a full match was the USA vs. Portugal. I must say that it was intense down to the last 5 second goal made by Port. Looking forward to the next World Cup!

07-01-2014, 04:54 PM	#9
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,697	The two best US players are our goalkeeper (who seems to be the best in the world) and Altidore who was hurt almost the entire time. The team showed a lot of heart, had a very tough draw and the worst travel schedule of any team in the competition. I'm proud of them and plan to start watching some MLS games now that I can see the league isn't rubbish. What we need is a playmaker. We have never had one. When I was a kid I used to watch New York cosmos games and watch Pele, Giorgio Canalia and a bunch of world class players who came there after their prime years. I've never seen a US player in his prime set up other players as well as those guys did in their 40s. It doesn't have to be Messi or Ronaldo, it just needs to be a world class midfield player who can create chances. It didn't look like any of ours were top 25 in the world and that makes it really hard to score against any good team. Last edited by Relentless; 07-01-2014 at 04:57 PM..

07-01-2014, 05:15 PM	#10
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Win a bet ?

07-01-2014, 05:16 PM	#11
mineistaken See signature :) Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: ICQ 363 097 773 Posts: 29,656	You must be joing? They played very well for the last 15 minutes. For the first 90 minutes they were terrible... The whole game it was clear that they can do absolutely nothing while Belgium was doing everything. 30:5 shots after 90 minutes. Every non US and non Belgium spectator was waiting for when finally Belgium would officially mark their dominance by the goal. Nobody even expected US to win watching the game... Announcer on the TV even trashed this game as the biggest cat and mouse game (as in Belgium was totally dominating the US). They had nothing for the whole game (except the good shot at 89th minute or so). This was the most one sided eight-final game out of all.... Last edited by mineistaken; 07-01-2014 at 05:22 PM..

07-01-2014, 10:12 PM	#19
robfantasy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Medellin, Colombia Posts: 6,445	I thought the match was boring... have you seen the Colombia matches.. non stop action.. they are all over the place the whole game and its really exciting to watch, fans cheering the WHOLE game.. Friday will be a monster __________________ Looking to speak w/ high volume nutra CPA affiliates or networks... msg me

07-02-2014, 12:17 AM	#21
rastan Master(bater) Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 914	Fair play to the yanks yesterday. For guts, effort and no small degree of ability, they ALMOST made it through to the QFs. Hats off to them __________________ Rob \| Britsexcash.com \| @splatbukkake \| Skype: BritSexCash

07-02-2014, 05:21 AM	#24
Simon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Florida's Kinky Keys Posts: 189	Perhaps something that would help many Americans understand the game better is if someone could explain why there are such low scores when "for the whole 90 minutes it was full on dominance by Belgium." When "full on dominance" results in nothing better than a tie, or at best a winning score of 2 to 1, it seems there may be some liberties taken in the way that phrase is used here. Wouldn't another way of signaling dominance be to actually score a lot of goals? Why isn't that what happens when one team full-on dominates another team? So if someone who really understand the intricacies of the game could explain how both of those things can be true, that would be great. Thanks! __________________ See most arguments on GFY explained in about 5 seconds email: simon <at> IndustryInc dot com \| icq: 269~043~019 "If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story."

07-02-2014, 05:33 AM	#25
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	http://m.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/r...tatistics.html USA actually had good possession numbers, was just way outshot by the Belgians. We had our few chances that could've easily made goals too though. Again, happy with the results __________________ Sup

07-02-2014, 05:40 AM	#28
michael.kickass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 11,039	The English put to shame all by themselves. =) __________________ NICERATIOS - $30 PPS - 50% Rev Share - 5% WM Referral - High Converting Sites! Any questions about your NICERATIOS account? Vanessa will take care of you: [email protected] Looking to expand your business in general, maybe sell your sites? Contact me: [email protected]

07-02-2014, 05:41 AM	#29
EngineCash Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,816	Very good game... It's nice to see that soccer is growing and it's more popular daily... Just keep on. __________________ support(@)enginecash.com

07-02-2014, 05:45 AM	#30
seeandsee Check SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe (Skype: gojkoas) Posts: 50,945	they should play like last 10minutes hole game __________________ BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year Contact here

07-02-2014, 06:23 AM	#35
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	The US made a great showing in this world cup. They got a lot farther and won more games than a lot of so-called veteran fans from so-called 'elite soccer nations' thought they would. Which makes me kind of smile, only in that it seems to piss a lot of foriegn SOCCER fans off. :D I can only wait in hopes that one day perhaps Canada can field a men's team that is as much of a threat as the US was this year. But sadly I think our women's team could beat our men's side. :D Anyway, dominated or not, the US held their own for the full 90 minutes, and even when down by 2 they never gave up until the final whistle and even damn near tied the game again which would have sent it to penalty kicks. And by "damn near tied it again" I mean that it was one hell of a close chance they had. I'd wager that every damn Belgian on earth had a slight arythmia for a few seconds there. Anyone who can't concede the USA did well and played well above expectations just doesn't know jack about shit regarding this game. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

07-02-2014, 06:56 AM	#38
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,032	Maybe they could win if some of the players act like they got shot by a sniper. Whole sport is ridiculous anyway with their childish fake injury bullshit -- so unsportsmanlike and shows no character. I'm glad our team won't play along with those antics. It would be better to lose and not act like a pussy. __________________ Last edited by bronco67; 07-02-2014 at 06:57 AM..

07-02-2014, 08:56 AM	#41
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	I always enjoyed playing defense over offense in soccer, because it is much easier to reject the attackers from scoring. So over and over you get to tell them to fuck off. It is harder to beat someone with a soccer ball (and harder to move as fast) then without. Playing forward is much less exciting, cause you are pretty much waiting for and trying to setup that one perfect play to finally get a goal. While scoring goals gets most of the attention, it is a less exciting position to play. Also, you are dealing with the play being behind you, versus defense where the play is in front of you Playing midfield will have a lot of activity too, but fuck doing all that running Of course, with soccer at this level you'll get most of the players covering most of the field... __________________ Sup

07-02-2014, 08:22 PM	#42
DerekMister33 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 204	Belgium did such a stellar job!!! I was rooting for US though..