2010 World Cup Thread

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Grant Wahl

• How big is winning the group? Not only does the U.S. survive to fight another day, but it gets placed into a much easier quadrant of the single-elimination tournament that now takes place. If Germany can win Group D, the U.S. would probably meet Serbia or Ghana, avoiding Germany, with the winner of the U.S.’s second-round game to face the victor of Uruguay-South Korea. Long story short: Which quadrant would you rather be in, the one with Serbia/Ghana-Uruguay-South Korea or the one with Germany-Argentina-Mexico? I think we know the answer to that one.

 

If form holds, I look forward to Kyle's my bad regarding the unimportance of the tie vs England.

 

A potential matchup v Uruguay or South Korea to get to the semi's?

 

Yes please.

 

You won't be getting one, because I clearly and explicitly said that it didn't change their chances of advancement to the second round, not that it didn't improve their chances of getting a better draw if they did get in.

[jersey cubs fan]

Grant Wahl

• How big is winning the group? Not only does the U.S. survive to fight another day, but it gets placed into a much easier quadrant of the single-elimination tournament that now takes place. If Germany can win Group D, the U.S. would probably meet Serbia or Ghana, avoiding Germany, with the winner of the U.S.’s second-round game to face the victor of Uruguay-South Korea. Long story short: Which quadrant would you rather be in, the one with Serbia/Ghana-Uruguay-South Korea or the one with Germany-Argentina-Mexico? I think we know the answer to that one.

 

If form holds, I look forward to Kyle's my bad regarding the unimportance of the tie vs England.

 

A potential matchup v Uruguay or South Korea to get to the semi's?

 

Yes please.

 

You won't be getting one, because I clearly and explicitly said that it didn't change their chances of advancement to the second round, not that it didn't improve their chances of getting a better draw if they did get in.

 

So that point didn't end up making a difference?

[Jon]

Potential remaining schedule:

 

Round of 16 - Saturday, June 26 - 1:30 PM Central

Quarterfinals - Friday, July 2 - 1:30 PM Central

Semifinals - Tuesday, July 6 - 1:30 PM Central

Finals - Sunday, July 11 - 1:30 PM Central

[Garwilly]

Grant Wahl

• How big is winning the group? Not only does the U.S. survive to fight another day, but it gets placed into a much easier quadrant of the single-elimination tournament that now takes place. If Germany can win Group D, the U.S. would probably meet Serbia or Ghana, avoiding Germany, with the winner of the U.S.’s second-round game to face the victor of Uruguay-South Korea. Long story short: Which quadrant would you rather be in, the one with Serbia/Ghana-Uruguay-South Korea or the one with Germany-Argentina-Mexico? I think we know the answer to that one.

 

If form holds, I look forward to Kyle's my bad regarding the unimportance of the tie vs England.

 

A potential matchup v Uruguay or South Korea to get to the semi's?

 

Yes please.

 

You won't be getting one, because I clearly and explicitly said that it didn't change their chances of advancement to the second round, not that it didn't improve their chances of getting a better draw if they did get in.

 

But without that draw, we are even with Slovenia on Points, GD, GF, and GA, moving onto the drawing of lots.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So that point didn't end up making a difference?

 

If England had scored at the end to beat us 2-1, and all other results stay the same, we still move on.

[jersey cubs fan]

So that point didn't end up making a difference?

 

If England had scored at the end to beat us 2-1, and all other results stay the same, we still move on.

 

But if they lose 1-0?

 

Also, if England wins that game, who knows how they play this game and who knows how Slovenia does here.

Edited June 23, 2010 by jersey cubs fan

[Jon]

The disallowed goal was a call that could have gone either was and remains debatable even after several stop motion viewings of the footage.

Their feet seem to be in the same position relative to the goal line, but the US player's body looks like it's over that foot, while the Algerian player is leaning forward. As the linesman was perfectly positioned, from his point of view the US player's body may have looked closer to the goal line.

 

Even with video review, you can debate this call till the cows come home. :wink:

ESPN did a pretty clear analysis of the play with their axis thingamajig showing that it was onsides. The foot was even with the defender while the body was behind. And considering all 3 parties involved were stationary (both players and the linesman), I don't know how that's missed. At worsts it's even and the benefit of the doubt should go to the US.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So that point didn't end up making a difference?

 

If England had scored at the end to beat us 2-1, and all other results stay the same, we still move on.

 

But if they lose 1-0?

 

Then there's a good chance they still move on. The tie didn't make the difference. And of course, even if it did, that doesn't change how likely it was or wasn't from the beginning. If the U.S. had won 2-0 today, would you guys expect me to be demanding "I was wrong's" from you? Of course not. The actual result doesn't change the odds at the time.

[SpongeWorthy]

So glad I broke my no booze before noon rule for this one.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So that point didn't end up making a difference?

 

If England had scored at the end to beat us 2-1, and all other results stay the same, we still move on.

 

But if they lose 1-0?

 

Also, if England wins that game, who knows how they play this game and who knows how Slovenia does here.

 

Of course, anything could have happened differently. Maybe we play Slovenia better if we'd lost to England, too? Who knows.

 

But England still would have needed a result to guarantee advancement today.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Hairyducked Idiot

[SpongeWorthy]

lol jk i have no such rule

[SouthSideRyan]

So glad I broke my no booze before noon rule for this one.

 

Sounds like a pretty stupid rule

[Exile on Waveland]

Assuming Germany takes care of business -- and from what I've seen of Germany and Ghana, I have no reason to suspect they won't -- this is the exact scenario I hoped for since the draw in December. Draw England, win the group on goals/goal differential, avoid Germany, and get Serbia/Ghana/Australia then (what is now) Uruguay/South Korea. The US would be underdogs against Serbia and Uruguay obviously, but it would be feasible and I'll take the chances. Galaxies better than Germany then Argentina staring down at you.

 

Howard was solid, and his service will be the unsung part of the goal. Demerit was excellent after the beginning. Bocanegra played his best game of the tournament so far. Altidore dominated Algeria's backline in my opinion, this is exactly what I want/expect from him. Outstanding performance. Dempsey stood out to me as well, he was unlucky not to net two goals. Bradley was Bradley -- that's a compliment. Donovan made the perfect run at the perfect time and was rewarded (and slotted unlike Yakubu).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Donovan made the perfect run at the perfect time and was rewarded (and slotted unlike Yakubu).

 

I keep seeing that as well. In a spot where U.S. players had been blasting it off the mark all day, he calmly side-footed it straight into the net. Granted, the ball was sitting for him better than it had on some of the other chances.

[wvcbxl]

The disallowed goal was a call that could have gone either was and remains debatable even after several stop motion viewings of the footage.

Their feet seem to be in the same position relative to the goal line, but the US player's body looks like it's over that foot, while the Algerian player is leaning forward. As the linesman was perfectly positioned, from his point of view the US player's body may have looked closer to the goal line.

 

Even with video review, you can debate this call till the cows come home. :wink:

ESPN did a pretty clear analysis of the play with their axis thingamajig showing that it was onsides. The foot was even with the defender while the body was behind. And considering all 3 parties involved were stationary (both players and the linesman), I don't know how that's missed. At worsts it's even and the benefit of the doubt should go to the US.

 

http://www.sporza.be/permalink/1.809185

Stop it at 18 seconds whit the line graphics on, then reread my post. If this had been an Algerian goal, you'd be calling blue murder using my argument.

I still say this one can get called either way. Slit second decision by the linesman that doesn't look obviously wrong even with the benefit of technology.

[SouthSideRyan]

You probably wouldn't be defending him so much if he wasn't Belgish.

[jersey cubs fan]

The disallowed goal was a call that could have gone either was and remains debatable even after several stop motion viewings of the footage.

Their feet seem to be in the same position relative to the goal line, but the US player's body looks like it's over that foot, while the Algerian player is leaning forward. As the linesman was perfectly positioned, from his point of view the US player's body may have looked closer to the goal line.

 

Even with video review, you can debate this call till the cows come home. :wink:

ESPN did a pretty clear analysis of the play with their axis thingamajig showing that it was onsides. The foot was even with the defender while the body was behind. And considering all 3 parties involved were stationary (both players and the linesman), I don't know how that's missed. At worsts it's even and the benefit of the doubt should go to the US.

 

http://www.sporza.be/permalink/1.809185

Stop it at 18 seconds whit the line graphics on, then reread my post. If this had been an Algerian goal, you'd be calling blue murder using my argument.

I still say this one can get called either way. Slit second decision by the linesman that doesn't look obviously wrong even with the benefit of technology.

 

The announcer said FIFA said calls should give benefit of the doubt to attacking player, so if the call could go either way, as you say, doesn't that mean it should be not called offsides?

[Banedon]

Grant Wahl

• How big is winning the group? Not only does the U.S. survive to fight another day, but it gets placed into a much easier quadrant of the single-elimination tournament that now takes place. If Germany can win Group D, the U.S. would probably meet Serbia or Ghana, avoiding Germany, with the winner of the U.S.’s second-round game to face the victor of Uruguay-South Korea. Long story short: Which quadrant would you rather be in, the one with Serbia/Ghana-Uruguay-South Korea or the one with Germany-Argentina-Mexico? I think we know the answer to that one.

 

If form holds, I look forward to Kyle's my bad regarding the unimportance of the tie vs England.

 

A potential matchup v Uruguay or South Korea to get to the semi's?

 

Yes please.

 

Even more than just not having to play Germany-Argentina-Mexico in the early rounds, we're on the completely opposite side of the bracket as them. We wouldn't see them till the final.

 

Probably a good chance we'll have Brazil and/or Italy on our side of the bracket though...at least they wouldn't be till the semi's.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You probably wouldn't be defending him so much if he wasn't Belgish.

 

Belgianian, I think.

[wvcbxl]

You probably wouldn't be defending him so much if he wasn't Belgish.

 

The referee's nationality is irrelevant (unless you believe in conspiracy theories).

Look at the footage and tell me what you see.

[chuckywang]

Potential remaining schedule:

 

Round of 16 - Saturday, June 26 - 1:30 PM Central

Quarterfinals - Friday, July 2 - 1:30 PM Central

Semifinals - Tuesday, July 6 - 1:30 PM Central

Finals - Sunday, July 11 - 1:30 PM Central

 

I predict the Saturday Round of 16 game will be the most watched soccer game in the US ever.

[Guest]

So that point didn't end up making a difference?

 

If England had scored at the end to beat us 2-1, and all other results stay the same, we still move on.

 

But if they lose 1-0?

 

Then there's a good chance they still move on. The tie didn't make the difference. And of course, even if it did, that doesn't change how likely it was or wasn't from the beginning. If the U.S. had won 2-0 today, would you guys expect me to be demanding "I was wrong's" from you? Of course not. The actual result doesn't change the odds at the time.

 

No there's not. Assuming the other results were the same, the US finishes even with Slovenia on everything. That leaves a 50-50 shot of going on due to drawing lots.

 

That's not pretty good.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The announcer said FIFA said calls should give benefit of the doubt to attacking player, so if the call could go either way, as you say, doesn't that mean it should be not called offsides?

 

That's how it's written, but it's never called that way. Any doubt at all and they throw up the flag for some reason.

 

It's a bad call, but nowhere near on the level of the Slovenian robbery.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No there's not. Assuming the other results were the same, the US finishes even with Slovenia on everything. That leaves a 50-50 shot of going on due to drawing lots.

 

That's not pretty good.

 

So even in a situation that was unlikely at the time (England goes into a scoring slump), it's 75% that they go through without the tie (50% of it's 1-0, 100% if it's 2-1).

 

I stand by it: That tie was unlikely at the time to make a difference in advancement out of the group stage.

[jersey cubs fan]

No there's not. Assuming the other results were the same, the US finishes even with Slovenia on everything. That leaves a 50-50 shot of going on due to drawing lots.

 

That's not pretty good.

 

So even in a situation that was unlikely at the time (England goes into a scoring slump), it's 75% that they go through without the tie (50% of it's 1-0, 100% if it's 2-1).

 

I stand by it: That tie was unlikely at the time to make a difference in advancement out of the group stage.

 

Seems like a pretty stupid stance you're taking here.