soccer soccer soccer

[Banedon]

1 minute ago, mul21 said:

They can absolutely appeal.  Their best bet is to do so on procedural grounds because the way the ref was alerted to review the play wasn't according to policy and there's no way he rules that way without stills and slo mo, which is also against policy for him to be shown.  

World Cup: U.S. cannot appeal Folarin Balogun's red card suspension - Los Angeles Times

[Banedon]

 

[bukie]

30 minutes ago, mul21 said:

They can absolutely appeal.  Their best bet is to do so on procedural grounds because the way the ref was alerted to review the play wasn't according to policy and there's no way he rules that way without stills and slo mo, which is also against policy for him to be shown.  

[citation needed]

[UMFan83]

10 hours ago, soccer10k said:

England wins 3-1. I get the home field but why do we think Mexico is that great? Their group stunk. South Africa got through and looked awful against Canada, themselves not all that special. England's group was tougher.

I don't think the English players are going to be intimidated going to the Azteca. A lot of these guys have played in plenty of gigantic stadiums and hostile environments before.

That's not to say Mexico can't or won't win. But I don't understand just writing off England.

England is clearly the better team.  I think the doubting them at Azteca has to do with the fact that everyone expects them to have an epic choke at some point since that's what they're known for (similar to the 2016 Cubs, that's their label until they prove otherwise), and playing a host country at a notoriously difficult place for opponents seems like an reasonably likely place for it to happen.  But like I said earlier, it could definitely be one of those things where people overthink it, then the game starts and you realized you shouldn't have doubted the clearly more talented team.  

[UMFan83]

Edit: double post

Edited 9 hours ago by UMFan83

[mul21]

31 minutes ago, bukie said:

[citation needed]

Yeah, I got bad info.  That's an absolutely ridiculous policy.

[Soul]

I'm not knowledgeable about soccer rules, but I couldn't believe they had to play 30 minutes down a player.  And they scored anyway, which was awesome.  But that just seems ridiculous since they've already ejected him and he's not going to be able to play the next game either.  All that for a foul that the whole world saw Messi commit with no repercussions.  It reeks to high heaven.

[soccer10k]

6 hours ago, UMFan83 said:

England is clearly the better team.  I think the doubting them at Azteca has to do with the fact that everyone expects them to have an epic choke at some point since that's what they're known for (similar to the 2016 Cubs, that's their label until they prove otherwise), and playing a host country at a notoriously difficult place for opponents seems like an reasonably likely place for it to happen.  But like I said earlier, it could definitely be one of those things where people overthink it, then the game starts and you realized you shouldn't have doubted the clearly more talented team.  

13 hours ago, CaliforniaRaisin said:

I think England is better and I’m not sold on México BUT I speak from experience, 7’200’ is a bitch to run in. And my experience was in the Sierras with good air quality, unlike what they’ll deal with at Azteca. England just doesn’t have time to acclimate (and their last two matches have been second half comebacks, they’ll feel worse in the second half with the altitude).

Is the Azteca a tough place to play because it’s legitimately a tough place to play? Or is it known as a tough place to play because most of the teams that play there are CONCACAF teams that Mexico is, at worst, basically equal to in skill level? Wikipedia has results with a stadium listed going back to 2008 and they’ve played 6 teams outside our region there. Five of these were friendlies and one, against New Zealand in 2014 WC qualification, was a competitive match. Beat Chile 1-0 in 2010 and tied Spain the same year. Not sure the strength of Chile’s lineup but Spain half rotated their starters. Beat Israel and Scotland. Tied Portugal 0-0 earlier this year (Por made 9 subs in the game) and based on the stats, Por had the better of the play.

As for acclimating, how used to the altitude are the Mexico players? Of their starters against Ecuador, only 4 play at altitude for their clubs. Of their 23 outfield players on the roster, only 9 play at altitude.

I think this could come down to if Mexico is disciplined enough to set up and maintain a defensive block. Otherwise, England might be 3 goals up before they start to become affected by the altitude.

[Derwood]

Spain hasn't given up a goal yet in the World Cup

[CaliforniaRaisin]

33 minutes ago, soccer10k said:

Is the Azteca a tough place to play because it’s legitimately a tough place to play? Or is it known as a tough place to play because most of the teams that play there are CONCACAF teams that Mexico is, at worst, basically equal to in skill level? Wikipedia has results with a stadium listed going back to 2008 and they’ve played 6 teams outside our region there. Five of these were friendlies and one, against New Zealand in 2014 WC qualification, was a competitive match. Beat Chile 1-0 in 2010 and tied Spain the same year. Not sure the strength of Chile’s lineup but Spain half rotated their starters. Beat Israel and Scotland. Tied Portugal 0-0 earlier this year (Por made 9 subs in the game) and based on the stats, Por had the better of the play.

As for acclimating, how used to the altitude are the Mexico players? Of their starters against Ecuador, only 4 play at altitude for their clubs. Of their 23 outfield players on the roster, only 9 play at altitude.

I think this could come down to if Mexico is disciplined enough to set up and maintain a defensive block. Otherwise, England might be 3 goals up before they start to become affected by the altitude.

Re: México's players - they've played and likely only been in México City (7220') or Guadalajara (5154') since at least the opening of the World Cup on June 11th (they were probably training at elevation before that too). 2-3 consecutive weeks is normally enough time to acclimate to altitude so they should easily have physical advantage over a team like England that gets, what, 4 days at elevation?

With regards to Azteca being a tough place to play, you are probably right that the advantage will be muted against England.

[imb]

10 hours ago, Brian707 said:

Is there any chance the US appeals the red card? And could it be downgraded to yellow?

trump executive order

[bukie]

19 minutes ago, imb said:

trump executive order

FIFA Peace Prize finally pays off.

[soccer10k]

1 hour ago, CaliforniaRaisin said:

Re: México's players - they've played and likely only been in México City (7220') or Guadalajara (5154') since at least the opening of the World Cup on June 11th (they were probably training at elevation before that too). 2-3 consecutive weeks is normally enough time to acclimate to altitude so they should easily have physical advantage over a team like England that gets, what, 4 days at elevation?

With regards to Azteca being a tough place to play, you are probably right that the advantage will be muted against England.

That makes sense on adjusting to the elevation. Had no idea how long it takes.

[Derwood]

45 minutes ago, imb said:

trump executive order

Too bad he's forgotten that the World Cup is happening