USSoccer
-
Posts
17,655 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by USSoccer
-
I was going to make some well thought out and organized post about Friday's game, but instead about all I'll say for now is that if we can't take care of our business against a team that's at best a better version of Guatemala, we have no business in the knockout rounds, and we're nowhere near as good as we all think we are. Two wins gives us a fantastic shot to win the group, and winning the group means we have a really easy path to the semifinals (relatively speaking). No excuses. We're a better team then they are everywhere on the field.
-
you can get in for less than $50 to see the flames if you're willing to sit in the worst seats. I would assume any seat to see Calgary would be the worst seat. HACHACHACHACHA
-
MLS tickets aren't $20. I understand it's comparing apples to an awesome sport, but you're underselling MLS. I just checked for the fire and they range from $15 to 50. I don't know if 50 gets you in the door for the blackhawks, or most nhl clubs. Every club is a little different. LA has some tickets that are in the low $100's. I'm sure $50 would buy some pretty sweet seats in Calgary to see the Flames.
-
MLS tickets aren't $20. I understand it's comparing apples to an awesome sport, but you're underselling MLS.
-
Wait, are you the one that was stuck on that asinine notion that MLS game attendance figures and NHL game attendance figures are reasonable comparisons? Also, that country across the pond was probably the absolute best matchup the US could have had in terms of bringing in interest in the states. That was me, and 4 years ago or whatever it was not a great argument. This season, though, the attendance figures are about equal, with MLS at 16,320 and the NHL around 16,900 Source: http://www.mls-daily.com/2010/04/mls-attendance-moves-past-nba-nhl.html Not that it means MLS is more popular, but the attendance figures are more even now than they were. stop the average schmo on the street and ask him who won the mls cup and who won the stanley cup and see who wins. the only reason i know is that i was up late on a meth binge watching reruns of things on some sports channel. No doubt. It's not more popular across the board.
-
It also doesn't account for the viewing parties that happened last weekend, and viewership in bars and such. In SF, 15,000 attended a viewing party at PacBell or AT&T park or whatever it's called. Whether or not the interest is sustained beyond US/ENG if scoring stays low is a fair question, but it's been a big success for ABC/ESPN.
-
Wait, are you the one that was stuck on that asinine notion that MLS game attendance figures and NHL game attendance figures are reasonable comparisons? Also, that country across the pond was probably the absolute best matchup the US could have had in terms of bringing in interest in the states. That was me, and 4 years ago or whatever it was not a great argument. This season, though, the attendance figures are about equal, with MLS at 16,320 and the NHL around 16,900 Source: http://www.mls-daily.com/2010/04/mls-attendance-moves-past-nba-nhl.html Not that it means MLS is more popular, but the attendance figures are more even now than they were.
-
Well, that's it for Australia. That was a really iffy red.
-
FIFA needs to ban them except for Bafana Bafana matches. They're completely awful and are destroying the atmosphere. -- Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:51 pm -- Ze Germans haven't fixed their defensive issues from 2006. Australia are actually generating some decent half-chances. -- Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:59 pm -- Martin Tyler might be the worst of the PBP guys...
-
I was just about to edit that Bradley yellow. Good call. I thought he was booked before Holden came in and I had forgotten about Findley's studs up challenge. Fun fact: Yesterday we had as many shots on goal (4) than in the entire tournament in 2006.
-
They look organized in the back, at the least. They also know we're going to come out and try and win the game. This is set up for bunker/counter against us, which means we have to have possession and be alert in the back. We almost have to play Torres in this game. His ability to be a deep laying playmaker is going to be able to help us hold possession and switch the axis of attack rapidly and smoothly. I'm not sure if Findley's speed helps us as much here. Jozy, apart from his run on Carragher, was absent for nearly the entire match. So what do we do up front? Buddle for Findley? Jozy/Clint and Holden on the wing? Mikey, Demerit and 'Dolo all are on yellow cards. We also don't want to have some of our players too gassed to do anything going forward. Do you play Goodison for Demerit? Specs for 'Dolo? This is going to be a very tricky game on a number of levels.
-
Algeria down to 10 men. Cards and a 0-0 draw is pretty great so far...
-
Gerrard not being on the left made the English side far more static. The loss of Barry and the absence of Hargreaves really hurt them tactically. Gerrard on the left would pinch in, forcing Rooney left and Cole upfield, creating far more movement. It's worth noting that the only real move they had involving supporting runs was Gerrard's goal. They essentially played a typical English game-get it wide, bang crosses in or hit it over the top. Unfortunately for them, the one direct play they had released their worst striker 1 v1.
-
Carra was incredibly lucky not to be sent off. He committed three cardable offenses in 45 minutes.
-
That's great and all, and I like Nate, but when it comes to soccer I (and a host of others) know a lot more than you think we do. Besides, even if we just stipulate his 9% number, that is still a significant increase. Moreover, you haven't rebutted the points that US, Wolf and I have made regarding England playing the rest of the matches. Because I don't think that's likely to make a difference either. England's last game is the fifth game, not the sixth, so it'd be hard for them to have already clinched the group before that match. Although at this point the permutations are making my head hurt so maybe I'm goofing that up. The 3rd group matches are played at the same time. Not sure what you're trying to say here. And Sponge, I think that's a decent point, but Algeria is terrible. England is going to stomp them. The pressure will be high, but mostly on Capello and Green.
-
Yes. You gave me the red ass because I'm buzzed and excited and was surprised to see anything worth arguing over. As long as you are fighting the good fight of supporting US Soccer, I have no real problem with you. I think we have the same basic idea about how this changes our odds, we're just quibbling over what counts as "significant." This is time that could be better spent trolling some Englishmen. Now that I agree with. We all need to pull for a draw tomorrow morning as well.
-
Nate Silver can't quantify the fact that England now have to try during their final two games. That matters. Nate Silver is smart as hell, but quantifying soccer is a lot harder than tracking poll outliers and analyzing baseball stats. Not only are you wrong, you're being stupidly stubborn by refusing to admit you're incorrect, and citing someone else's incomplete analysis of the situation as the proof of your righteousness.
-
That's not what he said at all. And in any case, you watching justintv on your computer gives you more access to soccer than the Eurosnob satellite that Wolf and I steal signals from.
-
If SVN beats ALG tomorrow 3-0 (not an unlikely result, mind you), this is the table: SLV 3 ENG 1 USA 1 ALG 1 We play SLV next. If we drop points to them (for argument's sake we'll say we draw 1-1 again, and ENG beats ALG (almost a certainty): SLV-4 ENG-4 USA-2 ALG-0 Match 3 then becomes the need for us to win, which would bring us to 5. If ENG beat SLV (likely), we go through on 5 points by virtue of the draw. There's one scenario where it matters. Also, ENG dropping 2 points today means that they will more than likely have to play for a result in match 3. Don't discount this, as we will probably need them to beat SLV for us to advance. So, there's one direct way it matter, and one (massive) indirect way it matters.
-
I'm not saying they didn't change. I'm saying they didn't significantly change, i.e. a swing of 15-20 percentage points or more. What scenarios are plausibly left in which we advance, but wouldn't have if we'd lost 2-1 to England instead? A 15-20% change is significant. Also, it might be wiser to revisit this after tomorrow's game. If one of those teams win by multiple goals, this point will loom large.
-
Losing to England, 4 points out of Slovenia and Algeria probably gets it done, just nervously watching goal differential. Ting with England, same formula, except we don't have to worry about GD. This is completely wrong. If you think the odds didn't change after a draw as opposed to a loss, I don't know what to tell you.
-
7.5/2.5, I'd say. We drew Italy 1-1 last time, too. And I'm still not sure it increases our chance of advancement. Drawing with the team that was most likely to beat us dramatically increases our odds.
-
-If Bob Bradley made subs 20 minutes earlier we'd have had a chance to win. -Demerit completely marked Rooney out, and Gooch, after the poor work on the 1st goal, played well. Rico shouldn't see the field again; inexcusable to ball watch on Steven Gerrard. -Landon and Clint had good games. They did a ton of running and defending on the wings. LD neutralized Lennon for the most part. Clint showed exactly why you have to shoot and put the ball on frame. -Michael Bradley, I thought, played really well. Findley played over his ability. He held his own very well. 'Dolo was really good after the first 10 minutes. Boca was steady too. -Tim Howard had a great game. -Jamie Carragher had two challenges that, had they been made by Demerit or Mikey, would have been straight red. Looking to SLV, this is a game you'll see Torres feature. No reason we shouldn't beat them. None.
-
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa221/crismerz09/easy-1.jpg?t=1276374057
-
Come on here