Exile on Waveland

Deutschland uber alles!!! I cannot believe that score line. Just wow.

HUP HOLLAND! If Germany wins tomorrow I'll be about as happy as I can be with the US's departure.

Apparently part of the buyout was an agreement not to poach any Fulham players. Crap. I was dreaming of an American with the Merseysiders (the red ones, not the blue ones). Oh well.

So every group winner advanced to the quarterfinals, excepting the US. Also, five of the seven actual seeded teams -- I'm not including South Africa -- advanced, with Italy and England being the exceptions. I don't believe we've seen an upset in the knockout rounds yet (SPI had USA-Ghana as a tossup). An upset is coming, though not many options for "monumental" one, obviously.

Yeah, I heard that earlier on World Cup Live. Don't understand the Dempsey comment, he was excellent yesterday.

Well, obviously it's bittersweet after yesterday: But I thoroughly enjoyed today's thrashing. Germany is my second favorite team (followed closely by Holland) due to heritage, and I've always disliked the overrated, pompous English side. Went to Chatham Tap -- an English soccer pub -- sporting a Germany shirt. Luckily, there were a few others. Here's hoping Argentina similarly thrashes Mexico.

Same here. It's not necessarily that they lost in the second round. That's where I expected them to go out (albeit against Germany). It's not even so much how they lost (though that's bothering me quite a bit). It's that they're likely to never have an easier group, and really really likely to never have an easier path to the semifinals. Just can't help but feel they let a golden opportunity pass by.

Agreed. I don't actively hate on soccer and I like watching the U.S. games in the world cup but I can't get into anything beyond that. I know the diving and faking of injuries is something soccer fans are forced to live with but it just kills me. I'm the same way. I knew the dives in soccer were bad, but holy hell were they on epic levels today. While it's less frequent and there are fewer, they did exactly what NFL teams have done for years to to slow the Colts offense down (especially in two minute drills).

I read this and immediately broke out in a string of expletives. So frustrated all mother *$(@#)@Q)*$* game. Their back line is big. Their back line is fast. Their back line is strong. Their back line can jump like stinking cheetahs. WE AREN'T GOING TO BEAT THEM ROUTE 1 IN THE AIR. PUT THE BALL ON THE [expletive] GROUND OR BEHIND THEM. That was easily the most frustrating thing today. The best movement we had all game was a string of one and two touch passes culminating in Bradley being played in behind the defense. Every time we played one/two touch, we broke them down, but we lost the patience needed to do it. For a team with some WC veterans...just don't know how they lost composure like that. It just had to be tired legs, right? That's the only rationalization I can come up with that doesn't drive me nuts. They were just tired . . . right? I think that's what it was. 2 emotionally and physically draining games, and then another comeback and extra time? Our key guys-Donovan, Dempsey and Bradley-played every minute of all four games. They ran out of gas. That's certainly what it looked like to me. It's also an answer I can live with, better than the team knowingly settling on hopeful long balls.

I read this and immediately broke out in a string of expletives. So frustrated all mother *$(@#)@Q)*$* game. Their back line is big. Their back line is fast. Their back line is strong. Their back line can jump like stinking cheetahs. WE AREN'T GOING TO BEAT THEM ROUTE 1 IN THE AIR. PUT THE BALL ON THE [expletive] GROUND OR BEHIND THEM. That was easily the most frustrating thing today. The best movement we had all game was a string of one and two touch passes culminating in Bradley being played in behind the defense. Every time we played one/two touch, we broke them down, but we lost the patience needed to do it. For a team with some WC veterans...just don't know how they lost composure like that. It just had to be tired legs, right? That's the only rationalization I can come up with that doesn't drive me nuts. They were just tired . . . right?

Like most on here, I couldn't understand Clark starting (or Findley). At least Bradley corrected the Clark mistake early. I was calling for Feilhaber-for-Findley about 30 minutes in, happy Bradley made the move at half. Those moves helped, but the starting XI was a mistake. Still don't understand what Bradley sees in Clark. For the game, maybe it was tired legs, but it was disappointing to see the team eschew possession and play overly direct (read: long balls) after conceding the goal to Gyan. Perhaps there wasn't enough left in the tank, but the tactics after that goal were basically a wing and a prayer. Oh, my fortune for a finisher . . .

I hate Johnson at No. 4.

From 2006 finalists to last in their groups in 2010.

YES!

Right now they're in the same position the US faced. Score and win the group, tie and go home. Ha, yeah. Still expecting Italy to wake up and advance (even this crappy Azzurri version).

Man I hope Italy go out. Also be nice to see New Zealand somehow advance. That would be crazy.

24,646 against Latvia on May 28 29,745 against Venezuela on May 26 26,141 against Morocco on May 23 I included all three because I figured it was a sendoff tour of sorts. Thanks. I'd say that's quite the increase, though this year's was a sexier matchup.

Ha, fine, I'm a narcissist. You quoted me, so I figured you meant me.

So I read this and had to look it up. There are MLB players who make more per year than MLS made in television revenue in 2008. Average take per team was under $1 million. The national television contracts TBS and Fox have with MLB are 20 times that per year. ESPN is another 10 or so times the league total per year. How many individual teams have local television deals worth more than that? The Mariners get over $40 million a year for their local television rights, and they're maybe barely in the top 10 in the league Baseball is far and away the second most popular professional sport in the US. I don't see how this is a fair comparison at all -- no one is comparing soccer to baseball in popularity. Someone totally was. I assume you mean me? I explicitly stated a qualifier that the World Cup to World Series is apples-to-oranges because of the four-year cycle. That comparison, if you must, was also soccer to baseball, not MLS to MLB. That makes a huge difference. Nevertheless, just to be clear, baseball is far and away a more popular spectator sport in the US than soccer.

So I read this and had to look it up. There are MLB players who make more per year than MLS made in television revenue in 2008. Average take per team was under $1 million. The national television contracts TBS and Fox have with MLB are 20 times that per year. ESPN is another 10 or so times the league total per year. How many individual teams have local television deals worth more than that? The Mariners get over $40 million a year for their local television rights, and they're maybe barely in the top 10 in the league Baseball is far and away the second most popular professional sport in the US. I don't see how this is a fair comparison at all -- no one is comparing soccer to baseball in popularity.

I believe the 2006 World Cup Final drew a bigger television audience in the States than the NBA and NHL finals that year, and ostensibly equaled the World Series and Final Four/National Championship game. A bit apples-to-oranges because of the four-year cycle, but pretty compelling stuff for the popularity of soccer. So, basically, what I'm saying is this: when Frank Zappa outsells the Stones or Zeppelin, then maybe soccer is the Zappa of sports.* *Frank Zappa is pretty damned good, heady stuff, by the way.

I find this entirely reasonable and understandable. It's a bit unfortunate that the club structure makes it more difficult for fans in the States to relate and thus follow. It's certainly not as simple as flipping on CBS/Fox on a Sunday to watch the NFL, clearly the one top league in the world.

Then you're ignoring what's right in front of you. What, people watching soccer? It's the [expletive] World Cup and the American team isn't bad. What do you expect? A lot of you were turding it up over curling some months ago. Yes, that soccer's popularity has increased from four years ago. The US television rights to this World Cup went for $425 million, compared to $40 million for 2002 only after the MLS paid so the games weren't only on Spanish language channels (sorry, haven't found 2006 numbers). US, our poster, talked about the increase in MLS attendance. The send-away game for the US drew 55,000 fans (wish I could find the same number for 2006, I'm certain it would be much less). As a nation we purchased more tickets for this World Cup than any country besides South Africa. The Champions League final was televised on broadcast television (Fox) on Saturday afternoon -- bumping the Yankees-Mets game (though the ratings were disappointing -- club soccer has a long way to go here). In 2004, you had to pay-per-view to watch the Euros, in 2008 every game was on ESPN/ABC. The popularity of the sport has empirically increased, and I don't think it's my rose-colored glasses that feels the increase is palpable too. What was the proportion of tickets purchased to population? And why on earth would joe sports fan watch the champions league final? 1. I don't see how this matters much for this line of post (i.e., has soccer's popularity increased over the past four years in the US). You're shifting the argument -- though my point wasn't exactly on point with no baseline comparison. No one is arguing soccer is more popular here than in other countries or that it's more popular here than football/baseball/basketball. However, if the sport wasn't popular here, I have a difficult time believing we'd have the most fans attending over countries that live the sport. 2. Well, it's great soccer at an elite level. But that's also besides the point. In fact, joe sports fan didn't watch it as I said. However, he could have on a weekend without cable for the first time ever. That's progress.

I generally don't like doing that. But, in this case, you were right. Soccer has some hurdles here in the States that it very possibly will never clear. But that doesn't mean soccer isn't popular or isn't increasing in popularity.

Then you're ignoring what's right in front of you. What, people watching soccer? It's the [expletive] World Cup and the American team isn't bad. What do you expect? A lot of you were turding it up over curling some months ago. Yes, that soccer's popularity has increased from four years ago. The US television rights to this World Cup went for $425 million, compared to $40 million for 2002 only after the MLS paid so the games weren't only on Spanish language channels (sorry, haven't found 2006 numbers). US, our poster, talked about the increase in MLS attendance. The send-away game for the US drew 55,000 fans (wish I could find the same number for 2006, I'm certain it would be much less). As a nation we purchased more tickets for this World Cup than any country besides South Africa. The Champions League final was televised on broadcast television (Fox) on Saturday afternoon -- bumping the Yankees-Mets game (though the ratings were disappointing -- club soccer has a long way to go here). In 2004, you had to pay-per-view to watch the Euros, in 2008 every game was on ESPN/ABC. The popularity of the sport has empirically increased, and I don't think it's my rose-colored glasses that feels the increase is palpable too.