# World Cup Fever!!!!



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

I am so excited for this year's world cup! This will be the first world cup in my adult life that is not spent in Iraq.  I can't wait for the USA team to be bounced in the group play! Two things I will never understand about the United States:
1. Why do we still use the English system? Fully switch over to the metric system already!
2. Why is Football (Soccer) popular everywhere, but not so in the United States?

One of the biggest sports tournaments in the world is about to start and you wouldn't know anything other than summer is going on here in Maryland. Seriously though, I hope the US team does well, but I don't see us making it out of group play.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

immanuelrx said:


> I am so excited for this year's world cup! This will be the first world cup in my adult life that is not spent in Iraq.  I can't wait for the USA team to be bounced in the group play! Two things I will never understand about the United States:
> 1. Why do we still use the English system? Fully switch over to the metric system already!
> 2. Why is Football (Soccer) popular everywhere, but not so in the United States?
> 
> One of the biggest sports tournaments in the world is about to start and you wouldn't know anything other than summer is going on here in Maryland. Seriously though, I hope the US team does well, but I don't see us making it out of group play.


The answer to Question 1 is because football is the beautiful English game. Actually, that is probably also the answer to question 2.

Chez Shaver World Cup Fever is reaching critical levels. Our manager has promised an 'all out attack' on the eye-ties* this Saturday.....

Sing along! "Three lions on my shirt, Jules Rimet still gleaming......"






*NB raging xenophobia is not only permitted but thoroughly encouraged during World Cup tournaments


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I've occasionally, very occasionally, played the beautiful game at its home. One can get a game there on any day if it isn't raining, often an international. 
For England World Cup internationals I'm usually sent to my garden shed, in case I adversely influence the game!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> I am so excited for this year's world cup! This will be the first world cup in my adult life that is not spent in Iraq.  I can't wait for the USA team to be bounced in the group play! Two things I will never understand about the United States:
> 1. Why do we still use the English system? Fully switch over to the metric system already!
> 2. Why is Football (Soccer) popular everywhere, but not so in the United States?
> 
> One of the biggest sports tournaments in the world is about to start and you wouldn't know anything other than summer is going on here in Maryland. Seriously though, I hope the US team does well, but I don't see us making it out of group play.


There are some good US players; Brad Freidel, for example, has just signed up for another season at Spurs.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

1... While I didn't do any grocery shopping during my last trip to London in April, during my studies there several years ago, I remember prices being listed in both kilos and pounds. Perhaps this has changed? The U.S. on the other hand would need to have a federal standard as to teaching the metric system at an early age but there seems to be quite a bit of debate as to how far the feds can "interfer" in education. Starting off with both systems working together seems to be a good way to go but I would also think such a change may be cost prohibitive. Just think of all the highway signs that would need to be changed alone. Businesses would need to be required to change everything around as well which is also quite expensive.

2... Umm. The U.S. has baseball as in "As American as Apple pie and Baseball". It seems to have been a deliberate attempt to divorce themselves from Europe. I remember that at one point we had "The Chicago Sting" but lack of interest drove them out of business (and sports are indeed a major business [the clippers just sold for $2 billion didn't they?])

I myself am not a sports fan at all. While I like going to games in person for the social aspect, I would never sit at home and Watch any sport. When Switzerland hosted the World cup (or something along those lines) a few years ago, we had several public areas set up to Watch the games & I enjoyed the atmosphere at such locations with my first born (who was still a baby at the time). Otherwise I had no real interest. I of course had my "favorites" based off of my heritage and residence (Netherlands and Switzerland) but other than a passing thought, it didn't really bother me when both eventually failed.

Oh. Funny story... When I was studying in London a few years earlier they had a major tournement going on (perhaps the same thing?), I had gone out to eat and the crowd kept getting bigger. I had a primo spot sitting in front of the tv. When I was done with my meal, I asked for the check and decided to leave, The waitress asked if I wasn't staying for the game. I was a bit puzzled, said no, and walked out. As the game featured England I suppose I was guilty of Heresy. lol.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

England out after the group matches. At which point my allegiance will turn to Italy.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

It's kicked off!

To get the blood pumping - what could be more English than the Pet Shop Boys version of Jerusalem?

*England! **England!* *England! EN-GER-LAND!!






*


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> It's kicked off!
> 
> To get the blood pumping - what could be more English than the Pet Shop Boys version of Jerusalem?
> 
> ...


Sorry Shaver, but to quote from a cartoon I saw in yesterday's paper, I'm afraid you're about to have a very painful lesson in Englishness.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Sorry Shaver, but to quote from a cartoon I saw in yesterday's paper, I'm afraid you're about to have a very painful lesson in Englishness.


Mr Langham Sir - you of all people should recognise that adversity strengthens the English soul.

"Every Blitz your resistance toughening,
From the Ritz to the Anchor and Crown"


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Admirable sentiments (as ever) Shaver.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

If the US can get a result against Ghana, I actually hold out hope of us progressing. We have gotten points off of them the last 2 times we have had them in our group (1 draw, 1 win if memory serves). This is the greatest sporting event in the world, but I absolutely hate that it can be so totally influenced by the referee. That call yesterday against Croatia was disgusting and the one called when Croatia equalized was almost as bad. Brazil did not deserve that win in any way shape or form. 

On the dearth of US players, I think most of it simply comes from the fact that our best athletes head to other sports and it takes a long time to be good at soccer. You here stories all the time of guys picking up basketball or US football and making the NFL with very little experience. That just doesn't happen in soccer, and in addition, the game requires abundant nuance, patience, and not a whole lot of scoring - none of which are particularly strong points of us Americans. Another hurdle has been that it is a much more physical - brutal even - game, and most Americans who play it simply aren't used to that.

I think we have reached a tipping point though where more and more good athletes are choosing soccer and it certainly has a very strong cult following in the US.

It will be very interesting to see what the Belgians can pull off. Assuming they don't kill each other first, lol.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

The Chicago Sting resurfaced as the Chicago Fire and is thriving very nicely. Attendance is very good and local TV ratings are good.

Even though one of my associates played college "football" at the D1 level, my daughter plays, and as a hockey player in a former life, I can appreciate the skill sets of endurance, strength, passing and isolating 2 on 1s, I find the sport somewhat dull even at the Cup level. Of course, this may simply be sour grapes on my part in that several Cups ago, I lost a wager on Team Italy. The game went into overtime kicks and the player kicked the ball over the net. How a player on a such a kick boots the ball over a net that huge is beyond my comprehension. As to most of the players themselves, I tend to get confused as to whether I am watching a football match or the Olympian High Diving Board event.

Despite my wallet being somewhat lighter as a result of said miscue by the Italian player, I do hope the tournament goes well and is all that the fans of all countries' teams hope it to be. Enjoy!


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Just noticed this thread!

I'm a fan of the US team (because I live here...) but I'm a HUGE Germany fan. We had a German foreign exchange student living with us during the 06 World Cup, and he came to visit us for the summer during the 10 World Cup. After those two summers, I'm probably the biggest Deutschland fan in this part of Texas lol.

speaking of which, in an hour: LOS GHET'S DEUTSCHLAND, KÄMPFEN UND SIEGEN!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

GO ORANGE!!!!! (Or otherwise. HOP SUISSE.). As a third choice... TEAM USA...


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

And now for this part of the day:

USA! USA! USA!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

WOOT!!!!!!!!

Gritty win by the US. Not the prettiest, but given that we had to take 2 starters off in the first half with hammies, grit over grace was what was required. That's the kind of win that can start a run.

I just hope that everyone can play by the next match.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

After yesterday's games, I think that Germany will take some beating. The best team that I've seen so far.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

There is a terribly unsporting amount of cheating going on in these games. Any player who falls as if pole-axed from a slight tap should be hung, drawn and quartered and their heads displayed in the player's tunnel. This may dissuade others from similar behaviour. You won't see the English indulge in these kind of shennanigans, that's for certain.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

What can one expect from foreigners. Decent enough in their own way I suppose, but ........


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tonight's match is so important that Rik Mayall himself has risen from the grave to spur us on.....

Once more onto the pitch dear friends, once more


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bye bye Spain. 

About a month before it all started we were guessing at work as to the finalists, and I said, "Germany v Argentina in the final but I'd love to see a Germany v England or a Germany v Italy final"

But I seriously think it will be a Euro v S. America final


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Bye bye Spain.
> 
> About a month before it all started we were guessing at work as to the finalists, and I said, "Germany v Argentina in the final but I'd love to see a Germany v England or a Germany v Italy final"
> 
> But I seriously think it will be a Euro v S. America final


Germany vs England in the final? We can but dream....

sing along: two world wars and one world cup, do-dar do-dar, two world wars and one world cup, do-dar do-dar day.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Germany vs England in the final? We can but dream....
> 
> sing along: two world wars and one world cup, do-dar do-dar, two world wars and one world cup, do-dar do-dar day.


My local Tesco has a large television showing an endless loop of England vs Germany from 1966.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Odradek said:


> My local Tesco has a large television showing an endless loop of England vs Germany from 1966.


I have a similar set-up located in my brain. :redface:

They think it's all over.........


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Cough cough Deutschland Vor! Noch ein Tor! Cough cough

:aportnoy::biggrin::tongue2:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

"Let's let them feel they're swell again 
and bomb us all to hell again,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun"


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

My Chilean wife has brainwashed our children into being fervent Chile supporters. They've been wearing team jerseys and everything else they can find in Chile's national colors nonstop for the past week.

I'm just going along for the ride.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> My Chilean wife has brainwashed our children into being fervent Chile supporters. They've been wearing team jerseys and everything else they can find in Chile's national colors nonstop for the past week.
> 
> I'm just going along for the ride.


That is one reason why the world cup is so awesome. It makes otherwise normal, well adjusted people and makes them completely and irrationally nutso.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> That is one reason why the world cup is so awesome. It makes otherwise normal, well adjusted people and makes them completely and irrationally nutso.


My 2-yr old, who understands nothing, has taken to shouting out, "Gol de Chile!"


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> I am so excited for this year's world cup! This will be the first world cup in my adult life that is not spent in Iraq.  I can't wait for the USA team to be bounced in the group play! Two things I will never understand about the United States:
> 1. Why do we still use the English system? Fully switch over to the metric system already!
> 2. Why is Football (Soccer) popular everywhere, but not so in the United States?
> 
> One of the biggest sports tournaments in the world is about to start and you wouldn't know anything other than summer is going on here in Maryland. Seriously though, I hope the US team does well, but I don't see us making it out of group play.


Okay, once again so I'm sure I have it right: "World Cup" is like the Super Bowl, but for soccer, and soccer is the one where you can't catch the ball, right?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

phyrpowr said:


> Okay, once again so I'm sure I have it right: "World Cup" is like the Super Bowl, but for soccer, and soccer is the one where you can't catch the ball, right?


The world cup is like the super bowl crossed with the olympics every day for a month.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Would the England football Team please go to Departure Gate 66, your aircrew are doing their pre-flight checks!


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Shaver said:


> I have a similar set-up located in my brain. :redface:
> 
> They think it's all over.........


It is now.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Odradek said:


> It is now.


Ouch. Just ouch. Humorous, but ouch.....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> England out after the group matches. At which point my allegiance will turn to Italy.


Like I said a week ago. Viva Italia!


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

vpkozel said:


> Ouch. Just ouch. Humorous, but ouch.....


Supposedly the most famous quote in football history.



> "*They think it's all over*" is a quote from Kenneth Wolstenholme'sBBC TV commentary in the closing moments of the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final, when England beat West Germany 4-2 after extra time to win the FIFA World Cup. In the final few seconds of the match, Wolstenholme said : _And here comes Hurst! He's got... _(Wolstenholme's attention is diverted by some of the crowd spilling onto the pitch)
> _Some people are on the pitch! They think it's all over!
> _(Geoff Hurst scores to put England two goals ahead)
> _It is now, it's four!
> ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

That buck tooth little monkey, damn his eyes. 

And damn the England defense.

We are now relying on our dear friends the Italians (please accept my sincere apologies for referring to you as 'eye-ties' earlier in the thread, it was of course meant affectionately *ahem*) Viva Italia!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

phyrpowr said:


> Okay, once again so I'm sure I have it right: "World Cup" is like the Super Bowl, but for soccer, and soccer is the one where you can't catch the ball, right?


Only the World Cup is for countries all over the world to play in, rather than the "World Series", in which I understand that only American teams play.....


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> That buck tooth little monkey, damn his eyes.
> 
> And damn the England defense.
> 
> We are now relying on our dear friends the Italians (please accept my sincere apologies for referring to you as 'eye-ties' earlier in the thread, it was of course meant affectionately *ahem*) Viva Italia!


It was a masterly goal - Suarez made most of our team look as if they were wearing lead boots.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> It was a masterly goal - Suarez made most of our team look as if they were wearing lead boots.


Are you suggesting that Gerard and Lampard weren't? I thought that they always did when playing for England.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> It was a masterly goal - Suarez made most of our team look as if they were wearing lead boots.


It was a soft goal and a disgrace that the England squad allowed it to occur - the football equivalent of a two move check mate. A Sunday league team would be ashamed to concede in such a fashion.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> It was a soft goal and a disgrace that the England squad allowed it to occur - the football equivalent of a two move check mate. A Sunday league team would be ashamed to concede in such a fashion.


It should never have been allowed to happen - where were the defenders? - but I suspect there are very few players who could have exploited the sudden opportunity in such a way, and with some sort of oncoming leg strain. But I'm by no means an aficionado of the game.

Have too many overpaid foreign players choked off the native talent?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> It should never have been allowed to happen - where were the defenders? - but I suspect there are very few players who could have exploited the sudden opportunity in such a way, and with some sort of oncoming leg strain. But I'm by no means an aficionado of the game.
> 
> Have too many overpaid foreign players choked off the native talent?


Yes, to an extent. It is much easier for a football club, a business after all, to buy in the finished article than to train home grown talent, which takes planning, time, effort and expenditure. Although most big clubs have "academies" to train younger British players, they are limited in numbers attending. 
The other, indeed, the main problem, is the perception of talent in early years. A lad who is big for his age, who can kick the ball harder and further than the rest of his team, and who can intimidate opposing players by his size, is thought of as a "good" player. The clever, skillful, smaller lad, who understands the game, is always in space, passes well and is fast and useful, but who is easily shouldered off the ball by the big lads, is ignored. Because the managers of boys' teams want their teams to win, above all else, they always pick the big lads. Consequently, by the time the skillful smaller lad is 15 or so, he has lost interest in his youth team because, although he has always attended training, and every match, and loves the game, he is rarely picked, isn't appreciated when he has played, because he hasn't "got stuck in", and gives up, leaving the organised sport. Consequently many of the potentially good "flair" players never play beyond 14-15 or so, at least not for teams, and are thus never seen by scouts. The big lads, however, most of them, when they are scouted and get the coveted place in an "academy" turn out to not be very good once they don't have the advantage of size, and go no further.
For example, Belgium's youth squad of 10 years ago is now Belgium's national squad. Of Britain's youth squad of 10 years ago, only 2, 2 out of 20+, were considered good enough to be in the current national squad.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I wonder why that should be a specifically British problem? I mean, don't the Belgians have pushy tall lads too?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Yes, to an extent. It is much easier for a football club, a business after all, to buy in the finished article than to train home grown talent, which takes planning, time, effort and expenditure. Although most big clubs have "academies" to train younger British players, they are limited in numbers attending.
> The other, indeed, the main problem, is the perception of talent in early years. A lad who is big for his age, who can kick the ball harder and further than the rest of his team, and who can intimidate opposing players by his size, is thought of as a "good" player. The clever, skillful, smaller lad, who understands the game, is always in space, passes well and is fast and useful, but who is easily shouldered off the ball by the big lads, is ignored. Because the managers of boys' teams want their teams to win, above all else, they always pick the big lads. Consequently, by the time the skillful smaller lad is 15 or so, he has lost interest in his youth team because, although he has always attended training, and every match, and loves the game, he is rarely picked, isn't appreciated when he has played, because he hasn't "got stuck in", and gives up, leaving the organised sport. Consequently many of the potentially good "flair" players never play beyond 14-15 or so, at least not for teams, and are thus never seen by scouts. The big lads, however, most of them, when they are scouted and get the coveted place in an "academy" turn out to not be very good once they don't have the advantage of size, and go no further.
> For example, Belgium's youth squad of 10 years ago is now Belgium's national squad. Of Britain's youth squad of 10 years ago, only 2, 2 out of 20+, were considered good enough to be in the current national squad.


In my own limited (but direct) experience of football academies the tendency is for the larger clubs to harvest most of the decent lads from the academies of lower division teams - then promptly forget about them. Many a promising career has floundered in this manner. My favoured domestic team LUFC has been a noisy campaigner against this ruinous practice. https://metro.co.uk/2006/10/28/leeds-accept-chelsea-settlement-295826/


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ I wonder why that should be a specifically British problem? I mean, don't the Belgians have pushy tall lads too?


Of course, but the Belgian FA are far more involved at the schoolboy level, with far more control over who manages youth teams and how, with the specific purpose of ensuring that Belgium has an outstanding national team. This was a deliberate, long term policy that they started about 15 years ago. We've talked about it for about 15 years, but haven't actually done anything. Given the quality of the Belgian squad, and the size of the population, it would appear that their plan is working!


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

tocqueville said:


> My Chilean wife has brainwashed our children into being fervent Chile supporters. They've been wearing team jerseys and everything else they can find in Chile's national colors nonstop for the past week.
> 
> I'm just going along for the ride.


tell your wife I appreciate her countrymen making quick work of Spain


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Only the World Cup is for countries all over the world to play in, rather than the "World Series", in which I understand that only American teams play.....


Not true at all. Toronto has a team lol...


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Darn Ghana! Giving the US hope that we will make it to the elimination round!


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

I can't believe Portugal pulled out a goal at the end. The US still controls their own destiny though so it isn't that bad.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Wow! what a great football weekend for Africa. 
Ghana's fantastic draw against The Fatherland.
Algeria giving South Korea a good kicking! 
And Nigeria beating Bos-Herc. 

I'd love to see an African team in a final for the first time ever! And imagine a South America v Africa final!

Only twice before has the final not included a Euro team:
1930 Uruguay 4 - 2 Argentina
1950 Uruguay 2 - 1 Brazil 

Also, and this fact is a bit scary and a heavy psychological weight for Germany, Italy and Holland. No Euro team has EVER won the cup anywhere in the Americas:

1930 - Uruguay at home
1950 - Uruguay in Brazil
1962 - Brazil in Chile
1970 - Brazil in Mexico
1978 - Argentina at home
1986 - Argentina in Mexico
1994 - Brazil in USA


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)




----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Today is the day, the final skirmish. We are defeated. But..... we better damn well go down fighting!










*"take up your arms, pick up your courage
a black sun is rising as the gods of Europe sleep
come back into your strength - awaken"*


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Today is the day, the final skirmish. We are defeated. But..... we better damn well go down fighting!
> *"*


A triumph of optimism over experience. I have seen Fulham flop Bryan Ruiz many times and know him to be a useless, timid, big girls blouse - but he will probably score the winning goal now.

Halliche was another Fulham no mark who scored for Algeria. Clint Dempsey is an awesome player who would get greater respect if he was German rather American. No good when he returned to Fulham though.

I was actually in the stadium when England won a World Cup semi final. Also saw the 3rd/4th place final at Wembley. Tickets were sensible prices in those days too.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> *A triumph of optimism over experience*. I have seen Fulham flop Bryan Ruiz many times and know him to be a useless, timid, big girls blouse - but he will probably score the winning goal now.
> 
> Halliche was another Fulham no mark who scored for Algeria. Clint Dempsey is an awesome player who would get greater respect if he was German rather American. No good when he returned to Fulham though.
> 
> I was actually in the stadium when England won a World Cup semi final. Also saw the 3rd/4th place final at Wembley. Tickets were sensible prices in those days too.


That will probably be the epithet on my tombstone.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> A triumph of optimism over experience. I have seen Fulham flop Bryan Ruiz many times and know him to be a useless, timid, big girls blouse - but he will probably score the winning goal now.
> 
> Halliche was another Fulham no mark who scored for Algeria. Clint Dempsey is an awesome player who would get greater respect if he was German rather American. No good when he returned to Fulham though.
> 
> I was actually in the stadium when England won a World Cup semi final. Also saw the 3rd/4th place final at Wembley. Tickets were sensible prices in those days too.


Whoa! It has just sunk in - you saw the '66 team win the semi-final?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Whoa! It has just sunk in - you saw the '66 team win the semi-final?


Yes. You could see the twin towers from our bedroom window. Also saw England beat Argentina in the quarter finals - the appropriately-named Rattin " animals" etc. Ten bob for a ticket plus half a crown profit to the the tout. Sport was sensibly priced in those days


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

I also remember the Golden Age when Roy of the Rovers still had a short back and sides. " Play up and play the game" for the working man. *



Now they are just as bad as the foreigners with all the diving and cheating. I still think of Latin footballers as brilliantined, moustachioed types though. Still think Italy wrote the book on cheating, but I overlook a brutal foul by a German goalkeeper because it is blatant, not sneaky.

"Race was aptly named, trumpeting attitudes to foreigners which could be charitably described as being a good width of Big Ron’s bulbous head to the right of the Daily Mail. In the early years of the 1950s and 1960s – during which he was regularly kidnapped by swarthy Latin types, and once drugged while on tour in Australia by a poison dart launched by an “Abbo” – this take on foreign cultures could just about be explained away by the times, Rovers coming from a country still reeling from loss of Empire. But from the 1970s onwards, there really was no excuse. The “continentals” would regularly be portrayed kicking lumps out of their opponents, deploying cheeky antifútbol tactics that would have put Estudiantes to shame. Even as late as the early 1990s, Italian sides would be depicted surrounding referees demanding sending offs for spurious offences, while the national team of the USA once resorted to utilising hi-tech bugging equipment in the English changing room in order to lug in on whatever vacant nonsense Race was jabbering to his charges at half-time. Racey’s sides, visibly piqued at the saucy boldness of Johnny’s wily ways, would inevitably storm onto the pitch with a steely determination to mete out a few strokes of punishment, the last lash inevitably coming from Racey’s left boot of justice."

*

There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night -
Ten to make and the match to win -
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"


The sand of the desert is sodden red, -
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; -
The Gatling's jammed and the colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of schoolboy rallies the ranks,
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"


This is the word that year by year
While in her place the School is set
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with a joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind -
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I read many of the adventures of Melchester Rovers but 'Look Out for Lefty' was more my era - from the notorious banned British children's weekly 'Action' :


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> I read many of the adventures of Melchester Rovers but 'Look Out for Lefty' was more my era - from the notorious banned British children's weekly 'Action' :


We were also blessed with Alf Tupper, who was just as important on the athletics track. His main problem was not Johnny Foreigner but snooty, upper class types (Sebastian Coe's forebears?)

and he " ran them all" on a diet of fish and chips!

A credit to his country.

https://www.toughofthetrack.net/index2.htm


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> We were also blessed with Alf Tupper, who was just as important on the athletics track. His main problem was not Johnny Foreigner but snooty, upper class types (Sebastian Coe's forebears?)
> 
> and he " ran them all" on a diet of fish and chips!
> 
> ...


Those 50's through 70's British comics were packed with utterly wonderful characters - the Spider, Janus Stark, Cursitor Doom, Grimly Fiendish..... :thumbs-up:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> We were also blessed with Alf Tupper, who was just as important on the athletics track. His main problem was not Johnny Foreigner but snooty, upper class types (Sebastian Coe's forebears?)
> 
> and he " ran them all" on a diet of fish and chips!
> 
> ...


As Peter Coe, Sebastian Coe's father was a Merchant Seaman, does it mean that I'm also upper class!? I'm not sure about Sebastian Coe's Indian forbears.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Congratulation to the USA for making it through to the next round. They so nearly scored against Germany as well!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Congratulation to the USA for making it through to the next round. They so nearly scored against Germany as well!


What a game for the first game of the first knock-out round! I'm inclined to think that they should go to a toss of a coin rather than to penalties! The Chileno defence was really good, despite their small stature. That two of the three played for Cardiff and Brighton & Hove Albion speaks volumes for the manager and the team itself.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> What a game for the first game of the first knock-out round! I'm inclined to think that they should go to a toss of a coin rather than to penalties! The Chileno defence was really good, despite their small stature. That two of the three played for Cardiff and Brighton & Hove Albion speaks volumes for the manager and the team itself.


What a shame.
I didn't see the match, but after the opening game of the tournament I really would like to see Brazil knocked out.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Chouan said:


> What a game for the first game of the first knock-out round! I'm inclined to think that they should go to a toss of a coin rather than to penalties! The Chileno defence was really good, despite their small stature. That two of the three played for Cardiff and Brighton & Hove Albion speaks volumes for the manager and the team itself.


It was quite the game. You could tell at the end that Chile was doing their best to make it to penalty kicks. They wasted a great opportunity to upset Brazil. What a way to start off the elimination round. I don't think they will make it past the Netherlands tomorrow, but, ¡Viva El Tri! Have to support my family's nation.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

A few minutes from upsetting the Netherlands, El Tri gives up two goals (one should have never happened) in the end to continue their streak of first round elimination exits. USA, you are now my only hope.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> A few minutes from upsetting the Netherlands, El Tri gives up two goals (one should have never happened) in the end to continue their streak of first round elimination exits. USA, you are now my only hope.


It was never a penalty; the Netherlands continue to cheat their way forward.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Robben, you cheating bastard! That Mexican didn't touch you ANYWHERE! I've never liked the Dutch or their football, I like them even less now for knocking Mexico out! I was hoping they would also get knocked out to join their cheating cousins Portugal!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

As much as I want Germany to win this match against Algeria (it's half-time as I write), wouldn't it be great to see a France v Algeria match? Which would undoubtedly be the greatest needle match of the tournament. And the way Germany played in the first half & the immense pressure Algeria put them under, there is no guarantee that Germany will win, as most have expected and are expecting.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I've now watched three World Cup games in their entirety; if it wasn't for the patriotic element and nationalist rivalries, not sure I would watch soccer at all. I love low-scoring games; I'm a baseball fan who believes that a 2-1 or 1-0 game is superior to lots of homers and runs scored. But a few things irk me about soccer (please keep in mind I'm a neophyte):

1) Seems to be a lack of sustained offense. Chances are fleeting, and pressure upon the defense is rare. Watching the Stanley Cup Finals one could see sustained attacks by one team, often for the majority of a period, even in a low-scoring game. Not in soccer.
2) Very little transition from defense to offense. Again, in hockey one can see how a team can go very quickly from defending in their own zone to launching their own attack; didn't see much of this at all (even while watching Germany, Netherlands, and others). When it did happen, it was very short-lived.
3) In most sports, the truly great players tend to stand out. Cabrera, Trout, Lundqvist, Crosby, James, etc. I didn't sense that I was watching greatness in World Cup; the players seemed essentially interchangeable.
4) The whining, diving, and faux injuries are sickening. So unsportsmanlike, so repulsive to anyone who has ever played a sport without resorting to such tactics.
5) Seems like there are too many players on the field (pitch!). Lots of milling around at midfield, with little room to maneuver.
6) Hate the offsides rule! Maybe if there was a zone or line into which an offensive player could not precede the ball (similar to hockey) it would be more acceptable, but to be offsides when just a few feet in front of the goalkeeper? Seems too restrictive.
7) Appears to be less cerebral than baseball, but I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't know if there was something more profound happening at a deeper level that I'm simply oblivious to because of my inexperience.

Please enlighten me, soccer lovers - but be gentle. I'm willing to learn!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Well Tiger, you can start learning by calling it football not soccer.  Only US citizens call it soccer. 
Soccer was a British slang word in the 19th century for association football, created from the word as*soc*iation that was used by the practitioners of other sports, primarily to differentiate it from rugby football.

Your No.1 point is wrong on all counts. Pressure on defence is constant not rare. Offence is constant not unsustained.

Your No. 2 point has nothing to do with football, you have misunderstood the essence of the sport and the method of play. It is clear from what you write that you just want to see a high scoring end-to-end repetitive sport, in which case, football is not the sport for you to watch. Stick with basketball.

Football is called the beautiful game and is the largest sport in the world, for the simple reason that it isn't like basketball or ice hockey, unlike those very repetitive sports on small playing areas, football is not an end to end, turn around then let the other team play end to end and repeat for the whole match.

No. 3 football is a team sport

No. 4 Really? You think the boxing in ice hockey is enjoyable?

No. 5 Really? have you ever watched a basketball or american football match?

No. 6 Really? You clearly don't understand it, it is less restrictive than the ice hockey rule.

No. 7 So what? Football is the most natural sport to play, it is simple and graceful, unlike American football, which plays for 7 seconds (average) then stops for 2 minutes throughout a whole game!!!

Doesn't seem to me that you need enlightening just that you need to try to understand it from watching or attending more games. If you don't like it fair enough but stop comparing it to other sports, that is just pointless. That's like comparing beef with salmon, tastes in all things vary.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Tiger said:


> I've now watched three World Cup games in their entirety; if it wasn't for the patriotic element and nationalist rivalries, not sure I would watch soccer at all. I love low-scoring games; I'm a baseball fan who believes that a 2-1 or 1-0 game is superior to lots of homers and runs scored. But a few things irk me about soccer (please keep in mind I'm a neophyte):
> 
> 1) Seems to be a lack of sustained offense. Chances are fleeting, and pressure upon the defense is rare. Watching the Stanley Cup Finals one could see sustained attacks by one team, often for the majority of a period, even in a low-scoring game. Not in soccer.
> 2) Very little transition from defense to offense. Again, in hockey one can see how a team can go very quickly from defending in their own zone to launching their own attack; didn't see much of this at all (even while watching Germany, Netherlands, and others). When it did happen, it was very short-lived.
> ...


I'm not a football fan by any stretch of the imagination, and only ever watch the World Cup and the Euros, and not having a TV for the past year, seeing very little of the current one.
Apart from your point number 4, which is very valid, I can't understand what you're talking about. The game flows, unlike American Football, which is all stops and starts and isn't really a game at all.

And less cerebral than baseball? Is there anything less cerebral than baseball?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^^ I agree with point 5, Tiger - there are too many players getting in the way. Five-a-side is a much better game.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Odradek said:


> I'm not a football fan by any stretch of the imagination, and only ever watch the World Cup and the Euros, and not having a TV for the past year, seeing very little of the current one.
> Apart from your point number 4, which is very valid, I can't understand what you're talking about. The game flows, unlike American Football, which is all stops and starts and isn't really a game at all.
> 
> And less cerebral than baseball? Is there anything less cerebral than baseball?


As I wrote, I am very new to football, so there are things that experienced devotees of the game see that I simply don't. I have no love for American football either, for many more reasons than you listed. Baseball is very cerebral; perhaps you, similar to me re: football, just don't appreciate the nuances. Your last sentence couldn't be more wrong.

Remember, I genuinely asked to be enlightened - saying that "you don't know what I'm talking about" isn't exactly explicative or enlightening...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Langham said:


> ^^ I agree with point 5, Tiger - there are too many players getting in the way. Five-a-side is a much better game.


Either you're poking fun at my ignorance, or you wish to radically change the game...


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Either you're poking fun at my ignorance, or you wish to radically change the game...


No, I wasn't doing that. Five-a-side is a real game.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Langham said:


> No, I wasn't doing that. Five-a-side is a real game.


Thank you, Langham. From your previous posts, it is obvious that you're too much of a gentlemen to be derisive (unlike some of the comments above). I recognize that I have much to learn, and was hoping that the vast number of European and American fans of football could help with that.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Your No.1 point is wrong on all counts. Pressure on defence is constant not rare. Offence is constant not unsustained.
> 
> Your No. 2 point has nothing to do with football, you have misunderstood the essence of the sport and the method of play. It is clear from what you write that you just want to see a high scoring end-to-end repetitive sport, in which case, football is not the sport for you to watch. Stick with basketball.
> 
> ...


Why Earl, how gentle, thoughtful, and enlightening of you? How do you say "Christian kindness" in Church Latin?

I watched all of Germany vs. Algeria yesterday and two earlier games; even the announcers thought there was very little attack - sustained or not - in the game. To say that it is "constant" clashes with what I watched. There are football matches where one can count the scoring attempts/threats on one hand. This is neither good nor bad, but a matter of preference. Don't make the game something it isn't&#8230;

As I've now written multiple times, I am very new to football, and have much to learn. I also wrote that I am a baseball fan (a true purist), and love low-scoring games. Yet, you presume to tell me that I like "high scoring end-to-end repetitive sports&#8230;stick with basketball." I hate basketball, almost as much as you hate reading an entire post. Why would you presume something so very different than what I explicitly wrote?

There is tremendous drama and excitement in hockey; perhaps that is why it is a beloved international sport as well. Please don't belittle one sport in order to defend another. It cheapens your support of football (if indeed you have one; it really is hard to find).

Even in team sports, stars shine. Isn't this true of Messi, Ronaldo, Muller, Neuer, and others? Most can see the transcendence of certain players, even in football. Otherwise, it makes no sense to praise/assail players. I like the gestalt philosophy of sports, too, but the team isn't simply one amorphous unit.

When did I say that I enjoy fighting in hockey? Or anything about basketball or American football? I don't at all. What is the purpose of adding such stray and silly comments? Being so disagreeable and defensive isn't helping me to understand the "beautiful game"; if anything, it makes me wonder if there's more validity to my observations than I initially thought.

I didn't realize that comparing and contrasting different sports was somehow forbidden. I would think that anyone who loved football would welcome comparing and contrasting their favorite sport to that of others (in my case, baseball, despite your repeated attempts to say otherwise) - seems like an intelligent and fun exercise. I have no such compunctions (or lack of confidence).

You wrote that I "don't need enlightening just that you need to try to understand it from watching or attending more games." Isn't my request for enlightenment an attempt to gain that very understanding? From your seemingly angry and defensive remarks above, you are clearly not the person to provide that.

I hope someone more patient, temperate, and knowledgeable can help&#8230;


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Yea, whatever! If you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yea, whatever! If you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen.


Such a thoughtful response!

The point is that you turned queries about a game/set of observations into an attempt at a heated debate where one was not warranted. My comments were genuine; you went on the attack. I'll assume that you are incapable of defending "the beautiful game" as well as incapable of reason.

Hopefully, others will post in a more sincere and temperate fashion; would hate to base an opinion of football on the comments you made. You're a very poor spokesman for a game you purport to love and understand...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

yea, whatever!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> There is tremendous drama and excitement in hockey; perhaps that is why it is a beloved international sport as well. Please don't belittle one sport in order to defend another. It cheapens your support of football (if indeed you have one; it really is hard to find).
> 
> Even in team sports, stars shine. Isn't this true of Messi, Ronaldo, Muller, Neuer, and others? Most can see the transcendence of certain players, even in football. Otherwise, it makes no sense to praise/assail players. I like the gestalt philosophy of sports, too, but the team isn't simply one amorphous unit.
> 
> When did I say that I enjoy fighting in hockey? Or anything about basketball or American football? I don't at all. What is the purpose of adding such stray and silly comments? Being so disagreeable and defensive isn't helping me to understand the "beautiful game"; if anything, it makes me wonder if there's more validity to my observations than I initially thought.


I quite enjoy hockey myself, but I'm inclined to think that if one hasn't played it one's self then some of the skill can be missed, which, I suppose it is very rarely shown on television, except at the Olympics. I played it at school, although not to a very high level, indeed, not to any kind of recognisable level at all! I'm not sure about the reference to fighting in hockey, I've never seen a fight at a hockey match, fouls, yes, but never fighting.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I have this discussion every 4 years. I am an American who has played soccer (yes, I used that word instead of football on purpose) at a high level since I was 6 and have a couple of ponits.

To those who complain about the diving, writhing around on the pitch, etc., it really is no different than whatever your favorite contact sport is. I admit that there are certain players *cough* Robben *cough* that will fall over if you just look at them, for the most part, guys stay on their feet. Specifically on the writhing around issue. Let me put on a pair of soccer boots and either kick you as hard as I can in the shin or ankle or stomp on your bare foot (there is almost no padding on the top of a boot) and see how you react. Trust me, it hurts - a lot. But get some of the magic spray or walk it off for a bit and it's fine. 

A couple of other things. Offside is absolutely necessary to prevent cherry picking. 
You can't play soccer in OT until there is a winner and while it stinks, PKs are the best of all the other bad options. 
Anyone who says that there is no action just doesn't know what to look for 
Scoring in soccer is harder than in any other sport
It is most definitely a cerebral game and most definitely a contact sport.
The Dutch are generally about the most talented team, but they will find a way to screw it up somehow - usually internal strife
The "I believe" chant is one of the best around

Belgium is very good, but I think we can beat them. 

Go USA!!!!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> yea, whatever!


I'm starting to understand why the football Neanderthals attack each other before, during, and after matches. Seems like some "defenders" of the "beautiful game" are not particularly adept at defending it with intellect, but rather with ugliness...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I quite enjoy hockey myself, but I'm inclined to think that if one hasn't played it one's self then some of the skill can be missed, which, I suppose it is very rarely shown on television, except at the Olympics. I played it at school, although not to a very high level, indeed, not to any kind of recognisable level at all! I'm not sure about the reference to fighting in hockey, I've never seen a fight at a hockey match, fouls, yes, but never fighting.


"Father Earl" made reference to "boxing" in hockey; there is fighting in the NHL. I'm not a fan of it, although many are...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> I have this discussion every 4 years. I am an American who has played soccer (yes, I used that word instead of football on purpose) at a high level since I was 6 and have a couple of ponits.
> 
> To those who complain about the diving, writhing around on the pitch, etc., it really is no different than whatever your favorite contact sport is. I admit that there are certain players *cough* Robben *cough* that will fall over if you just look at them, for the most part, guys stay on their feet. Specifically on the writhing around issue. Let me put on a pair of soccer boots and either kick you as hard as I can in the shin or ankle or stomp on your bare foot (there is almost no padding on the top of a boot) and see how you react. Trust me, it hurts - a lot. But get some of the magic spray or walk it off for a bit and it's fine.
> 
> ...


Offside rules _are _necessary; the question is what type of rule to implement (in any game).

I didn't say that there wasn't "action" in football; I wrote about sustained offense and transition from defense to offense.

It may be a cerebral game, and I'm hoping that someone is willing to point out how that is so. You said it is, another poster attacked baseball, and Earl of Moron, I mean Ormonde, indicated that it wasn't.

The notion that the Dutch "cheat" is silly - aren't there officials who are supposed to ensure that this does not occur? If the Dutch try to cheat and get away with it, then the officiating is either poor or corrupt (I think the same is true in the NBA and NFL).


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Offside rules _are _necessary; the question is what type of rule to implement (in any game).
> 
> I didn't say that there wasn't "action" in football; I wrote about sustained offense and transition from defense to offense.
> 
> ...


The offside rule is pretty much perfect the way it is. You are just going to have to trust me on that. In fact, as a defender, I would say that it should go BACK to the way that it used to be where even is off.

Why it is cerebral is tough to explain to someone who doesn't have a lot of experience with the game. To continue the baseball analogy. Someone with no experience might not understand all of the things going on based on the pitch count, pitch type, location, etc. But all of that drives where the fielders are going to play, who covers second on a steal, if the first baseman is holding the runner on tightly or shifting to play behind him when the pitcher goes into his wind up, and all of the other little things that go into every pitch. Soccer is much the same way. In many ways, it is like chess, so while you see a bunch of guys standing around kicking the ball backwards sometimes, what I see is the team with the ball slowly advancing up field, probing for a weakness, getting defenders out of position, etc. Or, depending on the game situation, they very well could be trying to kill off the game by keeping possession, much like pounding the ball up the middle in football.

The fact is that this is a very hard game. Probably the hardest game there is in fact. It requires training, athleticism, creativity, intelligence, and often a willingness to sacrifice the individual goals for team goals.

And, considering you chastised someone earlier for not reading a post, I would submit that you should go back and read what I said about the Dutch. I never said that they cheat. I said they generally implode - most often from their own doing. As to Robben specifically, he has always gone over incredibly easy for both club and country. He is also exceptionally gifted and an absolute game changer. And I would also say that, given your unfamiliarity with the sport, you might not be the most qualified to determine whether someone is diving or not.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I am also a little curious why you keep banging on Messi. He has scored 4 of Argentina's 6 goals.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tiger, I didn't insult you once in my reply to your biased views of football. I was not angry, despite what you may think you know. I simply responded to your points in a straightforward manner. You asked for opinions, I responded. 
I never said word one about baseball, which is one of my favourite sports.

But you are racking up the insults to me at an astonishing rate. 
And that, and your language are unacceptable. 
Moderate your tone!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> I am also a little curious why you keep banging on Messi. He has scored 4 of Argentina's 6 goals.


?????

I mentioned Messi's name once, in the context of being an obvious star, as a rejoinder to a poster who said/implied that football is a team game without stars. Please re-read the post...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> The offside rule is pretty much perfect the way it is. You are just going to have to trust me on that. In fact, as a defender, I would say that it should go BACK to the way that it used to be where even is off.
> 
> Why it is cerebral is tough to explain to someone who doesn't have a lot of experience with the game. To continue the baseball analogy. Someone with no experience might not understand all of the things going on based on the pitch count, pitch type, location, etc. But all of that drives where the fielders are going to play, who covers second on a steal, if the first baseman is holding the runner on tightly or shifting to play behind him when the pitcher goes into his wind up, and all of the other little things that go into every pitch. Soccer is much the same way. In many ways, it is like chess, so while you see a bunch of guys standing around kicking the ball backwards sometimes, what I see is the team with the ball slowly advancing up field, probing for a weakness, getting defenders out of position, etc. Or, depending on the game situation, they very well could be trying to kill off the game by keeping possession, much like pounding the ball up the middle in football.
> 
> ...


This was a very informative post - something akin to what I was looking for...thank you!

I was referring to remarks made by Chouan and Earl that accused the Dutch of cheating. Sorry if I gave you the impression I was directing them at you. I should not have included my remarks in a response to you; I apologize.

Concerning diving: When I watch a reply and a player is either untouched or barely touched and proceeds to act as if he's been shot, that's diving. I do not need to be "qualified" to know that - just observant!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Tiger, I didn't insult you once in my reply to your biased views of football. I was not angry, despite what you may think you know. I simply responded to your points in a straightforward manner. You asked for opinions, I responded. I never said word one about baseball, which is one of my favourite sports. But you are racking up the insults to me at an astonishing rate. And that, and your language are unacceptable.
> Moderate your tone!


You can't be serious here? I guess I should respond with, "Yeah whatever" - you know, like you've done twice?

Lest you forget, here's what occurred: I expressed neophyte opinions and observations of football, hoping that AAAC members with knowledge of the game would show me where I am mistaken. That was my honest and asked for goal; there was no "bias."

What you call "a straightforward manner" was actually a response filled with snarky, dismissive, insulting cheapshots that a) ignored much of what I said, b) ascribed things to me that simply were false (even though I said otherwise in my post), and c) made it very clear that I had no understanding of the game (well, wasn't that why I posted?). Thus, your remark infers that I must be too stupid to understand the obvious things that *you *know (but are incapable of describing).

When I pointed this out, defended/expanded on my initial post - and took exception to your belligerence - you told me, "If I can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." You then twice responded with the asinine "yeah, whatever" comments.

Yet, it is *my *language that is unacceptable? I must moderate *my *tone? But you have carte blanche to do and write as you wish? Your hypocrisy is stunning; perhaps now you'll realize why I chose to make the comments that I did. Please take the plank out of your own eye, Earl...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> "Father Earl" made reference to "boxing" in hockey; there is fighting in the NHL. I'm not a fan of it, although many are...


Sorry, boxing then. I've never seen anything that could even remotely be described as boxing, or fighting, in hockey. I've been cracked across the knuckles a few times, and around the shins and knees, but nothing that could be described as boxing, in any match I've seen.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> This was a very informative post - something akin to what I was looking for...thank you!
> 
> I was referring to remarks made by Chouan and Earl that accused the Dutch of cheating. Sorry if I gave you the impression I was directing them at you. I should not have included my remarks in a response to you; I apologize.
> 
> Concerning diving: When I watch a reply and a player is either untouched or barely touched and proceeds to act as if he's been shot, that's diving. I do not need to be "qualified" to know that - just observant!


I did indeed. Robben actually admitted after the game that he'd dived. Diving is cheating. Deliberately deceiving the referee is cheating. How else would you describe it?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Sorry, boxing then. I've never seen anything that could even remotely be described as boxing, or fighting, in hockey. I've been cracked across the knuckles a few times, and around the shins and knees, but nothing that could be described as boxing, in any match I've seen.


It still occurs in the NHL, but fortunately, far less than it used to happen. In the 1970s and 1980s, bench-clearing brawls where multiple players were fighting on the ice at the same time were commonplace. It gave the sport a black eye, if you'll pardon the obvious (and terrible) pun!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> It still occurs in the NHL, but fortunately, far less than it used to happen. In the 1970s and 1980s, bench-clearing brawls where multiple players were fighting on the ice at the same time were commonplace. It gave the sport a black eye, if you'll pardon the obvious (and terrible) pun!


Oh, Ice Hockey! I thought that hockey was being referred to, not it's bastard child.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I did indeed. Robben actually admitted after the game that he'd dived. Diving is cheating. Deliberately deceiving the referee is cheating. How else would you describe it?


I mostly agree, but at risk of being too nuanced, my point was this: Some players in all sports do things that are attempts at cheating. It is in the hands of those officiating to prevent the action/penalize the behavior/expel the player(s) who do such things. If players try to cheat, and the officials allow it with impunity, it is the officiating that has permitted the game to become corrupt.

So, I guess the best way to say it is this: players attempt to cheat, but officials must not allow it, since they are the ones with the power to summarily stop it.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> This was a very informative post - something akin to what I was looking for...thank you!
> 
> I was referring to remarks made by Chouan and Earl that accused the Dutch of cheating. Sorry if I gave you the impression I was directing them at you. I should not have included my remarks in a response to you; I apologize.
> 
> Concerning diving: When I watch a reply and a player is either untouched or barely touched and proceeds to act as if he's been shot, that's diving. I do not need to be "qualified" to know that - just observant!


One thing you should do if you watch any more games is not to watch the ball. Watch the guys running off of the ball into spaces, because then you will appreciate the forethought that goes into things. And also look at how often the defending team gets just a piece of the ball to direct it off target, or how the pass is just off the mark by a hair. Since you like baseball, many of the things that you aren't seeing or realizing is like when a guy puts a pitch just out of the strike zone on an 0-2 count with a guy on 1st and 1 out. Why not see if you can get the batter to make a mistake and swing at a close ball rather than give him a strike.

And to further relating diving to baseball - Greg Maddux got close calls, Mike Maddux didn't. As the ump famously was said to have told the rookie grumbling about not getting strike calls on Ted Williams. "Son," the ump reportedly said "Mr. Williams will let you know it's a strike by swinging at it." The bottom line on that is that I have been playing all of my life and at full speed it is still hard to tell a dive. In almost all cases there is contact - but contact does not mean it is a foul. So while you see a guy fall down, you don't know what that means.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tiger, stop with the name calling & the insults.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I did indeed. Robben actually admitted after the game that he'd dived. Diving is cheating. Deliberately deceiving the referee is cheating. How else would you describe it?


How would I describe a player who had earlier been fouled in the box but not given a penalty, selling it a little better the second time, in a tie match, in the World Cup, with about 2 minutes left in extra time, when the defender got a piece of my leg with a stupid and clumsy challenge? Smart - that is how I would describe him. And I don't even like Robben.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Tiger, stop with the name calling & the insults.


Did you even read my prior post to you?

You began this nonsense, and I responded. Perhaps you should refrain from such belligerent, arrogant behavior; that will obviate the need for anyone to respond strongly to you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

No, Tiger, you started with the childish insults and name calling.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, Tiger, you started with the childish insults and name calling.


This is not true.

My initial post #71 contained honest comments and observations of a football neophyte, asking for experienced fans' insight and knowledge. Your response #72 was filled with arrogance, insults, and misrepresentations of what I wrote, and ascribed to me positions that not only do I not hold, but specifically wrote as much. My post #79 explores all of this in detail; no need to recount here.

You then exacerbated things with the litany of irksome comments such as the "yeah whatever" nonsense and the "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen" gem. I can only assume that your kitchen has reached an uncomfortable temperature? Like most who seek to bully, you do not like when your target fires back in kind.

Stop the bullying and demands, and return to civility!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> One thing you should do if you watch any more games is not to watch the ball. Watch the guys running off of the ball into spaces, because then you will appreciate the forethought that goes into things. And also look at how often the defending team gets just a piece of the ball to direct it off target, or how the pass is just off the mark by a hair. Since you like baseball, many of the things that you aren't seeing or realizing is like when a guy puts a pitch just out of the strike zone on an 0-2 count with a guy on 1st and 1 out. Why not see if you can get the batter to make a mistake and swing at a close ball rather than give him a strike.
> 
> And to further relating diving to baseball - Greg Maddux got close calls, Mike Maddux didn't. As the ump famously was said to have told the rookie grumbling about not getting strike calls on Ted Williams. "Son," the ump reportedly said "Mr. Williams will let you know it's a strike by swinging at it." The bottom line on that is that I have been playing all of my life and at full speed it is still hard to tell a dive. In almost all cases there is contact - but contact does not mean it is a foul. So while you see a guy fall down, you don't know what that means.


Lots of good stuff here - thank you!

Concerning the diving aspect - while watching live, it is very difficult for me to determine contact, flopping, et al. in World Cup as well as NHL, NBA, and NFL games. However, with the aid of replay, the truth is much more readily discerned...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

If you wanted sustained pressure, the Belgians just gave you a solid 20 minutes of it. Fortunately Howard held firm.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> If you wanted sustained pressure, the Belgians just gave you a solid 20 minutes of it. Fortunately Howard held firm.


Yes, I agree. Belgium has dominated...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

So. Very. Proud. Howard had a match for the ages. 4 years ago the US folded after giving up the goal to Ghana, not to mention 2. This team battled back and almost pulled out a miracle West Germany win against a very talented squad. Very few in the Belgium team would not walk into almost any squad in the world. And hats off to Belgium. They almost always fall apart in situations like that because, well, they generally hate each other, but this lot held firm, and how . 

We are growing as a soccer nation.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I thought Belgium was clearly the better club, but as is true in any low-scoring affair, the U.S. was always in the game. No doubt ever statistic would display Belgian dominance, but the only one that really counts is goals scored.

Vpkozel, let me tap into your expertise as well as emotions: Let's say that the game had gone differently, that Belgium indeed dominated every aspect even more than it did in actuality, but the U.S. scores a late goal (say, in the 89') to win 1-0. Do you take the win and run, looking forward to the next round, or do you lament that U.S. soccer hasn't made the strides that you would've hoped? I guess it's a style over substance question...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> I thought Belgium was clearly the better club, but as is true in any low-scoring affair, the U.S. was always in the game. No doubt ever statistic would display Belgian dominance, but the only one that really counts is goals scored.
> 
> Vpkozel, let me tap into your expertise as well as emotions: Let's say that the game had gone differently, that Belgium indeed dominated every aspect even more than it did in actuality, but the U.S. scores a late goal (say, in the 89') to win 1-0. Do you take the win and run, looking forward to the next round, or do you lament that U.S. soccer hasn't made the strides that you would've hoped? I guess it's a style over substance question...


Belgium did have periods of utter dominance, but the US did as well in the last 20 minutes. If you wanted to put a score it like a fight broken into 15 minute periods, I would say Belgium won 2 (maybe 3) of those, and the US won 1, with the rest basically even.

Your last question is a tough one. Counterattacking has won the Italians 4 world cups, so it is a good strategy. But if you are asking me if I would take a lucky 1-0 win to advance in the WC? All freaking day long. And anyone, from any country, who says differently is a liar, lol.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I agree - a win would have been remarkable. As a New York Rangers fan, came close to seeing my team almost win the Stanley Cup. At least a half dozen teams had better seasons, but the Ranger season and accomplishments are not diluted by that...

Look forward to the next World Cup. For now, I think I'll root for Germany and Argentina.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

RIGHT TIGER, enough already.

EVERYTHING in my first post to you was directed at YOUR own opinions, at YOUR knowledge, not at YOU as a person
_"Well Tiger, you can start learning by calling it football not soccer. _ _Only US citizens call it soccer.
Soccer was a British slang word in the 19th century for association football, created from the word as*soc*iation that was used by the practitioners of other sports, primarily to differentiate it from rugby football.
Your No.1 point is wrong on all counts. Pressure on defence is constant not rare. Offence is constant not unsustained.
Your No. 2 point has nothing to do with football, you have misunderstood the essence of the sport and the method of play. It is clear from what you write that you just want to see a high scoring end-to-end repetitive sport, in which case, football is not the sport for you to watch. Stick with basketball.
Football is called the beautiful game and is the largest sport in the world, for the simple reason that it isn't like basketball or ice hockey, unlike those very repetitive sports on small playing areas, football is not an end to end, turn around then let the other team play end to end and repeat for the whole match.
No. 3 football is a team sport
No. 4 Really? You think the boxing in ice hockey is enjoyable?
No. 5 Really? have you ever watched a basketball or american football match?
No. 6 Really? You clearly don't understand it, it is less restrictive than the ice hockey rule.
No. 7 So what? Football is the most natural sport to play, it is simple and graceful, unlike American football, which plays for 7 seconds (average) then stops for 2 minutes throughout a whole game!!!
Doesn't seem to me that you need enlightening just that you need to try to understand it from watching or attending more games. If you don't like it fair enough but stop comparing it to other sports, that is just pointless. That's like comparing beef with salmon, tastes in all things vary._
*
NOW, show me one offensive name or personal insult in that text!!* I wrote in all friendliness, I even added a smiley. But if you misinterpreted that, then I can't help that. I genuinely meant, in a friendly way, that you don't need enlightening, you just need to watch more matches. *Show me one offensive name or insult directed at you as a person separate to the discussion in hand & not in direct response to your list of points.*

My "yeah, whatevers" to you were in response to you insulting me, when you were responding to other members. Rather than seeing my "yeah whatever" as an indicator that I was not interested in a stupid argument you continued to insult me.

1. _derisive (unlike some of the comments above)_
*Show me what was derisive of YOU.*

2. _How do you say "Christian kindness" in Church Latin?_
*That has nothing to do with the subject in hand, and is a direct attack on my person*

3. _From your seemingly angry and defensive remarks above, you are clearly not the person to provide that. I hope someone more patient, temperate, and knowledgeable can help&#8230;_
*Here you call me angry, defensive, impatient and unknowledgeable. Please indicate where. *

4. _My comments were genuine; you went on the attack. I'll assume that you are incapable of defending "the beautiful game" as well as incapable of reason._
*Indicate where I attacked you. I responded to your list of points. And here you insult me by saying I am incapable of reason *

5. _I'm starting to understand why the football Neanderthals attack each other before, during, and after matches. Seems like some "defenders" of the "beautiful game" are not particularly adept at defending it with intellect, but rather with ugliness..._
*Here you don't come right out and say it, but you suggest I am a Neanderthal, without intellect and full of ugliness*

6. _Father Earl_
*Just childish, not respecting a member's user name. I have always referred to you as Tiger *

7. _You said it is, another poster attacked baseball, and Earl of Moron, I mean Ormonde, indicated that it wasn't._
*I didn't attack baseball at all. I never even mentioned it. As for Earl of Moron, again just childish and disrespectful.*

8*.* _Perhaps you should refrain from such belligerent, arrogant behavior_
*Here, you call me belligerent and arrogant, show me where.*

9*.* _Your response #72 was filled with arrogance, insults, and misrepresentations of what I wrote_
*Show me this arrogance, these insults and misrepresentations. *
*
10. *_You then exacerbated things with the litany of irksome comments such as the "yeah whatever" nonsense_
*Which was in response to several of the insults you'd already written*
*
11. *_"if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen"_
*Which was in response to you clearly not liking the fact that I said you didn't understand football. If you don't want opinions, don't ask for them. Nowhere did I call you stupid or incapable of understanding, as you claim.*
_
12. Like most who seek to bully_
*????*
*
13. *_Stop the bullying and demands, and return to civility!_
*See the list above, NOW show me one insult or offensive name that I have aimed at you!!!*


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> How would I describe a player who had earlier been fouled in the box but not given a penalty, selling it a little better the second time, in a tie match, in the World Cup, with about 2 minutes left in extra time, when the defender got a piece of my leg with a stupid and clumsy challenge? Smart - that is how I would describe him. And I don't even like Robben.


I would describe him as a cheat, and, even if he were an England, or Ireland player, in the same circumstances, I would still call him a cheat. I would rather England, or Ireland, lost than won by cheating. Where would one's pride be if one won by cheating?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I was very impressed with the USA's game last night, their spirit and their determination; they were a pleasure to watch, and I hope that such a performance will mean that football might become more popular in the US. A consolation for the defeat, I suppose, is that if they'd won last night they don't yet have the quality to have progressed further, and, I would argue that Belgium doesn't either.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> I would describe him as a cheat, and, even if he were an England, or Ireland player, in the same circumstances, I would still call him a cheat. I would rather England, or Ireland, lost than won by cheating. Where would one's pride be if one won by cheating?


+1 .

I agree, there is nowhere in football for cheats like Suarez (the blatant handball on the goalline that knocked Ghana out), Thierry Henry (the TWO blatant handballs in the penalty area, that knocked Ireland out of the WC qualifiers in 2009), Robben (diving like an oscar winner the other night), Maradona (hand of God against England).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> I was very impressed with the USA's game last night, their spirit and their determination; they were a pleasure to watch, and I hope that such a performance will mean that football might become more popular in the US. A consolation for the defeat, I suppose, is that if they'd won last night they don't yet have the quality to have progressed further, and, I would argue that Belgium doesn't either.


Fantastic performance by the US, shame they didn't get that 2nd goal.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> +1 .
> 
> I agree, there is nowhere in football for cheats like Suarez (the blatant handball on the goalline that knocked Ghana out), Thierry Henry (the TWO blatant handballs in the penalty area, that knocked Ireland out of the WC qualifiers in 2009), Robben (diving like an oscar winner the other night), Maradona (hand of God against England).


To lump those all in with each other is absolutely non-sensical. To take them 1 by 1.

Suarez absolutely made the right play. The ball was going in and he either handled it (correctly giving up a penalty and getting a red card in the process) or let's it go in. Any player in that same situation would have made the same play. In fact - you are COACHED to make that play.

Thierry Henry definitely handled the ball, but as much as I hate the Arse, he has generally been a fair player, so I will assume he did so without malice.

Robben didn't dive on that last play. Period. Contact was made. Was it a soft penalty? Yes. Did he sell it? Yes. Is it his job to determine when the level of conduct rises to that of a foul? Nope.

Maradona's goal was absolutely inexcusable and so was the fact that the ref missed it.

There are plenty of cases of diving and cheating that have been perpetrated in soccer at all levels, and I hate it. But of the cases you cited, only 2 of the 4 had no forethought and occurred at game speed, and of the 2 that were thought out, only Maradona's was the wrong play.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I would describe him as a cheat, and, even if he were an England, or Ireland player, in the same circumstances, I would still call him a cheat. I would rather England, or Ireland, lost than won by cheating. Where would one's pride be if one won by cheating?


He was fouled, he didn't cheat. Of the quotes that I have read from Robben about that last play, he never, as you said he did, admits that he dove. It is also clear that contact was made by the Mexican defender. At what point does it become Robben's job to pretend he wasn't tripped? I have seen much softer penalties given a plenty in the Premier League on most every weekend.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Well, you seem to accept that Suarez' cheating handball is acceptable. And that Henry's conscious double handball in the same incident was without malice??? 

In which case we are too far apart to discuss further. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat. End of!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Well, if you want to take your post to its logical extension, any and all fouls would be cheating, and therefore a proper team would only be considered a true winner if they play the game with no fouls whatsoever.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

And do you honestly put Henry's handball on the same level as Maradonna's?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Absolutely, watch the video again. He even admitted to it afterwards & said sorry to the Ireland team. Is it possible you're thinking of a different incident?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Are there no safeguards against cheating in football or is it all on the honor system? If blatant cheating was proven, are there no penalties for such? Do they use anything like "instant replay"? Is a foul cheating? Is trying to draw the fowl cheating? Isn't it normal in most sports to play the rules? Basketball players usually draw fouls. American footballers purposely run the ball out of bounds to stop the clock. I'm not a pro sports fan at all so I'm not sure of any of the "regulations" but it seems that each sport has rules & each team/individual does their best to toe the line.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Absolutely, watch the video again. He even admitted to it afterwards & said sorry to the Ireland team. Is it possible you're thinking of a different incident?


Nope. I know the incident very well as I was pulling for Ireland and why I said that he definitely handled the ball. And perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote. And perhaps you should listen to what he said after he admitted it was a handball, but I don't think he ever said it was deliberate - plenty of Irish folks did, but I don't think that Henry did. "Was I supposed to stop, tell the ref, then cross the ball. You're funny. That's very funny." or something to that effect. When you are like 5 years old in any sport, you are told over and over again. You play to the whistle. Play to the whistle. Ireland - especially Given - didn't do that.

Do you really expect that players call all of their own fouls? Tackles from behind? Balls crossing the lines? Offsides? They have referees for a reason.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I would describe him as a cheat, and, even if he were an England, or Ireland player, in the same circumstances, I would still call him a cheat. I would rather England, or Ireland, lost than won by cheating. Where would one's pride be if one won by cheating?


I am sure that you boycotted England's participation in the WC in 2002, then? Because the foul that lead to Beckham's wonderful freekick against Greece was way softer than the foul on Robben. I suppose that Germany's victory against England 4 years ago was somehow tainted because Neuer didn't take it upon himself to kick the ball into the net because Lampard was robbed of a goal?

Good Lord people, y'all are expecting a tad bit much of athletes performing already near impossible tasks.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> RIGHT TIGER, enough already.
> 
> EVERYTHING in my first post to you was directed at YOUR own opinions, at YOUR knowledge, not at YOU as a person
> _"Well Tiger, you can start learning by calling it football not soccer. _ _Only US citizens call it soccer.
> ...


It continues to amaze me that there are posters who attack - sometimes with subtlety, other times with boldness - other people and their positions, but when those attacks are met with a vigorous defense/response, it is the responder who is vilified, and the initial attacks are either ignored or finessed into something much less offensive than it really was (making it very difficult to defend against in a thread that progresses for pages).

Earl, your remarks that were "directed at my opinions and knowledge and not my person" is a bit of sleight-of-hand. _My opinions and knowledge spring from who I am as a person_, so I don't see the separation. Had you dealt with my observations in a decent and respectful manner, there would be no need for this dialogue. Instead, you did the opposite.

Let's keep in mind that my observations on "football" were simply those of an admitted beginner, and was my attempt at describing what I see when I watch a match. More importantly, it was a request directed at experienced football fans to help me understand the game better, since I realized that my observations may lack validity. You provided very little knowledge, patience, and civility, but plenty of disdain, belligerence, defensiveness, and insulting insinuations. What was your point in doing this, other than to belittle me? You sure weren't an exemplary spokesman for a game you purport to love and understand.

Your response to my Point 1 (the lack of sustained offense) was both dismissive and false. "Wrong on all counts?" "Pressure on defence is constant not rare. Offence is constant not unsustained." I've watched multiple games where the majority of action takes place at midfield, not in constant offensive thrusts. Besides, rather than simply telling me that I'm "wrong" in such a patronizing fashion, why not explain _why_? Telling me that "offence is constant" clashes with what I observed. An explanation is far better than merely stating something that I've already admitted to not seeing.

In Point 2, the attack begins in earnest. You tell me that "Your No. 2 point has nothing to do with football, you have misunderstood the essence of the sport and the method of play." OK, please explain _why_, rather than insinuate stupidity on my part! "It is clear from what you write that you just want to see a high scoring end-to-end repetitive sport, in which case, football is not the sport for you to watch. Stick with basketball." This is Earl at his insulting and dishonest best. *My initial post said that I love low-scoring games, and made no mention of basketball (a sport I loathe).* However, Earl, in your arrogance, distortion, and zeal to ridicule me, you wrote the _opposite_ of what I explicitly and wholeheartedly believe.

My Point 4 was a statement of disgust re: the flopping and feigning of injuries in football. Earl, you responded with an attack on fighting in hockey. Did I defend such a practice? Why not respond to what I wrote, rather than attacking a sport that I enjoy (and not for the fighting). Your response was clearly an attempt to insult me and the sports I enjoy, not respond to a basic point that many football fans agree with me on. Point 5 had similar overtones.

Point 6 was about the offside rule. Rather than explaining the rule and its purpose, you took the opportunity to insult my intelligence, writing, "Really? You clearly don't understand it, it is less restrictive than the ." _Of course I don't fully understand_ it; its rationale is nuanced, especially for the uninitiated. I was hoping for insight, but I received an insult instead.

My Point 7 was about football appearing to be less cerebral than baseball, and I wrote, "but I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't know if there was something more profound happening at a deeper level that I'm simply oblivious to because of my inexperience." Earl, your response indicated that you agree with this, and then attacked American football (another sport I do not like, but you assumed I did), since you just had to denigrate me in some way, even if inaccurate. (For the record, it was another poster who attacked baseball as not being cerebral, not you, and I never accused you of such.)

You end with an admonishment - "If you don't like it fair enough but stop comparing it to other sports, that is just pointless." If I didn't like football, I wouldn't have spent hours watching it; I am merely trying to understand the game better. I didn't know comparisons were not up for discussion (seems a natural thing to me, but what the hell do I know?), nor did I think I was being "pointless." I guess that's just a part of my stupidity! What was an attempt to learn more about football became an attempt to silence me on your part.

*When I took the time to describe in detail how I felt (in post#79) about Earl's response to my initial post, I was met with the bon mot of, "**Yea, whatever! If you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen." Earl, you are undoubtedly admitting here that you did indeed attack me, and dismissed it with your "kitchen" comment. It is important to recognize the context here; your comment was in direct response to my post that explained how I felt about your rudeness, derision, and insulting comments (see above and in post #79). That you would respond in the manner you did confirmed the validity of those feelings.
*
Yet, when I point all of this out, I am dismissed. When I decide to fire back, I am the one accused of attacking. When I point out the hypocrisy of a person draping themselves in the language and practices of the Catholic Church yet displaying decidedly un-Christian attitudes, I become the bad guy. Was it too personal? - perhaps. However, if one is going to tread the path that you did Earl, and then talk about "heat in the kitchen," you damn well better be prepared for some "uncomfortable temperature" heading _your_ way.

Your claim that you used the "yeah whatever" line in response to my attacks is *false*. It was your use of this phrase and the kitchen comment that confirmed what you were driving at, and subsequently elicited my harsh responses. Again, this is the game that some here play - attack, then deny, then play the victim.

Your post #72 has been analyzed here, and in far more detail in my post #79 (the most explicative of my positions and feelings). Your post #80 confirms my beliefs of your behavior, and thus began the descent into this mess. You may not agree at all with how I feel; I don't agree with much of anything you wrote. Perhaps we should leave it at that?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> He was fouled, he didn't cheat. Of the quotes that I have read from Robben about that last play, he never, as you said he did, admits that he dove. It is also clear that contact was made by the Mexican defender. At what point does it become Robben's job to pretend he wasn't tripped? I have seen much softer penalties given a plenty in the Premier League on most every weekend.


He admitted diving in the game. There may have been contact, but contact of itself does not necessarily constitute a foul, he then dived to gain the penalty. He had already deliberately dived earlier in the game and admitted to it subsequently.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jul/01/fifa-diving-holland-arjen-robben-world-cup


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> He admitted diving in the game. There may have been contact, but contact of itself does not necessarily constitute a foul, he then dived to gain the penalty. He had already deliberately dived earlier in the game and admitted to it subsequently.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jul/01/fifa-diving-holland-arjen-robben-world-cup


He was not referring to the penalty. He was referring to the one in the first half. If he admits diving earlier, does that rule out any potential fouls later?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Vpkozel, there is a difference between fouling accidently & saying sorry, that happens, that is football. And fouling intentionally and saying sorry, that is just cheating.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tiger, I'm over it. Here's the olive branch.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Tiger, I'm over it. Here's the olive branch.


I agree, Earl - olive branch accepted. Thank you for being gracious!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> He was not referring to the penalty. He was referring to the one in the first half. If he admits diving earlier, does that rule out any potential fouls later?


Of course not. He did, however, admit to diving earlier in the game in order to, unsuccessfully, win a penalty. He is a cheat.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Anyone here know if there is an ignore function on this forum? If there is I can't find it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tiger said:


> Yet, when I point all of this out, I am dismissed. When I decide to fire back, I am the one accused of attacking. When I point out the hypocrisy of a person draping themselves in the language and practices of the Catholic Church yet displaying decidedly un-Christian attitudes, I become the bad guy. Was it too personal? - perhaps.


PEOPLE who have been on here for a while and know me, know that, unlike YOU, I don't make personal insults or call people names. I ALWAYS stick to the subject and try in the face of provocation to remain civil.

But for you I'll make an exception, because you have taken it way too far in the nature of your insults.

------------
So, hey little pussycat (remember Father Earl?)

Because you write so much shite, that no one can be arsed to read, I missed this serious and incorrect personal slur amongst all your stupid waffle about sports, a slur that I cannot let go due to its serious nature. You are UNABLE to remain civil and stick to the subject. YOU constantly try to distract people by causing pain with your insults.

You should stick to talking about subjects you know, because sports isn't one of them. Write something about pink cashmere sweaters or espadrilles or madras hot pants!

You really are a boring, sad, little man who just loves arguing and winding people up.

Get a life you moron! (remember Earl of Moron?)


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> PEOPLE who have been on here for a while and know me, know that, unlike YOU, I don't make personal insults or call people names. I ALWAYS stick to the subject and try in the face of provocation to remain civil.
> 
> But for you I'll make an exception, because you have taken it way too far in the nature of your insults.
> 
> ...


As idiotic a post as I've ever read. Dishonest, too, as you ignore your initial attacks and focus solely on my responses.

People like you believe that they can be as disdainful, mean spirited, hypocritical, and arrogant as they wish, and expect that such tactics will be meekly accepted. You discovered otherwise...


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> PEOPLE who have been on here for a while and know me, know that, unlike YOU, I don't make personal insults or call people names. I ALWAYS stick to the subject and try in the face of provocation to remain civil.
> 
> But for you I'll make an exception, because you have taken it way too far in the nature of your insults.
> 
> ...


Well, since we are on the topic of the world cup, there are going to be some great matches today!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

immanuelrx said:


> Well, since we are on the topic of the world cup, there are going to be some great matches today!


Thank you for that much needed diversion (actually, it's a return to the topic)!

Do you think Germany and Brazil will advance?


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Tiger said:


> Thank you for that much needed diversion (actually, it's a return to the topic)!
> 
> Do you think Germany and Brazil will advance?


I am going with Germany and Columbia to advance today. That is until I am wrong, then I will edit this post


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Wow, I'm loving this ignore function. I've also turned off the private messaging function. I'm a little bit narked at getting PM's warning me about people & trying to conduct behind the scenes discussions.

If you want to tell me something, tell me here!​


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

As for football, my money is still on a Germany v Argentina final, as it has been since a month before it all started.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Wow, I'm loving this ignore function. I've also turned off the private messaging function. I'm a little bit narked at getting PM's warning me about people & trying to conduct behind the scenes discussions.
> 
> If you want to tell me something, tell me here!​


Just for informational purposes, the post above has nothing to do with me. I'm disgusted at having to deal with such duplicitous people on a public forum; there's no chance that I would private message such people!


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Wow, I'm loving this ignore function. I've also turned off the private messaging function. I'm a little bit narked at getting PM's warning me about people & trying to conduct behind the scenes discussions.
> 
> If you want to tell me something, tell me here!​


Ignore function? Are you being serious?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

I was really hoping Brazil would be knocked out, but that was a cracker of a game last night.Relentless action.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> I was really hoping Brazil would be knocked out, but that was a cracker of a game last night.Relentless action.


Very biased referee though. Cesar should have been sent off. Deliberate foul in the box denying a goal scoring opportunity; a red card is mandatory.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I am astonished that the beautiful game could precipitate such aggressive behaviour.

This would *never* have happened in my day.

*ahem*


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

5-0 at half time.
That's mad, Ted.

The Brazilians seem to have just given up after the first goal.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Yes, they seem to think it's all over.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Odradek said:


> 5-0 at half time.
> That's mad, Ted.
> 
> The Brazilians seem to have just given up after the first goal.


7-1 Germany. At least they gave them a pity goal. I hope the final is closer than this. This was just sad.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mrs Scolari called her husband down for breakfast this morning 'Come on dear, time to get up - it's eight'.

'Oh no' he groaned. 'Have the Germans scored again?'


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Go Orange..... 

Yes, I consider myself as Dutch.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Still hard to believe that the Argentina-Netherlands match ended the way it did. Over 120 minutes of tight defense, cautious play, and calculated moves ends with the seemingly absurd penalty kick process. This method is the antithesis of what I spent two hours watching - one consisting almost entirely of luck, guessing, and easy-to-score and unmolested free kicks! Is this really the way a berth in the World Cup final should be determined?

There has to be a better way. Instead of this "coin-toss" procedure so disparate from the team concept that precedes it, why not seek to resolve the match by a mode that is similar to the match itself? For instance, allow the teams to play on, but without as many players (two or three less per side, perhaps more), so that the chances to score increase. Maybe allow an additional substitution or two. In this way, the match is decided in a manner in which it has been played throughout, not by some artificial device that deviates so greatly from the actual game.

Baseball games that are tied after nine innings aren't decided by batting practice home run contests. Why is football decided by such a contrived ending - a _deus ex machina _that I believe ruined the event?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ The penalty shoot-out is brutal but fair. If even that fails to produce a winner, I believe it really does go to a tossed coin. There have been a few notable World Cup penalty shoot-outs.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Langham said:


> ^ The penalty shoot-out is brutal but fair. If even that fails to produce a winner, I believe it really does go to a tossed coin. There have been a few notable World Cup penalty shoot-outs.


It's fair in the sense that both teams are subject to the same method, but I'm arguing against that very method, as it seems very disparate and detached from the game of football as played for two hours on the pitch.

Seems like a silly way to determine a victor in a prestigious tournament...or any tournament, for that matter.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

You will have to complain to FIFA in that case.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The penalty shoot out can't fail because after the first 5 for each team, it goes to 1 by 1 and the first team to miss loses.


Well, not that it was really a huge surprise. BUT I was right, when I said Germany v Argentina in the final! Post No. 21 on June 19th.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Langham said:


> You will have to complain to FIFA in that case.


The FIFA can run the World Cup as it wishes; my opinion and that of many others won't matter. The more I think about this, the more I realize how such a silly, incongruent rule has ruined an exciting tournament.

FIFA can can learn much from Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I love it when Americans tell soccer players and fans how to run their sport every 4 years.....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I love it when Americans tell soccer players and fans how to run their sport every 4 years.....


+1
It's just comical isn't it?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> I love it when Americans tell soccer players and fans how to run their sport every 4 years.....


Is that what I did? I thought I simply made a suggestion; I guess I have far more pull with FIFA than I realized...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> +1
> It's just comical isn't it?


What's really comical is that I raised a point that I thought was worthy of discussion, yet some people are so closed-minded, so arrogant, and so protective of a sport that they cannot rationally discuss or even accept the slightest criticism of it.

Even the Argentine goalkeeper was quoted as saying that the victory was lucky, as is any "earned" in penalty kicks. So much for strategy, athleticism, and cerebral nature of the "beautiful game"...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Is that what I did? I thought I simply made a suggestion; I guess I have far more pull with FIFA than I realized...


Yes, you made the suggestion as to how things should be changed as if no one had ever thought of that before. But my post was not directed solely at you. Most of the non-soccer folks on the major networks are saying the same thing.

No one really like penalty kicks, but it is the best of all the bad solutions. No other team sport takes such a physical toll on your body stamina wise except bike racing. This is not to say that it is as violent as our football or rugby or hockey, but from a pure stamina AND contact standpoint, it simply cannot be approached. And allowing for unlimited or more subs would totally change the fabric of the entire game, so playing until there is a winner is out.

No one is attacking you personally on this or asking you not to have an opinion, but you do have to realize that many of these ideas have already been explored in depth and rejected.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Yes, you made the suggestion as to how things should be changed as if no one had ever thought of that before. But my post was not directed solely at you. Most of the non-soccer folks on the major networks are saying the same thing.
> 
> No one really like penalty kicks, but it is the best of all the bad solutions. No other team sport takes such a physical toll on your body stamina wise except bike racing. This is not to say that it is as violent as our football or rugby or hockey, but from a pure stamina AND contact standpoint, it simply cannot be approached. And allowing for unlimited or more subs would totally change the fabric of the entire game, so playing until there is a winner is out.
> 
> No one is attacking you personally on this or asking you not to have an opinion, but you do have to realize that many of these ideas have already been explored in depth and rejected.


I certainly understand that, but wouldn't it have been more dignified if you had expressed the thoughts above initially? In addition, just because some ideas have been rejected, it doesn't mean they lack validity. Again, it was an attempt at discussion, and your answer certainly didn't sway me or the many others who believe that penalty kicks is a poor way to determine outcomes. I would write at length on this, but clearly, it would be futile. (And Earl's comment, well, I expected something like that from him. He's already assaulted me for having an opinion, even though he has no qualms about offering his opinions, even when they attack races and religions in their totality. An unadulterated hypocrite...)

By the way, vpkozel, when you continually wrote posts that were inarguably incorrect about the Bill of Rights, I remember Mike Petrik and I taking the time to patiently and painstakingly explain our (historically accurate) positions. No nastiness, no snide comments, no condescension - just honest attempts to help you understand the truth.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> I certainly understand that, but wouldn't it have been more dignified if you had expressed the thoughts above initially? In addition, just because some ideas have been rejected, it doesn't mean they lack validity. Again, it was an attempt at discussion, and your answer certainly didn't sway me or the many others who believe that penalty kicks is a poor way to determine outcomes. I would write at length on this, but clearly, it would be futile. (And Earl's comment, well, I expected something like that from him. He's already assaulted me for having an opinion, even though he has no qualms about offering his opinions, even when they attack races and religions in their totality. An unadulterated hypocrite...)
> 
> By the way, vpkozel, when you continually wrote posts that were inarguably incorrect about the Bill of Rights, I remember Mike Petrik and I taking the time to patiently and painstakingly explain our (historically accurate) positions. No nastiness, no snide comments, no condescension - just honest attempts to help you understand the truth.


Sometimes when I post on here, I am in a hurry an post in shorthand. But if I quote something, then I try to take pains to make more than a quick comment. You may feel the comment about Americans telling the world how to run soccer was aimed at you, but it was not. You can believe me when I say that or not - I am not going to debate who I was directing it towards, but I can assure you that if I was directing it specifically at you, then I would have posted something more substantial.

In that discussion on the BOR, you did take time to present and back up your opinion, as did I. I have also researched some of the points you both made and just have not had the time to post something in depth about it, but the long and short of it is that the minutes from the convention and House debates on the BOR are clear on what the Founders thought and that is where I got my opinion. There was only 1 pre-Civil War case specifically on point on the BOR applying to a state law (somebody v. Maryland I think - but neither of you referenced it), and while I was not aware of it, that ruling certainly does support your and Mike's position on that narrow point. However, there were many pre-Civil War rulings on the Supremacy Clause, which would at the very least raise conflicts since, once passed, the BOR is part of the Constitution. I do think that I was cordial in that discussion though, although I freely admit I do have a tendency to be a bit of a smart ass at times.

None of that of course has anything to do with soccer, and I have actually been quite busy lately, so lengthy posts have not been something that I made a priority.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Sometimes when I post on here, I am in a hurry an post in shorthand. But if I quote something, then I try to take pains to make more than a quick comment. You may feel the comment about Americans telling the world how to run soccer was aimed at you, but it was not. You can believe me when I say that or not - I am not going to debate who I was directing it towards, but I can assure you that if I was directing it specifically at you, then I would have posted something more substantial.
> 
> In that discussion on the BOR, you did take time to present and back up your opinion, as did I. I have also researched some of the points you both made and just have not had the time to post something in depth about it, but the long and short of it is that the minutes from the convention and House debates on the BOR are clear on what the Founders thought and that is where I got my opinion. There was only 1 pre-Civil War case specifically on point on the BOR applying to a state law (somebody v. Maryland I think - but neither of you referenced it), and while I was not aware of it, that ruling certainly does support your and Mike's position on that narrow point. However, there were many pre-Civil War rulings on the Supremacy Clause, which would at the very least raise conflicts since, once passed, the BOR is part of the Constitution. I do think that I was cordial in that discussion though, although I freely admit I do have a tendency to be a bit of a smart ass at times.
> 
> None of that of course has anything to do with soccer, and I have actually been quite busy lately, so lengthy posts have not been something that I made a priority.


You can, of course, understand that your response following my initial post led me to believe that you were referencing my football point(s), right? I will, however, take you at your word when you say that it was not directed at me.

On the BOR - perhaps you're referencing the _Barron _v. _Baltimore _(1833) case? In any event, even without that ruling, there is no doubt about the original purpose of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The historical record is not in dispute - not even in the slightest! My point was, Mike and I spent much time - in a gentlemanly fashion, I believe - in discussing the topic with someone who seemed intelligent, interested, but incorrect. I hope for the same treatment, but have found that some (not you) don't comply with basic civility.

In any case, I understand and accept your explanation, vpkozel...thanks!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Edit - you were definitely included as a person that my post applied to, but it was not addressed specifically to/at you, if that makes sense.

As I said, I have been meaning to post in that thread on this topic, so I will continue it there at some point. And I maintain that I am not incorrect, as I posted the words of Madison himself that support my position that the BOR would apply to all levels of government, not just to the Federal. Yes, it was Baron that was the only one that was pre-civil war. And I think that if you go back to those exchanges, I was also courteous, even though I disagreed with you, and still do to some extent.

As I said, I don't want to continue that discussion here though and will respond in that thread as I am a Constitutional historical buff as well.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Edit - you were definitely included as a person that my post applied to, but it was not addressed specifically to/at you, if that makes sense.
> 
> As I said, I have been meaning to post in that thread on this topic, so I will continue it there at some point. And I maintain that I am not incorrect, as I posted the words of Madison himself that support my position that the BOR would apply to all levels of government, not just to the Federal. Yes, it was Baron that was the only one that was pre-civil war. And I think that if you go back to those exchanges, I was also courteous, even though I disagreed with you, and still do to some extent.
> 
> As I said, I don't want to continue that discussion here though and will respond in that thread as I am a Constitutional historical buff as well.


Yes, please post again on that issue (might require a new thread).

Your Madison quote does not support your position. First, the Madison quote does not mean what you purport it to mean above, and second, the bill of rights does not contain/grant any powers to the federal government. They are restrictions on federal power, so the "supremacy clause" has absolutely no bearing here.

Be wary - you are turning the notions of federalism, states' rights, and "expressly delegated powers" on their collective heads!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I will continue it as I love the topic, and researching different opinions that people have, but as I said I am a bit of a geek on the subject. And while I disagree with your characterization of what the quote means and its relation to different levels of government, I will agree with you in that I am no fan of overreaching USSC rulings, but they are often the best of a group of bad options. They are a bit like penalty kicks in that regard.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

A deserved win for the Germans.

Even so, there is something about the Krauts gathered en mass, over-excited and with their arms in the air that rather unsettles me..........


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> A deserved win for the Germans.
> 
> Even so, there is something about the Krauts gathered en mass, over-excited and with their arms in the air that rather unsettles me..........


I agree. Argentina certainly had their chances and it was an end to end match even though the score line was 1-0. The Germans really are well positioned for a nice run as it seems like most of the team is 23-26. I won't say that they will equal Spain's recent run, because what they did was unprecedented, but they are set up nicely, especially when you consider that a couple of their most talented player did not make the WC squad. It certainly would be interesting to see them celebrating in Moscow in 4 years time....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

It was a double first last night for the Germans, who have played fantastic football throughout the tournament, and are worthy winners.

1. The first European team EVER to win the WC in the Americas
2. The first time that a unified Germany has won the WC.

And add to that Klose's new record of 16 WC goals, making him the best WC goalscorer of all time!


----------

