Join Now
Winners and Losers from the Gold Cup group phase
Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 09:29 AM by Aaron Stollar
Tags chad marshall, freddy adu, gold cup, stuart holden
Stewie's a winner all right
Winners:
- Stuart Holden - he scored one absolute scorcher against Haiti and came damn close to scoring a second. With him and Robbie Rogers looking scary good, Bob Bradley's head is going to be spinning from all the real competition for places on the midfield flanks. This can only be a good thing... unless for DaMarcus Beasley. Sorry, DaMarcus.
- Chad Marshall - Marshall looked unbelievably good against Honduras and seeing the corpse formerly known as Jimmy Conrad stink it up against Haiti only re-afirms him as a contender for the no. 3 or 4 center back, depending on what one does with Bocanegra. Sorry Columbus, but I think Rogers and Marshall are probably the next to go to Europe - hope you enjoyed them.
- Benny Feilhaber - He simply has to start at the Azteca, there is no question about it. Has any US player had a more metoric (re)rise over a short period of time?
- Guadeloupe - Yep, it's them again. They've advanced out of their group with wins over Panama and Nicaragua. We really shouldn't be that surprised, because they've got quite a few guys playing in European pro leagues (not necessarily the top divisions, but still). But can someone tell me why Puerto Rico and American Samoa can try to qualify for World Cups and Guadeloupe can't?
- Haiti's fans at RFK - Win or lose, the group of 80 or so Haiti fans jumping and singing throughout their match against Grenada were having a great time and about the only entertaining thing about the match.
- Haiti's jerseys - Last thing about Haiti, but how great are their shirts with the dark red, blue and Monaco-esque diagonal stripe?
- Just about everything and everyone affiliated with Mexico at this tournament. What happened there against Panama was an utter disgrace. That said, if you're a fan of the US, you have to be loving because all this chaos and mayhem in the Mexico camp just increases the hope that the US could do the unthinkable and win in Mexico City. Folks like John are already hinting that this looks like a squad that is going to miss the World Cup, but I am not so sure. In some ways, this Mexico outfit reminds me of those Brazil teams that were total shambles during qualifying, Copa America, et al, and then come out and play like world beaters when it counts. I am not saying that Mexico fits that role perfectly, I just could see it happening potentially.
- Kenny Cooper - Say hello to the poor man's Conor Casey! Has made zero impact in his appearances. Blech.
- Jimmy Conrad - How on earth did you make Haiti look that dangerous?
- Freddy Adu - This is covered ground, but the Honduras match made it clear that against any non-minnow (sorry, Grenada), Freddy simply is not ready yet. I've defended him time and time again, but right now he still takes far too many ineffective touches on the ball and is far to easily muscled out of matches.
- Crew Stadium - For getting saddled with the most terrible matches to host (Jam-CR and ES-Can)... I am almost impressed they got the 7,000 they did.
- Concacaf's TV production - From the looks of the illegable graphics, cameras covered in vaseline and the overall third world look of things, it looks like CONCACAF has taken a bigger role in the TV production of this thing and promptly reminded me how much worse there was out there than Fox Soccer Channel.
Share
Post a Comment
Total Comments 9
Comments
-
Okay, NOW I can say, "I thought you were done with the Nats until they fired Bob Bradley."
Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 09:33 AM by kenntomasch 
-
What?
Complianing about the play of Conrad (presumably for the Haiti game) and not mentioning Robles, Heaps, or Parkhurst (the real culprits) is frankly unbelievable.Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 03:41 PM by B Rock
-
What?
They all stunk. But I expected that from Heaps and Robles. But I expected more from Conrad. I've seen more from Conrad. That's why I mentioned him.Quote:Originally Posted by B Rock
Complianing about the play of Conrad (presumably for the Haiti game) and not mentioning Robles, Heaps, or Parkhurst (the real culprits) is frankly unbelievable.Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 03:54 PM by Aaron Stollar
-
"But can someone tell me why Puerto Rico and American Samoa can try to qualify for World Cups and Guadeloupe can't?"
For the same reason Hawaii can't qualify for the World Cup out of Oceana. Guadeloupe (and Martinique and French Guiana for that matter) are not French colonies, territories, or commonwealths, they are each one of the 26 administrative regions of France. As such they are part of France. Their residents are French citizens, they vote in French national elections, they use the Euro.
And while they appear similar to Puerto Rico or Guam or Anguilla (Brittish protectorate) because they are allowed a certain amount of local autonomy due to the distance and economic development, they are even less of sovereign nations than, say, Puerto Rico. No matter where you draw the line it is kind of arbitrary, but FIFA seems to have drawn the line at the what degree of autonomy over local affairs it present.Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 04:16 PM by WaltonFire
-
And Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ire are autonomous in what way? Just sayin'.Quote:Originally Posted by WaltonFire
"But can someone tell me why Puerto Rico and American Samoa can try to qualify for World Cups and Guadeloupe can't?"
For the same reason Hawaii can't qualify for the World Cup out of Oceana. Guadeloupe (and Martinique and French Guiana for that matter) are not French colonies, territories, or commonwealths, they are each one of the 26 administrative regions of France. As such they are part of France. Their residents are French citizens, they vote in French national elections, they use the Euro.
And while they appear similar to Puerto Rico or Guam or Anguilla (Brittish protectorate) because they are allowed a certain amount of local autonomy due to the distance and economic development, they are even less of sovereign nations than, say, Puerto Rico. No matter where you draw the line it is kind of arbitrary, but FIFA seems to have drawn the line at the what degree of autonomy over local affairs it present.Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 06:49 PM by gibroni
-
For that matter, add England to the list. All four "nations" are non-sovereign parts of the United Kingdom. However, for historic/traditional reasons (ie the first internationals were played between these four teams) England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland compete independently and not as "The UK national team" (incidently they do this in cricket and rugby as well). Is it a double standard? Yes, but my point is that Guadeloupe is part of France, and so to compare their situation to Puerto Rico, a not quite independent but not totally dependent commonwealth, is incorrect. The two situations are totally different.Quote:Originally Posted by gibroni
And Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ire are autonomous in what way? Just sayin'.
Posted 13 Jul 2009 at 07:47 PM by WaltonFire
-
Maybe they'd finally win a damn World Cup (or a Euro, or ANYTHING) again if they could play as a unified "Great Britain" team.Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 05:39 AM by stonesean
-
That will have to wait until the Olympics, where there is a unified British team.Quote:Originally Posted by stonesean
Maybe they'd finally win a damn World Cup (or a Euro, or ANYTHING) again if they could play as a unified "Great Britain" team.
The IOC and FIFA have two different ways of seeing things ... remember when Hawaii used to compete independently from the United States in the years before becoming a state?
(Which, of course, begs the question of why the District of Columbia doesn't have an Olympic team).Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 08:21 AM by TOTC
-
Because... bitch set me up!Quote:Originally Posted by TOTC
(Which, of course, begs the question of why the District of Columbia doesn't have an Olympic team).
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 06:40 AM by AmericanKaka
|
Post a Comment
|
Total Trackbacks 0
