2014 FIFA World Cup™ Round of 16: United States v. Belgium | Tues, Jul 1

You have no way of knowing if this is the case:

First, I'm only talking about the Belgium game, so your comments re: the group are non-sequitur.
Second, is having to make 16 saves and 2 goals against NOT being obliterated by Belgium? Your logic is flawed. How could we possibly have done worse if we started with more than a lone, overmatched Dempsey as our only point of attack?

 

It's the culture of this thread and BS in general to disect and be hyper-critical ... let's all put Germany, Ghana, Portugal and Belgium on a pedestal regardless of events on the field.

 

The US was 30 seconds away from qualifying after 2 games in the Group of Death. Think about that. Do they not deserve respect for their performance at this World Cup? My point is it's pretty ridiculous how so-called US "supporters" give the opposition so much credit ("Germany did the minimum against the US") while conveniently ignoring they also drew Ghana 2-2, as if that was intentional. Pretty sure Portugal didn't plan to lose 4-0 to the Germans or barely draw the Americans.

 

If you ask some here, that would have all been part of Germany's plan.

 

Really? Haven't noticed, i thought. I just reacted to people addressing me. And I can't resist responding to warped logic.

 

No. You make no sense. And you have the audacity to call my logic flawed.
Again, I spoke about Germany and how easy/difficult they had it in their games. Ghana was a very difficult opponent for Germany. The US were not. Period. What the US and Ghana played in their match against each other and who might have been the better team there had nothing to do with Germany. germany did not take part in the USA-Ghana game.

 

Yes, it would since they were all part of the same group. What Argentina versus Iran did has no bearing to Germany, for example.

 

Not one sentence in that post makes any logical sense
Again you need to understand that in every football game only two teams are on the pitch. Not three or four. I spoke of how Germany played against the USA . The performannce of Ghana in a completely different match is immaterial to that point. Just like the performance of Portugal against Ghana or the US or against Timbuktu is immaterial to that discussion.

 

Talking about something that could have actually happened, the German NT didn't share your vision since they played their starters.. unlike Belgium that rested 9 starters on their last group game.

 

Pipiolo, please don't you start too. Please, this is getting crazy at this point

Again, this started because I pointed out that Germany were never in danger of going out in their match against the USA. That was my point originally. Germany. USA. Match. Against each other. Then somebody replied by saying something about Ghana and how good they are. i never spoke about Ghana

For crying out loud, please guys, read the posts that preceded it

 

either too too much coffee, or not enough. haven't figure that out yet.

 

Again, this is not logical but I can't help respond. The US lost to Germany 1-0 and consistently kept the Germans at bay defensively and had opportunities to draw but unfortunately did not take them. However, as slim margin of victory would tell us, they were clearly a difficult opponent for Germany. An example of a "not difficult opponent"? That's Portugal.

 

Yes, it coudl have happened but it requires an insane amount of what-ifs

Yes, germany could have lost 0-2. But they won 1-0
Yes Ghana could have won 3-0. But they lost 1-2

What point is there in that? What does listing totally different and alternative scorelines possible add to any sane discussion?

Cameroon could have beaten Brazil 8-0. Iran could have beaten Argentina 6-0. Well, it's possible, isn't it? And now what? What does listing alternative scorelines prove?

 

Right, agreed. 2 teams on the same field, got it. And 1-0 win means poor finishing, good defending or both. Take your pick, does Germany suck at finishing or is the US good at defending?

 

Shots on goal for the US zero
Saves by Manuel Neuer zero
So the US didn't take their opportunities?

 

Which game did Neuer make 0 saves? I was talking about the game last week against Germany..the US had 4 shots, 1 on goal, while Germany had 13 and 9 on goal. If we're not giving the US any credit for defending well, I would suggest the Germans must suck at finishing.

 

Neither, the game wasn't contested all the way through the end because Germany didn't need to do more and the US were content with losing 1-0. The game lost its edge for the same reason the France-Ecuador match lost its competitive edge in the second half or the Belgium-Korea match. In all these matches it became clear to the teams at some point during the second half that there was nothing more realistically to be gained or lost so the teams didn't play it to the wire.

 

The one shot on goal you're reffering to is a blocked shot, those are listed in some match stats but not in others. Blocked shots are shots on target that never reach the keeper because a defender blocks it on the edge of the box for example. In this case it was a shot near the end of the match that Lahm blocked. Some stats list this as a shot on goal, others don't. In any case Neuer didn't need to save it.

 

i think my reading comprehension is fine.

 

Nah I don't think that's the case at all. Muller scored in the 55' yet Germany was playing hard to the final whistle. Bradley was putting as much pressure as possible on the back line and it was obvious (to me anyway) Germany wanted to win by more than a goal but weren't able to break down the US defense (or poor finishing if you prefer).

 

All excellent points. When I moved to the US in the early 90s there was very little interest in the sport except when I went to the ethnic neighborhoods in big cities like New York. Television coverage of the game was very hard to find, and finding something in print about was nearly impossible. I actually had a friend mail me the Gazzetta Dello Sport once a week from New York.

Now my son plays the game and his friends all wear Ronaldo and Messi shirts, and some of the parents have some knowledge of the world game. Granted, it is not as extensive as the rest of the world. In Europe I could talk with a Frenchman or German on the train for hours about it. Here it is more difficult.

But there is absolutely no doubt for me that interest has grown in a very significant way. In fact, people used to ignore soccer, now there is even some anger I see from fans of traditional US sports like football and the NBA. Where once they did not care, they now speak with anger about soccer not being a "real sport" etc...But at least they are paying attention, and in a way acknowledging that it is growing here.

Finally, the skills of young players are improving thanks to better teaching. When I came here, I began coaching children and had a very difficult time of it, as every one of the players had few skills and almost no understanding of the game. The league my son plays in now has much more organized training and players are considerably more skillful.

Some of you may not like it (though I do not really understand that) but the game is growing in America, and it is very obvious to me. The final proof is the "fan areas" we saw on television showing people in various cities gathered to watch games in large numbers. This is something I doubt existed 20 years ago.

 

That is a great point. 20 years ago I drove 45 minutes in each direction to watch Serie A on Sunday with an Italian friend who had a gigantic satellite dish in his yard. Now I can receive RAI International on my Television by paying Dish Network $10. I also receive BEIN so I can watch La Liga and Premier League matches are common on other channels. Today, I do not have enough time to view all of the football that is on my Television. Access like this is another reason that the game is growing in the United States.

 

the what ifs I mentioned were addressed before the game, not after... see you're doing the these what ifs don't matter because we won, while I am saying these what ifs mattered hence playing your starting 11 instead of resting them.

That's the part you're not getting. You're playing results and saying oh well it didn't happen and it was easy. I'm just pointing out the what ifs were in German's minds that's why they didn't relax that game (as you claim)

 

not really the US was in danger of not qualifying, they were not content with 1 x 0