almost like this tournament has no business being held given the covid numbers in south america and especially brazil but what do I know
I missed the second and third games on Saturday but followed the Erikson incident on Twitter. Didn't ever see the broadcast footage, but there was a lot of anger on Twitter over the broadcast showing Erikson's wife's reaction during the incident. Seems like something the production crew should've realized was inappropriate considering the circumstance. Luckily he survived and is recovering. Yesterday was a nice day spent watching soccer and listening to my wife and kids complain, "Wait, this is a different game. We're watching another one?!" I need to start keeping a log of the countless hours of Blippi and other garbage kids show they watch... I found myself rooting for North Macedonia in the second game of the day. But the highlight was the Netherlands v Ukraine game. I'd recommend watching that game if you didn't get to it yesterday. Haven't gotten to any of the games today, and I'm not sure I'll be able to with my wife working tonight...
I've thought over the last few years that technology combined with a small rule change could manage offside with near perfection. Change the rule to the waist is the body part in question. Feet, hands, head are not considered. Every player have a belt/strap integrated into the waistband of the shorts that have sensors front back and sides, or a full ring if technology allows. Sensors around the field and in the ball give positional representation at the millisecond level and at the centimeter (millimeter?) level. Computer determines offside and a buzzer in the AR's flag tells them to put it up or keep it down on the close calls. I believe the technology is not out of reach at this point. If goal cams are accurate enough, this can be accurate enough, also.
This sounds like a technological nightmare and the cost would somehow exceed VAR's absurd numbers. Though I like the though of it, in general.
The Italy/Belgium game today was one of the best games I’ve ever seen. Italy is the real deal. They attack relentlessly and defend with vigor.
Did anyone here attend the Club America/Santos Laguna friendly? Just wondering what the atmosphere was like.
Was anyone else rooting for England? I know my wife was pretty bummed. Me as well. You just can't bunker that long and let a great team like Italy back into the game. Also, in hindsight, it was probably pretty poor on the choices for PK's. If Rashfords goes in I bet England would have pulled it out but we'll never know. Hopefully it's not another 55 year wait for a final for my ancestral homeland.
I was cheering for England, but didn't mind Italy (the best team in the tournament) winning. They were the better side in the game, if you had to pick one, and showed a willingness to use their depth that Southgate refused to do, for whatever reason. I hate penalty kicks. The more I watch them, the more I learn about what I enjoy about this game, the more I loathe that as the means of ending the game - especially that kind of game. England are setup to do well in Qatar, but so are a bunch of other nations and England couldn't have asked for much better of a draw and format than what they got here.
I can't disagree with any of your thoughts on the game. I kept thinking that England was asking for trouble sitting back after the goal but I didn't want to say it out loud. You know how that goes. Either way it didn't matter. Tough to fault a guy for getting them to their first final in 55 years but the decisions on the PK takers is pretty rough even before hind sight sets in. Rashford really should have been sent on earlier. Not a fan of sending guys in cold just for PK's. I guess sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Looking forward to the day that the US plays in similar, more weighty, competitions. Mainly just the world cup I guess. I do agree with Rebecca Lowe though that soccer will take over here in the US at some point. It almost feels inevitable. A more consistent men's National team and a growing MLS will definitely help. The naysayers are getting fewer and farther between. I mean I listened to Gordon Monson of all people defending the Euro final against Jake and Austin's tired and trite complaints.
I also wanted England. Sadly, it looked like Southgate took a crash course on how to sub like Freddy. They needed fresh legs far earlier in the game. Someone like Rashford with 20+ minutes of play could've been a huge boost. His was the only penalty I was upset with, since he completely beat the goalie and should've had an easy goal. They definitely should've tried to attack more often though. I felt like they were the better team overall in the first half, but by the second half and extra time they seemed to just allow Italy to take over.
My view after nearly fifty years of reading and hearing predictions such as this one: in the USA, soccer is the sport of the future, and always will be.
Thought Mancini might have been Man of the Tournament. His tactical changes during games and his subs were very effective. I will agree that PKs to determine victors is disappointing, but I don’t see how the teams can just keep playing indefinitely. The injury risk alone is reason enough not to do it.
In a lot of ways, England scoring early was detrimental to themselves more than Italy. Or, more specifically, only scoring once early. In those first 20 mins, England absolutely dominated. Kane dropped deep, pulling the Italy backline to one side and the winger on the opposite wing (typically Trippier) was wide open to get in behind. If England find a second goal in the first 20, when they really were running the show, I think the game ends 3-1 or even 4-1 because Italy have to open up a bit more. At 1, Italy looked calm and like they knew they were going to score eventually. The drop in energy from England, especially in the last 30 of regular time and all of extra time, showed that Italy were the better side overall. To that point in the tournament, Southgate had gotten away with obviously tired players going longer than they should have. Kane and Sterling, in particular, seemed untouchable to Southgate for purely sentimental reasons. it was dumb, especially with SO MUCH talent on the bench. Southgate rightfully should be criticized for that. However, the pks? Nah, I'm not in on blaming the manager. I don't blame any person, in fact. I blame the game. Soccer is a team sport and suddenly we want to settle it with individuals? I don't know another way to end it, but this sure as shit isn't a satisfactory method. It removes all the team aspect and victimizes individuals. Being mad at a shooter for hitting the post or that the GK read them is dumb. One thing that I find really interesting about the penalty kick discussion is this idea of subbing in a player earlier so that they can get a "feel" for the game. Calm the nerves. This isn't the case, IMO. If the game ended and kicks were within a minute after, sure, but there is always a good 10-15 mins before the first kick. in that time, everyone has gone pretty cold and it doesn't much matter if you're just subbing in or played 10 mins. In fact, the risk you run with subbing in say a Rashford for a Walker is MASSIVE. One thing I was thinking about as an interesting change would be to allow teams to sub after the end of extra time, if they still had available subs. The last 5 mins of overtime is typically ruined with this moronic chess game of getting a player on to take a pk but to not take risk of them being a negative impact to the flow of the game. You can make a sub at half, you can make a sub at the end of regulation, you can make a sub at half of the Extra time.... why not allow subs (so long as the team has them available) at the end of extra time?
I'm ok with PKs deciding non-Finals games. In the Finals, you have to score to win. Just keep adding Extra Time (with its corresponding additional sub for each set of 2 ET periods). After the first set of ET, I think it could also be Golden Goal.
When I was a senior in high school, UCLA played American University for the NCAA soccer title. It went eight overtime periods (the first two were these were only ten minutes apiece; the 1982 final also went eight). The guy who scored was from the far end of the UCLA bench, and only entered in one of the later OT periods when other people were too exhausted. Essentially, he was fresh and no one else was. That's what I think of when I envision eternal OT games.
I've often thrown out this suggestion: do the PKs before the extra time. Here me out. If at the end of regulation the game is tied then immediately go to PKs until one team wins the PK shootout, but this does not decide the winner. Then play extra time. Still two 15 minute halves. If it is still tied after extra time, the team that won the PKs wins the match. This way the game doesn't go on forever and it doesn't feel like the game was 100% decided on penalties. If you lost the shootout, you gotta get it done on the field and find a goal. If you won the shootout, you gotta make sure you don't lose in extra time. No more boring extra time where two teams agree to let it go to penalties and play to not lose.
can you imagine the level of gamesmanship you'd see from the team that won pk's in this scenario? It sounds like an absolute nightmare to officiate. Also, if a team wins the pk shootout 3-0 vs 4-5, does that alter how much they're ahead by? A 3-0 drubbing in a pk shootout should afford a large lead, no? This sounds ok on paper, but in execution would be awful, IMO
I guess upset may have been too harsh of a term. Disappointed maybe? As far as ending a draw, I have no idea what the best course of action would be. Perhaps extra time subs go out the window and you could have unlimited subs and allow anyone back in the match even if subbed out prior? It could allow for say, Rashford for Kane to come in and go balls to the wall in the 2nd half, and allow Kane to come back in during extra time. Maybe if a game goes to penalties subs go out the window as well? Just name your 5 and go. Who cares if they were on the bench or not? It also allows for better sub usage during the game since you don't have to worry about keeping people on the field just for penalties.
Sometimes Copa America invites a non-Conmebol team like Mexico, Japan, etc… I figure it’s similar to that. Also, Qatar was probably looking around for a a tournament and Concacaf obliged. Probably some politics involved too.