World Soccer Thread II

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Locutus


If I have to choose between reaching 3 finals (of which 1 was won) and 5 semi finals on major tournaments in 40 years with the best football in the world, or 1 WC and 2 semi finals in the same amount of time with absolutely horrible football, I'll pick the Netherlands over England any day

Is that a long winded way of saying 'never'?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Krill
Locutus, at least our national team talks to each other...

So does ours, now we got rid of the prima donnas (and haven't lost a single match since)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Is that a long winded way of saying 'never'?

Basically . Though skillfully done.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

But also you only have to look back to their last 2 matches, they were having 60-70% possession versus Azerbaijan and sometimes N. Ireland too but there was always lots of sideways movement when there was no room for a low pass, its called controlling the game.

yeah, but its azerbaijan, its northern ireland. you do things differently against weaker teams.

Neither do England play all attack, all game, and if you saw them against France in 2004 you wouldve seen how painfully true that is.

Neither do England play all attack, all game, and if you saw them against France in 2004 you wouldve seen how painfully true that is.

compared to most countries, england is always headdown, straight ahead for 90 minutes.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And boring football is supposed to win fans in the US? The only way to get more fans is to make the football exciting. MLS isn't playing for the WC. The national team also is a very attacking team and are having success. If you wanted them to go to negative tactics to be more successful, that's an entirely different thing. They CAN actually compete for the WC.

the national team plays perenial contenders such as guatemala, trinidad and tobago, and El Salvador. please.

the way to make MLS more exciting has NOTHING to do with all attack, all the time, and has everything to do with luring good players to the league. you want people to come, then attract good european players. thats how you win fans, by improving the level of the games, NOT with an attacking philosophy - do you wanna watch 11 guys cluster**** around the ball always taking it straight ahead, being reckless, not trapping, poor crosses, kickball style soccer instead of real skill? if you are in the former, then its obvious you have no clue about soccer and shouldnt be watching it anyways, and the MLS doesnt need your money.

the national team can do what they want, but half the team plays in europe, and that says something about the MLS dont you think. and the only reason donovon came back was because he didnt get any playing time.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
yeah, but its azerbaijan, its northern ireland. you do things differently against weaker teams.

compared to most countries, england is always headdown, straight ahead for 90 minutes.

Then youre not watching the England im watching, its quite the opposite, especially under Eriksson. You must not have seen us in Euro 2004 at all.

the national team can do what they want, but half the team plays in europe, and that says something about the MLS dont you think. and the only reason donovon came back was because he didnt get any playing time.

European competition is a bigger draw for players now, people pay more attention to it, thats where the top players want to be, its not necessarily a negative reflection on the MLS, although it still needs work, those players would still have left if the MLS was on par with the Brazilian and Argentinian leagues.

The MLS will struggle to bring good players in, its not a case in the early days where everyone was local, good players stayed local and the league fed and improved itself. They will have a fight on improving it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

hey guys, tune into the real salt lake v. LA galaxy game. this soccer is so ugly im about to gouge my eyes out.

ps. real salt lake? real? pulllheeasse.

[notyoueither]

What? No comments about Sir Alex letting the canary escape from the coal mine?

[Maquiladora]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/4420769.stm

Turns out that ****er Rijkaard did try to "influence" the ref so, will UEFA give Rijkaard a touchline ban or fine him too for trying to influence the ref at half-time then? Will they ****.

[Maquiladora]

Tottenham 1 - 0 Newcastle

Thank you Steve Harper

[C0ckney]

i don't think shay given will be too worried about losing his place following that display...

pretty happy with this weekend's results actually, the mighty gunners getting a well deserved win (), chelsea dropping points and manure losing to norwich

the race for 4th is looking very interesting now as well with bolton breathing down liverpool's neck.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the national team plays perenial contenders such as guatemala, trinidad and tobago, and El Salvador. please.

And are dominating them unlike 4 years ago, where they just squeaked by. Though in the WC that didn't help them. Getting into the 2nd round is being competitve for the WC.

the way to make MLS more exciting has NOTHING to do with all attack, all the time, and has everything to do with luring good players to the league. you want people to come, then attract good european players. thats how you win fans, by improving the level of the games, NOT with an attacking philosophy - do you wanna watch 11 guys cluster**** around the ball always taking it straight ahead, being reckless, not trapping, poor crosses, kickball style soccer instead of real skill? if you are in the former, then its obvious you have no clue about soccer and shouldnt be watching it anyways, and the MLS doesnt need your money.

That whole bringing in European players was tried with the NASL. It didn't work. You play Italian soccer and Americans start snoozing. Hell, some Europeans start snoozing. You are trying to bring in fans who don't know the game, and the way to do that is to play attacking, score a lot of goals, etc.

How has baseball recovered from the strike? They went for offense and gained fans at a very rapid pace. Now baseball has a set in fan base and soccer doesn't, but in order to attract new fans, you get offense and then, gradually, improve the technical skill of the game.

There is a reason most Americans who watch soccer tune into the English Premier League in far more numbers than other technically superior leagues (like Spain or Italy). They were enticed by the attacking.

There is still the prejudice in the US against soccer, where most people think that most soccer games end in a boring 0-0 tie or 1-0 and thus is a total waste of time (no, I'm not exaggerating, unfortunetly).

half the team plays in europe, and that says something about the MLS dont you think

No one ever said the MLS was as good as Europe. Also European teams pay far better than MLS. Brian McBride, as a substitute for Fulham makes far more than any star in the MLS.

That's not the point though. There may be better soccer in Europe, but you have to win fans in the US.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And are dominating them unlike 4 years ago, where they just squeaked by. Though in the WC that didn't help them. Getting into the 2nd round is being competitve for the WC.

not thanks to the MLS - more then 1/2 the team plays in europe!

That whole bringing in European players was tried with the NASL. It didn't work. You play Italian soccer and Americans start snoozing. Hell, some Europeans start snoozing. You are trying to bring in fans who don't know the game, and the way to do that is to play attacking, score a lot of goals, etc.

that was then, this is now. americans are more aware of soccer then ever before (womens world cup, world cup 94, US games on espn etc)

How has baseball recovered from the strike? They went for offense and gained fans at a very rapid pace. Now baseball has a set in fan base and soccer doesn't, but in order to attract new fans, you get offense and then, gradually, improve the technical skill of the game.

baseball recovered by turning a blind eye to steroids. do you suggest soccer does the same?

There is a reason most Americans who watch soccer tune into the English Premier League in far more numbers than other technically superior leagues (like Spain or Italy). They were enticed by the attacking.

they tune into the EPL because culturally we are closer to england then spain or italy (speak english) and because its the most famous league, and it has manchester united, a team many americans have heard about. if you only know one team in soccer, its most likely manchester united. not only that, epl gets the most coverage in america (remember that premiership program on espn a few years ago?)

No one ever said the MLS was as good as Europe. Also European teams pay far better than MLS. Brian McBride, as a substitute for Fulham makes far more than any star in the MLS.

players dont go there for the higher pay, they go there cuz its not kickball.

That's not the point though. There may be better soccer in Europe, but you have to win fans in the US.

and you do that by attracting foreign players who are GOOD, not those who bounce out of their national leagues.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i just cant believe you are saying that MLS is good or even marginally good soccer - if any of the europeans could watch a single game, they would be agast and what goes on in the new world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

not thanks to the MLS - more then 1/2 the team plays in europe!

And how many of those players who play in Europe started their careers or improved their careers in the MLS? Beasley and Donovan became the players they are in the MLS. Bocanegra started in the MLS, etc, etc.

that was then, this is now. americans are more aware of soccer then ever before (womens world cup, world cup 94, US games on espn etc)

Only barely more aware of the game. If you think the Women's World Cup, World Cup '94, and US games on ESPN has caused some groundswell of soccer support, then you are being delusion.

It's like the Olympics. The ordinary American notices a WC every 4 years, but otherwise could care less.

baseball recovered by turning a blind eye to steroids. do you suggest soccer does the same?

That's a very simplistic view of baseball's return. Baseball also created smaller stadiums, increased expansion (which hurts pitching more than hitting), and juiced up the balls.

Though if steroids could explode the popularity of soccer, I'd say take the risk.

they tune into the EPL because culturally we are closer to england then spain or italy (speak english) and because its the most famous league, and it has manchester united, a team many americans have heard about. if you only know one team in soccer, its most likely manchester united. not only that, epl gets the most coverage in america (remember that premiership program on espn a few years ago?)

Also because they play attack, attack, attack. Italy confirms their worst fears about soccer, the 0-0 or 1-0 games which are the soccer hater's stereotype of the game.

And WHY have most Americans heard of Manchester United as opposed to AC Milan or Real Madrid? Perhaps because the EPL was the biggest league in the US already. Mostly because the attacking style is more entertaining than the Spanish and Italian leagues, which have more tactical players (though not that much more), but play more defensively.

players dont go there for the higher pay, they go there cuz its not kickball.

Oh please. One reason they go is the higher level of play, but kickball? If that was the reason, then why don't they go to play in the Guatemalan or Honduras leagues, or are those kickball as well?

Money definetly plays a part.

and you do that by attracting foreign players who are GOOD, not those who bounce out of their national leagues.

Like I said, the NASL tried that. They paid a TON for European players and ended up folding because the were losing money hand over foot. Europeans players will NOT come to the MLS until they are at the end of their career (Djorkaeff) or if they are paid some insane sum of money (Pele and Beckenbauer in the old NASL).

They are working with a nascent league which does not have the ability to offer high salaries (they PAY TV stations to show their games... that's right, the MLS PAYS). So how do you attract the foriegn players who are good? I don't see Wayne Rooney saying he wants to come to the US.

You have to get fans first, so you can start paying players more, which will lead to the ability to get better players in Europe.

You are putting the cart before the horse.