StarDestroyer.Net BBS

ray245 wrote:I wonder if any African team would make it to the last 16.

You guys are getting confused between the Premier League, and the English team and English players (which is what I'm referring to). The Premier League plays some of the best football in the world; some English players, individually, are also quite excellent. But the English national side is fantastically overrated.

nightwyrm wrote:Ghana has a pretty good shot but yeah, that was a great game.

Gil Hamilton wrote:Even though they lost, Cameroon has alot to be proud of there. That's was an EXCELLENT match between Denmark and Cameroon. Great football went down.

Master of Ossus wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Ah, a limey come to defend his nation's honor, and using those bullshit FIFA rankings to boot. Are you aware that the USA is ranked #14 in those same rankings? This is the same US team that regularly gets beat by teams like #33 Czech Republic, #36 Denmark, and #58 Poland?

And that convincingly beat a Spanish team that was unbeaten in 30+ matches against other top-European teams, finishing second in the Confederations Cup with a 3-2 loss to Brazil. The Americans have an awful defense, so they can lose to anyone, but they also have a very strong and creative offense and so they can beat almost anybody.

Phantasee wrote:

Gil Hamilton wrote:Even though they lost, Cameroon has alot to be proud of there. That's was an EXCELLENT match between Denmark and Cameroon. Great football went down.

was glad to finally see a match with scoring in the first half.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Did you watch that tournament at all? Since you think they "convincingly beat" Spain, I doubt it. The group play wasn't impressive; they were lucky to get through (they lost two of three, and made it through on goal differential). Spain completely dominated their game against the USA; they just couldn't score while the US put in two. In no way, shape, or form, however, did the US outplay the Spaniards. Same thing against Brazil - they scored two early (and somewhat lucky goals), and were promptly outplayed for the rest of the game.

The USA's attack is far from strong and creative; they're good enough to be dangerous, but nowhere near good enough to consistently beat disciplined teams.

Thanas wrote:

Phantasee wrote:

Gil Hamilton wrote:Even though they lost, Cameroon has alot to be proud of there. That's was an EXCELLENT match between Denmark and Cameroon. Great football went down.

was glad to finally see a match with scoring in the first half.

Did you miss Germany vs Australia?

Master of Ossus wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Did you watch that tournament at all? Since you think they "convincingly beat" Spain, I doubt it. The group play wasn't impressive; they were lucky to get through (they lost two of three, and made it through on goal differential). Spain completely dominated their game against the USA; they just couldn't score while the US put in two. In no way, shape, or form, however, did the US outplay the Spaniards. Same thing against Brazil - they scored two early (and somewhat lucky goals), and were promptly outplayed for the rest of the game.

The USA's attack is far from strong and creative; they're good enough to be dangerous, but nowhere near good enough to consistently beat disciplined teams.

And you think they scored three goals in 45 minutes against a team that gave up 4 goals in qualifying by being... weak and uncreative? I think you're misjudging the American squad. At no point in the Confederations Cup did I think Spain showed anything that was legitimately dangerous against them, and even against Brazil I'm willing to bet that the outcome would've been different had Bradley not collected a caution against Spain which disqualified him from the finals. Except for Donovan and maybe Bradley, the US isn't as skilled as their opponents, but they are usually athletically better and pose a different challenge than most teams are used to. Altidore's goal against Spain, for instance, was simply him physically dominating the Spanish defense.

But if the USA's attack is good enough to be dangerous but not good enough to consistently beat disciplined teams, where would you place them in the world rankings? About at... #14, or so, no?

SancheztheWhaler wrote: Tier 1 - World Class powers like Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Italy
Tier 2 - Very good teams that can knock off Tier 1 teams but aren't the elite (Czech Republic, England, Portugal, etc.)
Tier 3 - Average teams who, if they put together a good game, can beat anyone in the world, but not regularly (USA, Slovenia, Cameroon, Mexico, etc.)
Tier 4 - Below average teams just lucky to score a goal against anyone better than them (Algeria, Egypt, South Africa, Nicaragua, Canada, etc.)
Tier 5 - Shit teams who barely know how to play soccer (American Samoa, Guam, India)

In other words, the US can be dangerous if they play well, but are generally mediocre. They're certainly not better than Poland, Czechoslovakia, or Uruguay. At best, they're peers.

Lief wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote: Tier 1 - World Class powers like Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Italy
Tier 2 - Very good teams that can knock off Tier 1 teams but aren't the elite (Czech Republic, England, Portugal, etc.)
Tier 3 - Average teams who, if they put together a good game, can beat anyone in the world, but not regularly (USA, Slovenia, Cameroon, Mexico, etc.)
Tier 4 - Below average teams just lucky to score a goal against anyone better than them (Algeria, Egypt, South Africa, Nicaragua, Canada, etc.)
Tier 5 - Shit teams who barely know how to play soccer (American Samoa, Guam, India)

In other words, the US can be dangerous if they play well, but are generally mediocre. They're certainly not better than Poland, Czechoslovakia, or Uruguay. At best, they're peers.

I don't see much difference between this, and the current ranking system (which is just a points system based on overall performance), you even have most of the teams in a similar placement to where they are in the rankings anyway.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:I think those rankings are feel good political bullshit (Egypt is #12 in the world?). If it were up to me, I'd divide teams into tiers:

Tier 1 - World Class powers like Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Italy
Tier 2 - Very good teams that can knock off Tier 1 teams but aren't the elite (Czech Republic, England, Portugal, etc.)
Tier 3 - Average teams who, if they put together a good game, can beat anyone in the world, but not regularly (USA, Slovenia, Cameroon, Mexico, etc.)
Tier 4 - Below average teams just lucky to score a goal against anyone better than them (Algeria, Egypt, South Africa, Nicaragua, Canada, etc.)
Tier 5 - Shit teams who barely know how to play soccer (American Samoa, Guam, India)

In other words, the US can be dangerous if they play well, but are generally mediocre. They're certainly not better than Poland, Czechoslovakia, or Uruguay. At best, they're peers.

France refuse to train after row
France's players refused to train on Sunday following Nicolas Anelka's expulsion from the squad for verbally abusing coach Raymond Domenech.

Domenech read out a statement from his squad which said: "The French Football Federation did not at any time try to protect the group.

"To show our opposition to the decision taken [on Anelka], all the players decided not to take part in training."

The French Football Federation's managing director subsequently quit.

Moments before a public training session was about to begin, Domenech had to separate captain Patrice Evra and fitness coach Robert Duverne.

The players then left the pitch and walked towards the bus where they had a meeting with Domenech behind closed curtains.

"I am disgusted, I am quitting my post," FFF managing director Jean-Louis Valentin said immediately after the incident between Evra and Duverne, before driving off in his car.

"It's a scandal for the French, for the federation and the French team.

"They don't want to train. It's unacceptable. As for me, it's over. I'm leaving the federation. I'm sickened and disgusted."

Duverne is understood to have stormed away from an argument with Manchester United left-back Evra, throwing his accreditation badge to the ground.

Earlier on Sunday, coach Domenech had played down his row with Anelka and insisted the striker could have stayed with the squad had he apologised.

Anelka was sent home after insulting Domenech during the defeat by Mexico which has left France unlikely to qualify for the last 16.

"I had another chat with him and left open the possibility for him to apologise," said the 57-year-old. "[That was] something which he did not want to do."

But Domenech insisted the incident could have been dealt with without such damaging repercussions, had a leak to the media not escalated the problem.

"People cannot imagine the pressure," said Domenech, who took France to the final of the last World Cup in 2006.

"We are in a dressing room, the coach says something to a player who is already under pressure, he can react angrily, and with strong words.

"He did not react in the most suitable fashion. But it was just a guy sitting in his corner and muttering - that would not have mattered had it stayed there.

"What was important was that it made the front page of a newspaper, and that exposes the internal life of the squad."

He continued: "I sorted out the problem internally, and as far as I was concerned it was done and dusted.

"[But] the decision to exclude him was the right one. I am sorry for the children for whom the French team represents something. Anelka does not have the right to say such things."

Anelka's Chelsea team-mate John Terry, who is playing for England in South Africa, said he disagreed with the decision of the French Football Federation to send the former Arsenal and Real Madrid player home.

"As a person, you won't find a better man in football," he said.

"He's someone who's very quiet, obviously he's been in the game a long time, and he knows his football. If Nico had something to say to me, I'd stand up and listen.

"It's obviously the wrong decision. He's a great player as well."

Domenech has now led France for a record number of matches but his six-year stint as coach has been consistently controversial and he will be replaced by Bordeaux boss Laurent Blanc once their World Cup is over.

That will happen on Tuesday, unless they convincingly beat hosts South Africa in their final Group A encounter, and Uruguay and Mexico do not draw the other match.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:This World Cup is hilarious. I am not much of a fan, but more drama is happening off the pitch than on the pitch it seems.

Korgeta wrote:Looks like Italy should fall a tier or two if we were to judge all the games accroding to the tier because Italy just managed to snatch a draw from New Zealand!

Master of Ossus wrote:
The tier system strikes me as being at least as subjective (e.g., how is Argentina a world-class power?). But moreover, I don't see any need for it, and the ranking system is almost identical except that it assigns ranks within each tier. The US has been better than Mexico in virtually all of our home-and-homes, so it makes sense that we'd be rated slightly ahead of them--and in fact the US has 62 more points than they do in the world rankings. When you look at the world rankings, Portugal is rated the #3 team (pre-WC) and Netherlands is #4 (essentially tied in points with Portugal), but they have 300 fewer points than Brazil at #2.

Enigma wrote:I thought Brazil was ranked #1 by FIFA. That is how I saw the rank list.