• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Are you going to follow the FIFA World Cup 2006 games?

  • Yes, I'm a real soccer fanatic.

    Votes: 39 43.3%
  • Yes, As long as the US is still playing.

    Votes: 23 25.6%
  • No, I like soccer, but I'm more interested in the NBA, NHL, and/or MLB.

    Votes: 7 7.8%
  • No, The only football I'm interested in is one played with a ball that has pointed ends.

    Votes: 21 23.3%

  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> The US leans on those older players, particularly Reyna - and ask yourself this, how thin are the ranks when a player who barely makes it onto the pitch for Man City earns another cap for the US? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
He started 23 games last year for Man City, 21 of which were in the EPL, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I am talking of Reyna's injury free time. Of 38 listed fixtures Reyna was ready to go in just over half. Great career Reyna has had, on this I absolutely agree. My point in this was about the lack of development of new talent, it just so happens that an injury prone mainstay underscores this problem.

I don't see how that's at all relevent. We're never going to see a squad made up of teenagers and 20-year olds like Brazil was able to produce in the '60s and '70s because of the physicality and speed of today's game.

And Sweden didn't even qualify in 1962.

Sometimes I even have to laugh at myself. The debut for Pele was '58, in Sweden though I was still too small to remember seeing that one. I did get to see (on TV, B&W) the squad that repeated in '62, which was in Chile. Sadly Pele was lost to injury early in the torunament, but the rest of the Brazilian squad came from behind to win. Anyway, in any discussion of youth that Brazilian team is highly relevant. I simply disagree with your assertion that they would not be able to stand up to the physicality or speed of today's game. (This I do largely because one of the other facets the Brazilians brought with their style and skill was speed).
 
Upvote 0
France and Switzeland just had a scoreless tie. Fourth straight scoreless game for France since they won the WC in '98.

Two minutes into stoppage time at the end of the game, Switzerland had a free kick from outside the box, only a few yards from the end line. The ball bends past Barthez, and a Swiss guy diving toward the goal line just misses getting his head on it. But he thinks he's Maradona, and raises his hand above his head to try to knock the ball in. It doesn't go in and he's yellow-carded by the ref. But he cost Switzerland the game, because there was another Swiss guy diving toward the goal right behind him, who would have easily scored if the ball hadn't hit his teammate's hand.

The ref did miss a handball in the box that should have given France a PK in the first half.
 
Upvote 0
We were listening on a webcast at work today...that FRA/SUI game was a freaking war. Was sorry to hear Croatia not get a share of the points. Ronaldo is clearly a has-been, but I still think Brazil is the team to beat.
 
Upvote 0
We were listening on a webcast at work today...that FRA/SUI game was a freaking war. Was sorry to hear Croatia not get a share of the points. Ronaldo is clearly a has-been, but I still think Brazil is the team to beat.

I'm going to have to catch that game tonight on DvR, but tell me ...

Did the Brazilians look better than Argentina, or Italy for that matter?

Those are the two teams that seem to have entered the competition in highest gear. (Germany's early good showing must be discredited somewhat because their D gave up 2 to Costa Rica, but they are the hosts).
 
Upvote 0
I'm going to have to catch that game tonight on DvR, but tell me ...

Did the Brazilians look better than Argentina, or Italy for that matter?

Those are the two teams that seem to have entered the competition in highest gear. (Germany's early good showing must be discredited somewhat because their D gave up 2 to Costa Rica, but they are the hosts).

We were listening, not watching, but it was evident that Ronaldo was painfully slow, and was eventually yanked. The Brazilians created a myriad of chances, and Ronaldinho (or however you spell it) was at least as good as advertised, if not better. Brazil definitely still plays the free-wheeling style that allows the counter-attack, but Croatia couldn't put the 3-4 chances they really had away...and losing their captain to injury didn't help.

It was a closer game than Italia or Argentina, but the quality of the side they played, in my opinion, was also higher, so it's hard to say. I'm not sold on Italy or Argentina based on one game, but I do believe that Brazil is very dangerous from today.
 
Upvote 0
Anyway, in any discussion of youth that Brazilian team is highly relevant. I simply disagree with your assertion that they would not be able to stand up to the physicality or speed of today's game. (This I do largely because one of the other facets the Brazilians brought with their style and skill was speed).
Speed? Yeah, you're right, they probably would be able to keep up, but physicality? I doubt it. Arsenal, a fast, quick-passing, offensive-minded team, struggled last year in the Premiership because their youngsters were frequently pushed around and beaten up by mid-table sides as they weren't used to the physicality of the EPL and they weren't strong enough to put up with it. Today Brazil brought on Robinho, small, fast, skillful, and similar to the players that Brazil had in the 60s and 70s, and like Arsenal's youngsters, he was pushed around and apart from drawing about 37 fouls, he wasn't very effective.

And as far as Brazil goes, I didn't think they looked nearly as sharp or dangerous as Italy or Argentina (they also didn't dive as much as Argentina), though you probably wouldn't know it based on the 90-minute BJ the commentators gave them. Apart from two or three spins and step-overs, Ronaldinho was garbage, quite wasteful. Kaka and Roberto Carlos were the only Brazillians that did anything useful tbh. Croatia certainly deserved a result.
 
Upvote 0
513 - You've got a passion for the game, that is admirable. To be honest though in discussing Brazil past and present, I have an advantage. You could not see those '62 Brazilians live, I did. So I don't see how you can judge them in the same manner I do, that is to say, from memory. Now, you do offer me a refinement of your original physical and speed argument, shifted to focus solely on the physical aspects. Likely, because I didn't explicitly tell you that Brazil was - yep, also quite strong. Here, explicitly, is why that counter argument fails to sway me. I saw them, as live as you can without a ticket, and believe me when I tell you, they were awesome in every aspect. Hell, they overcame physical and dirty play to win in '62. As for physical defense, tell me - pop quiz, how many goals did Brazil give up in '62? Answer - 1 in 3 games in group play, 1 in the QF (vs England), 2 in the SF (vs host Chile), 1 in the final (vs Czechs). A total of five. Only West Germany could boast of an equal record in group play.

Now back to the game between Brazil and Croatia.
I am giving a lot of credit to the Croatian fans, they actually outdid their Brazilian counterparts. That's something I've only ever seen the English road warriors do before. They helped their team, boosted them, especially in the 2nd half.
However, it should have been out of contention at the half, not 1-0 in favor of Brazil. Something more like 3-0 would have been fitting. Still Brazil always tends to warm up as the tournament goes on, so getting the win under their belt is bad news for everyone else.
Brazil took the foot of the gas in the 2nd half. Croatia took the opportunity to gamely try and get back in the game, they had more than enough opportunities to win. Indeed, without Dida's psychic goal-keeping the end result may not have reflected the full game.
Brazil are definitely in there with Italy and Argentian as the best out of the gate, but Croatia, nor their fans have anything of which to be ashamed. Croatia should at this rate make the next round (barring a Socceroo miracle).
 
Upvote 0
513 - You've got a passion for the game, that is admirable. To be honest though in discussing Brazil past and present, I have an advantage. You could not see those '62 Brazilians live, I did. So I don't see how you can judge them in the same manner I do, that is to say, from memory. Now, you do offer me a refinement of your original physical and speed argument, shifted to focus solely on the physical aspects. Likely, because I didn't explicitly tell you that Brazil was - yep, also quite strong. Here, explicitly, is why that counter argument fails to sway me. I saw them, as live as you can without a ticket, and believe me when I tell you, they were awesome in every aspect. Hell, they overcame physical and dirty play to win in '62. As for physical defense, tell me - pop quiz, how many goals did Brazil give up in '62? Answer - 1 in 3 games in group play, 1 in the QF (vs England), 2 in the SF (vs host Chile), 1 in the final (vs Czechs). A total of five. Only West Germany could boast of an equal record in group play.
No, I haven't seen them live, but I have seen them. And in the games I have seen from those great Brazillian teams, they've always played traditional Brazillian soccer - quick, loose, and skillful. I've never seen any of those teams physically handle a team for 90 minutes like teams tend to do today. In fact, I don't know how strong a team with an average height of 5'8 in 1958, 5'9 in 1964, and 5'9 in 1970 can be. They were also pretty light-weight, with just an average weight of 157 lbs. in 1958, 154 lbs. in 1964, and 159 lbs. in 1970. You also have to take into account the fact that they didn't have the kind of strength-training technology that players have today. They may have been able to overcome physical play 30 or 40 years ago, but I don't how Pele, or Tostao, or Rivelino, or Gerson would be able to dominate an Oguchi Onyewu, or a Mahamadou Diarra, or a John Terry, or a Sol Campbell for 90 minutes like they dominated players in their day.
 
Upvote 0
Did the Brazilians look better than Argentina, or Italy for that matter?

Those are the two teams that seem to have entered the competition in highest gear. (Germany's early good showing must be discredited somewhat because their D gave up 2 to Costa Rica, but they are the hosts).

There's a new team to be considered for best performance so far.

Spain has looked great in building a 2-0 halftime lead over Ukraine. Ukraine is a good team that won their qualifying gruop in Europe. Spain has been very solid in the midfield, and their attacks are sharp. And this is without Raul, who's not in the game.

It's only 1 game, but Spain looks better than any team that's played so far. They also haven't lost a game in the last 2 years.
 
Upvote 0
Spain beats Ukraine in every aspect of the game and earns a 4-0 win. From the sounds of things (following on Yahoo MatchCast) Spain has one of the best, if not the best, opening matches. Look for a strong showing from Spain if they can keep up the intensity.
 
Upvote 0
my thoughts -

1. when i'm watching a soccer match, i love it when the announcers have british accents (i particularly enjoy tommy smith). i HATE IT when they have a couple of american dudes do the game. for some reason, i just can't stand to hear an american accent in a soccer game. same goes for track; ato boldin has been added to CBS's staff and he has a wonderful carribbean voice that is soothing to the ear, but then you have carol lewis and dwight stone who make you want to slit your ears. anyway, my advice to everyone, if the game has american announcers, switch to the spanish channel. much more enjoyable.

2. i believe that to truly enjoy soccer, you can't care so much about who wins. just enjoy the match. it's not about the number of goals scored; it's about the number of chances, the style of play, the moments of individual ball-handling brilliance (Ronaldinho), etc. That is why everybody should make it a point to watch Brazil. They are an absolute joy to watch.

3. i heard somewhere (so this might not be true) that kirk herbstreit, on his radio show, said that if he were to take reggie bush and the other great tackle football athletes, and give them 5 weeks, that they would be able to beat Team USA in soccer.

If this is indeed true that he said this...... he is embrassing not only himself, but all quarterbacks, all football players, all Centerville and/or OSU alumni/fans, all ESPN commentators, all white Americans, and all good-looking people with his sheer idiocy.

This is my one pet-peeve; Americans do not realize how INCREDIBLY SKILLED AND ATHLETIC soccer players are. And I've never played soccer, so it's not like I'm biased here.

If there was a loose ball, yeah, Reggie Bush would get to it first....but then, what would he do with the ball? Pick it up and tuck it under his arm, and sprint and stiff-arm his way towards the goalie? Forget about 5 weeks....give them the rest of their lives.....and they would still get waxed by Team USA. Developing soccer skills takes a lifetime, and you really have to develop the mind-foot coordination as a youngster.

soccer is pretty much the #1 sport around the world. in africa and south america, it's pretty much the only sport (because it requires no equipment, just a ball). you don't need to join these ridiculous organized youth soccer mom leagues; just juggle and mess around with the kids on your block, and play street and beach soccer. Ronaldinho, the best player in the world thanks to his MAGICAL foot-work, grew up playing beach soccer.

Girls love soccer players. So in a great number of these countries, pretty much every boy grows up playing soccer, because in addition to being fun, it will also make them popular. So you've got billions of people all trying to get good at one game.....you don't think that the top players that emerge from the group are going to be athletic? the elite players not only have incredible skills, but they are also incredibly athletic. they are fast, lightning quick, and great jumpers.

Herbstreit is insulting not just Team USA, but the entire world with his ridiculous comments (once again, i didn't hear him, so maybe he never said this). He makes himself look like your stereotypical stupid idiot American that thinks that soccer is a "pussy" sport (i'd rather get tackled than kicked in the face or balls with sharp cleats at full speed, or crack skulls as I go for a header).


that's all for now. i've got a lot more opinions about soccer. but just to recap, here is my advice:

1. only watch games with either spanish announcers of guys with english accents

2. don't worry so much about who wins; just enjoy the game. watch teams that play exciting, fast-break, fluid soccer (like brazil); avoid watching games that feature dull teams with shoddy passing if you're not a big fan.


3. don't listen to idiot americans, no matter how good-looking they are.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye513 - You discussion of Weight-Watchers South America was a riot and a half. It has zero to do with whether Brazil could play with more than "mere" skill and "only" speed in '58, '62, etc, for they certainly could.

Your reply was another attempt to try and shift the goal-posts in the discussion.

So my last word on this topic is thus, I am not going to further attempt to convince you of a truth proven by historical record.
You, as always, are perfectly entitled to your view on the matter. But, please, do not try further to convince me of the virtues of your position, no matter how utterly mistaken I hold it to be.:tongue2:

=BB73 said:
There's a new team to be considered for best performance so far.

Spain has looked great in building a 2-0 halftime lead over Ukraine. Ukraine is a good team that won their qualifying gruop in Europe. Spain has been very solid in the midfield, and their attacks are sharp. And this is without Raul, who's not in the game.

It's only 1 game, but Spain looks better than any team that's played so far. They also haven't lost a game in the last 2 years.
Now that's one point I think all WC watchers agree on. Spain looked more robust and imaginative than anyone except Brazil in the 1st half yesterday. The difference was Spain played two full halves. If they have not peaked early this becomes a very dangerous team, very dangerous indeed. Should Raul be back in full form for the elimination round then sky (or the hosts, or Brazil?) may be the only limit.
 
Upvote 0
my thoughts -

1. when i'm watching a soccer match, i love it when the announcers have british accents (i particularly enjoy tommy smith). i HATE IT when they have a couple of american dudes do the game. for some reason, i just can't stand to hear an american accent in a soccer game. same goes for track; ato boldin has been added to CBS's staff and he has a wonderful carribbean voice that is soothing to the ear, but then you have carol lewis and dwight stone who make you want to slit your ears. anyway, my advice to everyone, if the game has american announcers, switch to the spanish channel. much more enjoyable..

I used to play FIFA World Cup on the original playstation and loved the British announcers. I forget their names, but they were great. Of course, the next year's version of the game had Julie Foody (or one of the other bitches) doing the announcing, which ruined the entire game.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top