USA beats Portugal!!! - A break from the heavy stuff [Archive]

PaulDavidHewson

5th June 2002, 21:15

alright, if the US goes to the next round they face(probably) either Italy or Mexico.(depending on what position USA and the others will have in the poule)
Both extremely difficult opponents, especially Italy with their combined player value of 10000 grillion dollars.

then in the quarterfinals they face, probably, either Germany, England or Argentinia.(again depending on results)
then they have to tackle Germany probably in the semi finals.

Ah, I will check it out more concrete soon. But anyway this gives a good idication of the improbability of USA reaching the finals.

For those who read Hitchhikers guide will immediately know what kind of improbability i'm speaking of :)

Moskitto

5th June 2002, 21:20

Soccer is the most popular amature sport in the US.

PaulDavidHewson

5th June 2002, 21:39

Alright this is my prognose of what would happen if the US made it to the Finals and who they encounter underway, as you can see it's going to get pretty hard :)

1/16 finals: Italy vs USA
1/4 finals: germany vs USA
1/2 finals: USA vs. Portugal
finals: USA vs Brazil or Argentina.

CI, Do you seriously think the USA can make it to the finals and maybe even win the finals after looking at this??

PaulDavidHewson

5th June 2002, 21:50

to make this calculation I ranked USA as second in their poule.

If they were to finish first in their poule it would be slightly different:
1/16: USA vs Mexico
1/4: USA vs Spain
1/2: Germany vs USA
finals: USA vs. Brazil or argentina

Hahaha, still fokking impossible. :)

guerrillaradio

5th June 2002, 21:58

In 1994, when USA hosted the World Cup, everyone was predicting an American renaissance, and that US domination of footy, just like every other aspect of our pitiful and meaningless existence, was imminent. However, in 1998, they lost two matches and drew one before crashing out and are yet to win the CONACAF Cup or whatever it's called. Hardly the stuff of world-beaters. And, like I said in Chit-Chat, although I like the look of Marcus Beasley, it was more thanks to Portugal playing absolutely terribly than America playing well. Same with Senegal-France.

Bono - it is more likely that US will reach the quarters than England, to be honest. I'm putting my money on:

SEMIS:
France v Argentina
Italy v Portugal

Bakunjin

5th June 2002, 22:17

OK.. lets all cut the crap..
1. Portugal played like crap
2. Portugal played with so high opinion about themselves
3. Figo was invisible
4. Portugal diserved to lose
5. So, USA diserved to win
6. USA's best performance was in Uruguay back in 1930. They won fourth place /Yugoslavia was third:)/
7. USA will not pass through the group (Maybe...South Korea beat Poland, the first qualified team on WC2002)
8. If it passes group it will play against Italy, Mexico or Croatia
9. They want pass through 1/8 finals
10. Mastroeni, Sanneh, Llamosa are AMERICANS???? Yeah, right...

I hope Croatia beats Italy (although it is IMPOSSIBLE)

Xvall

5th June 2002, 22:24

How the hell does winning a soccer game prove your political dominance? If Luxemburg beat China in a basketball game would you say that Luxemberg is 'superior' to China?

Capitalist Imperial

5th June 2002, 22:52

I wasn't speaking politically, drake, I was lightening conversation, and I don't think we'll get to the finals this year either, but give us about 5 more years, and we will rule soccer.

Moskitto

5th June 2002, 23:00

Croatia could beat Italy, I mean, Didn't they annilate Germany last time?

lenin

5th June 2002, 23:05

yes but germany of '98 is nothing like italy of '02. italy are well organised with an awsome set of strikers and, as usual, are solid defensivly. if they had a dominant midfielder like zidane, they would easily win the WC. italy have an easy passage to the final and i think will play argentina for the world cup. italians and germans always start off slow and pick up when it counts. don't write off the germans after today.

ps USA beat a terrible portugese side who are a shade of the team they were in 2000. USA may qualify but will never be a dominent footblling power.

El Brujo

5th June 2002, 23:11

What a fucking joke. The yanks havent played well in a world cup since the 50's, they will most definitely not survive against Korea and Poland. And football (not "soccer") dosent even matter to the yanks, their too concerned with the shitty Lakers right now to care about the WC. Honduras is the one that should even be in this world cup instead of the U$ but they lost to Trinidad & Tobago.

(Edited by El Brujo at 7:16 am on June 6, 2002)

RedSovietCCCP

5th June 2002, 23:12

SOCCER SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Capitalist Imperial

5th June 2002, 23:41

Yeah, soccer is a joke!!! Put those players next to some american football players or NBA players and they would get their butts kicked!!! LOL, LOL

Its ok, we yanks will rule soccer too in about 5 years anyway

guerrillaradio

6th June 2002, 00:02

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 11:41 pm on June 5, 2002
Its ok, we yanks will rule soccer too in about 5 years anyway

They said that in '94...

Italy-Argentina final, with the Argies winning. Quote me on that...

PaulDavidHewson

6th June 2002, 00:08

The problem with Spain, Italy and England is that their competetion is very good, but this is mainly because of the heavy influence of foreign players.

On large tournaments those countries always have alot of difficulties getting far or winning them.
Of course Italy has done fairly good in recent tournaments, but not england or Italy.

Also, It is totaly unbelievable that the Netherlands is not present this World cup.
We would be strong contenders again for the cup.
France's team has declined.
Brazil's team has declined greatly.
England is usually bad at the WC.
Portugal's team declined.
Spain always sucks.

So strong contenders for the cup would have been:
Argentina
Germany
Netherlands
And some of the teams I mentioned above, france, england and brazil.

Also, Italy would not get very far. They days of Baggio are gone.
I hope for France that Zidane gets well soon, France doesn't seem to be able to do anything right without Zidane holding their hands.

Capitalist Imperial

6th June 2002, 00:11

ok, give us just 5 more!! LOL,LOL

PaulDavidHewson

6th June 2002, 00:13

The yanks won't rule soccer in 5 years.

To pull that off you will need to ask the american media and other sponsors to put SSSSSOOOOOO much $$$ in the clubs so they can buy trainers and good players.

But the problem is that no good european player will go to the US to play there.
They favor a full stadium with 80.000 people in it above playing in a country where no one gives a shit about soccer.

Furthermore, do You know what Beckham, ronaldo, Batistuta, etc earn a week?
between 50.000 and 100.000+ a week that is!

What US soccer team can match those kind of funds?

lenin

6th June 2002, 00:15

france are nothing without zidane. petit and viera are both good defensive midfielders, but they aren't going to create the magic zidane does. unfortuantly for france, zidane may arrive too late! if france don't beat uraguay tommorow, they will be in a world of shit!
england won't don nothing, there too young and errikson doesn't know his best side yet. brazil sucked in qualifying but now the've got ronaldo back, don't count them out, semi finals i think. germany never get going till the quarter anyway but i definatly wouldn't count them out. ballack is a quality player. spain always are fancied and alway fuck up, i don't see any change this time. portugal look like there putting too much pressure on figo and, today at least, he isn't responding. anyway, my QF predictions:
France vs Brazil
Italy vs Germany
Argentina vs Belguim
Spain vs S.Korea

SF:

Brazil vs Argentina
Italy vs Spain

F

Argentina 3-2 Italy

put your money on it.

Capitalist Imperial

6th June 2002, 00:19

Yeah, our soccer clubs won't pay that much. Our football, basketball, and baseball clubs do, though

PaulDavidHewson

6th June 2002, 00:34

the US should get some Dutch coaches like South-Korea has done with our own ex-national coach trainer Guus Hiddink ;) hehe

Guus hiddink is a god now in Korea, the president himself went to Guus hiddink to thank him for his 2-0 victory against Poland.

Capitalist Imperial

6th June 2002, 00:37

Soccer is not that important to us

PaulDavidHewson

6th June 2002, 00:38

that is why they'll never become real contenders.

Capitalist Imperial

6th June 2002, 00:59

Perhaps not, we are content with our sports.

Fires of History

6th June 2002, 02:15

Yeah, amerikkkans are pretty content with everything, whether it's quality or not.

As to your "Put those players next to some american football players or NBA players and they would get their butts kicked!!!" idea, are you saying that a single one of those amerikkkan players could even play football for more than 15 minutes? Or are you basing this on a "butts kicked" street fight? Either way, you seem to, as all amerikkkans do, boil sports down to the WWF. Who can kick who's ass- yeah, there's a test for true sportmanship for you.

The U$ doesn't like football because they suck at it, as amerikkkans think that only those things they are absolutely the best in are important (i.e. the "Dream Team"- only the U$ cared). Only those sports that you "dominate" in really matter right? Who cares what the entire rest of the world is the best at right? Therefore, football must just plain suck and be some Commie game right?

The U$ win was a fluke, don't get too excited for the future "dominance" (lol!) of amerikkkan football.

El Che

6th June 2002, 04:27

I`m going to shot my self

timbaly

6th June 2002, 04:29

El Che you forgot the second O in shoot

El Brujo

6th June 2002, 05:50

NFL players are a bunch of putzes that have to hide behind heavy-ass uniforms so they wont die of a concussion and dont run over 10 seconds before a play ends and they get a 5 minute rest. If yankee "football" players were to go against RUGBY players, they would be beyond dead, rugby is more intense than "football", there is non-stop action that dosent end when someone is tackled and there are no big padded uniforms around them, see if NFL players would stand a chance if they played rugby. And the yankee team SUCK SHIT at rugby.

Capitalist Fighter

6th June 2002, 07:58

I believe that Italy will win the world cup, America will get canned in its two remaining games and stick to "professional wrestling" whilst Klose after 2 matches will have secured the golden boot. Although originally i fancied Raul for that. Football rocks!

Son of Scargill

6th June 2002, 08:45

Commiserations El Che,hopefully the REAL Portugal will turn up for the rest of the tournament.As for the USA dominating world football,I doubt it.No one will let them have as much space again.But I have to congratulate the yanks for a good performance on their part.They played well above their usual standard and they wanted the win more than the Portuguese.Credit where credit's due.
El Brujo,american rugby does suck shit.Englands "B" squad steam-rollered them last summer.Still,I'd rather watch yankee rugby than the kiddies pantomime that is called WWF.

PaulDavidHewson

6th June 2002, 13:38

Capitalist fighter,

No, USA won't really get their butts kicked in the two remaining matches, they have yet to face:
-Poland, USA will probably loose here since Poland is much mor experienced and lots of players play in various european clubs.

South-Korea, they can be a somewhat easy win, they just won their first world cup match ever in their 48 year history. They are considered a weak team.

So USA will probably make it to 1/16 finals, but that will most likely be the end of it.

Capitalist Fighter

6th June 2002, 13:45

I hope so. I'm not a big fan of American hegemony is EVERY aspect of life. Exceptions however include upholders of human rights... ;)

Capitalist Imperial

6th June 2002, 18:22

Quote: from El Brujo on 5:50 am on June 6, 2002
NFL players are a bunch of putzes that have to hide behind heavy-ass uniforms so they wont die of a concussion and dont run over 10 seconds before a play ends and they get a 5 minute rest. If yankee "football" players were to go against RUGBY players, they would be beyond dead, rugby is more intense than "football", there is non-stop action that dosent end when someone is tackled and there are no big padded uniforms around them, see if NFL players would stand a chance if they played rugby. And the yankee team SUCK SHIT at rugby.

Rugby players are idiots for not wearing pads. And that gane is played in mostly close quarters. Its more like wrestling than hitting. The speed and intensity of collisions in rugby doesn't even come close tothose of american footbal. If rugby players tried to play american football without pads, they would break many, many body parts.

Capitalist Imperial

6th June 2002, 18:25

Oh, and yankee rugby probably isn't that good, but I'm comparing rugby with american football, which is a much harder hitting game, as well as much more technical.

Bakunjin

6th June 2002, 20:46

To Capitalist Imperial...
USA will never be good in soccer because soccer is not just a game where strength is used... In soccer you must use your head (brain, not only scoring with head, like germans do. 7 of their 9 goals on this WC was with head), too... And you don't take sports serious... It is not just run, kill, win... It is more than a game:)
Germany 98 - Germany 2002... It is not the same team.. but.. Germany is not so strong... So, they humiliated Saudis... So what? Ireland put them on the ground... Cameroun will beat Germany and germans are out!
Croatia is not the one from 1998.. From that team there are 3 players: Prosinecki, Suker, Boksic (Boksic didn't play in France but he is the member of the old team) AND THEY ARE THE WORSE ONES in todays team...
Why are you all predicting quarter final when the group-fase didn't finish yet???? France... France was nearly koncked out today... They play catastrofic...
Argentina and Italy are the biggest favorites...

Capitalist Imperial

6th June 2002, 20:52

I agree, I conceded earlier that USA probably won't win the world cup, because it is not that important to us. If the American people were to start loving soccer like the rest of the world does, then we would start being more competitive,and we eventually would definately win the WC

Bakunjin

6th June 2002, 20:56

It will happen in 50 years... Not earlier... If you take it serious now...
First game that Croatian national team played was in 1990. against USA... it was 2:0:) ...For Croatia, of course...

El Brujo

7th June 2002, 05:17

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 2:22 am on June 7, 2002

Quote: from El Brujo on 5:50 am on June 6, 2002
NFL players are a bunch of putzes that have to hide behind heavy-ass uniforms so they wont die of a concussion and dont run over 10 seconds before a play ends and they get a 5 minute rest. If yankee "football" players were to go against RUGBY players, they would be beyond dead, rugby is more intense than "football", there is non-stop action that dosent end when someone is tackled and there are no big padded uniforms around them, see if NFL players would stand a chance if they played rugby. And the yankee team SUCK SHIT at rugby.

Rugby players are idiots for not wearing pads. And that gane is played in mostly close quarters. Its more like wrestling than hitting. The speed and intensity of collisions in rugby doesn't even come close tothose of american footbal. If rugby players tried to play american football without pads, they would break many, many body parts.

And your point is...

Rugby is a far more intense game than gringo "football". What it dosen't have in hard hitting it has in non-stop rougphness. It requires strength AND stamina to play rugby, players are trampled over after they are tackled until someone takes the ball away, unlike "football" where the play ends once someone hits the ground and they have a 5 minute break. Why do you think they need cheerleaders, marching bands, pep-squads and all that other lame shit at "football" games? Because its FUCKING BORING to wait between plays while their huddling or whatnot and the spectators need other entertainment. Football, rugby, basketball, hockey, etc. don't need all that extra sideline shit gringo "football" has for the game to be interesting.

(Edited by El Brujo at 1:18 pm on June 7, 2002)

PaulDavidHewson

7th June 2002, 21:15

"First game that Croatian national team played was in 1990. against USA... it was 2:0 ...For Croatia, of course... "

That means nothing.
Croatia used to be part of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia used to be one of the strongest and dangerous teams around. Red star Belgrado was always a team to take into consideration when you played against them in European cups.

The fact that Yugoslavia fell apart doesn't change the fact that many very able player are still citizens of Croatia and therefor Croatia was still a pretty strong team with many top european players.

Anonymous

7th June 2002, 21:54

Portugal didnt play, that wasnt the portuguese team playing, you see they were good, but wen they turned big and rich they became lazy, but wen we almost won the european cup men no one stoped us, and CI if you said that just to piss me off try again, really you suck!

guerrillaradio

7th June 2002, 22:17

Let us take a break from the petty arguments and remember the most important match of the World Cup so far:

ENGLAND 1-O ARGENTINA

Wohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Altogether now:

"EN-GER-LUND, EN-GER-LUND, EN-GER-LUND, EN-GER-LUND, EN-GER-LUND, NAH NAH" x1000000

We fucking rock. Bring on Nigeria...

PS - Yes, I know Che was Argentinian. However, I have learnt not to attatch anything to one's nation, therefore I do not feel that England have beaten "Che's nation", just a world class team...

Capitalist Imperial

7th June 2002, 23:06

Quote: from El Brujo on 5:17 am on June 7, 2002

Rugby is a far more intense game than gringo "football". What it dosen't have in hard hitting it has in non-stop rougphness. It requires strength AND stamina to play rugby, players are trampled over after they are tackled until someone takes the ball away, unlike "football" where the play ends once someone hits the ground and they have a 5 minute break. Why do you think they need cheerleaders, marching bands, pep-squads and all that other lame shit at "football" games? Because its FUCKING BORING to wait between plays while their huddling or whatnot and the spectators need other entertainment. Football, rugby, basketball, hockey, etc. don't need all that extra sideline shit gringo "football" has for the game to be interesting.

(Edited by El Brujo at 1:18 pm on June 7, 2002)

The reason US football has somany pauses between plays is because the offense and defense develop a different stategy for each play. U.S. football is a game of strategy as well as athletics. It takes speed, strength, toughness, and intelligent strategy. It is a thinking mans game as well as an athletes game. If you watch it enough, you will appreciate what it is about. Anyone can play rugby, but it takes a special mix of talents to play US pro football.

Bakunjin

9th June 2002, 22:53

To PaulDavidHewson
If it doesn't mean nothing than 1998. third place probably does... But if you say that there were players rised in yugoslavia, what I agree, and am proud of, that yesterdays victory against Italy with younger team, consided of players rised in Croatian league means something? Is it true?... And when we beat USA in 1/8 finals it will show enough!
Anyway, what did you mean with "That means nothing"?

guerrillaradio

10th June 2002, 11:41

Well, I expected the US to lose to South Korea, but they came quite close to winning. A draw's a good result for them, they just need a point against Poland. Congrats to the side, they've surprised us all (arrogant cappies expected)...

Bakunjin

10th June 2002, 12:54

I just hope they will come on our foots in 1/8 finals... Portugal-Poland 1:0 at the moment... I hope Portugal doesn't come on us in 1/8 finals....

Capitalist Imperial

10th June 2002, 20:14

USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

Never underestimate Americans!!! Our country was founded as an underdog, and we wil rise to any occasion!!! Everyone expected us to lsoe to Korea, but that didn't happen!!!

Bakunjin

11th June 2002, 00:40

We don't underestimate you... But, anyway... you will lose...

Capitalist Fighter

11th June 2002, 16:29

Well Germany, Brazil and Italy after a minor hiccup on track to progress far in the world cup. I tip a Brazil/Italy final however not yet certain of the result. Originally i thought Italy but now i'm leaning towards Brazil. Mind you Brazil has hardly faced any tough opponents. However on paper their attacks would be surely superior to any world cup team defence.

PaulDavidHewson

11th June 2002, 18:21

Bakunjin
I meant to say that being a "young team" doesn't immediately mean that it's a weak team. Croatia has proven that, they are strong.
But this is also because they have always been strong when they were still part of yugoslavia and alot of Craotian players play in key posistions in other European top clubs.

anyway, USA IS NOT a young team. USA national soccer team has been trying to make it in the World since 1895 or so.
They had a good national league at on time wich surpassed even American football.

Pelé even played in the USA. But the national league collapsed and had to be set up again, but this time they weren't as succesful as before.

USA just sucks at soccer and they will never make it. The American state of mind on things considered European just sucks, beacause they will have to fight to hard to make it to the top.

Maybe they can try the American Approach, just buy a few good clubs and bankrupt them? or something.