Jump to content

Who will win the World Cup in 2006?  

57 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win the world Cup in 2006?

    • Brazil
      16
    • France
      2
    • USA
      4
    • Germany
      7
    • England
      12
    • Argentina
      1
    • Holland
      1
    • Italy
      10
    • Spain
      2
    • Ghana
      2
  2. 2. How far will the US team make it?

    • Won't make it into the round of 16
      27
    • will lose in the round of 16
      16
    • Will make it to Quarter finals but no futher
      8
    • Will Make the Semi-Finals but Lose :(
      1
    • Will make it to the Finals the furthest ever for an American Team only to lose and disappoint America
      0
    • Will Win it ALL ( I Know Wishful Thinking)
      5


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I could be wrong, but I think Poland lost a higher percentage of its people in WWII than any other country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bah. Thats the worst way to win a game.

A win is a win. And winning that way is better than, say, a bogus penalty kick that the ref completely blew the call on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bah. Thats the worst way to win a game.

 

Why is that the worst way to win a game? I dont even understand your point. Is it because stoppage time is not a fixed set of time? So what? What am I missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can't they just stop the clock for an injury, then we would know how much time is left. Every sport stops the clock at some point.

The clock stops for halftime. Good enough for you?

 

I love the fact that the clock doesn't stop. It lets the game proceed uninterrupted, and that's part of why soccer is so beloved. The start-stop endlessness of other sports drives me batshit insane. Injury time (a.k.a. stoppage time) is a perfectly sensible way to make up time lost to injuries and other occasional stoppages, and I like not knowing exactly when the final whistle will blow.

 

Other benefits: serious reduction in the number of commercials we have to endure, and except for elimination matches (which in the World Cup require extra time and maybe penalty kicks), you always know that a soccer game will be over in two hours or less. No four-hour baseball marathons, or NBA dragfests in which one team fouls the other fourteen times in the last two minutes in addition to calling all of their seemingly endless supply of time outs. That shit's for amateurs. Soccer is a real sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is that the worst way to win a game? I dont even understand your point. Is it because stoppage time is not a fixed set of time? So what? What am I missing?

 

It's kind of like getting an extra out in baseball and then winning the game on it. To me, anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kind of like getting an extra out in baseball and then winning the game on it. To me, anyways.

 

Not really. Comparing baseball and soccer is ridiculus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think stopping the clock for injury wouldn't take away from the game. How much injury time is used anyway ?

 

the games usually go 1 or maybe 2 min over.

The thing is, for all intents and purposes, the clock does stop. The only official clock during a soccer match is on the referee's wrist. That clock they show on TV is just an unofficial reference.

 

Whether the ref actually stops his watch or merely notes how long the stoppage lasts doesn't really matter -- the result is the same, because some time will be added on at the end regardless.

 

Furthermore, soccer isn't the kind of sport where you can hold the ball for the last shot, like in basketball. Knowing exactly when the clock runs out is of little or no benefit to the players. They know what the unofficial time is, and they know they better hurry the heck up if they need to score. What would be gained by having an official countdown of the time left? You'd just introduce the possibility of controversies over when the shot entered the goal -- was it before time ran out or not? Maybe the typical American fan finds that kind of stuff exciting, but I don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

great news

 

NUREMBERG (AFP) - England's World Cup campaign received a huge boost when star striker Wayne Rooney was passed fit to play in the Group B clash with Trinidad and Tobago later in the day.

 

The 20-year-old, who broke his foot in April, underwent an examination by independent medical experts Angus Wallace and Chris Moran from the Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham who flew out to Germany.

 

"Due to his positive attitude and approach and the care he has received, Wayne has made a more rapid recovery than initially anticipated. The injury has healed and we are satisfied that he is as fit as he can be," they said in a joint statement.

 

 

A risk assessment had also found that Rooney was "at no more risk than any other player who has recovered from an injury and is returning to competitive sport", the statement said.

 

The Manchester United striker's return is a massive lift for coach Sven-Goran Eriksson whose team badly missed Rooney's creative influence during an unimpressive 1-0 win over Paraguay in their opening game last Saturday.

 

He had been hurt in the Premiership match at Chelsea on April 29 and was originally considered a major doubt for the tournament but his recovery has gained momentum in recent weeks.

 

Rooney has resumed full-contact training this week and has been kicking balls at full force. He had also told Eriksson that he is ready to play - and on Thursday had his fitness endorsed by Wallace and Moran.

 

"This morning (June 15) we conducted a careful medical evaluation of Wayne Rooney," the statement said.

 

"Professor Wallace was invited as an expert in Sports Medicine and Professor Moran as an expert in Fracture Management.

 

"Waynes recovery has been more rapid than expected over the past week, and this is due to the excellent care he has received since suffering the injury to his foot and because Wayne has worked so hard at his recovery.

 

"Due to this, we were invited back earlier than anticipated to reassess Wayne by Dr Leif Sward, the England team doctor.

 

"We are independent experts and would like to make clear that the findings of our evaluation and decision have been made without any pressure from The Football Association.

 

"We have Waynes best interests at heart, as our sole concern is Waynes well being, now and in the future... Waynes fitness levels are better now than before Euro 2004.

 

"It is clear he has received excellent care and rehabilitation from the Manchester United medical team. This has continued with the England teams medical staff and it is obvious the two have worked very well together.

 

"It is our professional medical opinion that Wayne Rooney is now available to play in the World Cup."

 

Eriksson had incurred the wrath of Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson by refusing to concede that Rooney would not recover in time for the World Cup.

 

The two had a furious phone call last week after Eriksson also refused to rule out using Rooney during the group stage after a scan gave him the all clear to return to Germany and stay with the squad.

 

Manchester United issued a statement saying that the English Football Association (FA) had kept the club informed of developments.

 

"The Football Association has kept Manchester United informed of the medical progress of Wayne Rooney since he rejoined the England squad last week," said the statement.

 

"As a player on international duty, Wayne, like the rest of the squad, is in the care of the FA's medical staff.

 

"The Club has been assured by the FA that it has decided Wayne's fitness on the basis of medical evidence it has received and that such a decision was made with Wayne's welfare as a key consideration.

 

"We wish Wayne and the England squad the very best in what we hope will be a successful bid to win the World Cup."

 

Eriksson has indicated he may play Rooney against Trinidad but is unlikely to field him in the starting line-up.

 

"For me, Rooney is match fit but let me sleep on it. I will decide Thursday morning," Eriksson said Wednesday.

 

"Almost for sure he is not starting the match. I don't think he has 90 minutes in him yet."

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kind of like getting an extra out in baseball and then winning the game on it. To me, anyways.

Not at all. Both sides get the same amount of extra time. It's not as if one side gets more than the other.

 

Plus, everyone on the pitch knows about and understands stoppage time. It's no secret. That's the way things are, and a goal scored in stoppage time is no "cheaper" than a goal scored at any other time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kind of like getting an extra out in baseball and then winning the game on it. To me, anyways.

 

But its not like getting an extra out in baseball. Everyone gets 27 outs. Giving one team 28 outs would be an unfair advantage.

 

Stoppage time gives both teams the chance to score, so no one has an advantage, and only puts time on the clock to compensate for the fact that the clock runs throughout the entire game -- including when injuries, and doctors w/stretchers, eat into the time for the teams to play.

 

I like stoppage time... it adds an element of urgency and uncertainty that's kind of cool. And I like that the games are running time throughout. Its just a different vibe than basketball or hockey, but i dont think that makes it bad.

 

EDIT: sorry to rehash what others said. it took me longer to type that than I realized, i guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh.

 

So far, the strongest showings from CONCACAF nations have been from Mexico (not unexpected) and Trinidad & Tobago (WTF?!?).

 

Costa Rica now has a 2:7 goals ratio in two bad losses. The U.S. better do something against Italy or it's lights out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pls translate for the newbie. :D

Think of it as a conference or division. The U.S. belongs to CONCACAF, and plays the other teams in that group to try to qualify for the World Cup finals (which is technically what the "World Cup" is -- the finals of a tournament that started well over two years ago).

 

There are several of these groups around the world, for the nations of Europe, South America, Africa, etc. Each group has a certain number of guaranteed spots in the World Cup finals (the allocation of those spots is determined by FIFA, the world governing body of football/soccer), and in some cases there are playoffs for a spot between two nations who finished on the bubble in their own groups (for example, Trinidad & Tobago qualified for the World Cup this year after winning a home-and-home series against Bahrain, who of course are not part of CONCACAF).

 

 

By the way, that's off the top of my head -- I may have a few of the details wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...