The USA won its second game in World Cup '94.
Soccer may be boring to many Americans, but not to me.
Since we have people from all over the globe logging into Grex,
maybe some folks from other countries would like to comment on
their own teams, or on the USA team, or on the USA as host this year,
or any other World Cup topic.

Why is England not represented in this contest?

The US now has 4 points and is tied for 1st place in Group A with Switzerland.
They will almost certainly advance to the second round. This is amazing!
The last time they won a World cup Game was in 1950.

Today's victory involved some impressive goaltending by Meola, good
defense by the US squad, and a rare "own goal" by a Colombian defender.
Exciting stuff.   U S A !   U S A !   U S A !   U S A !   U S A !

28 responses total.

England did not qualify for the World Cup tournament this time around.  The
USA team, among others, beat them, though I don't think the Yanks' defeat
had to do with the Brits qualifying...

I think the US team has proved so far that they are better than they were
expected to be...goalie tony Meola, in particular, has shown vast improve-
ment over his last appearance in the World Cup (1990--I think he gave up 5
goals to Italy).

Just to throw in my2 cents on soccer (football), I for one think it's an
incredibly exciting sport (as the numerous close goals in the US victory
demonstrated).  I think Americans find soccer "boring" because, not knowing
the rules, it appears chaotic at times--we're used to sports with elaborate
plays and plans for victory. But, to tell the truth, American football
can be incredibly boring--always stopping and starting, running plays for
2 yards, etc.  

Is soccer fairly popular in large cities?  When I used to live in Denver, 
it was incredibly popular among kids (more popular than Little League).
My high school team won back-to-back state titles, so I was fairly into
watching it.

But living in Alma, you wouldn't even know soccer exists (except for the 
teams).  Maybe it's just because there's no youth leagues in small towns.

There is an increase in interest in youth soccer, but it doesn't seem to
me that it is "taking off" in any sense, more like "ramping up".
(I.e. slow growth, not explosive growth.)

I enjoy watch pro level soccer, but it still seems to be in fashion
for the media to knock it.

If the USA beats Romania in their last game of the 1st round
(Sunday June 26 on ABCon ABC  from Pasadena at 1PM PDT = 4PM EDT = 8PM GMT),
then they could finish first or second in group "A". The most
likely (but by no means guaranteed) opponents would be:
if USA finishes 1st in Group A - S. Korea or Ireland
if USA finishes second         - Spain
if USA finishes third          - Germany

The USA's chances of advancing to the quarterfinals will be substantially
better if they beat Romania, than if they lose. They will almost
certainly (with 4 points) come out of the first round even if they lose.

This whole picture will become a lot clearer when the 1st round is
farther along, like after this weekend.

        A couple of soccer fans at work told me that more kids play soccer
than baseball.  I about fell off my chair.

That's a bit of a surprise to me, too, but soccer is certainly growing.

Soccer is certainly ideally suited to kids - boys & girls - *participating*.
But as an adult *spectator* sport it's future is seriously dubious in the USA.

BTW, I was very disappointed on the "soft" goal Tony M. (team USA goalie)
gave up to Romania.  Still, without that goal the game would have ended a
nil-nil tie.  What more need be said about soccer's [lack of] potential here
in American...

More goals would be an improvement, but the game was exciting even though
goals were not scored. I think it's still to hard to score a goal in
soccer, and way too easy to score on a penalty kick.

The federation has been improving the game by changing rules that have
the end result of fewer ties, and more goals.

My biggest complaint about soccer is the use of penalty kicks for tie-breaking
after they have played so much overtime.

I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that Americans should count every
goal as 7 points and then look at the final score...so I guess Russia beat
Cameroon 42-7 the other day...still, I don't know many people who enjoy going
to 7-0 football games.

Still...if the Tigers were to beat the Blue Jays 1-0, we'd hear about what
an "incredible pitchers' duel" it was...but in soccer, it's "boring."
I personally don't care what the final score is, as long as there are 
exciting near goals (like the US shot that had the goalie beat but bounced
off the post).  To me, that's as exciting as a TD pass that bounces off some-
one's hands.

You're right about the penalty kicks, though.

Well, I agree with you about the rest, too. People who think a 0-0 tie
is boring don't appreciate good defense. I just think soccer has lots
of good defense and would not be hurt by rule changes (such as some we've seen)
that will increase scoring.

The US draw Brazil in the 2nd round. This is the first time since 1930.
Brazil is quite awesome, and the US will have to surprise them with
something unexpected, I think. Brazil has won the World Cup 3 times
before, and finished first in group B. The US-Brazil match will take
place on July 4. The US is 0-5 versus Brazil, and the total scoring is
20-3 in those five games  :-(

So, can the US surprise Brazil? Obviously this is very unlikely.
John Harkes will miss the game dut to a suspension - another blow.
It was not long ago that the opportunity to play Brazil in the second
round of the World Cup was a fate to be desired, though. Well,
this is our chance.

Is anyone from other countries reading this item?
Tell us about your teams, or any other teams.

Koby Jones's hair reminds me of Valderama's, but *nobody* has hair
like Lalas's. Enough about hair, but why doesn't Lalas throw in the ball
like he did at the end of the game we lost to Romania more often?
Did anyone see those? At keast twice his throw-ins looked a lot like
corner kicks. (He got a running start from up in the stands.)

Speaking of throw-ins...my high school had an all-conference goalie who decide
d
to become an all-confernce midfielder (got bored as a goalie, i guess)
who used to throw the ball in by getting a running start, doing a somersault
and tossing it in when he ogt to his feet...made for interesting watching,
anyway.

if the US can socre early (preferably two goals), i think they can hold colomb
ia off...
what am i saying...i mean i think they can hold BRAZIL off like they held
colombia off (sorry--got distracted).  they can't count on scoring off set
plays (witness the game against Romania), so they must play more aggressive.

i don't pretend to really understand soccer strategy, but i have to say that
after watching the germans play (the first half against south korea),
it made me realize how far the americans have to go to become a top-notch
team...ias i said, i don't understand strategy, but the german play had
a certain smoothness, flow, quality to it that the americans' lack...
the germans made the americans look like they're standing around clueless

If the US scores a goal against Brazil, I believe it will come off of
a set play. This bodes poorly, I admit. I would love to see them play
more aggressively on offense, because I think they can do so without
too much of a counterattack risk. The defense and goalie will have to
have their best game. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they will at least
keep the game close and interesting - then anything can happen.

I think the US has a fair chance of beating Brazil even though Brazil is
by far the favorite.  IF the US could manage a tie by end of regulation,
it's really anyone's game.

Italy will take the cup.  You heard it here first...

I love to hear predictions like that. Thanks, tri, we'll be watching for that.
Well, I guess it's time to talk about Argentina. Why?
Because Diego Maradonna, arguably the most well known individual in
soccer today, was kicked out of the World Cup because he flunked
the drug test. From what I have veard, he flunked it big time, too.

Does this cut the heart out of the Argentines? I think not, but it 
will depend on how the rest of them respond to the psychological
effects of all this. I would not bet on them at this point.
I am pretty well impressed by Belgium though.

My vote for the team that got screwed worst by the scheduling goes
unequivocally to Norway. Poor slobs deserved better than that.
They have an identical record to Mexico, Italy and Ireland, and are
eliminated for finishing in fourth place based on the goal differential.

Well so much for Belgium. The went kaput. The Germans look awesome at this
point, although you have to admit the Belgians deserved a penalty kick
and were grandly cheated by the refereem, no?

I heard the horrid news this morning and just couldn't believe it.
The defenseman, Escobar, for Colombia was shot dead, assassinated, in
Medellin. That alone is plenty shocking. Well, we might be tempted to
dismiss Medellin. Colombia as a hotbed of drug cartels and shootings.
Remember, this is the place where they shoot Judges and Prosecutors.

But no! The unbelievable part comes out that the killers were disgruntled
soccer fans. They went after him because he gave up the "own goal" against
the US. The other members of the Colombian team now have bodyguards.
As a sports fan and a member of the human race I am mortified.
Excuse me, I have to go puke. Soccer will never be the same.

Back to soccer. So far the round of 16 has these winners:
Germany     (over Belgium)
Spain       (over Switzerland)
Romania     (over Argentina)
Sweden      (over Saudi Arabia)
Netherlands (over Ireland)

The last Asian entry is now out - the Saudis.
There's only 1 African entry left, 2 from NA, 1 from SA and
all of the rest are European.

Remaining games are
Brazil  vs. USA
Mexico  vs. Bulgaria
Nigeria vs. Italy

I think I got those matchups right.
With great trepidation, I am about to watch. U!S!A!  U!S!A!

 Catch the news, tri--- Spain will win.

;)

Of course by now you know that the USA team was thoroughly dominated by the
team from Brazil - shots on goal was 16-2 or thereabouts - and was defeated
1-0, eliminated.  Even playing with an extra man for most of the second half,
the Americans could mount essentially nothing offensively.  OTOH, they *did*
meat their goal of making it to the second round, which *did* spark some
enthusiasm here at home, which they can use to build on for 1998.

Yes, you have to give Brazil a lot of credit. They were very fast to 
challenge nearly every pass, and very effective at breaking them up.
Thus the US did not have many chances to score. The US did keep the game
very close despite this, and since soccer is the kind of game in which 
nearly anything can happen when the game is close, they gave themselves
about the best chance to win that they could have.

It is a building process. Interest is growing, and I am optimistic for 
the US in '98.

Meanwhile it should be an interesting match between Mexico and Nigeria
tomorrow. I pick Mexico.

Good game on ESPN today (Tuesday) - Italy vs. Nigeria.  Nigeria got a goal
in the 27th minute (first half), and was within 2 minutes (regulation time)
of winning the match (they were even passing the ball around in a kind of
"stall").  But, even playing a man short (an absolutely terrible red card 
call by the referee) for a good portion of the 2nd half, the Italians scored
in the 89th minute to force overtime.  A foul by Nigeria "in the box" gave
Italy a free kick, and to make it 12 for 12 on free kicks in this world cup,
Roberto Baggio put it in for the 2-1 lead, which held up, despite some good
chances by "The Super Eagles."  Baggio had gone 289 minutes of world cup 
play without scoring a goal, before getting the tying goal at the end of
regulation, then the winner in overtime.  Interesting note:  Hakeem Alajouon
(sp), of NBA Houston Rockets center fame, and a former soccer player from
Nigeria himself, was in the crowd at Foxboro, MASS, to see his side lose...

I missed that game (dang!). I watched a couple of the earlier matches
involving Nigeria, and got a lot more than I expected. 
If they can stay away from getting too many yellow cards, they are a good
team. I am sure they gave Italy a good run.

Interesting point about penalty kicks. I think this is a real weakness
of soccer. I'd like to see penalty kick rule reform to bring the
percentage from 90+ down below 75. Closer to 50-60 would be ideal, IMO.

Damn!  Almost got it right.  Brazil wins over Italy in a 3-2 shootout.  Oh
well...

 I was really pulling for Spain. Oh well.

Your guess was better than my (ouch) Germany guess, but I was pulling for
Brazil ever since they finished off the US. I was surprised (and pleased)
that Sweden wasn't able to look any better than the US when they came up 
against Brazil.

You know, Brazil has these flashy guys, Bebeto and Romario, but they win
on defense. They have a bunch of no-names back there who vacuum up everything
in sight. They did it against the US, and again against Sweden. Italy was
a little tougher, but Brazil's defense was impressive again. Italy's 
defense was a match for Bebeto and Romario, at least over 120 minutes. 
I think Brazil showed it was the best in the world even though it couldn't 
score on Italy in 120. They really outplayed them at the beginning and 
ends of the game, but never played worse than even against Italy.

we pulled off a victory 3-0. It was expected to be close but we were to pumped
up.

okay, this confrence hasn't been written in since October of `94, but I HAVE
to put in my 2 cents worth...
It was low down, rude, and unsportsmanlike for Brazil to knock out *Tab
Ramos* the way they did in the July 4th game.  Sure, the Brazilian guy
(the one who shares a name with a Ninja Turtle... Leonardo, I believe?) DID
get red carded, but still.... Tab Ramos was laid up in a hospital bed for
a while with a concussion, for heavens sake!

Death to anybody who picked Brazil after they showed that HORRIBLE display
of unsportsmanship!

Hey, I wasn't rooting for them, just being honest about their ability.
I happen to agree with you about that ignominious incident.
I was spitting mad, because it was a deliberate attempt to injure.
It has no place in sports anywhere. I'm still angry, now that you reminded
me about it.

Soccer interest in the US has been on a slide since the cup.
What will it take to put soccer back on the US TV screen, I wonder.

well, having it ON TV and not Pay Per View would be nice.   I would have liked
to have seen Copa America, but not at $14.95 a game.

there's no denying that Brazil is taleted, but I was just making the
point that just because you're good doesn't mean you should win.

I agree with you, Dave.  $14.95 seems outrageous for 90 minutes of soccer.
Perhaps people could begin mailing local and national TV statoins in hope
of getting more of it on television.  I know that ESPN has extremely nice
viewer relations, and usually reply to any letters sent to them.  Also, if
you check, local ABC, CBS, and NBC channels may have e-mail addresses.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss