It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Is the US so bad at football (soccer)….(39 posts)(39 posts)
(39 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
keeveek: I remember they did well in World Cup 2006 or 2010, i don't remember.

They're still better from Polish national team.
They would stil kick Polish national team asses hard.
avatar
cjrgreen: The US women's team is one of the dominant international teams (2 World Cups, 3 Olympic gold medals, 6 CONCACAF Gold Cups, no finishes worse than third since 1991). North Korea played well in holding them to two goals, especially if so many players were incapacitated as the coach claimed.

Since the Polish women's team has never qualified for a major event, you are probably right in observing that North Korea would clean their clocks.
Yeah, But Polish men's team is no better.... Damn, Polish football sucks...
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
hedwards: I remember during the lead up to the last world cup, the BBC comparing the national attitudes towards the US and the English teams. Where both teams pretty much always suck, but for some reason the English seem to continually think they'll do well the next time, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and the repeated heartbreak.

As opposed to around here where we're pretty pleased if we aren't eliminated in the first round.
Isn't just the fans have you seen the latest FIFA rankings? England are ranked 4th in the world above Brazil and Argentina. Most pundits are speechless to explain why.
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
wpegg: I think it's a shame North Korea are still allowed to play international sports. There are many reported cases of their sportsmen being physically punished for losing.
avatar
nmillar: I seem to remember their Government banning the broadcast of their matches at the last World Cup; or did I just invent that?
Originally, their matches were not to be shown on national TV. However, they played so well against Brazil that the government decided to show their next game. Unfortunately for them, Portugal put on a shooting clinic, and the North Koreans suffered what they considered a national humiliation and betrayal of their exalted leader.
Post edited June 29, 2011 by cjrgreen
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
hedwards: I remember during the lead up to the last world cup, the BBC comparing the national attitudes towards the US and the English teams. Where both teams pretty much always suck, but for some reason the English seem to continually think they'll do well the next time, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and the repeated heartbreak.

As opposed to around here where we're pretty pleased if we aren't eliminated in the first round.
avatar
Delixe: Isn't just the fans have you seen the latest FIFA rankings? England are ranked 4th in the world above Brazil and Argentina. Most pundits are speechless to explain why.
Rooney will drag the team down, youll see :P
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
hedwards: I remember during the lead up to the last world cup, the BBC comparing the national attitudes towards the US and the English teams. Where both teams pretty much always suck, but for some reason the English seem to continually think they'll do well the next time, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and the repeated heartbreak.

As opposed to around here where we're pretty pleased if we aren't eliminated in the first round.
True, but I suppose it's about money. We suck, with some of the most expensive footballers in the world playing for us. You suck equally with a much lower collective value of players. We disappoint, you guys fail to impress (though you weren't bad last time).

It's a bit like if you made the "World Series" actually a world series, and then lost to Spain. Given the amazing amounts the players get, it would rub slightly to see a near amateur team beat you.
Posted June 29, 2011
Why is it that the english players underperform at international level?

edit. Typo
Post edited June 29, 2011 by KneeTheCap
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
KneeTheCap: Why is it that the english players underperform at national level?
Because private business runs better. ALWAYS.
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
KneeTheCap: Why is it that the english players underperform at national level?
Clubs pay them, national teams conscript them. They are stupid money driven people. Who do they try hardest for, the paymaster or the ideal?
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
KneeTheCap: Why is it that the english players underperform at national level?
avatar
wpegg: Clubs pay them, national teams conscript them. They are stupid money driven people. Who do they try hardest for, the paymaster or the ideal?
An Idea comes to its end when there's time to pay your rent.
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
KneeTheCap: Why is it that the english players underperform at national level?
Most fans suspect it's simply because the players couldn't give a toss about playing for their country. It's not like any are ever going to be dropped from the team no matter how poor they play. 4 years from now and the England team will still be Ferdinand, Terry, Cole, Fat Frank, Gerrard and even over 40 Beckham will still want to play.
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
wpegg: Clubs pay them, national teams conscript them. They are stupid money driven people. Who do they try hardest for, the paymaster or the ideal?
avatar
keeveek: An Idea comes to its end when there's time to pay your rent.
Yeah, those guys are struggling to pay the rent?
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
keeveek: An Idea comes to its end when there's time to pay your rent.
avatar
wpegg: Yeah, those guys are struggling to pay the rent?
It's just common saying.

If you had 500m2 house, 1mln dollar car to support, you'd screw any ideas too.

Personal needs are growing as fast as your purse.
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
wpegg: True, but I suppose it's about money. We suck, with some of the most expensive footballers in the world playing for us. You suck equally with a much lower collective value of players. We disappoint, you guys fail to impress (though you weren't bad last time).

It's a bit like if you made the "World Series" actually a world series, and then lost to Spain. Given the amazing amounts the players get, it would rub slightly to see a near amateur team beat you.
The conclusion of that article was one that I totally agreed with, a large part of it is that we don't care. I live in Seattle which has about the closest thing to an authentic European style football experience, and even around here it's hard to get anybody to take much interest in World Cup who isn't an immigrant.

To an extent we tend to get a bit of a free pass because we're known to be more or less phoning it in, at least as far as national support goes.

Consequently, there was some degree of astonishment when we were doing marginally well.
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
wpegg: True, but I suppose it's about money. We suck, with some of the most expensive footballers in the world playing for us. You suck equally with a much lower collective value of players. We disappoint, you guys fail to impress (though you weren't bad last time).

It's a bit like if you made the "World Series" actually a world series, and then lost to Spain. Given the amazing amounts the players get, it would rub slightly to see a near amateur team beat you.
avatar
hedwards: The conclusion of that article was one that I totally agreed with, a large part of it is that we don't care. I live in Seattle which has about the closest thing to an authentic European style football experience, and even around here it's hard to get anybody to take much interest in World Cup who isn't an immigrant.

To an extent we tend to get a bit of a free pass because we're known to be more or less phoning it in, at least as far as national support goes.

Consequently, there was some degree of astonishment when we were doing marginally well.
True, you can't really compare the two because in England football/soccer is THE national sport and in the US you have your own 'American football', and baseball, and basketball etc. You don't have a remotely similar history of soccer either, so I think the US is always seen as more of an underdog while the English are disappointed because of their memories of former glory; and while for North Americans soccer is a curiosity, for a lot of English people 'football' is their life. ;)
Post edited June 29, 2011 by Leroux
Posted June 29, 2011
avatar
Leroux: True, you can't really compare the two because in England football/soccer is THE national sport and in the US you have your own 'American football', and baseball, and basketball etc. You don't have a remotely similar history of soccer either, so I think the US is always seen as more of an underdog while the English are disappointed because of their memories of former glory; and while for North Americans soccer is a curiosity, for a lot of English people 'football' is their life. ;)
Indeed, we don't typically take any sport that seriously, and tend to view those that do as being a bit dodgy. I'm not sure if that's because we don't focus so much on one sport, or if we just don't take sports as seriously as they do in most of the rest of the world.
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Is the US so bad at football (soccer)….(39 posts)(39 posts)
(39 posts)