|
FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa Discussion (pg. 40)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Draws are important, Pete. They show (in the group stage) that both teams are equally strong against one another, and that the tie breaker should be the result of the other matches. |
So the USA and England are equals. Thanks Lira now I understand. :stongue: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
So the USA and England are equals. Thanks Lira now I understand. :stongue: |
Actually, the US played quite well today! It was a well deserved result, despite Green's dreadful mistake. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Actually, the US played quite well today! It was a well deserved result, despite Green's DREADFUL mistake. |
Emphasis required. |
|
|
| Renzo |
I will take the draw :D
If Robert Green were Colombian, he would have a month to live. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
On the one hand, we were denied a win by a goalkeeping -up.
But on the other hand, you're never safe at 1-0.
On the third hand, Italy drew with the USA four years ago.
On my final hand, we lacked guts today, and Wright Philips should not be allowed near a World Cup. Credit to the US. |
|
|
| leph555 |
| you have 2 hands too many |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| I've also got Rob Green's hands, as he clearly wasn't ing using them. |
|
|
| Renzo |
| So will David James be England's keeper next game? |
|
|
| noikeee |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I never understood why games are allowed to end in a tie. What's the point of a game without a winner? I could see some justification for regular season games but not a tournament. |
Only yanks come up with this . Ties have existed in football since like, ever, and nobody ever complained. Means that on that day, the two teams were equal (barring unfair results which happen so often - the ball is round, after all). It's that simple.
And the group stage is just like a regular season league competition, same rules. It's a consistency test. The do-or-die test comes later with the knockouts.
If you don't like ties then you'd be more annoyed with some of the early 1930-1950 World Cup formats. At a point in time, if a knockout stage game ended in a tie... they'd schedule another game for another day instead of going to penalty kicks. And at another point in time, the world cup ended with a group stage. Genius. :stongue: Luckily for them, the only time they did that, it ended with a game that was just like a final - the team that'd win it, would win the cup. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| england not really inspiring me to get up at 4.30 again :/ i remember asking when the squads were named "who the is green?" well now i know :( |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by noikeee
Only yanks come up with this .. |
I wanted to say it before, but didn't. Thanks for the lulz. :stongue: |
|
|
| butterfly |
| quote: | Originally posted by noikeee
Only yanks come up with this . Ties have existed in football since like, ever, and nobody ever complained. Means that on that day, the two teams were equal (barring unfair results which happen so often - the ball is round, after all). It's that simple.
And the group stage is just like a regular season league competition, same rules. It's a consistency test. The do-or-die test comes later with the knockouts.
If you don't like ties then you'd be more annoyed with some of the early 1930-1950 World Cup formats. At a point in time, if a knockout stage game ended in a tie... they'd schedule another game for another day instead of going to penalty kicks. And at another point in time, the world cup ended with a group stage. Genius. :stongue: Luckily for them, the only time they did that, it ended with a game that was just like a final - the team that'd win it, would win the cup. |
but a tie leaves you feeling so unsatisfied. |
|
|
|
|
