User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5790 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
And this is a very young Brazil team.
I think I'd like to see something like this for the Canada match:
Jozy - Gomez
Dempsey
Jones - Bradley - LanDo
Johnson - Bocanegra - Onyewu - Cherundolo
Howard
This Brazil team might be young, but it's obviously quality ...
So basically...they need to play like dicks? Whiny dicks, at that?
Hockey has a rule where (theoretically) only captains and alternates can talk to the ref. I'm surprised soccer doesn't have anything like that.
He's aggressively opinionated and arrogant, which doesn't help. I don't know of a succinct article either, don't know if you read this one about his talk at a NSCAA convention, but it gives the idea.
Part of the context are long-simmering feuds among US soccer fandom about pro-rel, European soccer and "eurosnobs" and all that.
The Cremona prosecutors listed him as someone who could potentially have evidence of activities involving Bari (where he was on loan), and sent that recommendation to the prosecutors in Bari (who are handling that part of the investigation). So far, the Bari prosecutors haven't acted on it, and it may be the case that they never do.
1407, I've been an advocate of the hockey rule for soccer for at least 15 years. There's no good reason why it couldn't be adopted, and it would put an end to a lot of the nonsense immediately.
Which bodes really well for Brazil going forward. Neymar's only 20 and they have other excellent pieces too. Scary.
My point was the US rolled out a first choice lineup against a young B team that is inexperienced (relative to the US side) and still got outclassed. Another reason why I don't share the optimism of others. Brazil had 3 guys over 23, none over 27. The US had 7 players 30 or older.
Then I don't want to see Klinsmann complain when Jermaine Jones gets sent off.
Anyway, I guess you can count me as one of the "optimistic" US fans, but let me explain my optimism.
1. I like what Klinsmann has done regarding the US' tactics.
2. I generally like the personnel moves he's made, aside from Beckerman.
3. I think he's done well with what he has to work with.
4. I can't speak for the youth teams & I'm not sure how much control Klinsmann has over that aspect.
Of course the big issue is defense, and the US just doesn't really have any world-class defenders right now. Onyewu's erratic & injury-prone. Bocanegra's old. Goodson probably deserves some more playing time, but he's probably mediocre at best. Then you've got guys like George John, Cameron, Ream, Whitbread, Parkhurst, maybe another MLSer I'm forgetting; Ream or Whitbread probably should've been included in this squad but I don't think they would've made much of a difference. Maybe Klinsmann can be a little more creative with his personnel (playing Edu or Spector at CB?) so that might be a legit Klinsmann criticism.
But I do like the way they're playing the game right now, and I think it's a step up from the low-scoring drawfests under Bradley. The US could've played a 5-4-1 last night & lost 1-0 but I don't think that would've been much of an accomplishment.
I think right now the best you can expect out of this team is qualifying for the round of 16 and hoping for a favorable draw from there.
Had they beaten Ghana in 2010 they would have gotten Uruguay in the quarterfinals. Given their form, I'm not sure the US would have beaten them to get into the semifinals (although Ghana essentially had them beaten had either the Suarez handball shot gone in or the penalty converted)... but I thought then (and it seemed, IIRC, that the conventional wisdom was in agreement) that the draw was perhaps the USA's best shot at making the semifinals in a generation.
It's not likely we'd get another draw where we wouldn't have to play a Top-5 side until the semifinals... I suspect we'll look back on 2010 as a terrific missed opportunity.
It would seem he would be pro, but I have no idea. Obviously, I can't see a closed-league system like MLS willingly agree to promotion/relegation, but why couldn't they do an expansion that was predicated on promoting 2 teams up from whatever the powers-that-be designate is the "League 2" of US Soccer, and then just keeping it from there (with 2 teams up/down instead of the 3 used by most leagues in Europe).
To be sure, the crappy teams in MLS would have to really worry, but the idea of scrappy, small-market teams hitting it big... well, isn't that part of the fun of all of the European leagues? And with MLS salaries relatively low, you could institute parachute payments that would allow teams a fighting chance at bouncing back the next year.
Apologies if this has been discussed to death before (I suspect it has).
The fall-spring schedule could be very tough in places with unheated pitches (which would probably be most/all of MLS stadia, right?)... But I suppose I'm in the camp that would favor that as well.
A) In the United States people play soccer in the summer, not in the winter
B) In the United States the cold-weather places (plus California) are the places where people like soccer more
C) In the United States there is competition from two/three other major sports in the winter and only one in the summer
Probably we would have several more teams in southern places that don't have big competition from other winter sports. Orlando ... San Antonio ... St. Louis? Instead of the Montreal Impact being rebranded as an MLS team it would be the Austin Aztex.
I don't think this is true. Just taking your points;
A) It seems to me that soccer is still very much a fall/early-winter sport from a participation standpoint (August-November) though of course Spring and Summer leagues exist.
B) This is true but I think could be dealt with. Some scheduling adjustments; a small January break, more games played in the South during January/February would alleviate the issue. Plus you would not be angering fans who want to see big names but those big names are at the World Cup/Gold Cup/Euros/etc...
C) I think that's true of the fall but January-March is a bit more of a dead zone of sports. Schedule things right and pick up the slack on nights the local NBA/NHL teams are off and you give the hardcore sports fan an excuse to watch. Right now you're competing with MLB which is tough because that's an every day thing. If I'm a hardcore sports fan who hasn't yet gotten into soccer and I can watch the Bruins Tuesday, Celtics Wednesday and Revs on Thursday that is more likely than me choosing the Revs over the Red Sox in August.
Also, the gamblers among us like the fact that there are leagues that are out of sync and keeping the action going during the summer.
The people who want to go to a fall-spring schedule want it because Europe does that, and they want to be like Europe either consciously or subconciously. Brazil does a spring-fall schedule, works just fine for them. (They also do a winter-spring state leagues.)
I grew up playing soccer in the schedule you describe - season ends just right around the time snow first falls (in Pennsylvania). I've been watching European soccer for years and still when there's snow in the air, and the players see their breath, I just think "Oh those poor guys, having to play soccer in those conditions". I guess Europeans say "Yes, yes, lads, get stuck in, this is real football weather". We have our own version of football for that weather.
What's the summer sport in, say, France or Germany? (obviously in Britain it's cricket)
In France, cycling, mostly the Tour of course.
Ah, but fair to whom? The US lost to Brazil's Olympic team. That doesn't give me any consolation.
I disagree on #2, he can't stay consistent with his own views. He wants players who are playing but calls in Morales over Lichaj and keeps calling in and before this week, playing, Agudelo and Williams despite a serious lack of playing time for them professionally. It took him a year to call in Omar Gonzalez, meanwhile Orozco Fiscal got starts. As to #4, he is very in charge of that. That was the entire sticking point to him not getting hired in 2006, he wanted top-down control and US Soccer wasn't willing to give him it. They capitulated to his demands last year in hiring him. Disagree on #1 and #3 because...
The defense is the biggest problem, the backline can not get the job done by itself and Klinsmann's preferred tactics have left them out to dry. However I do give him credit for changing tactics from game to game and in-game, this is the time to tinker with tactics with the first choice side, so he should get some leeway on that.
Edu's been tried at CB before, he wasn't any better than what we've got.
It is strange to me that someone would prefer a 4-1 loss over a 1-0 loss. There's a reason Bradley kept with a 4-2-2-2 that counter attacked: it helped cover up the problems on the back line. They play more attractive soccer under Klinsmann, but the results aren't any better. 8 of Klinsmann's 12 games have been 1-0 games and another has been 1-1.
Which is not an improvement over Bradley, the entire reason Klinsmann was brought in.
Oh, we'll get tired of it soon. But for years it seemed like every game, whether it was against Mexico or Grenada or Italy or Bootle FC, either ended 1-1, 2-1 or 1-2, so this is new and exciting.
That's certainly true in CA, but of course we don't have weather problems.
JMHO, but I think it makes most sense to play Fall-Spring because of the weather. It's hard to play in the rain and cold, but there are few things worse than playing matches in the late spring or even September when it's 100 degrees.
Each of the 11 starters last night (more or less) start for their club teams. Danny Williams, up until the last few games of the season, was frequently starting for Hoffenheim. I'm almost positive that he got more starts than Lichaj did at Leeds/Aston Villa.
You may have a point regarding Gonzalez/Orozco Fiscal and their relative talent levels, but I haven't seen any of Orozco Fiscal's club games (and I don't remember much from his time in Philly). Maybe Klinsmann saw something at San Luis that turned him onto MOF. Yes, I know I'm appealing to authority, but so it goes. Either way, it doesn't look like MOF is on Klinsmann's radar anymore, so it's a moot point.
I'm OK with this, because 90% of the teams the US will face won't have the attacking prowess of Brazil.
And quality attacking teams were able to cut up Bradley's formations as well- see the 2011 Gold Cup final.
The US controlled possession for most of the 2nd half. They hit woodwork once, it took a goalline clearance from a defender to prevent another goal, and it took some ridiculous saves from Rafael to keep Bradley & Boyd from scoring.
I think with Klinsmann the US team is in a better position to beat teams like Slovenia, Algeria, & Ghana, as opposed a tie, win in the absolute last second, and loss.
And maybe I'm alone in this, but I think playing better, more enjoyable soccer is a good thing in and of itself. Hypothetically, if the US could Stoke their way through games and be a better team, I don't think I'd make that trade off. Now obviously, there are going to be certain games where you're going to have to sit back, be structured and hit on the break, but I'm okay with JK not going that route in a meaningless June friendly, particularly when the upcoming WCQs are going to be games the US should boss.
We would have had to play a Top 5 side in the quarters - Uruguay. There is no way the US back four would not have been skinned to pieces by Forlan, Suarez and Cavani.
I was thinking of Danny Williams but giving him Alfredo Morales' season. Mea culpa.
I'll see that game and raise you 2009 vs Spain. Bradley wasn't perfect but he got a raw deal. It's not his fault Mexico is better than us right now. I'm still annoyed they re-upped him and then a year later took a 180. They should have parted ways with him after the World Cup, history is not kind to coaches who go to consecutive World Cups with the same nation.
Fair enough on the first part. Brazil hit a post too though. That's life.
CWS Keith:
Calling it a B squad is probably harsh on my part. It's not the first choice team is the picture I was trying to paint.
Playing better and playing more enjoyable aren't the same thing though. We would all love for the US to do both of course.
Shooty:
It appears that I am alone on this, and that is fine, but I'll take boring and winning over attractive and losing every day of the week. Just win baby.
Who said they are weak? All I was saying is that it was 4-1 against not the best Brazil has to offer. I even said Brazil's depth is scary.
Or Mexico. But at least last night's performance looked like a team that would also score on Mexico.
It has been discussed ad nauseum and the discussion quickly becomes ridiculous in most of the usual places, but that doesn't seem likely here.
MLS seems very unlikely to ever do it. One, their big criteria for a franchise has been to identify deep-pocketed owners that will work with the league, which seems pretty important given that the league historically has exercised shenangigans for the good of the league. I don't really know how a single entity league works, but that would seem to complicate things (though maybe not). I suppose another big reason is just that US leagues don't do it, while you could stand to gain from a new market that has huge attendance, individual owners ("investors") don't want the corresponding risk of relegation, and everyone figures if there's a big market, MLS can expand into it like they've done with Toronto, Philly, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver and Montreal.
This also gets discussed a lot. The best argument I've heard for it is that aligning the transfer windows will help MLS get out of contract players. Though plenty of teams bring in the big money guys in July. There's also the argument about aligning with the FIFA schedule better.
I think most cold-weather cities have heated pitches--MLS stadia are actually pretty nice. Colorado's park has a heated pitch, for example.
I think you'd lose a huge amount of attendance in certain places if they did it and it wouldn't be worth the advantages gained. Colorado would probably lose its team because attendance would drop so low for the cold weather months (you can't take Dec-Jan-Feb off). Maybe from a league standpoint that wouldn't matter because you could move the team to another market at this point, but you'd piss off everyone here, including the municipality that paid for half the stadium.
MLS tv ratings are so low it's hard to say they'd be hurt by going up against Europe for the entire season (how low can ratings go), but I don't think a synchronized schedule would help ratings, either.
Small sample size for Jurgen, but:
Klinsmann: 54.55% winning percentage
Bradley: 53.75% winning percentage
Meaningless but interesting, first 11 games:
Bradley: 10-0-1
Klinsmann: 6-4-1
Bradley would go on to lose his next 5 matches. I'm confident Klinsmann won't so that comparison will look better in the fall.
It's great sporting-wise, but it's the main reason why most smaller clubs in Europe are financial basketcases, and it leads to wage inflation as small teams pay star money to average players to stave off relegation.
It's not dumb, or the result of dedication to fair play for lesser clubs, it was a solution to a problem, it's basically AL and NL stacked vertically instead of horizontally. The owners who founded the Football League in the 19th century was every bit as greedy and selfish as any group of American sports owners today. But clubs left out of the league founded a rival league, the Football Alliance. The second division resulted from the merger of the two leagues, with mostly Alliance clubs in the lower tier.
I'm always sickeningly amused at eastern Europeans being gigantic racists. Really, racism from anyone is total ########, but to come from a bunch of people the Nazis were perfectly happy to kill for being inferior themselves is the icing on the ludicrous cake. I hope Balotelli goes Charles Bronson on their asses. #### the Ultras.
When I grew up in Co. Durham there was precisely three kids in my school who weren't white and Northern - and that would have been considered "ethnically diverse". Christ, if I went out I used to get abuse for being white and southern.
What I'm saying is that there are pockets of Europe which are incredibly insular, I would say more so than the US.
Those are 3 full England internationals, sir! (Is Jordan Henderson really the best England can do? Or is it just because of what shirt he wears?)
I'm sorry, but I find the Chelsea spending kind of gross. It strikes me more as glorified conspicuous consumption than investment. It makes me forlorn and drift into thought about kids in Malawi eating mice on a stick while I get tho choose from a hundred different restaurants tonight. The whole world is kind of gross, I guess.
Similar to me about 100 miles further South. There were no non-white children in my primary school and 2 (out of 1200) in my secondary school.
My local team had no black players for about 5 years in the 1980's, and visiting black players were the butt of racial abuse from the terraces during this period. That disappeared as soon as black players were signed again, and never returned even during odd seasons with an all white first team, I'm happy to say.
Without diving too much into the question of the overall amount of money being spent on leisure products, in which case I might end up agreeing with you, these signings seem like great moves to me. They have an obvious need to get younger in the attack, and I think they've accomplished that pretty fiercely. I'm thinking Chelsea is (sadly) not going to follow Liverpool's recent path.
I'm not debating that. They should be a much more fun team to watch next year. It's just there are often moments or situations when I'm reminded of the biblical line about it being time to put away childish things and I feel guilt or whatever it is, some kind of depressive feeling, about all the time and energy I've spent watching other men play games and the ridiculousness of it. It never sticks, though, happily...
PS: June thread coming sooner or later
This weekend and the following week (until Friday) is pretty dead for soccer, right? Pretty much just friendlies? June 8 starts the Euro's and is the USMNT's first WCQ, correct? I notice Mexico is playing Brazil on Sunday, it's on an OTA Univision channel. Might be interesting for the comparison.
Which is good, because I have finals until Wednesday :p
England-Beligum tomorrow should be reasonably interesting, I hope.
USA vs Canada on Sunday. Try to contain your excitement.
I'm not expecting much out of US-Canada w/the qualifier two days later. Actually, I'm hoping for not much out of US-Canada--I assume the main guys will be resting.
Mexico vs Brazil friendly is on Univision on Sunday. That appears to be it.
Oh no, they have competition, the Chinese have bought the right to host the Spanish Super Cup in Beijing from next year. Cost a cool 40 million euros.
May I be the first to say: Boooooooooooooooooo!
Better than could be hoped. I wouldn't mind if he brought Grant Holt with him.
And may I also be the first to say to this: Boooooooooooooooo!
Villa. Where my heroes go to die.
Fabian Castillo might be counted as one; I'm guessing it depends on how the team or league wanted to work the accounting for his transfer fee.
The rule's kind of tough to use. You'd have to have scouted out a 20 yr or younger player who you're confident will cut it, while at the same time not demand a big transfer fee (which MLS teams are loathe to pay).
And then there's the accounting. If you manage your roster well, $350,000 (regular DP) is not a huge cap hit. Whereas $180,000 (young DP hit) is still a lot to spend on a guy who can't contribute, so you need the young player to be able to do something right away. Then the club is making up the difference that the league doesn't pay...it's "only" $170,000, but that's probably still a decent chunk of change for most MLS clubs.
At least eventually...I selfishly worry about the limbo phase as new networks are created and then they go through that dance of trying to get carriers to add them, and add them to the more accessible tiers.
It probably doesn't matter much to people here, but Univision spun off Univision Deportes in the spring and took the rights to most of the interesting Mexican teams with them (Santos, Monterrey, Pachuca, Toluca, etc.), and Dish was the only carrier. About half the playoff games were on the network as well.
Yup. The two 20 or so year old DPs got to MLS via loans, not coincidentally they're both Colombian, there's been a tremendous influx of Colombians to MLS recently.
Holt would cost more than he is worth at this point. Villa may not be poverty stricken, but the finances still demand efficient spending. Better for Lambert to unearth another Holt from lesser leagues.
Did you see the MLS salary figures? I didn't check on other teams, but naturally was curious about newcomers to the Rapids (my local team). Not that their Colombian players have been stars, but they have a reasonable starting central mid and starting leftback for $68K and $68K, and a backup/possible starting d-mid for $44K. They also picked up a 22-yr old a-mid from 2nd div Argentina for $50K.
I can see why MLS teams have turned their attention in that direction.
I have, and I'm not quite sure what the uproar was when they got released, the MLS players union has done it for years.
Colombians are generally good and cheap, and when you get a few players from any country, integration is easier for everyone. We're seeing MLS start to become a league where non-Americans want to play, it's great. Say what you want about Colombia but you have to walk before you can run.
It's fun to play and watch, and the format and style of the game leads to upsets that you basically never see in fifteens. We've gotten to some semifinals in sevens tournaments and the Eagles will never get to a semifinal in fifteens rugby in my lifetime.
Now most of the rugby community supported sevens at the Olympics, but we're seeing a few of the pitfalls - NOCs are only choosing to fund sevens and sometimes only one sex. For example, the Dutch NOC has decided they might win a medal in women's sevens, so the women are pros and train six days a week while the men get virtually nothing, and neither fifteens program Is funded.
There was an uproar? You're right, they've done it for years, and Americans who follow other US pro leagues would hardly be surprised.
It may not be a big deal for you Anglos, but I really like having a tall striker who can get in between the centrebacks and score with headers. Venezuela hasn't had many of those.
The less dead thread.
It's okay! No need to panic! I'm a necromancer.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main