zequist

Video link: Brendan Rodgers wants us all to relax about this latest incident

(note: I recommend putting your beverages down before watching)

Thx, i didnt mean to be so dramatic but buttons were pushed and my intent was to stay away. Cant tho. Love this place too much.

 

Anyways, back to gnasher. I agree, he should be banned for life. From all competitions. Once (Ajax 7 game ban) could be in the heat of the moment. Twice (vs Chelsea, 10 game ban) is crazy. Jaws 3 (terrible movie) is unexplainable. Mulder and Scully should have a look at this nut case

That was originally Jaws 3-D, remember? As in dickish, desultory, and dunderheaded, just like Suarez the Cannibal's actions. I hope that he gets sent home by FIFA tonight and that Uruguay loses to Colombia by 5 goals without him in the next round. Effing prick.

Agreed. That's also why a lot of people don't like soccer in the states. They say it's a bunch of pretty boy pussies who fall over and scream after getting barely grazed. Meanwhile In hockey guys are skating 20 mph and ramming Into each other.

 

I hate diving.

Or less than barely grazed. Joel Campbell left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths in the last US-Costa Rica WC qualifying match when he drew a yellow on Matt Besler by basically walking up behind him and throwing himself on the ground - Besler never even saw him and wasn't quite sure what was going on until the ref waved the card in his face. That one was so ridiculous that even FIFA stepped in and disciplined Campbell for it,but if an American player ever tried a stunt like that, he'd get completely ripped to shreds by American fans and the national media on ESPN and other outlets, and lose a ton of respect in everyone's eyes.

Incidentally, just like MLS, the NBA also recently started levying retroactive fines on players who flop during basketball games because fans complained that there was too much of it going on.

 

I've not looked at the table to see the possible permutations but the bookies seem to think you'll be OK; USA are generally at 1/5 to qualify with Ghana 5/1 and Portugal as high as 10/1.

 

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/world-cup/group-g/to-qualify

 

That seems fair. Fivethirtyeight.com, which is a probabilities and statistics calculations website, posted that the numbers gave the US a 76% chance of advancing after yesterday's draw (despite having a 64% chance of losing to Germany on Thursday), so the oddsmakers putting them at 1-in-5 (basically giving them an 80% chance to advance) are right in the same ballpark.

On this, I agree with Nikica. Ghana really do deserve to go through, and there has to be a decent chance they will. If Germany beat the US, Ghana beat Portugal, and the swing is 3 or more goals, Ghana go through. If they fail to beat Portugal, however, of the US manage a draw against Germany, then the US go through. It's going to be interesting to watch. If Ghana do end up going through, tonight's goal from Portugal will end up being a real heart-breaker.

To quote one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." The US deserved three points against Portugal and didn't get it. Ecuador deserved at least a point against Switzerland and didn't get it. Iran deserved a point against Argentina and didn't get it. Australia probably deserved a point from at least one of their two matches and got nothing. Brazil probably deserved three points against Mexico, but at the same time Mexico clearly deserved the point they got just for Ochoa's heroics alone. Frankly, if teams got exactly what they deserved from every match then Portugal should have been penalized three points for their horrid display against Germany.

Fortunately this is football, not figure skating.

Oh, I'm not suggesting there'd be any US-German collusion - that's not really the American style, and besides, I'm sure that Low and Klinsmann would both love to prove a point against each other. But the fact is that both teams accomplish their primary goals with a draw (Germany winning the group, US surviving the group) and put their tournaments in jeopardy with a loss, So it would be natural for both of them to play fairly cautiously, looking for opportunities to poach a goal when an opening arises but not taking any unnecessary risks so long as the score remains level.

And for the record, since I wasn't able to get in here before the tournament started:

Teams I am actively supporting for the rest of the WC: USA (because it's my home country), Costa Rica, Mexico (because of CONCACAF solidarity), Belgium (because I've been following Belgian football since the Scifo/Nilis/Wilmots teams of the 90s), and Chile (because I enjoy their playing style - at least that's one thing we agree on)

Teams I am actively rooting against: Greece (because they make football as enjoyable as a root canal), Uruguay (because they employ Luis Suarez), France (because rooting against them is too much fun), and Ghana (because they've knocked the US out of two straight World Cups and it's time to return the favor)

I wasn't privy to that Belgium vs. Chile/Colombia conversation, but I will say that I think there's a reasonable argument to be made. Outside of Mexico '86 the Belgians have been frequent underachievers in this tournament, however much it pains me to admit it. And while the other South American sides are used to being overshadowed by Argentina and Brazil (Paraguay has been my adopted South American side for years, so I'm quite familiar with the phenomenon), it did strike me that Chile in particular seemed to be even more overlooked than usual coming into this tournament. If they don't beat Holland tomorrow - which they very well could - then I'd normally love their chances to take out Brazil in the round of 16, if that match were being played anywhere other than Brazil. Unfortunately, they've never once beaten Brazil in Brazil in nearly a hundred years of playing each other. And if I was less sure about how Colombia would perform without Falcao in the lineup, they definitely haven't disappointed so far either.

Honestly, at this point I don't think any group G results in the final two games would surprise me, other than maybe a US win. All three teams below Germany seem fairly evenly matched. Germany only needs a draw to top the group - I could easily see that game playing out that way with both teams content to sit back.Ghana-Portugal could really go in any direction, win for either side or a draw.

I suspect Nikica may be right about a Belgium-USA knockout game, however - that does not seem to be a very favorable matchup. Last time USA played Belgium last year the Belgians inflicted a pretty one-sided beatdown on them (ironically the US then turned around and beat Germany about five days later). Well, if they do get through the US or whoever, they're most likely facing Argentina in the quarters. I suppose that ought to make the Belgium-haters happy.

South Korea v Algeria not the most attractive game on the face of it but this is brilliant; three nil Algeria.

Puts a bit of a different spin on how hard Belgium had to work to get past the Foxes.

Africa's coming back strong after a slow start to this tournament. Nigeria, Ivory Coast, and Algeria will all be in strong positions to advance heading into the last fixtures of the group stage, and even Ghana's not out of it yet. Between them and the CONCACAF sides, there's been a lot to like in this tournament if you're a "root for the underdog" person like me.

Little bit of history in the making here. Iran and Nigeria are playing the 13th match of the tournament, and we haven't had a draw yet - the first World Cup in 1930 somehow didn't have any draws (in 18 total matches played), but the longest draw-less streak to start any tournament since then had been the 1934 tournament which saw its first draw in the tenth game played that year.

Of course, these two teams seem determined to break this streak anyway, but I suppose there's still time for one of them to get lucky.

it's the baltic cup so not strictly a friendly i guess

That would explain it, then. Thanks!

Anyone have any idea why Estonia and Latvia played a friendly today that ended in penalty kicks? I can't even remember the last time I saw a friendly match use that stipulation outside of a video game.

The essence of Moneyball is about exploiting soft spots in the market - finding players with specific, valuable skills who cost less money because other teams are spending all their money on skills that come at a higher price. A great real-life example is the holding midfielder role - Makelele's skill set was not highly valued by most clubs at the time, certainly not in England and not even by the front office at Real Madrid where he was playing at the time, so Chelsea was able to get him for somewhat less money than his actual talent and value should have demanded (RM prez Florentino Perez infamously said he was an average technique player lacking speed and skill who would not be missed). He still didn't come cheap-cheap at 16 mil, but to put that in perspective Chelsea paid similar or greater prices for Adrian Mutu, Hernan Crespo, Juan Sebastian Veron, and Damian Duff that same summer, most of whom ended up being complete wastes of money for them.

The other part of Moneyball is about keeping ahead of the curve, so that when other teams cotton on to your strategy and also start buying in and driving up the cost of the skills you've been targeting, you've already moved ahead to another strategy. Continuing the above example, there's no discount value in targeting the Makelele-type anymore because everybody saw what he could do and wants a player like that now.

BTW, the Oakland A's, who codified the Moneyball strategy and also happen to be my lifelong baseball team (been a devoted fan since '83) are sort of the Everton of American baseball - old club with a proud history, popularly perceived by the public and media as a "smaller" club despite winning more championships over the years than all but 2 or 3 other clubs, stuck sharing their local market with a much wealthier and more glamorous neighbor club, stuck in an old, undesirable stadium that limits their revenue potential and been trying and failing to get a new one for years, and develop lots of great young talent that eventually leaves for huge paydays with other clubs that Oakland can't afford.

I just cant see us buying another LB.

 

Baines - Starting

Oviedo - Cover

Garbutt - Coming through

Robertson - buy now while he's still easily affordable and loan him out for a year or two.

When Baines passes his peak in a couple of years, sell him for more than he's worth to whatever third-rate club David Moyes is managing by then, Oviedo takes over as the starter, and whichever of Garbutt or Robertson has shown more ability becomes his cover.

Competition for positions is always good, and a smartly run club shouldn't pass up on genuine talent (especially affordable talent) just because they think they have "enough" players at a position already. Promising careers get derailed by injuries (remember when we thought James Vaughn had a bright future here?), youngsters who flash early potential peak too soon and never fully develop, other clubs come in and unsettle the starters, and suddenly a position you thought was deep dries up and you're left thinking "why didn't they buy that guy back when he cost 500,000 instead of 5 million?"

Or to put it another way, where would we be right now if Moyes had passed on the chance to buy Coleman back in 2008-09 because he already had Hibbert and Lars Jacobsen in the squad at right back, and Dan Gosling waiting in the pipeline? Hibbert was younger at the time than Baines is now, and Jacobsen was a full international just like Oviedo.

Sorry mate, I can just about take EPL, but BPL?! It's not the British Premier League. It's the English Premier League. Sorry for being picky, but does my head in.

I thought in the BPL abbreviation that B=Barclays.

Of course, depending on your proclivities you might think that's even worse.

Says this will be his last contract.

http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1797875/tim-howard-plans-retire-new-everton-deal-ends?cc=5901

Well assuming Falcao doesn't scupper this Traore deal, we have two players in with him and McGeady - that's a net +1 with Jelly out. We're feeling pinched because the injuries are really piling up at the moment with seven guys on the shelf, and the timing is about the worst possible with the Liverpool and Tottenham fixtures both scheduled for this stretch when we're hurting so badly. But beyond that, almost all of our walking wounded (apart from Gibson and Kone) are expected back within the next 2-3 weeks, and when we have our full squad or close to it, our squad size is fine. Could we use another CM/DM type of player? Sure, but only if the right deal is out there at the right value - signing someone just for the sake of signing someone is pointless, unless you're Tottenham or City and don't care about having 200 players in your first team squad.

 

He's a CURSE on FM. I could not get rid of him on my Everton squad. No one wanted him on loan/transfer, he wouldn't terminate his contract, his contract is long-term, he complained about playing time, etc.

You need to make him want to leave. Kick his arse in private chats, fine him two weeks wages every chance you get, bad mouth him to the press, and generally make his life a living hell, until he gets angry enough that he's finally willing to discuss a buyout just to be shot of you.

Update on the administration process for Hearts:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/tynecastle-administrator-urges-caution-battle-3048642

I predict:

Cardiff (most dysfunctional team in the EPL)

Crystal Palace (least talented team in the EPL)

Sunderland (the "Curse of Christmas")

Not a very radical set of choices, I know, but as much fun as it might be to put a stake on a totally unexpected trio, picking the condemned usually isn't rocket science.

 

I've kept fairly up to speed with it somewhat and apparently FIFA really want Uruguay-Argentina to happen to mark the centenary (as Uruguay hosted the inaugural tournament as we all know, and beat the Argies in the final), and the nations are both receptive to it as well. They hate each other in sporting terms, yeah, but that probably won't be a barrier. They know neither of them can host it individually so I'm sure they're more than willing to collaborate.

 

Don't worry about being tired - you made some fair points anyway, and we all overlook things - especially when fatigued.

 

Funny that you mention Canada, because I read somewhere that they've announced that they too will bid for 2026, but wasn't sure on the validity of the source. They would be a good candidate, as long as the game were played close to the US border, as they have the same issues as Russia in terms of cold and land mass! As for the USA, I actually think their bid might be a joint one with Mexico, so if that's true it simply reinforces my point regarding the alleged Uruguay-Argentina bid. Three times hosting for Mexico is taking the piss a bit though, even if one of those was simply as a stand-in.

 

Totally agree about Australia - has a nice blend of being an already developed country who can easily host the tournament, but also being a growing nation in terms of football. Problems again with climate and size, but most habitation is on the coast anyway, and the heat can be overcome. Would love to see them get a tournament, by themselves or with the Kiwis as you say.

 

When talking football I tend to think of AFC and OFC as one, and now that Australia has joined the former from the latter it would count as an Asian World Cup from a footballing perspective anyway. The reason I don't mention Oceania above is that it's such a weak confederation that it didn't seem to merit a mention anyway. As I say, with Australia now being part of AFC the only way OFC can get a tournament is with NZ co-hosting with the Aussies.

Little late to the party replying to this, but...

There is one signficant issue that Canada would have to deal with if they're going to bid - they don't have an independent domestic pro league. A few clubs in MLS and a few scattered semipro clubs, but that's it. FIFA's made it clear in the past that they want nations hosting the World Cup to have either a viable domestic league or at least a plan in place for one (that's a big part of how MLS got started in the first place - part of the package that the US presented in their WC '94 bid was a pledge to get a new pro league up and running), and I don't think Canada's minor participation in MLS would be enough for them. I don't think weather will be an issue there, though. With the exception of Edmonton, pretty much all of Canada's largest cities are within about 150 miles of the US border, and they all have average June temperatures that are generally between 18-24 degrees celsius during the day, dropping down to around 10-14 degrees celsius at night (that's about 65-75 in the day and low to mid-50s at night, if you prefer Fahrenheit temperatures).

As for Australia, don't forget that seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere, so if they're hosting a World Cup at the usual time (June-July) it would be late fall/winter for them and heat won't be a factor.

Oceania won't be hosting any World Cups for a long, long time, if ever. Their only realistic chance to do it was when Australia was still in the federation - New Zealand doesn't have the infrastructure (again, like Canada, they have no independent, fully professional domestic league) or. probably. the money to do it by themselves, and I don't know if they'd even be allowed to pursue a joint bid with Australia anymore since they're in two different federations. The idea of anyone else in Oceania trying to host one of these tournaments is a complete non-starter, unless France suddenly got the urge to fully underwrite a World Cup in Tahiti or something (hey, I'd go!).

In general, I think we're going to start seeing more and more of these joint World Cup bids in the future. Like the Olympics, it's starting to get so enormous and so expensive that there are only a handful of countries in the world who'll have the financial resources to host the thing solo without bankrupting themselves (and half of them are places like China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia that you probably wouldn't want hosting a World Cup anyway). Besides, why put 100% of the tax burden for it on your own citizens if you can find a willing partner to split the cost with?

One of those transfers in hich my feelings can be best described with this image:

 

Are you implying that McGeady has big man-boobs?

 

We've had this discussion before but I have to say that was most definitely true for me when I had a "proper" career; and I really hope it's true for some footballers, though I suspect it's a minority of them sadly. As Bailey says, a lot of that is to do with agents.

And sometimes peers. I don't know how much "solidarity" there is between players in Europe, but American agents always negotiate salaries based on comparables (this guy makes x million a year and my client scored 3 more goals than he did, therefore my client should get x plus a bit more), so there's a certain amount of peer pressure on athletes in North American leagues to get as much money as they can whenever their contracts come up, in order to raise the salary scale for everyone else in their sport.

Klinsmann sounds disappointed but resigned about the situation: "When a player decides to come back from Europe because [the] offer is just so exceptionally good that he wants to combine other things with it and help also the league to grow, as a national team coach you accept that and help the player to make the best out of it."

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1676213/united-states-coach-jurgen-klinsmann-says-no-demand-american-players-europe?cc=5901

Wow, what an amazing listen.

One of the things that really stuck with me was when he talked about Barkley playing like he was afraid to make a mistake at the beginning of the year, and how he tried to get him out of that mindset.

I've always believed, in sports and in life, that fortune generally favors the bold, and that's as true in the BPL as anywhere else. Too many coaches, especially coaches of second and third-tier teams, have a "damage limitation" mentality, where they don't always make the smartest substitutions or tactical decisions because they're too concerned with preserving their jobs and reputations to take a gamble that might backfire and leave them open to criticism or second-guessing. They'd rather settle for a draw or a 1-0 loss than go chasing a win and possibly end up losing 3-0 or 4-0. I know what some of you are thinking, but I'm not singling out any particular manager when I say that simply because 90% of them are guilty of that negative/conservative strategizing, regardless of whether they're managing in the BPL or Serie B or some part-time league in Outer Mongolia. How often have we complained this year about teams like Cardiff and Palace packing ten behind the ball against us and spending more energy frustrating our attack than trying to score? I'm extremely thankful that Martinez is in the other 10%, because that 10% are the managers who are winning games and winning trophies while their peers are too busy trying not to get fired.

Circling my point back to Barkley though, players aren't any more fond of losing their jobs than managers are, and a player who gets the message from past experience that he has to play safe and avoid mistakes if he wants to stay in the starting lineup is a player who's hamstrung; he starts thinking too much instead of being able to just play his natural game. By coaching to win, Martinez gives Ross and the other players the freedom to play to win, and not be afraid of making an occasional mistake. For instance, even after their farcical two-man comedy act against Sunderland, Howard and Osman were both back on the pitch the next time they were eligible to play. And that's what we're seeing with Ross - someone who has the backing of his manager and the confidence to try different things on the pitch, and as a result of stretching himself like that, he is finding out just how good he can be at this level, which is only going to make him even more confident.

Id sell him for for 100m, its just for the better of the club. Not a penny less though

If they got a 100m offer in the summer when Roberto can use it to sign three or four or five quality replacements, that's one thing. But in the middle of this season, no. Ross is far too important to their Champions' League push. I think Roberto is basically saying the same thing - he did have that "in January" qualifier in his statement.

Frankly though, even if they did get a Bale-sized offer for Ross in June, they'd better do some hard number-crunching before they pull the trigger, especially if it's from someone they'd be directly competing with for CL places (i.e. Man City, as opposed to RM or PSG or some other foreign club). I say that because a club will put itself in a far better financial position over the long term by making the CL than they will from giving in to the temptation of selling their top players for one-time cash infusions. That's a losing strategy in the long term. Tottenham earned over 30 million Euros (somewhere around 25 million pounds) from their lone CL appearance two years ago, despite getting knocked out in the Quarterfinals, or just about the same amount of money as what Everton got for giving up Rooney (and look at how many times over ManU has made up that fee from all the CL victories he has earned them). And that CL prize money doesn't even include the ancillary financial benefits that come with CL football like increased visibility and merchandise sales and being able to sign better sponsorship deals because your club becomes a more attractive property.

I found...

Everton Head-to-Head Lookup

And according to that database, they've never played a competitive match against Yeovil, league or Cup. So unless friendlies count in Rubecula's mate's world, I think we have our winner, and props to Marco for calling it.