On the heels of the United States women falling to Japan during the World Cup Finals this past weekend, there has been debate as to what actually happened. Did the Japanese team win the match? Or did the United States team lose the match? The answer is actually quite simple. Yes.
News flash people - for a team to win, the other one has to lose. How is this a difficult concept to follow? The way it happened is irrelevant. Whine all you want about missed opportunities or letting leads slip away twice. In the end, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. They don't give extra credit for trying.
What is lost in all of this is that the Japanese team was a resilient group that played within their system and capitalized on their opponent's mistakes. If that strategy sounds familiar, that would be because that is essentially what the Boston Bruins did on the way to winning the Stanley Cup. Yet no one was crying that Roberto Luongo lost the Stanley Cup instead of the Bruins winning it.
So, move on everyone! Accept this for what it is - a victory by a nation that has had a year of earthquakes, tsunamis, potential nuclear meltdowns, and the inability to restock those vending machines with schoolgirl panties. Can you imagine living in an area where you cannot get access to those whenever you want? It's like they fell back to the Dark Ages.
Congratulations to the Japanese women's team. Now we can all ignore women's soccer for another four years.
Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Monday, July 18, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Impressions Of A Soccer Game
Last night, I went with a friend to see Manchester United take on the New England Revolution on their 2011 Herbalife World Football Challenge. Admittedly, I am not a fan of soccer, based on what I have seen of it on television. However, I absolutely love hockey, and I see a lot of similarities between the two sports. My friend is a soccer fan, and a Man United fan, so this had the makings of an interesting experience.
As such, I felt that, as with a hockey game, seeing a soccer match in person would give a truer sense of the game itself. Rather than seeing the televised focus on the ball, it would be easier to see the set up and strategy inherent in the ball movement, and to see the plays set up.
And you know what? It was. Soccer was infinitely more enjoyable in person than watching it on television. Even though the first half ended in a zero to zero tie, you could see where Manchester United was setting up plays, feeling out the Revolution defense, and getting quality shots. The only reason why the first half was scoreless was that the goalie for New England, Matt Reis, played incredibly well. In fact, only he and Shalrie Joseph seemed to belong on the same field as Man United.
This became evident in the second half when Manchester United abused the Revolution, putting up four goals on the backup goaltender. The final score ended up being 4-1 Man United, yet it truly was not that close. The difference in skill between the two clubs was obvious, even to someone such as myself who has admittedly not seen a lot of soccer.
In the end, this was a much better experience than I would have expected. Perhaps this was due to pregaming at a bar that serves mason jars filled with beer, but nonetheless it was a more enjoyable experience than anticipated. While I may not be a fan of soccer, I can see why people would be. It is definitely something I will check out in person again.
As such, I felt that, as with a hockey game, seeing a soccer match in person would give a truer sense of the game itself. Rather than seeing the televised focus on the ball, it would be easier to see the set up and strategy inherent in the ball movement, and to see the plays set up.
And you know what? It was. Soccer was infinitely more enjoyable in person than watching it on television. Even though the first half ended in a zero to zero tie, you could see where Manchester United was setting up plays, feeling out the Revolution defense, and getting quality shots. The only reason why the first half was scoreless was that the goalie for New England, Matt Reis, played incredibly well. In fact, only he and Shalrie Joseph seemed to belong on the same field as Man United.
This became evident in the second half when Manchester United abused the Revolution, putting up four goals on the backup goaltender. The final score ended up being 4-1 Man United, yet it truly was not that close. The difference in skill between the two clubs was obvious, even to someone such as myself who has admittedly not seen a lot of soccer.
In the end, this was a much better experience than I would have expected. Perhaps this was due to pregaming at a bar that serves mason jars filled with beer, but nonetheless it was a more enjoyable experience than anticipated. While I may not be a fan of soccer, I can see why people would be. It is definitely something I will check out in person again.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The Women's World Cup
Stop the music, because we have heard this song before.
Back in the halcyon days of yore, 1999 to be exact, there was a team of women, vying for a championship on fields of green. They faced off against a foe that was, for all intents and purposes, representative of everything that their home country was not. In the end, the US Women's team won, forever leaving the iconic image of Brandi Chastain ripping her shirt off (back when she was hot, and was not showing more neck veins and tendons than Arnold Schwarzenegger).
Riding the afterglow of their victory, a professional women's soccer league came into existence. Founded in February of 2000, the Women's United Soccer Association came into existence. Fielding eight teams, they began play in April 2001. Then they realized what should be obvious at this point - that there is not enough interest to maintain a viable women's league in ANYTHING, aside from beach volleyball and pole dancing, in this country. The league suspended operations on September 15, 2003, and faded off into the dust of history.
Back to the present. We find ourselves looking at yet another women's soccer team that has managed to capture the imagination of the United States. This time, they came back from seemingly insurmountable odds, as they had to contend with being down a player, questionable (and that is being charitable) officiating, and a soccer team in Brazil that was hungry to win the championship. Despite it all, they managed to tie the game on a miraculous play from Megan Rapinoe to Abby Wambach. They would then defeat Brazil on penalty kicks to advance to the semifinals.
Now, once again, the United States is presently enthralled with this group of women. So, this means that some people with extra money are going to look to find a way to exploit this, and gain more money for their coffers. So, in another few months, the concept of yet another women's soccer league may get bandied about, as what would be a better way to cash in on this phenomenon?
Here's an idea that would be the equivalent - find a fireplace and throw that money into it. Because you are just as likely to make some money by doing that as you are to turning a profit with a women's sports league. For proof, just look at the WNBA. Despite David Stern forcing the NBA to keep it on life support, it still hemorrhages money like a Kardashian on a shopping trip.
This may be a great moment, not just for women's soccer, but for soccer in general when it comes to this country. However, one moment does not turn into anything more. Americans are, by nature, easily distracted by the newest and shiniest thing. Women's soccer just will not hold their attention if it is constantly around. Let them be relevant once every four years, and accept that is all that will come of it.
Back in the halcyon days of yore, 1999 to be exact, there was a team of women, vying for a championship on fields of green. They faced off against a foe that was, for all intents and purposes, representative of everything that their home country was not. In the end, the US Women's team won, forever leaving the iconic image of Brandi Chastain ripping her shirt off (back when she was hot, and was not showing more neck veins and tendons than Arnold Schwarzenegger).
Riding the afterglow of their victory, a professional women's soccer league came into existence. Founded in February of 2000, the Women's United Soccer Association came into existence. Fielding eight teams, they began play in April 2001. Then they realized what should be obvious at this point - that there is not enough interest to maintain a viable women's league in ANYTHING, aside from beach volleyball and pole dancing, in this country. The league suspended operations on September 15, 2003, and faded off into the dust of history.
Back to the present. We find ourselves looking at yet another women's soccer team that has managed to capture the imagination of the United States. This time, they came back from seemingly insurmountable odds, as they had to contend with being down a player, questionable (and that is being charitable) officiating, and a soccer team in Brazil that was hungry to win the championship. Despite it all, they managed to tie the game on a miraculous play from Megan Rapinoe to Abby Wambach. They would then defeat Brazil on penalty kicks to advance to the semifinals.
Now, once again, the United States is presently enthralled with this group of women. So, this means that some people with extra money are going to look to find a way to exploit this, and gain more money for their coffers. So, in another few months, the concept of yet another women's soccer league may get bandied about, as what would be a better way to cash in on this phenomenon?
Here's an idea that would be the equivalent - find a fireplace and throw that money into it. Because you are just as likely to make some money by doing that as you are to turning a profit with a women's sports league. For proof, just look at the WNBA. Despite David Stern forcing the NBA to keep it on life support, it still hemorrhages money like a Kardashian on a shopping trip.
This may be a great moment, not just for women's soccer, but for soccer in general when it comes to this country. However, one moment does not turn into anything more. Americans are, by nature, easily distracted by the newest and shiniest thing. Women's soccer just will not hold their attention if it is constantly around. Let them be relevant once every four years, and accept that is all that will come of it.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Shut Up Montreal
After the NHL announced that there would not be any forthcoming suspensions or fines in the wake of the hit by Zdeno Chara on Max Pacioretty, Montreal police have opened an investifation into that hit. The police stated that they are acting upon a request by the director of criminal and penal proscutions in Quebec, Louis Dionne.
In related news, Air Canada has threatened to withdraw it's sponsorship of the Montreal Canadiens home unless the league tightens rules to potentially limit severe injuries. NHL Commishioner Gary Bettmen, showing a completely uncharacteristic spine, stated that the NHL may no longer use Air Canada for it's flights as a form of retaliation.
The thing is, this sort of play happens thousands of times over the course of an NHL season. Two players are chasing a puck near the stanchion, and it essentially becomes a game of chicken. They know it's there, it just becomes a matter of which one slows up first. In this case, neither did. Momentum simply carried Pacioretty into the stanchion. Yes, the injuries are severe and unfortunate, but this play happens multiple times per game. The only thing that could possibly prevent these injuries would be to put padding on the turnbuckle, such as the padding on an NFL goalpost.
Yet, the 'outrage' coming from Montreal speaks volumes about that team. The Canadiens play a brand of hockey that is roughly akin to soccer. They dive. They flop. If someone so much as sneezes within three feet of them, they go flying across the ice as if they were shot. In fact, watching that play, it seemed as though Pacioretty was faking the injury to draw more than an interference call on Chara. It was only when he remained down for longer than a few seconds when the thought that an injury may have actually occurred came to mind. It is unfortunate, but that is the way Montreal plays.
However, they can cheap shot the opponent. They can grab. They can agitate. They will run people into goalposts. They trip. Then when someone goes to retaliate against them, they turtle, refuse to fight, and dive across the rink. These actions are why, not only do other teams hate playing them, but other NHL fans hate watching them. It is soccer on ice skates.
So, shut up Montreal. Realize that hockey is a physical game, and things like this do happen. It was an accident, pure and simple.
In related news, Air Canada has threatened to withdraw it's sponsorship of the Montreal Canadiens home unless the league tightens rules to potentially limit severe injuries. NHL Commishioner Gary Bettmen, showing a completely uncharacteristic spine, stated that the NHL may no longer use Air Canada for it's flights as a form of retaliation.
The thing is, this sort of play happens thousands of times over the course of an NHL season. Two players are chasing a puck near the stanchion, and it essentially becomes a game of chicken. They know it's there, it just becomes a matter of which one slows up first. In this case, neither did. Momentum simply carried Pacioretty into the stanchion. Yes, the injuries are severe and unfortunate, but this play happens multiple times per game. The only thing that could possibly prevent these injuries would be to put padding on the turnbuckle, such as the padding on an NFL goalpost.
Yet, the 'outrage' coming from Montreal speaks volumes about that team. The Canadiens play a brand of hockey that is roughly akin to soccer. They dive. They flop. If someone so much as sneezes within three feet of them, they go flying across the ice as if they were shot. In fact, watching that play, it seemed as though Pacioretty was faking the injury to draw more than an interference call on Chara. It was only when he remained down for longer than a few seconds when the thought that an injury may have actually occurred came to mind. It is unfortunate, but that is the way Montreal plays.
However, they can cheap shot the opponent. They can grab. They can agitate. They will run people into goalposts. They trip. Then when someone goes to retaliate against them, they turtle, refuse to fight, and dive across the rink. These actions are why, not only do other teams hate playing them, but other NHL fans hate watching them. It is soccer on ice skates.
So, shut up Montreal. Realize that hockey is a physical game, and things like this do happen. It was an accident, pure and simple.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Soccer Just Doesn't Get It
During the 70th minute of a match between Dorchester and Havant & Waterlooville, a spectator wearing nothing more than a green thong and a curly black wig ran onto the field. Thirty seconds into his escapade, Dorchester player/manager Ashley Vickers tackled the intruder. The intruder was banned from the stadium. Vickers was given a red card and thrown out of the game.
Exactly what criteria was used to determine that the Vickers' actions should get him thrown out of a tie game? According to the rules of soccer, a red card can be given for one of the following seven reasons: serious foul play, violent conduct, spitting at someone, deliberately touching a ball with the hand to impede it's progress, fouling an opponent to prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity, using offensive or threatening language or gestures, and receiving two yellow cards. Under the letter of the rule, this could be considered violent conduct, but should that not only apply to other players or if a player enters the stands themselves? If some drunken moron runs out onto the field of play, he deserves what he gets.
Also, how is the player or coach to know whether or not he is going to be attacked? Remember back on September 19, 2002 when Kansas City Royals first base coach Tom Gamboa got attacked by two White Sox fans? Who is to say that this person running out onto the field isn't another William Ligue Jr? If anything, Vickers should be commended for ending this unwelcome, and potentially dangerous, interruption to the match.
Incidents like this are part of the reason why soccer will never truly become popular in the United States. Whether or not the reputation is deserved, soccer is regarded as a soft sport where the players dive and flop continually. Removing someone from the game because they tackled an interloping fan only further reinforces this image. Soccer just doesn't get it, and probably never will.
Exactly what criteria was used to determine that the Vickers' actions should get him thrown out of a tie game? According to the rules of soccer, a red card can be given for one of the following seven reasons: serious foul play, violent conduct, spitting at someone, deliberately touching a ball with the hand to impede it's progress, fouling an opponent to prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity, using offensive or threatening language or gestures, and receiving two yellow cards. Under the letter of the rule, this could be considered violent conduct, but should that not only apply to other players or if a player enters the stands themselves? If some drunken moron runs out onto the field of play, he deserves what he gets.
Also, how is the player or coach to know whether or not he is going to be attacked? Remember back on September 19, 2002 when Kansas City Royals first base coach Tom Gamboa got attacked by two White Sox fans? Who is to say that this person running out onto the field isn't another William Ligue Jr? If anything, Vickers should be commended for ending this unwelcome, and potentially dangerous, interruption to the match.
Incidents like this are part of the reason why soccer will never truly become popular in the United States. Whether or not the reputation is deserved, soccer is regarded as a soft sport where the players dive and flop continually. Removing someone from the game because they tackled an interloping fan only further reinforces this image. Soccer just doesn't get it, and probably never will.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Overzealous sports bureaucrats - not just in America
In professional sports, the governing bodies that be seem to spend in extremely disproportionate time regulating uniform violations. The socks have to be a certain height. Cleats must be a certain color. Headbands must be worn a specific way. The suit that Mike Nolan wanted to wear on the sidelines while coaching the San Fransisco 49ers? That was against the rules, because it did not have a Reebok logo on it. Meanwhile, Bill Belichick could wear his grey hoodie and look like a homeless guy begging for spare change.
Now, FIFA, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to ban snoods, or neckwarmers. According to FIFA president Sepp Blatter, the neckwarmers are "dangerous - it can be like to hang somebody." As these items are not considered to be 'part of the uniform', this ban is effective immediately.
Yes, the neckwarmer is not a part of the uniform. But neither are sweatbands, wristbands or anything like that. Given that most of the 'offenders' are members of the Premier League, which happens to play it's games from August to May in England (so, predominately throughout the winter), why is it wrong for the players to want to be warm? Is it wrong for them to wear gloves as well?
Perhaps the problem with the snood is not the snood at all. Perhaps it is all the flopping and exaggerated acting in an attempt to draw penalties against other teams. Yes, someone could theoretically grab the snood and use it to take someone down, but how is that different than grabbing someone's hair or shirt when attempting the takedown? Maybe if soccer players could keep from dropping if someone so much as sneezes within twenty feet of them, then this would not be a problem.
Instead of banning something that is being used for comfort, FIFA should impose penalties for using the snood for takedowns. After all, how many people want to stand around in the snow wearing nothing more than shorts and a short sleeve shirt?
Now, FIFA, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to ban snoods, or neckwarmers. According to FIFA president Sepp Blatter, the neckwarmers are "dangerous - it can be like to hang somebody." As these items are not considered to be 'part of the uniform', this ban is effective immediately.
Yes, the neckwarmer is not a part of the uniform. But neither are sweatbands, wristbands or anything like that. Given that most of the 'offenders' are members of the Premier League, which happens to play it's games from August to May in England (so, predominately throughout the winter), why is it wrong for the players to want to be warm? Is it wrong for them to wear gloves as well?
Perhaps the problem with the snood is not the snood at all. Perhaps it is all the flopping and exaggerated acting in an attempt to draw penalties against other teams. Yes, someone could theoretically grab the snood and use it to take someone down, but how is that different than grabbing someone's hair or shirt when attempting the takedown? Maybe if soccer players could keep from dropping if someone so much as sneezes within twenty feet of them, then this would not be a problem.
Instead of banning something that is being used for comfort, FIFA should impose penalties for using the snood for takedowns. After all, how many people want to stand around in the snow wearing nothing more than shorts and a short sleeve shirt?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)