posted
I've inexplicably drawn Switzerland in the office sweepstake. Why couldn't I have gotten something a bit more interesting, like, even, I dunno, Togo? At least (unlike no-one else in the company) I've been there. Do Switzerland even have enough flat ground for a football pitch? And shouldn't they be neutral anyway? I might as well have drawn the referees (except for the Mexican ref in the Engalnd-Paraguay game, he was well dodgy, even Motty said so). . .
Furious about the Italy-Ghana result last night. The Ghanaians committed some real howlers. And Essien did all the work. OK, it's not easy to make headway against a team whose main tactic is to fall over at the slightest sign you might score, but conversely it's not really difficult to beat the Italians either - they're all such prima donnas, they can't work together for five minutes before the need to gain the crowds attention, and the reassertion of far-more-important domestic club rivalries, takes over again.
And the Australia-Japan game! Aargh! To be doing so well, then to allow them to let THREE in?! Bloody Aussie gits are full enough of themselves as it is. . .
The Egyptian Ref in the Aus-Jap match was dodgy - he even admitted he made a mistake by allowing Japan's goal - which they got because they barged into the goalie.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I notice you focus on that rather than the flailing-around for 80 minutes before you could even score one goal. . .
Obviously I have a sliding-scale of teams I like and therefore support - England, Brazil, Ghana, Holland. And there are those I loathe and will never support - you know, our old enemies, Germany, Argentina, the USA, Australia. . . There's the tactical element - I have no especial reason to favour Paraguay, for instance, but to have them beat Sweden on Thursday will help England's placing in the group; HOWEVER, it's actually in England's interest to be runners-up in their Group because that then means they can't meet Brazil before the Final (assuming Brazil win their group; if both win or both are runners-up, they meet in the Semis). But who do I support on Friday, Argentina v Serbia & Montenegro? I'm almost compelled to back the latter, since any victory that weakens the island-snatching hand-ball-fuckers is plus; but it's a fine pickle when I have to want the fucking Serbs to win anything, fucking gangsters of Europe, always have been. . .
posted
Secede. Yes, they did, and with only ONE player in the unified Serbia & Montenegro team actually being from Montenegro, it's no wonder why. So this tournament marks the last (and, well, really first and only) appearance of the S&M (hey!) team on the world stage.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
US has a soccer team? What grade are they in?
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
"...and with only ONE player in the unified Serbia & Montenegro..."
I think I read somewhere that the one Montenegrin player was injured, or somehow otherwise disqualified, and so the team really is just Serbians.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why is everyone talking about the wrong football?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh. You mean soccer. No, but I never did get why exactly we Americans had to name our very different sport Football (especially considering how little of the game actually involves feet contacting the ball). Like why not "American Rugby" or "Rootabaga" or "Sport Where Everyone Needs Joint Replacements in Ten to Twenty" or you know just something that isn't "Football."
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I think Soccer would be far more popular (with American in particular) if it involved lots of body armor, helmets and tackeling of whomever has the ball but several players the size of small cows.
...but I also think it should involve tasers and possibly telescoping metal batons (hey, they've already got armor). ANd the ball should weigh 25 lbs.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"No, but I never did get why exactly we Americans had to name our very different sport Football (especially considering how little of the game actually involves feet contacting the ball). Like why not 'American Rugby' or 'Rootabaga' or 'Sport Where Everyone Needs Joint Replacements in Ten to Twenty' or you know just something that isn't 'Football.'"
I guess you'll have to blame the genius who named "rugby football" in the first place.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
American Rugby - I'm offended sir. Rugby (both kinds) is played without padding and armor and lycra and no forward passes of the ball. (Some with injuries do wear a padded head gear - about the thickness of the skin of a football.
Australia plays 4 codes of football *sigh* Rugby Union, Rugby League, Australian Rules Football and Soccer.
The popularity/how widespread of the games/the games are = AFL > Rugby Union > Rugby League > Soccer.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
