Soccer Thread 2013-14

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

All Wondo does is score goals. I'm beginning to think that he needs to be on the squad for the World Cup

He's been an epic failure every chance for the national team so far.

I need to see more than one good game from him to be convinced.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

He's been an epic failure every chance for the national team so far.

I need to see more than one good game from him to be convinced.

9 goals in his last 10, after 1 in his first 9 is a pretty damn good improvement.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Nice set piece by Mexico. He's gotta be marked.

[PilotMan]

I've been playing so much FM I feel like I'm watching my team after giving a bad halftime talk. lol

[Vince, Pt. II]

Haha. The game feels completely different coming out of the half. The US just isn't nearly as active and aggressive, and Mexico's taking advantage.

[MrBug708]

Well this is disappointing

[Vince, Pt. II]

Johnson with a brilliant run there. Great to see despite the terrible offside call.

Edit: Jeez, refs jobbing the US right now.

[PilotMan]

Too bad, that was a clean goal.

[ISiddiqui]

What kind of offsides call was that?!

[MrBug708]

Concaf refs

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

At the moment I feel Fellaini is trying to hard - he's got a great engine and is a fairly intelligent reader of a match (watch the number of interceptions he manages to make) ... however at the moment he's trying far to hard to be a distributer of the ball when he'd be better off keeping it simple a lot of the time and playing the ball back to someone with more time and space to make a considered pass.

This is pretty much Michael Carrick, though, right?

Jonathan Wilson has an interesting article in today's Guardian about Mourinho's use of Oscar as an "advanced destroyer", especially in the context of the game vs. PSG yesterday. The idea is that a lot of top teams are increasingly using deep-lying playmakers, so having a tactically disciplined & astute advanced player (which, despite what one might think, Oscar is) to close down space and deny time in this area can be quite effective (and was, until Mourinho took off Schurrle at 60 mins or so).

I could see Fellaini doing well in this role as he does seem to have some of the astuteness and at least his physicality alone could be a problem. He is also very, very good at handling balls passed up to him (chesting them down) and would be able to add that to the role, making simple passes to Kagawa & Mata to do most of the creative heavy lifting, with RVP or Rooney bullying / terrifying the back line.

The only problem is that such a setup doesn't allow RVP & Rooney to be in the team at the same time, or if they are, you only have 4 left for defence, which is clearly a lot less than United need.


All of which just underscores, I think, what a personnel mess they currently have, and while we can fault Ferguson for some of this, Moyes' lack of a clear vision for his team has contributed to a very aimless transfer policy which has given him a lot of mismatched parts.


I personally feel they need to replace the entire back line in the summer, not just Ferdinand & Vidic. That should probably be 100M right there.

Then he's going to have to decide if he's a traditional Manchester United pressing, high-motor, relentless team, or a more composed and "cerebral" side. If it's more of the former, he's going to have to write off Mata. If it's more of the latter, he needs to write off all of the wingers except maybe Janusazj.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Four years ago today. Never forget.

[Neuqua]

Can anyone point me in the direction of the best soccer podcast out there? I am mainly interested in Premier League, but even a general theme will do. Also follow USMNT.

[whomario]

dunno about "best", but men in blazers is a good one. Mainly cover the Premier League and Champions League but also USMNT. Very impressive guests as well (recent one include Tim Cahill, Klinsmann and also non-soccer guys like Nicolas Batum, Marc Gasol or Andrew Luck)

http://meninblazers.buzzsprout.com/

Should be a good fit for you at least thematically

[Critch]

Two British newspapers put out good weekly podcasts:

The Guardian Football Weekly - The Guardian Football Weekly podcast | Football | The Guardian

The Times TheGame Podcast - iTunes - Podcasts - TheGame Podcast by The Times

The Guardian is presented by James Richardson, covers mainly EPL but with good reporters covering other European leagues (Syd Lowe and Rafa Honigstein are good for Spain and Germany).

The Times is presented by Gab Marcotti, the trendy football fans journalist of choice.

I listen to both, both very good most weeks.

[Ryan S]

The Guardian Football Weekly podcast | Football | The Guardian

It's a British podcast, so it is going to focus on the Premier League.

[AlexB]

We are Premier League, say we are Premier League!

We've been effectively up for weeks now, but now it's mathematically certain. 11 years has been far too long - hope we manage to stay there for more than just the one!

[rowech]

Arsenal pathetic in a big game again. Embarrassing.

[Marc Vaughan]

Great result for Everton and well deserved - but I can't believe the commentators didn't comment on how off-side their second goal was ...

Lukakus goal - look at Naismith's position

[GrantDawg]

Arthur Blank is bringing a MLS team to Atlanta! Very excited. MLS is coming to Atlanta | www.ajc.com

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Great result for Everton and well deserved - but I can't believe the commentators didn't comment on how off-side their second goal was ...

Lukakus goal - look at Naismith's position

wow...that is worse than the second goal for MC on Saturday when the asst ref apparently didnt even notice that there was a flick on

[Critch]

Naismith didnt touch the ball, ran diagonally across the area. If he obstructed the keepers view then he'd have been interfering with play and offside, but since Szczesny didnt complain I'd guess he didnt.

Only time recently I remember a similar goal being disallowed was Newcastle Utd v Man City and there was uproar about that.

Arsenal were dire yesterday, but they have a much easier run-in than Everton so I'm still betting on Arsenal winning a 4th place trophy again this year.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Critch

Naismith didnt touch the ball, ran diagonally across the area. If he obstructed the keepers view then he'd have been interfering with play and offside, but since Szczesny didnt complain I'd guess he didnt.

The very fact he's there is interfering with play, the defenders would have been positioned differently if he hadn't been in a forward position and obviously the keeper may have reacted more quickly without him as a distraction ... it shouldn't be down to a player complaining for such a blatant offside to be given.

If things come down to 'players complaining' then you're then justifying diving and players surrounding the referee as a way to bring things to a referee's attention ... both of which are something I'd like to see rewarded with yellow cards far more frequently.

Arsenal were dire yesterday, but they have a much easier run-in than Everton so I'm still betting on Arsenal winning a 4th place trophy again this year.

Yeah Arsenal are 4th place specialists, although on the strength of Everton's play this season (and especially in that match) - I'd say Arsenal might find themselves dumped out of the CL positions if not this season than next.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The very fact he's there is interfering with play, the defenders would have been positioned differently if he hadn't been in a forward position and obviously the keeper may have reacted more quickly without him as a distraction ... it shouldn't be down to a player complaining for such a blatant offside to be given.

If things come down to 'players complaining' then you're then justifying diving and players surrounding the referee as a way to bring things to a referee's attention ... both of which are something I'd like to see rewarded with yellow cards far more frequently.

Going by that definition, any player in an offside position would be automatically interfering with play because the defense would be different. Looking about the match reports I dont see much mention of the second goal being offside, other than Arsenal fans clutching at straws in the comments. Doesnt seem to be a widely held reading of the offside rule.

[CAsterling]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The very fact he's there is interfering with play, the defenders would have been positioned differently if he hadn't been in a forward position and obviously the keeper may have reacted more quickly without him as a distraction ...

Reminds me of the Brian Clough quote "If a player is not interfering with play then he shouldn't be on the pitch." And I think he is right

[DaddyTorgo]

Nothing about the USWNT coaching change?

Apparently they "feel the need to go in a different direction."

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Critch

Going by that definition, any player in an offside position would be automatically interfering with play because the defense would be different. Looking about the match reports I dont see much mention of the second goal being offside, other than Arsenal fans clutching at straws in the comments. Doesnt seem to be a widely held reading of the offside rule.

A player not interfering with play in my book would be the play on the left, player away from the play itself and definitely outside of the immediate goalkeepers view or alternatively someone who has been down injured and is coming up again up a hand or something to say they're not involved.

A player directly in front of a goalkeeper during a shooting chance is DEFINITELY offside - if not then I expect to see at least one player glued to the front of the keeper (probably a big fat guy) trying to block his sight continually .... after all he's not interfering with play

[Critch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

A player directly in front of a goalkeeper during a shooting chance is DEFINITELY offside - if not then I expect to see at least one player glued to the front of the keeper (probably a big fat guy) trying to block his sight continually .... after all he's not interfering with play

Directly in front would be offside, the offside rule mentions obstruction as one of the ways a player is interfering with play.

Now the West Ham v Liverpool game, there was a game with real controversy. West Ham goal should have been disallowed, but it was Skrtel pushed Carroll before he hit the keeper, so should it have been a penalty? And then the second Liverpool penalty was a missed call too.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

A player not interfering with play in my book would be the play on the left, player away from the play itself and definitely outside of the immediate goalkeepers view or alternatively someone who has been down injured and is coming up again up a hand or something to say they're not involved.

A player directly in front of a goalkeeper during a shooting chance is DEFINITELY offside - if not then I expect to see at least one player glued to the front of the keeper (probably a big fat guy) trying to block his sight continually .... after all he's not interfering with play

Agreed!

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Originally Posted by Critch

And then the second Liverpool penalty was a missed call too.

The keeper contacted Flanagan twice. The first time was after he nicked the ball, helping to bring him down. Then the ball is behind the keeper and the keeper grabs his leg. Correct call.



Video

[Critch]

Well this is going to seem like I dont agree with anybody, but keeper takes the ball and Flanagan drags his legs, no penalty.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by Critch

Well this is going to seem like I dont agree with anybody, but keeper takes the ball and Flanagan drags his legs, no penalty.

Then you're seeing what I'm not. That's a clear penalty. Not even a question. It's kind of hard to not drag your legs when the goalie has tripped you.

[Critch]

The keeper is allowed to dive at a forward's (or in this case left back's) feet, he does that and takes the ball. The fact the forward (or in this case left back) goes over him doesnt make it a penalty.

I'd say it's the kind you've seen given, and the kind you've seen not given. Not a stonewaller.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Critch

The keeper is allowed to dive at a forward's (or in this case left back's) feet, he does that and takes the ball. The fact the forward (or in this case left back) goes over him doesnt make it a penalty.

I'd say it's the kind you've seen given, and the kind you've seen not given. Not a stonewaller.

Yeah thats my take personally - if the referee hadn't given a stupid goal against them earlier then I don't think they'd have been given that one tbh (not that two wrongs make a right, but I'm glad their season wasn't messed up because of a stupid decision in a match - its teeing up for a fantastic run in at the moment and I'm enjoying every minute of it ).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Critch

Now the West Ham v Liverpool game, there was a game with real controversy. West Ham goal should have been disallowed, but it was Skrtel pushed Carroll before he hit the keeper, so should it have been a penalty? And then the second Liverpool penalty was a missed call too.

Caroll lead with his arm in a manner that only a keeper should be doing - foul on the keeper imho.

(haven't seen the push by Skrtel, but generally speaking a bit of argy-bargy is allowed at set-pieces ... the Premiership is downright gentle with regards to such things in comparison to amateur matches in England )

[Grover]

Not going to argue that West Ham's goal should have been disallowed. We play a dire, diabolical and ugly game of football under Sam Allardyce. It is a disgrace to the West Ham name and brand.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Caroll lead with his arm in a manner that only a keeper should be doing - foul on the keeper imho.

Yeah, that's what I'd say too. I'd read somebody claiming that the referee overruled the linesman's flag because he'd seen that Carroll had been pushed into the keeper, but there didnt look much in it. No worse than Skrtel and countless other centrebacks do at every corner anyway. There was one in the second half where Skrtel and Henderson (I think) pretty much had a hold of Carroll to stop him getting near the keeper and nothing was called.

The old cliche is that the sign of a champion is a team that plays badly and still wins, Liverpool werent up to much v West Ham but still won and still deserved it, so maybe it is their year. I hope not though, cant stand Liverpool.

[whomario]

Dortmund ! Playing without 8 starters and with a 0-3 first and having Real on the ropes, 2-0 after 45 minutes. Atmosphere in the stadium is ridiculous.

Of course, it is very likely that Real will score at least once and then the missed chances from the first leg will be costly. Still, great night so far

[whomario]

and Real should have been down to 10 men already ...

[cartman]

Rooney took WAY too long to get that shot off.

[cartman]

Huge goal by Evra for Man Yoo

Then immediately Bayern ties it up

[cartman]

Mueller makes it 2-1. Not looking good for Manchester.

[cartman]

And Robben makes it 3-1. Don't see Man U getting 2 in the closing minutes.

[MIJB#19]

Quite the "meh" moment in Benfica - AZ. It's always sour when a goal scorer should have been sent off about 10 minutes earlier.

[saldana]

surprised no one has posted on the UEFA ruling about Thibault Courtois...if they are just going to say teams can ignore loan contracts in the champions league, that pretty much makes me never want to put a player out on loan again if i am an owner.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by saldana

surprised no one has posted on the UEFA ruling about Thibault Courtois...if they are just going to say teams can ignore loan contracts in the champions league, that pretty much makes me never want to put a player out on loan again if i am an owner.

I saw a statement from Chelsea which basically says its fine as its allowed under the terms of their loan agreement.

Independant Newspaper article on Courois

(with regards to EUFA's statement - I think they're just grandstanding as per usual )

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I saw a statement from Chelsea which basically says its fine as its allowed under the terms of their loan agreement.

He was always free to play against Chelsea if they paid up. The Chelsea CEO has not mentioned anything about clauses, and I suspect that there will be arguments behind closed doors this week.

I suspect that next season we will have a rule banning players appearing against their parent club in the Champions League, much like they do in the Premier League.

[AlexB]

It will translate into a final option or straight-up discount on Diego Costa I would imagine. Just hope he doesn't commit some howler that costs Atletico the match - it would not look good.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I suspect that next season we will have a rule banning players appearing against their parent club in the Champions League, much like they do in the Premier League.

why would they do that ? I really don´t see the UEFA giving in to a single club (who doesn´t even seem to keen to challenge them).

Seems rather straight forward to me. At least if the UEFA actually has anything resembling what they say as a rule in writing. Because in that case, Chelsea became subject to the rules by entering the competition. Or am i missing something ?

Also don´t see anyone blaming Courtois if he we were to commit a blunder. What´s his allegiance supposed to be for a club he has never played for ?

[Katon]

The last time UEFA expressed an opinion on loan players playing against their former club was back in July, when Elfsborg fielded a Celtic player against Celtic and they said the following:

"As we, in line with the FIFA regulations on status and transfer of players, consider a loan to be a transfer, we do not have any regulations regarding players not playing against their parent club whilst on loan to another club. If a player is duly registered on the player list of IF Elfsborg then he can play against any team that Elfsborg are drawn against."

"Any agreement between the two clubs that this player wouldn’t play against Celtic should Elfsborg be drawn against them is purely between the clubs. UEFA would not have any involvement or consideration of this agreement, it would be neither endorsed or enforceable by UEFA."

(emphasis added)

So when the competition started, parent clubs forbidding their loanees to play against them was not enforceable by UEFA, but also not "a clear violation of both the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations" unless UEFA think they only need to consider their own regulations once the knockout stages start. Either they were being idiots in July, or they're mouthing off ad hoc with no explicit text to back them. If it's the latter, it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I'm not entirely sure what I want to happen with Courtois. On the one hand, this would be a silly reason for one of the world's best keepers to miss the CL semifinal. On the other hand, whether UEFA are selectively enforcing their own rules or changing the rules on the fly, it's not good behavior on their part and I'm not at all happy that my club's the one whose life gets harder because of it.

If he does play, I'd expect him to do an excellent job, both out of professionalism and in order to show Mourinho & Chelsea fans who he thinks should be starting for the club next season.