World Cup Day 14 Open Thread
Day 14 of the World Cup is upon us with four matches to determine Groups E and F. I added the Group Standings below as it will give you a better idea of the implications of each match.
Group F
12pm EDT
Nigeria - Argentina (ESPN)
Bosnia and Herzegovina - Iran (ESPN2)
A draw is all Argentina needs to win the group outright. However, if Iran beat B&H and Nigeria (edit) lose to Argentina, Iran would have a chance to move into the round of 16 (with Goal Differential help).
| Team | GD | Points |
| Argentina | +2 | 6 |
| Nigeria | +1 | 4 |
| Iran | -1 | 1 |
| B&H | -2 | 0 |
Group E
4pm EDT
Ecuador - France (ESPN)
Honduras - Switzerland (ESPN2)
France are almost a sure bet to win the group unless they lose big time to Ecuador AND the Swiss win big over Honduras. Ecuador are in second only on Goal Differential so both matches in this group should be outstanding today.
| Team | GD | Points |
| France | +6 | 6 |
| Ecuador | 0 | 3 |
| Switzerland | -2 | 3 |
| Honduras | -4 | 0 |
A pair of interesting things with Group F today:
-There is at least the remote possibility that second place in Group F is decided by a drawing of lots. If Iran win by 1, Nigeria lose by 1, and Iran scores 1 more goal then Nigeria, they will be tied in every tiebreaker. Sounds ridiculous, but all it would take is 1-0 wins from both Iran and Argentina. Not inconceivable.
-Looking ahead to the knockout round and let's be realistic and assume France and Germany will win their groups. If Argentina lose to Nigeria today, that means ALL 5 remaining former champs would be in the same half of the knockout round bracket.
"However, if Iran beat B&H and Nigeria beat Argentina, Iran would have a chance to move into the round of 16 (with Goal Differential help)."
That is, if Argentina beat Nigeria. If Nigeria beats Argentina, those two teams are in, right?
Correct--I mixed up Argentina and Nigeria. Thanks.
ALLEZ LES BLEUS
I've never been to France, so I can't really comment one way or another on the country. There's certainly some things I assume I'd strongly dislike there as well - but no politics :)
I just like the soccer team, man. Prepare to be angry when they keep advancing in the tournament!
Out of curiosity what makes you like the soccer team from a country you have never been to? Family heritage? A certain player?
I think it's about time for the annual thread regarding this topic and Michigan fandom.
Combination of things you mentioned plus others. Zidane and Henry didn't hurt the cause (like Forlan with Uruguay more recently). It's just one of those things, I'm not big into soccer but enjoy watching the international tournaments. When I first watched, I watched France.
Of course I'll still root primarily USA.
That's cool man. Playing youth soccer in '98 I thought they were awesome too.
What's with the knee-jerk anti-France sentiment among so many in this country? It's odd, really. It's a beautiful country with an amazing history and culture, and among their populace are some of the biggest fans of American pop culture in the world. On a common cultural level, they love us. Yet, when they express an independent foreign policy, something many of our fathers and grandfathers fought to allow them, too many of us react with "fuck France." I love France, but I'm not going to root for their soccer team.
I would say that it is because we had to bail them out of 2 world wars (well not so much WWI) and they don't embrace us. When we lost our fathers and grandfathers to German bullets liberating French soil and they won't support our causes on an international level it shows ingratefulness.
That and it seems every 30 years or so they have some social upheaval, change their constitution, and re emerge as the # french republic. I think they are on 5 right now, throw in some periods of empire with napolean for good measure too. America got it right the first time (Well second if you include the articles of confederation).
Secondly, mindless support of a catastrophically bad decision to go to war is not something anyone should desire. History has proven that France was correct.
Thirdly, the US and the Allies killed some 70,000 French in their liberation of France. The French paid a heavy price as well.
"They don't embrace us"? I'll have to completely disagree with you there, even though I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by that. As I said, on many levels, the French absolutely love us, but if by "embrace us" you mean "follow the US leader in their foreign policy" then I have to ask what you think American forces were fighting for in the world wars. A puppet state to support our overseas adventures? I don't think so.
The French people and various governments after the war have always respected US sovereignty over the perpetual military cemetery concessions in France, and they have always shown the utmost respect for the sacrifices we made. There is no doubt about this at all. Charles de Gaulle took a lot of heat in this country for insisting on preserving the independence of French military command and their ability to independently defend themselves, but ... doesn't that look prescient with the benefit of hindsight? I wish every other member of NATO could/would do the same.
As far as your criticisms of their revolving republics, who cares? You're wrong to claim "social upheaval", as French society persists, it's the republics that come and go. And they've all been pretty much carbon copy parliamentary democracies.
I would say that it is because we had to bail them out of 2 world wars (well not so much WWI) and they don't embrace us. When we lost our fathers and grandfathers to German bullets liberating French soil and they won't support our causes on an international level it shows ungratefulness.
Well, France bailed us out during our war of independence (at enormous financial cost to the French monarchy) - virtually the entire cost of the war was underwritten by them, and nearly all of our weapons/gunpower came from there. Then from 1778 onward, they committed their navy and sent land troops. We didn't do a whole lot to repay them in the years that followed, basically washing our hands of the alliance not long after and proclaiming our neutrality when their republic was under siege. The reality is, countries follow their own interests.
As for them not supporting our causes, that's not really true aside from Iraq (which many of our other allies, including Canada and Germany, also didn't support). France has sent troops to Afghanistan and actually is one of our most important allies against Al-Qaeda - they have strong intelligence links to North Africa and the Middle East, and have sent forces to defeat Al-Qaeda-fueled insurgencies in Africa (most recently in Mali). This doesn't make a lot of headlines, though.
As for France changing its constitution (which has actually only happened twice in the last 130 years) - I highly doubt the average American knows anything about that. Incidentally, we've amended our own constitution 27 times, don't forget.
I agree with this as far as it goes, and have had nothing but good experiences in France. It's a beautiful country full of history, and the people are very accommodating if you make an effort.
But lest we get too grateful to the French for their assistance in the Revolutionary War, it's useful to remember that they underwrote some expenses and sided with the Colonies mostly out of self-interest. It's easy to forget how England and France were superpowers in the 18th century - it was absolutely in France's interest to keep the English involved in a costly cross-Atlantic war.
And the U.S. returned that favor in the War of 1812. Again, keeping the English involved in a distraction while Napoleon was traipsing across Europe. I'd describe the relationship of the two countries (i.e., U.S. and France), for at least the first 50 years following American independence, as symbiotic rather than altruistic.
Yes - all countries act in their own self-interest. We didn't invade Normandy purely out of the goodness of our heart, either. It was in our strategic interest to keep Western Europe out of Soviet control (it was clear that Nazi Germany was going to be defeated by the time we invaded). The War of 1812 indirectly aided Napoleon but was not any sort of alliance with him - we were tired of British interference with our shipping rights and kidnapping of our sailors.
Regardless, if these are reasons why we "hate" France, we're grasping at straws. I think the truth is that the anti-French attitude is just something we inherited from the Brits. England and France were at each other's throats for the better part of a millennium and still are like an old squabbling couple today.
Charles de Gaulle did a lot to kindle anti-French sentiment after World War II, both here and in England. A lot of French-haters point to de Gaulle's nuclear ambitions, rejection of Anglo-American, withdrawal from NATO command, and his politique de grandeur in general as a core reason to dislike the French. IIRC, he also led France's objections to England joining the European Community.
None of that is enough to make me dislike France as a nation. But it is enough for a lot of Baby Boomers to support their disdain for France.
and despite what many people here seem to think, as long as you aren't being the quintessential "loud American" they are incredibly polite and nice. I've also never understood what drives so many people here to randomly hate France. Most of the time there's not a good reason beyond, "they're French!" or something else stupid along those lines.
That said I like the French team and despite playing for le arse, Thierry Henry is one of my favorite players and I hope they do well in the tournament.
Wait, polite French people? When I visited, I thought they were exceptionally rude--and I'm not the type of guy to play the obnoxious American stereotype.
As an aside, back when I flew planes for the Marine Corps, they did deny me entrance to French airspace after authorizing entry. Aviation just doesn't work like that. My assumption was an overnight diplomatic spat that never made the papers, but it was ridiculous. The extra gas we wasted left us just above emergency fuel when we landed in Germany.
How were they rude to you? I'm curious, because I've been there multiple times and not had a problem - in fact, I'd say most people I met were very courteous.
The biggest thing when in France is initiate interactions in French. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Even if your French is terrible (I'm not completely fluent myself), people appreciate the attempt and if they see you struggle, will often shift to English or direct you to someone who can speak English.
What bothers a lot of French people is when visitors come to their country and immediately start speaking English, without asking them if they know it (many of them don't, or aren't real comfortable speaking it). Which is understandable - I wouldn't feel very comfortable if a random person stopped me and immediately started speaking a foreign language to me.
Wait, polite French people? When I visited, I thought they were exceptionally rude--and I'm not the type of guy to play the obnoxious American stereotype.
I'm sure it wasn't your intention to cause offense, but a lot of unpleasant ecounters come down to just cultural misunderstandings.
The last time I was in France, there was a guy in front of me at a tourist office asking how to get to a certain place. The people there spoke some English (as people dealing with tourists usually do), but he was speaking way too fast for them. People forget how fast a normal conversational speed is to a non-native speaker, and how we often don't enunciate clearly when we're speaking quickly. Also, Americans have to remember that French people are more accustomed to hearing British English, since that's what they study in school.
So the guy was rifling off a paragraph worth of information (he had multiple questions), and the people behind the counter were struggling to follow him, and asked him to repeat himself. He responded not by slowing down his speech, but just saying it louder, to the point where everyone in the room could hear him. I finally stepped in (I can speak French) and helped translate for him. They said a few things in English to him at the end (just formulaic stuff, like "Have a good visit") and he (by now pretty flustered) said, "Oh, you do know how to speak English!" and barged out of there. That guy probably was convinced they were out to get him, but I was embarrassed for him. It didn't occur to him that he needed to slow down and speak more clearly.
The problem with France is that it's full of the French
The U.S. and France are alike in a lot of ways - two republics, two nations very proud of their culture, language and history, and role in the world. (France is also, to a surprisingly large degree, a nation of immigrants.) Both nations are constantly accused of arrogance and being rude, and at the governmental level, their foreign policies tend to be guided by a desire to remain as independent as possible from external forces.
This is part of the issue - opposites attract and similar types repel each other. We get along better with countries like the UK that follow our lead even when it may not suit them. The UK went to war in Iraq despite a huge majority of its population being opposed, something you'd probably never see in this country or France.
Interesting observations about our similarities. I'd also say, we both produce amazing red wines. But their beer generally sucks.
So Mr Suarez, you ready for the knockout rounds?
Thanks for adding the standings, that is helpful. Not being anti-Iran here, but I would like to see an African country advance, and I don't want it to be Ghana, so I'll root for Nigeria and Bosnia.
Nigeria:
Enyeama, Yobo (c), Ambrose, Musa, Odemwingie, Emenike, Mikel, Oshaniwa, Onazi, Babatunde, Omeruo
Argentina:
Romero, Garay, Zabaleta, Gago, Di Maria, Higuain, Messi (c), Mascherano, Rojo, Fernandez, Aguero
B&H:
Begovic, Vrsajevic, Spahic (c), Kolasinac, Besic, Pjanic, Ibisevic, Dzeko, Susic, Sunjic, Hadzic
Iran:
Haghighi, Haji Safi, Hosseini, Sadeghi, Nekounam (c), Shojaei, Timotian, Montarezi, Ghoochannejad, Dejagah, Pooladi
Side note: I've always been fascinated with how European football announcers use team/country name as a plural in a sentence, whereas we always choose the singular. Is that because we're a UNITED States, and the rest of 'em are a bunch of individuals?
Ex. "Germany are scared of the wrath of Jurgen."
Correct Ex. "United States is destined for victory."
It's British vs. American English grammatical conventions. In American English, we tend to use the singular by default (unless the team name is a plural, e.g. "the Giants are..."), whereas in British English they default to the plural. In the US, we can switch to the plural when describing actions that team members do individually, not as a group (e.g. "Michigan are dressing after the game..." is acceptable) but it isn't always done.
1-1 in the 4th minute! Wow...Messi with the opener and then a beautiful curler from Musa into the far corner
I know world rankings are flawed, but how did Switzerland get to #6 in FIFA world rankings?
Undefeated in qualifying. Have friendly wins against Brazil, Germany and Croatia in last 2 years.
It's a horrible system. Switzerland better then what they've done so far but not close to 6th in world.
Is there interference in soccer? Can you really just wall off and box out a guy running full speed to keep him from getting to a ball before going OB?
you in playing distance of the ball (about 3 feet) or running directly towards the ball, and can legally play the ball ( a player doing a second consecutive touch on a throw in or corner couldn't legally shield).
The defender shielding plays near the side lines and goal lines are almost always given the benefit of the doubt. The offensive players are given more leeway to grab and try to get to the ball. This causes problems for refs in men's games when a team tries to stall by going by the corner flag. Usually the CR needs to run close to the play and calm things down.
Also players are allowed to stand in front of a keeper on a corner kick but must attempt to go for the ball rather than obstruct the keeper as the main objective.
Impeding the progress of an opponent can be called (indirect free kick) if the player is not within playing distance of the ball or is a legal defender. If a defender outright grabs the attacker to gain advantage it is a direct free kick (this is more common)
Hope this helps.
If anyone is interested, here's how Massey predicts these games:
- Switzerland (48%), Honduras (17%)
- Ecuador (31%), France (33%)
- Nigeria (13%), Argentina (59%)
- Bosnia-Herzegovina (42%), Iran (25%)
I believe that the difference (e.g., 35% in the case of Switzerland-Honduras) is the projected tie probability for each game.
Messi is just so, so good.
As soon as I can find that Free Kick Messi goal, I will post it.
Forgot about it when work things happened.
This game is nuts. No lead is safe.
This is pretty interesting
I like "Fred", for some reason.
But my favorite nickname is still Mexico's "Chicharito", the little green pea.
His dad's nickname is Chicharo because he has green eyes. So naturally I guess he is little Chicharo.
I think it's weird that they DON'T do this. It's so #MURICA of me, but using nicknames is XFL in America.
Obviously in some cultures the family name comes first (Yao Ming for example...in American English his name would be Ming Yao, hence Yao on the back)...but some of these guys (Hulk), flat out have nicknames.
I mean it's awesome cause it's international soccer and for other countries, it's cool. However, I feel like if Clint Dempsey came out with "Deuce" (his rap name) on the back of his jersey I'd feel sort of way about it since this is such a big national/international event.