!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No joke, the minute I saw them put the camera and that very large, Lebron James clone Belgium striker that came in early in the overtime, I knew he'd hurt the US, and he did, setting up the break away and ultimate goal, and then his own goal.
Watching this giant of a man go up for a ball against the US defender and shed him easily, and then sprint like a gazelle down the field to feed the pass for the first goal, I wondered what it would be like in this country if our Kobes and Lebrons trained in local soccer systems akin to what Germany does with its youth system...
Until then, the US in a World Cup final is not something I'll ever see in my lifetime.
elite success in soccer does not require 6'8 size. soccer is not really best played by basketball body types. it's not necessarily meant for the megatrons of the world either.
a life-long trained denard robinson, on the other hand--that would be a spectacle to behold.
the usa needs the 5'6-6'0ers among us to switch sporting allegiances.
lukaku is 6'3 and a freak. jozy is 6'1 and he looks like a behemoth out there.
Exactly this. You want to argue about seeing Barry Sanders, or Denard Robinson, or someone like DeSean Jackson? That's something to think about.
But not, LeBron, or Megatron, or any other of our "best" athletes. It bears repeating, the US isn't getting out-athlete'd when we play.
i'd argue that the majority of americans with the ideal soccer body do not train to be soccer players as their primary sport.
the problem is we have so many young kids grow up playing basketball and football, but then keep playing even after they stop growing and will never fill out enough to have a chance at being competitive at the highest level of those sports.
is barely big enough to even play shooting guard in the NBA. He's 6'3", 220.
If LeBron James had grown up in Germany he'd probably have become a great basketball player. Or maybe handball. Once he started growing his soccer career would have been over and they'd have pushed him towards something he was better suited for. It's not like these other countries don't have 6'9" guys they could put out there, if it was actually a good idea.
where you can be that much worse than another team and still have a very good chance of winning.
both be that much worse and also play that much worse.
a 14 seed isn't going to beat a 3 seed unless they play the game of their season against a poor effort from the 2 seed.
...the eight group winners won all eight round-of-16 games.
The weaker team could, conceivably, have won a lot of those games (I'm not sure Chile or Greece were actually weaker, but the others certainly were), but they didn't. Even when it goes to penalties, the stronger team tends to win. That's how these tournaments always go--there are lots of might-have-beens along the way but it's always one of that same usual handful of teams that's left standing at the end.
Here's another way of looking at it: there are 209 FIFA members, eight of them are left in the tournament. At least one of those teams has been in every final since WW2. They made up both finalists in six of the last ten.
That's low variance, that is.
goals are so hard to come by, and even great teams can dominate and still find themselves unable to score. all it takes is one chance, but a worse team with worse players will be less likely to take that chance when it comes. so in the end the better team will win the vast majority of the time, but it will still look like the worse team really could have come out on top.
Hockey, too. Basically, any sport where you can ride a hot goalie.
...and I don't quite believe them. I wonder if Kicker's been hacked?
successful passes: US 570, Belgium 468
completion rate: US 84%, Belgium 83%
possession: US 54%, Belgium 46%
1v1 win rate: US 55%, Belgium 45% (OK, I believe that one.)
I'm not much of a believer in possession as a key to soccer victory, you can't take these as indicating the US was better or anything like that. But watching that game I would never have guessed that the US had more of the ball or were marginally more successful with their passing.
(There are passes and there are passes, of course.)
if howard had the most possession of anyone on the team.
here's a mildly interesting article on possession tracking that i randomly found earlier today when i saw those stats and was equally confused:
I didn't know about Opta's methods. Kicker's not using them or it would have been 55/45.
One thing I'm absolutely clear on: possession is not dominance and Italy's won four world cups because they understand that better than anyone else. You're never more vulnerable and less potent than when all 20 players are in the other team's end. For all Spain's possession in the last world cup, they scored nearly every goal on a counterattack. It's very, very hard to score against a competent, packed defense.