Portugal is -4 in GD, USA is +1. Portugal would need to win by at least 4 for them to potentially knock us out. Ghana beating portugal is a lot scarier, as their GD is only -1.
Because if the US loses by 2-3 goals then Portugal doesn't have to win by as much.
I don't see it happening though.
I think Portugal and Ghana are going to end up with a 2-1 or 2-2 type game.
U.S. can lose 1-3 and still advance IMO.
It's hard to encompass all win/loss scenarios and goal differential cases in one short post. I was just pointing out that for the US to lose, they would need to lose by at least one, and then Portugal would have to win by 4, which would (likely) give them the Goal advantage to push us out. A better way to say it may be, we need to lose and portugal needs to win by a total goal differential of at least 5.
Portugal and Ghana are going to BOTH be playing for their lives.
And they're two good teams.
So it's not like it's Ghana playing Cameroon or some shit team that's 0-2 and ready to go home.
Both teams are playing a team on life support. It wouldn't shock me if they draw to be honest.
that everyone goes home happy on Thursday.
Der Nichtangriffspakt von Gijón
It doesn't need to be this obvious but surely both teams have every reason to take no chances and allow no goals? No collusion required, just common sense.
Jones did the same thing...we at that point just take the "icing" call.
Being honest, I personally don't like our chances. However, I don't think either team can make up the goal differential.
That goal differential is going to dissipate like the morning fog on a hot July day.
Because for 47 minutes I was looking like an MGoGod for starting this thread...then that annoying fuck with the stupid haircut had to ruin it for me.
/s
Damnit why couldn't Germany do there jobs yesterday and beat Ghana.
I'm thinking pack it in and play for the draw.
But we have been HORRIBLE playing like that in this World Cup.
We tried vs. Ghana and it didn't work. We tried when we got up 2-1 in this game and it didn't work.
We struggle possessing the ball.
Usually, I'd agree...shit, start two goalies. But we've been awful at trying to milk anything. Wondo by FAR made the best two plays in that regard this game. And that was 2 plays of probably 55-60 minutes of us trying to play it safe.
I just don't think our defense is strong enough. We seem best when the ball is in the other teams end of the field and we're attacking. We we try to build out of the back we struggle.
In fact, have we had ONE decent chance that started from the back end? We obviously haven't had a goal that has, but have we even gotten a good shot?
We've been horrible at it because we don't have an outlet. Losing Altidore hurts because we can't play defensive and expect alot of opportunities on the counter because we have no one to hold it up. It's incredibly ironic that the players we really wish we could have on this team after the Altidore injury are Eddie Johnson or Terrence Boyd and not Landon Donovan.
Can the US and Germany do the opening kickoff and just lay down for 90 minutes or will FIFA disqualify them for that?
Click the Gijon link in my post above.
It's happened before, people were pissed but no action was taken. I doubt anyone would ever do it quite like that--they just took turns punting it to the other end of the field--but there are subtler ways to play for a draw.
The match is over unless it's just a routine set piece that someone scores on.
The longer the match goes, the less teams with take chances (assuming it's tied)
Goals scored come in place.
But Ghana can't win by 2 and we lose by 2.
In the end, we should be fine. But we really did give EVERYTHING in that game.
I think if we win that game, our lineup looks a LOT different vs. Germany. I think we rest half the lineup because these guys are SPENT.
Jones couldn't move. Bradley couldn't move. Besler couldn't move. Beasley couldn't move.
Now the four of them have to turn around a play one of the best teams in the world in 3 days.
Stomach churing.
If Germany wins all you did was eliminate one team. We still would've had to get more points. Lose twice and Portugal win twice and they advance. Tie Portugal and get blown out and have Portugal win big and we still would've been out EVEN with a Germany win yesterday.
Also, if you actually paid attention...my comment was PERSONAL. That result was best for me because it was best for the US to WIN the group.
If Germany wins, they've got 6 points and we're pretty much done. With 4 points, we were alive and we're still more alive (to win the group) in that regard than we would've been had they won. If they won yesterday and we beat them, we weren't going to ever make up the goal differential, so we would've been second.
So keep being a douche, but at least understand the context of which I was speaking.
I want to see the US when I go to Rio...that was the best result...hence my comment. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing had changed.
It would've been easier to get a win and then a draw versus Germany, than a draw and a win versus Germany...but BOTH are more likely than trying to get two wins or a tie and a win that makes up the goal differential.
That Germany also advances with a draw.
Do both teams just cash it in and accept a 0-0 draw and move on? Interesting.
Klinsmann didn't leave on good terms with the Germany MNT or his Bayern Munich team. Plus, our German players, etc. It wouldn't shock me if the game against Germany is an actual competition.
I'm pretty sure Klinsmann and Loew are on good terms. Loew's been full of praise for Klinsmann in the German press, anyway.
That's really the biggest reason it might not happen. Accusations of collusion would be a little too easy if the game is soft. But if either team ever falls behind they'll have enormous motivation to go forward and the other team will have little to gain from going up two. And if it's still tied in the last half hour or so both teams have every reason to park the bus.
You are right about the collusion. And Low has said the right things, for sure. But even if we believe his nice remarks, I can't stand the tought of losing to one of my friends at something.
We've got 4 points.
But truthfully, we should've only got 1 point vs. Ghana. That should've been a tie and this should've been a win.
In our hearts we want to be through to the knockout stage, but objectively, we're right where we should be.
I knew I'd be watching Germany.
But a small part of me was still hopeful that the U.S. would win the group so I could see them in Rio when I get down there.
That same part of me is hoping we somehow beat Germany and get through as unrealistic as that is.
I was just starting to think we'd win the group with a win and a tie...win our round of 16 on our nation's Independence Day, I'd be sitting in the Maracana watching our country.
The red and blue glasses are still on, but this one stings on a personal level.
Let's get the 1-0 win on Thursday and then win a week from Monday. As a Michigan fan and what I've been through, I deserve this boys! PLEASE!
Goal....MY GAWD! That was Messi-esqe
Sucks for us to give up the win like that, but - in the big picture - it's another epic finish in what is shaping up to be the best World Cup I've ever followed.
I'm going to look at it like this...
The US and Ghana should've tied 1-1.
Germany rightfully beat the breaks off of Portugal 4-0
Germany and Ghana rightfully tied 2-2
The US should've beat Portugal 2-1
It should be:
Germany: 1-1-0 / 4 points / 6 GF / 2 GA / +4 GD
United States: 1-1-0 / 4 points / 3 GF / 2 GA / +1 GD
Ghana: 0-2-0 / 2 points / 3 GF / 3 GA / 0 GD
Portugal: 0-0-2 / 0 points / 1 GF / 6 GA / -5 GD
If I look at it like this...we're actually in a better position than what realistically we probably should be in.
I know, "keep tellin yourself that, bro." But in truth. It's not that far-fetched. Hell, if Alum96 reads this, he'll tell you that we should've lost 1-2 to Ghana (which I disagree with).
So again, nothing changes. Just win. Fuck the rest. And if you can't win...fight like hell for that tie baby!
We did use all three subs, last two in the 87th minute (Wondolowski for Dempsey) and 90th (Gonzalez for Zusi).
I think FIFA should consider allowing a fourth substitute for World Cup games. Players nowadays play for almost the entire calendar year and the level of competition is only getting tougher.
I wonder if there are going to be any overtime games in the heat and humidity. 7 field players will go 90+x+y and then 30+z minutes.
Manaus is done once the group stage is over. Switzerland/Honduras is there, and that's it.
But then again I have a lot of ideas....
- Put an independent neurologist at every stadium. If there is any type of head collison, allow the player to come off and be subbed for...if he passes the exam, he can come back on. If he doesn't then you have to keep the player on that you subbed for. My biggest fear is teams will fake concussions late in the game to get a free sub.
- Add one more ref and split the field in halves...Add two more line judges and split the field. 6 officials, but only two on the field and the line judges really aren't involved like the guys on the field anyway. But at least if there's something in question, you've got 6 vantage points for the 4 corners and someone in front of the play and someone behind trailing the play.
- If you sit a full game...your yellow should go away. It's stupid that you can win your first two games, advance, pick up a second yellow in the meaningless 3rd game or Round of 16 and miss the next match. Allow someone to sit (a full game) so that if they get another yellow in the knockout round, they don't have to miss the following match.
- Head-to-head should matter
That's just soccer for you.
We were probably on the verge of putting an attack player when Jones scored and tied it...
Tied, we put in Yedlin in for Bedoya, a defender for a midfielder. Great move to preserve the tie, but aggressive enough to keep an attack.
Clearly when Yedlin gets a hockey assist on the Dempsey goal.
At that point you have to take Dempsey out because he's got a broken nose, he's gassed and you don't need points.
Wondo did a great job in for Dempsey, sub was perfect.
...the last sub was Gonzo in for Zusi.
Again you pull a midfielder for a defender. So you've got SIX defenders in the game. You've also pulled midfielders who run around a lot more than defenders.
You can't pull everyone. Jones, Beckerman and Bradley are the 3 he chose to keep on the field.
Jones and Bradley were spent. But so was Beasley and so was Johnson.
Just too many tired people and not enough subs.
I'm sure if there were timeouts or unlimited subs we would've gotten fresher legs.
***also there is no point in subbing someone that late in a game. Why have someone come in and run around for 5 minutes? I'd almost always use two subs between the 65th and 75th minute...and the last one between the 70th and 80th. The only exception is if you're up and you just want to stall late in the game by making a change.
"The only exception is if you're up and you just want to stall late in the game by making a change."
I thought that's exactly what Klinsmann was doing. He waited until the ref had signaled the stoppage time to the fourth official--sometimes that means none of the time you waste making the sub gets added back on but tonight's ref, to his credit, was wise to it and added another minute.
The other reason to save a sub for late is that if you use them all you can't deal with emergencies. If someone gets hurt and can't continue, you have to play a man down. Between that and the time-wasting usefulness of putting a sub on after the stoppage time has already been posted, I like holding one back when ahead (or tied, if a tie is a good result).