Futbol/Soccer thoughts

hutch wrote:

RatBastard wrote:

hutch wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
i like soccer, but there is no denying it is a slow-paced game.  faster than american football, slower than hockey.

and of course argentinian soccer is the slowest.  fucking diving divas.

I'm not taking the bait about the Argentine league!

;D


But to say soccer is slow.. if you measured how much each player runs you would not believe it.. or how many passes there are per minute.. its arguably TOO FAST as the physical development of players makes the game so fast that its hard for anyone to actually break through..

You are mixing the meaning of slow.  Yes the game is continually played.  I have not said it isn't.  Just that a huge majority of the time there is no real action going on.  You sit thorough some mildly entertaining ball movement for well over 90% of a soccer game to see a flash or two of real action.  Those guys do have to be in shape to play the game and some of what they do takes skill, but a player running up and down the field however much does not mean action to me. "  You boil it down and you get the fact that guys run and kick a round ball.  Not exactly exciting.

no "real action"??

but that is a purely subjecive determination… obviously  billions of people around the world disagree!

So coldplay, u2, and mumford and sons are great bands? 

I was going to be in Madrid when the Real Madrid/Barcelona match; I thought about getting tickets.  But it seems like the cheapest tickets for sale are around 600 dollars.  Which is insane.  The other Madrid team is playing as well and their tickets are like 45 dollars.  And they are a better team.  I guess that is the team to see.

atomicfront wrote:
I was going to be in Madrid when the Real Madrid/Barcelona match; I thought about getting tickets.  But it seems like the cheapest tickets for sale are around 600 dollars.  Which is insane.  The other Madrid team is playing as well and their tickets are like 45 dollars.  And they are a better team.  I guess that is the team to see.

The team to see is Barcelona IMO.

hutch wrote:

atomicfront wrote:
I was going to be in Madrid when the Real Madrid/Barcelona match; I thought about getting tickets.  But it seems like the cheapest tickets for sale are around 600 dollars.  Which is insane.  The other Madrid team is playing as well and their tickets are like 45 dollars.  And they are a better team.  I guess that is the team to see.

The team to see is Barcelona IMO.

no team is worth paying 600 dollars to see.  even if the players cook me dinner and hang out with me after the game. 

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:

atomicfront wrote:
I was going to be in Madrid when the Real Madrid/Barcelona match; I thought about getting tickets.  But it seems like the cheapest tickets for sale are around 600 dollars.  Which is insane.  The other Madrid team is playing as well and their tickets are like 45 dollars.  And they are a better team.  I guess that is the team to see.

The team to see is Barcelona IMO.

no team is worth paying 600 dollars to see.  even if the players cook me dinner and hang out with me after the game. 

yes we know..just like no band is worth $600… ;D

but if you had infinite wealth- lets just suppose- and you had to spend it on a soccer game or lose it… Barcelona would be the team to see..

would you like to take issue with that??!?!

you don't pay $600 to see Barca, you pay that much to be inside the stadium for this specific game.  i can only imagine what the atmosphere is like for this match.

sweetcell wrote:
you don't pay $600 to see Barca, you pay that much to be inside the stadium for this specific game.  i can only imagine what the atmosphere is like for this match.

That is very true and needed mentioning…

Of course Atomicfront will be across town watching Getafe…

hutch wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
you don't pay $600 to see Barca, you pay that much to be inside the stadium for this specific game.  i can only imagine what the atmosphere is like for this match.

That is very true and needed mentioning…

Of course Atomicfront will be across town watching Getafe…

Yeah like you would pay 1200 dollars on a pair of tickets to a soccer game. 

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
you don't pay $600 to see Barca, you pay that much to be inside the stadium for this specific game.  i can only imagine what the atmosphere is like for this match.

That is very true and needed mentioning…

Of course Atomicfront will be across town watching Getafe…

Yeah like you would pay 1200 dollars on a pair of tickets to a soccer game. 

I wouldn't pay $1.20 to watch professional kickball.

i like it when people's responses are all in the white part.

walkonby wrote:
i like it when people's responses are all in the white part.

Drat i hate when I do that… BRB.

All better now?

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
you don't pay $600 to see Barca, you pay that much to be inside the stadium for this specific game.  i can only imagine what the atmosphere is like for this match.

That is very true and needed mentioning…

Of course Atomicfront will be across town watching Getafe…

Yeah like you would pay 1200 dollars on a pair of tickets to a soccer game. 

I never am able to understand this type of reasoning…

What one pays depends on what one is able to pay and what one feels like paying… It has nothing to do with the amount of money in question.

If I had some real money.. ..sure.. I'd pay to see Barca-Real Madrid…I'd also be at the World Cup regularly.. much like Mick Jagger…


Why wouldn't I pay $1200 if I could? If it wasn't an issue to be without that $1200 I'd much rather have the experience than $1200 that means nothing…. its just pieces of paper or numbers…

I try not to  tell people they are crazy to spend this money on this or that… its all personal in the end…

Top shelf soccer is something I really enjoy…

I'm not embarassed to say I'd pay to see it, I'm embarassed to say I can't afford to..

nevermind

Klinsmann leaves Donovan out..

as if Eddie Johnson wasn't enough


He's nuts.

hutch wrote:
as if Eddie Johnson wasn't enough

I would have taken Goodson and Parkhurst ahead of Johnson.  I don't think that was a crazy move.

vansmack wrote:

hutch wrote:
as if Eddie Johnson wasn't enough

I would have taken Goodson and Parkhurst ahead of Johnson.  I don't think that was a crazy move.

I believe in taking the people who get you there…I believe Eddie was the second highest goal scorer with like 5.

and Donovan off the team is crazy..

Klinsmann is nuts …never liked the hiring in the first place.

hutch wrote:
Klinsmann leaves Donovan out..

He's nuts.

It's only nuts if he plays a defensive style and tries to score on the counter, like America has done for every World Cup.

If he's playing for the future, with a game of possession driven through the best player on the US team (Bradley) then I am fine with it.

Which is a bigger distraction - cutting him now or having to hear about LandyCakes not getting playing time?  Jurgen was screwed on this choice from the beginning…

vansmack wrote:

hutch wrote:
Klinsmann leaves Donovan out..

He's nuts.

It's only nuts if he plays a defensive style and tries to score on the counter, like America has done for every World Cup.

If he's playing for the future, with a game of possession driven through the best player on the US team (Bradley) then I am fine with it.

Which is a bigger distraction - cutting him now or having to hear about LandyCakes not getting playing time?  Jurgen was screwed on this choice from the beginning…

Donovan is just a very clutch player and can still play…. even if he were to be unhappy with a bench role he'd be a great option coming off the bench.. I'd take him.. he's not a Tevez situation as far as i know… 

Altidore makes the cut but not Donovan..come on now.

hutch wrote:
Altidore makes the cut but not Donovan..come on now.

Altidore plays and trains every week against the pace the US is more likely to see in Brazil.

17 out of 23 called up have no World Cup experience…I think I read


nuts.