So THESE guys will go all the way?

[Boltman]

Yeah, we're like England and football.

Well you both claim to have invented your respective sports, although I know the Mayans were playing ball games on a "pitch" eons ago, and I'm positive English schoolgirls have been forced into "enjoying" a game of rounders almost since lesbian gymnastics mistresses were invented, so I dunno

Edit - Oh yeah! just remembered! The players from the losing Mayan teams were often ritually slaughtered. Tell me that doesn't sound just like an early, rudimentary form of Association Football?

[Jason the Yank]

lesbian gymnastics mistresses

Go on......

[tdpatriots12]

Well you both claim to have invented your respective sports, although I know the Mayans were playing ball games on a "pitch" eons ago, and I'm positive English schoolgirls have been forced into "enjoying" a game of rounders almost since lesbian gymnastics mistresses were invented, so I dunno

Edit - Oh yeah! just remembered! The players from the losing Mayan teams were often ritually slaughtered. Tell me that doesn't sound just like an early, rudimentary form of Association Football?

I thought the question of which team was ritually sacrificed was actually still open. As in, the teams were competing for the right to be sacrificed.

That being said, I think the next film installment of Harry Potter could be improved by introducing just such a consequence to the obligatory quidditch sequence.

[NICK_GIFF]

Uruguay or the US for the semi for sure.

[nattai]

Am so glad that Uruguay got through and have the perfect chance to get further. As an Australian have had ample opportunity to see how consistently strong their squad has been over the years, glad they now have the opportunity, with seemingly the right manager in place, to prove themselves in the World Cup. They have been held back in the past through an overly negative approach. That looks sorted now it seems.

Diego Lugano looks 5 times the player when i last saw him, has cut out the crap and looks as solid as anyone I have seen in the tournament.

[Razzler]

If you only we didn't play like a pile of turd against Algeria we'd be in control of the group and facing these teams instead of Germany ... Argentina. Big games, tight games but who would you rather face?

[GillsMan]

If you only we didn't play like a pile of turd against Algeria we'd be in control of the group and facing these teams instead of Germany ... Argentina. Big games, tight games but who would you rather face?

Germany tbh. This England team are arrogant and don't seem to raise their game against smaller nations, but do tend to perform well against bigger nations. See results against Andorra away vs Croatia home and away for examples.

[Razzler]

Argentina then? Diego at the helm, that would be epic if we got there!

[nattai]

Ha! There was a joke on the local football show here yesterday that while England won the Battle of Britain against Germany, they would have lost it had they been fighting against 6 Algerians in a Biplane. Its very odd but also undeniable that England tend to flatter to decieve unless its absolutely necessary. Odd too that they tend to lift and play better with 10 men rather than 11.

[djvandyke]

Ghana is just an average team, with bad coach, players are undisciplined

Is this based on anything other tha racial stereotyping because Ghana have been one of the most disciplined sides in the cup?

[lurkingwithintent]

England had their best chance for a long time to get to the semi finals...and we blew it. Why am I not surprised? I think Uruguay will just edge past USA in the quarters.

[ham_aka_stam]

Yeah, because an EASY draw means an easy job doesn't it?

[Razzler]

No but it's better than facing potentially Argentina after Germany, I know which route I would have preferred to take

[tcoleman1]

Anyone but the USA to get through. I think our game against Germany will be hard but we can do it.

[vanessasue]

I really don't know who is going to win the world cup, i think Spain are favourites but i think they may loose to a team like italy. I would love to say England will win but they never perform on the biggest of stages.

I'm going to say Argentina, thye have Messi and i knwo alot of people don't believe 1 player can win a cup but thats not true, what about 1986 and the year that Maradona won the world cup virtually on his own.

[Red_Hector]

To be fair, we ignore the World Baseball Classic as well. We also complain about it when it tires out our players for "real" baseball.

That being said: US soccer team > UK basketball team

Yeah but basketball is not a real sport though. It's just entertainment for the ADD generation.

[AllStar4]

Although Ghana and potentially South Korea/Uruguay won't be easy it's about as good of a road to the semifinals that we could have hoped for. There's nothing wrong with the system used, it's just that favored teams like England and France weren't good enough to win their groups. If they were they'd have been on that side of the bracket.

And I actually like the World Baseball Classic.

[Micado]

USA or Uruguay, hoping for the latter

[charlo116]

Is this based on anything other tha racial stereotyping because Ghana have been one of the most disciplined sides in the cup?

yes because i can see how muntari having a go at the manager makes them one of the most disciplined sides in the cup.

Not to mention their seemingly lack of control to look for openings in defences rather than just belt it at goal and waste possession.

[SeanNUFC]

Ghana didn't win their group.

yeh, wondered wtf he was on about.

[ham_aka_stam]

No but it's better than facing potentially Argentina after Germany, I know which route I would have preferred to take

Oh I agree, but we've blown nothing yet. Which is the bit I was arguing against really.

[Razzler]

We'll have this chat on Sunday evening then

[Cinnabon09]

Anyone but South Korea has a good chance to make the semis. Sad because I am rooting for them but their defense has just been horrible. Uruguay are favorites and the US and Ghana are tied

[tdpatriots12]

Yeah but basketball is not a real sport though. It's just entertainment for the ADD generation.

Unless that's a swipe at the poor refereeing - ironic given this World Cup - that's a pretty nonsense opinion.

[Boltman]

Don't need to rationalise it, Basketball is quite simply.....crap. Please don't try to argue and change my mind, as I'm far too prejudiced against the "sport" to even engage in the debate. I'd literally rather sit and stare at a blank wall than watch the NBA.

[samb_95]

South Korea.

[Meitheisman]

@ Boltman: The NBA is not the definition of basketball. Watch FIBA basketball and you'll actually see defensive strategies, team play and rules enforced instead of one-on-ones stupid defensive 3 second violantion calls and guys taking 4 steps before dunking the ball.

[Boltman]

Bleh....... glorified netball, and netball's a game for girls anyway.

[tdpatriots12]

you'll actually see defensive strategies, team play

Someone didn't watch the NBA playoffs.

and rules enforced instead of one-on-ones stupid defensive 3 second violantion calls and guys taking 4 steps before dunking the ball.

Don't think defensive 3 seconds is a bad rule. Zone defense isn't terribly exciting because all it does is demand the other team hit open jump shots. We have it in college ball, though. But you're pretty much right about the other stuff. Although Kobe Bryant did get called for traveling in the Finals and everyone was truly shocked.

[Cockney Hammer]

Anyone but the USA to get through. I think our game against Germany will be hard but we can do it.

Won't have to worry about that the USA won't be going through Ghana will win 2-0. Will be very surprised if the USA beat Ghana.

[Meitheisman]

Someone didn't watch the NBA playoffs.

Someone doesn't watch FIBA basketball.

fwiw I've been watching the NBA playoffs every year since 1993.

Don't think defensive 3 seconds is a bad rule. Zone defense isn't terribly exciting because all it does is demand the other team hit open jump shots. We have it in college ball, though. But you're pretty much right about the other stuff. Although Kobe Bryant did get called for traveling in the Finals and everyone was truly shocked.

That's exactly the problem I have with the NBA, it's more about excitment than strategy. The Magic played a bit of zone defense (still a fake one as you can't put your big men in the pain to prevent penetrations) in the conference finals and the celtics didn't know how to deal with it. I don't care if it brings scores back down to 65-61 and if the top scorer finishes with 15pts and 7 boards. It's basketball I want to watch, not the Harlem Globe Trotters or And 1 mixed tape.

Zone defense is very varied in Europe and has many components to it. I'm not an expert on college basketball but I know I enjoyed Ivy league games more than the big Duke vs North Carolina games as they seemed more based on strategy than individual exploits.

[tdpatriots12]

Someone doesn't watch FIBA basketball.

I dont, but I wasn't disputing your evaluation of it.

That's exactly the problem I have with the NBA, it's more about excitment than strategy. The Magic played a bit of zone defense (still a fake one as you can't put your big men in the pain to prevent penetrations) in the conference finals and the celtics didn't know how to deal with it. I don't care if it brings scores back down to 65-61 and if the top scorer finishes with 15pts and 7 boards. It's basketball I want to watch, not the Harlem Globe Trotters or And 1 mixed tape.

To each his own then. I absolutely prefer the man-to-man defense/rotations the Celtics employ to any zone I've ever seen. As far as the whole And 1 thing goes, don't really see how it applied to this year's playoffs with the exception of the Cleveland LeBrons, who played 1 v 5 on offense. Celtics had a different high scorer every night - each with his own distinctive style, the closest one to And 1 being a pass-first point guard. The most infamous use of the zone in the playoffs this season was the Suns breaking out the 2-3 Zone against the Lakers because they couldn't stop them man-to-man. It worked briefly as it forced LA out of their comfort zone, but once they started hitting the shots the zone gave them, the series was over. Regarding the 3 second violations, though, you can stand pretty close to the paint - or even in it as long as you're guarding someone - and Dwight Howard definitely effected the Celtics ability to drive the lane and got plenty of blocks. Same with Kendrick Perkins or Andrew Bynum. It just means you have to be aware of when to help.

But all that being said, I do watch basketball primarily for excitement. If I want strategy I'll watch American football.

Zone defense is very varied in Europe and has many components to it. I'm not an expert on college basketball but I know I enjoyed Ivy league games more than the big Duke vs North Carolina games as they seemed more based on strategy than individual exploits.

Cornell did pretty well in the NCAA tournament playing zone defense and chucking up 3 pointers. They also had a couple big guys to get rebounds. But again, my favorite team in college ball is Purdue, and they play man defense exclusively.

[Meitheisman]

I dont, but I wasn't disputing your evaluation of it.

Fair enough.

To each his own then. I absolutely prefer the man-to-man defense/rotations the Celtics employ to any zone I've ever seen.

To me it's not about prefering one defense to another, it's about which is more efficient and in my experience I've found zone defenses without limitations (defensive 3 second violantions) to be more efficient.

As far as the whole And 1 thing goes, don't really see how it applied to this year's playoffs with the exception of the Cleveland LeBrons, who played 1 v 5 on offense. Celtics had a different high scorer every night - each with his own distinctive style, the closest one to And 1 being a pass-first point guard. The most infamous use of the zone in the playoffs this season was the Suns breaking out the 2-3 Zone against the Lakers because they couldn't stop them man-to-man. It worked briefly as it forced LA out of their comfort zone, but once they started hitting the shots the zone gave them, the series was over. Regarding the 3 second violations, though, you can stand pretty close to the paint - or even in it as long as you're guarding someone - and Dwight Howard definitely effected the Celtics ability to drive the lane and got plenty of blocks. Same with Kendrick Perkins or Andrew Bynum. It just means you have to be aware of when to help.

I brought And 1 up because they're more about show/entertainment than they are about basketball but yeah I know the NBA isn't exactly an And 1 mixed tape else I'd have stopped watching it a long time ago. About the Suns and their zone being broken by outside shooting yeah the Lakers achieved that but most NBA teams don't have enough good reliable shooters to make a zone explode and switch back to man-to-man so it'd work more often than not.

Regarding the defensive 3 second violation it defeats the whole purpose of a zone defense. Sure, you can still be right by the paint and inside of it if your opponent is within arm-distance but the idea behind a zone D is to pack the paint, have 2/3 guys stand in there at all times and just move towards the ball when it's in front of them. Preventing anyone from getting inside and getting an easy shot.

For example, Tony Parker was just an average PG in France before getting to the NBA for instance, why? Because the speed of his first step wasn't anywhere near as valuable and didn't allow him to skip past his defender and run in the paint for a close finger-roll over the opposing team's center coming to help too late.

PS: I know that he improved a lot and he'd obviously be much more successful if he played in Europe now but you get the idea.

But all that being said, I do watch basketball primarily for excitement. If I want strategy I'll watch American football.

I watch both but my interest for American Football overtook my interest for basketball a few years ago, mainly because of the strategic aspect of the game.

Cornell did pretty well in the NCAA tournament playing zone defense and chucking up 3 pointers. They also had a couple big guys to get rebounds. But again, my favorite team in college ball is Purdue, and they play man defense exclusively.

Yeah Cornell beat the University I went to (Temple) so I know all about their 3 point shooting

We're obviously way off-topic here so apologies to the others reading this thread but I'm enjoying this discussion.

[Jason the Yank]

I've said it before, but I hate all the emphasis on isolation plays in the NBA.

Maybe that's changed, because it turned me off the NBA about 10 years ago.

[Pangaea]

Ok then, so, Ghana win the group, Germany end up second, it's one these teams making it to the semis, now!

Uruguay

South Korea

Ghana

USA

So what gives?

Uruguay have the strongest team, so unless something strange happens they should make it.

Already proven to be good in defense, and have a very impressive forward line.

[Meitheisman]

Uruguay is also the only team who couldn't beat or even score on France

[mlyons]

I don't like route to the final being known.

For me Uefa have it right after the group stages where Winners are in one pot and runners up in the other.

Much more exciting imo

That only works if everybody plays their matches on the same day. If a Group A club got drawn against a Group H club, the Group A club would have three extra days of rest.

[ericcantona7]

Football aside (maybe), are the Brits better than the Americans in any sport (team sport or not) both countries care about (that is, no volleyball, basketball, baseball, cricket or rugby)

so what you're saying is, are the Brits better than the US in any sport the US is any good at? well probably not, because if the US are good at a sport then they're generally the best because of the resources they have. Are they better than us in any sport we are any good at? not really, we're ok at swimming and athletics I suppose, but their set up is far far superior to ours, probably at least to an extent that our football set up is better than theirs, in fact their football set up is probably quite decent due to the sheer numbers and the colleges that play it, it's probably just the professionals that are behind.

We kick their arse in snooker, they kick ours in pool, we in darts, them in basketball, us in cycling, them in athletics, us in rowing, them in swimming, us in cricket, them in baseball, us in rugby, them in gridiron, us in hockey (maybe), them in ice hockey, us in soccer, them in women's soccer

We do pretty well on the global stage given what we focus on really.

[ericcantona7]

Uruguay is also the only team who couldn't beat or even score on France

score against.

you've been in America too long.

[PMLF]

so what you're saying is, are the Brits better than the US in any sport the US is any good at?

In other words yes, that's what I asked.

well probably not, because if the US are good at a sport then they're generally the best because of the resources they have. Are they better than us in any sport we are any good at? not really, we're ok at swimming and athletics I suppose, but their set up is far far superior to ours, probably at least to an extent that our football set up is better than theirs, in fact their football set up is probably quite decent due to the sheer numbers and the colleges that play it, it's probably just the professionals that are behind.

We kick their arse in snooker, they kick ours in pool, we in darts, them in basketball, us in cycling, them in athletics, us in rowing, them in swimming, us in cricket, them in baseball, us in rugby, them in gridiron, us in hockey (maybe), them in ice hockey, us in soccer, them in women's soccer

Interesting post.

Not exactly a sport, but you guys are very good at auto racing/motor sports, but it's hard to compare to the Americans since they usually don't participate in F1.

We do pretty well on the global stage given what we focus on really.

Yes, the UK is great generally, and are improving due to hosting the 2012 Olympics.

[Meitheisman]

score against.

you've been in America too long.

Is it an American vs British English mistake or is using "score on" a gramatical error?

Thanks for bringing it up btw

[Jason the Yank]

Depending on how tomorrow goes, the other half of that bracket could include Holland, Brazil/Portgual and Spain.

[cool dude]

All good teams imho, bar Ghana

[Nikos]

Germany tbh. This England team are arrogant and don't seem to raise their game against smaller nations, but do tend to perform well against bigger nations. See results against Andorra away vs Croatia home and away for examples.

When was the last time England went out in a major tournament to someone they were supposed to beat?

When was the last time England progressed in a major tournament against someone they were not supposed to beat?

I'm fine with beating teams we're supposed to beat on penalties after dreary 0-0s as opposed to glorious failure.

[charlo116]

Won't have to worry about that the USA won't be going through Ghana will win 2-0. Will be very surprised if the USA beat Ghana.

Why would you be surprised? Not that i'm a fan of USA but their performances have been much better than Ghana's. We're still yet to see Ghana score a goal from open play.

[Ceching You Out]

Why would you be surprised? Not that i'm a fan of USA but their performances have been much better than Ghana's. We're still yet to see Ghana score a goal from open play.

Two penalties for the Black Stars -- one for an imaginary handball, the second for looking at the ref the wrong way.

Seriously though, someone would be surprised at the US winning? Given the respective performances, the "home" field advantage of Ghana, and the FIFA world rankings difference you have to feel this game is pretty evenly balanced.

[Meitheisman]

Yeah the odds are very comparable from what I've seen.

[Pangaea]

Unless England considerably raise their game, Germany will eat them.

[Pangaea]

Two penalties for the Black Stars -- one for an imaginary handball, the second for looking at the ref the wrong way.

Seriously though, someone would be surprised at the US winning? Given the respective performances, the "home" field advantage of Ghana, and the FIFA world rankings difference you have to feel this game is pretty evenly balanced.

The US is actually playing like England should. With passion, speed and heart. What they lack in skill they make up by playing out of their skin. I'd actually say the US are slight favourites over Ghana - but I hope Ghana will beat them. It's not the best African team, but it's the only one left and I'd like them to do well on 'home' turf.

[Meitheisman]

Screw that 'home' teams crap, come on USA!