http://i.imgur.com/W8Tp0.jpg GOAAALOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

http://i.imgur.com/oEqOC.jpg Beckham is not pleased

Brits can't win, they are oil polluters!

drudgereport.com runs that photo with the caption "ENGLAND ON ITS KNEES TO AMERICA"  which is bogus because we didn't win, we tied

tie = not win

and I insist America is not responsible for Beckhams haircut

> lmperial wrote:

> > Chris_Balsz wrote:

> drudgereport.com runs that photo with the caption "ENGLAND ON ITS KNEES TO AMERICA"  which is bogus because we didn't win, we tied

tie = not win

and I insist America is not responsible for Beckhams haircut

Uh, i consider a tie a win.

Why? Simple, Soccer/futbol (Or whatever you euros call it), isn't a respected sport in America (Don't try to debate this.) -- As such there isn't allot of money in it as its dramatically viewed by less Americans then other sports, it's extremely popular (Perhaps the most popular), of any sport worldwide, but in American it's not, it's one of the most unpopular -- So what does this mean? Less viewers, is less marketing, less marketing is less money for salary caps, scholarships, and overall sports progression for the players, so thus American players should NEVER be able to even -Tie- a country that obsessive over soccer.

It's much like if a British baseball team (Wait kricket?) came over and tied the New York Yankees.

Soccer has always been a S.America/European dominated sport, to have a USA team even tie one their better teams is sad.

the thing is.... that the US does spend a ton of money training their team; more then many countries. and while there are less viewers for the american football league, most americans playing on the american team in the world cup, play professionally in europe where they are supported financially by the soccer fanatics in europe. the US's huge population and the fact that soccer is the most popular youth sport in the US, gives the US a huge pool to draw talent from. I think the main reason why the US does not do better then they do, is because while Soccer is a popular youth sport, in the US its viewed as a youth sport, and most of the US's talented athletes are thrust into either football, baseball, or basketball; because to be a star, to be popular and rich, those are the sports to do it in, in the US. the kids playing soccer are typically playing soccer because their parents are worried their kids would get hurt from playing football, but still wants their kids to be active.

also, it would not be like their british baseball team beating the yankees, because the yankees arent the national team of the US, it would be like a british national baseball team beating an american national baseball team...

mehehe
the tie feels like victory to the us and loosing to england, prolly
in terms of points they re at the same level, i wondering what will happen at next games
good luck to both

(at chwis, yes pwettiest ;p)

For the record, the US didn't keep England to a tie, the english goalkeeper did.

I'm pretty sure a disabled blind man would have done better than Green on that save.

i think there may be a small insignificant fine, the main problem is the ban they get after 2 (3?) yellow cards.

Stop saying "tie" it's a draw! England were unlucky, created far more chances than the USA and should have scored more goals. Goalkeeper errors like that happen from time to time so I feel pretty sorry for Rob Green that it happened in the World Cup in front of everyone! At least it was in the group stage so it didn't get us knocked out (yet). The second half save that everyone is going on about as 'redemption' for him wasn't that great though, it would be pretty embarrassing for a keeper to be beaten at the near post from that kind of angle. Not as embarrassing as the actual goal mind you!

Rob Green may have just doomed England to facing Germany in the next round

> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:

> Stop saying "tie" it's a draw! England were unlucky, created far more chances than the USA and should have scored more goals. Goalkeeper errors like that happen from time to time so I feel pretty sorry for Rob Green that it happened in the World Cup in front of everyone! At least it was in the group stage so it didn't get us knocked out (yet). The second half save that everyone is going on about as 'redemption' for him wasn't that great though, it would be pretty embarrassing for a keeper to be beaten at the near post from that kind of angle. Not as embarrassing as the actual goal mind you!

Rob Green may have just doomed England to facing Germany in the next round

if you call shots straight at the US keeper scoring opportunities, then you're right with England having more of them. and the US defense handed England their only goal just as much as the English keeper handed the US their only goal.  And the shot off the post was the closest thing to a 2nd goal either team had, by far...

finishing isnt just a chance. the US wasnt lucky that Emile Heskey is a horrible finisher, Henskey is a horrible finisher and it showed in the game, especially in the your specific example with him. If Rooney was in the same situation, would it not have been a better scoring chance? it would have. Henskey being in the position he was in, performed how Henskey typically performs. Lennon and Heskey were given the oppotunity to perform as Lennon and Hesky in a given situation, and in those situations, both had little chance of actually scoring.

you say all this "should" for England. they "should of done this and that" and because they should of done this and that, you say they should of won. but you can just as easily say the US should of done this and that, and should of won.

England was not the better team; They were equal teams and the score reflected that. Which team has a better chance of being better on any given game? probably England, but in that game, they were equal teams.

also, i think that you think the angle for Altidore's shot was worse then it was... he had a very good chance of scoring there, the best scoring chance in the game.

Should HAVE

Not should OF

tish

They are pretty annoying, but if that's what they do in South Africa, then that's what they do in South Africa. If it was in Brazil we wouldn't complain about the pretty girls dancing in bikinis.

Avo, I think you're intentionally being obtuse. Obviously the final score is always the bottom line and it was a draw. So yes, both teams were equally good at scoring and avoiding conceding goals over the 90 minutes. It is possible to make more comment on the game than that though, I haven't looked at any stats but I would bet that England had more possession than the USA and had more shots (which isn't always an accurate reflection). I often find the number of corners each team has had to be a fairly good indicator of which team has applied more pressure. The fact that the USA goalkeeper got the man of the match award indicates that the ten outfield England players did better than the ten outfield USA players, with the equalising factor being that the USA goalkeeper played well whereas the England goalkeeper had a shocker. For the most part England dominated the game and were unlucky not to win.