Here we go! Euro 2012. (Americans tolerated)

Remove all ads!

The US blatantly do care about football. Not as much as the gridiron, ice hockey, baseball etc... but they do care. Hence getting 24 million viewing figures for international games, and selling out arenas. This is despite international football being incredibly ruuuuubbish! The most boring type of football out there.

 

24 million? Maybe for the World Cup and other big international matches, but I seriously doubt 24 million Americans watched the US beat Italy. Heck, World Series viewership is typically around 30-something million. (Although admittedly, that depends a lot on who is in the World Series - if it's the Red Sox or Yankees, the number is bigger.) Nothing beats the Super Bowl though - generally about 40% of Americans watch, so that viewership figure is well north of 100 million.

 

Tune into the English Premiership, or failing that, the UEFA Champions League. That's the kind of football that gets you addicted - not the international football yawnfests.

 

You're assuming they are televised here without a special subscription added to your sports package. I'm sure you get matches all the time on whatever the ESPN equivalent is in Britain, but you hardly ever see it on a regular cable channel over here.

 

atdhenet is your friend

 

And couldn't even beat New Zealand at the World Cup. Go the All Whites.

 

The US team has also been quite good more often than not. USA is iirc one of the big players in its region, and I think has cleared the group phase in most recent World Cup series. They might not have big accomplishments, but if it's their I'd say they have a chance against any team.

 

It took them nearly eighty years, but I think they finally have us on the run!

 

Al those immigrants.

 

You mean on Italy? Things have just started getting that way for us, unlike France, Germany and Holland who have been doing that for decades. I guess modernization is finally reaching them, no matter how much they resist.

 

Hey, no posts here since the games are running? ^^

I am looking forward to a classic on wednesday: Holland vs Germany. Plus Holland is forced to win after they lost to Denmark in the first match.

 

Been busy watching. Good games.

 

I've just been busy Only seen two matches so far:

Poland-Greece was pretty messy. A few nice actions, but mediocre football from both teams.

Holland-Denmark was a major bummer. Holland played pretty good at times, but failed to put the ball between the poles. Denmark made better use of their chances (unfortunately )

A lot of Dutch have already lost faith in the team. I have my doubts as well, fearing that losing against Denmark might have given the team a huge mental blow. They may get really sloppy now that they are forced to win from Germany. But we'll see what happens Wednesday

 

I didn't see a really big dominance in the first halve of either team (first half ended in 0-0). The second halve Ukraine (in yellow) seemed dominant (they won). I would say that Sweden should have the better team, but that Ukraine benefited from their underdog position and home game advantage. But yeah, it sucks if your team loses from the underdog. It's great if another team loses from the underdog (but I guess that's the same in every sport ). But a 0-0 is not something to celebrate, no matter how much of an underdog you are; sometimes it is the maximum thing achievable, but I doubt anybody would see it as a victory.

Oh, and I counted the number of games in the European Championship of 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 (the games played thus far) and the games in the World Championships of 2002, 2006 and 2010: there were 293 games played in total. There wasn't a single goal in 26 of those 293 games. So, not "as many of these things seem to do", but "as some of these things seem to do"

 

The unpredictability of football is one of its greatest appeals. Because it's so low scoring a few moments of luck can decide the match and it is feasible to spend your whole time defending without conceding. The better team certainly does normally win but it gives the underdog something to aim at and for neutrals to look at. 0-0 against one of the big teams can be great for a smaller nation and in the group stages it can be an important stepping stone. You don't need to win every match. There certainly wouldn't be any point in Ireland showing up if the better team always won.

Speaking of which, we were stuffed. We were lucky to get to the Euros and are simply out of our depth at this stage. Croatia didn't even look that impressive but brushed us aside. Spain and Italy both looked great in the earlier match and I don't see us getting any points off them. Spain could do with giving up one of their 6 central midfielders though. Italy were unrecognisable from the team we played 3 years ago in the world cup qualifiers.

 

Ukraine did dominate the first half and was the better team so nothing wrong with your eye. Turning domination into actual goals is a whole other issue. One they managed in the second half but on this level no team will just roll over another team (well the Russians kinda did with the Czechs). Anything can happen and on paper I guess as someone said that Sweden has a better team but I said before the tournament that every point we get should be seen as a bonus.

 

If a team is totally dominant and still can't score, they need to look at how they play and find a better way to break down the opposition. They can't have been that much better if they can't score. On the flip side, if a team is inferior to the opposition yet manage to keep them from scoring, then that's a great defensive effort on their part and should be applauded. The sport isn't all about the attacking side. Some teams actually prefer to be on the back foot, and deliberately invite pressure, because they might have great defenders and so-so strikers. Chelsea are a good example, and they are European champions! Italian sides are often like this.

A game doesn't need loads of goals to be entertaining. I enjoy seen many great 0-0 games or tight 1-0 games.