Quickie MR: Field looks exceptional, and already there have been two chances on goal by the Americanos. Very promising. As usual, a fair sprinkling of supporters for the visiting side very much in evidence, so it should prove a fantastic atmosphere. The US need this win to bounce back, albeit few really expected a win at the Azteca. Ooh Maradiaga is still there! Or did he come back?
Victoria Barrett 31 March 2005 05:28:20 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:22:11 -0500, Victoria Barrett <vbarrett@the-beach.net> wrote:>Ooh! An Eddie Lewis low-shot special, which Chen the Guats goalie>fumbled. He's awful.
Chen is the awful defender, not the awful Goalie. Thank you, Jim. *G*
Victoria Barrett 31 March 2005 06:03:10 [ permanent link ]
HT USA 1 : 0 Guatemala
Goal:
11' Eddie Johnson
Quickie MR: Yes, the US are winning. Yes, I'm happy. Yes, they are playing offensively well, and defending strongly, but I'm not satisfied. The US should be leading at least 3-0 at the half. Instead they have let a little sunlight into the Guatemala dressing room pep talk, because if the US don't get one quickly at the restart, they're in trouble. I'm happy to see that Gooch is physical in his defender role, and many of the sliding tackles in the area by the Americans have looked clean, but they are giving up too many chances, which can easily be converted into goal by the rather weird calls of this ref. It's almost like the USA are not taking this game as seriously as the Mexico one, and though one understands there is an emotional charge that is missing, they should really stop being so loosey-goosey in their attacks and especially, their finishing. Guatemala, OTOH, are playing the waiting game perfectly. Slowly chipping away in a physical manner, and allowing floaters to penetrate Kasey's zone. If they're not careful, Guatemala will yet score. BTW, "Behind the Scenes look from the Mex-USA game" starting. Should be good. USA USA!!!
Victoria Barrett 31 March 2005 07:07:34 [ permanent link ]
FT USA 2 : 0 Guatemala
Goal:
11' Eddie Johnson 67' Steve Ralston
Quickie MR: Misses! Handballs! Bad ref calls! Goals disallowed! Bad hair days (Ramirez)! Bad beard lives (Leetle Feesh)! Man this game had it all, huh?
Overheard on #rss:
<Riffster> there was a us player so alone on the left wing that he could have had dinner, watched a spectravision movie, then scored, if only he has received a pass
In article <maom41lpi1jb9u23ikc086oo0t9jppe485@4ax.com>, Victoria Barrett <vbarrett@the-beach.net> wrote:
Landon goal disallowed. I'm really upset here. What a job this reffing> crew have done.
I'm so sick of never getting a fair shake from the refs in CONCACAF. I expect to get robbed once or twice when we're playing at Honduras or Costa Rica, but this was really rediculous.
Landon's goal was totally good (the striping on the field made it obvious). Then a handball in the box which conveniently drops the ball right where the goalie can scoop it up. Total B.S.
But we just couldn't get a call. Landon bumped off the ball? No call. Professional foul stopping a US run? No card, not even a foul.
Of course, Dempsy picks up a cheap card for a professional foul, but that's just the double standard. (I don't object to Dempsy getting a card on that, except that the Guatemalans had three or fouls at least that bad, in similar situations, which didn't even draw a whistle!)
But we won, deservedly. The finishing's still a little suspect (not sold on Ching, and Lewis' finishing wasn't great).
Eddie Johnson's looking more and more like the real deal, though.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:50:49 -0500, Victoria Barrett <vbarrett@the-beach.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:12:08 -0800, Ron <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com>>wrote:>>I'm so sick of never getting a fair shake from the refs in CONCACAF. I >>expect to get robbed once or twice when we're playing at Honduras or >>Costa Rica, but this was really rediculous.
CONCACAF refs suck, I don't think we get any worse of a shake than other teams.
Eddie Johnson's looking more and more like the real deal, though. >
I like him a lot. Don't know why the BS crowd are so down on him. If>Benfica saw something in him, surely they can too.
You're like 9-12 months behind on your bigsoccer
I know. I saw the Uruguayan manager's complaints in news wires already. But I'm sure you understand I mean it in the totality of Brazilian soccer history, as I have studied it.
Brasil has just tied against Uruguay with a clearly illegal >goal, with three players offsides. And the refereeing crew was from >Argentina!
That is exceptional. Remember the Copa in Montevideo when a clear goal was disallowed for Brazil in the Final versus Uruguay? I will never forget that.
The way I see it, the perception from the smaller (no disrespect >intended) Conmebol teams is precisely the opposite.
That will always be the case, don't you think? I don't know of one average country who doesn't complain about the Big Boys getting the breaks.
Victoria Barrett 31 March 2005 10:45:40 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:52:52 -0600, Jim Goloboy <goloboy@uiuc.edu> wrote:>CONCACAF refs suck, I don't think we get any worse of a shake than>other teams.
Really? Hmm. I would say Ron at least would disagree with that.
You're like 9-12 months behind on your bigsoccer
Philip Lennox Beineke 31 March 2005 11:00:48 [ permanent link ]
Jim Goloboy <goloboy@uiuc.edu> wrote:>CONCACAF refs suck, I don't think we get any worse of a shake than>other teams.
Oh give me a break, Jim. You know perfectly well that Concacaf refs are out to get us; it's been that way ever since that unjustified tirade by Claudio Reyna in 2000. Boy, what a lousy captain and player that guy was; he never led the team anywhere.
Sorry ... needed to get a little sarcasm out of my system. I agree completely. In the past few years, we've had more than our share of good breaks from Concacaf officials. As recently as Sunday, a bunch of Mexican attacks were incorrectly ruled offside, and Beasley was spared when he deserved to have been sent off.
I wonder if we're reaping the benefits of increased respect.
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:45:40 -0500, Victoria Barrett <vbarrett@the-beach.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:52:52 -0600, Jim Goloboy <goloboy@uiuc.edu>>wrote:>>CONCACAF refs suck, I don't think we get any worse of a shake than>>other teams.>
Really? Hmm. I would say Ron at least would disagree with that.
Everyone likes to think the refs are against them...I remember during the last Hex arguing on the Jamaican board with fans who were convinced that they had been cheated out of no fewer than four goals when we played them in Kingston.
In CONCACAF, the refs are bad enough that everyone gets screwed regularly.
In article <r70n41dh201r8dj7nprhuvtidbdm5e0kg0@4ax.com>, Victoria Barrett <vbarrett@the-beach.net> wrote: # >Eddie Johnson's looking more and more like the real deal, though. # # I like him a lot. Don't know why the BS crowd are so down on him. If # Benfica saw something in him, surely they can too.
They're not, any more, but some still remember his choke-o-rama in the U-20 QF.
In article <pf0n41tonbrc2f1i12ghfq9pq7sebra7gb@4ax.com>, Jim Goloboy <goloboy@uiuc.edu> wrote:
CONCACAF refs suck, I don't think we get any worse of a shake than> other teams.
I dunno. I seem to remember a couple of away games in '02 qualifying where the ref took points from our pocket and gave them to the opposition in the closing minutes.
I think today's almost impossible to call as anything but a biased ref. Yes, he was letting way too much go, but the Guatemalans got away with a hell of a lot more than we did.
Philip Lennox Beineke <beineke@stanford.edu> wrote:> Jim Goloboy <goloboy@uiuc.edu> wrote:>>CONCACAF refs suck, I don't think we get any worse of a shake than>>other teams.>
Oh give me a break, Jim. You know perfectly well that Concacaf refs> are out to get us; it's been that way ever since that unjustified > tirade by Claudio Reyna in 2000. Boy, what a lousy captain and player > that guy was; he never led the team anywhere.>
Sorry ... needed to get a little sarcasm out of my system. I agree> completely. In the past few years, we've had more than our share of > good breaks from Concacaf officials. As recently as Sunday, a bunch of> Mexican attacks were incorrectly ruled offside, and Beasley was spared > when he deserved to have been sent off. >
I wonder if we're reaping the benefits of increased respect.>
I though the refereeing in the Mex-US match was pretty decent. In contrast, the T&T guy last night inthe US-Guat match was appalling. He apparently subscribed to the view that "less is best." I suppose he just decided to take it to the next level where "none is best." At times it looked like a game of intervillage kick-the-skull. Fortunately, neither side benefited in particular from his incompetence (save maybe the handball in the box--the Donovan goal was close enough to offside that it wasn't that egregious).
<naught@nil.com> wrote in message news:d2grs9$stn$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...> Fortunately, neither side benefited in particular from his incompetence> (save maybe the handball in the box--the Donovan goal was close enough> to offside that it wasn't that egregious).> You and I have very different definitions of "close enough". That was a blatant missed call, Donovan had maybe a quarter of his body behind the last defender, and FIFA has said multiple times that overlaps and anything close of that nature should favor the attacker. Clearly onside under the current rules
Philip Lennox Beineke 31 March 2005 22:12:03 [ permanent link ]
<naught@nil.com> wrote:>Fortunately, neither side benefited in particular from his incompetence >(save maybe the handball in the box--the Donovan goal was close enough >to offside that it wasn't that egregious).
Donovan's disallowed goal was a shame because it was such a nice cross-and- finish, but you're right that it must've been difficult for the linesman to judge. At least the no-call was correct when we scored a minute or two later. (In real-time, I wasn't sure whether that one was onside, and judging by the way Ralston turned to look over his shoulder after the goal, he might not have been certain, either.)
Apart from that handball in the box, however, I felt that last night's officiating worked in our favor. Compared with Central American players, our guys are accustomed to a lot more upper-body contact, as well as being generally bigger and stronger. I think we pushed them around a lot more than they pushed us.
In article <d2hehj$kg2$1@news.Stanford.EDU>, beineke@Stanford.EDU (Philip Lennox Beineke) wrote:
Apart from that handball in the box, however, I felt that last night's > officiating worked in our favor. Compared with Central American> players, our guys are accustomed to a lot more upper-body contact,> as well as being generally bigger and stronger. I think we pushed them> around a lot more than they pushed us.
I don't. And they got at least one (and maybe two) free kicks from just outside the penalty area on completely phantom calls.
It didn't end up hurting us because we stopped both of them, but we never got calls like that despite doing the vast majority of the attacking play.
Dempsy's "professional foul" card is a perfect example. They did that sort of thing several times to us, and it wasn't whistled. Dempsy does it, and gets carded.
Philip Lennox Beineke 1 April 2005 08:48:41 [ permanent link ]
Ron <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote:>Dempsy's "professional foul" card is a perfect example. They did that >sort of thing several times to us, and it wasn't whistled. Dempsy does >it, and gets carded.
I went back to the video just to re-confirm what happened on this play. Dempsey takes a poor touch at the edge of the Guatemala box, allowing Thompson to steal the ball and accelerate away. Failing to catch up, Dempsey reaches out at full stretch and pulls him to the ground. The camera then zooms to Thompson, whose jersey collar has been stretched close to his shoulder.
I realize that Marcelo Balboa complained about that yellow card, but when it comes to embarrassing partisanship, he's Jack Edwards without the memorable phrases. No ref on earth would question whether that was worthy of a caution.
More Balboa last night ...
When Ramirez is called for tackling the ball away from Mastroeni from behind: "Any time you tackle from behind, that is an automatic foul. It's dangerous; the guy can't see you."
Ten minutes later, when Mastroeni tackles Ramirez from behind: "Pablo slides in, and I tell you what, there's no foul there."
In article <d2ijr9$s38$1@news.Stanford.EDU>, beineke@Stanford.EDU (Philip Lennox Beineke) wrote:
I realize that Marcelo Balboa complained about that yellow card, but > when it comes to embarrassing partisanship, he's Jack Edwards without > the memorable phrases. No ref on earth would question whether that was > worthy of a caution.
I want to be clear what I'm complaining about.
I have no problem with Dempsy getting a yellow card there -- that's practically a textbook example of what's supposed to draw a yellow card.
However, my point is that the Guats made several very similar plays (I can remember at least two against Donovan) and didn't even draw whistles. You can't ignore that call all day long and then all of a sudden remember its a cardable offense the first time the U.S. does it.
Philip Lennox Beineke 2 April 2005 03:34:36 [ permanent link ]
Ron <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote:>I want to be clear what I'm complaining about.>
I have no problem with Dempsy getting a yellow card there -- that's >practically a textbook example of what's supposed to draw a yellow card.>
However, my point is that the Guats made several very similar plays (I >can remember at least two against Donovan) and didn't even draw >whistles. You can't ignore that call all day long and then all of a >sudden remember its a cardable offense the first time the U.S. does it.
It may seem bizarre, but once or twice, Donovan has been accused of selling a foul.
By all means, take a look at the video. I don't think you'll find many situations where a Guatemalan player made such an overt attempt to foul. Heck, compared with the way recent Guatemala teams played us, I thought these guys were downright friendly.
![USA - GUATS [R, WC '06 Qualifiers]](http://gyxu.com/i/logo_new.gif){kind=logo}
