World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

[dxmnkd316]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

I should have prefaced the comments I made above with tat I only was able to watch small portions of the first half, all of the second half, and most of the last 30 minutes. So, I don't disagree with the fact that the game dictated the cards. I just think that if you're handing out that many cards, you're mishandling the game. It's something that's been drilled into me by refs that were MUCH better than I was as well as referee inspectors.

 

[jmh]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

So I can get justice for a certain country then... eh?

Give it a rest, you're not even Irish. Everybody else is over it by now.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Plus, the closest Ireland can get to being truly "screwed over" is to continue being Ireland.

 

[blockski]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

So, I don't disagree with the fact that the game dictated the cards. I just think that if you're handing out that many cards, you're mishandling the game.

I'd love to hear you try and square these two statements.

 

[3W]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

I'm also looking forward to this. Mexico has some real high-end talent coming through the system (so to speak) in Guardado and Dos Santos and Vela and Ochoa. On the other hand, I thought Bradley (Michael, that is) stood out big time this tournament, and Edu looked good when he had the chance, and I'm going to choose to continue to believe that Altidore will evolve into the player we all hope he will be. You're right, should be interesting.Agreed. Of all the cards, maybe two of them (Ramos, Heitinga's first one) were questionable. By and large they were heartily deserved. I thought so too. Some great matches, albeit more controversy than FIFA would've liked what with phantom disallowed goals and the Suarez handball.

I thought it was basically average. There were a lot of good games (USA-Slovenia, USA-Algeria, Germany-Uruguay, Slovakia-Italy, etc.), but there were a lot more hellacious clunkers, especially in big spots, than the last three since the switch to 32 teams: the final, Algeria-England, Paraguay-New Zzzzzzzealand, all of Portugal's games, etc.

 

[Jon]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Plus, the closest Ireland can get to being truly "screwed over" is to continue being Ireland.

Hence, Guinness.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

The U.S. was undefeated in regulation.

The US was also one of only three teams that scored in all of its games - the other two being Italy and South Korea.

I am getting the World Cup video game and I am going to play as Ireland. (Call it an early birthday present for next Monday.)

My only bummer from the World Cup game is that you can't attempt qualification with absolutely any country on the planet. You can take any European or South American team and try to qualify with them (since they both have qualifiers that consist of one main round), but every other continent only allows the final two rounds of qualification. I had been under the impression that you could use any team except for Central African Republic, Eritrea, Sao Tome and Principe, Bhutan, Guam, Brunei, Laos, Papua New Guinea, and the Philippines, since they all either didn't participate in qualifying or dropped out before it began. Which is too bad, because I recall that in Road to World Cup 98, which was the gold standard in international soccer games for a very long time, you could use practically any side which started in any round. Disappointment if you wanted to try and take Puerto Rico or the Cook Islands on a Cinderella run through qualifying.

I am looking forward to the "Story of the Finals." There's no question they're going to have USA-ALG, NED-BRA, and URU-GHA among the scenarios.

I had a fun occurrence while qualifying with Canada - Mexico didn't advance from my group of Canada, Honduras, and Jamaica. Ah, video games. Is there anything you can't do?

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Its actually amazing how the finals of soccer tournaments the country gets interested in are horrid affairs. The 94 Final, the 99 Women's World Cup final, and this latest edition. I know finals are rarely entertaining games but it seems like we've hit some real clunkers. At least this one had a dramatic winner that didn't involve PKs.

The 99 womans world cup final had a great ending!!! USA won!!

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

My only bummer from the World Cup game is that you can't attempt qualification with absolutely any country on the planet. You can take any European or South American team and try to qualify with them (since they both have qualifiers that consist of one main round), but every other continent only allows the final two rounds of qualification. I had been under the impression that you could use any team except for Central African Republic, Eritrea, Sao Tome and Principe, Bhutan, Guam, Brunei, Laos, Papua New Guinea, and the Philippines, since they all either didn't participate in qualifying or dropped out before it began. Which is too bad, because I recall that in Road to World Cup 98, which was the gold standard in international soccer games for a very long time, you could use practically any side which started in any round. Disappointment if you wanted to try and take Puerto Rico or the Cook Islands on a Cinderella run through qualifying.

Oh, you can totally do that. They just didn't do a good job of making that clear. There's a button you press ( I think it's Select on PS3), and you can replace any team with another.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

I'd love to hear you try and square these two statements.

If the game is mishandled and the ref loses control of the game, the number of cards tends to increase since the number of fouls will tend to increase.

 

[J.D.]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

I just think that if you're handing out that many cards, you're mishandling the game. It's something that's been drilled into me by refs that were MUCH better than I was as well as referee inspectors.

So what should Webb have done? Issued no cards and really let things get out of hand? Or issue multiple red cards and ruin the final altogether?

 

[blockski]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

If the game is mishandled and the ref loses control of the game, the number of cards tends to increase since the number of fouls will tend to increase.

Yeah, but you've got your causality all screwed up. Your statement asserted that a lot of cards means the ref lost control of the game.

Webb didn't lose control of the game at all, players were just committing tons of fouls as a strategy, not out of frustration.

The only weapon the ref has against that is cards, and in a final like this, yellows have much less impact due to the lack of worry about yellow accumulation.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Look, I just disagree. It's a matter of style and a lesson I've heard repeated by numerous people I held as experts in the matter.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Oh, you can totally do that. They just didn't do a good job of making that clear. There's a button you press ( I think it's Select on PS3), and you can replace any team with another.

Oh really? That's an even more awesome way of getting rid of Mexico then.

 

[blockski]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Look, I just disagree. It's a matter of style and a lesson I've heard repeated by numerous people I held as experts in the matter.

So, handing out lots of cards is bad, no matter what the play on the field is?

Um, ok.

If Webb had been more judicious about handing out cards, we would have ended up with an even worse match.

And this isn't a matter of style, your logic has a serious hole in it. Plus, any absolute (i.e. cards are bad) that cannot respond to the play on the field is a poor rule to go by.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

I find it funny that playing as South Africa I still have to go through all the qualifying...but I guess the game is letting me qualify for the African Cup of Nations

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Oh, you can totally do that. They just didn't do a good job of making that clear. There's a button you press ( I think it's Select on PS3), and you can replace any team with another.

Oh really? That's an even more awesome way of getting rid of Mexico then.

Almost sounds like an Austin Powers Movie where Doctor Evil hits a button, and then has the Mexican Soccer Team drop through a trap door into a pool of sharks with freakin' Laser Beams because their Keeper was being insolent!!

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Oh really? That's an even more awesome way of getting rid of Mexico then.

Yep. I had the procedure wrong though.
You select 2010 FIFA World Cup as game mode. On the next screen, scroll down and change fixture type from "real" to "custom". Then on the next screen, press triangle to replace teams. Done.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Look, I just disagree. It's a matter of style and a lesson I've heard repeated by numerous people I held as experts in the matter.

I think Webb's only alternative was to go heavier with the cards early to try to stamp his authority on the game. Anybody who was paying attention knew that the Dutch were going to play a hard game against Spain to try to disrupt their ball possession and passing, with De Jong and Van Bommel particularly likely to make questionable challenges, and that's exactly what we saw (a bunch of caution-worthy message-sending types of tackles that rightfully drew cautions). And I think Webb was reticent to be freer with cards early to avoid backing himself into a corner, or sending someone off early and provoking a firestorm from the fans. On the other hand, he really had to issue the cards he did because if he hadn't, the game would certainly have fallen apart. As it was, the cautions did force the Dutch to cut out the unsporting challenges to avoid getting sent off, so they were effective.

All things considered, I have few complaints about how he reffed the game. I figured beforehand that it was going to be a nightmare to handle based on the Netherlands' history, and that proved to be the case.

In the abstract, it's fine to say that it's not necessary to show a lot of cards, but in exceptional circumstances the players won't respond to anything else.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

I think Webb's only alternative was to go heavier with the cards early to try to stamp his authority on the game. Anybody who was paying attention knew that the Dutch were going to play a hard game against Spain to try to disrupt their ball possession and passing, with De Jong and Van Bommel particularly likely to make questionable challenges, and that's exactly what we saw (a bunch of caution-worthy message-sending types of tackles that rightfully drew cautions). And I think Webb was reticent to be freer with cards early to avoid backing himself into a corner, or sending someone off early and provoking a firestorm from the fans. On the other hand, he really had to issue the cards he did because if he hadn't, the game would certainly have fallen apart.

All things considered, I have few complaints about how he reffed the game. I figured beforehand that it was going to be a nightmare to handle based on the Netherlands' history, and that proved to be the case.

I still think his first Yellow to Heitinga was a bad decision, if for no other reason than the way he decided to hand it out...only after the spanish player appeared hurt.