USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
- Thread starter 3W
- Start date
- Status
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
I'll give you a clue: you probably will hear it today or tomorrow.
I'll give you a clue: you probably will hear it today or tomorrow.
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
Allow me to ruin it for you.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/amZaoONrDO8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/amZaoONrDO8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Allow me to ruin it for you.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/amZaoONrDO8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/amZaoONrDO8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
JF_Gophers
2147483647
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
The official Champions League hymn is played before every CL match. Its not just something catchy that ESPN/FSC/Gol/Setanta made up.
The official Champions League hymn is played before every CL match. Its not just something catchy that ESPN/FSC/Gol/Setanta made up.
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
For folks in the Twin Cities, I'm putting together either a mens 6v6 or coed 7v7 soccer team for fall. 8 games guarantee 9/13-11/1 from 3-8 pm. Games are in St. Paul and Coon Rapids.
Team is $300, and I need at least 4 more people to have a full roster and a couple subs.
Anyone interested?
For folks in the Twin Cities, I'm putting together either a mens 6v6 or coed 7v7 soccer team for fall. 8 games guarantee 9/13-11/1 from 3-8 pm. Games are in St. Paul and Coon Rapids.
Team is $300, and I need at least 4 more people to have a full roster and a couple subs.
Anyone interested?
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
OK. Now I really can't tell if you're trying to be serious, or purposely being silly. You are citing the Red Sox and Cubs in one thread as being among the most successful baseball franchises, when they are probably the two most underachieving franchises in baseball over its history, given the resources available to the two of them. All time winning percentage only tells how how decent a team was over time, not how successful they were at winning anything, which is the real measure of success for a team to most people who follow sports.
If you don't want to count Arsenal's cup wins for comparison, then I'll count all finishes in the top four of the English league, as that's the equivalent of the American League wildcard berths for the Red Sox you are counting. Can't have it both ways you know. So that's 34 seasons of success for Arsenal, only counting their seasonal finish, not cups and such, using your measurements of successful seasons!
I cited 1919-1945 specifically to show that they hadn't had success for a long time before WW2, or even beyond that, anytime between WW1 and the end of WW2. But since you believe 1946 is recent, you probably think 1919 was on the verge of WW2 also.
OK. Now I really can't tell if you're trying to be serious, or purposely being silly. You are citing the Red Sox and Cubs in one thread as being among the most successful baseball franchises, when they are probably the two most underachieving franchises in baseball over its history, given the resources available to the two of them. All time winning percentage only tells how how decent a team was over time, not how successful they were at winning anything, which is the real measure of success for a team to most people who follow sports.
If you don't want to count Arsenal's cup wins for comparison, then I'll count all finishes in the top four of the English league, as that's the equivalent of the American League wildcard berths for the Red Sox you are counting. Can't have it both ways you know. So that's 34 seasons of success for Arsenal, only counting their seasonal finish, not cups and such, using your measurements of successful seasons!
I cited 1919-1945 specifically to show that they hadn't had success for a long time before WW2, or even beyond that, anytime between WW1 and the end of WW2. But since you believe 1946 is recent, you probably think 1919 was on the verge of WW2 also.
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
Not very often you see a team down to six men, but it happened for a short while with Swansea, as they lost to Sconthorpe yesterday in the Carling Cup (Go Irons!). But, three red cards and a couple late injuries will do that to you.
http://soccernet-assets.espn.go.com/report?id=281579&league=ENG.WORTHINGTON&cc=5901
Not very often you see a team down to six men, but it happened for a short while with Swansea, as they lost to Sconthorpe yesterday in the Carling Cup (Go Irons!). But, three red cards and a couple late injuries will do that to you.
http://soccernet-assets.espn.go.com/report?id=281579&league=ENG.WORTHINGTON&cc=5901
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
Define 'success.' Obviously teams are trying to win the World Series, but all I hear about from eurosnob soccer fans who want to change MLS is how a single-table, double round robin, no playoff formula is the best way to crown a champion. Playoffs are fluky, and winning percentage is better measure of overall success.
At least the Red Sox were considered cursed, not bad. The Cubs have been inaccurately named lovable losers despite the fact that they win far more often than they lose - they're just not lucky in the playoffs.
Playoffs present such a small sample size and are subject to such high variance, using that as the crux of your argument is stupid. Do you really think that the 1987 Twins (85-77) were the best team in baseball that year?
Honestly, I don't care which baseball team is like which soccer team. It's a rather useless comparison - especially when you're trying to compare championships between a 38 game, no playoff system with a 162 game season with an 8 team playoff.
I do, however, take issue with your portrayal of the Red Sox as a losing team, when in fact they've got the 4th best winning percentage of all time (all while playing in the same league/division as the #1 team of all time, the Yankees).
But, since you want to mis-characterize them either purposefully or out of ignorance, I guess I'll have to say that Arsenal "hasn't been very successful" (to paraphrase your wording) because they haven't won the Champions League in a while. Because surely a team's performance in an elimination tournament, where one game can sink your chances, is the ultimate measure of success in a sport where they've been playing games for more than a century.
Define 'success.' Obviously teams are trying to win the World Series, but all I hear about from eurosnob soccer fans who want to change MLS is how a single-table, double round robin, no playoff formula is the best way to crown a champion. Playoffs are fluky, and winning percentage is better measure of overall success.
At least the Red Sox were considered cursed, not bad. The Cubs have been inaccurately named lovable losers despite the fact that they win far more often than they lose - they're just not lucky in the playoffs.
Playoffs present such a small sample size and are subject to such high variance, using that as the crux of your argument is stupid. Do you really think that the 1987 Twins (85-77) were the best team in baseball that year?
If you don't want to count Arsenal's cup wins for comparison, then I'll count all finishes in the top four of the English league, as that's the equivalent of the American League wildcard berths for the Red Sox you are counting. Can't have it both ways you know. So that's 34 seasons of success for Arsenal, only counting their seasonal finish, not cups and such, using your measurements of successful seasons!
I cited 1919-1945 specifically to show that they hadn't had success for a long time before WW2, or even beyond that, anytime between WW1 and the end of WW2. But since you believe 1946 is recent, you probably think 1919 was on the verge of WW2 also.
Honestly, I don't care which baseball team is like which soccer team. It's a rather useless comparison - especially when you're trying to compare championships between a 38 game, no playoff system with a 162 game season with an 8 team playoff.
I do, however, take issue with your portrayal of the Red Sox as a losing team, when in fact they've got the 4th best winning percentage of all time (all while playing in the same league/division as the #1 team of all time, the Yankees).
But, since you want to mis-characterize them either purposefully or out of ignorance, I guess I'll have to say that Arsenal "hasn't been very successful" (to paraphrase your wording) because they haven't won the Champions League in a while. Because surely a team's performance in an elimination tournament, where one game can sink your chances, is the ultimate measure of success in a sport where they've been playing games for more than a century.
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
Being considered cursed is just a fun way of saying they weren't winning Series for a very long time. But whether it's the Red Sox or Cubs, or whoever else, it's not a matter of the Red Sox being cursed for 90 years or so, or the Cubs being "unlucky" for decade after decade after decade. Those are just excuses for teams not winning it all. All teams are lucky or unlucky at times, but to excuse not winning for 80 or 90 years or whatever on that is lame. You can hang your hat on your favorite team having a decent winning percentage each season. I prefer my teams to win titles, even if they don't have quite as good a winning percentage at times.
I'm stupid for referencing the playoffs?
You were the one that cited the Red Sox winning wildcards, division titles, and league titles as part of their resume of success. Every post you song and dance about some different criteria for comparing teams. Show a little consistency for once. All I said was if you count all those, you can't compare those to just Arsenal EPL titles. Either you could include Arsenal's second through fourth place finishes or their cup wins, or something, or else you are making a grossly distorted comparison, as you initially did. If it's now a useless comparison, then stop nagging me on it like your Tommy Smyth announcing the Champions League or something.
I'm not calling the Red Sox a losing team. Just a team that didn't win the whole ball of wax for a very long time, and hasn't won the ball of wax as much as you'd expect from a team with their resources. Recently they've done much better of course, but a century of history isn't rewritten overnight. Get it straight.
Oh, and another corrrection. Arsenal haven't won the Champions League before. Their European resume is certainly weaker than their domestic resume, though they have a European Fairs Cup win and a European Cup Winners Cup win, and a number of close calls.
So I'm a eurosnob now. Give me a break. All I said was I don't see Arsenal as being like the Red Sox, for pretty obvious reasons I've stated. You disagreed, for rather unclear reasons other than to argue with me.
Being considered cursed is just a fun way of saying they weren't winning Series for a very long time. But whether it's the Red Sox or Cubs, or whoever else, it's not a matter of the Red Sox being cursed for 90 years or so, or the Cubs being "unlucky" for decade after decade after decade. Those are just excuses for teams not winning it all. All teams are lucky or unlucky at times, but to excuse not winning for 80 or 90 years or whatever on that is lame. You can hang your hat on your favorite team having a decent winning percentage each season. I prefer my teams to win titles, even if they don't have quite as good a winning percentage at times.
I'm stupid for referencing the playoffs?
You were the one that cited the Red Sox winning wildcards, division titles, and league titles as part of their resume of success. Every post you song and dance about some different criteria for comparing teams. Show a little consistency for once. All I said was if you count all those, you can't compare those to just Arsenal EPL titles. Either you could include Arsenal's second through fourth place finishes or their cup wins, or something, or else you are making a grossly distorted comparison, as you initially did. If it's now a useless comparison, then stop nagging me on it like your Tommy Smyth announcing the Champions League or something. I'm not calling the Red Sox a losing team. Just a team that didn't win the whole ball of wax for a very long time, and hasn't won the ball of wax as much as you'd expect from a team with their resources. Recently they've done much better of course, but a century of history isn't rewritten overnight. Get it straight.
Oh, and another corrrection. Arsenal haven't won the Champions League before. Their European resume is certainly weaker than their domestic resume, though they have a European Fairs Cup win and a European Cup Winners Cup win, and a number of close calls.
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
Entertaining first 20 minutes at Arsenal Stadium. Pretty wide open play; Arsenal with the bulk of the chances (and the better ones) but Celtic so far hanging tough like they did in Glasgow.
As a guy who likes both Rangers and Arsenal, no doubt which way I'm leaning for this one!
EDIT: Aiden McGeady is excellent, and those Celtic tops today make me think there's something wrong with my TV.
EDIT 2: I'll beat TBA to it. Awful penalty call awarded to Arsenal.
Entertaining first 20 minutes at Arsenal Stadium. Pretty wide open play; Arsenal with the bulk of the chances (and the better ones) but Celtic so far hanging tough like they did in Glasgow.
As a guy who likes both Rangers and Arsenal, no doubt which way I'm leaning for this one!
EDIT: Aiden McGeady is excellent, and those Celtic tops today make me think there's something wrong with my TV.
EDIT 2: I'll beat TBA to it. Awful penalty call awarded to Arsenal.
Last edited:
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
Hopefully, things remain that they can get the entire day off.
Hopefully, things remain that they can get the entire day off.
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
Tomorrow, at about noon EST, if I did the conversion right.
Tomorrow, at about noon EST, if I did the conversion right.
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
Here are the four pots for tomorrow's draw. Teams I'd prefer to avoid in the second pot would be Real and Inter, Bordeaux in the 3rd pot, and Wolfsburg in the 4th pot. And the Russian/Ukranian teams just because of travel. I was a little surprised to see Rangers creep into the second pot. I don't recall seeing them that high before.
Pot 1
Rank/team/coefficient
1 FC Barcelona (ESP) 121.853
2 Liverpool FC (ENG) 118.899
3 Chelsea FC (ENG) 118.899
4 Manchester United FC (ENG) 111.899
5 AC Milan (ITA) 110.582
6 Arsenal FC (ENG) 106.899
7 Sevilla FC (ESP) 100.853
8 FC Bayern München (GER) 98.339
------------------------------------------------
Pot 2
9 Olympique Lyonnais (FRA) 91.033
10 FC Internazionale Milano (ITA) 87.582
11 Real Madrid CF (ESP) 78.853
12 PFC CSKA Moskva (RUS) 71.525
13 FC Porto (POR) 68.292
14 AZ Alkmaar (NED) 64.826
15 Juventus (ITA) 63.582
16 Rangers FC (SCO) 56.575
-----------------------------------------------
Pot 3
17 Olympiacos CFP (GRE) 52.633
18 Olympique de Marseille (FRA) 48.033
19 FC Dynamo Kyiv (UKR) 46.370
20 VfB Stuttgart (GER) 45.339
21 ACF Fiorentina (ITA) 42.582
22 Club Atlético de Madrid (SPA) 41.853
23 FC Girondins de Bordeaux (FRA) 40.033
24 Beşiktaş JK (TUR) 32.445
---------------------------------------------
Pot 4
25 VfL Wolfsburg (GER) 21.339
26 R. Standard de Liège (BEL) 21.065
27 Maccabi Haifa FC (ISR) 17.050
28 FC Zürich (SUI) 14.050
29 FC Rubin Kazan (RUS) 9.525
30 AFC Unirea Urziceni (ROU) 8.781
31 APOEL FC (CYP) 4.016
32 Debreceni VSC (HUN) 1.633
Here are the four pots for tomorrow's draw. Teams I'd prefer to avoid in the second pot would be Real and Inter, Bordeaux in the 3rd pot, and Wolfsburg in the 4th pot. And the Russian/Ukranian teams just because of travel. I was a little surprised to see Rangers creep into the second pot. I don't recall seeing them that high before.
Pot 1
Rank/team/coefficient
1 FC Barcelona (ESP) 121.853
2 Liverpool FC (ENG) 118.899
3 Chelsea FC (ENG) 118.899
4 Manchester United FC (ENG) 111.899
5 AC Milan (ITA) 110.582
6 Arsenal FC (ENG) 106.899
7 Sevilla FC (ESP) 100.853
8 FC Bayern München (GER) 98.339
------------------------------------------------
Pot 2
9 Olympique Lyonnais (FRA) 91.033
10 FC Internazionale Milano (ITA) 87.582
11 Real Madrid CF (ESP) 78.853
12 PFC CSKA Moskva (RUS) 71.525
13 FC Porto (POR) 68.292
14 AZ Alkmaar (NED) 64.826
15 Juventus (ITA) 63.582
16 Rangers FC (SCO) 56.575
-----------------------------------------------
Pot 3
17 Olympiacos CFP (GRE) 52.633
18 Olympique de Marseille (FRA) 48.033
19 FC Dynamo Kyiv (UKR) 46.370
20 VfB Stuttgart (GER) 45.339
21 ACF Fiorentina (ITA) 42.582
22 Club Atlético de Madrid (SPA) 41.853
23 FC Girondins de Bordeaux (FRA) 40.033
24 Beşiktaş JK (TUR) 32.445
---------------------------------------------
Pot 4
25 VfL Wolfsburg (GER) 21.339
26 R. Standard de Liège (BEL) 21.065
27 Maccabi Haifa FC (ISR) 17.050
28 FC Zürich (SUI) 14.050
29 FC Rubin Kazan (RUS) 9.525
30 AFC Unirea Urziceni (ROU) 8.781
31 APOEL FC (CYP) 4.016
32 Debreceni VSC (HUN) 1.633
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
Seperating the champions and non-champions really helped with that. On the other side of the coin, this was supposed to make it easier, not harder for my Austrians and Norwegians to make it to the group stage. Now we've got a bunch of **** Cyprusians and Bulgarians in the group stage instead!
On the plus side: all three German teams in the group stage. Now to get them to the knockout round...
Seperating the champions and non-champions really helped with that. On the other side of the coin, this was supposed to make it easier, not harder for my Austrians and Norwegians to make it to the group stage. Now we've got a bunch of **** Cyprusians and Bulgarians in the group stage instead!
On the plus side: all three German teams in the group stage. Now to get them to the knockout round...
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: World Soccer X: Duh, duh, duh, duh...The Champions!
I know these things can be a little screwy, and I'm sure UEFA's system weights performance in the Champions League and the UEFA Cup heavily, but there's something wrong with a rating that puts Sevilla ahead of Madrid, UEFA Cups or no UEFA Cups. If they wound up in the same group with Wolfsburg, that'd make for an awfully tough one.
- Status