Bryant Gumbel...On The World Cup

Quote:

---

Finally tonight, a few words about World Cup soccer.

Please spare me the stifled yawns and typical American gripes about how boring the sport can be.

For God's sake, we're a nation that venerates 1 - 0 baseball games, watches cars make endless left turns, and televise people playing poker and dominoes.

Now I confess that I don't know a corner kick from a free kick, I don't get the logic of why they call offsides, and I think the whole yellow card/red card thing is a little melodramatic.

But these Cup games are athletic, intense, passionate and driven by a blend of patriotism and nationalism that is real and not commercial.

In short, these games offer everything the Olympics claim and try to sell every four years.

You think the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry is intense or Michigan and Ohio State?
How about the emotional and historic implications of a match-up between Germany and Poland, or the stakes involved for players from Iran or Croatia, or how spirits are lifted when a nation like Ghana wins or tiny Togo even tries.

Yes I know that in soccer they score about as much as Ann Coulter makes sense and yes I know that they act like drama queens whenever they are fouled, but if you haven't watched any of the World Cup matches from Germany, you should try it. You won't be disappointed.

And after years of repeating the standard American denials, you might have to admit that the rest of the world is on to something.

And that's our show for this evening.....

---

Good commentary on last night's show.

I happen to be one of those Americans. However, I'm consistent.

I don't like baseball, NASCAR, or televised poker (and fucking dominoes).

That show will repeat 'till next Wednesday. It had a VERYYY good story on how coal fired plant pollution has been causing asthma in children for years and how the Bush administration was instrumental in changing laws already on the books to help the energy company get out of hot water and relaxing restrictions.

The shit is soooo fucking evil.

Only women don't understand the offside rule.

fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo

Only women don't understand the offside rule.

fact.

---

Hmm don't see too many women working the lines , you may be right .

On one of the latest matches of last seasons EPL there was a lines(wo)man who looked like a 12 year old girl.

I'd swear Bryant Gumbel is Canadian, what with his self depreciating humour and mannerism . What he said was true still a shame the USA does not do better on this world stage, as it will be buried on the back pages of the paper when their out .

europe would die in cring if the us won, but then again if they did..... things cuold get interesting next time around

The rest of the world could care less if the US finds the World Cup interesting.

Part of the problem is the no time outs lest the referee calls it , no time for commercials in this grand game . Wont work for the American networks , now if they split it in to 4 quarters .......... :lol:


I'm going to run and hide ! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

The rest of the world could care less if the US finds the World Cup interesting.

---

That makes sense, just like we, for the most part, don't care about the World Cup.

It kinda works out.

HAY BUT WE CANT WAIT4 THENEX YANKES/SOX GAME OR LAP 3564 IN THENEX NASCARR RACES11!!OMG!1!LOL11!

:dry:

don't forget they own european tv :commercial break comming up if they win:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

The rest of the world could care less if the US finds the World Cup interesting.

---

Good point but funny how when the good Euro teams come over to North America for friendlies ,you can't buy a ticket its all sold out .

I just meant it would be good for the game .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

Part of the problem is the no time outs lest the referee calls it , no time for commercials in this grand game . Wont work for the American networks , now if they split it in to 4 quarters .......... :lol:


I'm going to run and hide ! ;)

---

One thing I do hate about running clocks is that a team that is up can lollygag around to fuck up the time. I mean we have it in pick-up basketball game and tournaments.

I hate it. We are down by a point and some fuck-head decides to take his merry gay ass time taking the ball out.:dry:

The stoppages in last nights NBA Finals were fucking nail-biters. Every Dallas fan had chewed off down to their cuticles. I loved it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

The rest of the world could care less if the US finds the World Cup interesting.

---

Good point but funny how when the good Euro teams come over to North America for friendlies ,you can't buy a ticket its all sold out .

I just meant it would be good for the game .

---

The soccer stadium outsells the hockey arena (even by percentage) in DC

Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

The rest of the world could care less if the US finds the World Cup interesting.

---

Good point but funny how when the good Euro teams come over to North America for friendlies ,you can't buy a ticket its all sold out .

I just meant it would be good for the game .

---

The game doesn't really need North America and I don't think it would improve the game if every single North American was suddenly mad about soccer.

The African teams have enriched the game because of intangible reasons but in a technical sense, well, might sound harsh but it wouldn't make much of a difference if they didn't bother. The standard of football in the World Cup would be the same.

What I'm trying to say is that if the US suddenly became good, no-one would care because they wouldn't capture the imagination like any other plucky underdog and it's not as if they're going to be better than Brazil or Argentina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

Good point but funny how when the good Euro teams come over to North America for friendlies ,you can't buy a ticket its all sold out .

I just meant it would be good for the game .

---

The game doesn't really need North America and I don't think it would improve the game if every single North American was suddenly mad about soccer.

The African teams have enriched the game because of intangible reasons but in a technical sense, well, might sound harsh but it wouldn't make much of a difference if they didn't bother. The standard of football in the World Cup would be the same.

What I'm trying to say is that if the US suddenly became good, no-one would care because they wouldn't capture the imagination like any other plucky underdog and it's not as if they're going to be better than Brazil or Argentina.

---

....as evidenced by our shit performance against the Shreks.

We won't be as good, for one thing, because it is not our main sport. Imagine our entire country being soccer fanatics. That would be a huge pot to pick the best from. I imagine if soccer was even the number 3 sport here, that we'd be better. Maybe it's our commercial nature. Not enough money in it.

However, we have football, baseball, basketball, and even hockey beating it out. Soccer doesn't enter into even the imagination of most Americans so it is relegated to a paltry sector of our populace in comparison to an England or Brazil. Everyone seems to be trying to be the next Jordan, Bonds, or Peyton.

Even though I don't really watch or like soccer, I want our country to be the best. I don't care if it was the luge, discus throw, or even...soccer.

Right now it seems our soccer team is average/below average.:dry:


....but I do like upsets. If we lose to gonna, that's wut wheel B...upset.

I don't think the game needs North America either. We aren't involved in it, for the most part, already.

Yeah we basically agree but there are other reasons why the US couldn't be the best, even if everyone there was nuts about footie. Sure, there is a huge pool but the established countries already have every kid wanting to play soccer for his country and have systems that have been honed over generations and maintained thro' continued devotion and obsession.

It would take at least 50 years for a soccer obsessed USA to be a genuine contender for the World Cup, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Yeah we basically agree but there are other reasons why the US couldn't be the best, even if everyone there was nuts about footie. Sure, there is a huge pool but the established countries already have every kid wanting to play soccer for his country and have systems that have been honed over generations and maintained thro' continued devotion and obsession.

It would take at least 50 years for a soccer obsessed USA to be a genuine contender for the World Cup, I think.

---

No disrespect Manker , but we may find out in a years time in my back yard when we host the U18 world Cup in Canada .

Sorry not sure if its u18 or just youth World Cup . :ermm:

Its u17 World Cup . Funny thing is we gots Busyman ,talking soccer ! :whistling


Link : http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/index/0,...=U17&year=2007

Sorry don't mean to troll but this is interesting :

The defending champions and several fancied nations failed to make the finals in Luxembourg as a host of emerging sides upset the odds....

Gee do you think at 15 or 16 they might discover girls , video games the groping coaches hands ? And say to hell with it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Yeah we basically agree but there are other reasons why the US couldn't be the best, even if everyone there was nuts about footie. Sure, there is a huge pool but the established countries already have every kid wanting to play soccer for his country and have systems that have been honed over generations and maintained thro' continued devotion and obsession.

It would take at least 50 years for a soccer obsessed USA to be a genuine contender for the World Cup, I think.

---

It would take 50 years for USA to be genuinely soccer obsessed.

Other than that, if we were obsessed, if wouldn't take long at all to be a mere contender. I think other countries would have been better a long time ago at basketball...if it was their main sport. Our baseball teams are comprised of many Hispanics that are from countries where their main sport is....baseball.

From I gather, bratland has 3 main sports, rugby, soccer, and cricket. I imagine the brats are decent at every one of them. Your best at soccer can kick ass, our best at basketball can kick ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Yeah we basically agree but there are other reasons why the US couldn't be the best, even if everyone there was nuts about footie. Sure, there is a huge pool but the established countries already have every kid wanting to play soccer for his country and have systems that have been honed over generations and maintained thro' continued devotion and obsession.

It would take at least 50 years for a soccer obsessed USA to be a genuine contender for the World Cup, I think.

---

No disrespect Manker , but we may find out in a years time in my back yard when we host the U18 world Cup in Canada .

Sorry not sure if its u18 or just youth World Cup . :ermm:

Its u17 World Cup . Funny thing is we gots Busyman ,talking soccer ! :whistling


Link : http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/index/0,...=U17&year=2007

---

Hell I'll talk about anything. It doesn't I'll watch it.

I recall the Winter Olympics.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

From I gather, bratland has 3 main sports, rugby, soccer, and cricket. I imagine the brats are decent at every one of them.

---

:lol: You're joking aren't you?

We excel at being crap at our favourite sports. That's why we like underdogs so much :dry:

The only sports we're any good at are snooker, darts, and shove ha'penny. Anything you can play in a pub, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

From I gather, bratland has 3 main sports, rugby, soccer, and cricket. I imagine the brats are decent at every one of them.

---

:lol: You're joking aren't you?

We excel at being crap at our favourite sports. That's why we like underdogs so much :dry:

The only sports we're any good at are snooker, darts, and shove ha'penny. Anything you can play in a pub, really.

---

:lol: :lol: :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

From I gather, bratland has 3 main sports, rugby, soccer, and cricket. I imagine the brats are decent at every one of them.

---

:lol: You're joking aren't you?

We excel at being crap at our favourite sports. That's why we like underdogs so much :dry:

The only sports we're any good at are snooker, darts, and shove ha'penny. Anything you can play in a pub, really.

---

:lol: :lol: :unsure:

I thought guys were good at that stuff. The brats certainly are better than the US at soccer (but yet who isn't). I always figured bratland a soccer powerhouse.....since you invented the sport and allodat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Yeah we basically agree but there are other reasons why the US couldn't be the best, even if everyone there was nuts about footie. Sure, there is a huge pool but the established countries already have every kid wanting to play soccer for his country and have systems that have been honed over generations and maintained thro' continued devotion and obsession.

It would take at least 50 years for a soccer obsessed USA to be a genuine contender for the World Cup, I think.

---

It would take 50 years for USA to be genuinely soccer obsessed.

Other than that, if we were obsessed, if wouldn't take long at all to be a mere contender. I think other countries would have been better a long time ago at basketball...if it was their main sport. Our baseball teams are comprised of many Hispanics that are from countries where their main sport is....baseball.

From I gather, bratland has 3 main sports, rugby, soccer, and cricket. I imagine the brats are decent at every one of them. Your best at soccer can kick ass, our best at basketball can kick ass.

---

You've already had the 50 years, I think the USA's most famous victory in the World Cup was a 1-0 defeat of England in nineteen fifty-something.

What I'm saying is that if the US somehow became magically obsessed like, say, Brazil are, it would still take a long time for them to get to Brazil's standard because of the generations of experience Brazil have had competing at the highest level and the way they bring the kids thro'.

It's one thing having the raw talent, it's another entirely turning that into a successful international team.

We invented alot of sports, but all those people are dead now :mellow:

The English Premier League is one of the best leagues in the world for {what you call} soccer, but that is really because the large amounts of money paid to the players can now attract some of the very best foreign talent. Some view this as good for the English game, because the skillful foreign players are good role models for the youngsters, and the general standard of play improves, but I think the jury's still out on that one :unsure:

There's alot wrong with the English game. We've got some exceptional home-grown players, but the management at international level is a bit suspect, and they never really gel. Alot of people say they play too many games in the domestic league and cup competitions, and so by the end of the season, they are all knackered. Also, because of the power the clubs wield in the game, the players don't get to spend enough time together to prepare properly for major international competitions, which is why they always seem to underperform.

The FA (English Football Association) is a bit of a joke too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

:lol: You're joking aren't you?

We excel at being crap at our favourite sports. That's why we like underdogs so much :dry:

The only sports we're any good at are snooker, darts, and shove ha'penny. Anything you can play in a pub, really.

---

:lol: :lol: :unsure:

I thought guys were good at that stuff. The brats certainly are better than the US at soccer (but yet who isn't). I always figured bratland a soccer powerhouse.....since you invented the sport and allodat.

---

England are a top ten team but, sadly, hardly ever a top five team.

It's like a lot of things, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis competition, every player wants to win that more than any other and it gets good ratings on the TV over here - but the last British bloke that won the thing was Fred Perry in the 1930s. We usually suck at cricket too but Lords (cricket ground) is thought of as 'The Home of Cricket'.

In the UK, we talk a good game :happy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

We invented alot of sports, but all those people are dead now :mellow:

The English Premier League is one of the best leagues in the world for {what you call} soccer, but that is really because the large amounts of money paid to the players can now attract some of the very best foreign talent. Some view this as good for the English game, because the skillful foreign players are good role models for the youngsters, and the general standard of play improves, but I think the jury's still out on that one :unsure:

There's alot wrong with the English game. We've got some exceptional home-grown players, but the management at international level is a bit suspect, and they never really gel. Alot of people say they play too many games in the domestic league and cup competitions, and so by the end of the season, they are all knackered. Also, because of the power the clubs wield in the game, the players don't get to spend enough time together to prepare properly for major international competitions, which is why they always seem to underperform.

The FA (English Football Association) is a bit of a joke too.

---

Ok that makes sense. Even our NBA has top foreign players but come Olympic time they will play for their home countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

:lol: :lol: :unsure:

I thought guys were good at that stuff. The brats certainly are better than the US at soccer (but yet who isn't). I always figured bratland a soccer powerhouse.....since you invented the sport and allodat.

---

England are a top ten team but, sadly, hardly ever a top five team.

It's like a lot of things, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis competition, every player wants to win that more than any other and it gets good ratings on the TV over here - but the last British bloke that won the thing was Fred Perry in the 1930s. We usually suck at cricket too but Lords (cricket ground) is thought of as 'The Home of Cricket'.

In the UK, we talk a good game :happy:

---

Apparently, the US' problem is either shit international management (the last 2 world basketball competitions) and players not caring for the international competition.

Hell I wonder if soccer was huge here would we play in the World Cup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

England are a top ten team but, sadly, hardly ever a top five team.

It's like a lot of things, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis competition, every player wants to win that more than any other and it gets good ratings on the TV over here - but the last British bloke that won the thing was Fred Perry in the 1930s. We usually suck at cricket too but Lords (cricket ground) is thought of as 'The Home of Cricket'.

In the UK, we talk a good game :happy:

---

Apparently, the US' problem is either shit international management (the last 2 world basketball competitions) and players not caring for the international competition.

Hell I wonder if soccer was huge here would we play in the World Cup.

---

The players that play in the World Cup, and play well, get millions added to their transfer value. The global nature of the competition and the transfer market make this competition totally different from the other team sports that the US compete in.

There would be enough money to be gained by playing in it to keep even the most ultra-capitalist, non-patriotic US soccer player breaking his neck to star in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Apparently, the US' problem is either shit international management (the last 2 world basketball competitions) and players not caring for the international competition.

Hell I wonder if soccer was huge here would we play in the World Cup.

---

The players that play in the World Cup, and play well, get millions added to their transfer value. The global nature of the competition and the transfer market make this competition totally different from the other team sports that the US compete in.

There would be enough money to be gained by playing in it to keep even the most ultra-capitalist, non-patriotic US soccer player breaking his neck to star in it.

---

OIC....somewhat. Transfer value? :idunno:

To your last, there has to be enough interest in soccer first. That starts at the US market level first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Transfer value? :idunno:

---

rod?:unsure:

The amount the player is valued at when it comes to selling him to another club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

The players that play in the World Cup, and play well, get millions added to their transfer value. The global nature of the competition and the transfer market make this competition totally different from the other team sports that the US compete in.

There would be enough money to be gained by playing in it to keep even the most ultra-capitalist, non-patriotic US soccer player breaking his neck to star in it.

---

OIC....somewhat. Transfer value? :idunno:

To your last, there has to be enough interest in soccer first. That starts at the US market level first.

---

No, it definitely doesn't.

The US teams wouldn't be able to afford to buy, say, Freddy Adu if he was a little older and if he lit up the world cup with his exceptional talent. A European club, however, would be able to buy him.

The club he is currently at would want a big transfer fee. Most of that goes to that club, but a percentage will go to the player and his agent, provided he doesn't request a transfer (that's the way it normally works). The player will sign a contract with the European club and earn far in excess of what he could in the US.

So, you see, there really doesn't have to be interest above the current level in the US market for the best US players to want to play at the World Cup in order to gain financially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

OIC....somewhat. Transfer value? :idunno:

To your last, there has to be enough interest in soccer first. That starts at the US market level first.

---

No, it definitely doesn't.

The US teams wouldn't be able to afford to buy, say, Freddy Adu if he was a little older and if he lit up the world cup with his exceptional talent. A European club, however, would be able to buy him.

The club he is currently at would want a big transfer fee. Most of that goes to that club, but a percentage will go to the player and his agent, provided he doesn't request a transfer (that's the way it normally works). The player will sign a contract with the European club and earn far in excess of what he could in the US.

So, you see, there really doesn't have to be interest above the current level in the US market for the best US players to want to play at the World Cup in order to gain financially.

---

Oh I gotcha. That's if they want to play in elsewhere. Funny enough, Freddy said he wants to play elsewhere.

We don't have the market here. As far as transfer value, we just call that a player's stock. It's best when a player wins a championship or plays exceptional especially when he's in his last year of a contract. When I talked about transfer value in the US market, I was referring to a player playing in the US. If our market is shit for the sport in the first place, a nice World Cup performance means very little in comparison to the European market.

If the US placed better in the World Cup it would have boosted the sport here. People simply would have took more notice (besides the fact the Disney stations televised it).

If they had fireworks n stuff, you'd all watch it:smilie4:

Yeah, the football transfer market is very different to the way in which I understand players move from club to club in US sport.

That's the thing, players playing in the MLS - or indeed any league outside of England, Italy, Spain or Germany will always be looking to get a transfer to one of those leagues.

That's why World Cup performances are so important. It's the only time many players there will get to play against top class opposition and prove themselves worthy of a place in one of the top leagues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

It would take at least 50 years for a soccer obsessed USA to be a genuine contender for the World Cup, I think.

---

A quicker plan would be to abduct all the children of the best footballers and raise them as an uber-team, that would take you around 20 years.

Or clone good footballers.

Or invade a country that is good at football and steal all their football resources.

Or they could make a film about the 1966 World Cup but change it to the USA team winning it. Like what they did with that submarine film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

It would take at least 50 years for a soccer obsessed USA to be a genuine contender for the World Cup, I think.

---

A quicker plan would be to abduct all the children of the best footballers and raise them as an uber-team, that would take you around 20 years.

Or clone good footballers.

Or invade a country that is good at football and steal all their football resources.

---

There's an element of risk there, far better to arrest the top fifteen footballers in the world, detain them in Gitmo and make them take seventeen pledges of allegiance every day until they think they're American.

Then plastic surgurise them all to look like Franck Ribery while telling the rest of the world that the puntsphere boys are still being held :sly:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo

If they had fireworks n stuff, you'd all watch it:smilie4:

---

:blink:

We gotta win first.:dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

It would take at least 50 years for a soccer obsessed USA to be a genuine contender for the World Cup, I think.

---

Or they could make a film about the 1966 World Cup but change it to the USA team winning it. Like what they did with that submarine film.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Yeah, the football transfer market is very different to the way in which I understand players move from club to club in US sport.

That's the thing, players playing in the MLS - or indeed any league outside of England, Italy, Spain or Germany will always be looking to get a transfer to one of those leagues.

That's why World Cup performances are so important. It's the only time many players there will get to play against top class opposition and prove themselves worthy of a place in one of the top leagues.

---

It's similar to the NBA here. Players make the most money in US basketball 'cause the market is bigger. Yao Ming makes 10 mill a year, of which, the Chinese gubment takes half.:pinch:

He should just learn Engrish and deflect to Amarryka.