And the one thing I learned in this topic is that soccer has way too many league championships.
This is so wrong I don't even know how to respond. The variety of competitions is one of the things that makes European soccer great.
It's not only "wrong" as in stupid, it's also "wrong" as in incorrect. I don't know of any league that has more than one championship, and I don't know of any country that has more than one top-level league.
Perhaps the first poster was thinking of the cup tournaments, which are absolutely nothing like leagues. But that's also stupid.
It's like in the NHL, where the team with the best record in the regular season wins a trophy and the team that wins the playoff tournament wins another one, it just so happens that here in North America we only really care about the latter.
I agree that the various hardware up for grabs makes it more exciting, but I guess for some keeping track of the three major titles every European club can attain each year is a bit much to follow.
Originally posted by The GoonI'll be thrilled - particularly if it's Holland or Spain
Originally posted by MoeGatesThat game was a fluke. I'm putting $50 on Spain to win right now.
Originally posted by lotjxA friend of a friend who is living in the Netherlands explained the Europeans have killed this game by creating a Rat Trap defense. Spain seemed to follow through with that and I pity anyone who had to sit through this entire 112 minutes of boredom. Soccer is never going to be as popular here due to the massive amount of time when nothing happens.
You just never seem to tire of using your unique blend of hyperbole and terrible grammar to offer ridiculous, damning critiques on any range of subjects.
You don't see a logical flaw in your "nothing happens" argument when a football game takes three hours to complete and features 60 minutes game time, while the average soccer match has an extra half our game time and takes an hour less from start to finish? You could watch five minutes of a football game and see a two yard run, an incomplete pass and a couple of commercial breaks. It's down to personal preference and an appreciation of certain skills and sports.
I love both games. You're more than entitled not to, but to repeatedly post that you have watched a few minutes of a match and concluded that there is some sort of fundamental flaw with the most popular sport on the planet that will prevent it taking off is pretty moronic.
Originally posted by lotjxLet the rest of the world have this game.
Thanks! In return we could introduce you to the paragraph.
I quite enjoyed the final. It started fast then got bogged down for a while thanks to a combination of nerves and some pretty horrendous tackling, but from about the 70 minute mark it was pretty open with chances at both ends.
Delighted for Spain. They didn't reach the heights they can in this tournament, but they never stop attacking or trying to pass the ball in an era when most teams prefer a more conservative approach. Alas, I think they will roger Scotland in uncompromising fashion in the upcoming Euro qualifiers. All that passing and moving stuff confuses us.
The (relative) lack of scoring makes the game, for me. Look at basketball, constant scoring, so only the last few minutes are relevant (obviously I speak as an uneducated basketball heathen). Football makes you earn any score.
Thread ahead: Rumor: Jimmy Johnson is a contestant on this fall's "Survivor: Nicaragua" Next thread: NFL suspends Johnny Jolly for 2010 season Previous thread: JaMarcus Russell arrested for the Purple stuff
Alabama gets helped in the computers because of their wins over Arkansas and Penn State. If Stanford knocks off Oregon and Penn State struggles during the tough portion of their schedule, that should propel them past Alabama.