By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
zuvuyeay on 30 June 2010
PS3beats360 said:

Football offside rule is absolute crap it makes the game so friggin boring and low scoring. Cut the offside rule and more goals will be scored. The fans have to fight, set of flares, play the crappy vuvuzelas because the game is so friggin boring to watch. Half of these football games are lucky to see more than one or two goals scored in 90 or 120 minutes. 

IMO a 30 second shot clock would be a good move. No 2 or 3 minutes passing the ball back and forth holding possession and boring the crowd. No passing the ball back into your defensive half from your attacking half. It kind of pointless is a stupid time wasting tactic. Absolute crap sport to watch. 

The crowd should be booing the players for time wasting and not trying to score goals. The game needs to speed up a lot and make the game more entertaining. Teams need to stop wasting time and boring the crowd and spectators. More shots on goal and more goals will be scored if the stupid offside rule is removed. 


god know,you haven't got a clue what you're talking about

why do people always quote other sports when referring to football,like rugby fans,cricket,hockey etc

football is the biggest sport on the planet,goals are precious in football,it's fine the way it is



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

Around the Network
NJ5 on 30 June 2010
Son1x said:
NJ5 said:
Lafiel said:

why are we playing on two goals? game would be so much more existing if all players try to shoot on the same goal - no more midfield


We actually used to play like that back in school sometimes (when there was no space for a full field). You'd just go to the end of the field and then come back when you gained ball possession.

And yes, it did mean that the goalkeeper played for both teams :)

Yea, we also play(ed) on 1 goal sometimes. Usualy when only like 5 of us were there. So basicaly 2v2 goalkeeper. He'd always throw the ball over his head while facing the goal and we didn't really have any rules about going back after gaining the ball possession.


Come to think of it, I think we didn't have the rule of going back either... I was probably mixing the idea up with something else.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Chrizum on 30 June 2010

Come on, that goal wasn't offside. 22cm is not offside, no referee can be certain enough to flag for it. Offside is meant to make football more attractive and offensive, not to raise the flag whenever there is a slight chance someone is offside.



PS3beats360 on 30 June 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS43u5Yczag&feature=related

Three footballers dying on the pitch in the late stages of a football match in that video. All three players died from heart attack. Football is just a game but some players actually die playing the game they love. 

RIP: Marc Vivien Foe, Antonio Puerta and Miklos Feher.  



pizzahut451 on 30 June 2010
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
Gnizmo said:

Holland - Brazil is almost certain. Holland seems to have been vastly under-rated in most of these discussions. They have done really well so far. Even came out the top spot in the "group of death." Mind you, I think that label is a bunch of crap in this tournament, but I heard a couple commentators reference it which counts for something small at the least. More impressive is the fact that they are one of two teams to win all their group matches, and only allow 1 goal. The other team, Argentina, is getting talked up quite a bit

Actually, most descriptions I've seen around for the "group of death" was for group H, where Brazil, Ivory Coast and Portugal were. In sheer quality, those three teams together surpass Holland, Japan, Denmark and Cameroon. 

Group of Death was obviously group D...

Germany, Serbia, Ghana and Australia? In that spectrum, every group was the group of death then

Easy win for Holland on this game. A Brazil - Holland game on the quarter finals would prove to be amazing, but Brazil still has to overcome Chile.

say whatever you want but both teams from group D are in quarter finals...we cant say the same about group A, B and C, and most likely E and G...

So if group G teams get to the quarter finals and further, you'll change your interpretation of group of death? Somehow, I don't think you will


group G? Portugal and Brazil? Do you think Portugal has a a chance of beating Spain? I really think Group D will be the only one with the 2 teams in quarter finals... Japan can prove me wrong btw

Portugal has many a chance of beating Spain as Spain has of beating Portugal. If you look at my previous posts, I said that i'm not confident of a Portugal victory thoug, but that doesn't take out the worth and skill of the Portuguese side.

And you didn't answer my query. If Group G gets both it's teams in the quarter-finals or further, would you then consider group G the group of death?

Somehow, I don't think you will, because Group D had Serbia. And that's the only reason you consider it to be the group of death, not because group D has two teams on the quarter-finals


no, its not because of that, it really isn't. I dont think Serbia would pass in any other group anyway, (well maybe group H) its because our group is the only one with both teams in quarter finals for now, and dont forget that Spain is a favorite on winning a world cup.

and if im wrong i'll come here and say it..


Ok then


maybe you have something to say to me now?



Around the Network
lestatdark on 30 June 2010
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
Gnizmo said:

Holland - Brazil is almost certain. Holland seems to have been vastly under-rated in most of these discussions. They have done really well so far. Even came out the top spot in the "group of death." Mind you, I think that label is a bunch of crap in this tournament, but I heard a couple commentators reference it which counts for something small at the least. More impressive is the fact that they are one of two teams to win all their group matches, and only allow 1 goal. The other team, Argentina, is getting talked up quite a bit

Actually, most descriptions I've seen around for the "group of death" was for group H, where Brazil, Ivory Coast and Portugal were. In sheer quality, those three teams together surpass Holland, Japan, Denmark and Cameroon. 

Group of Death was obviously group D...

Germany, Serbia, Ghana and Australia? In that spectrum, every group was the group of death then

Easy win for Holland on this game. A Brazil - Holland game on the quarter finals would prove to be amazing, but Brazil still has to overcome Chile.

say whatever you want but both teams from group D are in quarter finals...we cant say the same about group A, B and C, and most likely E and G...

So if group G teams get to the quarter finals and further, you'll change your interpretation of group of death? Somehow, I don't think you will


group G? Portugal and Brazil? Do you think Portugal has a a chance of beating Spain? I really think Group D will be the only one with the 2 teams in quarter finals... Japan can prove me wrong btw

Portugal has many a chance of beating Spain as Spain has of beating Portugal. If you look at my previous posts, I said that i'm not confident of a Portugal victory thoug, but that doesn't take out the worth and skill of the Portuguese side.

And you didn't answer my query. If Group G gets both it's teams in the quarter-finals or further, would you then consider group G the group of death?

Somehow, I don't think you will, because Group D had Serbia. And that's the only reason you consider it to be the group of death, not because group D has two teams on the quarter-finals


no, its not because of that, it really isn't. I dont think Serbia would pass in any other group anyway, (well maybe group H) its because our group is the only one with both teams in quarter finals for now, and dont forget that Spain is a favorite on winning a world cup.

and if im wrong i'll come here and say it..


Ok then


maybe you have something to say to me now?

Lool, my perception will continue to stay the same. I wasn't the one who said that the only reason that a group is called the group of death is because it has X number of teams on the advanced phases  

But anyway, good job to you. You get to keep your definition for yourself



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

pizzahut451 on 30 June 2010

there is no definition... just because some team is better on paper doesnt mean its more stronger... Italy is 100000X times better than Ghana ON PAPER but that doesnt mean Ghana didnt played better on this WC... just like goup G was the strongest group in the world cup...ON THE PAPER

 

It's a FACT now -  Group D was the strongest group in the cup!!!!!!



lestatdark on 30 June 2010
pizzahut451 said:

there is no definition... just because some team is better on paper doesnt mean its more stronger... Italy is 100000X times better than Ghana ON PAPER but that doesnt mean Ghana didnt played better on this WC... just like goup G was the strongest group in the world cup...ON THE PAPER

 

It's a FACT now -  Group D was the strongest group in the cup!!!!!!


You can't do that definition like that, because it stills on paper too. You don't know how Ghana would do when put up against Italy, Brazil or Portugal. Just because they got through doesn't make them a stronger team. In order to define if they are indeed a stronger team you would have to pit them against all the other stronger teams, and that's virtually impossible. 

Anyhow, if you think that Ghana is stronger than Portugal, Italy, England and so on, then I don't see why our debate should go further, unless it will inevitably end with me laughing out loud. 



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

pizzahut451 on 30 June 2010
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:

there is no definition... just because some team is better on paper doesnt mean its more stronger... Italy is 100000X times better than Ghana ON PAPER but that doesnt mean Ghana didnt played better on this WC... just like goup G was the strongest group in the world cup...ON THE PAPER

 

It's a FACT now -  Group D was the strongest group in the cup!!!!!!


You can't do that definition like that, because it stills on paper too. You don't know how Ghana would do when put up against Italy, Brazil or Portugal. Just because they got through doesn't make them a stronger team. In order to define if they are indeed a stronger team you would have to pit them against all the other stronger teams, and that's virtually impossible. 

Anyhow, if you think that Ghana is stronger than Portugal, Italy, England and so on, then I don't see why our debate should go further, unless it will inevitably end with me laughing out loud. 

English, protugese and italians are on the airport and Ghana players are on training right now...why is that?



pastro243 on 30 June 2010
pizzahut451 said:

there is no definition... just because some team is better on paper doesnt mean its more stronger... Italy is 100000X times better than Ghana ON PAPER but that doesnt mean Ghana didnt played better on this WC... just like goup G was the strongest group in the world cup...ON THE PAPER

 

It's a FACT now -  Group D was the strongest group in the cup!!!!!!

I think you have to consider the rivals they faced, USA isnt good and England wasnt playing well, I think group D had the advantage they were against one of the weakest groups.

Portugal lost against Spain which is considered one of the best teams right now in a match in which the only goal was offside, I think Portugal would have beaten USA or England too, but I cant be certain.



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068