1) That's because Green probably won't get played again this tournament.Ben Legend said:It was an akward first match with england only conceding a goal due to Green. But I can guarantee you he won't be making that mistake again.
But seriously, why did we have Heskey on for the whole match? He can't score. We should have had crouch on from the start or at least half-time.
Seriously? Someone whining, when the opposing team does better by saying "it was luck!" It is so annoying...Kinguendo said:No, he was going by the facts (and facts have the annoying tendancy of being biased toward the truth)... England are a better team. You said it yourself... the only goal you got was because of major fluke and America was playing well. So America was playing well and England was playing poorly, you only got a goal from a fluke... and America didnt win. So how was the announcer being arrogant? He was doing his job by making the assumptions he made, he couldnt have expected that goal to go in... you cant predict luck, so minusing the luck factor from the game it would have ended 1-0 to England. He did his job to the best of his ability, dont get pissy because he didnt side with your team and couldnt see how luck was on your side for this match.rt052192 said:Hellyeah the US tied England and as an American I am pumped. Granted the goal was a major fluke, but the US played well enough. For all of those who watched the match on ABC the British announcer was a biased, arrogant ass. Take that!
Thing is, that's the beauty of Rugby - the tackles may not be as visually impressive (most of the time), but there's an undeniable element of brutality and manliness in just taking an injury and keeping on playing. Personally, I'm a massive fan of Rugby 7's - it's a stripped down version of Rugby that relies on speed and maneuverability rather than the solid, unmoving defence and working the scrum.Eclectic Dreck said:While I respect the notion that Rugby is somehow the more manly sport because the players don't have the good sense to put on armor, in my view that seems to inherently limit what can happen in the game. Bravado aside, without all those silly pads one could not expect to regularly deliver and recive the sort of impacts that are common in the NFL without burning through the talent pool at an alarming rate.LewsTherin said:And maybe the U.S. will qualify for the rugby world cup next year, and join the ranks of countries who play real sports![]()
That said, Rugby IS more entertaining than soccer simply because at least blood is drawn and nobody stops the game on account of a tantrum unless there is an obvious shattered bone or ruptured organ.
Meh, at least the game keeps going for 45 minutes before a break. I don't know how Americans can watch their own national sports without wanting to kill themselves, just to have something to do while they watch nothing happening for half the game.spectrenihlus said:Honestly I don't understand soccer (football for you annoying non Americans =P) you play one and a half hours for 1 point? Talk about a snooze fest. That's just my opinion.
Not really. America have a great little team, they beat Spain and almost Brazil in the Confederations Cup last year. I guess a lot of people who don't know all that much about football all crawl out of the woodwork for the World Cup which is understandable since it's everywhere. This lead to people expecting us to win what was a tough draw. The other two teams in Englands group are total gash though.ChromeAlchemist said:The England V USA match is something every Brit assumed we'd win with ease. And aside from that tragedy of a mistake, fair play to you, your defence was solid as hell.