Main Menu
collapse

Resources

Recent Posts

2025 Transfer Portal by 79Warrior
[Today at 03:04:19 PM]


Big East 2024 -25 Results by Billy Hoyle
[Today at 03:04:10 PM]


Recruiting as of 4/15/25 by jfp61
[Today at 02:59:20 PM]


OT: MU Lax by MUDPT
[Today at 11:05:02 AM]


From The Desk Of VP & Director Of Athletics Mike Broeker by Galway Eagle
[April 30, 2025, 10:39:27 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!


setyoursightsnorth

Quote from: brewcity77 on August 29, 2013, 01:57:06 PM
Full Champions League draw:

A: Manchester United, Shaktar Donetsk, Bayer Leverkusen, Real Sociedad
B: Real Madrid, Juventus, Galatasaray, FC Kopenhagen
C: Benfica, Paris St Germain, Olympiakos, Anderlecht
D: Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow, Manchester City, Viktoria Plzen
E: Chelsea, Schalke 04, FC Basel, Steaua Bucharest
F: Arsenal, Marseille, Borussia Dortmund, Napoli
G: FC Porto, Atletico Madrid, Zenit St Petersburg, Austria Vienna
H: Barcelona, AC Milan, Ajax Amsterdam, Celtic

Group F jumps out as the Group of Death, but H is also tough. I like United and Leverkusen in Group A (Shaktar lost too much). In B, Real and Juve look like near locks in a lopsided group. C is one of the weakest groups, PSG should be a strong bet and I think Anderlecht can escape it as well. Munich will certainly come out of D, the question will be if City can edge CSKA to join them. I think so this year. E looks like Chelsea and Schalke, though Basel could make things interesting. F will be awesome to watch. I like Dortmund and Napoli to advance, further pressuring Wenger. Group G I like Atletico and Zenit. Finally, leaning towards Barca and Milan in H, though it will be a dogfight for the second spot, could be all three in it if Celtic can do well at home.

None of these groups strike me as a true "Group of Death".
Last year, there was a true group of death (BVB, Man City, Real Madrid, and Ajax). If I was to choose one this year, it would be Group B or H. I would lean towards group B. You have three teams that made in to at least the quarters last year (Galatarasay and Juventus both made it to the quarters and Real to the semis).

With that being said, I think any futbol fan would love these draws. None of these groups are going to be snooze-fests. Quality games and opponents in each round. Looking forward to it.

brewcity77

#526
For all the money spent at White Hart Lane, Arsenal sure looked better in the first 45. Spurs just couldn't create enough chances inside. Both keepers came up with some saves, but so far, advantage Wenger.

EDIT: How is Rosicky only 32?!? Seems like he's been at Arsenal forever. Figured he must be pushing 40, googled him and saw he's much you get than I expected.

Golden Avalanche

Quote from: JWags85 on August 31, 2013, 11:24:52 AM
I phrased it poorly, but guys like Henry, Nasri, van Brockhorst, and Reyes were pricey at the time.  They admittedly have been different and not big spending as of late. I guess I was speaking to past Arsenal activity and not the last few years.

And Spurs big spending is abnormal and clearly a result of selling Bale for such an exorbitant fee.

I get that. It's a little bit of myth that Arsene doesn't spend. Of course, other then Nasri, those buys are close to ten years or more in the past and recent history shows a more cautious approach. I mean, in today's market, spending only £17 is a bit of bargain shopping with the inflated prices so when Wenger does buy its never seen as being big spending.

Regarding that, if they finish off this Ozil deal it knocks back both the criticisms of holding tight wallet and not being in play for the top talent as Ozil truly would be a "mega player" signing Arsenal hasn't seen nearly at all this century. 

ATWizJr

Quote from: ATWizJr on August 30, 2013, 02:21:48 PM
No Parkhurst on the USMNT qualifying team?  Bummer.
Parkhurst added to US team!  Good on ya' Mike!

brewcity77

For me, tonight is the biggest game of the Hexagonal. We have NEVER won at Costa Rica. The winner will be atop the group. Mammoth game, maybe even bigger than the Mexico game on Tuesday.

setyoursightsnorth

LOLZ. Good start by the USMNT.  :D

brewcity77

Quote from: setyoursightsnorth on September 06, 2013, 09:18:31 PM
LOLZ. Good start by the USMNT.  :D

Costa Rica is the toughest place to play in CONCACAF. And I don't get jackass Americans that take joy when we play 15 bad minutes after 1080 minutes of win after win after win.

melissasmooth

MU15

jesmu84

Bradley and Altidore were sorely missed. Jones was to blame for first 2 goals. US looked terrible in the first half in general. 3rd CR goal I actually put on Howard for not coming out sooner, before the ball got to the box.

Also, Altidore is an IDIOT. A 2nd yellow in stoppage time?! Outside the run of play?!

Mexico lost. Now Columbus becomes a HUGE game.

I can't believe CR might win CONCACAF qualifying...

MUfan12

Tim Howard was putrid as well. He was all over the shop on the second goal, and could have easily cleaned up that long ball for the third.

They were all poor. Beasley was terrible. Jones and Cameron did the back four no favors. Just weak all the way around.

Mexico is a mess, still think they can get the three points on Tuesday.

setyoursightsnorth

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 06, 2013, 10:52:46 PM
Costa Rica is the toughest place to play in CONCACAF. And I don't get jackass Americans that take joy when we play 15 bad minutes after 1080 minutes of win after win after win.

Your argument lost all validity with the usage of that word. I know the US can't magically change confederations, but CONCACAF is laughable.

Sunbelt15

US will clinch against Mexico, especially after they've fired their manager.

brewcity77

Quote from: setyoursightsnorth on September 07, 2013, 01:50:19 AM
Your argument lost all validity with the usage of that word. I know the US can't magically change confederations, but CONCACAF is laughable.

At least you didn't dispute the jackass part.

I have resisted saying so for awhile, but I think it's time for Howard to be replaced. He was clearly at fault on the third goal, but could have done better on the second as well. It was like his feet were anchored to his line. He should have come out to punch or claim the cross. Granted, it was horrific man-marking that had three Ticos running free on the end of the cross, but Howard could have got to that.

Meanwhile, Guzan is establishing himself at Villa. He was one of their best players last year and seems to have the motivation and ability to get to balls that Howard used to have. Despite what JK says, Howard is no longer world class. He flirted with it for a short time, but that time is definitely past now. For some reason, Klinsy just won't make a change in goal. Maybe a loss will be what it takes to allow some competition. Beyond that, I think the only thing that could dislodge Timmy before Brazil is an injury.

MUfan12

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 07, 2013, 08:41:17 AM
Granted, it was horrific man-marking that had three Ticos running free on the end of the cross, but Howard could have got to that.

This game also exposed why playing Beasley at left back is a terrible idea. Yes, he was fine in the Gold Cup. But the first goal should have been cleared off the line, and he was too short to do it. He had zero chance on the header for the second goal.

He's lost a step of pace, and is too small to defend effectively. If they go into Brazil with him at LB, it will be a short stay.

brewcity77

Quote from: MUfan12 on September 07, 2013, 10:00:58 AM
This game also exposed why playing Beasley at left back is a terrible idea. Yes, he was fine in the Gold Cup. But the first goal should have been cleared off the line, and he was too short to do it. He had zero chance on the header for the second goal.

He's lost a step of pace, and is too small to defend effectively. If they go into Brazil with him at LB, it will be a short stay.

The problem is who else do you put at LB? We really haven't had a reliable option there since Agoos retired and that was a decade ago. Fabian Johnson ranges forward too much to be counted on at the back, Lichaj hasn't proven he can play at this level, I suppose you could try Cameron or Besler out there but I'm not sure that's an optimum position for either of them.

I hate to say it, but Beasley is probably still our best option. Not a big fan, but he's been more reliable than Bornstein, Castillo, Pearce, or any of our other options have been. Simply a position of weakness for us. I think just as important is to have a left mid committed to helping out at the back rather than ranging forward.

JWags85

Quote from: setyoursightsnorth on September 07, 2013, 01:50:19 AM
Your argument lost all validity with the usage of that word. I know the US can't magically change confederations, but CONCACAF is laughable.

Almost as laughable as you thinking that venue doesn't matter.  Americans are used to playing on well kept pitches in large stadiums, then they go on the road in CONCACAF and play on crap fields in bandboxes where the crowd is literally on top of them, pelting them with garbage and the officials aren't exactly reliable.  But go ahead and mock them cause they don't play every qualifier against powerhouses like San Marino, Georgia, and the Faroe Islands like the European teams.  Costa Rica is a top 40 squad regardless of venue, they didn't lose to Antigua or Belize.  Their captain plays for Fulham and most of the team is European based.

Wait why am I wasting my breath, its not gonna influence your classic "US Soccer is irrelevant cause they don't play in Europe or South America".  Carry on hating

brewcity77

Quote from: JWags85 on September 09, 2013, 09:35:00 AM
But go ahead and mock them cause they don't play every qualifier against powerhouses like San Marino, Georgia, and the Faroe Islands like the European teams.  Costa Rica is a top 40 squad regardless of venue, they didn't lose to Antigua or Belize.

This actually got me to thinking...

UEFA Qualifying Groups:

Group A: Croatia 8, Belgium 10, Serbia 41, Wales 46, Scotland 50, Macedonia 89
Average Rank: 40.7

Group B: Italy 6, Czech Republic 26, Denmark 27, Bulgaria 53, Armenia 66, Malta 134
Average Rank: 52

Group C: Germany 2, Sweden 30, Ireland 44, Austria 55, Kazakhstan 149, Faroe Islands 175
Average Rank: 75.8

Group D: Netherlands 5, Hungary 31, Romania 33, Turkey 58, Estonia 85, Andorra 205
Average Rank: 72.8

Group E: Switzerland 15, Norway 25, Albania 38, Slovenia 45, Iceland 70, Cyprus 123
Average Rank: 52.7

Group F: Portugal 7, Russia 16, Israel 63, Northern Ireland 109, Azerbaijan 115, Luxembourg 140
Average Rank: 75

Group G: Greece 11, Bosnia & Herzegovina 13, Slovakia 62, Lithuania 106, Latvia 119, Liechtenstein 148
Average Rank: 76.5

Group H: England 14, Montenegro 28, Ukraine 28, Poland 72, Moldova 123, San Marino 207
Average Rank: 78.7

Group I: Spain 1, France 23, Finland 65, Belarus 73, Georgia 97
Average Rank: 51.8

CONCACAF Hexagonal: USA 19, Mexico 20, Panama 40, Costa Rica 42, Honduras 43, Jamaica 76
Average Rank: 40

Huh. How about that? It's widely known that the FIFA Rankings are flawed and skewed heavily towards European teams. Yet according to these flawed rankings that make CONCACAF look worse than it actually is, the Hexagonal is STILL harder than ANY UEFA qualifying group, and only Group A is even CLOSE to being as hard as the Hex.

I know, the argument against is that each European group only gives 1.5 spots per group. But the USA has to play 8 games against 4 different top-50 opponents. The traditional top teams in Europe don't play nearly as tough a road. Spain and Portugal have 1 other top-50 nation in their group, England, Germany, Italy, and Holland all have only 2 other top-50 nations in their group. And that's using a rating system that actually makes their competition look better than it actually is.

setyoursightsnorth, your whole argument about the strength of Europe is a joke. It all falls apart when you look at these piss-poor groups, because for every game a European power plays against a top-50 opponent, they play 2-3 games against a Belarus, Malta, Andorra, or Georgia. They are walking a road paved in gold while we are walking one paved in bags of cat urine thrown by Costa Rican and Panamanian fans.

WellsstreetWanderer

USA outcome almost doesn't bother me when we get treated as we do in CR, Honduras, etc. as long as Mexico loses.  I have suffered the ignominy of our team and national anthem dissed by tens of thousands of "guests" from South of the Border who  whistle and jeer during the SSB and deride our team in the country that employs, houses, educates and medicates them because their beloved Mexico cannot/willnot.
It is a good day when Mexico loses and ,particularly, at home it is more delicious.

jesmu84

Quote from: brewcity77 on September 09, 2013, 10:11:44 AM
This actually got me to thinking...

Huh. How about that? It's widely known that the FIFA Rankings are flawed and skewed heavily towards European teams. Yet according to these flawed rankings that make CONCACAF look worse than it actually is, the Hexagonal is STILL harder than ANY UEFA qualifying group, and only Group A is even CLOSE to being as hard as the Hex.

I know, the argument against is that each European group only gives 1.5 spots per group. But the USA has to play 8 games against 4 different top-50 opponents. The traditional top teams in Europe don't play nearly as tough a road. Spain and Portugal have 1 other top-50 nation in their group, England, Germany, Italy, and Holland all have only 2 other top-50 nations in their group. And that's using a rating system that actually makes their competition look better than it actually is.

setyoursightsnorth, your whole argument about the strength of Europe is a joke. It all falls apart when you look at these piss-poor groups, because for every game a European power plays against a top-50 opponent, they play 2-3 games against a Belarus, Malta, Andorra, or Georgia. They are walking a road paved in gold while we are walking one paved in bags of cat urine thrown by Costa Rican and Panamanian fans.

boom. owned.

MUfan12

Predictions for tonight? I have two.

1) Ugly, physical stalemate. I have a feeling we'll see a 0-0 draw.
2) setyoursightsnorth will come in and sh*t on the discussion again.

jesmu84

Quote from: MUfan12 on September 10, 2013, 02:43:36 PM
Predictions for tonight? I have two.

1) Ugly, physical stalemate. I have a feeling we'll see a 0-0 draw.
2) setyoursightsnorth will come in and sh*t on the discussion again.

Could get really ugly considering our suspensions. I don't think Dempsey is good as our striker. He needs a second striker to help. If we go with a lone striker, I think it should be AJ

MU B2002

Quote from: jesmu84 on September 10, 2013, 02:52:28 PM
Could get really ugly considering our suspensions. I don't think Dempsey is good as our striker. He needs a second striker to help. If we go with a lone striker, I think it should be AJ

What about the Eddie? I know he is not the same level, but he has had some recent success upfront with Duece.
"VPI"
- Mike Hunt

Aughnanure

“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

GGGG

A draw would be fine by me.  That basically means a win v Jamaica in October is enough.

And I wonder why a winter World Cup wasn't thought of previously?  They mu$t have had $omething el$e on their mind$...

brewcity77

As much as I want a win, a draw would be fine for the long-term. It'd virtually assure us advancing. I'd like to see Eddie up front, AJ hasn't played in this kind of a pressure-cooker yet, rather see someone with experience get the start. Still irritated about the Besler "foul" that took him out of this game. Anyone who hasn't seen the despicable act by Joel Rodriguez (my new least favorite player in the world, hope someone breaks his leg tonight) check this article and skip ahead in the video to about 5:40.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/soccer-insider/wp/2013/09/09/heres-why-matt-besler-is-suspended/

Previous topic - Next topic