Sorry, I was under the impression that there was 15 minutes after USA had scored, not 5, my mistake.
Sorry, I was under the impression that there was 15 minutes after USA had scored, not 5, my mistake.
Belgium went from patting themselves on the back and being on cruise-control, to a much more agitated state, after the US scored.
It matters not who had more chances, only that the game immediately opened-up; raging from end-to-end as the US went all-out for an equaliser to take it to penalties. The US goal undeniably changed the tempo of the game, regardless of the fact that there was no equaliser, or who came closest to scoring.
"Beat the price and lose. It's what we do".
SlimChance, March 2018
I was making the point that USA weren't the more likely to score at 2-1.
After the save from Dempsey (23:05)...
23:35 - US attack smothered outside the box
24:15 - weak US shot from distance, from which Belgium counter and press US back for a spell
26:35 - US attack breaks down tamely inside the box
27:00 - long range US effort miles wide
28:50 - Belgium break down a US attack outside the box and counter fast but no end product
29:55 - US mount one final attack, no end product
30:00 - Klinsmann loses the plot a bit when he sees only 1 minute added, no further attacks by US, game played out in midfield.
Illegitimi non carborundum
So that's USA constantly attacking at 2-1 then? Ah right.
Last edited by AliGupter; 2nd July 2014 at 2:14 PM.
Agitated? Alert, yes. Serious, yes. Agitated? Depends on how you define it.
In the context of the discussion, it does. Belgium had more chances aand a better one to score before Dempsey's chance, which is the argument: that the USA looked more like to score at 2-1. They didn't. Belgium did.
Yes, it had to. The US had to go for it, leaving themselves open a the back and they nearly went 3-0 down because of it.
It did change the tempo of the game. If that means the same as changing the complexion of the game then fair enough. My argument was that it didn't change the complexion of the game in the way the commentator was implying by his biased commentary, ie that the game looked like going to penalties. This game never had penalties written on it at any stage.
And like I said, I was supporting USA.
Illegitimi non carborundum
There's attacking and looking dangerous and attacking and looking toothless. I'm using the word 'attack' generously in the US's case. How often do we see British teams 'attack' better teams in the European matches but accept they never really looked like doing anything? That was USA last night. One decent chance (Dempsey's), a half-chance (Jones) and a couple of poor long-range attempts.
Like I said, Ali, we'll obviously have to agree to differ. I've listed the evidence based on seeing it and recording it. You are reading my notes and drawing your own conclusions, which you are entitled to do but you won't convince me.
Illegitimi non carborundum
I'm not drawing any conclusions from your notes, I'm trying to point you to the correct answer on your own findings, not your incorrect opinion.
No, you're misinterpreting my use of the word 'attack'. Change it to 'try to press forward', it'll give it a whole new complexion...
Illegitimi non carborundum
No it doesn't, as I said, I'm not going on your words, I'm trying to educate to correct an incorrect opinion.
Last edited by AliGupter; 2nd July 2014 at 2:34 PM.
This is embarrassing!
Nurse!
Hard to say but I know on horses laying 5 or backing 5 the possible profits always seem to be about the same.
Keeping in mind you have to green up within 90 minutes if you did lay Holland they'd have to hit about evens to Green Up for an 80% profit and if they did you'd be probably be able to lay CR at 3.5 or 4 as you suggest.
The odds make it look like a cake walk for Holland, which it would be if Costa Rica stood still for 90 mins, but they're not going to do that and no one is going to get through easily......I reckon it'll be a tough game for both so I'm having a few quid on but won't be throwing the kitchen sink at it
Formely Fist of Fury
Job done, despite a few desperate moments late on at either end.
Illegitimi non carborundum