Conference 7.286::sports_90

From: [email protected] (FRED LIEF, UPI Assistant Sports Editor)
Subject: U.S. cities lining up '94 World Cup
Date: 23 May 90 00:23:59 GMT
 
	NEW YORK (UPI) -- Six U.S. cities are interested in staging the
championship game of the 1994 World Cup when soccer's showcase will be
played for the first time outside Latin America or Europe.
	Scott LeTellier, president of the World Cup '94 Organizing
Committee, said Tuesday the six are: Dallas, Los Angeles, Kansas City,
Miami, Seattle and Washington.
	He stressed it would be ``very unscientific'' to conclude these are
the only candidates because full reports from the venues will not be in
place until December.
	LeTellier, speaking by telephone conference call from Washington
with Ross Berlin, vice president-venues, and consultant Rey Post, said
his group recently completed an 87-day tour of prospective cities. He
says he found ``surging interest'' from the public and from politicians.
	Twenty-seven venues are bidding for games. The cities range from
Princeton, N.J., Charlotte, N.C., and Knoxville, Tenn., to New York-New
Haven (joint bid), Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area.
	FIFA, international soccer's governing body, will tour the United
States next spring, with eight to 12 venues to be announced in June
1991.
	Berlin listed eight criteria for choosing the venues: stadium,
government support, local interest, population, geography, city
services, special facilities, miscellaneous (eg. climate, legal).
	``Until we see it in writing it's too early to tell who is a
leader,'' Berlin said.
	LeTellier said it would require a ``remarkable'' bid for a smaller
city to win the right to the championship game, but added there is
``ample precedent'' for such markets to stage first- and second-round
games.
	Host cities must make deposits ranging from $10,000 for first-round
games to $100,000 for the championship.
	LeTellier said 26 of the 27 interested cities are sending
delegations to Italy for the monthlong World Cup, which begins June 8 in
Milan and will be played in 12 cities around the country.
	LeTellier said he has had ``very, very preliminary'' discusions
with Pele concerning the Brazilian's involvement with the 1994 World
Cup. In a similar regard, organizers would not confirm talks with Franz
Beckenbauer, the West German great who is leaving as his country's coach
after this World Cup.
	The 1994 update comes as the U.S. national team prepares for play
in Italy and its first World Cup in 40 years. It also comes on the same
day a first wave of 1,600 police reinforcements arrived in Sardinia,
where the notoriously violent English and Dutch fans will follow their
teams.
	Berlin said those championing bids for U.S. venues are aware of the
dangers posed by international soccer.
	``It was commonly asked and commonly discussed,'' he said.
	The 27 prospective sites: Atlanta; Baltimore-Annapolis, Md.;
Boston-Foxboro, Mass.; Buffalo, N.Y.; Charlotte, N.C.; Chicago;
Columbus, Ohio; Dallas; Detroit-Ann Arbor, Mich.; Kansas City, Mo.;
Knoxville, Tenn; Las Vegas, Nev.; Los Angeles-Pasadena, Calif.; Miami;
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Blaine, Minn.; New York-New Haven, Conn.; Orlando,
Fla.; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Portland-Corvallis, Ore.; Princeton, N.J.;
Raleigh-Durham, N.C.; Salt Lake City-Provo, Utah; San Francisco Bay
Area; Seattle; Tampa, Fla.; Washington.

    Of all these places bidding to host any games, you can cross out
    any artificial turf stadiums.
    
    I believe that FIFA rules dictate 'real' grass.
    
    Wayne.

Also, I feel that we need strengthening in several areas....

	a) TV Coverage.  First, our commercialized TV is very poor for
	   soccer coverage as the game never really stops.  I've been
	   disappointed with the US National team coverage with their
	   commercial breaks etc.  I'd rather see HBO cover the games
	   like they do their boxing.

	b) Sportscasting.  Our sportscasters are basic nerds when it
	   comes to the nuances of this sport.  The color commentary
	   needs vast improvement, and I laugh everytime a sportscaster
	   gives an accurate time remaining.  Any good soccer announcer
	   knows that you never really know how much time is left.
	   The English announcers I hear always just give an approximate
	   minutes count, knowing that the ref might add on more for
	   injury time...


JMHO,
'Saw

    'Saw,
    
    The timing issue is one reason why soccer may have a problem catching
    on in this country.  We are all conditioned to knowing exactly how
    much time is remaining in a game, and I know it bothers me to watch
    a game in which I don't know how much time is left on the clock.
    
    John

John, I think the issue is granularity.

(My European friends can correct me if I'm wrong) but basically the
way it works it time does not stop during the half.  Goals are listed
by the minute in which they are scored, not min:sec, but just minute.

You always know how much time is remaining on a minute granularity, and
the announcers tell you...  ie:

	"There's not much time now for Liverpool to get an equalizer,
	 as were under 15 minutes."

Very near the end of the game, the announcer will say something like:

	"We're almost into injury time now, surely there can't be
	 much time left"


(The ref adds on any time he feels was taken up by an injured player
during the half -- the clock doesn't stop at that time).

What is cool about this system is that it can really heighten the excitement
of the end of a game.  If I'm not mistaken, when Arsenal beat Liverpool
by the 1 goal that they needed last year, it was in injury time.

Imagine that, an entire season of Division 1 soccer (38 fixtures) comes
down to a 1 goal difference determined in injury time.


So, the announcers fixation with 37:20 left is really not at all accurate.
The announcers should be explaining to the fans how they system works,
not propagating an inaccurate view of it.

I mean, I'm not advocating that they start saying "1 to Nil" or anything
like that, but just give the proper idea of what's happening.

Fortunately we still have four years to 'go to school'.....

'Saw

    I'm not saying the system is bad, it's just that it's a large change
    in the way Americans are used to watching sports where time is a
    factor.
    
    John

re .6

Okay, I see.  And you are right, it is a change.

And while I don't understand Spanish, I really get a kick out of
listening to the spanish announcers from time to time....whatta trip!

'Saw

    I think there is a more fundamental reason why soccer hasn't caught
    on in the U.S.
    
    There is no shortage of young players in the high schools and
    universities.  The problem is that they have nowhere to go to play
    professionally.  Why??  Because they do not get the financial support
    from the sponsors and the networks.  Again why??  Because there
    is too much professional sport already and soccer can not muscle
    in on their territory.
    
    For example, take a look at the sports calender.  How many weeks
    a year are there without one of the following:
    
    	Football, Basketball, Ice Hockey, Baseball
    
    There simply isn't enough room on the calendar for soccer no matter
    what the quality!!!  (Sorry, 'Saw etc...I don't think it has anything
    to do with the ref keeping time - instead of a clock)
    
    The supporting evidence for this theory is the USFL.  The games
    were often as exciting as NFL games and a better quality than college
    games, but they were played at the wrong time of the year for the
    networks!!!
    
    JMHO,
    
    PJ
    
    
    P.S.  The only timing issue that could be used for soccer, is the
    commercial timeouts.  Because there are no natural stoppages that
    networks could use for commercials, soccer is less likely to be
    appealing for the networks and for advertisers.

I agree to a point.

There is a professional league (the ASL) I believe, and the Boston Bolts
are the one team I know of.  Their games are carried on SPORTSChannel,
which is a start.

Here's the situation as I see it...

	A few years ago the NASL was becoming big (a soccer here goes),
	mainly because of players from Europe (Chinaglia etc).
	The NASL tended to be responsible for starting
	the youth soccer boom.  Unfortunately, they could not
	benefit from it because of no support.

	Now there is tremendous youth soccer going on, with good high
	school programs and college programs as well.  What I would
	hope to see is some of that carry over into the fledgling
	ASL, *if* they can get some support from TV (perhaps ESPN
	or SPORTSChannel.)


Hopefully, this will happen...

'Saw

    Good point about the other major sports in the States keeping the
    popularity of soccer to a minimum in our youth.  Yeah, it's picked up
    quite a bit in the last 5-10 years, but it's not consistent.  What I
    mean is that there are "hotbeds" or certain areas where soccer is very
    popular.  Take the No. Andover, MA area.  Soccer is real hot there
    (probably cause it's considered trendy too, but that's another story). 
    Go a town or 2 in any direction, and soccer is a question mark.
    
    The youth soccer program in my town is alive and well, not thriving
    like No. Andover's, but it's there.  However, in the Spring, when the
    kids have to choose between Little League baseball and soccer, baseball
    wins.  Soccer's does much better in the Fall as the football youth program
    is more geared towards older youth, not 6 & 7 year olds.....
    
    So, I do believe that the other, more traditional, American sports does
    have a lot to do with the limited success of soccer in the States.
    
    H�wk

    Maybe it is the European side of me speaking, but why anyone would
    pick to play baseball/softball over soccer I will never understand.
    

    re: .11
    
    It probably comes down to the fact that real soccer doesn't
    exist in the pro level.  No jobs No money No fans.  Its too
    bad since, IMO, soccer is much more exciting than the major
    US sports.
    
    Cowboy

    One thing about soccer definitely has to do with the country.  If
    you throw a ball to an American kid, his natural instinct is to
    catch it and throw it back.  If you throw a ball to a European kid,
    his natural instinct is to kick it.  I read that once in an article
    about Shep Messing.  Messing was the premier home-grown American
    soccer player (perhaps premier anyway) back in the seventies and
    he was a goalie.  The article mentioned that the first great US
    born soccer player would probably be a goalie because of the hand-eye
    coordination.
    
    That instinct continues with my 2-year old niece.  Whenever I throw
    her a ball, she wants to catch it, not kick it.
    
    Other things about soccer - its pace seems to be too slow for many
    Americans.  I'm not saying it is slow but it seems slow to me. 
    Also, the biggest soccer fans are likely to be the kids who've been
    playing within the last 20 years but it seems like they'd rather
    play than watch.  Of course, there are limited opportunities to
    watch pro soccer.
    
    Finally, soccer's biggest asset is the rising cost, alleged rising
    danger and image of football.  Parents who are worried about their
    children being hurt are turning them towards soccer in many places.
    College football coaches will argue that Doug Flutie saved youth
    and high school football in Massachusetts, because parents could
    see that a football player didn't have to be a steroided, illiterate
    hulk.
    
    John

    I'm gonna disagree with John about kids and whether they prefer
    to hit or kick a ball first.  Any of you parents - when you first
    put a round object in your child's reach, how did *you* return it?
    If you threw/tossed it back, you were encouraging a different reaction
    than if you kicked/tapped it back and forth.  (And which is more
    even from the child's perspective?  Hint - both kids and adults
    have their feet at the same level.)
    
    There is a real chicken-and-egg problem with US soccer, particularly
    at the pro level.  There aren't a lot of fans, so there isn't a
    lot of TV coverage, leagues in which to play/watch, etc., etc. 
    But there aren't fans because the sport isn't covered......I'm not
    sure how to get through the knot hole, but it seems odd that we
    can't seem to, given the level of interest in sports generally in
    this country.
    
    Additional problem is the lack of support at the *college* levels.
    I don't know of any student who is given the 'free ride' to college
    for soccer skill that comes with the requisite level of football
    or basketball skill.  The best scholarship opportunity that I know
    of for soccer players is a percentage of tuition (only).  A kid
    that's a good athelete and relying on atheletic skill for his future
    will shift away from soccer during high school.
    
    Finally, the quality of pro soccer in the US simply *isn't* that
    great.  I've watched the Bolts for the last three years, hoping
    that the play would improve as they got used to each other.  It's
    a lot like watching minor league baseball, or the CBA, except that
    there isn't a "major league" for these guys to improve into - this
    is the "major league".  And the play hasn't improved the way I had
    hoped it would (yet).  So more chicken-and-egg, this time that you
    won't get the fans until the product (game) is better played...
    
    A&W

    re: 246.14
    
    You are right as to the lack of support of Universities.  When I
    came to the US in 1980 my school would not provide any type of funding,
    we had to do it all ourselves.  Without the school's support it
    was difficult for us to play games aganist university teams because
    we did not have school sponsorship.  In fact we beat most university
    teams that we did play.  
    
    In Europe the local cities have adult leagues which gives soccer
    more exposure.   These leagues are very competitive and some of
    the future stars emerge.  This method of play makes it easy for
    everyone to play soccer at some level.

    BTW if anyone knows of a team that is looking for an extra player
    in the Southbrdige-Sturbridge-Worcester area please pass along my
    telphone number DTN 268-3217 or (508) 870-3217.
    
    I moved here from Texas around three months ago, and need to get
    back into the soccer scene.  I also have done a lot of coaching,
    so I am available for that as well.

I'd at least like to see some of our premier players try to make
it in Europe.

I know that John Harkes is either having a tryout, or had a tryout
with and English team (for some reason Sheffield Wednesday comes to
mind).

If we can't develop our best players here, send them to England,
the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and Italy, and let them develop.
Then, when it's time for World Cup qualifying, get a decent coach
who will pick the players who've been getting the European experience,
and put them on the team with enough time for them to gel together....


I still have my doubts as to whether our squad will score a goal
in Italy....

Chainsaw

    I still maintain that scheduling is one of the biggest obstacles
    to getting soccer off the ground in the US.  There is no logical
    time during the year when soccer can capture people's imagination.
    They are too wrapped up in the NFL, NBA, NHL and the National Pastime.
    
    The players are available, local money and sponsorship is available,
    (the skill levels will improve over time), the problem is getting air
    time on TV and convincing advertisers that the general public will
    watch the damn sport!!!
    
    One way to demonstrate the broad acceptance of the sport is to start
    local leagues and tournaments.  Go down to your local park and see
    what people are playing...softball, football and hoops!! If you
    were an advertising executive, would you waste your money advertising
    on the soccer channel when you get a wider audience advertising
    with the traditional sports???
    
    When soccer takes off at club level and as a pastime in local parks,
    that's when the networks and the advertisers will get interested
    and only then does soccer stand a chance of competing with the other
    sports.
                        
    
    
    
    Having said that, however,.....I do think the US has a great
    opportunity to force the issue as 1994 approaches.  But it would
    take an experienced marketing and organizational guru to get the
    job done.  I would nominate someone like Pete Rozelle or Peter
    Ueberroth(?)
    
    PJ
    

    The baseball and basketball seasons are getting way too long (IMO).
    There would be time to squeeze in some pro soccer games if all the
    scheduling could be adjusted.  I doubt that this could happen tho.
    Maybe if fans showed less support for the long seasons soccer
    could get a foot in the door.
    
    A big problem with broadcasting a soccer game would still exist.
    Since soccer has no natural breaks other than at half-time the
    commercials would have to take up game time.  I suppose that with
    instant-replay goals could be replayed.  Back in the NASL days
    in Tulsa, the TV broadcaster was trying to come up with a solution
    to the commercial problem during the Ruffneck games.  What they
    did was great.  They never left a game in action.  When it was time
    for a commercial they showed it in a window (with the commercial
    sound on) on the screen.  The rest of the screen showed the game.
    I don't know how the sponsors felt about it tho.
    
    Cowboy 

Perhaps they could do something like fill halftime up with commercials.
Everyone would have to pee, and that's the perfect time to do it, at
half time.

So the sponsors are getting their airtime, we the public are not
getting our intelligence insulted and emptying our bladders at the
same time...

Sounds good to me....

'Saw

    All of you have brought up some good points, I just wish I understood
    the fascination with Baseball!!!!
    
    BTW if there are bowling, fishing, hunting, and golf shows on TV
    there must be room for soccer, after all 4 billion 750 million people
    inthe world can't be wrong.

AGREED!!!!!!

If NASCAR can survive overlapping different seasons, and make it on
ESPN, we could support our own league...

'Saw

�    BTW if there are bowling, fishing, hunting, and golf shows on TV
�    there must be room for soccer, 
    
    Not to mention truck pulls and cheerleader contests.  I've been saying
    the same thing about the lack of TV coverage of rugby for years.  And I
    still think the basic problem is incorporating advertising into TV
    coverage.  
    
    I also think that the usual low scoring type of game tends to keep away
    the casual fan, and it is the casual fan that the networks and ad
    agencies are going after.  Hockey and football can make up for the lack
    of scoring with the contact.  Now I agree that high scoring and contact
    are not the be all and end all of a good sporting event, but something
    has to explain how the American public became enamored with a sport
    like Australian rules football even though the game was difficult to
    figure out just by watching, and is not played in this country.

    I don't understand the fascination with baseball either!!  (Slow,
    boring, no way of telling when the game will be over, cain't unnerstand
    the 'fine' points.... :-) )
    
    Actually, I wish SportsChannel would cover the Bolts *away* games,
    and hype coming to the home games.  I think it would boost attendance.
    
    Also to consider, tennis goes through a 12-month 'season' and attracts
    its fair share of TV/fan support.  As sports-happy as we are in
    this country, I can't fathom the lack of support for soccer.
    
    Oh well, at least I get TNT and can OD on soccer for the next month.
    
    A&W

    This might sound real stupid, but if a team was awarded seven points
    for every goal scored all of a sudden people would watch soccer.
    I love football, but if a team got a point for every score it would
    be thaught of as a low scoring sport as well.  I am not trying to
    make fun of someone, but think about it.

    
    Can't you guys understand that real 'mericans don't like soccer
    cause it's for wimps?
    
    Bruce

    re:26
    
    Bruce, my friend, you are treading on thin ice!!!
    
    Try convincing the 6 billion people who will watch the World Cup
    Final that "soccer is for wimps".  I'm afraid you just don't understand
    the magnitude of the game.
    
    PJ  (not your average wimp)

PJ --

I'm hoping that Bruce is saying that somewhat "tongue-in-cheek".

Actually, soccer is a pretty tough sport.  Some of the contact that
takes place on your average header attempt can be just as tough
as going up against Bill Laimbeer under the rim.

Just try to get that last burst of speed in late in the game, when
you're down by one, and you're trying to catch that pass down the
wing.  Once you get there with your lungs burning, now you've got
to give your striker a decent sort of cross to handle...

No, I think the problem with the American public is that they are
pretty uneducated about things they feel are "foreign", and soccer
certainly is that to most of them.

I'll keep hoping we can get some decent soccer in this country,
but till then, and probably beyond, I'll keep watching Liverpool FC....

'Saw

    	Bravo Bruce, bravo!  
    
    				/Don

    Gaelic Football is a real manly sport, not wimpy like Soccer ;-)
    
    Sports are  cultural.  Just like some cultures like to wear metal
    plates in their lips, or others like to live nomadly, certain sports
    are unique to cultures, whilst other sports, while accepted almost
    everywhere, aren't in certain places.  Soccer is part of the culture
    of the European community, and of the Latin America communnity and
    Southern America community.  For some reason, the United States
    went off and played different games they invented or modified -
    such as Basketball, Baseball, and American Football.   Perhaps it's
    all related to the native tribes that inhabited the different areas.
    
    JD

    For a "non-contact" sport soccer can be a painful experience.
    
    How about an opponent kicking your bare shin with his cleats?
    That'll get your attention!
    
    Or someone in front of you hauls off and kicks the ball square
    in the middle of your face.  This'll make you wonder of your
    lips and nose are still stuck to the ball.
    
    Just the ability to run and be competitive for a solid hour
    is not easy either.
    
    I'm sure that soccer isn't the toughest sport but it definitely
    is not for wimps.
    
    Cowboy

    An hour and a half, Cowboy!!!  Games last 90 minutes!!
    
    I'm not sure if it's worth heading down this proverbial rathole
    but here goes...
    
    Football (American-style)  vs  Rugby
    Why is it that one can be played quite happily without any protection
    while the other requires protection??  Doesn't that make football
    a wimps' sports???
    
    By way of leading the discussion, I have to tell you about a incident
    from a few years back when our College Rugby Team (consisting of
    a lot of out-of-season football players) visited the UK on a spring
    Rugby Tour.  After one particular game in which we fought a close
    match but were narrowly beaten by 56 - 0, we joined our conquerers
    in the local pub.  Despite the score line, the game had been fairly
    rough and competitive and yet the American Rugby players did not
    really feel "hurt".  The British team, however, were thouroughly
    battered, bruised and generally shaken up by the experience.  Does
    this imply that the type of tackling is different or can rugby players
    tackle with the same effeciency but less brute force???
    
    
    Inquiring minds,.....inquire.
    
    PJ

�    Gaelic Football is a real manly sport, not wimpy like Soccer ;-)

   Chainsaw,

   I assume your defense of soccer was tongue in cheeks (sic). Bruce and
   JD have the right of it. "Tres wimp�?", as the Frogs say (which is
   greco-rumanian for `puling, pap swilling little girls who cry a lot,
   and have very little strength or stamina, and probably couldn't be
   counted on to do anything right, even put their pants on properly, or
   boil water. They're just hopeless, ya know?'). As you're aware, JD is 
   seldom wrong in his evaluations/analyses. Wasn't it JD that said
   jockeys were just a bunch of midgets dressed up like golfers? I loved
   that!

   Mike JN

    The average football game contains 15 minutes of action. Divide that by
    the platooning of units and a football player only "plays" for about 7
    minutes. Compare that with soccer,where a midfielder will run 10 miles
    in a game while having to play offense/defense and confront a multitude
    of situations. Bruce,try running 70 yards at full speed,dribbling a
    ball,eluding defenders and see what a wimp sport it is.
    
    Soccer will never come close to supplanting football,baseball or
    basketball,but to call it a "wimp" sport shows a total lack of
    education about the game.

    re .34
    
    	I think they were joking..........
    
    	Careful what you call an *average* football game.  I think your
    	scenario may apply to the pros (and college somewhat).  But
    	high school and below usually don't platoon and most of the
    	starting players are on special teams.....fwiw.
    
    Claybone

    Pud pulling is another fascinating sport when given the necessary
    attention and precise scheduling, causes a massive ejaculation of
    spectators world wide........
    
    HTH.
    
    H�wk

�Actually, soccer is a pretty tough sport.  Some of the contact that
�takes place on your average header attempt can be just as tough
�as going up against Bill Laimbeer under the rim.
    
    If by header you mean hitting the ball with your head, there was a
    recent mention of that in "Rugby."  Apparently steadies have shown that
    soccer players using their heads are subject to the same type of trauma
    as a boxer.  The author then went on with an aside to the effect of: 
    we ruggers always thought soccer players were a bit strange. ;^)

    < An hour and a half, Cowboy!!!  Games last 90 minutes!!
    
    Thanks for the reminder.  It's been so long since I played
    or watched soccer I forgot.
    
    Must have been thinking about baseball.
    
    Cowboy

    �Does this imply that the type of tackling is different or can rugby
    �players tackle with the same effeciency but less brute force???
    
    The answer to both of those questions is an unequivicable "YES"!
    

    Just a couple of points for all of you who call soccer a wimp 
    sport, there are no pads involved (except for optional shin 
    guards), only two substitutions per game ( which lasts 90 minutes 
    with no timeouts or commercial breaks), and involves contiuous running.
    

    Yes, no pads, but Lacrosse players don't wear pads. They have masks,
    which they should the way they run around with those sticks.  I don't
    watch much soccer but I don't think that it takes lotsa strength, just
    stamina to keep running.  Maybe this is where you guys are getting
    confused.

    I played goalie on our DEC team, and I got hammered pretty good.
    Everyone kicking me and elbowing me and all that mess. But it was never
    as physical as when I played football. 

   As I'm sure everyone is aware, my comments were made jokingly. For
   everyone who is unaware of this, I was perfectly serious, and I dislike
   your mother intensely.

   While soccer isn't wimpy, anyone who thinks it is as rough as football
   has spriksen haber gluben taikig flur sh grinshen, if ya know what I
   mean.

   I've played both. Soccer isn't even CLOSE.

   My son played two years of soccer. Last year played his first year of
   football. He played Defensive End, Offensive Tackle, and Special Teams.
   Every facet of football was much more intense than soccer. Although
   `incidental' contact in Soccer (as in Basketball) can be brutal, there
   is no way in hell it can compare to the planned, semi-controlled
   violence of football.

   Mike JN

Soccer does take a fair amount of strength.

Imagine a corner kick.  All the defenders mark up against the offensive
guys in the goal area.  Imagine Bill Laimbeer and Duckworth vying for
position.  There are at least 8 suchs pairs in the goal area doing
this.

It's very subtle, but it's there none the less.  Your legs are dead
tired, and here's some offensive guy pushing the hell out of you, but
in a way that the ref can't see.  Now the kick comes in.  He's jumping
as high as he can to try to head it in, you're trying to get up there
and head it out, and the goalie is coming hell bent for leather to
get up there and clear the thing.

Watch any close in play in soccer.  There's always some measure of
pushing and shoving, again, very subtle, but still there.

The running is some of the toughest running you can imagine.  If it
were just going out and running 5 to 10 miles it would be one thing.
BUT, you are stopping, starting, accelerating...


The contact I referred to on headers is the body contact when two
players are vying for the ball....


It takes a lot to play the sport well...

'Saw

    re: 41
    The discussion is about soccer being a wimpy sport--not about
    strength and stamina.  Soccer players might be compared to
    long distance runners because of the stamina it takes to
    last the whole game and still be able to kick and control
    the ball with touch.  A long distance runner must have stamina
    but he doesn't change his movements or speed of movements that
    much.
    
    The roughness of soccer comes from the interaction between
    players during ball stealing/tackling, the flying elbows into
    faces, high kicks into haids, low kicks into shins, mid
    kicks into crotch-areas (kicking the wrong ball).
    
    When the game is played to win this can be a rough sport.
    
    Helping the Hopeless
    
    Cowboy
    

�   Every facet of football was much more intense than soccer. Although
�   `incidental' contact in Soccer (as in Basketball) can be brutal, there
�   is no way in hell it can compare to the planned, semi-controlled
�   violence of football.

I disagree on the intensity.  Astute students of the game would agree
with me.  It's a different type if intensity...compare an explosion
to a long slow burn...can't do it.

I do agree on the violence aspect.  That is perhaps why people can still
play soccer into their later 30s, where in football you rarely see that.

They are really such different sports that you cannot compare them.

'Saw

    Sorry to hear that ya got hammered, but when I went to see the Blazers
    I couldn't believe the way they were slamming each other around.
    Tough game to play....exciting to watch.

    
    If Soccer wasn't such a wimpy sport all you guys wouldn't get so
    defensive about it.  Sheesh, ballet dancers don't where pads, don't
    get to be substituted for, have to run and jump and get incidentally
    (_any_ sport that basis its manliness on _incidental_ contact is
    already well down the road to wimpiness) contacted, and need stamina.
    They know they are wimps and don't make bones about.
    
    Face the facts.
    
    
    Bruce
    

    re:.48
    
    I wouldn't call ballet dancers wimps either.  (Just sissies)  They
    are supposed to be some of the top "athletes".  Haven't football
    players taken ballet during the off season to "get in condition"
    and help their coordination?
    
    Cowboy

   � Haven't football players taken ballet during the off season to "get
   � in condition" and help their coordination?
    
    Cowboy,

   	I'm Rollin. Just had a mental image of Gerald Perry arrested while
   wearing a Tutu. Impersonating a ballerina! HAH! I can't wait.

   Mike JN

    
    I think Cowboy may have found a middle ground.  I think I can convince
    /Don to agree that soccer players are merely sissies and not wimps.
    Would that satisfy everyone?   Frank, is that OK with you?
    
    Bruce

    Dallas has sent 17 people to Italy to observe the World Cup.  One of
    the contingent is none other than Tom Landry.  The offical reason for
    the trip is to collect information to help Dallas put in a bid as a
    host site for the 1994 World Cup.
    
    Let's see, there are 24 cities bidding on the World Cup.  If they all
    send 15-20 people to Italy, no wonder World Cup tickets are so hard to
    get.

   I  think `Saw will buy that.

   After all, wasn't it Shakespeare who said:

   	`Twere very strange and passing drear
   	a day in which no Sissies appear;
   	A wimp, I fear, is ne'er the same,
   	For they'd not risk to play the game.

   (or was that Elvis?)

   Mike JN

I've got a better idea....


Let's get all the people who say soccer is a game for wimps, and we'll
get all the other folks, and form two teams.

At the end of the game, let's see if the "wimp" faction still feels
that way.

I'm willing to play.  Any of you pro-wimps game?


Chainsaw-who'll-put-it-to-a-real-test

    Bruce I MAD AND YU TOO BLAM!!!!
    

    Frank, how are you gonna catch up to me on the Soccer field? I'll blow
    right by you.
    
    On the other hand, I didn't say it was a wimp sport.
    
    The Scorpions, on the other hand, are wimps. Do they play soccer?
    
    JoJ

   Great idea Frank!

   You and me and all the women will be on one team. 
   Let's figure out where we can all meet to plan strategy and drink and
   dance and laugh til we fall down and go boom.

   Mike JN

    the Scorpions do actually play soccer. Their music is too manly for a
    Joisey wimp like you. 
    
    Yo Frank, Waddle can't blow by a roadkill. You'll toast him, just like I
    did. he's nervous and his socks are too loose. Besides he gets tired
    real easy. WHat a bum!! 8^)

JoJ --

I've never relied on something I don't have (speed).  I used to play
goalie a lot, but have player striker and back.  Usually it's my
quickness that helps.  

I can't play wing because I don't have the speed, but I do enjoy
playing the other positions...

'Saw

    I can donate the use of a horse pasture for the field.
    There's plenty of road apples to form touchlines.  We
    could see who the wimps are early too since the pasture
    is at 8500'.
    
    Cowboy

    	Great, I'll bring the brass knuckles.
    
    				/Don

    
    Just like you wimps to try and snooker the manlinest of men (Slasher
    and myself) into playing a soccer game.  Slasher and I would never
    desecrate our reputations by setting a single toe on one of those
    sissy playfields.
    
    Bruce

    
    I thought it was a rumble, too, but Frank sent me mail and it was a 
    Rumba contest.  Something about how the Latin American countries have 
    Rumba contest as part of their culture.  I think Chainsaw is going
    to have Cowboy as his partner.  Said something about valuing 
    differences.  I'm gonna see if I can get Iris Chacon as my partner,
    and Charro has called and said that if you are free, she's interested.
    
    Bruce

    Sorry Bruce, but I don't know anything about Rumbas and there's
    NO WAY I'd dance with Saw (Seems like a likable person, BTW,
    but not my dancing partner type). I DO remember how to play a 
    little soccer tho.
    
    Cowboy

    re .66
    
    Cowboy,
    
    YOu are really gonna disappoint one "likeable person" from the
    great state of Ct.  Mike JN, are you available to dance with the
    'saw?
    
    Just like you soccer sissies to challenge us to a rumba contest
    and then chicken out.
    
    
    Bruce   

    Now Bruce, you stop picking on the soccer players.....they're
    liable to get so mad that they'll soil those cute lil' shorts
    they wear.
    
    Claybone  :^)

    All those sweet things in the stands are there to check out
    the cute lil' shorts!

   �	Mike JN, are you available to dance with the 'saw?

   Whataya say Frank?

   How about this...: We'll agree to dance a Scottish Sword Dance (I have
   the Claymores), if Bruce and the Slasher agree to hold the sheep.

   After all, fair is fair.

   Mike JN

Mike JN --

	That's a pretty cool idea.  I'd have to wear the kilt, of
	course....;^)

	The Claymore -- God's Weapon of Choice!


re dancing partner:

Actually, for my dancing partner, I'd like the cute woman rugger
I danced all night with last summer.  Met her in a bar, and she
was *gorgeous*.  When she told me she played rugby, I couldn't believe
it.  Gawd could she dance!!!!

An I don' do no rumba! 8^)

    Geez, a soccer 'match' between real manly men and soccer wimps...what
    nexted?  First of all, you'd have to wait forever for the soccer
    wimps to finish blow drying their hair and practice their hugging
    and kissing.  Then you'd have to listen to them whine about any
    incidental contact....whatta ya want from a spor twhere the the
    ref holds up cute little colored index card when there's an
    'infraction".
    
    Geez.  The Scorpions??  Christ, whatta a wast of skin they are.
     Garbage sissy music, the kind sissies listen too.  Socccer players,
    Ballet dancers, flamingo porkers, all the same...
    
    JD

    The "real manly men" would dying for air after 5 minutes.  The
    soccer Studs would run their sissy butts into the ground.
    
    hahahaha

    NO DOUBT!!! Theres obviously talk here from,in my opinion,classic couch
    potato athletes. If you want to know how terrible shape your in,come
    on down to the soccer field and find out exactly how wimpy running on 
    a field for 90 minutes truly is. TSK,TSK,TSK
    
    WEST GERMANY- WELT MEISTERS 1990

    re .75        
          
    Great, soccer players can run around a lot.  Jockeys are in great
    shape too, the best of any sport, I believe.  That doesn't make them
    macho or does it deny the fact that it is a sissy game.
    
    Bruce  
                                                 

    Guys, YU AR ALL T' BLAM!!!
    
    Because of you, I actually look forward to coming to work in the
    mornings just to read the update on the SPORTS conference!!! (Because
    of the time difference - 5 hours - you do must of your JNing after
    I leave the orifice).
    I used to be your average slug, throwing a pillow at the alarm clock
    and going back to sleep.  Now, because of a "lunatic faction" at
    DEC, I am wide awake at 6:00am wondering what variety of manure
    you clowns have been spreading while I've been asleep.
    
    Well, this morning you outdid yourselves (or rather each other)...I'm
    still trying to explain to my boss, what I was doing rolling on
    the floor today!!
    
    re: 60     'saw,  could you elaborate on your desire to play in
    the "other positions"....I'm less curious about the positions
    themselves (I'm a worldy kinda guy), but please tell us when
    these positions are "played" (ie. at night under the stars, or during
    halftime of the local high school state championships) and then,
    if you wouldn't mind, how about a name and phone number!!!
    
    re: 71    MikeJN, if you brought a pair of boots, Bruce & The Slasher
    wouldn't have to hold the sheep for you,  you just stick the back
    legs of the sheep into the front of your boots and .....
    
    HTS,      (Hurt That Sheep)
    PJ      

    Brawn over Brains...
    
    You're wonderful, you lot. Get your eight tons of padding off and let's
    see what else you can do beside grunt and get those socccer wimps to
    kick your field goals for you because kicking's something you only do
    on other people's heads.
    
    
    This note is the howl of the century.
    
    Peter Get_em_on_a_rugby_field_and_we'll_soon_see_who_the_wimps_are
    

I've got it...all ye Yanks are scared sh!tless of any *sport* involving
body movement from the waste down!!! Ye just gotta use your hands,right
...must be something to do with playing with your pee-pee from childhood
to adult stage!!!

Sigmund Freud.

re .78

>>    This note is the howl of the century.
    
>>    Peter Get_em_on_a_rugby_field_and_we'll_soon_see_who_the_wimps_are
    
Peter, now be honest.  Have you ever even seen either (a) a complete
NFL American football game or (b) an NFL American football player?

Believe me, as I've seen hundreds of both, a Rugby player, as tough as they
are (and they ARE tough) is nothing compared to a bunch of 6'8" men who weighs
close to 300 pounds who can run 40 yards in less than 5 seconds.

Only people who know little or nothing about the game reckon that since pads
are worn the level of contact is lessened.  Indeed, if Football players didn't
wear them the 1st quarter of a game wouldn't even be over before everyone
would have left the field unconscious.

rick ellis

>    Peter, now be honest.  Have you ever even seen either (a) a complete
>    NFL American football game or (b) an NFL American football player?  
     
    I have. I have even played competativley in American Football, for
    three years.
    
>    Believe me, as I've seen hundreds of both, a Rugby player, as tough as they
>    are (and they ARE tough) is nothing compared to a bunch of 6'8" men who weighs
>    close to 300 pounds who can run 40 yards in less than 5 seconds.             
     
    Rugby, or Soccer, players are never timed for their short bursts
    of speed. What good is it if you can run 40 yards in 5 seconds,
    and then cannot contribute to a full game lasting 90 minutes ?
                                                             
    Yes, I agree about the padding required in American Football. This
    brings me to my main point.
    
    Untill you have tried it *properly*, you cannot comment on it. If
    you have never played American Football, how can you claim that
    the padding is un-neccessary. Remember, deliberate obstruction is
    illegal in rugby. If you have never competed in a full 90 min game
    of soccer (not just a kick-about in the park), and come of the pitch
    wishing you could die so you wouldn't have to breathe in again,
    then how can you say its a game for wimps ?
    
    Wayne
    P.S. ;-)

�    Peter Get_em_on_a_rugby_field_and_we'll_soon_see_who_the_wimps_are
    
    Peter, the claim is that soccer is a wimpy sport, not rugby.  They
    wouldn't dare call ruggers wimps.

    Ahem....ruggers are wimps!  :^)
    
    Hey! You dared me!
    
    Is it true that all soccer players eat quiche and their hero
    is Tony Eason?
    
    Claybone  ;^) X 1 E09

    Hey Claybone !
    
    England have a great chance to win the World Cup,
    
    Because John Elway isn'y on the Team !
    
    Wayne ;-)  ;-)  ;-)

    Rick,
    
    Get outta here.
    
    I have seen lots of games live in the US and many others since 1969 on
    the box (including Canook league). It's great fun and it has also the
    subtlety of earth removing equipment in a mass charge. The skill level
    is down there on the Astroturf (unless you include memorizing phone
    book numbers). And strength need not always be physical.
    
    REAL football is played (in the upper echelons) by superbly skilled,
    fit, red-blooded men. Most better players can (and do) juggle a ball
    without it touching the ground for long periods i.e. hours). They can
    hit pinpoint passes over 40yds and sprint to pick up the return. Ruud
    Gullit is 6' 4", weighs 14stone (?lbs) and covers 9 feet in one stride
    when he is running. As a quarterback, he'd give Montana a good run for
    his money (yeah, he can run and pass at the same time too). Prima
    donnas, yes, wimps no.
    
    Peter
    
    

    >	    Gullit is 6' 4", weighs 14stone (?lbs)
    
    196 lbs.  One stone equals 14 pounds.
    
    
    py

And furthermore...
    
>are worn the level of contact is lessened.  Indeed, if Football players didn't
>wear them the 1st quarter of a game wouldn't even be over before everyone
>would have left the field unconscious.
    
    And it would deprive us of another 45 minutes of yawning fits too!
    
    OK, this is apples and oranges, but we once drafted several of the
    local US football team into our rugby team and they stopped the jibes
    afterwards.
    
    
    Peter

�    OK, this is apples and oranges, but we once drafted several of the
�    local US football team into our rugby team and they stopped the jibes
�    afterwards.
    
    I know what you mean, Peter.  We could never get many of those
    girly-mon touch football players to show up to more than one rugby
    practice.

  Peter,

If you re-read .80 you'll see that I don't call soccer/football players wimps.
I was only having a good laugh over your "see_you_on_the_rugby_pitch" 
business.

Football and soccer are completely different games, so to try to compare them
would be silly in my mind.  Having said that, European soccer has deteriorated
to such a point in recent years that often the difference in the game (a goal)
is the result of some pansy pulling the old get-into-the-penalty-area-and
fall-down-as-if-you're-gonna-die bullshit.  These moments are embarrassments
to the sport as far as I'm concerned.  Let's see how the World Cup evolves as
the Italian fans are used to this sort of nonsense.

BTW, 14 stone is 196 lbs., which is about the size of the average water boy
in the NFL these days.  I suggest you go down to field level if/when you see
a game and take in the speed and punishment from that vantage point.

Finally, I will not get into The British Debate over this as this Conference
is more of a laugh than anything else.

All in fun...

rick ellis  ;^)   
    

    
    I've got some bad news for those of you across the pond holding
    your breath, waiting for my next witty, honest reply as we continue
    to take the dress off this emporess called soccer.  You wimp-types
    have sort of chickened out, and not given me any more cannon fodder.
    What is a person to do if he wishes to set the world aright, and
    there are no more soccer fans left to defend their game?  Could
    it be that you all have seen the light?  I mean using a 196 pound
    weakling as an example of you manliness.  Any Jets cheerleader weighs
    more than that.
    
    Bruce 

Ruud Gullit is hardly a weakling.

Nor would I say is Ronald Koeman, John Barnes or many others too
numerous to name.  Very few people realize the force put into many
of these kicks, and fewer still realize the agility, ability, and
strength required to STOP one.

Soccer is one of the true sports (probably baseball being the other)
where physical size takes a back seat to skill.  Ian Rush and
John Aldridge have the lanky physiques of bicyclists, the aforemented
Koeman (and I KNOW I'm not spelling his name right...) is more
compact and has one of the most vicious shots I've ever seen.

Look at Steve Nicol sometime, imagine him being a little pissed
off at you after a few too many in the pub and inviting you outside.
I dare say I'd not want to go.  That might be interesting, Bruce,
perhaps we could have a debate with you and Steve 8^)

And as everyone else has said, the running is the killing part.
Ninety minutes is a long time to haul up and down the pitch.  I'd
rather run 5 miles on the road at a steady pace.  Doing it on the
soccer field is another  version of hell.... at the end of the
game your legs feel like lead, your lungs burn, and if you're
down by a goal that's that much worse....


JMHO,
'Saw

y'all have to forgive bruce...

He's into those sports where you have to be a genetic mutant to play 
professionally...

 ya know....american football,basketball,volleyball

If it isn't a sport controlled by freaks of nature then BRuce doesn't want to
hear about it...


Right bruce?


      Metz

>Look at Steve Nicol sometime, imagine him being a little pissed
>off at you after a few too many in the pub and inviting you out.
                                                                
    Sorry 'saw, I don't usual go around checking out other men, and
    I certainly don't gop out with them.  Is this a common practice 
    in soccer?  I think you'd better lay off the brew.
    
    BOSS (Bruce On Sissy Sports)     
    
    

    Let's shift this discussion from the playingfield to the battlefield.
    By which I mean, let's look into the stadiums for a while to see
    what kind of people watch football and what kind watch soccer.
    
    For the sake of argument only Bruce, let's assume that soccer players
    are sissies and football players eat beef.....
    
    Wouldn't you expect that sissies would go to watch soccer and beef-
    eaters would watch football???   Then why all the violence at soccer
    matches???
    

    PJ_who_is_a_soccer_fan_and_could_beat_the_sh$t_out_of_you_with_one_hand..
    
    
    
    
    	(if_I_had_the_offensive_line_of_the_Chicago_Bears_to_help_me)
        
    

    Hey what sports DO/DID you play
    
    SSOB (Sissy Sports Only Bruce) ?
    
    
    If you really that unknowledgeable about soccer then I
    cain't believe you played any that required running.
    
    Did you golf or bowl?
    
    Cowboy    
    

Steven --

	Ruud Gullit (if I'm not mistaken usually pronounced 
	Rood Hew-lit) is really something to behold.  He is
	arguably one of the ten best players in the world today...

'Saw

    For the second time Bruce, what sport do you play ?

    Soccer, football and rugby are all different. I'd rate Football as the
    most punishing. Soccer as the most enduring, and rugby as the one to
    play if you just want a smattering of both. I did play rugby on a club
    team in college so don't say I don't know what it's like. In fact I'd
    almost rate a good hard soccer game as rougher than rugby, wif football
    being the roughest. 
    
    the devil dog who got tossed from a rugby game for chotheslining
    someone.

    It looks like this Note has been exercised!   
    
    Yes, the anti-soccer has been run off from this screens and
    the awful damnable input from possessed keyboards has been
    put to rest, bros.
    
    The souless increment called BOSS but rightfully renamed SSOB
    was cast into the lifeless sands and scattered through dead
    space to orbit silently for rest of time.
    
    Lets rejoice and let our spirits soar as we sling a foot deep
    into a soccer ball.  But don't think of it as just a soccer ball
    but think of it as the anti-soccer screaming in agony as the
    leather is torn off from the supreme foot-to-ball contact.
    
    Lets all put a foot into it, now bros!!
    
    
    Rev Cowboy
    
    

    Sorry, devildog, but I'm not buying.  How is rugby a "smattering" of
    endurance when it is also played for 85 minutes (two 40-minute halves
    with a 5 minute halftime) without substitution except in the case of
    injury?  Also, soccer players basically run, kick, and sometimes jump,
    while rugby players run, kick, pass (with the hands), jump, push, and
    tackle.  
    
    And since when is a non-contact sport rougher than a contact sport? 
    The only way I can see soccer as being rougher than rugby is when the
    soccer players start applying hockey tactics with goons going after
    better players, and little chippy kicking stuff.  If you played before,
    you must have been a back - probably a wing because even the inside
    backs (at least on a well coached team) will end up getting involved in
    the rucking and mauling.
    
    I used to work with an Englishman who told me that "Rugby is a violent
    sport played by gentlemen and soccer is a non-violent sport played by
    ruffians".  Take that for what you want.

   	I believe Bruce about the NY Jets cheerleaders. JoJ himself told
   me that qualifications for a position as a Jet Cheerleader include:

   	Minimum weight of 14 stone
   	Suffer from PMS
   	One (or more) tatooed buttock
   	Lungs of Leather

   JoJ went on to say that he had lost count of the times he had been
   slapped senseless by one of these babes.

   Phoe Shit Shlep
   Mike JN

   PS I can't believe I'm Junk Noting my lunch. Now I've gotta go back to
   a class for the rest of the afternoon.

    Soccer weiners,
    
    	You don't substitute cuz you girly-mons never get hurt!
    
    	Now, in a rough, tough, manly sport like football, there
    	will be several injuries induced by ferocious hits.
    
    	Thus, soccer is for sensitive Alan Alda types, whilst
    	'merican football is for real men!
    
    Claybone_the_football_bigot_with_football_battle_scars

    >    Soccer weiners,
    
    
    >	You don't substitute cuz you girly-mons never get hurt!
    
    >	Now, in a rough, tough, manly sport like football, there
    >	will be several injuries induced by ferocious hits.
    
    	No, soccer players DO get hurt but play hurt anyway.
    
    	Football players get hurt too but some of them aren't bright
    	enough to realize it until the coach sends out a substitute.
    	("Duh, coach am I hurt again?")
    
    Hoping to clarify things
    
    Cowboy

    Typical soccer injuries:  Hang nails, run in stockings, runny nose...
    
    Typical football injuries:  Broken bones, concussions, damaged
    tendons/ligaments...
    
    Claybone

    This is the funniest note I've read in a long time!  Specially like
    how Bruce has managed to ruffle folks' feathers.  HAHAHAHAHA
    
    Soccer is a wimp sport.  I played Gaelic football - it's much tougher
    than soccer, and hs some manliness built in. Soccer is for pretty
    boys a_scared to get their sweet cheeks bruised.
    
    JD

    JD, how one cain sit and watch a couple of hours of sissies skipping
    up and down a (perfectly good football) field just to see 11 guys
    swap spit after the only goal of the game is scored is beyond me.
    
    And then the opposing fans start pummelling the other fans into
    oblivion for doing so.
    
    Wonders never cease.
    
    Mark.

 >   Soccer is a wimp sport.  I played Gaelic football - it's much tougher
    
 >   JD
 
    Gaelic football?  How do you pronounce this "manly sport"?
    
    Is it "Gay-Lick-Foot-Ball".  Now doesn't that sound special!
    
    
    I'm starting understand DEC's "Valueing Differences" now.
    
    hahahahaha!!!!
    
    Carry on boyth....
    
    Cowboy
    

Soccer players never get hurt?

A couple of points:

	Cross reference the 1970 World Cup.  Gerd "Der Bomber" M�ller,
	striker for West Germany breaks his arm.  Rather than leave
	the game and have his team play short (the subs had already
	been used up) M�ller has his arm taped to his chest and
	returns to action.

	The rest of the story?  In 1974 Der Bomber scores the winning
	goal in the final to beat the Netherlands 2-1.


	Soccer has a lot of knee injuries, just like football.


'Saw

    'Saw,
    
    	Just what are these soccer players doing on their
    	knees?  Hmmmmmmm?
    
    Claybone  ;^)
    

Same types pretty much as football....twisting injury, blownout
ligaments...

'Saw

    I gots ta say, after watching several years of both sports, that
    rugby *is* rougher than soccer.  Personally, I think it's tougher
    than American football, too, and that it takes certified loony tunes
    to willingly play the game.  (But they throw the *bestest* parties
    afterwards :-) )  But soccer ain't exactly wimpy, neither.  Like
    basketball, there's plenty of contact even if it ain't in the
    'official' rules.  Guys are *more* likely to play hurt because of
    the substitution rules (once you're off due to injury, you can't
    come back in).  Conditioning and strength are *vital*.  (Ya shoulda
    seen the penalty kick this weekend - kid thought he could take on
    my son 'cause he's skinny.  Wrong again, boyo!)
    
    If you go by number of injuries, at least on the high school level,
    I don't think there's much to choose between soccer and football.
     It's just that fewer soccer players end up paralyzed......
    
    A&W

    So the US football fans are out exercising their brains, huh? Wow, what
    repartee! Rattle those cages.
    
    US football is like US cars - big, bad, ugly and not wanted outside the
    States.
    
    As to the man who thought he's make a snide comment about Gaelic
    football, I suggest he go and try five minutes (seconds!) of it.
    
    The trouble with you chappies is that you have three TV events passsing
    off as sport: an iron-clad version of rugby played by semi-mobile pot
    roasts, who think they're tough cos they can hit themselves on the head
    with a sledge hammer without affecting their brain. The second is a
    version of rounders, played by men in leotards, chewing gum furiously
    and swatting flies with a big stick. The third is played by
    Brobdingnagian refugees jumping around a hoop to the accompaniment of a
    man on an electric organ. And you call that sport? The only decent one
    you have is an import: ice hockey. I'd just love to see some of those
    grid-iron charlies handle skates. I would also like to see some of
    these meat mountains get past a decent tackle (that's a movement not a
    position) in a European football game. The ground would shake - mainly
    with laughter from the stands. I would also like to see some of these
    jokers try to stop Gullit. 
    
    BTW, it wasn't Mueller who broke his arm in 1970, it was Beckenbauer.
    Mueller scored the wining goal in the 1974 final.
    
    
    Time for some more messages while the players have another little rest
    and we wait for Boss to tell us all about the sport he plays.
    
    Peter.
    
    
    Peter

    Hiya 'Saw...btw that wasn't Gerd 'der bomber' M�ller it was
    Franz 'the Kaiser' Beckenbauer(sp) who had his shoulder strapped
    and played on in Mexico '70.
    
    - Dave K.

!   Any Jets cheerleader weighs
!    more than that.                           
    
!    Bruce   
    
    Don't these people provide all the action as well?
    
    C'mon Bruce, tell us all about these supermen wearing gloves so they
    can catch the ball properly.
    
    Peter                                  

    
    You ignorant Americans are missing the point as usual:
    
    First of all it's not true that Football and Soccer are different
    sports; Football and Soccer are one and the same, it's American
    Football that is something different.
    
    Secondly, Football as a sport was not designed to be more physical or
    violent than American Football. The very thought is absurd, as the
    rules of Football were written in 1840. America wasn't even discovered
    then.
    
    I think this note finally proves that the USA does not deserve to host
    the finest sports event in the world, the FIFA World Cup.
    
    Stefan

    >The very thought is absurd, as the
    >rules of Football were written in 1840. America wasn't even discovered
    >then.
    
    Hmm, I think you might need a refresher course in history, Stefan. :-)
    
    					Steve
    

�    I think this note finally proves that the USA does not deserve to host
�    the finest sports event in the world, the FIFA World Cup.
    
Stefan --

	I vehemently disagree with you on this statement, and I 
	think that there are other soccer (football if you will) fans
	here in this country who would disagree with you also.

	It's a great honor to be chosen to host the Cup, and I think
	the fact that we were able to qualify this year, might lay to
	rest some of the accusations that we can only get in by hosting
	it.

	Our way of life is different than some Europeans way of life.
	When I was in France some of the things I saw were strange and
	different, but people are still basically people.

	We will do a capable job of hosting the Cup.  It might be slightly
	different than what you might be used to, but it won't be bad.



re Beckenbauer:

	Thanks guys, for the corrections.  I knew it was one of the
	two, and had to make a guess.  Every once in a while the
	'Saw gets one wrong ;^)


re American Football Players:

	You can't put these guys down either.  Just as I abhor the fact
	of someone making sweeping generalizations about soccer players,
	I abhor the fact of someone making them about football players.

	The amazing thing about football players is their quickness
	size and strength, in combination.   If you've never read the
	book "Paper Lion" I suggest you read it.  It's an old book,
	by George Plimpton who is a writer who writes about things he
	tries out.

	In 196*(?) he went to camp with the Detroit Lions, worked for
	weeks, just to quarterback one series in a preseason game.

	His biggest impression was the explosive quickness with which
	everything happens on the football field....

	These men who play are for the most part very intelligent
	individuals, who have a talent... just like soccer players.

JMHO,
'Saw

    YO SAW, 
    
    
    The only reason we're there is because Mexico was banned from the cup
    this year. 

btw - coverage starts today on TNT at 11:55.....


     Metz

    'Saw,
    
    You're quite right - the US will make a good job of the 94 world cup.
    
    Question for all you John Wayne wimp eaters: is your height, weight
    and speed over 100yds better than 6'4", 195lb and 10.2?
    
    
    Peter
    

    > Franz 'the Kaiser' Beckenbauer(sp) who had his shoulder strapped
    > and played on in Mexico '70.
    
    Didn't this guy play for a US team a few years back?  NY Cosmos
    maybe?  I thought they used to have a foreign ol' timer playing
    fullback with this name.  This would be during the early '80s--
    the last 4 or 5 years before the collapse of the NASL.
    
    Cowboy

    YES, Franz did play with the Cosmos and I believe that old timer 
    your refering to was Giorgio Chinalgia (sp). The question I have is,
    was Pele' also with the team at that point.
    
    Stephan
    

I'm not sure if Beckenbauer played or was the coach.
The Cosmos did have Georgio Chinaglia, who was really good...

re Peter:

	Man, that's pretty damn good speed.  These days I'm
	built more like a back, anda lot slower than I used
	to be...but I don't get beat that often 8^)

	Hopefully, as the exercise and running program continues
	I'll return to my old form.  (Still, I'll never be playing
	wing, that's for sure....)


We will do a good job in 1994.  Our team this year is not that bad,
just not as well put together as I would like.

'Saw

    I don't think that Franz was the coach but was used as a fullback
    being a bit aged but highly experienced by that time.  Yes, Giorgio
    (alias, garbageman) was on the team during this period.  I don't
    remember what nationality he was but he was the primary striker.
    Pele', at this time was probably making movies.  Seems that he
    did play a little--maybe back home?
    
    Giorgio got his nickname, garbageman, because he would seem to stand
    in front of the goal always in the right spot for a rebounding ball
    for a "garbage score".  (Not a real physical, hard-working striker)
    On the other hand he had the knack for being in the right place at
    the right time and was a consistant finisher.  Seems that he had a
    mean bicycle kick too.
    
    This may be the same guy who scored against my Tulsa Ruffnecks with
    a "mule kick".  This has got to be the most impressive show of skill
    any type of athlete.  I wish I had a tape of it.  It happened
    during a cornerkick with a great deal of confusion near the goal.  A
    rocket of a line drive crossed in front of the goal at about head height.
    This striker jumped into the air, turned his body parallel to the ground,
    turned facing the opposite goal and about 5 feet in the air.  He was
    wasn't even facing the right goal.  The ball came in towards his feet 
    but between his back and the goal.  Seemingly, unable to even see this
    speeding ball, let alone judge its speed he bent a knee and "stomped"
    the ball with the bottom of his foot into the net.  That was truely
    a show great skill that is hard to match.
    
    Cowboy

    Peter,
    
    			ROLLWARD on .114!!!
    
    	But, you need a bit of correctin'.  Us manly types chew
    	tabacky whilst partaking of *swatting flies*.  Not gum....
    
    	Speaking of gloves, don't soccer goalies wear gloves?
    
    	
    Stefan,
    
    	This note only proves that we're a bunch of freakin'
    	lunatics just trying to yank a few chains.....I think
    	we succeeded!  In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn,
    	"That's a joke son.....".  Hell, Bruce is a big fan of
    	*wimp* football (aka the 49'ers...:^) ).
    
    	I think hosting the World Cup will do wonders for us
    	*ignorant* Americans.
    
    Claybone

   Rollin' Stephan!

   Likewise Peter! (A fan of Swift AND Tolkien?)
    
   � The trouble with you chappies is that you have three TV events
   � passing off as sport

   Wait'll you get a load of MONSTER TRUCKS!

PS - Gullit is a wuss. The London Times ran a story and picture of him
   wearing a strapless gown and singing torch songs in a bistro.

   Hump This Hoops
   Mike JN

Goalie wear gloves for similar reasons that ball players were batting
gloves...better grip.

The neatest soccer play I ever saw was a film of Pele.

On a cross he went up to head the ball.  The goalie, sensing this,
went up to try and swipe the cross.  Pele, reacting perfectly, relaxed
his neck a bit, and trapped the ball (sort of) as it kind of slid
down his body.  A quick flick of his foot and the ball was low in the
back of the net.

Utterly amazing!

'Saw

    Arg - Cam. 0-0
    Ita - Aus  1-0
    USSR - Rom 2-1
    UAE - Col 1-3
    USA - Cz. 0-2
    Bra - Swe 3-1
    Ger - Yug  2-0
    CRica - Scot 2-0
    Eng - Ire 1-2
    Bel - Kor 1-0
    Neth - Egypt 3-1
    Uru - Spain 2-0
    Arg - USSR 3-2
    Ita - USA 4-1
    Cam - Rom 2-1
    Yug - Col 3-0
    Aus - Cz 1-2
    Ger - UAE 1-0
    Bra - CRica 5-0
    Swe - Scot 2-2
    Eng - NL 0-2
    Bel - Uru 1-2
    Kor - Spain 0-1
    Ire - Egypt 3-1
    Arg - Rom 2-0
    Cam  - USSR 1-2
    Ita- Cz  3-0
    Aus - USA 3-0
    Ger - Col 4-2
    Yug - UAE 2-1
    Bra - Scot 2-1
    SWe - CRica  3-0
    Bel - spain  2-1
    Kor - Uru  1-4
    Eng - Egypt 5-0
    Ire - Nl 2-0
    
    

    hey, were those finals or predictions?
    

Musta been predictions, since the USA hasn't played yet.

They play on sunday, 11am on TNT, if anyone is interested.

'Saw

    Another reason they had to be predictions was because they were
    entered in the 1994 World Cup note.
                   ----

    He also had USA losing to Italy by only 4-1. 
    That one's way off....he needs to double their score and take one
    of US's away.
    
    Pesimistically Optimistic

Well, the hallmark of the US game is defense.  If we play only
d, then it's possible that we can hold Italy to 4 goals....8^)

Then he'd still have to subtract one of our 8^)

    Hmmm, how much did the US lost by to the Czech?
    
    The US plays great D.  Blame it on Havel.
    
    Charles

    Gloves
    
    {strikes deadly serious pose}
    
    Think you'll find most goalies wear gloves to take the sting out of the
    ball as much as for grip. Last night an awesome Germany thrashed
    Yugoslavia 4-1 (it could have been 10-1). The pervasive effect of US
    football statistics mania is being felt in Italy, but, for once, to
    good effect. Germany's second goal was scored by a real wimp called
    Mattaeus. He's about 5'7", 150lb and has cherubic features. However, he
    has phenomenal shooting power. The shot, from 24yds, entered the net at
    90km/h (>50mph). Anybody's family jewels in the way of that would get a
    severe roasting, padding or no padding. In fact, you'd probably be DOA.
    
    Your lads lost 5-1, had one player sent off, and looked a bit naive.
    However, they have a couple of good players and will improve. The
    effects mikes picked up some great Anglo-Saxon swearing.
    
    Peter
    

    Not a bad performance from the USA football team (sorry Bruce, I
    mean 'the USA wimp soccer team') against the Czechs.  The 5-1 scoreline
    was slightly unfair as the US were down to ten men for the last
    38 minutes  (Eric Wynalda was sent off for an off the ball foul right
    in front of the referee!!  Not a sending off offense in its own
    right, but he had been booked earlier in the game, so the ref had
    no choice.   Next time, Erik, do it when the ref isn't looking!!!!)
    
    The conclusion that most observers have about TEAM USA is that they
    are a bit naive when it comes to World-class football.  They have
    the skills required and the desire, but they do not understand the
    subtleties and nuances of the game and therefore get caught out
    by international teams that have been playing on the world stage
    for years.  Unfortunately this is not something you can teach players,
    it only comes with experience.  In that regard, this World Cup
    is a vital lesson for all American soccer players.
    
    PJ 

PJ -

I agree pretty much.

On the Wynalda ejection, what our announcers said was that he had
not been book previously (I don't remember personally), and that
the linesman told the ref.  I felt it was a bad call, actually.

The US looked like they might have some offense early on, but there
were too many crosses that were off the mark, and too many wasted
opportunities.

There were defensive lapses that were heinous.  The first goal should
never have happened!  Nor the two goals on headers from corners.  Those
are the kinds of things where the defenders have to decide that no
way will the offense get position.

The US has the youngest team in competition, and it shows.  Vermies(sp?)
plays on a Dutch team, which is good, and one of the others plays
for a Hungarian team.  Let's hope a few more of the players can get
some of that type experience by 1994.

Meola kept the score from being 10-1.  I'm sure that youngster slept well
last night, because he looked exhausted!

Finally, we did score a goal.  It looked nice, it was done with poise and
was, for me, the bright spot of the afternoon.  

We need experience in World and International play.  No one said it would
be easy.....

Chainsaw

    The goal we scored was a shorthanded one at that. The foul that Wynalda
    got booted on was not somefin that you should get booted for. Meola
    looked good considering and had some great saves. I wasn't too
    disappointed, we can do better 'tho.

    This note is to discuss the plans for the 1994 WC in the U.S.  Please
    move discussions on the current World Cup to the appropriate topic.

    While I'm not much of a soccer fan, I do hope Foxboro gets some
    of the 1994 World Cup games because I'd like to work at the games
    in some capacity.  I could have volunteered to work at the 1984
    Olympic Soccer games that were held at Harvard, didn't, and have
    regretted it ever since.
    
    John

It won't happen unless they get the real grass put in soon John.

No world cup games on that Steenkin synthetic stuff.

BTW - I hear that the Yale Bowl might be pulling out as a possible site for
the world cup games. I guess they were overwhelmed with the crowd that showed
up for 1 of the qualifying matches. IF they do then there will be no World Cup
sites in NE in the running for hosting any of the '94 games unless Foxboro
puts in a bid...


MEtz

    The grass is supposed to go in before the 1991 season.  Whenever
    it happens, it will certainly be before 1994 because the turf does
    need to replaced and the team has stated it will be natural grass.
    
    Yale isn't a real good venue for an event such as the World Cup
    even though it is big - it can hold 70,000 people.  Access to the
    stadium from the highway is difficult, parking seems poor and the
    locker and press facilities are inadequate at best.  I'm surprised
    they got overwhelmed by one crowd though, because they do host the
    Harvard - Yale football game every other year which sells out.
    
    John

    To discuss the '94 cup, were basically gaining experience from this
    year to use in '94. Thats why were so young.
    
    It was obvious to me that American soccer and European soccer
    are still two worlds apart.It's always backwards,backwards,backwards
    for the U.S. team, no 1 touch passing and too many long ball passes.
    They do change fields pretty good though.
    The ejection in the game was utterly ridiculous.
    Meola did hesitate when coming out on the first goal,I think he could 
    have gotten to it had he not.
    Total defensive breakdown on those goal-scoring corner kicks.
    Our goal was pretty.Nice through-ball,a good juke on the keeper and
    finished well.
    Let's hope the italians don't humiliate us too bad.
    
    Go Alemania!

The problem with Yale isn't so much the access and stuff as the
neighborhood that it is in.

The area surrounding the Yale Bowl is an upscale yuppie neighborhood,
which is developing a lot of political clout.  They just managed to
create such a fuss over a proposed Paul McCartney concert, that Paul
decided not to play.  Add to that the fact that the First Selectman,
who's name is Einhorn, is the worlds biggest horses ass, and you
begin to get the picture.

With all the fiscal problems the City has, it would be quite good
to get major events like McCartney etc, but unfortunately, they're
not doing that.  Without some of that money, it looks like they can't
make improvements to the parking areas etc....

'Saw

    re -1
    
    Sounds like the people around Yale should be congratulated for their
    good taste in keeping the wimps out.
    
    BOSS

You're missing the point Bruce.

New Have is in dire straits financially.  There have been municipal
layoffs galore, and in one case the Firefighters Union is charging
that cutbacks in firefighters cost the lives of an elderly couple
in a recent fire.

With all those problems, every event in the Yale Bowl should be
taken.  The McCartney event would have produced an estimated
$350K profit for the City, free and clear.

I would have loved to have had the Yale Bowl chosen as a site,
becuase I can get down there in about 50 minutes, and that would be
quite an experience, to see a World Cup game live.

Every year the place is full to capacity for Yale-UCONN, and having
been to a few of those, I can vouch that the crowd for that
would probably be worse than for a World Cup.

An interesting point comes up too.

I'm not that familiar with the geography of Italy, but I'd be willing
to be that the teams don't have to do much flying between venues.
Here in the states it could be quite different....

'Saw

�The problem with Yale isn't so much the access and stuff as the
�neighborhood that it is in.
    
    Then that neighborhood must be a HUGE problem.  I've been in New Haven
    when there was a game at the Yale Bowl (might even have been
    Harvard/Yale).  We had a rugby game against New Haven.  The game was
    scheduled a couple of hours early so we could beat the traffic (hah!). 
    The place was a zoo.

re .150:


In terms of clout it is.

However, I agree with the traffic problems too....

'Saw

    Ya know, my biggest concern with '94 is that the US simply doesn't
    have a *clue* as to what the fans are likely to be like.  *ANY*
    US sporting event is calm compared to what goes on at the Cup. 
    Add the fact that we're *horrible* about dealing with folks who
    don't speak English (God help anyone who gets lost in Chicago, for
    example) and there are the makings of a real mess.
    
    Add to that the sheer *distances* involved.  We're going to overwhelm
    folks used to dealing in kilometers and hours to cross a country
    border to border, rather than days.  (I've hosted some Welsh ruggers
    - they had serious culture shock on both points.)
    
    We'll get the stadiums, with real grass, somehow.  We'll deal all
    right with the press.  (Peter Ueberroth, where are you?)  We'll
    figure out how to televise it.  Whether we'll figure out how to
    deal with the fans, I don't know.  Somehow I get this picture that
    it's like Mardi Gras in New Orleans, only spread across
    the whole country for a whole month.  How in the world our cops
    & courts are gonna handle it, I don't know.
    
    A&W

I don't know much about TV, but I do know if we ever wanna host
the blasted thing again, we've got to give the other countries
a direct feed.  We can't break that feed for commercials.

After watching soccer in Europe, I was REALLY getting ansty during
the FULL commercial breaks on TNT.  I mean, if they wanna pop a
fifteen or thirty second break in every fifteen minutes, I can deal
with it, but not the full two-five minutes every fifteen.  That's
ridiculous!

'Saw

    re 'Saw on TV coverage:
    
    If you're willing to listen to Spanish language commentary, Univision
    has been carrying World Cup telecasts without commercial interruption.
    (I love the way one of the announcers yells "GOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!" every
    time a team scores!)
    
    
    py

    Re paul,
    
    That guy on univision about broke the tube when he screamed 
    
    GGGGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!
    
    After brazil got their second on Sunday.

    I still can't recall BOSS's manly sport.  My guess would be crouquet.

    Can't be.....theres not a worn out sofa involved!

    from the Denver Post:
    
    FLORENCE, ITALY
    The U.S. hsa been given permission to consider domed stadiums
    for the 1994 WC, creating the possibility of the first indoor
    games in the championshp's history.
    
    Scott LeTellier, president of the WC '94 Organizing Committee,
    said yesterday that grass would be placed on top of the artificial
    turf.  All domed U.S. stadiums have artificial surfaces, which
    are prohibited by FIFA, soccer's governing body.
    
    A total of 27 cities and 31 stadiums have indicated they will
    bid for the 1994 tournament, the first in the U.S.  Between
    8 and 12 cities will be selected next year.
    
    The use of domes allows additional bids to be made by New Orleans
    (Superdome); Indianapolis (Hoosier Dome), Pontiac, Mich. (Silver-
    dome); Syracuse, N.Y. (Carrier Dome), and Tacoma, Wash. (Tacoma
    Dome).  LeTellier said domes in Houston, Minneapolis and Seattle
    probably would not be available because of their baseball commitments.
    
    "The domed stadiums in the U.S. have generally much better facilities
    than those that are not," LeTellier said.
    
    Although the organizing committee will recommend cities and stadiums
    next year, FIFA will make the final decisions.
    
    
    Cowboy

    re .149
    Yes, the sites probably would have to be geographically close. In
    Italy, the "seeded" teams (Italy, Argentina, Brazil, W. Germany,
    Belgium & England) play all their games in one venue, while the other
    three teams play in another location fairly close by. Each site has 3
    games: Site A = 1-2, 1-3, 1-4; Site B = 2-3, 2-4, 3-4.
    
    With this in mind, a Foxboro-New Haven group would be ideal. It isn't
    so much that the teams would have to fly, but the supporters traveling
    to follow their teams that would get expensive. One thing that is not
    as prevalent in the US is the percentage of away fans at a given game.
    You can just about guarantee a large contingent of fans from most of
    the European countries at least, although it is certainly more
    expensive than a trip to Italy.
    
    They should also do quite well with the various ethnic fans in America.
    How about seeding Brazil in Foxboro (large Portugese/Brazillian
    community in Mass.), [Spain, Mexico or a S. American team] in LA and W. 
    Germany in Chicago for '94?  Hell, I don't care if we get Trinidad vs
    Burkina Faso!
    
    Better yet, why not have all of England's supporters stay at Bruce's
    house? It's such a nice gesture of international goodwill for you to
    volunteer.
    
    Many :-) 
       
    Tom

Hey, they could stay at my house 8^)


Unfortunately, I believe the Yale Bowl in New Haven was pulled
from consideration by those Quiche-Eating-BMW-Driving-Izod_Wearing
Yuppie B______s who live in the area..... 8^)

Oh well....
'Saw

    Somehow it doesn't seem too inappropriate to have England supporters
    staying with a man named "Chainsaw":-) Naturally, the majority of
    English supporters are decent people, but it's only a handfull of
    #$%@*s who cause all the trouble.
    
    Now if it IS these selfish ijits who caused New Haven to bow out, I think
    they ought to line these people up and shoot them! Sure, they'll take
    the benefits of living near a world-reknown prestigous Universit, but
    they won't let the city have some badly needed cash by hosting events
    there. 
    
    All the more reason they should seed England in New Haven (providing
    they don't get whupped by Cyprus or Malta in the prelims). BMW = Break
    My Window.
    
    Tom

    'saw,
    
    	YOU DID IT!!   SUCCESS AGAIN!!
    
    You managed to get "set hidden"!!          
    
    It must be PARTYTIME!!
    PJ

�    
�    You managed to get "set hidden"!!          
�    

Well, maybe the moderator who decided to set it hidden will live
up to the responsibility of being a moderator and have the decency
to tell me why it got set hidden.

I don't mind if it's something foolish like yesterday, but if I'm 
discussing something serious, I think I have a right to know
why at least....

'Saw

    I just got back from 3 weeks in Czechoslovakia and Germany.  As you can
    imagine, much of the talk is about the World Cup.  There is a growing
    movement in Europe to have the hosting of the '94 Cup taken away from the 
    US.
    
    pete

    >> There is a growing movement in Europe to have the hosting of the '94
    >> Cup taken away from the  US.
    
    Gee, isn't that swell of the Europeans ???
    
    Hmmm, let's see now.  What can we do about this ???   How about an
    embargo on German BMWs, French wines, Italian pasta, British rock
    music, Belgian chocolates, Spanish olives, Swedish porn flicks,
    Austrian violins, and Russian vodka.
    
    Oh, and how about we pull all our troops out of NATO and replace them
    with cardboard cutouts ...
    
    Only half-joking ...
    
    The United States would be a wonderful place to hold the so-called
    "greatest sporting event in the world".   No other country in this
    history of this planet has ever understood and dominated the
    entertainment industry quite as thoroughly as the United States.
    
    Bob Hunt

    Sick 'em Bob.

    Bob,
    
    Maybe we could make an exception for the Swedes!!!!
    
    PJ

    The following is reproduced unashamedly and without permission from
    The Independent newspaper Saturday 23 June 1990.
                                           
    
    	CHANCE TO SWAY FOOTBALL'S ODDBALLS  by Keith Botsford
                                                             
    
    It is possible to be in America and not know the World Cup is on.
    The networks do not carry it, the neswpapers tuck it into the back
    pages. Yet 2,00 Columbians rioted in New York's Borough of Queens
    after a Columbian victory.  This game that arouse such passions
    in some, by and large leaves America cold.
    
    The basic isolationism of America shows nowhere so strongly as in
    sport.  Its own games are adaptations of European models, yet remain
    largely local.  They have developed by putting a premium on size,
    strength and the artificial excitement of the clock and they reflect
    the national character which is distractible, violent and demands
    instant gratification.  They are also fine games, constantly tuned
    and re-tuned to provide a steady diet of excitment and complexity,
    ready-made sports-bites.
    
    But American sports simply do not lend themselves to the longer
    rhythms and ebb and flow of the games from which they ultimately
    derive.  OUr football seems to them perverse, slow, overly strategic
    and undramatic.  Soccer's simplicity may make it ideal for the young,
    but when Americans reach adolescence, they are pressganged into
    the national sports.
    
    Soccer is a world game, so it ain't American; and if it ain't American,
    it can only work by being Americanised.
    
    
    
    
    The article continues....but you've read the key elements!!!
    
    If you want the whole thing, send me a fax number and I'll send
    it.
    
    PJ

    I'll havta agree with the artilce American sports are all those
    things.  But I luv'em!!!!!
    
    Gooooooo 'roooooooooooooooooooooooooooon!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    Nadeem

Yeah, it's funny.  I guess when you're one of the biggest kids on 
the block every one wants to bash you.  I mean, it's easy to do that.

If they wanna bash us because we don't play soccer well, or it doesn't
have a huge following...well that's okay. 

But, when there's problems that affect them in the REAL world, who
do they look to?  I mean, we almost always help out.   Look at
Iran.  They held our people hostage, they've raised their fist to
us time and time again.  But they are in serious, serious need, 
and we are helping.  How quickly the world forgets that stuff.

So, bash away.  If the best the bashers can do is get on us about
our lack of enthusiasm for, and ability to play soccer, then I 
say, Get a life.....

'Saw

    We ain't bashing, 'saw.  We're telling the trooph.
    PJ

I know PJ.  But it just seems to me that so many folks are so willing
to bash America on whatever grounds they can find.  So often, though,
when they need help, they always come asking here.

Hey, we have our faults (lots of them, including the fact that we
can't play soccer worth a damn 8^), but I have to reiterate what 
someone said earlier....we've always been able to pull off an
"entertainment spectacular..."

I think our handling of the World Cup would rival the 88 Olympics...

JMHO,
'Saw

    Couldn't agree more 'Saw. If that's the worst they can say, who cares.
    Most Americans could care less about what is going on in Italy, and I
    frankly don't think it makes us any the worst for it. 
    
    If in fact the World Cup is the biggest thing going on in these
    countries, they do in fact "Need a Life". On the other hand, in some of
    these countries, the Cup is a way of life, which I suppose answers the
    question by itself.
    
    Hey, we'll host the '94 Cup, and I'll probably go. If they take it
    away (which they won't), fine. It won't mean "didily" to my life.
    
    I have more pressing matters like....When is BC going to get a life and
    do something about Jack Bicknell!!! Sorry, guys, couldn't resist, I
    have to renew my season tickets tonight, and believe me its as painful
    as watching a 0-0 soccer draw!!!
    
    Later
    Jerry  
    

    I'd like a chance to refute some of Mr. Keith Botsford's published
    commentary about soccer and the American attitude toward it.
    
    So here goes ...
    
   >> It is possible to be in America and not know the World Cup is on.
    
    Sure, it's possible.  It's possible to be in America and not know a
    whole lot about what's going on.  It's also possible to be in the
    People's Republic Of China and not know *ANYTHING* about the rest of
    the world at all because the state controls the information that the
    public is allowed to see.   America has free and unabiding access to
    the information about the World Cup.   If an American doesn't know
    what's going on in the World Cup, it is because he didn't want to know
    in the first place.
    
    >> The networks do not carry it, the neswpapers tuck it into the back
    >> pages. 
    
    So, in other words, we're too feeble-minded to figure out which cable
    TV channel it's on or we're too dim-witted to turn to page 3 or 5 of
    the sports page ???   Horse hockey.   We know exactly where to find out
    about the World Cup.  So what if isn't on the open-air networks ??? 
    They've been losing market share to the specialty cable networks for
    the last 10 or 15 years in a row.  And most American sports fans read
    most of their favorite sports pages, not just page 1 and the baseball
    box scores.
    
    These first two sentences are insulting to anyone with a pulse, in my
    opinion.
    
    >> Yet 2,00 Columbians rioted in New York's Borough of Queens after a
    >> Columbian victory.  This game that arouse such passions in some, by and
    >> large leaves America cold.
    
    And there's the fan violence angle again.  Apparently we're going to
    have to kill, rape, plunder and generally ruin up things a bit before
    the rest of the soccer world takes us seriously.   Sheesh, talk about
    misery loves company.   Hey, when it comes to fan violence, count me
    out, dudes.   If the soccer fans of this world want to put so much
    emotion into their teams that they're ready to riot to show their
    support, then something is seriously wrong in Denmark.  And Rome.  And
    Liverpool.  And Bogota.  And Buenos Aires.  And Munich.  And ...
    
    >> The basic isolationism of America shows nowhere so strongly as in
    >> sport.  Its own games are adaptations of European models, yet remain
    >> largely local.  
    
    Let's see, what are the Americans' "own" games ???    
    
    Baseball, for starters.  No doubt derived from English cricket but with
    a decidedly American "blue collar" twist to it.  Like, for instance,
    ending the game within 2 to 3 hours as opposed to the days that a
    cricket match can take.  Last I checked, though, baseball is now an
    official Olympic sport.   It's played at a professional level
    throughout Japan, Korea and some of the Caribbean Islands like Cuba,
    Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic.   There are club level teams
    in Australia, Russia, England, France, and elsewhere.   And the Little
    League World Series is just about the private party of the Taiwanese
    teams.
    
    So much for "largely local" baseball ...
    
    And American football.  Hmmm, let's see. Yep, derived from rugby, no
    doubt about it.  And up until a few years ago, it could be considered a
    "largely local" American sport.   Not anymore. The English are *NUTS*
    about it.   The weekly highlight shows of NFL games get huge ratings in
    England.   And the Super Bowl is a big deal in England as well.   And
    now we have a new venture of the NFL called the World League of
    American Football (WLAF) that has already granted a franchise to
    Barcelona and Frankfurt, I believe.   So, so much for that "ostrich".
    
    And how about two other "world" sports ???  The entire world plays
    basketball and volleyball.   And where were these two "global" games
    invented ???   Right here, dudes.    Ice Hockey is an international
    game and it's been played professionally in the United States since the
    turn of the century.
    
    Horse racing, auto racing, tennis, golf, ...  Shall I continue ???  All
    played right here in the good ol' US of A and played throughout the
    world.  Americans have, at times, dominated each of these sports.
    
    So, what are we missing on the "world" scene ???   Soccer.  And so it
    seems to this writer, if we don't play soccer on the world level then
    everything else we do is "largely local".  Brilliant.
    
    >> They have developed by putting a premium on size, strength and the
    >> artificial excitement of the clock and they reflect the national
    >> character which is distractible, violent and demands instant
    >> gratification.  
    
    Size is a premium in football and basketball only.   Size is almost
    completely irrelevant in baseball and ice hockey.  And it is
    meaningless in tennis and golf.   And last time I looked the Russian
    and Yugoslavian basketball teams had some pretty tall players.  Vlade
    Divac and Arvidas Sabonis are up in the thin air.
    
    And as for a clock to time the games, see baseball above.  The game
    that is considered the "National Pastime" is completely untimed.  No
    clock whatsoever.  About the only thing in baseball that is even
    loosely timed is a visit to the mound by a coach.
    
    And soccer is two 45 minute halves, is it not ???   Oh, I forgot, the
    referee can add some injury time at the end.  Big deal.  When our
    players get injured, we watch beer ads.   When soccer players get hurt,
    the fans riot in the stands.
    
    And we have a "distractable, violent" character ???  Two entire
    continents, Europe and South America, have dropped everything to
    agonize over a month's worth of soccer games and they call us
    "distractable" ???   And "violent" ???
    
    >> But American sports simply do not lend themselves to the longer
    >> rhythms and ebb and flow of the games from which they ultimately
    >> derive.  
    
    Bull.  See baseball above.  We took cricket and shortened it so that we
    could go home at a decent hour.   No sport has more rhythms and ebb and
    flow than baseball.   Basketball and football certainly have their
    share of "mood swings", too.
    
    >> OUr football seems to them perverse, slow, overly strategic and
    >> undramatic.  Soccer's simplicity may make it ideal for the young, but
    >> when Americans reach adolescence, they are pressganged into the
    >> national sports.
    
    Soccer is not perverse, slow, overly strategic, and undramatic.  We
    just like to see a few goals every once in a while.  We don't need any
    crazy 9-8 or 8-7 games.  Just maybe an occasional 3-2 game here or
    there.   And excuse me, but I cannot walk away from a 0-0 game of any
    kind and get all excited about it.   I'd much rather kiss my sister.
    
    >> Soccer is a world game, so it ain't American; and if it ain't
    >> American, it can only work by being Americanised.
    
    Stick it, pal.   Americans are more than happy to compete on the world
    level, any time, any place, any sport.   You name the rules and we'll
    play it hard enough and long enough to eventually beat you.
    
    Meanwhile, want to play a little football ???  American style ???  
    Here, I got some pads that you'll probably need.  Make that
    *definitely* need.
    
    Bob Hunt

    YOu know Saw, and others, every now and them I really wish the good
    ol' US of A hadn't bailed out the Brits and the French and the rest
    of the ungrateful mob twice in this century.  I'm sure the good
    ol' boys in the pubs of London would *love* to be speaking German
    and celebrating Adolph Hitler's birthday.   We save their asses,
    rebuild their economies, provide countless aid and support, but
    hey WE DON'T PLAY SOCCER, what a second-rate country.  Geez...
    
    JD

See, what made me mad was a couple of things...

(btw, Bob, GREAT reply)

First off, I *like* soccer.  I can watch a 0-0 tie and enjoy it, because
it probably took some good saves, or some close plays etc to keep it
that way.

But the fact of the matter is that a majority of Americans could give
two s__ts about soccer.  Fine, that's why this is a free country.
So, in one respect, that article was very poor in that it assumed
that *all* Americans do not like or care about soccer.

Second, I agree JD.  One of the main reasons why it was decided Europe
first in WWII was the heavy duty lobbying of the British.  I mean,
hey, if my ass was hanging in a sling twenty miles from a madman,
I'd be worried too.  

We helped out, in a big way.  We might not be ready for something
when it starts, but by God, this country's greatest asset is that
when the chips are down, we can pull together and get things done.
We're not perfect, but we don't deserve to be bashed all the time
just because we're not a world power in soccer.


I'm not worried about 1994, really.  I think we'll do just fine.

'Saw

    re.176
    i aggreey.  wy doent thos more ons cum ofer hear an trie too plaey
    ar gaime ov futball.  dey wonet lasst fife minats.
    
    sockher iz a gaime four wousses.
    
    iamwhatiam
    

   What the hell!?!?

   Have us bloody Yanks all lost our sense of humors over the weekend?

   I thought the article was pretty good. Enough truth to be readable,
   enough exaggeration to be funny. I liked the part about `artificial
   excitement of the clock', and agree with that assessment for certain
   sports: Two minute warnings in football and the strategies that are
   ALLOWED to be implemented, such as the foul sequence at the end of the
   game of basketball which enables the final 1 minute of play to last
   twenty minutes.

   I choose to take the comments in a spirit of friendly kidding, not
   bashing. Stay light, guys... and don't forget... I suspect many of
   these opinions are being generated by the Brits. Now what can you
   expect from a people that drinks WARM BEER!?!?!? HAHAHAHAHA (tm)!

   PS - Bob Hunt.... What does your sister look like? I might be persuaded
   to kiss her for you. ;'D

   Mike `Yes Virginia, Soccer inhales discreetly' JN

    Re: .175
    
    I understand your anger at  the writer's perception of the USA, but one
    also has to look at what soccer means to the rest of the world.  The
    fanaticism is based on people having very little to cheer about other
    that sports.
    
    Brazil has one of the world's most powerful economy but yet inflation
    runs at around 1000%, foreign debt around 100 billion dollars, etc.
    Soccer for many poor people is the escape from a pityful reality.  We
    have all dreamt of scoring the winning goal, run, or basket, but for
    these people the ecstacy of scoring/winning is a mirage that powers them
    to struggle for another day.
    
    The European side of the story is even more intriguing.  This is a
    society similar in affluence to the USA but where violence is by and
    large isolated to sporting events.  One can not, in my opinion, compare
    a city in the USA where murder is an everyday crime to a city in Europe
    where you can still walk the streets late at night. Europeans are
    passionate about soccer because they are have lost "passion" for other
    things.  
    
    Affluence breeds a certain laziness attitude because the goal
    os self-sufficiency is already reached by your parents, or govt. An
    example of this is Sweden which has one of the highest suicide rates in
    the world, yet is one of the richest as well.  Therefore sports is a
    rallying cry for the poor but also for the not-so poor, and it doesn't
    matter where you live. 
    
    JMO,
    
    John Rodopoulos

    re: .175
    
    Bob,
    	A word in your ear....
    
    
 >   Stick it, pal.   Americans are more than happy to compete on the world   <
 >   level, any time, any place, any sport.   You name the rules and we'll    <
 >   play it hard enough and long enough to eventually beat you. "            <
    
    1) Please watch your accusations!!...I am an ex-pat living in
    the UK who played football (the real kind with pads, etc) and who
    for personal reasons has decided to stay in the UK for the time
    being (and is forced to watch five-day cricket matches, darts and
    snooker on TV)... So I'm in your court, my friend.
    
    2) I am, however, guilty of not typing the whole article (my fingers
    started to complain).  The author does defend the American pubilc
    and critizes the US Soccer Federation.  Send me your FAX number
    and I'll send you the rest.  (On second thoughts, maybe you'll just
    get more ammo!!)
    
    3) There is no doubt that the US can create a spectacle and if anything
    can generate excitement for the game of soccer it will be the World
    Cup 1994.  I, for one, hope that the American public do catch on
    to the sport because, it's not truly a World sport unless the Americans
    challenge.. and I do mean 'challenge'..
    
    PJ
    (who's just sharing opinions)

    PJ,
    
    My reply was not aimed at you.  I know you just typed it.  I was
    replying to the author.  So, the "Stick it, pal" was my feeble attempt
    at confronting the author.
    
    >> We helped out, in a big way.  We might not be ready for something
    >> when it starts, but by God, this country's greatest asset is that when
    >> the chips are down, we can pull together and get things done.
    
    This is the Massachusetts "Minuteman" theory, right Saw ???   As in,
    we're just simple folk who want to be left alone but if you step just
    one foot over that line, bub, watch out.
    
    Bob Hunt

    >> This is a society similar in affluence to the USA but where violence
    >> is by and large isolated to sporting events.  
    
    Europe has terrorist bombings in airports and on the planes themselves.  
    It has extreme left-wing, ultra-radical political groups.  It has the
    IRA, the Red Brigade, a couple of neo-Nazi outfits and, of course, the
    KGB.   Yep, by and large isolated to sporting events.  I can see that.
    
    >> One can not, in my opinion, compare a city in the USA where murder
    >> is an everyday crime to a city in Europe where you can still walk the
    >> streets late at night. 
    
    Of course, let's not forget about 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 when you
    could indeed walk the streets of any American city in peace as opposed
    to the utter lunacy of showing your head above ground in any European
    city during those two time periods.   Yes, American cities do show a
    disturbing amount of random violence.  We don't have much of the
    "planned" violence, though, do we ???   And last time I checked we
    haven't had to rebuild any of our cities from the ground up since our
    Civil War about, oh, 125 years ago.
    
    >> Europeans are passionate about soccer because they are have lost
    >> "passion" for other things.  
    
    Now here's the one statement you made that I actually can give the
    Europeans a lot of credit for.   I think they are much more passionate
    about their lives than Americans.  These past few months have been
    nothing short of *ASTONISHING* in Europe.  There was certainly
    "passion" in the air when the Berlin Wall came down.  And when the
    Czechs set up one of the veterans of the 1968 Prague Spring as their
    new leader.  And when the Romanians laid down their lives to get rid of
    Ceaucescu.  And when Poland held free elections.  And Latvia,
    Lithuania, and Estonia ...
    
    This is where I don't understand soccer violence.   Why riot over the
    team when there is so much more interesting stuff to get worked up
    over ???
    
    Bob Hunt

    I might upset many of you with the following note, but please see this
    as an expression of an honest opinion.
    
    The USA entered WWI and WWII because it had a vested interest in having 
    the French, Brits etc win.  If the Germans had won the US would be
    facing a powerful (economically and militarily) united Europe under German 
    rule.
    
    The US did rebuild Europe at a staggering cost, but again it was in
    their best interest to do so.  Communism had become a real threat to
    wartorn Europe, and the danger of Europe falling into the USSR's hands
    was worth the cost.
    
    I do not feel that the world is not grateful to all the US has done, in
    fact quite the opposite.  Americans are respected around the world, as
    evidenced by the number of people trying to get in. 
    
    But if one was to say who saved whose ass didn't the French assist the 
    American during the war for independance, or was my political science
    professor wrong ? 

    ... and who gives credit to Von Steuben????????????????????
    

    I'd have to say that John R's last 2 replies are the most sane of the
    lot here. Yes, America certianly had a vested interest in rebilding
    Europe. Nations don't do anything without a reason.
    
    As far as the 1994 WC, it is a moot point. The USA IS hosting the
    event, no matter what happens. This whole discussion was hashed out
    back and forth when FIFA first announced this decision. Also, some
    Europeans have griped that the Americans wanted to change the rules of
    soccer, setting up a 4 quarters format, so there would be more time for
    TV ads. This was FIFA's idea, and had nothing to do with the US WC
    committee. (This ain't gonna happen BTW). Only the naive would think
    that it wasn't done with the PERCEPTION that it was the USA Cup that
    changed the format.
    
    Onr thing is for certain. Here in the US, we have some of the most
    first-rate stadia in the world, and as soon as they rip up that ugly
    astro-turf in some of them (as they are doing in Foxboro), they will be
    eligible to host games. The cities that ARE fortunate enough (only 12
    nationwide) will enjoy the most culturally diverse and one of the most 
    exciting sporting events the world has ever known. I hope Foxboro is
    lucky enough to be selected.  
    
    Tom

    To whoever is in Europe, and/or has/had access to the info....
    
    What is/was the impression of how we handled the soccer portion of the '84
    Olympics?  It would seem to me that would be a more reasonable
    barometer of how we are likely to handle the World Cup than anything
    else.
    
    Rioting fans are likely to be somewhat of a problem.  The only place in
    the States that I know of with fans of that ilk is Detroit [ :-)/2],
    and I can't say that I regard it as a 'plus' to be that passionately
    'involved' in any sporting event.
    
    On the political front - the world jest keeps gettin' more 'n more
    interdependent.  We need to learn to admire the best from each culture,
    and help all to develop the good stuff and leave the bad stuff by the
    wayside.
    
    A&W

    All,
    
    	Granted, we were a major force in WWII, but I have my doubts
    	that our side would have won without the Russians pushing 
    	from the eastern front (FWIW).  
    
    Claybone

    
    Lighten up guys,
    
            I would like to know how you guys would feel if the SuperBowl
    were held in Iran.  Im sure some writer would come out and blast
    that too.  The point is they DID give the WC to the U.S.  People
    will say it's a stupid decision and people will say it is a good
    one.  I for one look forward to seeing some world class soccer (sorry
    football) over here.  Bob, I don't think we should get into these
    other sports just to beat everyone.  First I doublt it will ever
    happen and second I don't subdcribr to the winning is everthing
    philosopy.  Let's just be happy it is here and prove through actions
    not words that we are worthy. ( i.e. lets all buy tickets for ouselves
    and our friends)
    
    By the way it is time we give credit to Russia for their part in
    WWII,  they did all the work and the U.S. got all the credit.  Enough
    time has passed to forget about the war movies and give credit where
    credit is due.
    
    Hope to see y'all at the W.C. in '94
    
    Nadeem
    

Everyone has made good points.

Without help from the French, and Von Steuben, we probably would
not be sitting here discussing this...

Hitler faced a big dilemma because a two-front war is virtually 
impossible to win.

Don't forget another reason that we got involved in WWII is the
little matter of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.  It is true
about the vested interest in Europe, but Pearl Harbor definitely
had something to do with it too 8^)

Finally, I guess you could call my theory the Minuteman theory, 
I don't know.  But I do know that most of the people in this country
could have cared less what was happening in Europe between 1939 and 1941.
But, step on our toes, and we'll have women and older men building
B-17s to the tune of 16 a day, and tanks and planes.  You'll have
men ready to defend their country with their lives.

It seems that we're always like that....

And quite honestly, I would just love it if there was never another
war again, and if we all could look at each other and (at the very least)
not hate each other because of our differences.   I've long held
the belief that we'll never truly be a unified world until we face 
invasion from space aliens ;^)

'Saw

    Anyone who's even barely heard of World War II knows that the Russians
    were the dominant land force.   The Red Army lost *millions* of men and
    even more millions of civilians died.  They'll never know for sure but
    rough estimates are that about 20,000,000 Russians died as a result of
    the Great Patriotic War as they call it.
    
    The Germans got within 20 kilometers of the Kremlin towers in the fall
    of 1941.   That the Russians were able to counterattack at all was a
    miracle.  That they were able to throw the Germans back at the very
    gates of their capital city was astounding.
    
    Once the Red Army turned the tide in 1942 at Stalingrad, Russian
    generals like Zhukov and Chuikov won classic text book battles against
    the Germans.   Stalingrad, Kursk, Kharkov, Begrosian.  These were all
    Russian victories against an extremely tough German army.   They drove
    all the way to Berlin to shake hands with the Americans.  Then they set
    up governments in each of the countries they had rolled through.  After
    two doses of German invasions withinn 25 years, they had had enough.
    
    It's no wonder they're a little "nervous" about a reunited Germany.
    
    The United States ruled the oceans in World War II.  The Russians ruled
    the land masses.  No doubt about it.
    
    Bob Hunt

    >> Hitler faced a big dilemma because a two-front war is virtually 
    >> impossible to win.
    
    Hitler faced an even bigger dilemma in 1941 when the Russians moved
    their troops within 100 kilometers of Romania.  For underneath the
    Ploesti oil fields in Romania was Hitler's *only* supply of petroleum
    on the entire European continent.
    
    And he knew you couldn't run tanks and planes on air.   He abandoned a
    helpless Britain and went after the Russians to protect the oil fields
    and to make the "big grab".  The breadbasket of southern Russia was his
    goal all along.
    
    He didn't have a "two-front" war until 6-Jun-1944.   At that point,
    because he had not been able to finish off the Russians, the end was
    written for Germany.
    
    The Second World War was entirely "winnable" for Germany.  Hitler blew
    it.  Not by invading Russia but by failing to finish the job.   From a
    strategic standpoint, he did the right thing.  From a tactical
    standpoint, he couldn't have fumbled it any worse.
    
    And the Russians displayed an amazing ability to withstand the harshest
    wartime conditions and come back blazing every time it looked bleakest
    for them.
    
    Bob Hunt

    One of the most convenient 'memory lapses' of WWII was the incredible
    amount of aid the US of A provided the great red army.  The US of
    A ferried thousands of planes over laden with cargo, or simply ferried
    them over for use by the mighty red army.  Without the aid of the
    US in the form of capital and material, the vaunted Red Army would
    have been crushed.  "Official" Russian history forgets this little
    tidbit, and the US of A, buried in cold war anti-commie hysteria
    hushed it up.  However, there have been a couple of great documentaries
    on in recent years.
    
    The US ruled the air, ruled the oceans, and ruled the ground.  The
    Russians suffered immensly,and gave the allies the much needed counter
    attack to open up the Italian campaign and then the Normandy invasion.
    Hitler made the a few of his famous mistakes in the Russian campaign.
    
    JD

Also, the German troops (well, at least a portion of them) in 
the Eastern front were ill equipped.  In many cases artillery
was horse-drawn.

The Russian's resistence and ability to push the Germans back
was legendary, no doubt about it.  

We did give them tremdendous aid, through Lend-Lease I believe
but could be wrong.

My point about the two-front war was meant to encompass the time
period following D-Day.

Also, Hitler's greatest downfall was his inability to let his generals
use their military knowledge.  His constant meddling, probably driven
by his paranioa, prevented realistic campaigns from being planned
and executed.

And, getting back to Soccer, we will host, and host very graciously
at that, the 1994 World Cup....

'Saw

    Gimme a break,  the U.S. rules the air, ocean and land.  Untill
    Americans learn to be a bit more realistic and humble I dont't blame
    the rest of the world for hating us.  The Russians did a great job.
    They made a hell'ova bigger contrabution than the U.S.
    
    It is a real shame that it will take some alien thst we don't even
    know exists to unite us 'saw.  I hope we can be a bit more
    understanding and mature than that.
    
    Go 'roooooooooooooooooooooooooon
    
    Nadeem

Nadeem --

I think that JD made a good point.  The Russians biggest fear was that
Japan would attack them from the ass-end, or at least one text I read
espoused that theory.

With the exception of the Battle of the Bulge, we basically rolled
through Europe.  The Battle of the Bulge was due to complacency, 
and a front that was too thinly manned.  It was quickly taken care 
of.

And, btw, some of the Russian's stoicism also existed in our
Airborne division, surrounded at Bastogne.  "Nuts" will forever live
in the history of war...

We fought in Europe, and the Marines fought some of the bloodiest 
fighting in their history in the Pacific.  Ask any Marine, or ex
Marine that you know.  My uncle was there.  In many ways the Japanese
were a more heinous enemy than the Germans, because of the sheer frustration
of fighting them.

Yes, the Russians were good Allies, and took Berlin, but the US played
as significant a role in the overall scheme of things.  We ruled the
seas, without a doubt.  That we ruled the air cannot be questioned.
And don't forget the Pacific when you consider the US's contributions
in WWII...

'Saw

    Re: Russian WWII casualties
    
    I just happened to read a piece about this today.  There are no exact
    figures on the number of Russians killed during the war, but in all
    probablity the Soviet Union lost some 20 million people.  Of that
    total, about 7.5 mil were military casualties, an estimated 3 mil of
    whom died in German p.o.w. camps; the remaining 12.5 mil or so were
    civilians.  The numbers usually range from 17-20 million.
    
    					Steve

    The fatalistic Russian response to the American Lend-Lease aid was ...
    
    "American uniform, American bullets, American food, Russian body"
    
    The Russians (and all other countries) were caught in a spidery web
    spun by one of the true military geniuses of all time, Franklin D
    Roosevelt.   The Russians, the most avowed anti-capitalists on the
    planet, just about bled themselves white against the Wehrmacht all so
    that the United States could rake in the world's poker chips.
    
    The Russians lost about 20,000,000 men and the most heavily populated
    sections of their country were completely and utterly devastated by the
    ear.   Millions of their civilians were marched off to Nazi death
    camps.   Thousands starved under a 900 day siege in Leningrad.
    
    The Americans lost about 300,000 men in all theatres of the war.   And
    not a single speck of American dirt was touched.  
    
    Offhand, I'd say the Russians paid a fair price for the Lend-Lease
    stuff we gave 'em.
    
    Hey, I'm no "commie lover" but the truth is the truth.   World War II
    left much deeper scars on Russia than on America.    It is a key event
    in Russian history which is a fascinating topic.  A country that can
    give us Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Nureyev, and Horowitz as well as Lenin,
    Stalin, and the KGB is one *interesting*  country.
    
    Back to soccer ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    Surprisingly deep strategical and historical knowledge, gentlemen.
    
    Was interesting for me (as a german, who's father was in the WWII
    and grandfather in WWI) to read.
    
    I don't say much. In these politically delicate days one has to be
    careful. In terms of united germany one has to respect some fears
    on the russian side, the reasons of which have been described here
    appropriately. I can tell you that in this country there is a lot of
    respect for the bleeding of the russians.
    
    On the other hand, i'm more than sure that militarily there will be
    no danger from here any more, economics is another story.
    
    You see, from soccer strategies to military strategies it is not too
    far....8:)
    
    R.

    want to add something before i shut up on this topic (still feel a
    little odd talking about those things, but the developments in
    europe/germany 'melted' many 'frozen' feelings):
    
    Reading about this two-front war remarks:
    
    My ancesters told me that on the day germany was officially at
    war with russia there was kind of a general depression all over
    the country in spite of all military optimism. They told me some-
    how they felt that this was the beginning of the end. Talking to
    the german war veterans you hear about 2 key dates: Beginning of
    war with russia and Stalingrad. In their memory these events dominate
    all others.
    
    R.

    re: .187
    
    Nobody questions the American's ability to host a "spectacle". 
    In that there are few equals...What some people are afraid of is
    that somehow the rules will be 'adjusted' to suit the demands of
    US television and US viewing habits.
    
    The other fear that I have heard recently, is that despite providing
    a spectacle, no one will attend the matches (other than foreigners!!).
    No matter how impressive a spectacle, it helps if you can fill the
    stadiums.  (Although I think this point is less crucial...just look
    at the stands in the Costa Rica/Czech match!!)
    
    My personal hope is that the WC in 94 will generate the excitment
    and passion in the US that the game has been able to generate
    throughout the rest of the world.  I believe that the game would
    be influenced for the better by strong US participation.
    
    JMHO,
    PJ

    re: .190
    
>>     I've long held the belief that we'll never truly be a unified     <<
>>    world until we face invasion from space aliens ;^)                 <<
                                                                           
    
    My only response to this is plagiarised from our friends Calvin
    & Hobbes....
    
    "The best proff that there is intelligent life out there.....
                   ......is that none of it has tried to contact us yet!!!"
                   
    
    PJ

re .202:

I guess I've always held the belief that Earth won't truly unite
until we all face the same common threat.  And even then, Man, in
his infinite need to hate someone or something will just turn the
hate towards that common threat.  Maybe I read too much Science Fiction.

re soccer:

The US is faced with an ideal situation now.  It basically had it's
head handed to it on a platter in Italy.  We can either learn from 
that, or do the ostrich number.

We need to pick a good coach.  I don't feel that Gansler was our
best choice.  We had predominantly college "all-star" players.
We *do* have a fledgling pro league here.  Good players like 
Don Donegin were not even considered.  I truly feel that our
professional players should be given consideration for our
International team.

And that International team should be formed soon.  It should be
playing friendlies with anyone and everyone who will take them.
If they got their butts kicked good by the likes of Liverpool,
Arsenal, AC Milan, Barcelona et al, then maybe they'd learn to
be competitive.

We Americans stand at a great crossroads in our soccer history.
Let's hope the dweebs who put this years team together can make
better decisions next time out....

'Saw

Hey 'Saw,

Maybe the brains of the U.S. are one step ahead - picking a young team for
this WC and keeping the nucleus for 1994 when they will be a bit more mature.

Sound familiar?  Remember the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey Team that was so great?

rick ellis

That could be, but I don't think the talent search went far enough.

Good solid players from the APSL (American Pro Soccer League) were
hardly even looked at.  Gannsler (forget how to spell his name) didn't
look any farther than the collegiate ranks, from what I've read.

College kids are not going to hold up to the likes of Maradonna,
Gullit, Koeman, Mathus etc.  

We have them now, but what will they be doing for the next four
years?

The next two years in my mind are a VERY important time period.
We need to develop a strong midfield that utilizes *passing* and
not this "gimme the ball and I'll John Wayne it through" attitude
that our midfielders had.  

Our defense was slow...need more speed back there...

The goalies are not bad.  Need some seasoning, because for goalies
they are VERY VERY young...

Oh well, now to just sit back and wait....

'Saw

    We'll do a good job hosting this thing. I for one will take a coupla
    week off, pack up my friend's van and travel this great nation and see
    approx 8-10 World cup games. Actually plans are already in the works
    for us to do this. Once the sights are announced we'll establish a
    route. It doesn't matter who we see, hopefully we'll get to see Brazil 
    'tho.
    
    

    
    From what I have been reading in the WC topic everyone has just
    about guaranteed that Italy will be in the final.  I may be
    a novice at soccer but am I to assume that the 1994 WC in the US
    will have the US in the final just to generate fan interest?
    
    The WC seems to be following the same course as Olympic judging
    very biased.  Am I reading to much into the other notes about
    home team advantage?  
    
    /pjb

Phil...

They're assuming Italy will be in the final because along with
Brazil, Argentina and West Germany, they've been a perennial
world force in Soccer.

If the US could reach the final of the 1994 WC it would be
a bigger miracle than the world has ever seen....8^)

'Saw

    'Saw is right. There are a few teams at the same level as Italy
    (Frank named them), but being at home one tends to give Italy the
    edge.
    
    The comparison with the hockey miracle is not 100% correct. THe US
    is and always was among the better hockey countries, in soccer they
    are newcomers. Anyways, they could become a force in soccer as well.
    The crucial point would be public acceptance before the '94 games
    start.
    
    R.

    Good point about US hockey, Ranier. The USA won the Gold in 1932,
    1960 and then in 1980. There is a solid bed of talent cultivated
    in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and New England. College hockey
    in the USA is, in some cases, superior to play in the American Hockey
    League.
    
    As far as WWII goes, I agree that the Soviet Union's contribuition
    to victory (or defeat - depends on your reference point) has been
    largely overlooked in American history books. Stalin pleaded with
    Roosevelt from 1941 to open a second front. Because the USA was
    largely untested in battle and just gearing up for a total war,
    Roosevelt placed American lives ahead of the Russians and planned
    a slow buildup before accommodating Stalin's pleas. The Soviet Union
    essentially faced the Germans alone, on land, from 1941 until 1944.
    The French had capitulated and the British were routed from the
    continent. That left the Soviets to stop the Wehrmact by itself
    with resources supplied mostly from the USA.
    
    Of course the Americans contributed lives in Europe during this
    time. There were the strategic bombing raids aimed at Germany's
    industrial heartland, the Anglo-American invasion of North Africa
    and finally the joint invasion of Italy. But the European continent
    was basically a Soviet-German affair.
    
    As far as Nadeem (Laker Fan?), the USA clearly displaced the Royal
    navy of Great Britain as the most powerful Navy in the world. Remember
    that the Americans contended almost singlehandedly with the Japanese
    Imperial navy while supporting thousands of Atlantic convoys and
    working with the British to secure the Mediterranean and North Sea.
    In the air, the Americans worked with the British to neutralize
    the "invincible" Luftwaffe. One cannot say that the Royal Air Force
    was substandard by any means, though, to the Americans since they
    alone were most responsible (along with Goring's incompetence) for
    winning the Battle of Britain. 
    
    On land, the Americans possessed the most sophisticated army in
    the history of mankind by 1944. The best trained and equipped in
    the world. Yet a ragtag, patchwork German force split into two fronts
    with dwindling supplies made this army pay dearly for every mile
    between Normandy and the Rhine. Very similar to the Soviet retreat
    in 1940 in the face of the Wehrmact.
    
    The USA did rule the seas by war's end and, due to sheer numbers,
    the sky, too. And, because our industrial capacity had not been
    smashed by war the USA's resources were unmatched. I resent you,
    Nadeem, making light of the US's stature, militarily, at that time.
    It depicts a lack of understanding of the events surrounding the
    largest confrontation in history.
    
    Rich
     

    There are two US players in to the English First Division ( I can't
    remember both of them, but I think Roy Wegerle of Luton was an American
    parent)  Anyway, why didn't the US Soccer Federation select them.
     I remember reading somewhere that it had to do with the players
    not wanting to sign a contract...This kind of attitude sucks.  If
    you've got the players, use them.  Worry contracts when it make
    a difference.
    
    PJ (who_doesn't_have_all_the_facts_exactly_right)

PJ --

I know that Harkes supposedly was to have a tryout.  For some
reason I think it was with Sheffield Wednesday.  (Tsk, tsk, even
if he does now, it won't be division one, thanks to Forest...)

At any rate, the USSF is pretty STUPID.  They have been blasted in
the press here, and perhaps we'll see some changes.

There was a big article in this morning's Hartford Courant on 
Don Donegan (who's from UCONN) and plays for the Penn-Jersey Spirit
in the ASPL, and it mentions his hopes of playing in 1994...

We'll just have to see what happens...

'Saw

    Realistically, the US players need to play at the top level of
    competition, meaning European pro leagues. Tony Meola has a contract
    with Ascoli, one of the mid-to-bottom teams in the first division. This
    is probably the best possible scenario for his overall development. A)
    The Italian league is the best, in tems of international starts,
    big-time emphasis, money & prestige. B) Ascoli is not a top team, so he
    will get PLENTY of practice facing the shots of Maradonna (Napoli),
    Klinnsmaan, Voeller (Inter), Gullit, Van Basten, Donadoni, Baresi,
    Rijkaard (AC Milan), as well as several other world-class players.
    
    Other players from the US team are playing in Europe, and certainly
    more will sign on after the Cup is over, and the clubs are looking at
    their needs. Despite losing all 3 games (2 by one goal), the US team
    did much better than most people expected. 
    
    The best 4-year plan I can think of would be to let them play in Europe
    for 2 years. After 1992, bring 'em home and set up 2 or more "teams"
    Don't forget, there will be more eligible players then, plus the
    Donnegans and Wergeles who could have been included with the '90 team.
    Schedule as many friendlies and enter as many Cup competitions as
    possible in Europe and Latin America from 1992-on. After several games,
    narrow the team down to a full team and a "reserve" team. 
    
    Even though they won't have to play in the CONCAF qualifying group,
    they should take on as many of these countries as possible (Mexico,
    Costa Rica, etc.)
    
    As far as keeping the '90 team together, I can only think of what was
    said in the preparations for the '82 (I think) Cup. They tried this,
    having all the top Americans play in the NASL as the Washington
    franchise. Rick Davis, a promising player, said he got more out of
    practicving every day with Beckenbauer, Chinaglia & Co than any
    advantage playing together as a team.
    
    Let's keep this topic rolling.
    
    Comments?
    
    Tom 

Tom --

Sounds good to me.  

They can't get seasoning if they're not challenged, and they certainly
won't get it here...

'Saw

    
    Let's stop talking this wimps sport stuff, and talk more about war.
    Should we start a petition drive to keep the WC out of the US?
    
    BOSS
    
    PS  I know you guys have been missing me, but I'm in the process
    of moving and have been relatively busy.

    Yes, we should. No good casting pearls, etc.
    
    In return, we will promise to keep out your version of culture (Coca
    Cola and polystyrene foam packaging, not to mention Madonna). The world
    will then be divided into two neat sections, one of which will continue
    to follow its degenerative downward route on a diet of microwave
    pastrami on rye, Dallas and legalised head-butting.
    
    Whatcha bin busy at BOSS? Findin' somekinda sport to play?
    
    
    Peter
    

    
    The funny thing is you ferreners actuallt think people would care
    if the WC was tossed out of the US.  99.9% of the people here wouldn't
    give a damn.  As far as Cocal Cola, polystyrene, and Madonna being
    our version of culture, as far as I know, we've never:
    
    1. Held those things in front of you like a carrot, forcing you
    to beg to have them allowed into your country, when you actually
    never cared for them to begin with.
                                       
    2. Looked down on you because you don't give a fecal specimen (KGT)
    about them.
    
    
    
    BTW, your phrase "flush the WC out!" is quite accurate.
    
    BOSS 
        
        

    
    re: .217 by JULIET::MAY_BR
    
    Are :^)'s implied, or is this the start of another cold war?  IMHO,
    you're coming on a little strong there.
    
    *************************
    
    While I'm in write-only mode, seems to me that the US networks
    have missed a few opportunities to promote soccer recently...
    particularly TNT missed a golden chance during their NBA
    playoff games.  
    
    There wasn't that much basketball news to focus on - if they
    wanted to build an audience for the World Cup, they could have
    given half the halftime minutes to a "Soccer & the World Cup"
    subject.  Talk about what to watch for in a soccer game, what
    the strategy is all about, point out which team is known for
    what.  
    
    They could have related it to basketball: teams that play
    half-court offense, teams that have a running game, who's known
    for defense, importance of passing and drawing the doubleteam,
    Maradona: the Michael Jordan of soccer, how the USA team
    resembles the Miami Heat (youth, inexperience etc etc). Sounds
    kind of hokey, but you'd have something familiar to relate it
    to.  
    
    At the end, TNT'd have developed some audience prepared to
    enjoy what it saw and I bet the ratings would be higher.
    
    Kathy
    

    Your comments are very correct Kathy, and BTW ignore the BOSS's notes.
    He is one of those noters that throws negative comments about
    everything he doesn't understand. We have hounded him as to what
    "manly" sport he plays but so far no answer.

The big problem cultivating talent here in the US before the next Wc is the USSF.
When the current WC players for the US squad signed their most recent contracts 
(for around $30k a year per player) they balked at the fine print on the 
contract. The USSF insisted on this clause and the players crumbled and signed
the contracts....

The clause they were balking over was a condition that the USSF has the right
to establish a buyout for each player in case a European team offers them a
position after the cup. The USSF gets to keep the buyout $$$$.

Recently Tab Ramos was offered a position on a european team but the USSF wanted
around 250k in buyout money (remember this is on a 30k contract) and the 
european team promptly lost interest.....

The USSF should be promoting our players and trying to get them into european
competition instead of stifling them in the pursuit of $$$$


Metz

And wasn't it the USSF that picked Ganssler as the coach?
That man was as useless as mammary glands on a male of the bovine
species...

Sometimes I wonder just how much brains any of these folks have.
What do they want to do, keep the players here, so that in another
four years we can be less than mediocre again?

Sheer stupidity.

'Saw

    Earlier this week Dick Ebersol, the president of NBC, stated that his
    network would not bid for the rights to televise the 1994 World Cup.
    Ebersol also said that he didn't anticipate either CBS or ABC would
    submit a bid for World Cup television rights.
    
    
    py

    TNT's rating for hte  World Cup was like 2% - that's lower than
    Candlepins for Cash  ;-)
    
    JD

    < Note 246.223 by RIPPLE::DEVLIN_JO "LoseWeight:TheTraciLordsDiet..." >


>    TNT's rating for hte  World Cup was like 2% - that's lower than
>    Candlepins for Cash  ;-)

    Good.  This way they'll be no sponsors around next time and we cain
    watch movie classics instead of wuss-ball.
    
    Mark.

    The ratings would probably have been higher if the games were not
    televised during normal working hours.  Many people recorded the games
    and watched them later at night thereby not showing up on any ratings
    figures.

    JD, according to an article I read a little while ago, the TNT ratings
    for the World Cup were not much less than those for most of ESPN's
    prime time baseball games.

    Mac,
    
    Thanks.  The Seattle Times had a blurb about what Ebersol of NBC
    said, and gave the small percentage, but no comparison.  
    
    Thanks again.
    
    JD

    Do ya spose one of the reasons TNT's ratings aren't so good has to do
    with the telecasts themselves? Let me see....recent TNT games I watched
    included Ireland-Italy, 0-1 (Italian goal scored during commercial),
    Italy-Argentina, 1-1 (Italian goal scored during commercial). I aslo
    watched a TNT tape of the Rumania-USSR game 2-0 and BOTH Rumanian goals
    were scored during commercials! Fortunately, I didn't miss any goals,
    since I switched to the Spanish Univision. Some games I've even watched
    entirely in Spanish (and I don't speak the language) for this reason,
    even though most are also on TNT.
    
    Other disturbing elements include: Italy-Argentina, where after Italy
    scored, I thought that the scorer *might* have been offside, but Argy
    didn't protest and the commentators didn't say anything, so I ignored
    it. After halftime, one of them said that it "looked like it may have
    been offside" and as the game progressed, it became "Schilacci scored
    for Italy, but he was clearly offside, but nonetheless, Italy leads,
    1-0" No replay was ever shown, and these things are often hard to judge
    anyway. Of course, the game ending in a 1-1 tie makes the goal even more
    significant, but....
    
    Has anyone told these guys to catch the clue bus? Gracias a dios para
    Univision! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAALL!
    
    Tom

    Only curousity has prompted me to check out TNT. They should learn from
    Univision how to televise soccer.

    
    Everything I read indicated that the ratings were very disappointing,
    and were last in their time slots.  They also checked some of the
    demographics and found that the only people watching them were all
    dockers wearers who drank only wine coolers and smoked clove
    cigarettes.  There was only one person in some obscure town in CT.
    who did not follow this demograpic depiction, but he is still a
    wimp for watching the ferry sport.
    
    BOSS
                                           

    Wait until, in '94', the defending champ. (Germany) will show America
    what whimpy things basket-ball and baseball (fat, old whimps, no sport
    at all) are, how static and mostly stand-around football is. Only manly
    hockey can compete ...8:)
    
    R.

    It has been rumored that "Kaiser Franz" (Coach of the World Champion
    German Soccer Team) is coming to the US to coordinate the 1994 World
    Cup effort.  (Not unlike "Kaiser Ueberroth", I suppose!!)
    
    Anyone else heard this??
    PJ
    
    P.S.  The REAL World Cup Final was played on Saturday night!!
    

    Hi Real Champion, I heared this, too. Franz used to play in the US,
    has some ties and sympathy there and is looking for a new challenge.
    This would be a real one!
    
    R.

The rumor I heard is tha Kaiser Franz will coach the team.

My newspaper said he would help set up the Cup matches etc.

Personally, I'd like it if he became our coach.  The only man to
become a Weltmeister as a captain and as a coach surely could
help our cause.

Ganssler didn't do a bad job, but it could have been much better.


I was disappointed with all the commercials in the TNT telecasts.
I did like listening to Luckhurst talk though.

Regarding replays.  I believe the Italian network was responsible
for replays, and if they didn't provide them, then TNT couldn't
show them.  However, I could be wrong....

'Saw

    'Saw, if memory serves me right then i heared that Mario Zagalo
    (Brazil) also won on the field as well as on the bench
    
    R.

    I agree that the "Kaiser" would be just the kind of shot in the arm
    soccer needs in this country. I dunno about coaching ("If I wanted to
    coach, I could stay in Germany") but I think he'd be a good managing
    director. He would bring experience of managing at a world-class
    international level. The USA team got it's feet wet inthis Cup, and
    only with someone of this calibre can they move to the next level,
    which is to actually win some games in the WC.
    
    He would also give the clowns at the USSF a lesson on what it's like to
    really run a World Cup as a host. 

    	During the final match, the commentators mentioned that
    	Franz was overed a coaching job in the US. They said
    	his reply was "the current coach is doing a good job.
    	If I'm asked, I could oversee the program" or something
    	like this. FB also said something like "all they have
    	to do is ask."
    
    	The commentators felt that FB was leaving the door open
    	for the US to make an invitation.
    
    	Scott

    There is already an organizing manager fo r the 1994 effort.  Can[t
    remember his name.   
    
    Once again, a game decided by the ref's whistle.  YAWN!
    
    JD

    I've got to say that I think *this* year's World Cup has done a
    disservice to the cause of soccer in the US.  Because we will be
    hosting the next one, I think there was more interest than usual in
    this one in this country.  Unfortunately, by many reports from those
    more knowledgeable than me, the play in this year's cup was generally
    regarded as lackluster at best, and often poor.  A golden opportunity
    to showcase what *can* be (and wasn't) a beautiful sport was missed.  I
    believe that this will mean reduced, rather than enhanced, interest in
    the 1994 World Cup in this country.  I'm not sure that FIFA can recover
    from the problems in time to generate interest.  And I know that they
    regard 1994 as the last good opportunity to get the US involved in the
    sport at an international, professional level.
    
    A&W

A&W,

I think it depends on how you look at it.  If you look at total, all
out offense as making it a good cup, then it wasn't pretty.

On the other hand, I think back to Roger Milla stripping El Loco (the
Colombia goalie) of the ball to score his second goal in extra time.
I think of Caligiuari's goal for the US against the Czechs, and some
of Tony Meola's brilliant saves.

I'll bet we could come up with a highlight film of some pretty 
awesome plays.

And, while their finishing was a bit suspect, the Germans really
looked good on their setups and defense....

True, I would have like to see more unabashed, attacking offense,
but I do think that that offsides rule should open the game up
a bit.

As to penalty kicks, I'd like to see them abolished, and see more
extra time added.  The difference however is that the extra time
is sudden death....

'Saw

    One of the things that turns me off completely about soccer and gives
    the perception (note I said perception) that it is a wimp sport is the
    reaction players get to being hurt.  In football and hockey, when
    someone is hurt, you know it.  In basketball, it seems like the hits
    are just as hard and the players are landing on a harder surface, yet
    they keep playing.  But in soccer, they go down and writhe in pain at
    the smallest boo-boo, often when it doesn't look like they were hit
    that hard, and I think it reinforces the perception.
    
    Also, it seems like the Isiah - Magic pregame kissy-face stuff is very
    prevalent after a goal and that bothers me too.  (Note I said seems).
    
    John

There is a lot of faking sometimes, but other times, when you're
going full out and take a hard tackle, if you get your shins or
ankles wanged it can hurt like hell.

And sometimes (not always) the action is used in a similar manner
to a hockey goalie adjusting his pads....  take a little breather,
get your teammates some time....

After a goal is one of the most intense times one can imagine.

Imagine that you're charging into the penalty area, trying to get
by the guy marking you.  You're onsides, and he's still pretty
tight on you.  Suddenly, your winger has crossed the ball, and
it's a great cross.  It starts to look like it's coming at you
in slow motion, but you're body is also moving that way.  No
matter what you do, you can't seem to get your head on that
ball.

Instantly, that last little bit of effort gets your head to the
ball.  A little flick of your neck, and the ball is headed
goalward.  Now you're on your way down to the ground, the guy marking
you all over you...

Out of the corner of your eye, you see the ball get by the outstretched
goalie....


I'm telling you, the most natural reaction in the world it to throw
your arms up in the air and run....  I don't know why. 

If it's a big goal, in a big game, your teammates swamp you to celebrate.


Don't get me wrong.  I saw Keefts(sp?) one time score for PSV Eindhoven.
He simply trotted back near midfield and kind of wagged his finger at
the crowd...almost like "see, I told you I'd score..."


On the whole it isn't much different from a hockey celebration....

'Saw

    � On the whole it isn't much different from a hockey celebration....
    
    Except that soccer players are basically playing in their underwear and
    the goal scorer always seems to be hitting his knees and sticking his
    butt up in the air eagerly awaiting his teammates to come on over and
    "congratulate" him.
    
    Many smilies, of course ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    Answering to some notes back:
    
    JD, if you don't like soccer, o.k. I would not waste time to go to the
    baseball conference and tell them every 5 minutes how boring (YAWN)
    baseball is, for example.
    
    It is never a good idea to watch a WC final only. Those matches are
    almost always tight and 'security-driven', thus boring to the
    non-involved.
    
    The wimp-thing: English players get up immediately if not really hurt,
    germans used to do that, too. Unfortunately they learned in Italy (the
    majority of the champ. team plays there) not only how to play better,
    but also how to act dead. I hate that. From my own experience, though,
    I have to state that soccer injuries in general hurt much more than
    those in hockey (and probably football, too), since the main
    target/impact in soccer are the ankles and knees, not the shoulders,
    like in hockey (and prob. football. So, a crashing check against the
    boards look and sound awfull for the spectators, but for the player
    it is mostly a few black spots or a cut, forgotten after a day and not
    hindering to play on immediately. A hit with those hard 'spikes' of
    soccer boots onto an ankle or knee is almost always like hell, at least
    for the next 5-10 minutes, often for a whole game or career. Yet the
    (TV) spectator hardly notices. Sure in hockey there are bad injuries
    as in soccer, but the 'every-day' little things in soccer are much
    more painfull than in the shoulder-impact sports (I know hockey,
    football looks similar in that area to me). Play against the Ferris
    or Kohlers and you never use the word 'wimp' again for soccer. They
    will make you cry and the people around you do not know why you are
    crying, because it takes just a little,quick hit on your ankle, not
    seen by others, but hell for you.
    
    R.

    You can't really gauge this WC final game to the excitement level of
    the entire tournament, as Rainer pointed out.  For example, look back
    at the last half-dozen Super Bowls.  With the exception of the 49ers-
    Bengals game, they were all blowouts, general consensus being that they
    were YAWNers.  But does anyone knock the whole NFL playoffs because of
    a YAWNer Super Bowl?  Hell no!  And haven't playoff games, leading up
    to the SB, usually been more exciting than the SB games themselves,
    especially in the last half-dozen years or so?
    
    I think real knowledgable sports enthusiasts will realize this and not 
    hold this WC final game against the WC tournament itself.  Personally,
    I thought it was a very decent game........

Hawk, how can Superbowl's be yawners, when it's the donkeys getting their
butts kicked?

Also a major beef with the WC is the players style of attacking referees.
totally uncalled, totally unsportsmanslike.....

mike

   
>    I think real knowledgable sports enthusiasts will realize this and not 
>    hold this WC final game against the WC tournament itself.  Personally,
>    I thought it was a very decent game........


You said a mouthful here Hawk. What we have here are unknowledgeable sports 
enthusiasts coming in and bad mouthing a sport in which they know nothing about.

Maybe you bashers should try learning something about the game before you knock
it. A lot of sports look boring to me (long distance running,race car driving,
cricket) but I don't make a habit of going around and entering a reply in their
notes saying how boring they are.


Metz

The incidents with the ref were somewhat isolated.

Hawk made a good point.  You cannot judged the entire world cup
based on the final game.  Although I have to say that some of
the best setups I've seen in a while were provided by the 
German team.

I enjoyed it, myself.  There were bad aspects, but on the whole
it was not a bad game.

'Saw

>>Hawk made a good point.  You cannot judged the entire world cup
>>based on the final game.  Although I have to say that some of

Ya, but Saw, I wasn't one of those just judging on the Final.

Hell, I saw every match except the Italy-England one and that was only 
because Elliott Murphy was here Saturday.

Jeepers, even cost me a couple of girlfriends!!

Now that's dedication....

rick ellis 

    Mikey, I agree that a Donk butt-kicking in a Super Bowl is as close to 
    an artificial orgasm as we'll ever cum. :-)  I don't mean to pick on the 
    NFL because I love football, but it's the best parallel I can come up 
    with......
    
    H�wkmeister

Rick...

Well put.  I know you weren't judging it just on the final.
Hell, I was drooling over the kind of coverage you folks on
that side of the pond get!!!

No, overall, the overwhelming majority of the games weren't
barnburners by any means.  I've had more excitement watching
Liverpool ;^) than some of those WC matches.

I guess the next big thing is the European championships in
'92.   Is England allowed to play?


later,
'Saw

    'saw,
    
    You want excitement????   Make a note of these dates....
    
    	1st Dec 1990     Arsenal vs Liverpool    at Highbury
    	2nd Mar 1991	 Liverpool vs Arsenal    at Anfield
    
    I know this helps!!
    PJ

Metz, I've played the game before, I've got a grip on what's going on
and to me it's boring. They're forever kicking the ball out of bounds
or kicking it back to try and set up a play. 

The only game I saw that held my interest was Cameroon and England....
Atleast Cameroon was always trying to attack. It cost them but atleast
it kept the game moving at more than a snails pace....

mike

PJ...

Somehow I was sure that I might hear something like that from
you. 8^) 8^)

I'll be wearing my Liverpool jersey to work the day before each
match, and I'll be hoping for some Candy Crunches from McMahon
to set the tone of the game....

Also, for a Reds fan you have to add the two Everton fixtures.
Have to love those two also, and I always enjoy watching
Southall play goal -- he's such a character.  (Damn good keeper too...)


Go Liverpool, beat the Gunners...
'Saw

    
>>  Go Liverpool, beat the Gunners...   <<
    
    'saw,
    
    	We'll talk again on Dec 2nd and Mar 3rd!!
    
    PJ
    
    

    Rainer, et al,
    
    First, dudes, you are totally wrong.  First, I watched quite a few
    of the games, not just the final - and I didn't watch the complete
    final because it was boring, and the sun was out, and there were
    young nubiles wearing thong bikinis parading in front of my house.
    And it's not just soccer - I refinished a bookcase during this year's
    bookcase.
    
    Second, I've watched soccer before, oon the Spanish stations and
    on the highlight feeds that used to be on PBS.   The fans are extremely
    interesting, and the crowd is the only thing that made the game
    exciting to watch.
    
    Third, I played gaelic football, which is an Irish variation of
    soccer, but you need to know soccer to play it effectively.
    
    What I saw, with minor exceptions, such as Cameroon, were teams
    playing cautious, boring soccer.  As I've stated many times, they
    play not to lose, instead of playing to win.   Most of these games
    are the equivelant, of say, in hooop, if the team came out playing
    4 corners stall right from the beginning.   The so-called best teams
    played for penalty kicks or that assnine post-extra time pot-shot
    bingo.   I read quite a few, such as Rainer, whine that the best
    teams weren't in the finals, because the Italians didn't make it.
    Know why they didn't make it?  Because they played wimpish,
    conservative soccer and lost to a team they shouldn't have.  When
    your superior, you bury your opponent.   Look at the Germans, they
    totally outplayed Argentina, but still needed a ref's tweet to win
    the game.   
    
    And don't forget, this thing dragged on for a month, and in a month
    we got mostly forgettable games.  Both finalists slid in on the
    post extra time bingo crap.  The final was decided by penalty. 
    Many other games followed the same formula.  
    
    You know when I knew the Italians wouldn't win, unless the refs
    game it to them?  When they only beat the Americans 1-0.   They
    should have creamed us.  No killer instinct.  That came back to
    haunt them vs. Argentina.
    
    JD

    You know what would happen in US '94 if Kamerun had won the title this
    time? Those refreshing, beloved Kamerun guys with their open game would
    play the opener (as the defending champ) against a underdog and they
    would, being the favourite, play cautious, conservative soccer, just to
    make sure to win. And the people back home would be happy if they won,
    which way ever. I totally admit/agree that such a soccer looks boring
    to neutral spectators. I would have been bored, too, if I weren't
    involved somehow. I also agree on the analysis of the italian
    non-success, partly, that is. And you did not hear from me that the
    final was a shocker. And you heared from me in here that hockey is my
    favourite sport. AND YOU DONT HAVE TO REPEAT YOURSELF ABOUT 10 TIMES
    WITH THE SAME WORDS THAT SOCCER IS BORING FOR YOU. We are capable to
    get that from one entry. Wastes your and our time.
    
    I wish you a good tournament in '94, so that you don't have to YAWN so
    much (and tell us so much, how much you poor guy had to yawn).
    
    R.

    See Rainer, you complain that I say soccer is boring to me.  I said
    that most of the matches in this year's world cup are boring to
    me.   I have found English league play and Latin American league
    play to be more exciting to watch - and the crowds are usually more
    vocal and more exciting then those in the World Cup.
    
    As for hockey, I'd love for the Stanley Cup Champs to meet the European
    Champs every year.  It would be great.  Provided that the European
    champs weren't ALl-star teams.  
    
    And I understand your analogy about Cameroon.  But Argentina was
    the defending champ, not Italy, nor England, nor W. Germany, nor
    Yugoslavia, etc., yet ALL those teams played cautious soccer.
    
    JD

    re: JD, .258
    
    
                Y       Y     A      W           W  N      N    
                  Y   Y      A A      W         W   N N    N    
                    Y       A   A      W   W   W    N   N  N    
                    Y      A A A A      W W W W     N    N N    
                    Y     A       A      W   W      N      N    
    
    
    
    H�WK  :-)

    All I know is that I've seen some pretty boring American football
    games (Ohio St in the 60's), some great acting in hockey (Bill Barber
    and his famous dives) and some VERY BORING basketball (North Carolina's
    old box format).
    
    I also witnessed some very boring soccer matches in the WC. Doesn't
    mean the game itself is boring.
    
    Rich
    

    Thank you. Rich. A telling comment. 
    
    I suppose for you characters out there in the land of the free and of
    instant availability of everything except membership of the Communist
    Party, it must have been a frustrating experience not to have
    top-quality football for 90 minutes per match trotting across your
    screens as you sipped your Schlitz and munched your popcorn. In fact
    there were several very good matches, although, yes, in general in was
    a bit of a let-down. Hardly surprising when you think of the
    conditions: end-of-season, many players still carrying injuries from
    league matches, the heat (approx 90F for the afternoon games), too many
    teams, etc. Football is currently administered by some pretty inept and
    mightily corrupt people, who are doing their best to wreck it as a
    world sport. It will, however, recover, as it is a grassroots game and
    if you want to see real full-blooded stuff I suggest you watch some of
    the games in the leading European leagues. By far the best match I've
    seen for some time was the English FA Cup Final in May. 3-3 draw aet,
    two of the goals of extraordinary quality, blood-curdling tackles, zero
    simulation and an electric atmosphere.
    
    Peter

    Wish my english was that good in order to be able to make my points
    as elegantly as .261
    
    Anyways, this 'instant availability' thing is one of the reasons why
    soccer fights an up-hill battle in the US, I suspect. It is usually just not
    an action-filled show as those US-typical TV/Commercial-taylored
    sports. The field is way too large, the probability of collision and of
    exiting goal-scenes thus too low. A 'cultural issue', so to speak. No
    surprize that the british kick-and-rush style is the most acceptable to
    americans (reading those notes here). I don't want to assign values to
    this or that style. Matter of taste. If I weren't involved somehow, I
    would not have watched many of the WC games. I worked mostly during the
    games, which never happenes to me during a hockey game.
    So, soccer is history, on to hockey
    
    R. (one thing hockey should copy from soccer: WCs only every 4 years,
        not every year -Y A W N )
    

    RE: instant availability
    
    Fascinating fast fact for today is, "The United States has the oldest
    communist party in the WORLD."
    
    BTW, nice note.  I completely agree with you.  Every once in a while
    PBS, Public Broadcasting Stations, would air one of the European
    games.  I always found them a little slow for MY taste, but I did
    see the extraordinary plays that were made.  I can really respect
    a sport that requires both finese and power.
    
    The Wizard

    Rainer,
    
    Did England really play "Kick and Rush" against Germany ? Or Italy ?
    Or Holland ? Or Belgium ?
    
    If so then all those countries obviously think its effective, because
    they seemed to be playing it to ! Some of them were a bit better at
    it too !
    
    As to the Ireland and Cameroon games, ask Italy and Argentina how easy
    it was to play good football against them.
    

Instant availability.

Probably a very apropos expression to describe Americans.  

It's true, we're a fairly brash, almost cocky, tribe, and it sticks
out when we're abroad.   When I was in Europe, with those rare exceptions
when I had totally tied one on, I found out that subtlety was the key.

If you know the game of soccer, if you know the strategy and are
familiar with the positions and what each is supposed to accomplish,
then the game becomes more interesting.  The WC was not the best
display of soccer I've ever seen.

(Most exciting match?  Probably 1989 FA Cup Final, Liverpool - Everton)

Soccer takes time to develop.  If you know what a team is trying
to accomplish, and you know how the game is played, then you can
see things develop....  

If you've ever tried to put a volley kick into the net, you gain an
appreciation for a striker who does it on a regular basis...8^)


Oh, btw, Rainer, don't worry about your English.  It's by far and away
better than my German! ;^)


I guess the bottom line is that soccer isn't a sport for everyone.
Those that don't like it shouldn't put it down, anymore than I would
put basketball down.....

'Saw

Wayne --

I think Rainer was referring to the style played in the English
leagues...  I didn't see much of it in the WC....


Oh, btw, there was a big article in our paper yesterday, about
the fact that club football seems to be diluting the international
scence.

Jerry Trekker, the soccer and media colunnist, was saying something
similar to what Rainer's been saying...that having Voeller and
Klinsmann in the Italian league has subtley changed the style of
Germany's game...  He mentioned the dives and the acting etc.

He also put forth that the following clubs probably could have
easily won the WC:  AC Milan, Inter, Barcelona, Liverpool...(there
was one other from the Spanish league, but I forget which one).
I'd probably add PSV Eindhoven and Ajax to that list.

He was saying that the European Champions tournament (where the champs
of all the Euro leagues play) would probably be more interesting that
the international stuff....


In related news, Salvatore Schillaci, the Italian who would the Golden
Boot for most goals in the WC, is seeking a lifetime contract with
Juventus of Torino.....

'Saw

    Rainer, we agree on something! Thanks for the support. I think you are
    entirely right, the finer points of the game escape the non-initiated,
    so matches like Arsenal-Spurs, where the ball spends most of its time
    in the air, are much more acceptable, because there's lots of action. I
    remember a Cup Final a few years ago between Arsenal and Manchester
    United. The football was dreadful, not a single move worth remembering,
    but everybody said: 'Wow, that was great.'
    
    Football is actually a spectator sport not a TV sport. Watching the
    Germany-England game in the stadium was fascinating because  you had
    the whole pitch in front of you and he could see the tactics and
    counter-tactics being worked out. 
    
    US football aficionados should also bear in mind that a fooball match
    lasts half as long again as a US football match and that possesion in
    nine parts of the law at the higher levels, meaning that a good team
    will often keep the ball for minutes at a time without going forward.
    This can also be fascinating to watch. (Holland and Brazil are the two
    great exponesnt of this.
    
    Peter
    
    

Interesting concept:

	US Football:   Playing Time 60 minutes
		       Elapsed Time 2.5 - 3 hours
		       ACTUAL Time  12 minutes   (total duration of plays)


	Soccer:        Playing Time 90 minutes � injury time
                       Elasped Time 1 hour 45 minutes
                       Actual Time  90 minutes

    In defense of us Statesiders who are saying that the tournament was
    pretty boring:
    
    I only get TNT, and feel fortunate that I had that much.  If I'd gotten
    Univision, I would have tried it out, but the language barrier would
    have been a real barrier to me.  I still need the commentary at this
    level to know what to look for, even when it's pretty lame.  At least I
    can see that the team isn't exactly doing what the announcer is talking
    about.
    
    But TNT didn't carry as many games as were available in other
    countries.  They had to choose which ones to carry pretty far in
    advance.  And my perception is that many of the games being touted as
    the good ones, weren't on TNT - so I didn't see them.  As a result, the
    World Cup *that I saw* wasn't as interesting as I had hoped it would be
    when it started.
    
    A&W

    re last: You have a really good point there. Good commentary is vital.
    Alas it is also a rare commodity.
    
    
    P
    

I love the commentary by the British announcers when I watch
English league.  Those guys are really witty, pretty funny, and
they have such a way of capturing the essence of the action...

They make exciting goals seem even more exciting, and the routine
goals (Rush's easy header as he was totally unmarked by Crystal
Palace) seem so matter of fact ("And there's one for Rush...").


Luckhurst didn't do a bad job on TNT, but you could tell that
he and Neal weren't used to doing soccer commentary.

I think that after the first round, TNT had all the games that
were played, but I could be wrong...

'saw

    Frank, the other spanish team is probably Real Madrid, for a long time
    THE club in europe. When I was a kid, the name REAL had something of
    a religion in it, even in Germany. They were dominating for a looong
    time.
    
    Sure those 'allstar' clubs could compete in a WC. No problem, when you
    have, like Inter/AC, one half of the Italian national team, the other
    half of the dutch/german national team, practising together all year
    long.
    
    The spanish (see Real) did this for a long time, they were real pros
    10-15 years before the Italians and then the rest. But where has that
    led to in WCs? Spain never ever was a major factor there. I really
    think Italy makes a mistake to absorb so many foreigners in their
    league. As an italian it would bother me to have the best league in the
    world, only not even to be able to win a WC in the own country.
    
    As for the 'kick and rush': I tell you a secret - our TV every now
    and then covers english soccer games. We are looking forward to them,
    they simply are more exiting than many of our own league's games.
    England might have played a bit different (less kick and rush), but the
    problem stays, that this style, as exiting as it is, has not led too
    far internationally. It's nice to be at the very top every now and
    then.
    Is there a chance that in '94 there will be a UK-Team instead of
    England, Scotland, Wales, N-Ireland?
    
    And, boy, is it comfortable in here! What ever happened to my
    beloved Bruins notesfile? If it was not for the 'Saw and a few others 
    i would stay
    away from it until the glorious day of the NHL start.
    
    
    R.

Yes, Rainer, it was REAL Madrid, I remember now.

Actually, we do pretty well here, seeing some games.

They used to show "Soccer Made in Germany", which was an hour show,
featuring one game, with a British announcer.  It was fun...

Now, SportsChannel shows English League Soccer, which I really enjoy,
and I think Univision shows Italy in the morning, and I think
Argentina in the afternoon....

I hope SportsChannel carries English League again this year, because
I'm sure they'll be showing the Liverpool victories over Arsenal 8^)

later,
fw

    re .273:

    > They used to show "Soccer Made in Germany", which was an hour show,
    > featuring one game, with a British announcer.  It was fun...
    
    Yes, I remember that show; Channel 11 in Durhan, NH used to air it on
    Sunday mornings.  I enjoyed it, too bad they stopped showing it.
    
                   
    py

I used to love that show also...

 they used to show the best of the Bundesliga (sp) games....The announcers name
was Toby Charles....he was great...."and it's in the back of the net !!!!!"

 They covered the '78 WC until the final game when Jim McKay and his lackeys
took over and tried to explain the game to us....

ANd it's a corner kick...a corner kick is when..blah,blah,blah....


 Metz

Toby Charles...that's it!

I'd love the way he would say "And at the half, Bayern M�nchen leads
one to nil".

The only player's name that comes to mind was Karl-Heinz Rumminege....

And the replay would always have that little "R" up in the corner....


Ah, memories!

'Saw

    Yep, I remember Soccer Made in Germany.  Toby Charles is the man.
     Also did the English league, where I became a big Manchester United
    fan.
    
    But for pure soccer enjoyment, I simply watch Univision.  Saw a
    great game - Uruguay/Peru a few months ago.  Yowza!  Rough game,
    rough crowd, great dancing ladies.  It must have been "Iris Chacon"
    night.  Lots of globes....
    
    JD

    >>Is there a chance that in '94 there will be a UK-Team instead of
    >>England, Scotland, Wales, N-Ireland?
    
    
    Much to the chagrin of the Scots, it may be on sooner or later. Africa
    is pressing for more representation and a FIFA vote, tabled by Zambia,
    just prior to the World Cup, got lots of support for a single British
    team. Ireland could easily play as a single team (North and Republic);
    they already do at rugby.
    
    The trouble is, as far as FIFA is concerned that the 4 UK associations
    chip in quite a large chunk of the cash resources, so it will be 'Come
    on down, Coca Cola,' if change is is be wrought.
    
    Real Madrid: probably the greatest football team that ever existed.
    They included Hungarians (refugees from 1956) when Hungary had an
    extraordinary team, South Americans, French and Spaniards. I remember
    them beating Eintracht Frankfurt 7-3 in the European Cup Final in 1961
    (?) in Glasgow. Their play simply took the breath away. Next day the UK
    papers carried a cartoon of two wee jocks leaving the stadium, one
    saying to the other 'So that was fitba!'.
    
    Peter

>>  I hope SportsChannel carries English League again this year, because  <<
>>  I'm sure they'll be showing the Liverpool victories over Arsenal 8^)  <<
                                                                            
    'saw...the ice you're standing on is getting thiner all the time!!!
    
    PJ
    (who has been forced to change his pen-name yet again!!)

< Note 246.279 by YUPPY::STRAGED "ARSENAL FC....League Champs 1990-91" >
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PJ, you crack me up.  8^)


I think this season will be a good competitive one.  As always,
the Liverpool - Arsenal fixtures will be premium matches.

I think a lot of 'Pools success this season will have to do with
Barnes.  Is he going or staying?

Another team to watch, Tottenham Hotspurs, I think....


Go Reds!
'Saw

    Arsenal just bought a member of the Swedish 'we lost all our matches'
    World Cup squad. Wouldn't be at al surprised to see them win the
    league.
    
    P

    re: 246.269 by FSHQA2::AWASKOM >>>

   >> ...If I'd gotten Univision, I would have tried it out, but the language
   >> barrier would have been a real barrier to me.  I still need the
   >> commentary at this...
    
    A&W, not to fear.  My husband Luis, who is Mexican and knows lots about
    soccer, *hated* the Univision commentary (we'll skip his actual
    comments :^).  He thought the TNT commentators were much more
    sensible/knowledgeable & only watched Univision when TNT was running
    commercials.
    
    Kathy

    
>> Arsenal just bought a member of the Swedish 'we lost all our matches' <<
>> World Cup squad. Wouldn't be at al surprised to see them win the      <<
>> league.                                                               <<
    
    The player is Limpar and he cost a million pounds.  There is only
    one catch....Arsenal are having trouble getting him a work permit!!
    
    If he survives the UK imigration authorities, I hope he has more
    stamina than the last foreign signing Arsenal had!!  (Siggi Jonsson
    played two games for Arsenal last season and has been on injured
    reserve ever since!!)
    
    PJ
    (who's beginning to wonder whether we should start an Arsenal topic
    on the Sports Conference!!)

�    PJ
�    (who's beginning to wonder whether we should start an Arsenal topic
�    on the Sports Conference!!)


Nah, why would we want to do that? 8^)

We could start one on English League though.....;^)


Go Reds!

    re .284:
                  
    I wouldn't mind an English League topic in here...I'm sure it gets
    covered in detail in BALZAC::FOOTBALL, but access to that conference
    is often slow on this side of the Atlantic.
    
    
    py

    .284:
    
    So you see our pain to access all the good stuff on your side of
    the pond.
    
    R.

    Tony Meola, the U.S. Goalkeeper, made his debute for Brighton & Hove
    Albion (Only One Team !  ;-) ) on Saturday, against Wolverhampton
    Wanderers (I think). A bad goalkeeping blunder, by Meola gifted
    Wolves with there goal, but Meola made up for it with some outstanding
    save later in the game. The game finished all square at 1 - 1.
    
    Your roving reporter,
    
    Wayne.

    Thanks for the report!  Do you have any idea how much TOny is making
    over there?  Is it a contract just for this season?  Are there any
    other US Olympians in this league?
    
    NAZZ

    I don't know any details about Tony's contract with Brighton, or of
    any other U.S. players in the English league, except for Roy (Ray ?)
    Wegerle.
    
    As I find any information, I will post it for you. I only know about
    that last report of mine, because I cought a glimpse of it in a paper
    here.
    
    Regards,
    Wayne

    FRanz Beckenbauer, ex-coach of the german WC-team, will not go to the
    US, at least not the next 2 years. I've heared that he signed a 2 year
    contract with Olympique Marseille (Tycoon Bernard Tapie is behind that)
    
    R.

    Taken (without permission) from a Daily Newspaper.
    
      United States goalkeeper Tony Meola will stay at Brighton on a years
    loan if he can get a work permit.
      The World Cup keeper, 21, made his debut against Wolves 12 days ago
    but missed last Saturdays game against Watford when he was unable to
    make a firm commitment to the club about his future.
      When asked about it, he is quoted as saying "Send me mail !"
    
    Wayne.
    (P.S. sorry fellas, I made up the last line, honest ;-)  )