OT: 2022 World Cup Thread
- Thread starter cshelley
- Start date
Offside (singular) is only called if a player affects the play. The passive offside rule was abandoned around 10 years ago (maybe longer).
I think the strategy for him was to possibly draw a US player to him, leaving another player open to receive the ball, or to be in position for a second ball that might drop his way. In any case, the strategy is fairly common. Many times you will see the player get back onside before the ball is struck.
Then Lalas gets another chance to diss Zimmerman, THEN they show three lousy plays to back Lalas up. Never saw three lowlights from one player in any sport, ever.
Because there is a difference between being in an offside position, and being offside.
In the situation you cite, the player was in an offside position. However, he will only be ruled offside if he is involved in the play.
I take it you don't watch a lot of soccer. It's okay though, there was a lot to enjoy during this match for US fans.
The U.S. just shut out England.
Soccer needs a blue line like hockey. Calling offsides in soccer is inconsistent and way too prone to human error.
I could relate the story of how the term soccer is derived, but it is originally a British term to distinguish from rugby.
That is incorrect. Offside plays are subject to video review. The offside rule - aside from scoring goals - is what makes soccer soccer.
Maguire hopes for defender two jump line first (anticipation) and immediately put him on-side. If that works, he’s in great position with no one marking him.
Soccer is mostly silly, so the rule needs to change. Video replays are nice, but they slow the game too much. Also, it's still a judgement call on whether someone was "part of the play". They can do better.
Soccer doesn't need to change a thing related to the offside rule. This is by far the most popular sport in the world. Your suggestion is akin to changing how many strikes make an out, the width of a basketball hoop, or the line of scrimmage in American football. All you do is show your ignorance of the sport.
Soccer blows, so I don't watch it much. However, every big game seems to have an offside controversy. Obviously, the rule is a problem. Time to expect better.
Post mortem thoughts. 1) Why Sterling starts over Grealish and/or Foden is a mystery. 2) Turner was fantastic- night and day from Wales. 3) Musah/Adams/ McKennie will be a challenge for any opponent and was the equal/better of the vaunted Mount/Bellingham/Rice trio. Did Rice even play I cant remember a kick from him. 4) Bellingham couldn't deal with our physicality. I wonder about him moving to EPL. 5) Pickford for England was very shaky I thought. IMO there are 2, maybe 3 keepers I'd start over him if I were Southgate. He will cost them a match. 6) Harry Maguire - much maligned - was MoM for me. 7) Kane's work ethic is remarkable. If we had him, just him, I'd put money on us to win the whole thing (at decent odds of course!)
Very boring. The US literally had 1 shot on goal that required a save. Can't get more boring than that.
"they" haven't changed the rules in twohundred years which is pretty cool, actually.
A
And So Korea shut out out Uruguay
And Uruguay shut out So Korea
And Morocco shut out Croatia
And Croatia shit out Morocco
And Poland shut out Mexico
And Mexico shut out Poland
And Tunisia shut out Denmark
And Denmark shut out Tunisia
I get it
And England shut out the US
And So Korea shut out out Uruguay
And Uruguay shut out So Korea
And Morocco shut out Croatia
And Croatia shit out Morocco
And Poland shut out Mexico
And Mexico shut out Poland
And Tunisia shut out Denmark
And Denmark shut out Tunisia
I get it
VAR works great in soccer, especially with the offside rules. Refs let the play continue before calling the offside. This prevents refs from making a mistake and taking away the advantage from an attacking team. Never been a fan of replay, but in these cases of offsides it works great without slowing down the game.
thought we played well especially at midfield and Turner...just couldn't get one in but that's a pretty good team we tied....play like this and we should beat Iran although they're not going to give one up easily.
Last edited:
Ive heard this point a million times. Be original. You can also say it is like saying you can't run past a db until the ball is snapped. Different games. Comparisons like this are stupid/lazy.
We just got a draw with one of the top 5 teams in the world. This stage is all about advancing to the knockout rounds. With this draw advancing is in our own hands. Iran won’t be easy.
If we play as well as we played against England, then we have a great chance. If we play like we played against Wales, we have a poor chance.
My favorite three approaches to attacking a team that is playing a very compact defensive game include combinations of:
- patience with tons of drop and switches combined with probing passes into the midfield
- overloading numbers to a side or quadrant of the opponent's half
- death by a thousand passes (aka small-ball)
There is a lot of other stuff, but these are the basics, IMO.
We were trying the first one against Wales, but failed miserably. Mostly because of overly slow ball movement, imprecision in the probing passes, and lack of quality first touch by our midfielders. Our midfield was WAY better today against a much higher quality team.
When done right, that first approach, patience with switches, exhausts the opponent because it forces a compact defense to run from one side of the field to the other and back again as the ball is switched dozens and dozens of times. Make them do it a hundred times in the first half and they'll become worn out in the later stages of the second half. Do it wrong, like we did against Wales, and you wind up with possession without a purpose. We hold the ball a lot without ever really threatening. Exactly what the opponent choosing to play a super compact defense wants.
Attacking a compact defense is really not much different than attacking a team defending into your defensive third except you wind up with a much smaller area in which to work. Instead of two thirds of the field or so in which to work, you wind up with just half the field or less. So you need to be faster and more precise with ball movement because there's less available space and time.
Rapid and constant combination play becomes more critical, and overlaps or underlaps can be particularly deadly when done right as they are designed to force defenders to constantly make lesser-of-two-evils type choices when deciding to defend the first attacker or the overlapping/underlapping player. Don't confuse the overlapping runs our wing defenders make with combination play overlaps. The former is just about a player overlapping the midfielders to add numbers into the opponent's final third during the attack. That is a sort of brute force, but often effective, approach to creating a numbers-up situation and forcing the opponent to drop additional players - not super useful against a compact defense that's already dropping players back.
The latter is a type of combination play between two attacking players who are basically using small movements to try to force a first defender to choose between holding the first attacker in place or guarding the overlapping player's (the second attacker's) short curved runs. This presents the first and second defenders with a dilemma because they don't want the second attacker to roam free and receive a through ball, but they also don't want to leave the first attacker free to penetrate off the dribble.
While it's also a case of trying to create a numbers-up situation, it's a lot more transient and localized and can occur anywhere on the field while moving in any direction with the ball, versus when a defender makes an overlapping run up the sideline which is a field-sized thing all about moving forward. Done right, tactical overlaps unbalance the disciplined shape of the compact defense, which is a little bit like playing Jenga. You keep pulling at the pieces (the defenders) until you pull the right combination and the whole defense collapses (momentarily, but hopefully long enough to create a scoring chance).
As I said, though, all that actually applies to attacking any kind of defense. All the cues and responses are the same. It's just that it all has to happen much faster against a compact defense than against a defense that is spread out across two-thirds of the field.
World Series doesn’t end in home run derby
Super Bowl doesn’t end in a FG kick off
NBA finals don’t end with 3 point contest
NHL Stanley cup doesn’t end in a shoot out
Just a statement ,why do soccer fans get so upset about the offsides rule.
I don’t want to do anything like the Europeans
When fans other countries talk 💩 about soccer my reply is
What if trout, Lebron ,tyreek hill , Lamar Jackson played soccer and Calvin Johnson was the goalie
Super Bowl doesn’t end in a FG kick off
NBA finals don’t end with 3 point contest
NHL Stanley cup doesn’t end in a shoot out
Just a statement ,why do soccer fans get so upset about the offsides rule.
I don’t want to do anything like the Europeans
When fans other countries talk 💩 about soccer my reply is
What if trout, Lebron ,tyreek hill , Lamar Jackson played soccer and Calvin Johnson was the goalie
Then the rest of the world is missing out on some really good sports. I tried watching for a bit since it was so hyped up, but quickly found myself tuning back into the Texas vs Baylor game. I feel sorry for the rest of the world if cross country running with a ball is the best sport they have to watch.
He's trolling. Just ignore him or make fun of him. Don't bother giving a serious response or he'll wet himself in delight.
Great analogy on the ridiculous offsides rule. One goal over 180 mins of play for the US team. They need to get better to compete, but let's be honest, our best athletes are not wasting their time with soccer.
Kane is really good.
I got the impression, with no way to confirm it, that England played very conservatively in order to ensure they got through without risk, despite the goal differential lead. They gave the US massive respect in the way that approached most of the game, defensively.
I think if England came out attacking hard the whole game, things may well have been different. But, to the US player's (and coach's) credit, when England did press a bit defensively, the US remained largely composed and played the ball out of the back very well, creating dangerous situations.
I wonder what the Iranian coach will take from this. Me, I would attack the US hard right from the start of the game, assuming Iran has the fitness and depth to keep it up all game long. If the US weathers the pressure, then I'd retreat and go compact the rest of the game. But not until the US proves itself capable early on.
It's not like the US has demonstrated a super dangerous attack, right? So why not pressure for a bit early in the game?
Was two bad halves of soccer against Wales. One bad, one worse.
The seeming "goodness" of the first half was a mirage caused by Wales playing very compact and super tight early on.
There may be many reasons to feel sorry for the rest of the world. The one you cite is not among them.
Latest posts
-
-
-
***Ask The Experts Presented by American Financial Network’s Greg Ginn***- Latest: needmorecowbell
