Round of 16

Holland took it easy in the first half due to the heat..not a bad tactic..looked awful..but then they went behind and had to really play instead of steadily building up in the 2nd half...if they really play they aren't bad.

they should win really..depends on how they play in the first half again i suppose...it looks crap when they do that though
 
I think Holland are bogus myself.

Schneider hasn't kicked the ball (one critical goal apart), RVP looks out-of-sorts, and refs will surely be wise to Robben's tactics now (besides, I reckon he only contributes when he has the pace of opposing defences, which won't be the case in the Quarter, imo).

Price is everything, and no way are Costa Rica a 7/1 shot in a match with this Dutch side. The abberation against Spain apart, they have looked very ordinary.
 
Desert Orchid said:
We must have been watching different games. Now that you know the result, try watching it again with the commentary off.

If you still think USA looked the more likely perhaps we can agree to differ.
Click to expand...

Must have been, I'm all about people's opinions but this isn't even opinion. USA were much more likely to score after it went to 2-1, and they would have done bar a fantastic save from Courtois from Dempsey and slightly profligate finishing. Of course a little bit of luck involved too which always has a huge bearing on games.
 
AliGupter said:
Must have been, I'm all about people's opinions but this isn't even opinion. USA were much more likely to score after it went to 2-1, and they would have done bar a fantastic save from Courtois from Dempsey and slightly profligate finishing. Of course a little bit of luck involved too which always has a huge bearing on games.
Click to expand...

I think you're being serious, Ali.

Here's how the game went from the 2-1 goal on ET16:18:

17:30 - Fellaini shoots just wide from corner of box.
17:59 - Jones hooks wide
18:44 - Belgium attack foiled in box
20:04 - Howard saves with his feet from Lukaku - corner
21:00 - (substitution in meantime) Howard palms corner away for another corner
21:38 - next US attack smothered outside box, leading to the free kick from which Dempsey was closed down by Courtois.

So by the time Courtois made this "fantastic" save (you would hope any decent keeper would have made it) Belgium had three attacks, two shots (Howard's save with the feet was arguably better than Courtois's) and two corners to USA's effort by Jones.

How you can argue that USA were the more likely to score beats me. They didn't have another dangerous attack till the final whistle. Belgium allowed them possession and closed them down outside the box, countering when they got the chance. They were never in danger of being pegged back apart from the Dempsey chance but by then the USA could have been 3-0 down.

I take it you didn't go and watch it again?
 
Last edited:
Belgium went from patting themselves on the back and being on cruise-control, to a much more agitated state, after the US scored.

It matters not who had more chances, only that the game immediately opened-up; raging from end-to-end as the US went all-out for an equaliser to take it to penalties. The US goal undeniably changed the tempo of the game, regardless of the fact that there was no equaliser, or who came closest to scoring.
 
I was making the point that USA weren't the more likely to score at 2-1.

After the save from Dempsey (23:05)...

23:35 - US attack smothered outside the box
24:15 - weak US shot from distance, from which Belgium counter and press US back for a spell
26:35 - US attack breaks down tamely inside the box
27:00 - long range US effort miles wide
28:50 - Belgium break down a US attack outside the box and counter fast but no end product
29:55 - US mount one final attack, no end product
30:00 - Klinsmann loses the plot a bit when he sees only 1 minute added, no further attacks by US, game played out in midfield.
 
Grasshopper said:
Belgium went from patting themselves on the back and being on cruise-control, to a much more agitated state, after the US scored.
Click to expand...
Agitated? Alert, yes. Serious, yes. Agitated? Depends on how you define it.


Grasshopper said:
It matters not who had more chances
Click to expand...
In the context of the discussion, it does. Belgium had more chances aand a better one to score before Dempsey's chance, which is the argument: that the USA looked more like to score at 2-1. They didn't. Belgium did.


Grasshopper said:
only that the game immediately opened-up; raging from end-to-end as the US went all-out for an equaliser to take it to penalties. The US goal undeniably changed the tempo of the game.
Click to expand...

Yes, it had to. The US had to go for it, leaving themselves open a the back and they nearly went 3-0 down because of it.

It did change the tempo of the game. If that means the same as changing the complexion of the game then fair enough. My argument was that it didn't change the complexion of the game in the way the commentator was implying by his biased commentary, ie that the game looked like going to penalties. This game never had penalties written on it at any stage.

And like I said, I was supporting USA.
 
AliGupter said:
So that's USA constantly attacking at 2-1 then? Ah right.
Click to expand...

There's attacking and looking dangerous and attacking and looking toothless. I'm using the word 'attack' generously in the US's case. How often do we see British teams 'attack' better teams in the European matches but accept they never really looked like doing anything? That was USA last night. One decent chance (Dempsey's), a half-chance (Jones) and a couple of poor long-range attempts.

Like I said, Ali, we'll obviously have to agree to differ. I've listed the evidence based on seeing it and recording it. You are reading my notes and drawing your own conclusions, which you are entitled to do but you won't convince me.
 
No, you're misinterpreting my use of the word 'attack'. Change it to 'try to press forward', it'll give it a whole new complexion...
 
Hamm said:
I agree with your sentiment, but would think Costa Rica would be > 4.0 if it went to Extra time.

Maybe a straight lay of the Dutch best?
Click to expand...

Hard to say but I know on horses laying 5 or backing 5 the possible profits always seem to be about the same.

Keeping in mind you have to green up within 90 minutes if you did lay Holland they'd have to hit about evens to Green Up for an 80% profit and if they did you'd be probably be able to lay CR at 3.5 or 4 as you suggest.

The odds make it look like a cake walk for Holland, which it would be if Costa Rica stood still for 90 mins, but they're not going to do that and no one is going to get through easily......I reckon it'll be a tough game for both so I'm having a few quid on but won't be throwing the kitchen sink at it
 
Back
Top