Any REAL football fans here? (Page 26)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2010-02-17 6:10 AM in reply to: #2673234 |
Extreme Veteran 371 Jakarta Selatan, Unknown | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? Milan should've had it, they totally got the game.. That first goal of Man-U was just silly. Ronaldinho was the man-of-the match (in respect to WR) |
|
2010-02-17 8:46 AM in reply to: #2676801 |
Expert 1207 Parker, Co | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? I watched a game yesterday too....was Milan 2 Manure 3....admittedly Milan should have been up 2 or 3 early but after that they were a shambles at the back. Each team had its moments but I think Milan were soft and in the end it was easy for Manure. The old days where scoring at an Italian home game for visitors ( 7 tries and zero goals for Manure in previous games) is hard is over apparently |
2010-02-17 11:12 AM in reply to: #2677062 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? Bcozican - 2010-02-17 8:46 AM I watched a game yesterday too....was Milan 2 Manure 3....admittedly Milan should have been up 2 or 3 early but after that they were a shambles at the back. Each team had its moments but I think Milan were soft and in the end it was easy for Manure. The old days where scoring at an Italian home game for visitors ( 7 tries and zero goals for Manure in previous games) is hard is over apparently I caught bits and pieces of that game on replay last night. The second Milan goal was a definite thing of beauty. |
2010-02-18 5:43 AM in reply to: #2677438 |
Extreme Veteran 371 Jakarta Selatan, Unknown | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? Didn't see the whole match yesterday, but seems like Arsenal played as they should be. Porto shouldn't have got advantage from last night.. all drama crowny2 - 2010-02-17 6:12 PM Bcozican - 2010-02-17 8:46 AM I watched a game yesterday too....was Milan 2 Manure 3....admittedly Milan should have been up 2 or 3 early but after that they were a shambles at the back. Each team had its moments but I think Milan were soft and in the end it was easy for Manure. The old days where scoring at an Italian home game for visitors ( 7 tries and zero goals for Manure in previous games) is hard is over apparently I caught bits and pieces of that game on replay last night. The second Milan goal was a definite thing of beauty. seedorf still have the footwork, but why did Milan put Inzaghi on?? |
2010-02-19 8:27 AM in reply to: #1689143 |
Expert 1058 Cambridge | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? inzaghi is a brilliant Poacher of goals, hes always there for the rebound and just seems to be in the right place at the right time all the time. |
2010-02-20 3:24 AM in reply to: #2681347 |
Extreme Veteran 371 Jakarta Selatan, Unknown | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? SteveyD - 2010-02-19 3:27 PM inzaghi is a brilliant Poacher of goals, hes always there for the rebound and just seems to be in the right place at the right time all the time. "The mid-fielder had the ball, he ran, he ran, he passed two defenders... he crossed the ball to Inzaghi and... OFFSIDE" |
|
2010-02-20 4:52 AM in reply to: #2683131 |
Expert 1058 Cambridge | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? otongki - 2010-02-20 9:24 AM SteveyD - 2010-02-19 3:27 PM inzaghi is a brilliant Poacher of goals, hes always there for the rebound and just seems to be in the right place at the right time all the time. "The mid-fielder had the ball, he ran, he ran, he passed two defenders... he crossed the ball to Inzaghi and... OFFSIDE" He only scores if someone else shoots first :p |
2010-02-22 7:46 AM in reply to: #1689143 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? Everton is turning out to be quite the upset maker. Beating Chelsea and now ManUre. LOVE IT! |
2010-02-25 1:03 PM in reply to: #1689143 |
Extreme Veteran 371 Jakarta Selatan, Unknown | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? I was just happy that Inter won the first leg, the blues was not an easy opponent. Those goals were pure what football should be.. I think Inter have a better chance when they composed well in London next time.. It's PSV and Hamburg, not really from the city down there but Eindhoven plays good |
2010-02-25 1:03 PM in reply to: #1689143 |
Extreme Veteran 371 Jakarta Selatan, Unknown | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? I was just happy that Inter won the first leg, the blues was not an easy opponent. Those goals were pure what football should be.. I think Inter have a better chance when they composed well in London next time.. It's PSV and Hamburg, not really from the city down there but Eindhoven plays good |
2010-02-25 3:14 PM in reply to: #2693385 |
Elite 3091 Spokane, WA | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? otongki - 2010-02-25 1:03 PM I was just happy that Inter won the first leg, the blues was not an easy opponent. Those goals were pure what football should be.. I think Inter have a better chance when they composed well in London next time.. It's PSV and Hamburg, not really from the city down there but Eindhoven plays good Yep, watched the game yesterday. Inter looked great. It sure looked like a penalty against Kalou, though. |
|
2010-02-25 4:54 PM in reply to: #2693777 |
Expert 1207 Parker, Co | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? zed707 - 2010-02-25 2:14 PM otongki - 2010-02-25 1:03 PM I was just happy that Inter won the first leg, the blues was not an easy opponent. Those goals were pure what football should be.. I think Inter have a better chance when they composed well in London next time.. It's PSV and Hamburg, not really from the city down there but Eindhoven plays good Yep, watched the game yesterday. Inter looked great. It sure looked like a penalty against Kalou, though.
Hmm...the game I watched it looked like Chelski were the home team - dominated the possession, 2x as many shots and territorially in Inters half all the time....I thought Inter were fortunate to be ahead since the better chances fell to Chelsea overall. If the same pattern holds for Stamford Bridge then I see Chelsea cruising into the next round. |
2010-02-25 5:05 PM in reply to: #2693996 |
Elite 3091 Spokane, WA | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? Bcozican - 2010-02-25 4:54 PM zed707 - 2010-02-25 2:14 PM otongki - 2010-02-25 1:03 PM I was just happy that Inter won the first leg, the blues was not an easy opponent. Those goals were pure what football should be.. I think Inter have a better chance when they composed well in London next time.. It's PSV and Hamburg, not really from the city down there but Eindhoven plays good Yep, watched the game yesterday. Inter looked great. It sure looked like a penalty against Kalou, though.
Hmm...the game I watched it looked like Chelski were the home team - dominated the possession, 2x as many shots and territorially in Inters half all the time....I thought Inter were fortunate to be ahead since the better chances fell to Chelsea overall. If the same pattern holds for Stamford Bridge then I see Chelsea cruising into the next round. Interesting take, Bcozican. I guess my thinking is that time of possession was not all that dominant--44/56. I've seen worse. Also, I kind of agree with what the commentators were saying--that Chelsea's time of possession advantage wasn't resulting in quality scoring opportunities. They were taking lots of long shots that really didn't have much of a chance. And the goal they did score was a soft one. I thought Inter's defense looked solid. And of course they were protecting a lead almost the entire game. Not arguing with you, just interesting that two of us saw the game in a different light than you did. Should be an interesting return leg. Edited by zed707 2010-02-25 5:24 PM |
2010-02-25 6:29 PM in reply to: #2694014 |
Expert 1207 Parker, Co | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? the view always depends on what "glasses" you are wearing! :-) |
2010-02-26 7:54 AM in reply to: #1689143 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? Oh bother. So Liverpool won in UEFA's version of the NIT. Great. US had to come from behind, again, to beat El Salvador. At least Ching finally was productive. Not that I think he will do any better in the WC. Watching these friendlies and seeing the "quality" of players we have on the second level is NOT making me feel all warm and fuzzy about our chances. Not that I expect us to get to the finals. hell, I would be happy if we made it into the Quarters. But what I have seen in the last two games (yes, I know, they are the B squad for the most part) is not very encouraging. Haven't been able to catch many of the matches this week. Too busy at work. That will change next Friday. I'll get to watch as much footy as I want while job searching. Anyway, I might have to see if I can find a replay of the Inter/Chelski match. Sounds interesting. And MLS starts in a little over a month. Awesome! |
2010-02-27 8:04 AM in reply to: #2694014 |
Extreme Veteran 371 Jakarta Selatan, Unknown | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? zed707 - 2010-02-26 12:05 AM Bcozican - 2010-02-25 4:54 PM zed707 - 2010-02-25 2:14 PM otongki - 2010-02-25 1:03 PM I was just happy that Inter won the first leg, the blues was not an easy opponent. Those goals were pure what football should be.. I think Inter have a better chance when they composed well in London next time.. It's PSV and Hamburg, not really from the city down there but Eindhoven plays good Yep, watched the game yesterday. Inter looked great. It sure looked like a penalty against Kalou, though.
Hmm...the game I watched it looked like Chelski were the home team - dominated the possession, 2x as many shots and territorially in Inters half all the time....I thought Inter were fortunate to be ahead since the better chances fell to Chelsea overall. If the same pattern holds for Stamford Bridge then I see Chelsea cruising into the next round. Interesting take, Bcozican. I guess my thinking is that time of possession was not all that dominant--44/56. I've seen worse. Also, I kind of agree with what the commentators were saying--that Chelsea's time of possession advantage wasn't resulting in quality scoring opportunities. They were taking lots of long shots that really didn't have much of a chance. And the goal they did score was a soft one. I thought Inter's defense looked solid. And of course they were protecting a lead almost the entire game. Not arguing with you, just interesting that two of us saw the game in a different light than you did. Should be an interesting return leg. As a nobel peace laureate once said, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. So on that base, and the spirit of the game of football, I humbly accept some people's voice. Having said that, upon condition in the context of Inter as the winner of 2010 Champions League! By the way, I'm still recovering from the baffling week of which all Dutch teams were eliminated.. This shouldn't be good for my blood sugar.. |
|
2010-03-01 10:40 AM in reply to: #1689143 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? Interesting weekend. Glad my boys pulled yet another ugly one out of their backsides. Also glad to see Chelsea lose. BTW, that foul by Ballack was ridiculous, and he knew it. Looked like he started walking off the pitch before the ref had the chance to even reach for the red. Jack azz. |
2010-03-01 11:06 AM in reply to: #1689143 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? I have a football question that hopefully a Premier League fan can answer for me: What’s the meaning/significance of the team suffixes like “City”, or “United”? What makes a team “United” vs “City” vs something else? The reason I ask, other than just curiosity, is that there are a bunch of MLS teams that have those suffixes as well. I’m wondering if they’re actually related to something legitimate or if it’s just a lame attempt by MLS to make their teams sound more European. |
2010-03-01 12:25 PM in reply to: #2699802 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 11:06 AM I have a football question that hopefully a Premier League fan can answer for me: What’s the meaning/significance of the team suffixes like “City”, or “United”? What makes a team “United” vs “City” vs something else? The reason I ask, other than just curiosity, is that there are a bunch of MLS teams that have those suffixes as well. I’m wondering if they’re actually related to something legitimate or if it’s just a lame attempt by MLS to make their teams sound more European. I can honestly say I don't really know how a team became United versus City. As to the MLS, there really aren't a bunch of teams that have them. There are three that I can think of off the top of my head: DC United, Real Salt Lake and Chivas in LA. So not quit certain what you are getting at. United is a nod to the EPL, Real is a nod to the Spanish league and Chivas is a nod to Mexico. And frankly, it isn't that much of a lame attempt. The idea is to attract fans, many of them are fans of teams abroad, since we didn't have a league here for so long. |
2010-03-01 12:59 PM in reply to: #2700052 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? crowny2 - 2010-03-01 12:25 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 11:06 AM I have a football question that hopefully a Premier League fan can answer for me: What’s the meaning/significance of the team suffixes like “City”, or “United”? What makes a team “United” vs “City” vs something else? The reason I ask, other than just curiosity, is that there are a bunch of MLS teams that have those suffixes as well. I’m wondering if they’re actually related to something legitimate or if it’s just a lame attempt by MLS to make their teams sound more European. I can honestly say I don't really know how a team became United versus City. As to the MLS, there really aren't a bunch of teams that have them. There are three that I can think of off the top of my head: DC United, Real Salt Lake and Chivas in LA. So not quit certain what you are getting at. United is a nod to the EPL, Real is a nod to the Spanish league and Chivas is a nod to Mexico. And frankly, it isn't that much of a lame attempt. The idea is to attract fans, many of them are fans of teams abroad, since we didn't have a league here for so long. You don’t think it’s a lame attempt? I do. Even if the prefixes/suffixes don’t mean anything, to call a team “Real Salt Lake” just sounds silly to me. Do you think a fan of the Spanish League living in the US is more apt to be a fan of the team from Salt Lake City just because some VP of Marketing at MLS slapped “Real” on the front of the team’s name? Isn’t that a little patronizing? I don’t have a dog in this fight really, it just always struck me as contrived that the MLS added these European titles on to the names of their teams. |
2010-03-01 1:12 PM in reply to: #2700195 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 12:59 PM crowny2 - 2010-03-01 12:25 PM You don’t think it’s a lame attempt? I do. Even if the prefixes/suffixes don’t mean anything, to call a team “Real Salt Lake” just sounds silly to me. Do you think a fan of the Spanish League living in the US is more apt to be a fan of the team from Salt Lake City just because some VP of Marketing at MLS slapped “Real” on the front of the team’s name? Isn’t that a little patronizing? I don’t have a dog in this fight really, it just always struck me as contrived that the MLS added these European titles on to the names of their teams. jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 11:06 AM I have a football question that hopefully a Premier League fan can answer for me: What’s the meaning/significance of the team suffixes like “City”, or “United”? What makes a team “United” vs “City” vs something else? The reason I ask, other than just curiosity, is that there are a bunch of MLS teams that have those suffixes as well. I’m wondering if they’re actually related to something legitimate or if it’s just a lame attempt by MLS to make their teams sound more European. I can honestly say I don't really know how a team became United versus City. As to the MLS, there really aren't a bunch of teams that have them. There are three that I can think of off the top of my head: DC United, Real Salt Lake and Chivas in LA. So not quit certain what you are getting at. United is a nod to the EPL, Real is a nod to the Spanish league and Chivas is a nod to Mexico. And frankly, it isn't that much of a lame attempt. The idea is to attract fans, many of them are fans of teams abroad, since we didn't have a league here for so long. If it is working, which it appears to be doing since attendance continues to grow at MLS matches and the league itself continues to grow, then no, I wouldn't call it lame. And again, there are only 3 and two of those are European and one is Mexican. I guess I'm failing to see 1. what difference it makes and 2. why you care? |
|
2010-03-01 2:12 PM in reply to: #1689143 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? |
2010-03-02 9:47 AM in reply to: #2700195 |
New user 420 Charlotte, NC USA | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 1:59 PM crowny2 - 2010-03-01 12:25 PM You don’t think it’s a lame attempt? I do. Even if the prefixes/suffixes don’t mean anything, to call a team “Real Salt Lake” just sounds silly to me. Do you think a fan of the Spanish League living in the US is more apt to be a fan of the team from Salt Lake City just because some VP of Marketing at MLS slapped “Real” on the front of the team’s name? Isn’t that a little patronizing? I don’t have a dog in this fight really, it just always struck me as contrived that the MLS added these European titles on to the names of their teams. jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 11:06 AM I have a football question that hopefully a Premier League fan can answer for me: What’s the meaning/significance of the team suffixes like “City”, or “United”? What makes a team “United” vs “City” vs something else? The reason I ask, other than just curiosity, is that there are a bunch of MLS teams that have those suffixes as well. I’m wondering if they’re actually related to something legitimate or if it’s just a lame attempt by MLS to make their teams sound more European. I can honestly say I don't really know how a team became United versus City. As to the MLS, there really aren't a bunch of teams that have them. There are three that I can think of off the top of my head: DC United, Real Salt Lake and Chivas in LA. So not quit certain what you are getting at. United is a nod to the EPL, Real is a nod to the Spanish league and Chivas is a nod to Mexico. And frankly, it isn't that much of a lame attempt. The idea is to attract fans, many of them are fans of teams abroad, since we didn't have a league here for so long. When I played travel soccer growing up we were the FC Prince William United. And opposing teams feared us for our Euro sounding name! |
2010-03-02 11:54 AM in reply to: #2700251 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? crowny2 - 2010-03-01 1:12 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 12:59 PM crowny2 - 2010-03-01 12:25 PM You don’t think it’s a lame attempt? I do. Even if the prefixes/suffixes don’t mean anything, to call a team “Real Salt Lake” just sounds silly to me. Do you think a fan of the Spanish League living in the US is more apt to be a fan of the team from Salt Lake City just because some VP of Marketing at MLS slapped “Real” on the front of the team’s name? Isn’t that a little patronizing? I don’t have a dog in this fight really, it just always struck me as contrived that the MLS added these European titles on to the names of their teams. jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 11:06 AM I have a football question that hopefully a Premier League fan can answer for me: What’s the meaning/significance of the team suffixes like “City”, or “United”? What makes a team “United” vs “City” vs something else? The reason I ask, other than just curiosity, is that there are a bunch of MLS teams that have those suffixes as well. I’m wondering if they’re actually related to something legitimate or if it’s just a lame attempt by MLS to make their teams sound more European. I can honestly say I don't really know how a team became United versus City. As to the MLS, there really aren't a bunch of teams that have them. There are three that I can think of off the top of my head: DC United, Real Salt Lake and Chivas in LA. So not quit certain what you are getting at. United is a nod to the EPL, Real is a nod to the Spanish league and Chivas is a nod to Mexico. And frankly, it isn't that much of a lame attempt. The idea is to attract fans, many of them are fans of teams abroad, since we didn't have a league here for so long. If it is working, which it appears to be doing since attendance continues to grow at MLS matches and the league itself continues to grow, then no, I wouldn't call it lame. And again, there are only 3 and two of those are European and one is Mexican. I guess I'm failing to see 1. what difference it makes and 2. why you care? I'm failing to see why I have to justify my opinion to you. I never said you had to agree with me. |
2010-03-03 3:16 AM in reply to: #2702331 |
Extreme Veteran 371 Jakarta Selatan, Unknown | Subject: RE: Any REAL football fans here? jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-02 6:54 PM crowny2 - 2010-03-01 1:12 PM I'm failing to see why I have to justify my opinion to you. I never said you had to agree with me. jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 12:59 PM crowny2 - 2010-03-01 12:25 PM You don’t think it’s a lame attempt? I do. Even if the prefixes/suffixes don’t mean anything, to call a team “Real Salt Lake” just sounds silly to me. Do you think a fan of the Spanish League living in the US is more apt to be a fan of the team from Salt Lake City just because some VP of Marketing at MLS slapped “Real” on the front of the team’s name? Isn’t that a little patronizing? I don’t have a dog in this fight really, it just always struck me as contrived that the MLS added these European titles on to the names of their teams. jmk-brooklyn - 2010-03-01 11:06 AM I have a football question that hopefully a Premier League fan can answer for me: What’s the meaning/significance of the team suffixes like “City”, or “United”? What makes a team “United” vs “City” vs something else? The reason I ask, other than just curiosity, is that there are a bunch of MLS teams that have those suffixes as well. I’m wondering if they’re actually related to something legitimate or if it’s just a lame attempt by MLS to make their teams sound more European. I can honestly say I don't really know how a team became United versus City. As to the MLS, there really aren't a bunch of teams that have them. There are three that I can think of off the top of my head: DC United, Real Salt Lake and Chivas in LA. So not quit certain what you are getting at. United is a nod to the EPL, Real is a nod to the Spanish league and Chivas is a nod to Mexico. And frankly, it isn't that much of a lame attempt. The idea is to attract fans, many of them are fans of teams abroad, since we didn't have a league here for so long. If it is working, which it appears to be doing since attendance continues to grow at MLS matches and the league itself continues to grow, then no, I wouldn't call it lame. And again, there are only 3 and two of those are European and one is Mexican. I guess I'm failing to see 1. what difference it makes and 2. why you care? The legend is when a club is named "United" it because it was created by a group of people with common desire of playing football. While "City" is usually happens when a city/town official involves into the creation os a local team. An clear example would be if, we hung-out in a bar on saturday night, random guys, exchanging words, having one too many drinks, and round-up on Sunday morning in a park wearing identical colored shirt to have a game of football. No string attached, just pleasure over business. This would be called "Otongki United" ( it just happened that I was the person who talk smack the most). On the same token if, me (a humble city servant) elected as mayor of Otongki city. I would then contact several sports organization to create a team which represent my city. This club would be called "Otongki City" |
|