• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anyone else feel US should of won against Italy?

jtvang125

Diamond Member
I felt the call was BS when US made the second goal. I mean they both slid to make the tackle. Also, wtf was that when the Italian guy intentionally elbowed McBride in the face?
 
Yep. Royal screwjob today.

For the last game, my money is on the US winning and Italy and Czech intentionally tying one another to knock out US and Ghana.
 
Originally posted by: jtvang125
I felt the call was BS when US made the second goal. I mean they both slid to make the tackle. Also, wtf was that when the Italian guy intentionally elbowed McBride in the face?

The offside call on the Beasley shot was a good call. The two red cards on the US, however, were not. I feel confident in saying that if the US had the 11v10 advantage throughout the second half, they would have won.
 
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Yep. Royal screwjob today.

For the last game, my money is on the US winning and Italy and Czech intentionally tying one another to knock out US and Ghana.

Then they would be idiots. Nobody wants to play Brazil first in the second round. Furthermore, would the Czechs be willing to risk the US beating Ghana 4-0 (both matches are played at the same time)?
 
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: jtvang125
I felt the call was BS when US made the second goal. I mean they both slid to make the tackle. Also, wtf was that when the Italian guy intentionally elbowed McBride in the face?

The offside call on the Beasley shot was a good call. The two red cards on the US, however, were not. I feel confident in saying that if the US had the 11v10 advantage throughout the second half, they would have won.

Even with it 10-9, I think the US could've scored a goal towards the end if they would've tried. They still had one subsitution where they could've put some fresh legs in. Put in Johnson who had a good showing at the end of the Czech game. With him and a relatively fresh Beasley, they should've been able to at least amount something of an attack, but they didn't even try. For about the last 10 or so minutes of the match Keller kept booting the ball all the way to Italy's goalie, and then that gave the Italians room and time to mount several attacks. The officiating was terrible, but to be honest, at the end of the match, when they should've been trying to win, they just gave up and tried to just not lose.

It doesn't matter what sport it is, if you play good enough to deserve to advance, no amount of bad officiating can prevent you from getting there. The US could have and should have won this match, even with the bad officiating. There were a ton of really bad passes and stupid turnovers, as well as some bad shots that should've been passed to teamates instead.
 
Originally posted by: Plasdom
Originally posted by: silverpig
Should HAVE

thank you. I don't know why so many people use "should of"... I mean, is that how they say it?

It irritates me as well, but you can't be so ignorant that you do not realize that's approximately how one pronounces "should've".
 
Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
Uhhh, they sucked, they didn't deserve to win. The ref was equally bad though.

Dude, were you watching the same game as us? The US clearly outplayed Italy...
 
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: jtvang125
I felt the call was BS when US made the second goal. I mean they both slid to make the tackle. Also, wtf was that when the Italian guy intentionally elbowed McBride in the face?

The offside call on the Beasley shot was a good call. The two red cards on the US, however, were not. I feel confident in saying that if the US had the 11v10 advantage throughout the second half, they would have won.

Even with it 10-9, I think the US could've scored a goal towards the end if they would've tried. They still had one subsitution where they could've put some fresh legs in. Put in Johnson who had a good showing at the end of the Czech game. With him and a relatively fresh Beasley, they should've been able to at least amount something of an attack, but they didn't even try. For about the last 10 or so minutes of the match Keller kept booting the ball all the way to Italy's goalie, and then that gave the Italians room and time to mount several attacks. The officiating was terrible, but to be honest, at the end of the match, when they should've been trying to win, they just gave up and tried to just not lose.

It doesn't matter what sport it is, if you play good enough to deserve to advance, no amount of bad officiating can prevent you from getting there. The US could have and should have won this match, even with the bad officiating. There were a ton of really bad passes and stupid turnovers, as well as some bad shots that should've been passed to teamates instead.

you obviously didn't play many sports. refs can screw you over, especially against a good opponent.
 
Originally posted by: jtvang125
I felt the call was BS when US made the second goal. I mean they both slid to make the tackle. Also, wtf was that when the Italian guy intentionally elbowed McBride in the face?

Perhaps if you understood the offside rule, you'd know why the US' 'second goal' is not really a goal.
 
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

you obviously didn't play many sports. refs can screw you over, especially against a good opponent.

Actually, I've played quite a bit of sports and have blamed my fair share of losses on bad officiating. However, everytime I've ever seen a team blame losing on the refs, I can just as easily point out plenty of mistakes they made that would have given them a win had they not made just some of them.

The fact is, if you're the better team, you will win. Also remember, that if you're good enough you'll never put yourself in positions to have calls that decide your fate. Case in point both of the red cards, they were without a doubt penalties, however the ref did over-react on his decision of how severe they were. The US should never have put themselves in a position for such a call to be made. There's a reason its called a penalty.
 
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: jtvang125
I felt the call was BS when US made the second goal. I mean they both slid to make the tackle. Also, wtf was that when the Italian guy intentionally elbowed McBride in the face?

The offside call on the Beasley shot was a good call. The two red cards on the US, however, were not. I feel confident in saying that if the US had the 11v10 advantage throughout the second half, they would have won.

I didn't see the second sending off but the first one was certainly a red card offense. He tackled him from the black, which according to FIFA's latest rules is a strict no-no. While the rule hasn't been applied consistently across all the games in this world cup, this ref called that foul right.
 
The only reason why the US got a point was because of Zaccardo's own goal. It's now 180 minutes without a US player scoring a goal. It's absolutly hilarious reading, and listening, to players and fans talking about how they outplayed the Italians the entire game. I guess Italy was being outplayed when they scored first, or maybe when they were a man down and the US failed to get a shot on goal. As a matter of fact, I guess the US deserves to win because in 90 minutes they couldn't get a single shot on goal.

The US players and fans should be thankful and send Zaccardo some gifts, Italy walks out easy with 3 points without his own goal. Stop acting like the US played the greatest game of soccer ever.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
Uhhh, they sucked, they didn't deserve to win. The ref was equally bad though.

Dude, were you watching the same game as us? The US clearly outplayed Italy...

The US didn't score a goal today. Italy scored one for them.

I don't see where Italy was outplayed. Italy was all over the US in this game. To the US' credit, they did start the game well until Italy scored. It was downhill from there on with a few shining moments in between.
 
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
<snip>

The US players and fans should be thankful and send Zaccardo some gifts, Italy walks out easy with 3 points without his own goal. Stop acting like the US played the greatest game of soccer ever.

Thank you.
 
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Yep. Royal screwjob today.

For the last game, my money is on the US winning and Italy and Czech intentionally tying one another to knock out US and Ghana.

Then they would be idiots. Nobody wants to play Brazil first in the second round. Furthermore, would the Czechs be willing to risk the US beating Ghana 4-0 (both matches are played at the same time)?

I don't think the Czechs or the Italians would be willing to take the risk of Ghana beating the US?...think the other way as well 😉.

Also as good as Brazil was their first match look for a potential upset tomorrow against Australia or the next game against the Swiss...nothing is set in stone...You never know this is the World Cup - anyone can beat anyone else on any given day...
 
Originally posted by: thereds
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
Uhhh, they sucked, they didn't deserve to win. The ref was equally bad though.

Dude, were you watching the same game as us? The US clearly outplayed Italy...

The US didn't score a goal today. Italy scored one for them.

I don't see where Italy was outplayed. Italy was all over the US in this game. To the US' credit, they did start the game well until Italy scored. It was downhill from there on with a few shining moments in between.

I don't agree with this. Until the end when the US kept giving Italy the ball, they never really mounted a consistent attack, which is what the US did for the entire first half. The second half not so much, especially after the second player got tossed.

The fact is, in soccer, you can be mounting the attack the whole game and still not win. However if you're constantly the one on the attack then the game is typically decidedly in your favor.

In the first half, there was no doubt the US outplayed them. Italy's goal was due to a single very bad defensive play by the US. The same can be said of the US goal, however the US were constantly on the attack, and Italy was not. The second half was about even, until the end when Italy then was consistently on the attack, and thus why the game was a tie. Neither team absolutely outplayed the other for the entire match.
 
I agree. I dont really watch a lot of soccer but those Red Cards were total BS. Maybe the 3rd one was ok...he would have got it eventually cause he was doing it all day...but the 2nd was just absurd..he didnt even have 1 yellow yet.

I dont really know soccer but I even saw how the US was in control the first half.
 
Back
Top