(06-29-2010 06:27 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 05:23 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-27-2010 10:49 AM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-26-2010 07:02 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-26-2010 01:05 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-26-2010 07:13 AM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-21-2010 09:57 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  This has been a strange cup. Every team seemed to play stupid timid in their first game, so the goal count stayed down. Now that teams need wins, the goals are climbing quickly.

Does anyone think that this first round was worse because of the lack of goal scoring during the first game for most teams in the qualfiying rounds. I have watched each World Cup since 1986 in Mexico and have seen in each of those World Cups a couple of snoozefests.

After the win by Uruguay over South Korea today, the goal coal in South Africa is now 104 for 49 games, which makes the goals per game is still an average of 2.1.

With the Ghana win over United States today the goal count for 2010 World cup is now 107 for 50 games, whic makes the goals scored per game an average of 2.14.

With the 4-1 victory by Germany over England, today's Goal count in 2010 World Cup is 112 over 51 games, which gives a goal per game count of 2.2. No matter if the disallowed goal was allowed for England, Germany was the better team and they still would have won in the end. I cannot see that result changing even if the call was overturned to what it should have been.

After a little while away with the goal count, the current talley is 122 goals after 54 games, which gives this World Cup in South Africa an average of 2.26 goals per game.

The current goal tally after the 0-0 match in 120 minutes and Paraguay winning in penalty kicks, and the goal by David Villa to beat Spain over Portugal is 123 goals in 56 games. This gives a goal per average of 2.19 per game so far in South Africa.

As of yesterday's game with the Holland 3-2 victory over Uruguay in Capetown, the current goal count in South is now 138 goals over 61 games, which is an average of 2.26 goals per game. Great game by Uruguay MNT, despite their team being down without the best goal scorer because of the red card suspension Suarez.

(07-07-2010 06:34 AM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 06:27 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 05:23 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-27-2010 10:49 AM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-26-2010 07:02 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-26-2010 01:05 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-26-2010 07:13 AM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-21-2010 09:57 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  This has been a strange cup. Every team seemed to play stupid timid in their first game, so the goal count stayed down. Now that teams need wins, the goals are climbing quickly.

Does anyone think that this first round was worse because of the lack of goal scoring during the first game for most teams in the qualfiying rounds. I have watched each World Cup since 1986 in Mexico and have seen in each of those World Cups a couple of snoozefests.

After the win by Uruguay over South Korea today, the goal coal in South Africa is now 104 for 49 games, which makes the goals per game is still an average of 2.1.

With the Ghana win over United States today the goal count for 2010 World cup is now 107 for 50 games, whic makes the goals scored per game an average of 2.14.

With the 4-1 victory by Germany over England, today's Goal count in 2010 World Cup is 112 over 51 games, which gives a goal per game count of 2.2. No matter if the disallowed goal was allowed for England, Germany was the better team and they still would have won in the end. I cannot see that result changing even if the call was overturned to what it should have been.

After a little while away with the goal count, the current talley is 122 goals after 54 games, which gives this World Cup in South Africa an average of 2.26 goals per game.

The current goal tally after the 0-0 match in 120 minutes and Paraguay winning in penalty kicks, and the goal by David Villa to beat Spain over Portugal is 123 goals in 56 games. This gives a goal per average of 2.19 per game so far in South Africa.

As of yesterday's game with the Holland 3-2 victory over Uruguay in Capetown, the current goal count in South is now 138 goals over 61 games, which is an average of 2.26 goals per game. Great game by Uruguay MNT, despite their team being down without the best goal scorer because of the red card suspension Suarez.

With today's narrowing but still yet dominating win 1-0 of Spain over Germany this year World Cup in South Africa has 139 goals in sixty two games. The average goal per game is now 2.24 with the header of Spanish defender Puyol in the 73rd minute.

(06-19-2010 07:43 AM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  Right now the goal counter is up to 44 with Wesley Snejider last goal for the Netherlands in the eigth minute of the second half against Japan. I soon hope to see more scoring overall in all these games to come, because a scoreless draw to me is boring.

In the next to last game of this year's World Cup in South Africa, their has been 144 goals scored in 63 games. This gives us a goal per game average of 2.29. This was one of the better games played so far, even if this was only a third place game.

(07-10-2010 03:28 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  

(06-19-2010 07:43 AM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  Right now the goal counter is up to 44 with Wesley Snejider last goal for the Netherlands in the eigth minute of the second half against Japan. I soon hope to see more scoring overall in all these games to come, because a scoreless draw to me is boring.

In the next to last game of this year's World Cup in South Africa, their has been 144 goals scored in 63 games. This gives us a goal per game average of 2.29. This was one of the better games played so far, even if this was only a third place game.

A very disappointing final to end this year's World Cup in South Africa, but nonetheless their was a total of 145 goals in throughout this tournament. This comes out to be an average of around 2.27 goals per game in the end.

According to the announcer, Spain is the lowest scoring World Cup champ ever. Because nothing is imitated like success, America and the world can expect more games like today until the rules are changed to permit more scoring opportunities.

(07-11-2010 04:33 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  According to the announcer, Spain is the lowest scoring World Cup champ ever. Because nothing is imitated like success, America and the world can expect more games like today until the rules are changed to permit more scoring opportunities.

I disagree. Italia 90 was similarly low scoring, but was followed up by high scoring USA 94 and France 98.

(07-11-2010 04:42 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 04:33 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  According to the announcer, Spain is the lowest scoring World Cup champ ever. Because nothing is imitated like success, America and the world can expect more games like today until the rules are changed to permit more scoring opportunities.

I disagree. Italia 90 was similarly low scoring, but was followed up by high scoring USA 94 and France 98.

FIFA changed the rules after the 1990 World Cup to address the low scoring issue and they could do so again.

"Following this (1990) World Cup, the back-pass rule was introduced in 1992 to discourage time-wasting and overly defensive play, and wins were awarded three points in the group stage of the 1994 World Cup to encourage more aggressive offensive tactics and discourage the strategy of playing for a draw. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_FIFA_World_Cup

(07-11-2010 04:33 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  According to the announcer, Spain is the lowest scoring World Cup champ ever. Because nothing is imitated like success, America and the world can expect more games like today until the rules are changed to permit more scoring opportunities.

While this is true, I believe Spain played better offense than the number of goals showed.

(07-11-2010 04:59 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 04:42 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 04:33 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  According to the announcer, Spain is the lowest scoring World Cup champ ever. Because nothing is imitated like success, America and the world can expect more games like today until the rules are changed to permit more scoring opportunities.

I disagree. Italia 90 was similarly low scoring, but was followed up by high scoring USA 94 and France 98.

FIFA changed the rules after the 1990 World Cup to address the low scoring issue and they could do so again.

"Following this (1990) World Cup, the back-pass rule was introduced in 1992 to discourage time-wasting and overly defensive play, and wins were awarded three points in the group stage of the 1994 World Cup to encourage more aggressive offensive tactics and discourage the strategy of playing for a draw. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_FIFA_World_Cup

Most issues of this WC are specific to this WC....a bad ball, and the altitude limiting set piece goals. There is a worry about the fitness level of the "stars" due to a long club season.

(07-11-2010 05:06 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 04:59 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 04:42 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 04:33 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  According to the announcer, Spain is the lowest scoring World Cup champ ever. Because nothing is imitated like success, America and the world can expect more games like today until the rules are changed to permit more scoring opportunities.

I disagree. Italia 90 was similarly low scoring, but was followed up by high scoring USA 94 and France 98.

FIFA changed the rules after the 1990 World Cup to address the low scoring issue and they could do so again.

"Following this (1990) World Cup, the back-pass rule was introduced in 1992 to discourage time-wasting and overly defensive play, and wins were awarded three points in the group stage of the 1994 World Cup to encourage more aggressive offensive tactics and discourage the strategy of playing for a draw. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_FIFA_World_Cup

Most issues of this WC are specific to this WC....a bad ball, and the altitude limiting set piece goals. There is a worry about the fitness level of the "stars" due to a long club season.

The adidas football was a nightmare through the month long competition, the fitness level due to the stars playing 50 games in a seaons might force the next World Cup to be selected back a week or two from what it presently is. Did not this happened in the 2002 World Cup when it was played in South Korea and Japan. However, will that make the offseason longer every 4 years as a result for the club teams in Europe and South America? I do not know if their is a good way to fix, besides shortening the amount ot of games the clubs play each year.

(07-11-2010 11:36 PM)BARTLETTTIGER Wrote:  The adidas football was a nightmare through the month long competition, the fitness level due to the stars playing 50 games in a seaons might force the next World Cup to be selected back a week or two from what it presently is. Did not this happened in the 2002 World Cup when it was played in South Korea and Japan. However, will that make the offseason longer every 4 years as a result for the club teams in Europe and South America? I do not know if their is a good way to fix, besides shortening the amount ot of games the clubs play each year.

There are ways to fix it, but clubs are what drives player salaries and the overall sport. As it is, the football associations and the clubs are at a constant tug-of-war, and I don't see the associations getting more power over time.