11/21/24
April 23, 2003
What a match!: Even better than their recent draw against Arsenal, Man U couldn't quite play defense today and even though they won the match 4-3, those three away goals allowed will send them home from Europe. Does this mean no silverware at Old Trafford this season? And what's the Beckham story?? Three lovelies from Ronaldo, that's the stuff I remember from last Summer.
posted by billsaysthis to soccer at 03:45 PM - 28 comments
It's Fergie's way of telling Beckham he's surplus to requirements. Either that or he's been shagging Fergie's missus. Great game, top entertainment and a result to send all those glory-hunting tossers who's "grandad" was born in "Manchester" home in tears. Somedays I love football more than all the other days.
posted by squealy at 05:51 PM on April 23, 2003
Agreed gspm. Real Madrid are definitely the gonads. As good as seeing the northern monkeys beaten was witnessing the lack of grace they showed at the end. Remember the great Pele / Moore moment in 1970? 
. No Man U player is capable of such iconographic and transcendental moments; they just don't have the humility. The game itself was great art, but the edge was taken off as the result was never really in doubt. Interesting that Mcnamaman can get a game in the Real all star line up, but doesn't even make the England squad. The Milan Ajax game was a bit of a classic. If Ajax can hang onto most of their players they will be a major force very soon.
posted by Fat Buddha at 06:00 PM on April 23, 2003
Another misguided and amateurish attempt at psychology by Fergie I reckon Squealy. Much as I hate Aresenal, and I do really hate Arsenal for much more than footballing reasons, I would love it, just love it, if they did them
posted by Fat Buddha at 06:04 PM on April 23, 2003
Why couldn't the fruiteaters at ESPN give us both games? Stupid gits! If there's one good thing about longterm unemployment, it's watching these midweek daytime games. And if there's two, it's not putting up with the gits in an office, but that's not sports-related.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:34 PM on April 23, 2003
Stupid Man U! They will be crying in their soup when the season is done. I think Beckham will go to Real Madrid. (Wonder if today's match was Fergie's way of telling Beckham to sod off?)
posted by worldcup2002 at 08:27 PM on April 23, 2003
... and Beckham's penalty kick in off the bar was his way of telling Fergie to stuff it. I suppose. that was a great shot but in all the man U games I have watched this year it seems that 3/4 of his kicks haven't made it past the wall. "bend it like beckham" to me has started to mean "waste one into the wall". it was good to finally witness one (a beckham penalty kick)that lived up to the hype.
posted by gspm at 01:12 AM on April 24, 2003
That's a free-kick rather than a penalty, gspm. I was under the impression he'd been taking them rather well this season. I could be wrong though. So this attempt at psychology by Fergie, FB? Do you mean you think he was trying to get one over mentally on Real or something to do with Beckham's game?
posted by squealy at 02:16 AM on April 24, 2003
I don't what the hell he was trying to do, Squealy, thats why it is misguided and amateurish, as all his so called psychological ploys are. I think he has lost the plot.
posted by Fat Buddha at 03:38 AM on April 24, 2003
Enjoyed the game, but really it ceased to be a competitive match after the first Madrid goal - put it this way, if the first leg had been 0-0 there's no way Man U would have won last night - to me sport has to mean something, for 80 mins this game was great entertainment, but lacked any 'edge'
posted by Brettski at 04:41 AM on April 24, 2003
re: free-kick -- my mistake. i knew what i meant, mangled the terms. dumb hockey fan. 'indirect penalty kick' is a term that was tossed around in my formative soccer years, perhaps that is regional, oxymoronic or vague. if you grow up a fan of footie i suppose these mistakes aren't made. thanks for pointing it out though. the possibility of me sounding stupid to other non-SpoFi football fans has now decreased by 1%.
posted by gspm at 05:03 AM on April 24, 2003
Not a problem gspm. We'll work that percentage down for ya. ;-) Oh, welcome to SpoFi btw.
posted by squealy at 07:01 AM on April 24, 2003
gspm: indirect free kick = you can't shoot directly at goal. At least one other person must touch it before a shot at goal. direct free kick = go ahead, wail it. That's why defenders set up the ball. That's the kick that Becks took.
posted by worldcup2002 at 10:09 AM on April 24, 2003
I agree with Brettski, good game to watch, but after that first goal it took all of my fanatical optimism to pretend like United still had much of a chance of advancing. I've started disliking Silvestre in the left center back more and more. They should have lined up the way they did in the second half at the beginning of the game.
posted by pfuller at 10:28 AM on April 24, 2003
I'm sorry I didn't watch the match. Ronaldo's hattrick, world-class play from the likes of Zidane, Figo and Carlos, Man U winning but still losing ... Oh what joy that would have been. btw, here's a poor facsimile of the action: Ronaldo's goal of the week. Those illustrators really pay attention to detail. Take a close look at the Zidane figure as you page through the action. Notice the bald spot on his head? LOL.
posted by worldcup2002 at 12:17 PM on April 24, 2003
wc2k2, great link. Besides the Becks mystery, I was also quite puzzled by the 4-5-1 ManU lineup at the start. Why only RVN up front?
posted by billsaysthis at 01:28 PM on April 24, 2003
bill: 4-5-1 looks like a classic counterattack mode (and yes, strange for a team that needs to score, score, score!). Choke the midfield and hope for an early strike. Then reshuffle to a more attacking alignment. But it also could have been to make sure they have enough men in midfield to cover the shoddy defenders. Heh.
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:33 PM on April 24, 2003
wc, I was really surprised their was so much play deep in both offensive ends, expected more back and forth in the middle, especially given the alignments.
posted by billsaysthis at 05:35 PM on April 24, 2003
The real kicker for Milan-Ajax is that the winner was scored by Jon-Dahl Tomasson, the Geordie-reject who rebuilt his reputation last season by helping take Feyernoord to the UEFA cup. I'm sure that a few Rotterdammers found that particularly satisfying.
posted by etagloh at 02:23 AM on April 25, 2003
that goal of week link with the zidane bald spot is riotous. well, the bald spot represented as one pixel is the hilarious part. OK. penalty kick = from the penalty spot. free kick = freely taken kick due to a foul outside the box with the subjective direct/indirect assessment added on as a descriptor? if i recall accurately - Ronaldinho's shot to beat england in the world cup last summer was pretty far out, not exactly wall-building territory. Would that be considered direct or indirect? Indirect at first glance? But it went in so is it direct as executed? Am I really mangling the terms now?
posted by gspm at 01:07 PM on April 25, 2003
gspm: It's usually direct or indirect depending on the seriousness of the foul. Also, it's pointless to have a ... oh great, now you've made me look at the rules. Anyway, re: Ronaldinho's shot, it was direct. Direct doesn't mean that you have to shoot it straight at goal. It just means that's an option, if you want. You could just as well pass it off to someone else, too. btw, Seaman should have had that one covered, the sod. However, with an indirect free kick, you must always pass it to someone before a shot at goal is attempted. This could take the form of someone just tapping the ball to you to then kick at the goal. Or it could be you hoofing it into the box for someone to head home. Or just tapping it to someone and letting the game continue from there. You don't have to shoot at goal in either case. Now you've made me do it:
Fouls and misconduct are penalised as follows: Direct Free Kick A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:
- kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
- rips or attempts to trip an opponent
- umps at an opponent
- charges an opponent
- strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
- pushes an opponent
A direct free kick is taken from where the offence occurred. Indirect Free Kick An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
- tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
- holds an opponent
- spits at an opponent
- handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee:
- takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his hands before releasing it from his possession
- touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released from his possession and has not touched any other player
- touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
- touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate
The indirect free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.
- plays in a dangerous manner
- impedes the progress of an opponent
- prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
- commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:35 PM on April 25, 2003
Woops. That's "jumps at an opponent" not "umps." Heh.
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:37 PM on April 25, 2003
Humps
posted by StarFucker at 02:17 PM on April 25, 2003
appreciated. i realise this isn't a forum to LEARN THE RULES of a sport, but this knowledge is assumed by the TV announcers and I might never have known if my term mangling was not pointed out. i guess that explains to me the times when free kicks are taken near the box when a wall is in place and sometimes the offence just hoofs it at the net (a la Beckham the other night) and other times there is a short tap from one player to another player and then a shot. I never knew WHY they did that little pass but just assumed (not thinking it was important) that it had something to do with fooling the wall or getting a slightly better angle around the wall. yes, it makes more sense know. the game is beautifuller.
posted by gspm at 09:40 AM on April 26, 2003
And here's another thing to confuse you, gspm. Those little taps may not be because of the indirect kick. Even at direct kicks, you can do those little taps, often to give a better angle for the shot, other times to provide more momentum for the shot, most times to trick the wall, the defense and the goalie. I've even seen goofy things like two players running over a ball (without touching it) and then one player taps it to the side for someone else to blast it past the wall. And it worked!
posted by worldcup2002 at 07:31 PM on April 26, 2003
finally a decent takin point but to tell yes lads a hink that inter milan will play real madrid in da final and win and rangers football club are da best...
posted by wee_k fae scotland at 05:41 AM on April 29, 2003
ok, i guess the best way for me to build on this knowledge would be to sit down and watch lots of footie and hope there are lots of free kicks and have a patient person beside me highlighting the distinctions in each case. never knew it was quite so complicated. that is, if it actually IS complicated and doesn't just seem so.
posted by gspm at 12:08 PM on April 29, 2003
It's simple. You've just got to separate the reasons the kick is given (fouls) -- which determines if it's direct or indirect -- from the way the kick is taken (tactics). If it's indirect, you can't take a shot at goal directly from the kick. At least one other person has to touch the ball on the way to goal. If it's direct, you can do whatever the hell you want: kick it straight at goal, tap it back and forth dozens of times before kicking it, hoof it backwards all the way back to your goalie (hmm, that may be a foul, heh), it's up to you. Setting up the wall is entirely at the defending team's discretion, too.
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:06 PM on April 29, 2003
i must say that in watching Real Madrid in these two Man U games (OK, in my case, the 2nd halves of both games) they looked like an allstar team they way they moved the ball and scored. a good game were it not for the general anticlimactic feeling that followed the 2nd real madrid goal. ronaldo looked incredible. and yeah, WHAT IS the story with Beckham? with no appearance in the 'premiership decider' that was the arsenal match last week and now entering the game with the game nearly out of reach... don't you (ferguson) want to field your BEST team in both of those situations? is beckham not a part of the BEST lineup that Man U can field? what gives?