Knicks · OT - World Cup Final Who ya got? (page 1)

I'm pulling for France although it amazes me that Croatia,
a country of only 4 million, has produced such a good team.
It's been a great world cup with so many favored teams bowing out
in the sweet 16.

ESPN at 11 AM EST

Being french I'm obviously rooting for France, but this should be a close shave. I'm hoping for an early goal as it would be tough for Croatia to play catch-up, having been through extra time thrice is like having played one more game and with one day less to recover. But they have a very good team, tactically sound with an extraordinary midfield duo pulling the strings (Rakitic/Modric), they'll try and set up a slow tempo and a tactical game that would suit them better than a fast paced one. It's going to be nail biting stuff!
I know it's supposed to be only sport, but it is estimated that a world cup victory is worth 1.5 points of GDP for a country so it could make things really better on so many grounds (people's morale, economy) that I'm really feeling super anxious that we'll miss this opportunity.

I am rooting for Croatia. It's the Cinderella story.

meloshouldgo wrote:I am rooting for Croatia. It's the Cinderella story.

It is, isn't it? One cannot help but admire how these former Yugoslavia nations have consistently produced excellent ball sports athletes, not only soccer players but also basketball, handball, tennis.

Juliano wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I am rooting for Croatia. It's the Cinderella story.

It is, isn't it? One cannot help but admire how these former Yugoslavia nations have consistently produced excellent ball sports athletes, not only soccer players but also basketball, handball, tennis.

Yup, and here they come

Absolutely unbreatheable first half. It has all the ingredients of my nightmare scenario, Croatia good on the ball, setting up the tempo, tactically well positioned and France looking bereft of ideas, unable to string 3 passes together. However, as we've seen all along this world cup, the importance of set pieces (dead balls) really is huge, and all the 3 goals have come from it. Can France sustain the pressure Croatia are bound to impose in the first quarter of the second half, and nick a goal on the break that would all but kill it? Will Croatia get the equalizer and play their fourth extra time in succession? How I wish it was over already!

Amazing game. France didn't show up in the first half and gout really lucky. But they did well on those those two goals

meloshouldgo wrote:Amazing game. France didn't show up in the first half and gout really lucky. But they did well on those those two goals

Yeah, and how gracious of us to gift them a goal back to keep the game interesting

They were dead and buried and we threw them an effing lifeline.

Should see it through though.

That dude scored a goal for both teams in a WC Finsl

KNICKSBIGCATS wrote:I'm pulling for France although it amazes me that Croatia,
a country of only 4 million, has produced such a good team.
It's been a great world cup with so many favored teams bowing out
in the sweet 16.

It has nothing to do with the number of people in a country, it is more about system and development, if quantity matter, China, and India would be top in every sports game, but they are not :)

Gudris wrote:It has nothing to do with the number of people in a country, it is more about system and development, if quantity matter, China, and India would be top in every sports game, but they are not :)

This is partly true, but when the organizations are of similar quality, the more people you have the bigger the pool of potential players is. Brazil have won 5 titles partly because they are a country of 150 millions inhabitants in which every male has kicked a football once.

This ^^^^^

Juliano wrote:

Gudris wrote:It has nothing to do with the number of people in a country, it is more about system and development, if quantity matter, China, and India would be top in every sports game, but they are not :)

This is partly true, but when the organizations are of similar quality, the more people you have the bigger the pool of potential players is. Brazil have won 5 titles partly because they are a country of 150 millions inhabitants in which every male has kicked a football once.

More controversially, one can also argue that having a more diverse population, ethnically, also contributes to a country's success as well as the impact of inequality within fairly wealthy countries. Significant inequality arguably leads to poorer groups being more likely to see sports as a significant motivator for getting out out of poverty rather than say, education.

The U.S. has a HUGE population, and while our tradition of soccer is developing its sustainability -- due to systemic problems about playing/access to the sport -- is also a key factor exacerbating this. The issue former manager and Germany star Klinsmann argued was how the US pool of players come from a "pay for play" system composed of more often white, suburban and more generally well off young people. For poor Americans other sports are seen as "the way out."

Brazil has a more diverse historical population, but it's inequality also impacts the poorest -- often of African/indiginous descent -- seeing soccer as possibly the only real path out of the favelas (slums) that also gains significant fame and glory.

Croatia, interestingly enough was part of the former Yugoslavia, which if existed today would have one of the best squads in soccer, easily. Serbia and B&H especially have some huge players, but some would come from others. Now, this region is an ethnically a diverse place with various ethnic groups which had significant conflict surrounding these differences that connects to its breakup, war, atrocities and tension that still exists heavily. Yet I would gather that this region of Earth is filled with a mix of various groups from surrounding areas if you traced their linage. The players from this country almost all came from very tough life experiences surrounding the conflicts in the region after the fall of Communism so that could also perhaps explain their success.

France won, similarly as they did in 1998, with key players from impoverished and immigrant group backgrounds, coming from hardened life situations with little access to opportunity for financial success outside of sports success.

India and China have elements of this regarding poverty, but the diversity is limited, and success in sport as a way of "making it" is not as widely accepted in their cultures as it is in these other countries, as far as I understand, nor is soccer the biggest sport -- unsure in China, but really it's growing -- while probably cricket in India.

PresIke wrote:

Juliano wrote:

Gudris wrote:It has nothing to do with the number of people in a country, it is more about system and development, if quantity matter, China, and India would be top in every sports game, but they are not :)

This is partly true, but when the organizations are of similar quality, the more people you have the bigger the pool of potential players is. Brazil have won 5 titles partly because they are a country of 150 millions inhabitants in which every male has kicked a football once.

More controversially, one can also argue that having a more diverse population, ethnically, also contributes to a country's success as well as the impact of inequality within fairly wealthy countries. Significant inequality arguably leads to poorer groups being more likely to see sports as a significant motivator for getting out out of poverty rather than say, education.

The U.S. has a HUGE population, and while our tradition of soccer is developing its sustainability -- due to systemic problems about playing/access to the sport -- is also a key factor exacerbating this. The issue former manager and Germany star Klinsmann argued was how the US pool of players come from a "pay for play" system composed of more often white, suburban and more generally well off young people. For poor Americans other sports are seen as "the way out."

Brazil has a more diverse historical population, but it's inequality also impacts the poorest -- often of African/indiginous descent -- seeing soccer as possibly the only real path out of the favelas (slums) that also gains significant fame and glory.

Croatia, interestingly enough was part of the former Yugoslavia, which if existed today would have one of the best squads in soccer, easily. Serbia and B&H especially have some huge players, but some would come from others. Now, this region is an ethnically a diverse place with various ethnic groups which had significant conflict surrounding these differences that connects to its breakup, war, atrocities and tension that still exists heavily. Yet I would gather that this region of Earth is filled with a mix of various groups from surrounding areas if you traced their linage. The players from this country almost all came from very tough life experiences surrounding the conflicts in the region after the fall of Communism so that could also perhaps explain their success.

France won, similarly as they did in 1998, with key players from impoverished and immigrant group backgrounds, coming from hardened life situations with little access to opportunity for financial success outside of sports success.

India and China have elements of this regarding poverty, but the diversity is limited, and success in sport as a way of "making it" is not as widely accepted in their cultures as it is in these other countries, as far as I understand, nor is soccer the biggest sport -- unsure in China, but really it's growing -- while probably cricket in India.

Impresive :)

Good post and correct about cricket in India.
While US is a large population, it is not that diverse. In fact US is a culturally poor country. There is very little diversity, beyond the obvious racial distinctions. European and Asian countries are 1000s of years old and have been subject to various migrations, wars, being taken over and riled by completely different people and so on. In the US what little culture the native Americans had long been erased from memory. I do disagree thatI dia and China are not so diverse. India especially has more cultursl diversity than most places on earth, but over time it has started to get more homogenized.

meloshouldgo wrote:Good post and correct about cricket in India.
While US is a large population, it is not that diverse. In fact US is a culturally poor country. There is very little diversity, beyond the obvious racial distinctions. European and Asian countries are 1000s of years old and have been subject to various migrations, wars, being taken over and riled by completely different people and so on. In the US what little culture the native Americans had long been erased from memory. I do disagree thatI dia and China are not so diverse. India especially has more cultursl diversity than most places on earth, but over time it has started to get more homogenized.

What about Irish, British, German, Italian, Greek, Jewish, Mexican, Cuban, Afro, Indian, Chines, Vietnamese, Korean, Arabic and many other cultures which are all over the place in US?
Are you living in a cultural ghetto or what to not see it?

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Good post and correct about cricket in India.
While US is a large population, it is not that diverse. In fact US is a culturally poor country. There is very little diversity, beyond the obvious racial distinctions. European and Asian countries are 1000s of years old and have been subject to various migrations, wars, being taken over and riled by completely different people and so on. In the US what little culture the native Americans had long been erased from memory. I do disagree thatI dia and China are not so diverse. India especially has more cultursl diversity than most places on earth, but over time it has started to get more homogenized.

What about Irish, British, German, Italian, Greek, Jewish, Mexican, Cuban, Afro, Indian, Chines, Vietnamese, Korean, Arabic and many other cultures which are all over the place in US?
Are you living in a cultural ghetto or what to not see it?

Your post only shows your lack of comprehension