Guadeloupe put up a really good fight against {relatively} mighty Mexico in the Gold Cup semifinals last night; they were organized and didn't panic on the ball, especially in their own end. AS the game went on and Guadeloupe's goalkeeper made some point blank saves that should have been goals, you started to believe that this might be one of those games where the massive underdog gets a goal from a corner or set piece and pulls off the super shocker. It remained tied until the 70th minute when Mexico scored a great goal, and try as they may Guadeloupe could not get the equalizer. So the dream ends, but there is no shame in losing 0-1 to Mexico, and considering the rest of their amazing showing at this tournament, considering their history, size, and status as a non-nation, they certainly did themselves proud and will be welcomed home as heroes. And it did take an absolute Golaso! to knock them out:
Que golaso por El Tri
Canada scrapped with the US but it still looked like they were going down 2-0 to the US, but then they pulled one back in the 75th minute to get to 2-1 and give them a chance to tie it up. It looked like a lost cause when suddenly in the 94th and final minute, they scored a perfectly legitimate goal. Cue the ineptitude & stupidity by the referees: the goal was disallowed, and it was as much of a kick in the nuts disallowed goal as you will ever see. 1) there were to be 4 minutes of added time, and the goal happened at literally the 94.00 mark, so literally they equalized with what should have been the last kick of the game 2) The linesman ruled that Canada were offsides, when it wasn't even close- dude was totally onsides 3) but worst of all, it doesn't matter if he was on or offsides because he received the ball after a US defender completely fucked up and headed the ball right into his path, and by rule a striker cannot be offsides when a defender hits it to him instead of an attacking player. A colossal and embarrassing fuckup by the linesman and referee hands the match to the US when they should certainly have played extra time and perhaps penalties, where anything could have happened.
See for yourself at the 6.15 {-3.00} mark of this video:
Canada gets jobbed, hard, at the 6.15 {-3.00} mark
So the final will what everyone expected going in: the two heavyweights, US and Mexico. Should be a good match for continental bragging rights. If you care to check it out the match is Sunday at 12 p.m. PST, on Fox Soccer Channel and Univision.
10 comments:
Man what a goal!
I TIVO'd it but I tell ya--I'm not gonna watch it. The mexicans have been playing like crap the whole tourney (God help them in the Copa America).
Here's a dilemma: I got a game to play on Sunday at 4...do I go, or stay and watch the final???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/6231950.stm
El Pichichi-
Dude- just Tivo it and watch when you get home.
M- Yeah, been hearing some stuff that makes it sound more likely. Arseblogger tipped me off this morning: http://arseblog.com/WP/2007/06/22/arseblog-meets-peter-marinello/
Supposedly Barca are playing 35 million Euros and hoping to unveil him on Monday.
If you land him does that mean you are actually going to pull for the dude and be a fan instead of being a hater? Seems like a tricky spot you will be in...
Thanks Kanu...I guess that's what I'll do. Hopefully nobody will tell me the results before I get back. Total radio silence, I think.
Also, the game will be on Univision and FSC, not ESPN.
Thanks- I'll fix that.
As far as Henry, this round of "he has signed" seems more real than the last certainly. But the source is still Marca and "sources close the club"; I will truly believe it when it comes from Arsenal Football Club, FC Barca, or Henry himself. That being said, this sounds like the real deal.
What I don't understand is the 17 million pounds. If that is the case, then Arsenal got taken to the fucking cleaners. 17 million? For fucks sake, Ribery just sold for 27.5, Malouda is selling for 17, and Darren Bent is valued at 17 million, just to name 3 players who are good but aren't even half the player Henry is. It is incomprehensible to me that Arsenal FC would sell TH14 for anything less thatn 25 million pounds.
All that being said, if Eto'o comes to N5, then I'll be a happy camper. As I have said, Titi turns 30 next month and Eto'o is only 26, so TH14 will decline over the next 3 years and Eto'o will be at his peak.
If this whole thing is real, and Barca are going to unveil him on Monday, then I'm sure an official statement from the club will come out tomorrow or Sunday.
Ribery was sold for 17.5 - sorry, typo.
...And Tevez is going to Real??
That'll be real nice
Technically, I think the rule states that if the linesman think the attacking player is in an offside position, he should raise the flag, it is up to the match ref to wave it off or not. I can forgive a spotty offside positional call, since it is a split second thing. But what was the ref thinking? It's not like he doesn't have the right/duty to override his assistant.
As for Henry, I agree with everything you said Kanu. I was shocked when the price came in below 20+ million pounds. The only way this could have happened is if Henry told Arsenal in no uncertain terms that he wants to leave, and Arsenal's financial situation is a little bit more precarious than they let on. 16M is ridiculously low for a player of his caliber. (Then again, Vieira was sold at discount price as well).
And the problem with that price tag is that it is too much money for Eto'o to be going the other way. No way Barca pays 16M pounds plus Eto'o for Henry. And no way can Arsenal put up any kind of decent bid for Eto'o with that earning. Meaning? If Eto'o leaves, he's going to Milan.
It's not a good day to be a gunner.
Your point #3 about why the Canadian could not be offside is only correct if you think that Onyewu actually played the ball back (his seems to be what you are implying in your post), not that the ball only deflected off of him. According to Decision 2 of Law 11 - Offside, "Gaining an advantage by being in [offside] position means . . . playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position." [my emphasis]
Whether or not the Canadian was in an offside position . . . well, I wouldn't want to say, but the linesman was well-positioned.
CT-
Thanks for the definition but I sure cannot call that a "rebound", as it seems pretty clear that the US defender strikes the ball with intent with his head, he just seems to totally fuck up and play a perfect pass to the Canuck striker.
I would think that "rebound" would be a deflection and implies a lack of intent on the part of the defender to strike the ball. So in my humble opinion what happened falls short of being defined as a "rebound".
Post a Comment