Greece vs. Germany Spills Off the Soccer Field
Source: NY TIMES
GDANSK, Poland The giant blue-and-white flag blotted out the overcast Baltic sky on Friday as the Greek fans pounded their drums and cheered at the foot of the centuries-old City Hall here. The Germans took up a chant in honor of their chancellor, Angela Merkel.
Without Angie, you wouldnt be here, bellowed the German fans, referring to the multibillion-dollar bailouts Greece has received from European partners, first and foremost Germany.
Well never pay you back, countered the Greeks. Well never pay you back.
The leaders of Germany and Greece may be scrambling to hold Europe together, but on the popular level the strain of a three-year-old financial crisis is beginning to tear it apart. And while the European soccer championships have often served as a safe outlet for channeling nationalist passions in the European pastime, for Greeks and Germans brought to together by chance in the quarterfinals here it has turned into more than a game.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/world/europe/greece-vs-germany-spills-off-soccer-field.html?hp
Berlin Expat
(950 posts)four to two.
Not a surprise, really; most of us were favoring the Germans the win. They're a good team. If you want to beat them, you're going to have be playing at 110%:
iandhr
(6,852 posts)It got interesting when Greece tied it 1-1. I was wondering why the coach did not start Muller or Gomez. Gomez has been Germany's best player in the tournament so far.
Greece, while ranked in the teens in the world ranking, is not anywhere near the level of the German national team. Germany could definitely afford to sit three of its best players because Greece was never really a threat. The 1 - 1 tie was a shock, sure, but the score began to reflect how much Germany truly dominated the game (in the first half they completed 700 passes compared to less than 70 for Greece) from the 60th minute on.
Full disclosure: I'm a huge fan of German football! Haha
iandhr
(6,852 posts)I watched all of Germany's groups games and was wondering why their best player wasn't playing.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)for a reason to fight. It comes from watching 1.5 hours of the most boring thing since shuffleboard.
Ishoutandscream2
(6,662 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)non-stop tactical decisions made on the fly, a ballet of offensive and defensive movements as one team tries to stretch the formation of the other while not opening themselves up to a counter, and constant demonstrations of almost-magical ball control, passing, and shooting skills is far from boring.
Soccer is, quite simply, the most perfect team sport ever devised. It's amazing that DU decries American provincialism in every other endeavor but makes no effort to appreciate or even acknowledge the validity of a sport that entrances the rest of the planet.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Of running around the center of the field, where six shots on goal is considered exciting. Get that number up to forty or so, like hockey, and it will be watchable. What is really distressing about soccer is that they "flop" more than basketball players. If someone just brushes a player, they go down like they just had a career ending injury. Two minutes later, they are out there running around like nothing happened ( because it didn't). Maybe if they got rid of the blatant fakery it might become stomach-able.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)They happen, but not as much as the unacquainted might be led to believe. It happens a lot with certain teams (Italy, I'm looking at you) and at higher-profile tournaments where the stakes are huge and every tiny advantage is being sought, but in a normal game it really isn't the problem it's made out to be. And to be honest, some fans consider being able to sell a foul part of a player's skillset; a convincing dive done well and at the right time can set up a crucial free kick or bring out a card.
As for shots on goal, in the 2010/11 season the teams in the four biggest leagues in Europe took an average of 13 shots on goal per game. Fewer than in hockey, but that just makes each of them more important, I suppose.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but I stopped watching basketball specifically for the flopping- it is very unsportman-like, IMO. I contrast that to hockey (and yes, I do think there is too much fighting in that sport). I believe it was the 2001 Stanley Cup finals, which Dallas lost to New Jersey. Darryl Sydor (a Stars defensemen) went down hard, and the refs didn't see it to stop play. He was on his hands and knee just crawling to position himself in front of the net. The other knee was broken, but that doesn't stop hockey players when they are trying to win the cup.
So, are there any soccer matches this weekend you would suggest to me? I will try to watch with an open mind.
Ishoutandscream2
(6,662 posts)who spout the same stuff about "American provincialism" when someone brings up how overrated and boring soccer is. I can tell you that Americans know more about soccer rules than others around the world know about our national pastime, baseball, or national passion, football. Just because many of us dislike soccer doesn't make us provincial. If anything, making a claim such as yours certainly makes you elitist.
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)Literally billions of people would rather watch football (the kind that is sensibly named) than any other sport. You're sure that they are all wrong, but you're not ignorant or bigoted, aka provincial, and us DUers who agree are the elitists. Uh huh.
Baseball is not as universal as soccer, but is popular in many nations. Many of those that don't know baseball enjoy cricket instead. Both those games have always seemed quite boring to me in comparison to basketball, hockey, or either variety of football.
What I really find strange though is that Americans will make fun of real football for being slow and boring when the players in our version are in motion about 10 or maybe 20% of the game. Seriously, how can we make fun of a game for being slow when our favorite sport requires the players to run for about 10 seconds and then stand around for 30 seconds or more?
Soccer emphasizes speed, skill, and finesse much more than brute force. American football has plenty of those qualities as well, but is ultimately more about brute force, even with today's pass happy offenses. In that sense it suits our ignorant culture very well, a perfect match for an obese nation that is overly interested in using our huge military to bomb smaller people into submission.
When you get down to it anyone who insists one game is inherently better than another could be called "elitist." Still I don't begrudge citizens of other nations being puzzled as to why anyone would learn rules as complicated as American football's just so they can watch giants pulverize each other for a few seconds and then stand around for a minute at a time after the ball has been carried 6 feet down the field.
BTW I am playing devil's advocate here. Having been raised in TN I am a huge football fan, whether college or pro, but I would claim soccer as my second favorite sport. The scoring in soccer may be too infrequent, but I prefer that to the clock-work nature of basketball. Most other people seem to have an either/or approach to the two versions of football, but I have always wondered: why can't we just like both?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I love soccer. It has a dynamic similar to hockey (another sport I love, the Minnesotan in me), but slower, and so easier to follow, and also not as violent (unless you count the hooligans, LOL).
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)It is slightly better live than on tv, but not by much
hack89
(39,171 posts)(only because my son started playing.) If you love hockey you will like lacrosse - it is a dynamic sport that mixes soccer, hockey and basketball (picks, screens, set plays).
"A day without lacrosse is like 900 innings of baseball."
may3rd
(593 posts)Well,
not in the US but in a large part of the EU cities
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)emilyg
(22,742 posts)I was hoping they would win but not surprised that they lost...