IGN is out of their minds.

[Omega124]

Link to video.

As seen here, IGN believes that, if the offside call against America never happened, and therefore win, the scores are, and I'm being dead serious.

Uruguay: USA 1 Uruguay 0

Holland: USA 2 Holland 0

Spain: USA 0 Spain 0 (2-0 PK)

Please, even I, an American, knows that these scores are completely unrealistic. Just think about, we barely even tied against England (and if the goalie didn't drop it, we would had lost). Uruguay alone would had defeated us 10-0 easily, but barring that, Holland defeated Brazil! They wouldn't lose against, and I quote someone on YouTube, "a nation that doesn't even get the name of the sport right". Tying against Spain I could somewhat believe as a "Miracle on Grass" (Assuming that they could even beat Holland), but for Spain to miss /every. last. penalty kick? Come on.

So what's your opinion on this simulation?

 

[Arwon]

Bwahahahahaha.

There's nothing wrong with calling it soccer, though. If it's good enough for the most recent World Cup final, it's good enough for me...

 

[Marla_Singer]

LOL!

This reminds me an old joke:

- What a Paris SG fan does after his club wins the Champions League ?
- He switches off the Playstation.


I guess that's also true with the US and the world cup.

 

[BCLG100]

LOL!

This reminds me an old joke:

- What a Paris SG fan does after his club wins the Champions League ?
- He switches off the Playstation.


I guess that's also true with the US and the world cup.

Heard that joke but with a variety of different themes!

But whichever comedy genius wrote that deserves a medal

 

[warpus]

Yeah, and if North Korea beat Brazil, the dear leader would have scored 5 hat tricks and lead the Koreans to their first world cup trophy.

 

[Red Door]

Link to video.

As seen here, IGN believes that, if the offside call against America never happened, and therefore win, the scores are, and I'm being dead serious.

Uruguay: USA 1 Uruguay 0

Holland: USA 2 Holland 0

Spain: USA 0 Spain 0 (2-0 PK)

Please, even I, an American, knows that these scores are completely unrealistic. Just think about, we barely even tied against England (and if the goalie didn't drop it, we would had lost). Uruguay alone would had defeated us 10-0 easily, but barring that, Holland defeated Brazil! They wouldn't lose against, and I quote someone on YouTube, "a nation that doesn't even get the name of the sport right". Tying against Spain I could somewhat believe as a "Miracle on Grass" (Assuming that they could even beat Holland), but for Spain to miss /every. last. penalty kick? Come on.

So what's your opinion on this simulation?

I mean, while this scenario is a bit ridiculous, it is certainly not impossible. Uruguay certainly would not win 10-0, this is pure ridiculousness. Uruguay needed a miracle penalty miss to beat Ghana, a team the United States honestly should have shoved aside.

Holland, if they played like they did in March, would have destroyed the United States. But given that Holland decided to play like Guatemala in Guatemala City, I think it's fair to say that the USA would have had a chance to win given a great game from Howard, Donovan, Dempsey, Bradley, and Altidore.

I mean, last year, this United States beat a largely-the-same, in-form roster of Spain in South Africa to reach the Confederations Cup Finals. This shows that, on a good day, the United States can beat anyone at any time.

Would 3 games in a row be a bit ridiculous? Of course. It's certainly not impossible though.

 

[Inter4]

The Spaniards lost because they undermined the U.S. team. After that shocker, I doubt teams take them lightly anymore.

 

[kaltorak]

We have a competition here which lets you purchase players with a limited maximum cash, and then depending on the performance of the wc you get points.
I took donovan and he was great in relation points/price

 

[Arwon]

Fantasy Football!

 

[shortguy]

Hahaha Robbie Findley scored. That's a funny joke.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This simulation is completely bogus. There are no vuvuzelas.

We need to bring Paul the Octopus out of retirement to properly settle it.

 

[North King]

I mean, while this scenario is a bit ridiculous, it is certainly not impossible. Uruguay certainly would not win 10-0, this is pure ridiculousness. Uruguay needed a miracle penalty miss to beat Ghana, a team the United States honestly should have shoved aside.

Uruguay is a fairly good team. At the same time, we should stop acting as though Ghana is a team we can easily just curbstomp if we really put our minds to it. This Ghana side is quite possibly the best African team we've seen, and are even starting to develop some real class.

Holland, if they played like they did in March, would have destroyed the United States. But given that Holland decided to play like Guatemala in Guatemala City, I think it's fair to say that the USA would have had a chance to win given a great game from Howard, Donovan, Dempsey, Bradley, and Altidore.

Clearly we've been watching totally different teams. Donovan and maybe Howard are our only players that even come close to world class. The rest that you named are mediocre at best, and weren't even in form for the entire tournament to boot (except Bradley, who was a surprise).

I mean, last year, this United States beat a largely-the-same, in-form roster of Spain in South Africa to reach the Confederations Cup Finals. This shows that, on a good day, the United States can beat anyone at any time.

If you EVER cite performances in the CC for anything, then you will never be taken seriously. This is the sort of tournament where Australia makes it to the final, or Denmark wins it all.

 

[Red Door]

Uruguay is a fairly good team. At the same time, we should stop acting as though Ghana is a team we can easily just curbstomp if we really put our minds to it. This Ghana side is quite possibly the best African team we've seen, and are even starting to develop some real class.

And the United States played poorly and barely lost to them. They could (and should) have beaten them in 90 minutes.

Clearly we've been watching totally different teams. Donovan and maybe Howard are our only players that even come close to world class. The rest that you named are mediocre at best, and weren't even in form for the entire tournament to boot (except Bradley, who was a surprise).

I never said anything about them being World Class, but rather who would need good games for them to win against a Spain or Holland.

If you EVER cite performances in the CC for anything, then you will never be taken seriously. This is the sort of tournament where Australia makes it to the final, or Denmark wins it all.

It's also the sort of tournament very similar rosters to the World Cup team were used by Brazil, Spain, and Italy.

 

[CivCube]

The US made too many mistakes in the opening minutes of each of their games. There's no way they could have beaten anyone after Ghana.

 

[Arwon]

I mean, last year, this United States beat a largely-the-same, in-form roster of Spain in South Africa to reach the Confederations Cup Finals. This shows that, on a good day, the United States can beat anyone at any time.

Assuming, of course, the other team isn't trying.

Australia in 2001 beat Brazil, Mexico and France in that tournament. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[North King]

And the United States played poorly and barely lost to them. They could (and should) have beaten them in 90 minutes.

I don't think it was a near run thing at all.

I never said anything about them being World Class, but rather who would need good games for them to win against a Spain or Holland.

They'd need good games to the point where they'd be performing above and beyond their capabilities.

It's also the sort of tournament very similar rosters to the World Cup team were used by Brazil, Spain, and Italy.

Those players weren't even trying. No one does. It's not an important tournament.

 

[Evie]

My conclusion is that the French team of 2001 was dyslexic so they played under the 2010 rules ("France lose")

 

[Marla_Singer]

My conclusion is that the French team of 2001 was dyslexic so they played under the 2010 rules ("France lose")

Actually no.
France won the 2001 confederations cup.

That was the good old days when we had a team who knew how to play football.

 

[Evie]

Just during the Australia game, then.

 

[Red Door]

I don't think it was a near run thing at all.

Must have been watching a different game then. Chances on both ends with the United States controlling a lot of the play.

They'd need good games to the point where they'd be performing above and beyond their capabilities.

As already proved against Spain, not above their capabilities

Those players weren't even trying. No one does. It's not an important tournament.

That's why Brazil didn't celebrate their trophy or Spain didn't hang around after losing? Because they didn't care. Or Italy gave it their all to score one goal in their final group? Are you delusional or do you purposefully forget images of that Confederations Cup to try and back up your arguments?