DISQUS

United caught a pretty big break in that King's knee didn't allow him to play and Woodgate left the game with a hip injury in the 12th minute. Facing Spurs without their two starting center halves, which resulted in both Dawson and Zokora playing in Spurs back four, was a pretty big break. United didn't deserve the point they got.

Gomes big problem at the beginning of the season was thinking he could muscle players around in the box on crosses and corners. Players are just too big and strong for that in England. He'd charge out and crash into a wall of players, wind up not getting to the ball and leaving himself exposed. His shot stopping, when in position, has been good this entire season. He's now making much better decisions and seems to have learned he's not going to muscle Premiership players around.

Whether that's due to Redknapp, Parks or just finally learning from his mistakes, I think it bodes well for Gomes going forward.

Patrick wrote:

"But really, the real way that the US adopts the worlds game is to adopt a world view. We still believe we can go about defeating anyone alone and our views carry the moral high ground. Politics aside, the election of Obama does suggest that the country is at the very least leaning in the direction of at least wanting to listen to the world. And with every child in the country getting his or her introduction to sport with soccer. The ground work is there already."

I'm so sick of this nonsense. You know soccer and rugby were different varations on the same types of ball games being developed at the elite boys schools in England, right? (It's called rugby after the set of rules written down by the Rugby School, that allowed for carrying of the ball).

The folks who came over from England that introduced rugby to the East Coast colleges did a better job organizing and selling their variant than the folks who brought soccer over. And, huge shock, being an ocean away from Europe in the 1800s led to a different evolution of rugby/soccer/etc, just as happened in Australia.

This all comes down to historical accident. Soccer had it's opportunities but never really organized collegiately as well as American football did, or professionally as well as baseball did.

We share a border with just two countries, and they're two very large countries, and we're a very large country. And we weren't the dominant power in the world in the 1800s. What cracks me up, is the reason football is the world's game is that Englishmen were carrying it with them as they spread out around the globe. They introduced it to Europe, and South America, and Africa. Patrick displays his ignorance by claiming our imperial nature is what blocks soccer from taking hold in the United States, when it was England's imperial nature that spread it across the globe.

Focus on 1900s America's sphere of influence, Latin America and Asia sans China, and you'll see where our empire spread the gospel of baseball. It's the most popular sport in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, as well as Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Puerto Rico. Seeing as soccer has had a good century's head start, I'd say baseball is doing damn well.

The second ever baseball world cup is taking place this coming March with 16 nations competing. The Pittsburgh Pirates this week just signed the first two players from India (watch your back, Cricket). Australia and the Netherlands are now producing professionals in MLB, the world's top league (as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan).

And I have no problem calling it soccer. It always cracks me up when the British tabloids make fun of us for using that term, when its not our term, its their term, and was a name for the game when they exported it to us.

This stuff is all about historical accident and timing, and has a lot to do with how isolated our continent was in the 1800s with the prohibitive time and cost of trans-Atlantic travel, long before there was television or radio. Save the liberal self loathing of American culture.

That first goal was the weakest I've seen conceded in the Premiership. Spurs are counting the seconds to January.

I watched it in Minnesota. The pub I watch matches at (www.the-local.com) said it was going to be tape delayed until 5 PM CDT. I figured I'd watch the ManUre - Hammers match and go take a long walk around the block during the half as to avoid having the outcome being given away.

But just before 3 PM CDT Setanta Extra starts counting down until the North London Derby, and wound up showing the match, even when it conflicted with their published schedule. After a 60-some minute stretch of abuse from one Gunner who'd had a few too many pints, we few local Spurs fans were the only ones singing at the end.

[Rolls Eyes]

This is your typical American liberal's interest in football:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/03/03/80-t...

This will all be sorted in January. "We're gonna buy Lee Trundle!"

If you can blame a loss on one goal, what about Bale's poor marking that led to the first?

I'm in the Central time zone , and love the timing of EPL matches. I frequent an Irish Pub in Minneapolis that opens in time for the first EPL match of the day, has full bar service by 8:00 AM and an all you can eat breakfast buffet by 9:00. Saw the London Derby at 7:30 today, had a few Guinness and some breakfast with two friends, and was back home by 10:00 AM with the entire day still infront of me.

For some reason, I'm always able to buy and sell Kevin Keegan in the same day for a profit. I don't know if there's a punch line in that, but here's hoping.

Are EPL refs part-timers? Looking at American sports, the officials in the NFL are weekend warriors, and the umpires in baseball are full time employees, and the latter are orders of magnitude better.

With the number of leagues in England and the money in football, you'd think that a full-time system where refs work their way to the top leagues from the bottom would be in place (is it?).

Should have said '09/'10 season. He only has two years left on his deal.

I second properyid. Spurs do not view dos Santos as a striker. And even Arshavin is a second striker who can also play attacking mid or winger.

Spurs have three pure strikers right now who will see time at some point this season in Berbatov (if he stays), Bent and Pekhart (has spent a lot of time with the first team in friendlies, should see at least a few minutes sometime during 08/09).

Pekhart is only 19 and has spent his entire Spurs career with the reserve side. I doubt Ramos is going to count on production from him.

That leaves only Berbatov and Bent as the only pure strikers on the club. Adding Arshavin and Pavlyuchenko seems to round out that group nicely, and the Spurs have enough money to land these two without selling Berbatov, especially after their dealings with Sunderland and likely sale of Kaboul to Pompey or the Black Cats or whomever.

I think Berbatov is going to stay, and for a long time, as Spurs will be able to give him Champions league football next season (and he's still under contract through the '10/'11 season).

Spurs have been (in their recent friendlies) and are most likely going to play a 4-5-1 (specifically a 4-2-3-1 like Ramos did at Sevilla).

You need to count dos Santos among the midfielders, as he'll play on the left wing, Bentley the right, with Modric the attacking center-mid.

dos Santos has been very impressive from the left wing in the friendlies I've watched online this preseason. Bent has tallied 7 goals in his last two games and most of those opportunities were set up by dos Santos' work on the left wing.

Left off of your books list is David Goldblatt's The Ball is Round. I'm halfway through the 900+ page paperback and am very impressed so far.

Do they have cutting-edge groundskeeping equipment like:

-A wooden stake
-10 yards of string

In Barca?

"As an American I am often perplexed by the concerns of British football fans. There is too much money in football, but there seems to be no major voices calling for the types of revenue sharing or salary caps in U.S. sports.

Prices of tickets are too high and there are too many foreigners in the game, but the sport is more watched and the product on the field, better than ever."

1. Price of tickets are not too high. The number of available seats is dwarfed by the number of fans that would like to attend. Point blank, clubs have to ration seats. Not everyone that wants to will be able to attend matches in person. This is physical fact. And EPL clubs already employ systems of loyalty points that give priority to season ticket holders and fans that have attended the most matches previously. The "tickets cost too much" griping is universal to every sport, and is always spouted by the ignorant. How would you propose seats are rationed if not by price? Even if clubs gave seats away completely for free, that'd mean only the fans that had time to wait in lines for days would get to attend matches.

2. There is not too much money in football. The money in football comes from the fact that millions of people get enjoyment from it and through mass transportation and modern media can enjoy it all over the country/world.

The economic laws of supply and demand aren't some idealized suggestion on how money ought to change hands, they're descriptions of the way things actually function. Remaining ignorant of economic law is as prudent as ignoring the law of gravity.

If you want to lower the price of tickets and decrease the amount of money in football, convince millions of people the EPL isn't worth following. Heck, for starters, you could stop following it yourself.

Has Newcastle suffered anything as bad as the top of the 7th in game six of the 2003 NLCS?

Even the new "Field Turf" used over here in the states has its drawbacks, and I'm not sure that it is safer than even a bad pitch.

Real turf gives out. On field turf it is the human body that gives if you plant to hard. Be prepared for more tendon and ligament injuries. It's also a lot harder so expect more wear on the joints. The ball will play nice and consistent, but take baseball for example--artificial turf has even occasionally proven to be a barrier for the few teams that use it when trying to sign players.