|
Post by 17coupplaya on Feb 11, 2005 11:30:56 GMT -6
Wow the game at Menard last night was unbelievable.... they had 2 good goals but other than that we had the game....
the officiating again was terrible, we had 6 yellow cards and a red and they had one red.... (couldnt even shield the ball or else the idiot would call ubstruction).. i wish i would know the foul count??
the games at clark tues. from what my coach said
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 11, 2005 12:36:22 GMT -6
I'm changing my prediction and giving the win to University. Come on, what kind of score is 8-4. And 4 goals against you from Menard of all schools. University should have no problem scoring.
|
|
|
Post by flat3 on Feb 11, 2005 20:35:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Tellme on Feb 11, 2005 20:41:34 GMT -6
I just got a call from someone who was at the St. Martin's STA game. He said the final was St. Martin's 5 STA 0, and it could've been more. I wasn't there, so a game summary would be nice. Also, while I know I am too late for the quarter's competition, I would have said Uhigh by 2, CD by 1, and STL by 4. Also, superflcn19, perhaps you could explain what happened to STA since I wasn't there. Also, I was speaking with a Newman parent who said their game was on Tuesday against CD.
|
|
|
Post by takeitdowntown1 on Feb 12, 2005 15:45:03 GMT -6
I just got a call from someone at the St. Fred's game. St. Louis won 2-1. The game was tied with about 2 minutes left and St. Louis scored on a one-on-one. The field was in a horrible condition with mud everywhere. It was hard for either team to run pass shoot or basically play soccer. From what the person said on the phone, it appeard as if St. Louis was the better team throughout the entire game however it was hard to score with the field in such bad shape.
|
|
|
Post by futebul16 on Feb 12, 2005 16:47:13 GMT -6
well your souce was wrong. The field was very muddy but the first half was played nearly even with st. louis probably having the edge on shots on goal. both teams had their shots though. 0-0 at half. the second half st. louis came out and controlled the first 20 minutes. Their first goal was a nice shot from about 18 yards out by i believe thevenot. after that st freds gained momentum and started controlling the game. they passed very well in the conditions and got their goal with "4 minutes to play". They continued to apply pressure and somehow the game went on for another 10 minutes(if someone else would like to comment on this remark please do). 30 seconds till the end st. louis scored on a breakaway after a defensive breakdown. st freds played with all their hearts and this game should not have ended the way it did. it was a great game of soccer. congrats to st. louis on the win and st freds on a great season.
|
|
|
Post by sfdefense on Feb 12, 2005 17:28:19 GMT -6
Somethin to add, St. Frederick wanted it more. I don't care what anyone says or thinks they know. St. Fred played with the most heart they have all year and infinitely more than St. Louis. St. Louis came out flat. They were already looking past SF to the semis. Something you won't hear from anyone on this site, since most people favor the southern teams anyway, is that this game could have gone either way VERY easily. I guess people down south think that up here we play in those muddy conditions every game. We don't. It's as hard for us as it is for anyone. The field was an equally harmful factor to both teams. The weather toward the end of the season has been difficult to deal with, but we handle it as best we can. We dug trenches for drainage and even rolled the field a few times. We tried to make it as playable as possible. St. Louis' goal in the last 30 seconds came on a counter from a botched st. fred's free kick, followed by a midfielder getting burned, then a miskick from a defender, and finally me stabbing at the ball during a 2 on 1 situation(i apologize to my team for this a million times), leaving my goalie to do everything he could to keep our season from ending today. It was more of a team breakdown than a complete defensive breakdown. The outcome was very unfortunate. St. Frederick played with more intensity and in my opinion, deserved the win. However, deserving something doesn't get it for you. Congratulations to St. Louis on a win from a very hard fought game. The truth of the matter is that SF came ready to play and made St. Louis earn every bit of their victory. Anyone that says differently is lying. Maybe next time St. Louis, and everyone else who predicted us to lose by 3 or 4, will not take things so lightly. Again, congrats STL and congrats to my team on the hardest game we have played all year.
|
|
|
Post by takeitdowntown1 on Feb 12, 2005 20:26:57 GMT -6
I don't understand why the St. Fred's supporters on this board are complaining that the game lasted too long. What did yall want to happen? Did yall want to get a break and then go back out. Or maybe yall wanted to have a coin toss to decide the winner. How does St. Louis get the advantage when the game lasts longer than it was supposed to.
I guess it is probably because the ref called the game 30 seconds after St. Louis scored. Oh well, if St. Fred's was the better team they should have scored first.
It is a well known fact that sloppy field conditions will give a less skilled and less athletic team an edge. This is because a more skilled passing game will not progress in a heavily saturated field and a muddy field will also slow down your faster players. It should be noted that I am not saying that St. Louis is a more athletic team or even more skilled but I am stating this as a general fact. Yes both teams had to play on the same field however, a sloppy field turns the game of soccer into a game of luck.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 12, 2005 20:52:36 GMT -6
well your souce was wrong. The field was very muddy but the first half was played nearly even with st. louis probably having the edge on shots on goal. both teams had their shots though. 0-0 at half. the second half st. louis came out and controlled the first 20 minutes. Their first goal was a nice shot from about 18 yards out by i believe thevenot. after that st freds gained momentum and started controlling the game. they passed very well in the conditions and got their goal with "4 minutes to play". They continued to apply pressure and somehow the game went on for another 10 minutes(if someone else would like to comment on this remark please do). 30 seconds till the end st. louis scored on a breakaway after a defensive breakdown. st freds played with all their hearts and this game should not have ended the way it did. it was a great game of soccer. congrats to st. louis on the win and st freds on a great season. I don't understand why the source was wrong. You basically repeated everything he said. I am pretty sure there were 2 minutes left on the clock when st fred's score, and if not, that's not important. There was about 3 or 4 minutes of injury time. You are not one to say who played better because your opinion is biased. I honestly think both teams wanted it as much as the other. I don't understand how St. Fred can't find a suitable field for a playoff game. That was the worst field I have ever seen. The baselines weren't even straight. They curved to meet up with the 6 yard line! Either a) Their coach is lazy and doesn't make time to find a decent field or b) Their coach knows the other team has more speed and the mud will slow them down.
|
|
|
Post by sfdilf on Feb 13, 2005 1:23:08 GMT -6
i'm sorry catchafishbish... maybe next year you can pull out the ruler and mark the st fred field. considering it has been raining all over the state, it shouldn;t be that hard for you to believe that it wasn't easy for us to find a perfect field to play on. maybe if you volunteered a helicopter or two, we could have dried the field up. both teams had to play on the same field, and neither of them are used to it, so there wasn't any advantage for either team.
i believe futbul was saying the source was wrong because the gane was by no means one sided. It was a 50 50 ball game, and st louis happened to come out on top. congrats to them, and good luck.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 13, 2005 2:54:50 GMT -6
When did I say anything about a perfect field? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I didn't. It was my understanding that it hadn't rained in a few days in Monroe. Your Football field looked nice and green, but there was construction around it. So you mean to tell me that Monroe has no other soccer fields that aren't already torn up to play on? I find that hard to believe.
Did you just miss everything takeitdowntown said? Ok, let's just hypothetically say that St. Louis has a lot more talent and speed than St. Fred. Put both teams on a mud pit of a field, and it takes away that edge that St. Louis has, at least all of the speed, and some of the talent. Therefore, that evens playing field. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand...
|
|
|
Post by takeitdowntown1 on Feb 13, 2005 7:51:48 GMT -6
i'm sorry catchafishbish... maybe next year you can pull out the ruler and mark the st fred field. considering it has been raining all over the state, it shouldn;t be that hard for you to believe that it wasn't easy for us to find a perfect field to play on. maybe if you volunteered a helicopter or two, we could have dried the field up. both teams had to play on the same field, and neither of them are used to it, so there wasn't any advantage for either team. That is pretty sad if yall can't find a field in your area that isn't messed up. I have seen it rain for days and there are still decent fields to play on. If there aren't any in your area maybe yall need to learn how to turtleback a field. Here is a website you can give to the people in your area for the next time they want to put a field up. It explains how to avoid making a field that fails to drain water properly. www.soccerhelp.com/Soccer_Field_Maintenance.shtmlBy the way, this website also explains how a sloppy field will completely disrupt a skilled teams efforts to win. I have also attached a website where you can rent a helicopter the next time yall have a playoff game and the field has standing water on it. www.dfwhelitours.com/Helicopter_Rental.htm
|
|
nikademus
Starter
"i know this place around the corner you can buy some skills"
Posts: 75
|
Post by nikademus on Feb 13, 2005 10:49:22 GMT -6
That is pretty sad if yall can't find a field in your area that isn't messed up. I have seen it rain for days and there are still decent fields to play on. If there aren't any in your area maybe yall need to learn how to turtleback a field. Here is a website you can give to the people in your area for the next time they want to put a field up. It explains how to avoid making a field that fails to drain water properly. www.soccerhelp.com/Soccer_Field_Maintenance.shtmlBy the way, this website also explains how a sloppy field will completely disrupt a skilled teams efforts to win. I have also attached a website where you can rent a helicopter the next time yall have a playoff game and the field has standing water on it. www.dfwhelitours.com/Helicopter_Rental.htm thats the funniest thing i have read in a long time. i just love when losing teams make excuses about why they lost. it gets me all warm and fuzzy inside. ;D
|
|
|
Post by futebul16 on Feb 13, 2005 11:44:31 GMT -6
why don't u learn about reading comprehension bc that comment was not made by a st. freds person. also catchabishfish, i will be more than happy to take u on a tour of Monroe and i guarantee you you can not find a better field. and finally, st. louis had better passing skills but they were not the faster team.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 13, 2005 12:24:03 GMT -6
why don't u learn about reading comprehension bc that comment was not made by a st. freds person. The last time I checked sfdilf was a person from St. Freds, and that was obvious. First of all, his name sfdilf, and second of all, he seems to know everything about St. Freds. No wonder soccer in North LA is light years behind the rest of the state. You don't have any soccer fields to play on and don't know how to make a field that actually drains water instead of holding it. That's amazing that you know this since nobody was able to go full speed on that field. You must have some kind of special power of detecting of how fast people are without actually seeing the speed.
|
|
|
Post by sfdefense on Feb 13, 2005 12:45:34 GMT -6
It seems to me that the St. Louis fans are the ONLY ones making the excuses. They seem to be trying to find an answer to why the game was so close. I'll help you with that answer. St. Louis underestimated St. Frederick. They didn't show up ready to play. St. Frederick has talent and speed too. St. Louis didn't predict St. Frederick to come out with so much intensity and heart. All the SF players have said is a) congrats to st.louis on winning a hard fought game, b) it would have been nearly impossibly to find a better field in monroe, c) St. Fred had more heart, d) people should have taken SF more seriously and given them a little more respect, e) St. Louis had better passing but was not the faster team, and f) the game was not one sided, both teams had periods of time when they outplayed the other. The only complaint any SF person had was about the time in the second half, while even though unfortunate, was probably correct. That would be the only excuse given from ONE person. Never once did any SF person say they were the better team. It was said that this game, we played with more intensity and heart and deserved it more. However, it was also said that just deserving something doesn't get it for you. The purpose of SF people posting would be to give people a more accurate picture of the game, that it was very close, evenly played, and could have gone either way EASILY. SF didn't just want to have the score and who scored posted and that be all. I don't see why that is a bad thing. It just seems that after people like takeitdownto1 and catchafishbish saw the 2-1 score, they erupted with reasons why it was so close, including why the field was so bad and attacking SF players about how they only stayed with STL because of the field, how lazy their coach is, how STL is the more talented, athletic, and faster team, and last but not least, how it is SF's fault that the weather in the Monroe area has been horrible. To top this all off, you takeitdownto1 was even nice enough to make smart aleck comments by giving us sites on how to construct a proper soccer field and even a helicopter renting site. I don't understand how someone as knowledgeable and experienced in the game of soccer as St. Louis fans can be so classless.
|
|
|
Post by takeitdowntown1 on Feb 13, 2005 13:18:30 GMT -6
It is a well known fact that sloppy field conditions will give a less skilled and less athletic team an edge. This is because a more skilled passing game will not progress in a heavily saturated field and a muddy field will also slow down your faster players. It should be noted that I am not saying that St. Louis is a more athletic team or even more skilled but I am stating this as a general fact. Yes both teams had to play on the same field however, a sloppy field turns the game of soccer into a game of luck. SFDEFENSE - Please read my quote again. I think you will see that I never said St. Louis was more athletic or faster. All I am saying is that the game would be totally different if played on a dry field. I just think it is a shame for both teams to work hard all season and then get to the playoffs and have to play on a sloppy field in a game of luck. Another thought, I think it would be cool to have the helicopters come in and dry off the field. Lighten up and learn how to take a joke. After all, it was a St. Freds that made the reference to the helicopters. I was just replying with a sugestion.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 13, 2005 13:25:01 GMT -6
Well when you make bogus claims like "St. Freds was faster" when it's not possible to tell and "there's not one decent field to play on in all of monroe," what do you expect? Sure you say "congrats" and I say congrats too. The only thing that bothered me was the field.
Nobody said that the reason that the score was so close was because of the field. The only thing that was said was that on a field in such condition, you can't tell who the better team is because it limits teams from using certain talents in the game that they can use on a decent field. That's to St. Fred's advantage or St. Louis's. Take it however way you want to.
|
|
pitch
Bench Warmer
Posts: 28
|
Post by pitch on Feb 13, 2005 13:25:19 GMT -6
First of all, the game could have easily been won by either team. Although St. Louis controlled most of the run of play, St. Frederick had plenty of opportunities as well. And showed an incredible amount of heart. St. Louis did not take St. Fred's lightly, they are just a very young team that is still learning how to win(I think that St. Louis only played one senior yesterday). The officials were horrible. The center ref was very inconsistant and very one-sided. On a different field, I think that St. Louis would have won by a greater margin. But the game was played on a mud pit, and both teams played their hearts out. The most interesting question about the game was the state of the field. A St. Frederick's administrator stated to one of the St. Louis fans that the St. Fred's soccer program did nothing to try to fix the field during the season, because they knew a wet and muddy field would give them the best chance to beat St. Louis or whoever they were going to play in the playoffs. This is not something I heard, this is a fact. So I guess my question is, "Is this in the true spirit of the game? Is this cheating? Or is this using everything you can to help your team.?"
Once again, St. Frederick deserved to win the game just as much as St. Louis. It was an incredible game to watch.
|
|
|
Post by NutMeg on Feb 13, 2005 13:34:11 GMT -6
It is hard to say if this is cheating. One year Country Day played St Martin's in a Quarterfinal match and they brought each touchline in by about 10 yards on each side (still a legal size field). StM was at the first round game and it was played on thier normal sized field. They were shocked to see how narrow it was for their game.
|
|