Official Game Thread: United States vs Ghana | Page 30 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Official Game Thread: United States vs Ghana

ckb2001 said:
How do YOU define overachieve? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Well let me first start by saying I dont think WC teams can overachieve....just by making it proves you have talent to belong if you execute....and if both teams play up to their level of talent, the better (more talented) team wins.....(excluding ref calls :lol: )

We were unknown in 2002 more than anything, and based on our horrible 1998 performance, following the excitement that playing on home soil in 1994, we surprised some teams that didnt prepare or know how to prepare for us in 2002. But we had talent, and we executed to the maximum level it could.

But to overachieve to me is when "your talent" produces higher results than expected based on your opponents performance with "their talent". The key is the losing team playing up to its talent, but not coming out on top. It happens but very rarely.

So if both teams play their best, and a less talented team somehow wins (which rarely happens), then I would say we overachieved.

But if the USA played to its talent, but our opponent with more talent played less then their talent would allow, I dont call that overachieving.

Thats what happened in 2002 more than anything.

P.S. Detriot winning the SB is overachieving, KC winning the WS is overachieving. LOL!
 
Dolphins_SR66 said:
Well let me first start by saying I dont think WC teams can overachieve....just by making it proves you have talent to belong if you execute....and if both teams play up to their level of talent, the better team wins.....(excluding ref calls :lol: )

We were unknown in 2002 more than anything, and based on our horrible 1998 performance, following the excitement that playing on home soil in 1994, we surprised some teams that didnt prepare or know how to prepare for us in 2002. But we had talent, and we executed to the maximum level it could.

But to overachieve to me is when "your talent" produces higher results than expected based on your opponents performance with "their talent".

So if both teams play their best, and a less talented team somehow wins (which rarely happens), then I would say we overachieved.

But if the USA played to its talent, but our opponent with more talent played less then their talent would allow, I dont call that overachieving.

Thats what happened in 2002 more than anything.
Click to expand...


OK, I see. According to that, you're right the US didn't overachieve in 2002. The one murky point here is how to measure "playing to the best of one's ability". Still, there are many cases where it seems both sides are playing well and the less talented side wins, so you're probably wrong (by your definition) that WC teams can't overachieve.
 
I don't agree with your definition of it, but I understand and respect your opinion.
 
ckb2001 said:
OK, I see. According to that, you're right the US didn't overachieve in 2002. The one murky point here is how to measure "playing to the best of one's ability". Still, there are many cases where it seems both sides are playing well and the less talented side wins, so you're probably wrong (by your definition) that WC teams can't overachieve.
Click to expand...

Probably! But over its history, having only 32 of the worlds best qualify, really limits the chance of that happening.

I should have changed "Cant" to "hardly ever does".....LOL.:D
 
Prime Time said:
I don't agree with your definition of it, but I understand and respect your opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its very subjective......the dictionary simply says overachieving is exceeding expectations.....and expectations from one person to another are inconsistent.

I just would like to see a year where the talent pool of the USA really can produce World Class Soccer players that have a solid game plan to win this World Cup one time.

:sidelol: (I know it sounds crazy)

P.S. I respect yours.....look forward to additional WC game threads to continue our chats....!
 
Boomer said:
I missed out the 'being suspended'.

Hey schoolboy.........bad luck huh. Face facts........America weren't good enough. What I said was true. You might not like it, but it was true.
Click to expand...

Hey Hater.They weren't good enough but they were as good (maybe better) then Ghana today. Ghana's goals came off a defensive mistake by Reyna and a PK that never existed.
 
Prime Time said:
I don't agree with your definition of it, but I understand and respect your opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would take a more quantifiable view: If a team produces results greater than the average expectations before the match/tournament I would say they overachieved. Underachieve can be defined similarly.

Using this definition, I think the US overachieved in 2002 and underachieved in 2006. Well, ok that's semantics.
 
ckb2001 said:
Yeah, I would take a more quantifiable view: If a team produces results greater than the average expectations before the match/tournament I would say they overachieved. Underachieve can be defined similarly.

Using this definition, I think the US overachieved in 2002 and underachieved in 2006. Well, ok that's semantics.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that.
 
Prime Time said:
Hey Hater.They weren't good enough but they were as good (maybe better) then Ghana today. Ghana's goals came off a defensive mistake by Reyna and a PK that never existed.
Click to expand...

Enjoy the flight home.


clear.gif
 
Prime Time said:
No problem. I still got Argentina to root for. Best football being played so far.

BTW, I hope that isn't you...
Click to expand...

Yeah, big let down if it is.....:sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom