Pretty sloppy from both sides. I think they just said 21
total turnovers in the game, and only 3 forced D's. Great
Britain looks way over matched.
-- Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Pretty sloppy game. 22 Turnovers in the half per the
commentators. Great Britain has had a ton of open drops and
bad decision throwaways. Last point of the half USA catches
a huck about 20 ft outside the endzone, and play is stopped
on a travel call. Great Britain then transitions into some
bizarre zone where they don't pressure the marks at all. USA just slowly inches closer and closer before throwing a 3
footer to take half.
-- Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Has to be (one of) the most one-sided-boring final ever.
Ultimate on the world scene is like women hockey: 2-3 real
contenders, the others are just happy to be there.
On Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:00:04 AM UTC-7, Euh wrote:
> 17 - 5 Revolver
> Has to be (one of) the most one-sided-boring final ever.
> Ultimate on the world scene is like women hockey: 2-3 real
> contenders, the others are just happy to be there.
How is this different than Southpaw going 4-5 at Nationals
in 2011 and 2-5 in 2010, yet finishing top 8 both years? When you win your games is just as important as how many.
-- Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Is there a bracket somewhere that shows the
quarters/semis/finals results? Couldn't find a score
reporter cousin on the WUGC website, but I may be looking in
the wrong place. -- Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Not even close. Game of the tournament was definitely
Australia vs US in power pools. Perhaps the most
entertaining game I've ever seen and it ended in a fitting
fashion. USA vs Canada was good (top 10 games I've ever
seen streamed) but the Aussies are definitely number 1.
-- Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 2:55:04 PM UTC-7, Aden wrote:
> Not even close. Game of the tournament was definitely
> Australia vs US in power pools. Perhaps the most
> entertaining game I've ever seen and it ended in a fitting
> fashion. USA vs Canada was good (top 10 games I've ever
> seen streamed) but the Aussies are definitely number 1.
> -- > Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
to be sure, usa vs canada was better than the finals, but i agree the usa vs australia was the best of the three, complete with nail biter finish. the us - canada game came down to the wire, but the ending was a little anti-climactic.
I watched every NGN game VOD (but no ulti.tv), and I thought
that the three best games to watch were:
USA v Australia (open)
GB v Sweden (open)
USA v Japan (women's)
They were all tight games with fantastic play.
I also liked the first game (Japan v, um, NZ? - open). It
wasn't a close game, but it featured tight offense that I
found beautiful to watch.
-- Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
On Jul 15, 5:55 pm, Aden <ade...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not even close. Game of the tournament was definitely
> Australia vs US in power pools. Perhaps the most
> entertaining game I've ever seen and it ended in a fitting
> fashion. USA vs Canada was good (top 10 games I've ever
> seen streamed) but the Aussies are definitely number 1.
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
Dang I didn't see that game. Is there a recap somewhere? I'd love to
read about it/stream it for free..
On Jul 16, 10:53 pm, Josh <jmnorri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 5:55 pm, Aden <ade...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not even close. Game of the tournament was definitely
> > Australia vs US in power pools. Perhaps the most
> > entertaining game I've ever seen and it ended in a fitting
> > fashion. USA vs Canada was good (top 10 games I've ever
> > seen streamed) but the Aussies are definitely number 1.
> > --
> > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
> Dang I didn't see that game. Is there a recap somewhere? I'd love to
> read about it/stream it for free..
Just wanted to voice a couple of opinions on the WUGC final
(coming from someone very close to the GB team).
Based on experience (and having played against revolver a
number of times), I was expecting 17-11,12,13 maybe. Despite
some of the comments here, the gulf is not that big, though
it is still admittedly a gulf.
I think the biggest factor was nerves - which did for GB at
the euros, coming second to a very experienced Sweden team.
Unfortunately the only way to get experience for finals is
to play in finals...something GB only does twice in its
cycle on a serious level.
Another factor, probably more dangerous, was the fact that
no-one thought we'd get anywhere near the final. Silver was
such a result that not winning the final may not have felt
like a loss. When you come into a game not absolutely,
needing-in-your-bones desperate to win, you're already a few
points down. Which against USA/Revolver is of course
terminal.
Finally, I was torn on what I thought about USA's injured
players coming on towards the end. Whilst it's great that
these players care enough about representing their country
and have enough respect for the tournament to want to come
on for at least a point.....god, way to kick a guy while
he's down. It was approaching a lack of respect to be honest
- "we're beating you so hard we can field a crock and still
win". But like I said, you don't want to deny a guy his
point in the title winning game. The jury's out for me....
PS. an unrelated question - how is it OK for certain players
(eg Gabe Saunkeah) to play for one country one year, and
another one in the next tournament? By all means play for a
country you're not from (GB guilty as charged), but
switching a couple of years later? Does he have dual
nationality (which I though wasn't possible in the US)? Or
is it simply a case of 'club over country' - indicative of
the second-rate nature of this tournament in the north
american calendar?
-- Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 7:19:59 PM UTC-7, glrny wrote:
> Just wanted to voice a couple of opinions on the WUGC final
> (coming from someone very close to the GB team).
> Based on experience (and having played against revolver a
> number of times), I was expecting 17-11,12,13 maybe. Despite
> some of the comments here, the gulf is not that big, though
> it is still admittedly a gulf.
> I think the biggest factor was nerves - which did for GB at
> the euros, coming second to a very experienced Sweden team.
> Unfortunately the only way to get experience for finals is
> to play in finals...something GB only does twice in its
> cycle on a serious level.
> Another factor, probably more dangerous, was the fact that
> no-one thought we'd get anywhere near the final. Silver was
> such a result that not winning the final may not have felt
> like a loss. When you come into a game not absolutely,
> needing-in-your-bones desperate to win, you're already a few
> points down. Which against USA/Revolver is of course
> terminal.
> Finally, I was torn on what I thought about USA's injured
> players coming on towards the end. Whilst it's great that
> these players care enough about representing their country
> and have enough respect for the tournament to want to come
> on for at least a point.....god, way to kick a guy while
> he's down. It was approaching a lack of respect to be honest
> - "we're beating you so hard we can field a crock and still
> win". But like I said, you don't want to deny a guy his
> point in the title winning game. The jury's out for me....
> PS. an unrelated question - how is it OK for certain players
> (eg Gabe Saunkeah) to play for one country one year, and
> another one in the next tournament? By all means play for a
> country you're not from (GB guilty as charged), but
> switching a couple of years later? Does he have dual
> nationality (which I though wasn't possible in the US)? Or
> is it simply a case of 'club over country' - indicative of
> the second-rate nature of this tournament in the north
> american calendar?
> -- > Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
thanks for the insight into great britain's state of mind.
the answer to your PS was written in another thread: apparently each country is allowed a certain number of players (3?) on the roster who are long-term inhabitants of said country (greater than or equal to 7 years, maybe?). saunkeah plays with the furious guys all the time (as far back as 2003 according to ultivillage), so it's not like he's a complete mercenary. also, despite your assertion, it didn't look to me as though the teams who represented the usa and canada considered the tournament to be at all second-rate.
Hi. I am one of the GB Open players and coach. Interesting
thread. All thoughts are mine alone.
Firstly, we blew it. Hugely. We were all in the game of
our lives, and the nerves clearly got to us. Anyone who had
seen previous games would have realised that we are not the
kind of team that drops gut passes routinely; USA rarely had
to get a block against our O line, we were just giving it
away. Once that doubt set in, we just could not recover. A
few spirited individual fighting performances could not hold
back Revolver; only playing as a team at our best would we
expect to win that one. Maybe next time.
A few thoughts while I am here. Firstly, we watched USA in
previous games, and were fairly unimpressed frankly. Yet
when we played them, we found them to be the most athletic
team we had met; far above Australia, Canada, or Japan. USA`s O line got the disc back with a number of really nice
blocks, and I suspect they are the kind of team that saves
themselves for the big games and were only really coasting
previously, or at least warming up slowly in some games. They played great shutdown defence that forced us into high
stall turns that we had not struggled with all tournament
long. Credit where it is due, they are a true champion and
well deserve their title.
All of that said, if we played catch a little better then
you may have had a game on your hands.
To those saying "sloppy game"; the wind was really strong. I mean, fierce. More than on Thursday (quarters), when
Sweden beat Japan in an upwind-downwind contest. A few of
the upwind pulls made it into the other half, that kind of
wind. The stadium also resulted in some choppy and
unpredictable winds. So yeah, sloppy game, but USA proved
themselves to be stronger in those conditions. Same as
Sweden proved they are better than Japan, GB proved they are
better than Australia, etc in the strong winds on Thursday. Talk of "true contenders" is pretty nonsensical IMO. If
Australia gave USA a close game in pools, that means
absolutely nothing (although it does sound like a good
spectacle and I will get around to watching it when I return
to the UK). But - Australia did not win, so no effect on
the matchups in quarters. Japan beat Canada in pools, which
(potentially) robbed Canada of a matchup with USA in the
final instead of semis. But Canada know that it was in
their hands, and they lost when it mattered; same as Japan,
Australia, etc. Whether or not you think a team is "better"
than another really doesn`t matter, because sport is not
fair. It does not matter who is "best", it is about who
wins.
Believe me, everyone in GB Open is disappointed with the way
we represented our country in the final at Worlds (if you
can read that statement without understanding the
significane of the moment, then you probably don`t
understand where I am coming from). It is a huge honour to
wear that shirt, and no other GB team has ever achieved what
we did. We have a team of young guys, and they will learn
from this; in four years time, maybe we will get a result in
the final we can all be proud of.
Finally, I would like to say that I was thoroughly impressed
with the way that our opponents played with regards to
Spirit of the Game; we had tough battles with Japan, Canada,
Sweden and Australia that all ended friendly, and USA also
proved themselves to be great ambassadors with fair play in
the final. It is great to see such high standard play
without the need for 3rd party officials, even with some
cultural differences. A true victory for the sport.
