geauxforbroke

I don't think lack of speed is necessarily a negative. However, if you don't have good closing speed, you have to be in the right positions at all times. For example, Per Mertesacker, who plays for Arsenal and Germany, is typically the slowest player on the field. However, his positional awareness is superb, so he doesn't have to cover ground as quickly. If the US back line can play smart and as a unit, I think we can defend well against most teams we'll play. I'm more concerned about teams like Portugal and Germany that are technically sound, have great movement off the ball, and play a quick, one-touch passing game, a la Barca.

If Germany gets rolling, they'll be hard to stop. I definitely hope they get a chance to play Brazil. If they both win their groups, then they'll play in the semi-finals. If one wins their group and the other finishes second, they would meet in the finals (assuming they both make it there). I think other teams to watch are Italy, Netherlands, and Spain. I think the dark horses that can throw a wrench in everything are Switzerland, Belgium, and Croatia. I think the USMNT will struggle, just because we seem to have a lack of consistent attacking options. Julian Green could be an interesting addition if he makes the team, but he basically has zero senior international experience. I also think the teams we'll play in the group are tough match ups. Germany and Portugal are extremely efficient, technically sound attacking sides, and Ghana is fast and powerful. I expect Germany to run the table, which means we will likely have to at least win one match and draw another. Losing to either Portugal or Ghana might mean elimination unless we can get a draw against Germany.

After the 2010 WC, I predicted that it would be Germany and Brazil in the finals of the 2014 WC. I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise. FWIW, here are the groups. We definitely have the most difficult road out of the group stage.

Those guys would be so far back after 54 holes that Tiger would never have to come from behind to win.

I think Oakley lenses are wildly overrated. Both Costa del Mar and Maui Jim are light years ahead in lens quality. That being said, as long as the sunglasses are comfortable and don't interfere with your swing, I don't think lens quality is really that important in golf, unless you just enjoy better quality. But it's certainly not like skiing, baseball, or driving where lenses can make a huge difference.

:-)[quote name="Hammer 4" url="/t/73267/would-you-use-this-bag/0_30#post_964366"][QUOTE name="geauxforbroke" url="/t/73267/would-you-use-this-bag#post_964363"] Really? That's your only objection to that bag?:-P [/QUOTE] Well, no, but I was trying to be Nice...:-D [/quote] ;-)

Really? That's your only objection to that bag?:-P

Negatory.

I'm not a huge fan of drivers with a high gloss finish, so I'd stick with the matte personally. But the question is: which do you typically prefer?

Henrik Stenson -9 Charl Schwartzel -8 Matteo Manassero -8

A new one for me from Tin Roof Brewing in Baton Rouge. A nice dark porter brewed with mocha and French roast coffee. Really quite nice.

Yeah, hijacking a plane is one thing. Making it completely disappear is another thing entirely.

Rocky Patel Decade Torpedo