I can't get a single video to play unless I'm actually logged in. If I log into my account, everything works fine. But the second I log out? Nothing. It’s not even an issue with buffering or a spinning wheel; it’s just a total black screen. It started out small—first one video wouldn't load, then maybe two or three, then every other one, and eventually, absolutely nothing would play. Tried it on both Mozilla and Chrome, same result. I tried logging back in and then out again, and now it seems to be working, but honestly, I’m just waiting for the hammer to drop. How long is this going to last?
Jonathan Barnes5 said:@Dennis Doyle3/">@@Dennis Doyle3..Look, maybe I'm overreacting when it comes to Duncan, but the point is that everything starts and ends with him. We simply can't win anything without him. If Doug plays at his peak, then the US team is unstoppable. We've seen that a hundred times before. He's a cornerstone player. One of the best on the planet. There's no way he just pads his stats in the last 15 minutes of a game once it's already decided—which happened in previous tournaments. It's impossible for someone with his experience in high-stakes games to play below his level. If you want to win a tournament, plain and simple, Duncan has to dominate every single match.
I agree that without Duncan playing at his best, chasing gold is a pipe dream. But finally, now that Bailey has moved on, we actually have another high-quality center in Karacic. Honestly, for the first time in ages, we have two solid players for almost every position. Now it’s up to the coaching staff to actually make it work.
George Ward7 said:Cement has gone completely silent. They’ve basically written off Miha Horvat. Honestly, maybe we were a little too arrogant. Get out of the national team already—your spot on the Veszprem bench is waiting for you. ☕
The press at Cement is staying dead silent. 🙏
@Feenian I’m with you on the Duvnjak situation—he really should have stepped up more. To be fair, I don't have any major beef with how he played during this tournament, but your point stands. Given his reputation, he really needed to deliver more in those high-stakes, big-game moments. And honestly? That comparison to Karabatić is spot on. It doesn't matter how you look at it—there is absolutely no way to put them in the same category as Cementar and that Choker. They just don't belong in that conversation.
Peter Campbell said:Haha, whatever happened, happened.
There’s this persistent myth floating around that America would have snagged ten more gold medals if they just had a decent goalie.
Personally, I think we might have grabbed maybe one extra gold with a better keeper, but honestly, we could have walked away with two more if we had a powerhouse at pivot (like Stevanovic - Sulic...).
Take that game in New York, for instance. If Balic hadn't been sidelined—if he hadn't played through that injury—we definitely would've been playing for the championship. But you can't hold Balic responsible for one single tournament, and you can't pin it on Cupic either.
And what ever happened to that goalie Sunjica? Where is he even playing these days?
Look, this wasn't even the first time Cupic choked. He's done it before (back in London, for example). But this specific tournament was different because everyone was watching with bated breath, waiting to see if Mirko would be a total liability again and if Cupic would lose his nerve in a high-stakes game. Sadly, the answer to both questions was a resounding yes.
Peter Campbell said:Honestly, screw it. I’d trust the starting goalie for Vezprema over the backup for the LA Lakers any day of the week. It’s the same logic as trusting Sulica over Marica.
Oh, and I almost forgot—during those critical moments yesterday, it felt like the American referees were practically handing favors to the opposition on a silver platter. That might have been the deciding factor in the game.
So, looks like that medal is headed straight to that obnoxious jerk.🙂
Paul Jones7 said:Steve wouldn't have carried us to the finals; the defense absolutely blew it, folks. This isn't about Alilovic being the keeper—it's a critique of the leaky defense being the main reason we lost.
So, we put up 14 goals against the Spaniards in the first half, while Germany only managed ten. Meanwhile, we let in 18, whereas they only gave up 6.
Scoring 14 goals is perfectly fine. Especially when you consider our offense completely fell apart during the stretch where we were conceding goals from every single Spanish attack, whether it was off the line or through a fast break. For crying out loud. And then the Germans shut down those Spanish passes on the perimeter, and suddenly their game just falls apart because they had zero Plan B.
By the way, just imagine the domestic media tearing into the Spanish coach—the guy everyone was praising—for having no backup plan. The funny thing is, he actually did have one (it worked against us), but for a final, you clearly need a Plan C, and that was nowhere to be found. And he's supposed to be this "elite" manager.
If Steve had been in goal, he might have saved a few more, and that’s it. It doesn't mean he shouldn't have played—of course he should have, he had to—but he wouldn't have single-handedly flipped the script on this game.
That’s back to the manager's domain. We have the defensive players we have, and these same guys have shown in previous games, or in specific segments of matches, that they know how to defend. But consistency is what makes the difference. There was a time when our coaches knew how to deploy three different defensive setups, and if an opponent broke through one, they’d switch, and usually, they’d find something else that worked. Nowadays, we get breached, and the coach just stands there looking puzzled while the opponent rolls in 8 or 10 goals—especially since the offense panics when we can't hold ground—instead of making adjustments in real-time.
Therein lies the key. We made the semifinals and grabbed a medal because of good defense; we couldn't go any further because of the bad defense. The fluctuations in quality were massive. And it sounds ridiculous, but I honestly don't think the result would have changed even if Steve had been in the net 100% of the time (which, frankly, he should have been).
Regardless, hats off to Steve for this tournament; he showed pure class.
As for Alilovic or Cupic, I can only see two reasons why they were pushed so hard. One is coaching stupidity—forcing former starters into roles because the coach can't realize how much things have changed over the years. The second is just playing favorites with guys from his own region. Who knows, maybe it's a mix of both.
Whether we would have beaten the Spaniards with Steve and Horvat is something we'll never know. But as a layman, one thing still bugs me. The Spaniards are a team that bases everything on just two things: 1. Feeding the pivot and 2. Fast breaks. They have zero long-range shooting. Shouldn't you play a 6-0 defense against a team like that? I get the logic behind a 5-1, maybe that aggressive move keeps the back from feeding the pivot, but a 6-0 just makes way more sense in that situation.
Carol Harris64 said:Alright, let’s stop the constant bashing for five minutes and actually give credit where it's due. Take Horvat and Strlek, for instance—they are literally the TWO BEST shooters in the entire league (hitting at 82% and 80% respectively)!!!
And yet, we have Horvat stuck on the bench playing backup to that Choker. Look, Horvat is a class act. He’s never looking for the spotlight, but he always gives it everything he's got. He rarely lets you down. For example, when he sees Omeyer, he actually manages to find a target instead of launching the ball into the stands.
wiredtiger8 said:And honestly, Sheila is such an interesting case study for a goalkeeper.
The guy spent most of his career being a total fraud—just a mediocre keeper at best... but when he suited up for the national team, he had these absolute flashes of brilliance, whether it was in Portugal, Tunis, or Athens. Let’s be fair here: even against those legendary squads at their peak, his saves were often the deciding factor in our biggest wins.
I’d actually be perfectly fine if Mike struggled at the club level, provided he was just the backup...as long as he averages about 15 saves per game for the national team.
Unfortunately, that hasn't been the reality for years.
Just to clear up any confusion, he is indeed the second-string keeper at his club. 😉
Samuel Walker7 said:It’s not even sabotage at this point, it’s just incompetence... He basically admitted he can't get the guy going, yet here he is, putting him in the semifinals for a game that could define this entire generation and their winning mindset. He’s starting a player who isn't in form—seriously, where is the logic? What, is he just going to have one lucky day? Suddenly find his rhythm out of nowhere?
The worst part is, it's true. He sat there for thirty minutes just waiting for Mike to start making saves. And he actually admitted it later. He was just sitting there, waiting for Mike to finally pull something off. 🤦
George Robinson43 said:Our opponents might only force three or four shots, but they’re handing us twenty-five or thirty clear-cut scoring chances. 🙂 That’s how the LafargeHolcim fan club ends up looking.
And obviously, he isn't responsible for stopping those easy goals. That's what Steve, O'Meyer, Sterbik, and even that German guy yesterday are there for. Basically, the high-priced goalies. We can't exactly complain to him because he didn't save a penalty or stop a breakaway.
I have plenty of defending to do. I defend my honor at the club where they actually love me, whether I save two shots or twenty. This is just his typical statement after being the absolute worst player on the field yet again.
Betty Anderson65 said:Yes, yes, YES! Finally, we actually know what it feels like to have a real goalkeeper on the pitch. 👏 I feel for Mirko, I really do. But let’s be real—we clearly have much better keepers than him available right now. 😁
I’m honestly gutted. I mean, look, if we were actually leagues below the Americans, I could live with it. But a performance like that? We should have walked away with a win if Steve was the one guarding the net. It’s just frustrating. After what the boys went through against the Poles, they deserved at least a silver medal. They earned it. 🍿
I don't feel even a shred of sympathy for him. Look, losing one or two games? Fine. That's part of the sport. But failing tournament after tournament like this? It’s pathetic. And the fact that he still has the nerve to act like he’s done nothing wrong is what really gets me. I sincerely hope he keeps his word so we don't have to deal with him representing the national team ever again.
fadedrider17 said:Does anyone actually know why on earth Alilovic was stuck in goal for the entire half just to end up with two measly saves? Did Babic completely lose his mind, or is there some shady behind-the-scenes nonsense going on here?
Babic gave an explanation after the game about why Mirko played the whole half. He thought Mirko would step up and make a save, so he just sat there waiting for it to happen. Well, Mirko didn't save a thing, which didn't surprise anyone except, apparently, Babic himself. As for why he made that call in the first place? Your guess is as good as mine. I doubt we'll ever get a straight answer.
Honestly, I’m just sitting here waiting for someone to provide a single, coherent explanation as to why Alilović was even given the nod to start. Look, if we were talking about Omeyer or Šterbik—fine. If it were Stanić or Szmal, I could wrap my head around it; you could just say they were having an off day and pray for a turnaround. But Mirko Alilović? It feels like he’s perpetually having an off day (I mean, look at how he played against North Mexico and teams like that). In 90% of the high-stakes games, his performance looks exactly like what we saw out there today. I just can't wrap my brain around the decision to put him between the pipes from the very first minute.
There he goes again, standing in the net just like always. I mean, what is the actual logic behind him starting? Cupic is totally lost out there. It’s the same old story. I just can't wrap my head around it. Every single time we hit a high-stakes game, he's the one letting us down, yet you insist on sticking with him. You bench him once, we play a masterpiece, then you throw him right back in to bury us again. He's a total Choker.
I know exactly what we’re looking for here. I already provided my own example. You could pull pros and cons for just about any case study on this thread. But since there isn't some grand jury coming in to decide who qualifies as a one-hit wonder, let's be real: Larry Clark is a one-hit wonder.
The fact that he’s a photographer doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand; we're talking about the movie here. Besides, there's a massive difference between *Kids* and those two films you just mentioned—*Kids* was actually a hit. If I'm wrong, then how on earth did you know I was specifically referring to *Kids*?