World Cup

Luis Suarez is the action man for Uruguay. Scoring goals and making vital saves!
Still, a very low thing to do. Hopefully Uruguay get a good drubbing in the semi final. Then lose the 3/4th place playoff.
 
He literally is all over the pitch. LOL

Man oh man... Germany put a THUMPING on Argentina. That was embarrassing. Pobre Maradona. ;)
 
Dude, Maradona was one of THE characters of the tournament.
It was really sad to see him so heart broken on the sidelines.
 
Seems that many of the big teams Brazil, Argentina, France, Italy, Nigeria and England are having recriminations, particularly about their managers. England can't afford to make the manager redundant, for some reason we gave Capello a long contract before he got a result!

It makes me wonder if managers are scapegoats to fortune and how much luck plays a part in these games. Brazil and Argentina didn't seem to be playing badly most of the time, and Germany lost against Serbia. Perhaps if Frank Lampards Goal had been allowed, the match would have been changed around and we would be worshipping Capello.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Seems that many of the big teams Brazil, Argentina, France, Italy, Nigeria and England are having recriminations, particularly about their managers. England can't afford to make the manager redundant, for some reason we gave Capello a long contract before he got a result!

It makes me wonder if managers are scapegoats to fortune and how much luck plays a part in these games. Brazil and Argentina didn't seem to be playing badly most of the time, and Germany lost against Serbia. Perhaps if Frank Lampards Goal had been allowed, the match would have been changed around and we would be worshipping Capello.
Click to expand...

Perseus

Even if Lampards Goal had counted, England still would have lost. I have been listening to the make-believe in the UK media that if only had that goal counted they would have one the game. Sorry, its utter bollocks...

I watched all of England's games, they played like Sh!te throughout the tournament. They didn't play all that well in the pre-tournament matches. Their attack was generally uninspired, the defense was weak, and they made lots of errors which resulting in drawing matches they should have easily won.

England wasn't beaten by a unlucky call, they were beaten by a better team. When that goal was disallowed they were behind by a single goal in the 39th minute. They fell apart. That shows a fundamental lack of heart. For example, take the USA-Slovakia game, the US came back by 2 to tie in much less time and ALSO got cheated of a game winning goal. They didn't fall to pieces

BTW, I think the US has more reasons to gripe about the refereeing. We got cheated out of 2 GOALS and was given Yellow card (Demint?) for just standing still.
 
Yeah. England lost to a better team, period.
Look on the bright side. England are still a little better than Argentina. :lol:
 
Perseus

The French manager situation was a little different than the others because the FFF actually fired him BEFORE the tournament not as a result of.

It was still a mistake though, they should have fired him in 2008. Domenech was a absolute disaster from the day he took the job.

I think England was right to keep Capello, the problem wasn't the manager it was the prima-donna players. I bet both Capello and Blanc will be fielding brand new blood in Euro 2012, especially the French who are going to lose Gallas, Henry and Anelka for certain.
 
I'm loving the way the world cup has turned out. I hope that it will force some of us "more established" football nations to stop being so arrogant and presuming that our counttries produce the best - we don't!!

In England we are able to produce players of talent and players with hunger, but rarely both, for the simple reason that once the talent is recognised they know that they are on the gravy train.

In developing countries football isn't just a job, it is a lifeline, these players sieze this and hold onto it very hard. For our English players, not playing for England means one less bottle of champers, one less ferrari and one less pair of shoes for the missus - big effin deal. Doesn't hit them where it hurts. Also I've heard all sorts of rubbish about how tired the England team were, due to the number of games and long season - bat poop. I work about 310 days a year, on my feet and under pressure for 8-10 hours on average, I don't get a break, neither do the rest of the great unwashed - instead of bitching they professional footballers should get a taste of the real life, as should politicians, just so they know where they will end up!!

Rant over again, World Cup has been fantastic, each of the teams has deserved to get through, even Spain, so let's see what drama can unfold with the last 4.
 
I sure as hell hope the Netherlands really THUMP Uruguay. I have little tolerance for cheaters.

Go Orange!
 
mmarsh said:
I sure as hell hope the Netherlands really THUMP Uruguay. I have little tolerance for cheaters.

Go Orange!
Click to expand...

Well Mmarsh, I hope so too :) I am already wearing my "uniform" to school and Amsterdam is slowly turning orange again... The fever is growing, along with our conviction that "it" is within our grasp. Let's thrash those little pampa-hobbits into oblivion :9mm:
 
I watched all of England's games, they played like Sh!te throughout the tournament. They didn't play all that well in the pre-tournament matches. Their attack was generally uninspired, the defense was weak, and they made lots of errors which resulting in drawing matches they should have easily won.
Click to expand...

Mmarsh: Most England fans would agree with you, but they expect too much of a team which they expect to win the world cup but is rated quarter final status on ranking.

I think your analysis tends to assume the game goes on as much as before irrespective of specific events. Football doesn't work this way. 2-0 down then getting one goal and being disallowed the second must have a bad psychological effect on the players. Events can change games. Have you ever seen one team dominate for one period then the whole thing turn around? Take the Brazil - Holland game for example.

Germany, were overwhelmingly better only in one respect, being able to outrun the defence especially on the break, and the longer the game went on the more opportunities arose since England had to gamble and move forward. I think there was a lack of speed at the back, and Germany noted this during the US game.

Match Statistics

Let's get some objective evidence. Here are the match statistics, the first number refers to one team the second the other. Obviously I have removed the important goals which were scored by the above tactic and circumstances described. Now can you tell be if the first number refers to Germany or England?

Shots on Target 6 7
Shots off Target 7 6
Blocked Shots 4 5
Corners 4 6
Fouls 7 6
Offsides 4 2
Yellow Cards 1 1
Red Cards 0 0
Passing Success 78.8 78.2
Tackles 22 20
Tackles Success 59.1 70
Possession 44.8 55.2
Territorial Advantage 52.6 47.4

Does this suggest that any one team was outplayed or simply the defence was stretched out, or that one team was better at finishing than the other, essential that criteria is?

Regarding the qualification rounds, even the England fans were pleased with the teams progress, scoring 27 points out of a possible 30, only Spain did better. Perhaps that's the reason for the disappointment?
 
Last edited:
No Perseus.
England were crap.
That's why they lost.
I don't care what those stats say, I watched the game and it was pretty f*cking obvious which team really showed up.
If the three lions want respect, they're going to have to show at least half the heart Team USA had.
 
Perseus

I think this one falls under the category of Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. :D

The fact is England was deficient on the key criteria, the only criteria that really matters: goals.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Lions. I am a big England fan, but their performance was inferior whilst Germany was superior. Thats why they lost. Thats why the USA lost, thats especially why the French lost.

As you pointed out, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks England preformed well, not even the Team itself. Rooney looked absolutely furious.

Bad or missed calls are part of the game. Referees are human they will make mistakes. A team cannot auto-destruct because a situation didn't go their way. You have to move on and keep playing. Thats shows a fundamental lack of heart and thats the responsibility of Gerrard for failing to motivate the troops.

England was not the only team to be the victim of a bad call this world cup, but nobody disintegrated as badly as they did. England problem was that its heart was even worse then their skill. They were simply not hungry enough and they got beat by a team who has the attitude to win it all.
 
I don't think any team got as badly screwed over as the US did. But they had the balls to fight back and did their country proud.
 
Now can you tell be if the first number refers to Germany or England?
Click to expand...

I've asked this question to a number of people and they won't play either, or admit is is their own perception due to the scoreline and herd instinct which is at fault.

Incidentally the same stats suggest Rooney played awfully which was particularily noticable.

The overall statistics analysis:
• Wayne Rooney has lost the ball by being tackled in possession more often than any other player at the 2010 world cup finals
• Rooney also completed only 55% of his passes for England against Germany - the lowest rate in the game

​
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/27/england-v-germany-match-statistics

Lets go for an easier one:

These are the match statistics for Englands 5-1 win over Germany in Munich earlier in the decade

Which is England and which is Germany?

Total shots 14 10
Ball possession 61% 39%
Corner kicks 9 2
Fouls committed 19 16
Offsides 3 1
Yellow cards 1 1
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Perseus

I think this one falls under the category of Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. :D

The fact is England was deficient on the key criteria, the only criteria that really matters: goals.
Click to expand...

But this is precisely what I am contending, not that England are any better than Germany or the USA, but that goals in any one game are a poor indicator of a teams ability. Chance plays a dominant role, and for a team who has fallen behind, the tactics necessary to win a knockout game requires the defence to become more stretched as the game goes on and risk conceeding even more goals.

Does this matter? Yes, as a manager you need to know whether to change the entire team or strategy, or concentrate on particular defects, such as why a particular striker didn't perform, or the defenders speed against breaks in this case. (Replace Rooney as a key finisher, and the stats are even better for England, the game could have been easily transformed). Same when choosing the manager, are they really crap or being scapegoated for a bad score?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top