World Cup 2010 - discussions & random thoughts

Remove all ads!

So much dramatic posturing from France and Italy on and off the field. Try scoring more goals - it tends to work better.

 

@Montresor,

What?! France surrenders?

 

For many years, I didn't really like Brazilian players (esp in the 90s, with Carlos and Romario), so I was cheering for Ivory Coast last match. Until the last moments of the game.
I usually like African players. I thought them to be tough and honest (no diving or theatre-play). Keita changed that.
Some serious fouls there, man! And the French brought a disastrous ref to match with their team.
Nice goal by Drogba. Nice basketball play by Fabiano. Elano did better. Good combo's by Brazil as well.

 

New Zealand didn't loose?! Again?!

 

Great vote of confidence, Rotku.

NZ didn't lose, Australia held its ground too, pretty nice... too bad BRA - CIV had such an ugly ending...

 

Have you never seen Drogba before?!

 

You think you're being clever?

I'm more pissed off at the French team than anyone on the boards because they make my country look bad but I really don't care much for comments like those.

That "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" crap is just a perfect example of stupidity...

 

That nerve looks a little raw..

Anyway, an interesting day of football really. My hat is off to NZ, i'm impressed at them keeping the score at 1-1.

As for France.. Ouch. They should just back out of the World Cup right now, they've got serious problems.

 

There are enough good reasons to criticize the French team and its shameless attitude without resorting to pointless "surrendering" crap.

I'm really annoyed at the French team as it is, I don't need people venting out sarcasm directed at my country's history or indulging in senseless French bashing.

You want to bash the French team, I won't object, I will be the first to say that I don't support those players and their coach and that they are a disgrace and an embarrassment.

They bring shame and disrespect to my country but I won't take any of that "surrendering" crap from anyone.

As the English say, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

Oooh, Cara! I like it when you're angry, prrrrrr.... !

 

Eeeh...Barmy. England ain't looking pretty either with their press conferences by players who have affairs with their teammates wives.

I thought he wasn't captain anymore?

 

I know it's three days since the US game, but I was unable to post this weekend. All I can say is: Karma. The US didn't deserve that tie to England, and the Karma gods got us back with giving us a tie with Slovenia, in a match we definitely should have won.

Honestly, the tie against England felt like a win, because we probably deserved to lose. The tie against Slovenia felt like a loss.

What I find most unbelievable about this is if Slovenia manages to beat England, they not only advance, they win the whole damn group! If England and the US both win, then chances are the US will win the group due to more goals scored (unless England wins 4-0 or something like that). I'm amazed that there's a pretty good chance a team with just 5 points (one win and two ties) will win the group.

I'm also wondering if Algeria and Slovenia may be a bit better than some predicted. Everyone expected England and the US would advance in a walk (and if they both win their third game, that will still happen). However, England only managed a tie against Algeria, and the same with the US versus Slovenia.

It's not good enough to just be the better team on paper - you have to win it on the field. Or, in the words of Chris Berman: "That's why they play the game!"

Also:

You evil, evil man!

@ Barmy - Are the proper precautions being taken with you? On the off chance that England doesn't manage to beat Slovenia this week, is someone removing all sharp objects from your house?

EDIT: As an ignorant American, can someone answer this question for me? Why is the first tie-breaker in the group round total goals? It would seem like the first tie breaker should be the head-to-head game against the two teams. Granted, that could be a tie, in which case I suppose total goals is as good a tie breaker as any. It would just seem silly that there's a chance that two teams tie for advancement, and the team that lost head-to-head would advance due to having more total points.

 

Goal difference is usually the separator to be honest. I guess it's just trying to promote more attacking play. I don't see a problem with it.

If England fail to qualify from this group, it will be a shameful embarassment, however I've still got faith that we will. My predictions for England from here on in: We beat Slovenia comfortably and qualify from the group. We then win our 2nd round game and the stuttering group stage is forgotten... we then play our best game of the entire tournament in the quarter finals, and narrowly lose on penalty's, or some dodgy referee decision, and will blame that for the next 4 years... That would be fairly typical.

I still believe... but it's hanging by a thread.

 

Oh, I totally get that - I'm not looking for foolproof - just the most equitable. You cannot have head-to-head be the only tie breaker, as in a sport like soccer, ties are very common, and there's a pretty good chance that if two teams are tied after 3 games, they may have tied each other. Also, in the group round, it's possible that you have 3 teams tied at 1-1-1. In such a scenario, Team A beats Team B, Team B beats Team C, and Team C beats Team A. Head-to-head does you no good there either.

But consider a situation like this:

Team A loses to Team B, but beats Teams C and D. Recod: 2-1-0, 6 points
Team B beats Team A, loses to Team C, and draws Team D. Record: 1-1-1, 4 points
Team C beats Team B, loses to Team A, and draws Team D. Record: 1-1-1, 4 points
Team D loses to Team A, and draws Team B and C. Record: 0-1-2, 2 points

In such a scenario, Team A would advance, along with whichever team scored more total goals between B and C. In such a scenario, I would think head-to-head would make the most sense, as Team C beat Team B. But if Team B scored more total goals, under the current format, they would advance. That seems blatantly unfair.

 

I don't really see why it would be blatantly unfair to be honest. The teams can't be decided in 3 games and are equal on points, so the team who attacked more and scored more goals get rewarded for it. A lot of tight games are decided by small things, and anything can happen in 1 game, so I think it's better to judge the better team over all 3 games. It's really up to each team to ensure they beat everybody and put the goal difference issue out of the equation. If a team let's it come down to that, and they've not scored many goals, that's their fault really.

 

I want to see teams equal on goals so they have to draw lots. That would be hilarious.

Anyway, New Zealand has gone soccer mad now after the All Whites have managed to go two games without losing yet. Remember that we are the 78th ranked team in the world and everyone expected us to lose comfortably. Sometimes it is fun being the rank underdog. For our boys, these are the 3 biggest games of their lives. I get the feeling that for some teams (like France and Italy for example), that their players are not quite as hyped up as we are - maybe because they play lots of other big ticket events for their clubs every year in Europe.

Anyway, go the All Whites. I wonder what the Paraguay game holds for us.

 

Is it still possible for New Zealand to qualify for the elimination rounds? I mean theoretically at least? They'd probably have to beat Paraguay, which is no small task, but if they win, they could still advance?

In other news, I see that Portugal has defeated North Korea, 7-0. I have never heard of a soccer game where seven goals were scored, short of pee wee soccer. Is North Korea that bad?

 

In theory, North Korea are about as bad as New Zealand. Along with South Africa, we were supposed to be the three worst teams in this tournament.

Yes, NZ can qualify for the next round, incredible though that may seem. The points in the Group are 4/2/2/1. Even a draw might get us through, if Italy and Slovakia also draw because then the points would be 5/3/3/1 and we'd be equal with Italy and it would come down to goals or drawing of lots.

If we win, we go through automatically, possibly even top of the group, which would have been unthinkable a couple of weeks ago.

 

I also think it's a bit strange that draws are worth one point, whereas wins are worth three. In most sports where ties are common, a tie counts as half a win.

So it seems like the magic number in the world cup is 5. Five or more points would always get you through. There's no way you can win one and draw two in this format and finish worse than second in your group. It seems like 4 would get you through sometimes, and it would take a grouping with a lot of ties to get in with just 3. Not only is that possible in New Zealand's group, it's possible in the US group as well. If the final two matches end in ties, Slovenia would have 5, and no one else would have more than 3.