World Cup 2010 - discussions & random thoughts

Remove all ads!

So we've got the win or draw tonight, right? If we win we're straight through. If we draw, we have to hope Italy draws as well, with a lower score (such as 0-0).

I might even stay up tonight and watch. Although that's bound to jinx us.

 

Yay! Go Rotku! And go the All Whites! Even though they will be playing in black..........

 

@Rags

I don't think that you lack sergeants, Klose, Lham and Schweinsteiger are experienced enough for this role. What you lack is a leader and by that I don't mean Ballack, an overrated player who took the place of the leader because there was no one else around. You lack players of the caliber of Lothar Matthaeus and Stefan Effenberg, players who have both the skills and the personality to lead the team during difficult moments and make the rest feel safe. Also you lack high quality central defenders, I bet that many German fans miss Matthias Sammer.

 

We've shafted it. Ah well, WC2010 just isn't happening for us... it was alright whilst it lasted!

 

The games in the preliminary round are way better than the elimination rounds. The sport of soccer does not lend itself well to sudden-death matches.

 

BOC,
I am old enough to have known German defenders of whom opponents were positively frightened. I like it that way.

At least the ref was all right this time. He allowed the game to be physical while cracking down on excess.
That's the way to go (take that as a lesson, Alberto Undiano, you heavy handed ******* ... ).

I don't think we are that much apart in out views. Sergeants are leaders.

Yes, this team lacks players with a strong enough personality and experience. But you are mistaken if you formulate it as a lack of calibre. Technically the German team is very good. It's the mental strength that's the issue, not technique, endurance or skill. Keep in mind that the guys are all very young. Lothar Matthaeus and Stefan Effenberg were in their late twens or even early thirties in their prime. They had time and opportunity to gather a lot of experience and time to build their character - in a word - to mature. The current teams average age is in the low twens.

I have to let the game sink in and see if I can point out some positives.

 

Hee hee hee hee hee!
Pity Slovenia didn't make it. On the other side, I'm glad there's still an African team involved. I hope they beat the Americans (I'm pro Ghana now).

Tough for me to decide who to support in the Germany - England match. I'd like England to get a bit further, but it should be the Dutch that eliminate zee jermans!

Also: Go Kiwi's!

 

We (Serbia) failed life in the game last night. I didn't even watch it, given my jinx reputation... and yet.

Oh, well, no big surprise I guess.


Go, NZ!

 

This World Cup is working out like WW2 - France have forfeited, the USA turned up late, and England are left to fight the Germans!

 

OK, I need some more soccer education. It would seem to me that the advantage of winning your group as opposed to finishing second would only be present in the first elimination game, because the first round always pits a group winner against someone who finsihed second in their group. Obviously, the group winner is typically favored over the one that finished second.

However, assuming most of the group winners advance beyond the first elimination round, does it not stand to reason that by the round of 8 teams, most matches involve two group winners, and therefore there is no inherent advantage?

I guess I just don't understand why they say the US has a much easier path. I agree that a first elimination round match is easier - you'd rather play Ghana than Germany. But by round 2, we'd probably go up against Uruguay, which is certainly no pushover!

LMAO!!!

 

Speak about a national trauma.

Will you Brits ever get over it?

 

Well, due to us finishing 2nd we get Germany, and if we win that, we get Argentina in the quarters... as the USA finished 2nd, you get Ghana, then the winner of Uruguay vs S.Korea in the quarters. Much easier. It's our own fault for not beating a pathetic minnow like Algeria. Noone else to blame.

'Twas a joke Raggy my lederhosen wearing friend!

 

I guess I'm not asking the question correctly. I understand that first round matchup completely. Given the choice, you'd almost always prefer to face a team that finished 2nd from its Group rather than 1st. Playing Ghana is a distinct advantage over the alternative in Germany.

But the second round seems like dumb luck. The only reason that the US would likely play Uruguay in Round 2 is because Uruguay won Group A. If Argentina had been in Group A instead of Group B we would have got them. And if Uruguay was in Group B, that would likely be England's 2nd round opponent.

Since the Groups are determined by random draw, the only elimination round where you can count on avoiding one of the favorites to win the tournament is in Round 1, and that's only assuming you win your Group.

So I understand that you would rather play Ghana, and assuming you win, play Uruguay after that, as opposed to Germany and then Argentina. What I'm asking is if it's only the 1st round where if you win your Group you get an easier opponent, right? Your subsequent opponent in Round 2 is simply based on which groups the teams happened to get placed in. It's not like Uruguay had to be in Group A, or Argentina had to be in Group B, or the US had to be in Group C. That was all just determined by random draw.

 

With the many years that Italy has played defensively, you'd expect them to be good at it...

 

Oh yeah, the groups are fairly random (apart from the pots like), but as it's happened to fall, by winning the group you've got the easier route to the final. It's not determined that way to begin with, it's just how it's happened to turn out this time. In WC 2010, it was just much better to win Group C that be the runner up. That's how fate's decided it. I would much rather have won the group and got a much easier run to the semi's. We've got 2 of the better teams this WC to beat if we want to get through. Gutted!

 

Oh well - New Zealand are out. But we're still pretty happy to go through 3 games unbeaten, when everyone expected us to get thrashed. Hats off to the All Whites!

 

@Ragusa

I think that we give different meaning to the word "seargeant" at least as far as football is concerned. With the word seargeant I mean players, who have the experience to help their team during difficult moments, who can yell at the others in order to wake them up but who are not expected to take their team by the hand and lead to victory, something that the leaders can do. I agree with you about the age issue, I think that you are the younger team of the tournament, but I think that only Schweinsteiger has the potential to become a leader. Also, I agree about the technical skill of your team. For what I've seen so far, I think that this is the best team you have presented since 1996.

 

The problem seems to be goals - or rather the lack thereof. Granted, in the last game, Paraguay had the luxury of being able to play for a tie. However, it is likely that if New Zealand had scored one more goal in the tournament (in any game - it doesn't matter which one), they would have advanced.

Yeah - 3 goals is way too many to give up, especially in a game you had to win. I know that Italy was not expected to repeat its performance of 2006, but I think most would have expected them to get out of their group - they finished last!

Well, at least you've got the opportunity. It could be worse - you could be rooting for Italy... or France....