World Cup 2010

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

here's my contribution to the soccer thread

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Blah blah blah.

Oh, come one. Germany played the better game. England was giving it's best thus far in the World Cup but it just wasn't good enough.

I think EVERYBODY so far has said that the ball was in and ENgland deserved that goal. It was an unfortunate, wrong decision.

It sure was. In the end, it was quite inconsequential.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

here's my contribution to the soccer thread

+1

[William33 110]

Germany is a prime contender for the cup. I wish them well.

[LiszyandKenny 5]

Go Brazil !

[SMR 368]

I doubt it - its not as though the second goal decisively affected the outcome of the match.

They should have goal line cameras though.

The amount of down right wrong calls affecting goals is atrocious. I think the whole, "it hasn't affected the outcome of a game yet" line doesn't hold water. Are you honestly arguing that someone has to be unfairly eliminated from the World Cup before this is an issue?

Disallowed goals affected the outcome of games in US group play. It was a very close thing that they made it out of group play.

Beyond that, although everyone is saying England was outplayed, the way you play changes a lot when you are down one and have to score or go home. When it's even you can play more conservatively. While you can certainly argue England would have lost anyways, it's all hypotheticals since the ref made an erroneous call and it was allowed to stand.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Beyond that, although everyone is saying England was outplayed, the way you play changes a lot when you are down one and have to score or go home. When it's even you can play more conservatively. While you can certainly argue England would have lost anyways, it's all hypotheticals since the ref made an erroneous call and it was allowed to stand.

Well, at the end of the day, there isn't anyone out there that would seriously argue that England was playing well enough to win this match. The England fans and Media are tearing the team a new one following this 1:4 debacle. An England fan is quoted as saying: "Wir sahen alt und nutzlos aus. Die Deutschen hingegen waren jung und frisch." - "We looked old and useless. The Germans were young and fresh." The BBC finds that "England, with some justification, will bemoan their luck but nothing must disguise the manner in which they were outclassed by Germany in stages of this game and also what has been an ultimately bitterly disappointing World Cup campaign in South Africa."

As for the controversial call of the referree, however unfortunate it is, it's a bit of deja vu, isn't it? Call it the revenge of Wembley. Call it what you want, really, the fact remains that England was no match for Germany yesterday.

Germany moves on...

...and England - barely making out of the group - goes home.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, at the end of the day, there isn't anyone out there that would seriously argue that England was playing well enough to win this match. The England fans and Media are tearing the team a new one following this 1:4 debacle. An England fan is quoted as saying: "Wir sahen alt und nutzlos aus. Die Deutschen hingegen waren jung und frisch." - "We looked old and useless. The Germans were young and fresh." The BBC finds that "England, with some justification, will bemoan their luck but nothing must disguise the manner in which they were outclassed by Germany in stages of this game and also what has been an ultimately bitterly disappointing World Cup campaign in South Africa."

As for the controversial call of the referree, however unfortunate it is, it's a bit of deja vu, isn't it? Call it the revenge of Wembley. Call it what you want, really, the fact remains that England was no match for Germany yesterday.

Germany moves on...

...and England - barely making out of the group - goes home.

England was having problems all throughout the tournament, but they got away with it (more or less) against less competent sides.

It was really obvious in yesterday's game that there were serious problems in the defence - if you see the goals Germany scored, they were nearly all the same and took advantage of the same weakness each time. We got the ball up into the German box, but as soon as it was cleared away there was noone near enough to get back to support the goalie and stop the counter attack.

Criminal really.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The amount of down right wrong calls affecting goals is atrocious. I think the whole, "it hasn't affected the outcome of a game yet" line doesn't hold water. Are you honestly arguing that someone has to be unfairly eliminated from the World Cup before this is an issue?Disallowed goals affected the outcome of games in US group play. It was a very close thing that they made it out of group play.

Beyond that, although everyone is saying England was outplayed, the way you play changes a lot when you are down one and have to score or go home. When it's even you can play more conservatively. While you can certainly argue England would have lost anyways, it's all hypotheticals since the ref made an erroneous call and it was allowed to stand.

People have been calling for goal line cameras for years - but FIFA doesn't want it. FIFA won't change its position because of a disallowed goal in a game that ended with a 4:1 result. England's performance was so poor that there isn't a case to suggest that they could have won were it not for the one disallowed goal.

So yes - there probably will need to be a disallowed goal that changes the result of a tournament final before FIFA will change its opinion.

[Ladylethal 12]

At a press conference yesterday FIFA representatives actually argued that the screens on field must not show controverted plays, as it was by watching the screen that the mexicans, for instance, saw that Tevez was offsided. They are completely against technology being used on these plays.

They should at least increase the number of assistants on the field, to place one behind the goal and one at the edges to check who's offsided or not. Two assistants that run the course of the field are way too few.

[SMR 368]

People have been calling for goal line cameras for years - but FIFA doesn't want it. FIFA won't change its position because of a disallowed goal in a game that ended with a 4:1 result. England's performance was so poor that there isn't a case to suggest that they could have won were it not for the one disallowed goal.

So yes - there probably will need to be a disallowed goal that changes the result of a tournament final before FIFA will change its opinion.

You may very well be right that FIFA has it's head squarely in the toilet, but that really isn't a defense. I'm not going to get into the specifics of this game since it really isn't the point. Mixing gasoline and matches doesn't become a good idea just because you have only had small, nonfatal explosions up until now.

When the only possible explanation is that the officials are corrupt or simply unable to fairly call games, this becomes ridiculous. It's not a once in a blue-moon occurrence. There have been half a dozen significant (potentially game changing) and questionable calls at this world cup alone.

At a press conference yesterday FIFA representatives actually argued that the screens on field must not show controverted plays, as it was by watching the screen that the mexicans, for instance, saw that Tevez was offsided. They are completely against technology being used on these plays.

They should at least increase the number of assistants on the field, to place one behind the goal and one at the edges to check who's offsided or not. Two assistants that run the course of the field are way too few.

So, instead of fixing the problem, they simply want to censor information so that people can't prove that there is a problem?

That's honest.

Edited June 28, 2010 by SMR

[Ladylethal 12]

They claim the popularity of the sport includes these controversies, and say that installing cameras in all stadiums would be too costly and would slow down the game too much.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

they have also said that they enjoy the controversy caused by human error, which is pretty bs

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You may very well be right that FIFA has it's head squarely in the toilet, but that really isn't a defense. I'm not going to get into the specifics of this game since it really isn't the point. Mixing gasoline and matches doesn't become a good idea just because you have only had small, nonfatal explosions up until now.

When the only possible explanation is that the officials are corrupt or simply unable to fairly call games, this becomes ridiculous. It's not a once in a blue-moon occurrence. There have been half a dozen significant (potentially game changing) and questionable calls at this world cup alone.

So, instead of fixing the problem, they simply want to censor information so that people can't prove that there is a problem?

That's honest.

It's not a defence, it is merely the reality of the situation. FIFA doesn't want to do it. FIFA holds the ultimate authority over the decision.

[SMR 368]

They claim the popularity of the sport includes these controversies, and say that installing cameras in all stadiums would be too costly and would slow down the game too much.

they have also said that they enjoy the controversy caused by human error, which is pretty bs

This may be true. Controversy attracts attention. But as a governing body of international sport, increasing the popularity and exposure of a sport should only be one of many goals. The objectivity, viability, and respect of the sport should be paramount. FIFA is making soccer into some sort of reality TV show.