Brazil - NL QF Thoughts
in [World Football]
|
From: Quincy on 1 Jul 2010 13:43 On 1 Jul., 19:36, "Karamako" <monsieur.karam...(a)nawadoo.fr> wrote: > Quincy a crit : > > > On 1 Jul., 16:37, JK <jkn...(a)oacpc.com> wrote: > >> 1) Ideally this would be a SF as I think Brazil, NL, Spain, Arg are > >> the four best teams. > > > Of course Germany hasn't showed any quality in this WC. They scored > > most goals of all, but this must be a fluke. They spanked England, but > > this is sure a fluke. They suck. > > I agree : the 1st goal against England was lucky (kick and rush and poor > defence) and when the English put a bit of pressure on the German defence, > it exploded in two minutes. After the ref error, they played counter attack > against a desperate team... Yes, first Germany made 2 goals out of a half chance. Ugly goals, we mustn't forget. Then England pressed and had about half a dozen good chances which lead to the 1-2, of course. Finally the deserved 2-2 after another big English pressure, but of course, Referee was against England and disallowed this goal. With this goal, a scoreline like 6-2 for England would be plausible.
From: Quincy on 1 Jul 2010 13:44 On 1 Jul., 19:55, JK <jkn...(a)oacpc.com> wrote: > Quincy wrote: > > On 1 Jul., 16:37, JK <jkn...(a)oacpc.com> wrote: > >> 1) Ideally this would be a SF as I think Brazil, NL, Spain, Arg are the > >> four best teams. > > > Of course Germany hasn't showed any quality in this WC. They scored > > most goals of all, but this must be a fluke. They spanked England, but > > this is sure a fluke. They suck. > > Did I say that? No. Implicitely you said that.
From: JK on 1 Jul 2010 14:12 Quincy wrote: > On 1 Jul., 19:55, JK <jkn...(a)oacpc.com> wrote: >> Quincy wrote: >>> On 1 Jul., 16:37, JK <jkn...(a)oacpc.com> wrote: >>>> 1) Ideally this would be a SF as I think Brazil, NL, Spain, Arg are the >>>> four best teams. >>> Of course Germany hasn't showed any quality in this WC. They scored >>> most goals of all, but this must be a fluke. They spanked England, but >>> this is sure a fluke. They suck. >> Did I say that? No. > > Implicitely you said that. Hardly.
From: Raja, The Great on 1 Jul 2010 13:59 On Jul 1, 12:36 pm, "Karamako" <monsieur.karam...(a)nawadoo.fr> wrote: > Quincy a crit : > > > On 1 Jul., 16:37, JK <jkn...(a)oacpc.com> wrote: > >> 1) Ideally this would be a SF as I think Brazil, NL, Spain, Arg are > >> the four best teams. > > > Of course Germany hasn't showed any quality in this WC. They scored > > most goals of all, but this must be a fluke. They spanked England, but > > this is sure a fluke. They suck. > > I agree : the 1st goal against England was lucky (kick and rush and poor > defence) and when the English put a bit of pressure on the German defence, > it exploded in two minutes. After the ref error, they played counter attack > against a desperate team... Nonsense. Germany were relentlessly attacking and English defense wasn't that good. Germany were bound to score a lot with or without conter attacks.
From: Mark V. on 1 Jul 2010 14:08
On Jul 1, 8:54 am, JK <jkn...(a)oacpc.com> wrote: > Abubakr wrote: > > On Jul 2, 1:07 am, "Paul C" <p...(a)thersgb.net> wrote: > >> "JK" <jkn...(a)oacpc.com> wrote in message > > >>news:i0i7rf$1df$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > >>> 1) Ideally this would be a SF as I think Brazil, NL, Spain, Arg are the > >>> four best teams. > >>> 2) This NL side is very, very good, maybe their best team since 1990, > >>> certainly the most balanced...but still not as good as Brazil. > >> I don't think the Netherlands have been at all impressive. They are a class > >> below Germany, Brazil and Argentina on the evidence of the games played so > >> far. > > > And below Spain too. The Dutch play has been excruciatingly painful > > to watch - like a slightly better and more efficient err...Slovakia. > > I can understand what folks are saying, but I disagree. The Dutch have > played an extremely controlled, patient game, and have improved with > each game. They also have probably the best defense I think they've > brought to a tournament in a long time. Also, this team has a better > mentality than previous Dutch teams: basically, "winners, not whiners". > They also are being well-coached so far. I disagree that this side compares with the Dutch teams of the '90s, but I do agree that this team may be tougher to beat than other posters are giving it credit for. They've played ugly, but have also been efficient. They seem to be doing just enough to get things done. Nobody has really thrown a scare into them, and if you want to argue that they had an easy group, just compare with Italy's, England's, Argentina's, and even Spain's. We'll find out what the Dutch are made of tomorrow. |