Most mediocre teams to win the WC
in [World Football]
|
From: higgs on 19 Jul 2010 09:58 On Jul 19, 11:38 pm, b...(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) wrote: > Clarkoo (gabl...(a)yahoo.es) wrote: > > : In my lifetime Italy 2006 definetely and Brasil 94. I'm also told that > : Argentina 78 were pretty bad and they needed "an extra push" (if you > : know what I'm saying" to win that WC. > > Were Argentina 78 really worse than England 66? > > In the Anglo media, when South American teams get help from the referee > it's, well, you know, their culture and their politics and dictators and > all that. When England get help from the referee it is, well, you know, > the referee understands the game like he should do and as you all know > England is the land of fair play and they're all heroes and no one would > ever do anything, well, you know, untoward, no really. > > -- > ciao, > Bruce > > drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reasonable explanation as to how England cheated in 1966. After all, Germany equalised with less than a minute to go of normal time. Any 'home' ref would have disallowed that (not to mention refused to give the soft free kick that led to the goal). All I've been told is that it was against the laws of physics for that ball to have crossed the line for the 3rd goal (which I've never believed anyway), and that, in the absence of any proof, the balance says it wasn't a goal and that it *must've* been a bent call from the linesman. And that, had England not scored, Germany would undoubtedly have won. Based on what evidence, I ask? And now I read that on this thread England cheated Portugal in the SF. Having watched that game, I'm at a loss to recall what it was England were meant to have done
From: JCQ on 19 Jul 2010 10:59 On Jul 18, 10:28 am, "Vanman" <Vancan...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Two things. > > 1. I think the "helping held" via conspiracies or referees with Argentina > 78' gets overblown. If you want to see referee bias..see Spain getting help > during WC82'..that was far far worse. No referee helped the Argies in their > loss to Italy 1-0, Nyilasi and Toroshik (sp) simply lost their cool in a > chippy match. I think Tresor was hard done by for a penalty given to the > Argies in their great game against France but that was not an outrageous > call (though I probably would not have given it since it seemed > unintentional to me but then referee's have to make a decision in the blink > of an eye). > > 2. Where the Argies can get criticism was that their road to victory was > kinda mediocre. Although in the group of death I would say the wins over > Hungary and France were very close, the loss to Italy (ok in what was a > somewhat irrelevent game as both were through) does not look good, and in > the 2nd group phase they beat a mediocre Peru (I can see where the latter > was rolled over as they were already out, their defense was always suspect, > and the environment was intimidating) and a good, but not great Polish side > (declined a bit since 74'). The final was also a very close run thing > against Holland. Despite this if you watch this Argie team it was very good > (though not excellent) and would have been hard to handle for any team > really...their aggressive, direct and attacking style could be ferociou. Any > team with Passarella, Kempes, Ardiles, Luque etc was very good. I > personally think the 86' team may very well have been inferior to this team > despite winning the cup that year. Ironically the Argentina 82' team was > probably the best Argies lineup in history in terms of talent..but for > whatever reason never got off the ground and lacked the cohesion necessary > to match Brazil 82' and Italy 82'. Kinda strange really. > > "Clarkoo" <gabl...(a)yahoo.es> wrote in message > > news:f2377ff3-d823-4263-981c-d882747c7093(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > In my lifetime Italy 2006 definetely and Brasil 94. I'm also told that > > Argentina 78 were pretty bad and they needed "an extra push" (if you > > know what I'm saying" to win that WC. Good analysis and it's true that the 1982 Argentina team may have been one of their best. After the world cup in 1978 most people agreed they had the best team through 1981 at least and into 1982. They added none other than Maradona and were the clear favorites along with Brazil in 1982. They never came together as a team and only played one good match against Hungary. The 1986 team was not as good but had a solid defense and Maradona at his very best. That team was also very well coached by Bilardo who knew the value of having tall strong players on the team so that they could compete in the air against teams like Germany.
From: JCQ on 19 Jul 2010 11:07 On Jul 17, 11:21 pm, Italian Mike <italian.mik...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've always found it amusing how people would talk about teams that > they did not see based on a book or a few articles they have written. Snip.. > Anyway, both Italy 06 and Brazil 94 would have handed Spain a > footballing lesson this cup. Even a two year older Italy, without > Pirlo, Gattuso and Cannavaro all capable and in form, countered and > nullified a better Spain two years ago. I find it amusing how you can think any team could give Spain a footballing lesson. They have played just about everyone over the last 4 years and it's been the other way around. Including when they played Italy. With comments like yours we are seeing nothing more than football envy. They did not win every match in the world cup easily but that's more about the nature of the sport than anything else. It's more about how teams respected them more than any team has been respected in the last 20 years. Holland changed their style of play just because they were facing a team that they felt totally inferior too. Germany also did not play Spain straight up. Spain have given many teams a footballing lesson and this will probably continue for some time.
From: JCQ on 19 Jul 2010 11:13 On Jul 19, 6:38 am, b...(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) wrote: > Clarkoo (gabl...(a)yahoo.es) wrote: > > : In my lifetime Italy 2006 definetely and Brasil 94. I'm also told that > : Argentina 78 were pretty bad and they needed "an extra push" (if you > : know what I'm saying" to win that WC. > > Were Argentina 78 really worse than England 66? > > In the Anglo media, when South American teams get help from the referee > it's, well, you know, their culture and their politics and dictators and > all that. When England get help from the referee it is, well, you know, > the referee understands the game like he should do and as you all know > England is the land of fair play and they're all heroes and no one would > ever do anything, well, you know, untoward, no really. > > -- > ciao, > Bruce > > drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ Well said. There is always a double standard. Just imagine if a player from Argentina or Uruguay gave a Kung Fu kick like the one in the final against Alonso. There is a huge double standard in Europe and especially with the English media against all South American teams except Brazil.
From: Bob on 19 Jul 2010 11:49
Italian Mike wrote: > Mehdi wrote: >>> Subject : Most mediocre teams to win the WC >> > From : italian.mike08(a)gmail.com >> >>> Exactly, the praise this team has earned in the media just reveals >>> the quality of the double standards that exist. > >> While this is true I also think this WC will be forgotten about very >> quickly. There wasn't a single all time great at this tournament, >> there were three players that would have reached that status had >> they won the competition i.e. Maicon, Lucio and Messi. > > It may be forgotten, or seen as it really was by seasoned viewers who > know what they are watching, but the typical World Cup fan every four > years is going to repeat what they are told, and Spain being one of > the greatest attacking teams of all time is likely what they'll be > repeating. I've heard it already being echoed around my parts and it's > hardly a soccer/football mad city. > > Anyway, whoever said that Spains Tiki-Taka was a defensive weapon was > bang on. I'll be honest, it was a good defensive weapon too, but > nothing more than that. Other goals came on desperation plays, set > pieces, and direct football, no square or triangle passing into the > net at all. Spain outshot their opponents by 33-50% (except for Chile). Playing possession ball (an offensive tactics) has always lead to stronger defense, way before the words tiki taka were pronounced for the first time. Spare us the senseless negative spin. |