World Cup

[Brother None]

Nonsense, this WC is fine and very interesting because of a number of reasons;

1. Another rise of African nations. Too bad they're all dropping out again, Africa belongs on the WC stage.

2. A complete rebirth of soccer and soccer styles in some of the most important countries (Argentine, Germany, the Netherlands), though not in others (Brazil, France, England)

3. Uhm...etc. etc.?

 

[Sander]

Plus, what would be the fun of a World Cup where there are no surprises whatsoever. I like the fact that countries like Trinidad and South Korea do well, it's annoying as hell for my predictions, but fun. The only problems I have with this World Cup is the ridiculously boring play in some of the matches (Croatia-Japan).

Oh, and Kharn, you forgot to mention Spain with the rebirth countries.

 

[Brother None]

Well, Spain and Argentine are mostly just switching the guard from one generation to the next, their playing style isn't much different.

Same goes for the Netherlands, except that van Basten slaughtered all big ego's and made a cuddly-wuddly lub-lub team.

Germany is completely reinventing its gaming style, though, changing more into the Dutch model. Which is awesome +/+!

And let's not forget Young Italy also plays more like a South American team than Ita-fucking-let's-defend-and-counter-ly which is playing now.

A lot may change in the coming decade.

Ok, not all the matches so far have been fun. I've been using Group H matches to fall asleep, in fact, but Group matches generally aren't that much fun, the fun doesn't begin until the final 16, often not until the quarter-finals, in fact. Hell, it's never been much fun until the quarters, as a rule.

PS: this thread's prediction poll sucks.

 

[quietfanatic]

And arguably the birth of half-decen Australian football on the world stage.

Yay! It appears that Kewell will go unpunished for his little outburst after the Brazil match. Interesting.

 

[Brother None]

Australian football is hardly half as interesting as the steady march forward of the US of A. Too bad they disappointed a bit

 

[Sander]

Well, Spain and Argentine are mostly just switching the guard from one generation to the next, their playing style isn't much different.

Not for Argentina, it is a bit different for Spain, but Spain is actually quite succesful this time around.

Same goes for the Netherlands, except that van Basten slaughtered all big ego's and made a cuddly-wuddly lub-lub team.

I'd say our playing style is different from the playing style of 2004, '88, '98. The focus is mainly on the attack, on the front three players. Midfield needs become more dominant for me to see any parallels to previous Dutch teams.

Germany is completely reinventing its gaming style, though, changing more into the Dutch model. Which is awesome +/+!

Except the Germans suck at it. Mucho, mucho suck. Especially defensively.

And let's not forget Young Italy also plays more like a South American team than Ita-fucking-let's-defend-and-counter-ly which is playing now.

A lot may change in the coming decade.

I hope so. Watching Italy play is no fun, although they did play well in the friendly match against the Dutch a while back.

 

[Tandy]

So!!!! Germany plays crapy Soccer?
Uhm we crushed everyone in our group and the last game was great.

 

[Brother None]

So!!!! Germany plays crapy Soccer?
Uhm we crushed everyone in our group and the last game was great.

Heh. You do realise group A is widely considered the easiest group in the tournament, right? There never was any serious contender to Germany. Winning all matches is nice and all, but there was never a serious threat. Not with how Poland plays.

As for great. Well...you got the ball to Klose a lot, I guess?

I'd say our playing style is different from the playing style of 2004, '88, '98. The focus is mainly on the attack, on the front three players. Midfield needs become more dominant for me to see any parallels to previous Dutch teams.

That's more forced than voluntary long-term changes, though, just because we've got a lot of play-makers and no play-breakers this round-up.

Except the Germans suck at it. Mucho, mucho suck. Especially defensively.

They'll grow into it. With their qualities, if they manage to pull this change of, they'll dominate...in future years. Not yet, though.

 

[Sander]

So!!!! Germany plays crapy Soccer?
Uhm we crushed everyone in our group and the last game was great.

You won. There's a difference between playing good football and winning. You can score, yes. But the opponents weren't of any notable level, and your defense was incredibly crappy. Did you even watch the first game? That second goal you got against you was ridiculous. No team makes those kinds of mistakes.

Plus, you have crappy passing, pretty poor team play, and everything revolves around Ballack.

 

[victor]

Sweden sucks. The English coach is going to get buttraped.

 

[Lukus]

Great game between Sweden-England, it was. Both teams were really keen on winning and played a pretty hard offense, which is always more interesting. Saw it in a rather big movie theatre - it was quite a thrill with everyone rising and screaming for the Swedish goals, especially the last one in the 89th minute that meant 2-2. (We would have advanced regardless and faced Germany without it, but still.) And, heh, pretty neat with people going "quisling!" as the Swedish born, English coach was displayed. It was also the first time I've seen them sell beer at the pictures.

We'll probably lose against Germany though.

 

[Tandy]

Hehe i wasnt that serious with my post...
its true the first match was uhm.....lets say not good
BUT we are geting better each match(i hope)
But the last one was "da Blast" for me..they improved alot.
and to the one above me i say, iam looking forward to a good match against Sweden(thumbs up)(if the Swedish kick us out ill be on their side for the rest of the WC)

 

[Sander]

Eeeeeeeeexcellent match. Great play from both sides, very few chances, excellent defending from both sides.
The 0-0 was a fitting result, we finally played well (even though we didn't use our best players) so this gives us some perspective for the rest of the tournament.

Do you still put us in the listof dissappointments, Briosa? Too bad we'll have to kick you guys out, though.

 

[Briosafreak]

Dude you're kidding right?...


Yeah i guess you are going to win, giving the physical troubles that broke our defense for good, and the problems with pauleta, so i still say in the end you are going to pass, but seriously man, you guys are not playing well, can't you see that?...

And the game sucked as Mexico-Portugal in the second half, completely "Simpsonian"...

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Eeeeeeeeexcellent match.

Hilarious stuff, you must have skipped the match and went straight on to Cruyff.

objectives for both teams:

Argentina: draw
Netherlands: win

Netherlands creates ZERO actual chances.

Conclusion: Netherlands was horrible, Argentina had a lunch break before Mexico.

 

[Sander]

Dude you're kidding right?...


Yeah i guess you are going to win, giving the physical troubles that broke our defense for good, and the problems with pauleta, so i still say in the end you are going to pass, but seriously man, you guys are not playing well, can't you see that?...

Nope. We gave away very few chances (one or two shots from outside the box, one long ball on Tevez inside the box), and especially the first half and last 15 minutes of the second half were well played.
The only problem we had was that we didn't create any chances, but Argentina have an excellent defense as well.
But football-wise, this was well-played. Good passing for most of the match, very solid defense, and a few chances ourselves. And since these were largely bench-players, yes, I think we played well.
And we got a lot more chances in the final ten minutes, but that ref was blowing that whistle too often and making some weird decisions.

And the game sucked as Mexico-Portugal in the second half, completely "Simpsonian"...

Nah. Still a lot of battle, some good play, but the problem was that no-one got through the defense. There were enough impulses to get through the defense, though, so the match didn't get boring. Unlike Mexico-Portugal.

EDIT: Argentina wanted a win as well. Really, I really enjoyed this match, and offensively we may not have created many chances, but the rest of the game was really well played.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

EDIT: Argentina wanted a win as well. Really, I really enjoyed this match, and offensively we may not have created many chances, but the rest of the game was really well played.

of course they wanted to win, but only in the sense that it would be fun to beat the Dutch. The Netherlands actually needed to win (unless you actually buy that revisionist nonsense on the Dutch television that this was actually a good thing because we now miss Germany in the quarters).

Don't get me wrong, it would have been nearly impossible for the Netherlands to beat this Argentina, but at least they could have TRIED for god's sake. Why take off a striker for a midfielder? Why take off an attacking midfielder for a defensive one?

Put in an extra striker I say, who cares if you lose?

 

[mortiz]

Personally I'd much rather my team plays Mexico over Portugal. Portugal isn’t exactly a team to strike fear into their opponents, but they've got Big Phil backing them and he's managed to reach the final in both of his previous tournaments.

 

[Sander]

Ofcourse they wanted to win, but only in the sense that it would be fun to beat the Dutch. The Netherlands actually needed to win (unless you actually buy that revisionist nonsence on the Dutch television that this was actually a good thing because we now miss Germany in the quarters).

Which is pretty ridiculous, since I've heard most people say 'We need to kick the Germans out'.
But I don't think we wanted to win any less than they did. Van Basten repeatedly said that the match was more about giving people some playtime and trying to improve a bit. But he also left out several key players (Gio, Van Bommel, Robben), so he wasn't really going for the win either. There was no need to win for either team, but they wanted to win.

Don't get me wrong, it would have been nearly impossible for the Netherlands to beat this Argentina, but atleast they could have TRIED for god's sake. Why take off a striker for a midfielder?

Because midfield was being run over. Which was clearly visible, and did improve a lot afterwards.

Why take off an attacking midfielder for a defensive one?

To improve balance, and because he wanted to give Landzaat some playtime as well.

Put in an extra striker I say, who cares if you lose?

Losing wouldn't be too good for the team-spirit, but putting in an extra striker would've meant throwing open the defense, which was holding up well against Argentina.
Plus, as said, there was no need to win. So why try to force it? Throwing a shitload of long balls onto Vennegoor isn't really going to make the match better to watch either.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

There was no need to win for either team, but they wanted to win.

I pretty much agree with mortiz on this point: Mexico, especially without Borgetti and Perez would have been good.

Because midfield was being run over.

Hehe, yeah I heard the commentator too: "Landzaat is coming on to give Cocu some rest... oh, um, van persie is coming off, yeah, an extra midfielder is obviously necessary because our midfield is being overrun"

The coach is always right, eh?

Losing wouldn't be too good for the team-spirit

And saying "We can't possibly win, so we might as well not even try" is good for team spirit?