| [Becks] Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:52:51 AM | |
|
| Half time, NZ 1 Italy 1. Italians like to fall over, and NZ are playing a bit too much with their hearts rather than their heads. That's something I actually love about the team, the pride in the jersey, playing full of heart, but against Italy it's costing us cos we get free kicks called against us. For nothing. |
|
| [Becks] Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:31:02 AM | |
|
Ah fuck. That was a dumb penalty, Smith shouldn't have held the guys shirt, but in saying that, he 'fell over' after he had let go of him.
Maybe I'm just a bit bitter, but it seems our guys can get knocked over and it's ok, but the Italians will go down with even the hairs breadth of a touch of nothing, and get a free kick.
Edited at: Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:31:35 AM |
|
| [Becks] Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:15:53 AM | |
|
Now the commentator is reckoning our goal was possibly offside cos the touch after the kick 'might' have come off one of our players. I didn't see that I thought it came off the Italian dude.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:13:00 AM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | Congrats, Becks! Keep it up!
| | | Becks wrote: | | | Hahahahaha, score after 12 minutes - NZ 1, Italy ZERO! |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:13:00 AM | |
|
Congrats, Becks! Keep it up!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Becks from Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:12:03 AM)| | | Becks wrote: | | | Hahahahaha, score after 12 minutes - NZ 1, Italy ZERO! |
|
|
| [Becks] Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:12:03 AM | |
|
| Hahahahaha, score after 12 minutes - NZ 1, Italy ZERO! |
|
| [Becks] Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:04:33 AM | |
|
| So sleeeeeeeepy. It's 2:05am here, but we're up to watch NZ play Italy. Their players are speedy so we may get tired, but we'll see how it goes. |
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:11:05 AM | |
|
|
| [jimmyjames] Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:25:40 PM | |
|
|
| [jimmyjames] Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:06:33 PM | |
|
I've seen that movie!!! It's a crack up. Sly in goal. When was that made? Late 70s, early 80s. Snortiego would have been to busy with cocaine and prostitutes then ( and football ).
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:02:08 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Probably why Maradona didn't get the acting jobs after retirement. LOL!
Stallone, Max Von Sydow, Michael Caine and, yes, Pelé.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I recognise some of the names, Beckenbauer, Cryuff, Eusabio, Charlton, Zidane and Maradona but the only ones I've seen play are Maradona and Zidane. Maradona was really fat, at one stage he got to over 100kg, ( 225lbs ). A lot of weight on a short guy. (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:46:50 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Exactly why I said that no further comment is necessary. We are obviously speaking on two different wavelengths and I could easily ask what are YOU going on about. You stated that Maradona was the greatest ever and I simply counter that it all depends on your frame of reference. You can't comment on something because you haven't "seen" it? Ok. I simply extrapolate that theory into other realms. Were that to hold true, one couldn't comment on most topics.
Enough. I said all along that I think Brasil has a weak team this time around and that my pick has been Spain. That said, just for you. Maracaná stadium in Rio has a tribute to all the greats of football. Their footprints are set in cement at the entrance (Maradona was a fat guy based on the depth of the impression) and I paid due homage to him and other greats by standing in them.
Down in the lockerroom that leads to the pitch, there are pictures of ALL the greats of the game who were not from Brasil. You may recognize some names. Others must not merit comment.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
I didn't bring up Pele, you did. I didn't dispute anything you said. What are you going on about? So your on the Brazil bandwagon, that's great. I hope they do well for you. What is your point exactly? Gaping hole in the logic of not wanting to comment on a player I haven't seen? You're insinuating that that is some kind of cop out. Using your Led Zep example, if someone was to say "I think Led Zep is the best band ever." and I said " I've never heard them, I can't say." What's wrong with that? (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:30:20 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ah yes, but that goes back to the old adage of "the lack of being able to make a comment is still a comment in and of itself."
No need for further comment (or lack thereof), I just find a gaping hole in such spurious logic. Not having "seen" makes one unable to comment. It all depends on your frame of reference. Ask a youngster nowadays as to who is the better singer: Madonna or Lady GaGa. Back when the FIFA vote of "player of the century" came around, the people were going for Maradona because he was fresher in the minds of those who didn't know much about Pelé. They figured out quickly that their sampling would be skewed due to the age of the respondants. It is just common sense. Which war had the greatest impact? Trojan, 1000 years, WWI or Iraq? Well, I didn't live through the first three. Would any comment I make about them be any less valid or should I just claim the inability to judge because there were no "imbedded journalists" in the first three? (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:42:13 PM)
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
I didn't make any comments about Pele.
(Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, June 18, 2010 9:15:53 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
|
I was in Brasil during that shootout and, I guarantee, it was a nailbiter.
Back to your comment about Pelé....following your logic that he stopped playing before you were born, I question how you can comment on BANDS that stopped playing before you were born. I can all but guarantee that you never saw a Led Zep concert. Did it minimize their influence in the music world? Priest, for that matter? I think not. You gather your information from recordings, awards, impact on the genre and the like. In a similar fashion, you can find footage of Pelé who, I guarantee, revolutionized the game. Again, while Maradona was a good player, time will prove that he had no such longevity nor impact on the game as a whole. Never called "O Rei" (King) of Football, never had a civil war stop to watch him play (Nigeria, if I recall) or named Athlete of the Century by organizations as varied as FIFA (2000), France, UNICEF, England, USA, South America, etc.
Ask someone younger than yourself. I will bet you money that someone 10 years younger would be hard-pressed to name Madona's home country.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
Mainly because the final was decided on a penalty shootout. It sucks when games are decided that way. I remember watching that tournament and it just not having the excitement of previous ones. Might be just me but it was average as far as the World Cup goes.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
why did you think 94 sucked?
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Never seen Pele, he was finished years before I was born, so can't comment. If I was to compare the 02 tournament to the 06 tournament, I would say 02 sucked. That's from someone who has no stake in who wins it.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
I am a fan and I wouldn't say that either tourny sucked. Sorry to disagree. Call it bias for Brasil if you like.
Also, while I admit Maradona was a fine player and I have even had the good fortune to see him in person a few times, he burned out quickly and didn't hold a candle to the likes of someone such as Pelé who was on three WC winning squads. By no means was that a coincidence.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Sour grapes for what? I don't really support any team as such. Be nice to see our guys do well but they are no hope of winning it. We haven't even been in the World Cup much, this is only our second time, the last time was in 82. So as to who wins it, it doesn't really bother me either way. I just like football in general. It's just been a coincidence that Brazil won the last two crappy cups in 02 and 94, that's all. Any fan would tell you those two tournaments sucked.
Maradona was the best ever. Coke or no coke.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ha! Sour grapes, I say. Brazil just "happens" to win? They must have paid off the right people. Nope, certainly couldn't have had anything to do with actual talent. Five times.
As for Maradona, were I that hyped up on coke at the time, I think I'd play much better too. He WAS a fine player. I suppose drug arrests take a lot out of a guy.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
The 02 World Cup was a shocker in every way. It's funny, crappy World Cups seem to be won by Brazil. 02 was a horrible tournament as was 94, both were won by Brazil. Best World Cups in recent history, 06 ( Italy winners ) and 86 ( Argentina winners ).
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Nah, no offside, at least not where I could see it... In any case, yeah, good summary. In any case, we have to give it to the refs on this cup. Save for Slovenia vs Usa and Germany vs Serbia, referees on this cup are very professional, and there were very few controversial decisions. If anyone remembers 2002 world cup... That was awfull. We were cheated against Spain, they got cheated in the quarterfinals, Italy was cheated, South Korea has only the refs to thank that they got so far... This is nothing in comparison.
In any case - we will finally be on the same page on Sunday! Beat Italy, and I will move to New Zealand and marry your coach.
| |
|
Becks wrote: |
| |
Just found a video of the goal, not sure what was going on, the screen thing said offside, but I'm not sure. The ref saw 'something' cos he blew the whistle before the ball went in. Who knows what he saw though lol. Ah well, as harsh as it sounds, shit happens, deal with it. No point dwelling on shit referees, cos unfortunately they will be encountered in even professional sport. Focus on the next game. I think a draw is a fair result, both teams had defensive lapses from what I saw, and the game was pretty even.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, ill stick to my opinion, regardless of the shitstorm that seems to have engulfed every web page that ends either with .si or .us... The goal was regular, and it was a nice one too. But since the US team deserved at least one red card and got none, ill say it was all fair in the end, with both teams still looking good to qualify to the round of 16.
As for ties, if our teams make it to the playoffs, you wont have to put up with those anymore, because there cant be a tie in playoffs.
Im just a little bit pissed on the supporters of both countries. Youtube comments always make me feel like a nuclear war wouldnt be such a bad thing, but this is something new alltogether.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| Speaking as one that very honestly has NO idea what is going on with regard to this game, I can only assume that there was a grievous error by this referee. I would not know it if I saw it but all the ESPN pundits keep babbling on about it so there has to be something there, no? I was watching and it appeared to me that all the players were pushing and shoving and whatnot. Nothing glaringly obvious that I could see. I do know that I NEVER feel it is right to blame an official for a loss. I mean, the fact remains that the US team did not WIN it. Period. Refs and umpires don't make plays...PLAYERS make them. Or, as in this case, do NOT make them. As for the particulars, that is for you soccer folks to debate. I STILL say ties SUCK! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:58:23 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:51:11 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:47:35 PM Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:56:13 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:01:50 PM |
|
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:02:08 PM | |
|
Probably why Maradona didn't get the acting jobs after retirement. LOL!
Stallone, Max Von Sydow, Michael Caine and, yes, Pelé.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:57:10 PM)| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I recognise some of the names, Beckenbauer, Cryuff, Eusabio, Charlton, Zidane and Maradona but the only ones I've seen play are Maradona and Zidane. Maradona was really fat, at one stage he got to over 100kg, ( 225lbs ). A lot of weight on a short guy. (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:46:50 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Exactly why I said that no further comment is necessary. We are obviously speaking on two different wavelengths and I could easily ask what are YOU going on about. You stated that Maradona was the greatest ever and I simply counter that it all depends on your frame of reference. You can't comment on something because you haven't "seen" it? Ok. I simply extrapolate that theory into other realms. Were that to hold true, one couldn't comment on most topics.
Enough. I said all along that I think Brasil has a weak team this time around and that my pick has been Spain. That said, just for you. Maracaná stadium in Rio has a tribute to all the greats of football. Their footprints are set in cement at the entrance (Maradona was a fat guy based on the depth of the impression) and I paid due homage to him and other greats by standing in them.
Down in the lockerroom that leads to the pitch, there are pictures of ALL the greats of the game who were not from Brasil. You may recognize some names. Others must not merit comment.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
I didn't bring up Pele, you did. I didn't dispute anything you said. What are you going on about? So your on the Brazil bandwagon, that's great. I hope they do well for you. What is your point exactly? Gaping hole in the logic of not wanting to comment on a player I haven't seen? You're insinuating that that is some kind of cop out. Using your Led Zep example, if someone was to say "I think Led Zep is the best band ever." and I said " I've never heard them, I can't say." What's wrong with that? (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:30:20 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ah yes, but that goes back to the old adage of "the lack of being able to make a comment is still a comment in and of itself."
No need for further comment (or lack thereof), I just find a gaping hole in such spurious logic. Not having "seen" makes one unable to comment. It all depends on your frame of reference. Ask a youngster nowadays as to who is the better singer: Madonna or Lady GaGa. Back when the FIFA vote of "player of the century" came around, the people were going for Maradona because he was fresher in the minds of those who didn't know much about Pelé. They figured out quickly that their sampling would be skewed due to the age of the respondants. It is just common sense. Which war had the greatest impact? Trojan, 1000 years, WWI or Iraq? Well, I didn't live through the first three. Would any comment I make about them be any less valid or should I just claim the inability to judge because there were no "imbedded journalists" in the first three? (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:42:13 PM)
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
I didn't make any comments about Pele.
(Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, June 18, 2010 9:15:53 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
|
I was in Brasil during that shootout and, I guarantee, it was a nailbiter.
Back to your comment about Pelé....following your logic that he stopped playing before you were born, I question how you can comment on BANDS that stopped playing before you were born. I can all but guarantee that you never saw a Led Zep concert. Did it minimize their influence in the music world? Priest, for that matter? I think not. You gather your information from recordings, awards, impact on the genre and the like. In a similar fashion, you can find footage of Pelé who, I guarantee, revolutionized the game. Again, while Maradona was a good player, time will prove that he had no such longevity nor impact on the game as a whole. Never called "O Rei" (King) of Football, never had a civil war stop to watch him play (Nigeria, if I recall) or named Athlete of the Century by organizations as varied as FIFA (2000), France, UNICEF, England, USA, South America, etc.
Ask someone younger than yourself. I will bet you money that someone 10 years younger would be hard-pressed to name Madona's home country.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
Mainly because the final was decided on a penalty shootout. It sucks when games are decided that way. I remember watching that tournament and it just not having the excitement of previous ones. Might be just me but it was average as far as the World Cup goes.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
why did you think 94 sucked?
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Never seen Pele, he was finished years before I was born, so can't comment. If I was to compare the 02 tournament to the 06 tournament, I would say 02 sucked. That's from someone who has no stake in who wins it.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
I am a fan and I wouldn't say that either tourny sucked. Sorry to disagree. Call it bias for Brasil if you like.
Also, while I admit Maradona was a fine player and I have even had the good fortune to see him in person a few times, he burned out quickly and didn't hold a candle to the likes of someone such as Pelé who was on three WC winning squads. By no means was that a coincidence.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Sour grapes for what? I don't really support any team as such. Be nice to see our guys do well but they are no hope of winning it. We haven't even been in the World Cup much, this is only our second time, the last time was in 82. So as to who wins it, it doesn't really bother me either way. I just like football in general. It's just been a coincidence that Brazil won the last two crappy cups in 02 and 94, that's all. Any fan would tell you those two tournaments sucked.
Maradona was the best ever. Coke or no coke.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ha! Sour grapes, I say. Brazil just "happens" to win? They must have paid off the right people. Nope, certainly couldn't have had anything to do with actual talent. Five times.
As for Maradona, were I that hyped up on coke at the time, I think I'd play much better too. He WAS a fine player. I suppose drug arrests take a lot out of a guy.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
The 02 World Cup was a shocker in every way. It's funny, crappy World Cups seem to be won by Brazil. 02 was a horrible tournament as was 94, both were won by Brazil. Best World Cups in recent history, 06 ( Italy winners ) and 86 ( Argentina winners ).
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Nah, no offside, at least not where I could see it... In any case, yeah, good summary. In any case, we have to give it to the refs on this cup. Save for Slovenia vs Usa and Germany vs Serbia, referees on this cup are very professional, and there were very few controversial decisions. If anyone remembers 2002 world cup... That was awfull. We were cheated against Spain, they got cheated in the quarterfinals, Italy was cheated, South Korea has only the refs to thank that they got so far... This is nothing in comparison.
In any case - we will finally be on the same page on Sunday! Beat Italy, and I will move to New Zealand and marry your coach.
| |
|
Becks wrote: |
| |
Just found a video of the goal, not sure what was going on, the screen thing said offside, but I'm not sure. The ref saw 'something' cos he blew the whistle before the ball went in. Who knows what he saw though lol. Ah well, as harsh as it sounds, shit happens, deal with it. No point dwelling on shit referees, cos unfortunately they will be encountered in even professional sport. Focus on the next game. I think a draw is a fair result, both teams had defensive lapses from what I saw, and the game was pretty even.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, ill stick to my opinion, regardless of the shitstorm that seems to have engulfed every web page that ends either with .si or .us... The goal was regular, and it was a nice one too. But since the US team deserved at least one red card and got none, ill say it was all fair in the end, with both teams still looking good to qualify to the round of 16.
As for ties, if our teams make it to the playoffs, you wont have to put up with those anymore, because there cant be a tie in playoffs.
Im just a little bit pissed on the supporters of both countries. Youtube comments always make me feel like a nuclear war wouldnt be such a bad thing, but this is something new alltogether.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| Speaking as one that very honestly has NO idea what is going on with regard to this game, I can only assume that there was a grievous error by this referee. I would not know it if I saw it but all the ESPN pundits keep babbling on about it so there has to be something there, no? I was watching and it appeared to me that all the players were pushing and shoving and whatnot. Nothing glaringly obvious that I could see. I do know that I NEVER feel it is right to blame an official for a loss. I mean, the fact remains that the US team did not WIN it. Period. Refs and umpires don't make plays...PLAYERS make them. Or, as in this case, do NOT make them. As for the particulars, that is for you soccer folks to debate. I STILL say ties SUCK! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:58:23 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:51:11 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:47:35 PM Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:56:13 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:01:50 PM |
|
|
| [jimmyjames] Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:57:10 PM | |
|
I recognise some of the names, Beckenbauer, Cryuff, Eusabio, Charlton, Zidane and Maradona but the only ones I've seen play are Maradona and Zidane. Maradona was really fat, at one stage he got to over 100kg, ( 225lbs ). A lot of weight on a short guy. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:46:50 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Exactly why I said that no further comment is necessary. We are obviously speaking on two different wavelengths and I could easily ask what are YOU going on about. You stated that Maradona was the greatest ever and I simply counter that it all depends on your frame of reference. You can't comment on something because you haven't "seen" it? Ok. I simply extrapolate that theory into other realms. Were that to hold true, one couldn't comment on most topics.
Enough. I said all along that I think Brasil has a weak team this time around and that my pick has been Spain. That said, just for you. Maracaná stadium in Rio has a tribute to all the greats of football. Their footprints are set in cement at the entrance (Maradona was a fat guy based on the depth of the impression) and I paid due homage to him and other greats by standing in them.
Down in the lockerroom that leads to the pitch, there are pictures of ALL the greats of the game who were not from Brasil. You may recognize some names. Others must not merit comment.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
I didn't bring up Pele, you did. I didn't dispute anything you said. What are you going on about? So your on the Brazil bandwagon, that's great. I hope they do well for you. What is your point exactly? Gaping hole in the logic of not wanting to comment on a player I haven't seen? You're insinuating that that is some kind of cop out. Using your Led Zep example, if someone was to say "I think Led Zep is the best band ever." and I said " I've never heard them, I can't say." What's wrong with that? (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:30:20 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ah yes, but that goes back to the old adage of "the lack of being able to make a comment is still a comment in and of itself."
No need for further comment (or lack thereof), I just find a gaping hole in such spurious logic. Not having "seen" makes one unable to comment. It all depends on your frame of reference. Ask a youngster nowadays as to who is the better singer: Madonna or Lady GaGa. Back when the FIFA vote of "player of the century" came around, the people were going for Maradona because he was fresher in the minds of those who didn't know much about Pelé. They figured out quickly that their sampling would be skewed due to the age of the respondants. It is just common sense. Which war had the greatest impact? Trojan, 1000 years, WWI or Iraq? Well, I didn't live through the first three. Would any comment I make about them be any less valid or should I just claim the inability to judge because there were no "imbedded journalists" in the first three? (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:42:13 PM)
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
I didn't make any comments about Pele.
(Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, June 18, 2010 9:15:53 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
|
I was in Brasil during that shootout and, I guarantee, it was a nailbiter.
Back to your comment about Pelé....following your logic that he stopped playing before you were born, I question how you can comment on BANDS that stopped playing before you were born. I can all but guarantee that you never saw a Led Zep concert. Did it minimize their influence in the music world? Priest, for that matter? I think not. You gather your information from recordings, awards, impact on the genre and the like. In a similar fashion, you can find footage of Pelé who, I guarantee, revolutionized the game. Again, while Maradona was a good player, time will prove that he had no such longevity nor impact on the game as a whole. Never called "O Rei" (King) of Football, never had a civil war stop to watch him play (Nigeria, if I recall) or named Athlete of the Century by organizations as varied as FIFA (2000), France, UNICEF, England, USA, South America, etc.
Ask someone younger than yourself. I will bet you money that someone 10 years younger would be hard-pressed to name Madona's home country.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
Mainly because the final was decided on a penalty shootout. It sucks when games are decided that way. I remember watching that tournament and it just not having the excitement of previous ones. Might be just me but it was average as far as the World Cup goes.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
why did you think 94 sucked?
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Never seen Pele, he was finished years before I was born, so can't comment. If I was to compare the 02 tournament to the 06 tournament, I would say 02 sucked. That's from someone who has no stake in who wins it.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
I am a fan and I wouldn't say that either tourny sucked. Sorry to disagree. Call it bias for Brasil if you like.
Also, while I admit Maradona was a fine player and I have even had the good fortune to see him in person a few times, he burned out quickly and didn't hold a candle to the likes of someone such as Pelé who was on three WC winning squads. By no means was that a coincidence.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Sour grapes for what? I don't really support any team as such. Be nice to see our guys do well but they are no hope of winning it. We haven't even been in the World Cup much, this is only our second time, the last time was in 82. So as to who wins it, it doesn't really bother me either way. I just like football in general. It's just been a coincidence that Brazil won the last two crappy cups in 02 and 94, that's all. Any fan would tell you those two tournaments sucked.
Maradona was the best ever. Coke or no coke.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ha! Sour grapes, I say. Brazil just "happens" to win? They must have paid off the right people. Nope, certainly couldn't have had anything to do with actual talent. Five times.
As for Maradona, were I that hyped up on coke at the time, I think I'd play much better too. He WAS a fine player. I suppose drug arrests take a lot out of a guy.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
The 02 World Cup was a shocker in every way. It's funny, crappy World Cups seem to be won by Brazil. 02 was a horrible tournament as was 94, both were won by Brazil. Best World Cups in recent history, 06 ( Italy winners ) and 86 ( Argentina winners ).
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Nah, no offside, at least not where I could see it... In any case, yeah, good summary. In any case, we have to give it to the refs on this cup. Save for Slovenia vs Usa and Germany vs Serbia, referees on this cup are very professional, and there were very few controversial decisions. If anyone remembers 2002 world cup... That was awfull. We were cheated against Spain, they got cheated in the quarterfinals, Italy was cheated, South Korea has only the refs to thank that they got so far... This is nothing in comparison.
In any case - we will finally be on the same page on Sunday! Beat Italy, and I will move to New Zealand and marry your coach.
| |
|
Becks wrote: |
| |
Just found a video of the goal, not sure what was going on, the screen thing said offside, but I'm not sure. The ref saw 'something' cos he blew the whistle before the ball went in. Who knows what he saw though lol. Ah well, as harsh as it sounds, shit happens, deal with it. No point dwelling on shit referees, cos unfortunately they will be encountered in even professional sport. Focus on the next game. I think a draw is a fair result, both teams had defensive lapses from what I saw, and the game was pretty even.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, ill stick to my opinion, regardless of the shitstorm that seems to have engulfed every web page that ends either with .si or .us... The goal was regular, and it was a nice one too. But since the US team deserved at least one red card and got none, ill say it was all fair in the end, with both teams still looking good to qualify to the round of 16.
As for ties, if our teams make it to the playoffs, you wont have to put up with those anymore, because there cant be a tie in playoffs.
Im just a little bit pissed on the supporters of both countries. Youtube comments always make me feel like a nuclear war wouldnt be such a bad thing, but this is something new alltogether.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| Speaking as one that very honestly has NO idea what is going on with regard to this game, I can only assume that there was a grievous error by this referee. I would not know it if I saw it but all the ESPN pundits keep babbling on about it so there has to be something there, no? I was watching and it appeared to me that all the players were pushing and shoving and whatnot. Nothing glaringly obvious that I could see. I do know that I NEVER feel it is right to blame an official for a loss. I mean, the fact remains that the US team did not WIN it. Period. Refs and umpires don't make plays...PLAYERS make them. Or, as in this case, do NOT make them. As for the particulars, that is for you soccer folks to debate. I STILL say ties SUCK! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:58:23 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:51:11 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:47:35 PM Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:56:13 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:01:50 PM |
|
| [Becks] Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:51:59 PM | |
|
I only recognise 3 of those people, LOL!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:46:50 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | Exactly why I said that no further comment is necessary. We are obviously speaking on two different wavelengths and I could easily ask what are YOU going on about. You stated that Maradona was the greatest ever and I simply counter that it all depends on your frame of reference. You can't comment on something because you haven't "seen" it? Ok. I simply extrapolate that theory into other realms. Were that to hold true, one couldn't comment on most topics.
Enough. I said all along that I think Brasil has a weak team this time around and that my pick has been Spain. That said, just for you. Maracaná stadium in Rio has a tribute to all the greats of football. Their footprints are set in cement at the entrance (Maradona was a fat guy based on the depth of the impression) and I paid due homage to him and other greats by standing in them.
Down in the lockerroom that leads to the pitch, there are pictures of ALL the greats of the game who were not from Brasil. You may recognize some names. Others must not merit comment.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I didn't bring up Pele, you did. I didn't dispute anything you said. What are you going on about? So your on the Brazil bandwagon, that's great. I hope they do well for you. What is your point exactly? Gaping hole in the logic of not wanting to comment on a player I haven't seen? You're insinuating that that is some kind of cop out. Using your Led Zep example, if someone was to say "I think Led Zep is the best band ever." and I said " I've never heard them, I can't say." What's wrong with that? (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:30:20 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ah yes, but that goes back to the old adage of "the lack of being able to make a comment is still a comment in and of itself."
No need for further comment (or lack thereof), I just find a gaping hole in such spurious logic. Not having "seen" makes one unable to comment. It all depends on your frame of reference. Ask a youngster nowadays as to who is the better singer: Madonna or Lady GaGa. Back when the FIFA vote of "player of the century" came around, the people were going for Maradona because he was fresher in the minds of those who didn't know much about Pelé. They figured out quickly that their sampling would be skewed due to the age of the respondants. It is just common sense. Which war had the greatest impact? Trojan, 1000 years, WWI or Iraq? Well, I didn't live through the first three. Would any comment I make about them be any less valid or should I just claim the inability to judge because there were no "imbedded journalists" in the first three? (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:42:13 PM)
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
I didn't make any comments about Pele.
(Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, June 18, 2010 9:15:53 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
|
I was in Brasil during that shootout and, I guarantee, it was a nailbiter.
Back to your comment about Pelé....following your logic that he stopped playing before you were born, I question how you can comment on BANDS that stopped playing before you were born. I can all but guarantee that you never saw a Led Zep concert. Did it minimize their influence in the music world? Priest, for that matter? I think not. You gather your information from recordings, awards, impact on the genre and the like. In a similar fashion, you can find footage of Pelé who, I guarantee, revolutionized the game. Again, while Maradona was a good player, time will prove that he had no such longevity nor impact on the game as a whole. Never called "O Rei" (King) of Football, never had a civil war stop to watch him play (Nigeria, if I recall) or named Athlete of the Century by organizations as varied as FIFA (2000), France, UNICEF, England, USA, South America, etc.
Ask someone younger than yourself. I will bet you money that someone 10 years younger would be hard-pressed to name Madona's home country.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
Mainly because the final was decided on a penalty shootout. It sucks when games are decided that way. I remember watching that tournament and it just not having the excitement of previous ones. Might be just me but it was average as far as the World Cup goes.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
why did you think 94 sucked?
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Never seen Pele, he was finished years before I was born, so can't comment. If I was to compare the 02 tournament to the 06 tournament, I would say 02 sucked. That's from someone who has no stake in who wins it.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
I am a fan and I wouldn't say that either tourny sucked. Sorry to disagree. Call it bias for Brasil if you like.
Also, while I admit Maradona was a fine player and I have even had the good fortune to see him in person a few times, he burned out quickly and didn't hold a candle to the likes of someone such as Pelé who was on three WC winning squads. By no means was that a coincidence.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Sour grapes for what? I don't really support any team as such. Be nice to see our guys do well but they are no hope of winning it. We haven't even been in the World Cup much, this is only our second time, the last time was in 82. So as to who wins it, it doesn't really bother me either way. I just like football in general. It's just been a coincidence that Brazil won the last two crappy cups in 02 and 94, that's all. Any fan would tell you those two tournaments sucked.
Maradona was the best ever. Coke or no coke.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ha! Sour grapes, I say. Brazil just "happens" to win? They must have paid off the right people. Nope, certainly couldn't have had anything to do with actual talent. Five times.
As for Maradona, were I that hyped up on coke at the time, I think I'd play much better too. He WAS a fine player. I suppose drug arrests take a lot out of a guy.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
The 02 World Cup was a shocker in every way. It's funny, crappy World Cups seem to be won by Brazil. 02 was a horrible tournament as was 94, both were won by Brazil. Best World Cups in recent history, 06 ( Italy winners ) and 86 ( Argentina winners ).
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Nah, no offside, at least not where I could see it... In any case, yeah, good summary. In any case, we have to give it to the refs on this cup. Save for Slovenia vs Usa and Germany vs Serbia, referees on this cup are very professional, and there were very few controversial decisions. If anyone remembers 2002 world cup... That was awfull. We were cheated against Spain, they got cheated in the quarterfinals, Italy was cheated, South Korea has only the refs to thank that they got so far... This is nothing in comparison.
In any case - we will finally be on the same page on Sunday! Beat Italy, and I will move to New Zealand and marry your coach.
| |
|
Becks wrote: |
| |
Just found a video of the goal, not sure what was going on, the screen thing said offside, but I'm not sure. The ref saw 'something' cos he blew the whistle before the ball went in. Who knows what he saw though lol. Ah well, as harsh as it sounds, shit happens, deal with it. No point dwelling on shit referees, cos unfortunately they will be encountered in even professional sport. Focus on the next game. I think a draw is a fair result, both teams had defensive lapses from what I saw, and the game was pretty even.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, ill stick to my opinion, regardless of the shitstorm that seems to have engulfed every web page that ends either with .si or .us... The goal was regular, and it was a nice one too. But since the US team deserved at least one red card and got none, ill say it was all fair in the end, with both teams still looking good to qualify to the round of 16.
As for ties, if our teams make it to the playoffs, you wont have to put up with those anymore, because there cant be a tie in playoffs.
Im just a little bit pissed on the supporters of both countries. Youtube comments always make me feel like a nuclear war wouldnt be such a bad thing, but this is something new alltogether.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| Speaking as one that very honestly has NO idea what is going on with regard to this game, I can only assume that there was a grievous error by this referee. I would not know it if I saw it but all the ESPN pundits keep babbling on about it so there has to be something there, no? I was watching and it appeared to me that all the players were pushing and shoving and whatnot. Nothing glaringly obvious that I could see. I do know that I NEVER feel it is right to blame an official for a loss. I mean, the fact remains that the US team did not WIN it. Period. Refs and umpires don't make plays...PLAYERS make them. Or, as in this case, do NOT make them. As for the particulars, that is for you soccer folks to debate. I STILL say ties SUCK! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:58:23 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:51:11 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:47:35 PM
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:56:13 PM |
|
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:46:50 PM | |
|
Exactly why I said that no further comment is necessary. We are obviously speaking on two different wavelengths and I could easily ask what are YOU going on about. You stated that Maradona was the greatest ever and I simply counter that it all depends on your frame of reference. You can't comment on something because you haven't "seen" it? Ok. I simply extrapolate that theory into other realms. Were that to hold true, one couldn't comment on most topics.
Enough. I said all along that I think Brasil has a weak team this time around and that my pick has been Spain. That said, just for you. Maracaná stadium in Rio has a tribute to all the greats of football. Their footprints are set in cement at the entrance (Maradona was a fat guy based on the depth of the impression) and I paid due homage to him and other greats by standing in them.
Down in the lockerroom that leads to the pitch, there are pictures of ALL the greats of the game who were not from Brasil. You may recognize some names. Others must not merit comment.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:41:09 PM)| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I didn't bring up Pele, you did. I didn't dispute anything you said. What are you going on about? So your on the Brazil bandwagon, that's great. I hope they do well for you. What is your point exactly? Gaping hole in the logic of not wanting to comment on a player I haven't seen? You're insinuating that that is some kind of cop out. Using your Led Zep example, if someone was to say "I think Led Zep is the best band ever." and I said " I've never heard them, I can't say." What's wrong with that? (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:30:20 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ah yes, but that goes back to the old adage of "the lack of being able to make a comment is still a comment in and of itself."
No need for further comment (or lack thereof), I just find a gaping hole in such spurious logic. Not having "seen" makes one unable to comment. It all depends on your frame of reference. Ask a youngster nowadays as to who is the better singer: Madonna or Lady GaGa. Back when the FIFA vote of "player of the century" came around, the people were going for Maradona because he was fresher in the minds of those who didn't know much about Pelé. They figured out quickly that their sampling would be skewed due to the age of the respondants. It is just common sense. Which war had the greatest impact? Trojan, 1000 years, WWI or Iraq? Well, I didn't live through the first three. Would any comment I make about them be any less valid or should I just claim the inability to judge because there were no "imbedded journalists" in the first three? (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:42:13 PM)
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
I didn't make any comments about Pele.
(Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, June 18, 2010 9:15:53 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
|
I was in Brasil during that shootout and, I guarantee, it was a nailbiter.
Back to your comment about Pelé....following your logic that he stopped playing before you were born, I question how you can comment on BANDS that stopped playing before you were born. I can all but guarantee that you never saw a Led Zep concert. Did it minimize their influence in the music world? Priest, for that matter? I think not. You gather your information from recordings, awards, impact on the genre and the like. In a similar fashion, you can find footage of Pelé who, I guarantee, revolutionized the game. Again, while Maradona was a good player, time will prove that he had no such longevity nor impact on the game as a whole. Never called "O Rei" (King) of Football, never had a civil war stop to watch him play (Nigeria, if I recall) or named Athlete of the Century by organizations as varied as FIFA (2000), France, UNICEF, England, USA, South America, etc.
Ask someone younger than yourself. I will bet you money that someone 10 years younger would be hard-pressed to name Madona's home country.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
Mainly because the final was decided on a penalty shootout. It sucks when games are decided that way. I remember watching that tournament and it just not having the excitement of previous ones. Might be just me but it was average as far as the World Cup goes.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
why did you think 94 sucked?
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Never seen Pele, he was finished years before I was born, so can't comment. If I was to compare the 02 tournament to the 06 tournament, I would say 02 sucked. That's from someone who has no stake in who wins it.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
I am a fan and I wouldn't say that either tourny sucked. Sorry to disagree. Call it bias for Brasil if you like.
Also, while I admit Maradona was a fine player and I have even had the good fortune to see him in person a few times, he burned out quickly and didn't hold a candle to the likes of someone such as Pelé who was on three WC winning squads. By no means was that a coincidence.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Sour grapes for what? I don't really support any team as such. Be nice to see our guys do well but they are no hope of winning it. We haven't even been in the World Cup much, this is only our second time, the last time was in 82. So as to who wins it, it doesn't really bother me either way. I just like football in general. It's just been a coincidence that Brazil won the last two crappy cups in 02 and 94, that's all. Any fan would tell you those two tournaments sucked.
Maradona was the best ever. Coke or no coke.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ha! Sour grapes, I say. Brazil just "happens" to win? They must have paid off the right people. Nope, certainly couldn't have had anything to do with actual talent. Five times.
As for Maradona, were I that hyped up on coke at the time, I think I'd play much better too. He WAS a fine player. I suppose drug arrests take a lot out of a guy.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
The 02 World Cup was a shocker in every way. It's funny, crappy World Cups seem to be won by Brazil. 02 was a horrible tournament as was 94, both were won by Brazil. Best World Cups in recent history, 06 ( Italy winners ) and 86 ( Argentina winners ).
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Nah, no offside, at least not where I could see it... In any case, yeah, good summary. In any case, we have to give it to the refs on this cup. Save for Slovenia vs Usa and Germany vs Serbia, referees on this cup are very professional, and there were very few controversial decisions. If anyone remembers 2002 world cup... That was awfull. We were cheated against Spain, they got cheated in the quarterfinals, Italy was cheated, South Korea has only the refs to thank that they got so far... This is nothing in comparison.
In any case - we will finally be on the same page on Sunday! Beat Italy, and I will move to New Zealand and marry your coach.
| |
|
Becks wrote: |
| |
Just found a video of the goal, not sure what was going on, the screen thing said offside, but I'm not sure. The ref saw 'something' cos he blew the whistle before the ball went in. Who knows what he saw though lol. Ah well, as harsh as it sounds, shit happens, deal with it. No point dwelling on shit referees, cos unfortunately they will be encountered in even professional sport. Focus on the next game. I think a draw is a fair result, both teams had defensive lapses from what I saw, and the game was pretty even.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, ill stick to my opinion, regardless of the shitstorm that seems to have engulfed every web page that ends either with .si or .us... The goal was regular, and it was a nice one too. But since the US team deserved at least one red card and got none, ill say it was all fair in the end, with both teams still looking good to qualify to the round of 16.
As for ties, if our teams make it to the playoffs, you wont have to put up with those anymore, because there cant be a tie in playoffs.
Im just a little bit pissed on the supporters of both countries. Youtube comments always make me feel like a nuclear war wouldnt be such a bad thing, but this is something new alltogether.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| Speaking as one that very honestly has NO idea what is going on with regard to this game, I can only assume that there was a grievous error by this referee. I would not know it if I saw it but all the ESPN pundits keep babbling on about it so there has to be something there, no? I was watching and it appeared to me that all the players were pushing and shoving and whatnot. Nothing glaringly obvious that I could see. I do know that I NEVER feel it is right to blame an official for a loss. I mean, the fact remains that the US team did not WIN it. Period. Refs and umpires don't make plays...PLAYERS make them. Or, as in this case, do NOT make them. As for the particulars, that is for you soccer folks to debate. I STILL say ties SUCK! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:58:23 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:51:11 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:47:35 PM
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:56:13 PM |
|
|
| [jimmyjames] Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:41:09 PM | |
|
I didn't bring up Pele, you did. I didn't dispute anything you said. What are you going on about? So your on the Brazil bandwagon, that's great. I hope they do well for you. What is your point exactly? Gaping hole in the logic of not wanting to comment on a player I haven't seen? You're insinuating that that is some kind of cop out. Using your Led Zep example, if someone was to say "I think Led Zep is the best band ever." and I said " I've never heard them, I can't say." What's wrong with that? [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:30:20 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ah yes, but that goes back to the old adage of "the lack of being able to make a comment is still a comment in and of itself."
No need for further comment (or lack thereof), I just find a gaping hole in such spurious logic. Not having "seen" makes one unable to comment. It all depends on your frame of reference. Ask a youngster nowadays as to who is the better singer: Madonna or Lady GaGa. Back when the FIFA vote of "player of the century" came around, the people were going for Maradona because he was fresher in the minds of those who didn't know much about Pelé. They figured out quickly that their sampling would be skewed due to the age of the respondants. It is just common sense. Which war had the greatest impact? Trojan, 1000 years, WWI or Iraq? Well, I didn't live through the first three. Would any comment I make about them be any less valid or should I just claim the inability to judge because there were no "imbedded journalists" in the first three? (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:42:13 PM)
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
I didn't make any comments about Pele.
(Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, June 18, 2010 9:15:53 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
|
I was in Brasil during that shootout and, I guarantee, it was a nailbiter.
Back to your comment about Pelé....following your logic that he stopped playing before you were born, I question how you can comment on BANDS that stopped playing before you were born. I can all but guarantee that you never saw a Led Zep concert. Did it minimize their influence in the music world? Priest, for that matter? I think not. You gather your information from recordings, awards, impact on the genre and the like. In a similar fashion, you can find footage of Pelé who, I guarantee, revolutionized the game. Again, while Maradona was a good player, time will prove that he had no such longevity nor impact on the game as a whole. Never called "O Rei" (King) of Football, never had a civil war stop to watch him play (Nigeria, if I recall) or named Athlete of the Century by organizations as varied as FIFA (2000), France, UNICEF, England, USA, South America, etc.
Ask someone younger than yourself. I will bet you money that someone 10 years younger would be hard-pressed to name Madona's home country.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
Mainly because the final was decided on a penalty shootout. It sucks when games are decided that way. I remember watching that tournament and it just not having the excitement of previous ones. Might be just me but it was average as far as the World Cup goes.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
why did you think 94 sucked?
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Never seen Pele, he was finished years before I was born, so can't comment. If I was to compare the 02 tournament to the 06 tournament, I would say 02 sucked. That's from someone who has no stake in who wins it.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
I am a fan and I wouldn't say that either tourny sucked. Sorry to disagree. Call it bias for Brasil if you like.
Also, while I admit Maradona was a fine player and I have even had the good fortune to see him in person a few times, he burned out quickly and didn't hold a candle to the likes of someone such as Pelé who was on three WC winning squads. By no means was that a coincidence.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Sour grapes for what? I don't really support any team as such. Be nice to see our guys do well but they are no hope of winning it. We haven't even been in the World Cup much, this is only our second time, the last time was in 82. So as to who wins it, it doesn't really bother me either way. I just like football in general. It's just been a coincidence that Brazil won the last two crappy cups in 02 and 94, that's all. Any fan would tell you those two tournaments sucked.
Maradona was the best ever. Coke or no coke.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ha! Sour grapes, I say. Brazil just "happens" to win? They must have paid off the right people. Nope, certainly couldn't have had anything to do with actual talent. Five times.
As for Maradona, were I that hyped up on coke at the time, I think I'd play much better too. He WAS a fine player. I suppose drug arrests take a lot out of a guy.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
The 02 World Cup was a shocker in every way. It's funny, crappy World Cups seem to be won by Brazil. 02 was a horrible tournament as was 94, both were won by Brazil. Best World Cups in recent history, 06 ( Italy winners ) and 86 ( Argentina winners ).
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Nah, no offside, at least not where I could see it... In any case, yeah, good summary. In any case, we have to give it to the refs on this cup. Save for Slovenia vs Usa and Germany vs Serbia, referees on this cup are very professional, and there were very few controversial decisions. If anyone remembers 2002 world cup... That was awfull. We were cheated against Spain, they got cheated in the quarterfinals, Italy was cheated, South Korea has only the refs to thank that they got so far... This is nothing in comparison.
In any case - we will finally be on the same page on Sunday! Beat Italy, and I will move to New Zealand and marry your coach.
| |
|
Becks wrote: |
| |
Just found a video of the goal, not sure what was going on, the screen thing said offside, but I'm not sure. The ref saw 'something' cos he blew the whistle before the ball went in. Who knows what he saw though lol. Ah well, as harsh as it sounds, shit happens, deal with it. No point dwelling on shit referees, cos unfortunately they will be encountered in even professional sport. Focus on the next game. I think a draw is a fair result, both teams had defensive lapses from what I saw, and the game was pretty even.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, ill stick to my opinion, regardless of the shitstorm that seems to have engulfed every web page that ends either with .si or .us... The goal was regular, and it was a nice one too. But since the US team deserved at least one red card and got none, ill say it was all fair in the end, with both teams still looking good to qualify to the round of 16.
As for ties, if our teams make it to the playoffs, you wont have to put up with those anymore, because there cant be a tie in playoffs.
Im just a little bit pissed on the supporters of both countries. Youtube comments always make me feel like a nuclear war wouldnt be such a bad thing, but this is something new alltogether.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| Speaking as one that very honestly has NO idea what is going on with regard to this game, I can only assume that there was a grievous error by this referee. I would not know it if I saw it but all the ESPN pundits keep babbling on about it so there has to be something there, no? I was watching and it appeared to me that all the players were pushing and shoving and whatnot. Nothing glaringly obvious that I could see. I do know that I NEVER feel it is right to blame an official for a loss. I mean, the fact remains that the US team did not WIN it. Period. Refs and umpires don't make plays...PLAYERS make them. Or, as in this case, do NOT make them. As for the particulars, that is for you soccer folks to debate. I STILL say ties SUCK! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:58:23 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:51:11 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:47:35 PM
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 6:56:13 PM |
|
| [guidogodoy] Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:30:20 PM | |
|
Ah yes, but that goes back to the old adage of "the lack of being able to make a comment is still a comment in and of itself."
No need for further comment (or lack thereof), I just find a gaping hole in such spurious logic. Not having "seen" makes one unable to comment. It all depends on your frame of reference. Ask a youngster nowadays as to who is the better singer: Madonna or Lady GaGa. Back when the FIFA vote of "player of the century" came around, the people were going for Maradona because he was fresher in the minds of those who didn't know much about Pelé. They figured out quickly that their sampling would be skewed due to the age of the respondants. It is just common sense. Which war had the greatest impact? Trojan, 1000 years, WWI or Iraq? Well, I didn't live through the first three. Would any comment I make about them be any less valid or should I just claim the inability to judge because there were no "imbedded journalists" in the first three? [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:42:13 PM)
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
I didn't make any comments about Pele.
(Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, June 18, 2010 9:15:53 PM)
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
|
I was in Brasil during that shootout and, I guarantee, it was a nailbiter.
Back to your comment about Pelé....following your logic that he stopped playing before you were born, I question how you can comment on BANDS that stopped playing before you were born. I can all but guarantee that you never saw a Led Zep concert. Did it minimize their influence in the music world? Priest, for that matter? I think not. You gather your information from recordings, awards, impact on the genre and the like. In a similar fashion, you can find footage of Pelé who, I guarantee, revolutionized the game. Again, while Maradona was a good player, time will prove that he had no such longevity nor impact on the game as a whole. Never called "O Rei" (King) of Football, never had a civil war stop to watch him play (Nigeria, if I recall) or named Athlete of the Century by organizations as varied as FIFA (2000), France, UNICEF, England, USA, South America, etc.
Ask someone younger than yourself. I will bet you money that someone 10 years younger would be hard-pressed to name Madona's home country.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
|
Mainly because the final was decided on a penalty shootout. It sucks when games are decided that way. I remember watching that tournament and it just not having the excitement of previous ones. Might be just me but it was average as far as the World Cup goes.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
why did you think 94 sucked?
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Never seen Pele, he was finished years before I was born, so can't comment. If I was to compare the 02 tournament to the 06 tournament, I would say 02 sucked. That's from someone who has no stake in who wins it.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
I am a fan and I wouldn't say that either tourny sucked. Sorry to disagree. Call it bias for Brasil if you like.
Also, while I admit Maradona was a fine player and I have even had the good fortune to see him in person a few times, he burned out quickly and didn't hold a candle to the likes of someone such as Pelé who was on three WC winning squads. By no means was that a coincidence.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
Sour grapes for what? I don't really support any team as such. Be nice to see our guys do well but they are no hope of winning it. We haven't even been in the World Cup much, this is only our second time, the last time was in 82. So as to who wins it, it doesn't really bother me either way. I just like football in general. It's just been a coincidence that Brazil won the last two crappy cups in 02 and 94, that's all. Any fan would tell you those two tournaments sucked.
Maradona was the best ever. Coke or no coke.
| |
|
guidogodoy wrote: |
| |
Ha! Sour grapes, I say. Brazil just "happens" to win? They must have paid off the right people. Nope, certainly couldn't have had anything to do with actual talent. Five times.
As for Maradona, were I that hyped up on coke at the time, I think I'd play much better too. He WAS a fine player. I suppose drug arrests take a lot out of a guy.
| |
|
jimmyjames wrote: |
| |
The 02 World Cup was a shocker in every way. It's funny, crappy World Cups seem to be won by Brazil. 02 was a horrible tournament as was 94, both were won by Brazil. Best World Cups in recent history, 06 ( Italy winners ) and 86 ( Argentina winners ).
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Nah, no offside, at least not where I could see it... In any case, yeah, good summary. In any case, we have to give it to the refs on this cup. Save for Slovenia vs Usa and Germany vs Serbia, referees on this cup are very professional, and there were very few controversial decisions. If anyone remembers 2002 world cup... That was awfull. We were cheated against Spain, they got cheated in the quarterfinals, Italy was cheated, South Korea has only the refs to thank that they got so far... This is nothing in comparison.
In any case - we will finally be on the same page on Sunday! Beat Italy, and I will move to New Zealand and marry your coach.
| |
|
Becks wrote: |
| |
Just found a video of the goal, not sure what was going on, the screen thing said offside, but I'm not sure. The ref saw 'something' cos he blew the whistle before the ball went in. Who knows what he saw though lol. Ah well, as harsh as it sounds, shit happens, deal with it. No point dwelling on shit referees, cos unfortunately they will be encountered in even professional sport. Focus on the next game. I think a draw is a fair result, both teams had defensive lapses from what I saw, and the game was pretty even.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, ill stick to my opinion, regardless of the shitstorm that seems to have engulfed every web page that ends either with .si or .us... The goal was regular, and it was a nice one too. But since the US team deserved at least one red card and got none, ill say it was all fair in the end, with both teams still looking good to qualify to the round of 16.
As for ties, if our teams make it to the playoffs, you wont have to put up with those anymore, because there cant be a tie in playoffs.
Im just a little bit pissed on the supporters of both countries. Youtube comments always make me feel like a nuclear war wouldnt be such a bad thing, but this is something new alltogether.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| Speaking as one that very honestly has NO idea what is going on with regard to this game, I can only assume that there was a grievous error by this referee. I would not know it if I saw it but all the ESPN pundits keep babbling on about it so there has to be something there, no? I was watching and it appeared to me that all the players were pushing and shoving and whatnot. Nothing glaringly obvious that I could see. I do know that I NEVER feel it is right to blame an official for a loss. I mean, the fact remains that the US team did not WIN it. Period. Refs and umpires don't make plays...PLAYERS make them. Or, as in this case, do NOT make them. As for the particulars, that is for you soccer folks to debate. I STILL say ties SUCK! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:58:23 PM |
Edited at: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:51:11 PM |
|
| [Becks] Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:02:25 PM | |
|
Hahahaha I hope so, smash that stupid Ricky Ponting, then I'll laugh.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:00:46 PM)| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I'm hoping England smash them in the cricket next week too.
| | | Becks wrote: | | Yeah I watched the ABs, Wales started strong but faded away a bit. Glad to see Aussie lost to England in the rugby too LOL!!
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | Not sure, I guess, judging by what happend to Kewell you're right. Did you see the All Blacks, best game they've played in ages, average opposition though but it was good to see Dan Carter find some of his old form.
| | | Becks wrote: | | I heard somewhere they need to beat Serbia by 3 goals, not sure if that's right though. Just watching a replay of the Aussie match now, lots of Aussies up in arms about the red card. As far as I know if it hits your arm on the goal line it's a straight red, but I am not sure.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I saw that, gutted they're still in with a mathematical chance. Denmark Japan should be a good game judging by last nights results. Looking forward to tonights game too, I'd love it if we got a point against the Italians.
| | | Becks wrote: | | | Hey JJ - I see Harry Kewell got sent off in Australias draw with Ghana. Fricken dirty as team Australia are at the moment. They were all waiting for Kewell to return too, and now he's gone and stuffed it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [jimmyjames] Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:00:46 PM | |
|
I'm hoping England smash them in the cricket next week too.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Becks from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:56:05 PM)| | | Becks wrote: | | Yeah I watched the ABs, Wales started strong but faded away a bit. Glad to see Aussie lost to England in the rugby too LOL!!
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | Not sure, I guess, judging by what happend to Kewell you're right. Did you see the All Blacks, best game they've played in ages, average opposition though but it was good to see Dan Carter find some of his old form.
| | | Becks wrote: | | I heard somewhere they need to beat Serbia by 3 goals, not sure if that's right though. Just watching a replay of the Aussie match now, lots of Aussies up in arms about the red card. As far as I know if it hits your arm on the goal line it's a straight red, but I am not sure.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I saw that, gutted they're still in with a mathematical chance. Denmark Japan should be a good game judging by last nights results. Looking forward to tonights game too, I'd love it if we got a point against the Italians.
| | | Becks wrote: | | | Hey JJ - I see Harry Kewell got sent off in Australias draw with Ghana. Fricken dirty as team Australia are at the moment. They were all waiting for Kewell to return too, and now he's gone and stuffed it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [jimmyjames] Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:59:21 PM | |
|
That was a close game, lots of agro from the front rows, cracked me up.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Becks from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:56:05 PM)| | | Becks wrote: | | Yeah I watched the ABs, Wales started strong but faded away a bit. Glad to see Aussie lost to England in the rugby too LOL!!
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | Not sure, I guess, judging by what happend to Kewell you're right. Did you see the All Blacks, best game they've played in ages, average opposition though but it was good to see Dan Carter find some of his old form.
| | | Becks wrote: | | I heard somewhere they need to beat Serbia by 3 goals, not sure if that's right though. Just watching a replay of the Aussie match now, lots of Aussies up in arms about the red card. As far as I know if it hits your arm on the goal line it's a straight red, but I am not sure.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I saw that, gutted they're still in with a mathematical chance. Denmark Japan should be a good game judging by last nights results. Looking forward to tonights game too, I'd love it if we got a point against the Italians.
| | | Becks wrote: | | | Hey JJ - I see Harry Kewell got sent off in Australias draw with Ghana. Fricken dirty as team Australia are at the moment. They were all waiting for Kewell to return too, and now he's gone and stuffed it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Becks] Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:56:05 PM | |
|
Yeah I watched the ABs, Wales started strong but faded away a bit. Glad to see Aussie lost to England in the rugby too LOL!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:54:20 PM)| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | Not sure, I guess, judging by what happend to Kewell you're right. Did you see the All Blacks, best game they've played in ages, average opposition though but it was good to see Dan Carter find some of his old form.
| | | Becks wrote: | | I heard somewhere they need to beat Serbia by 3 goals, not sure if that's right though. Just watching a replay of the Aussie match now, lots of Aussies up in arms about the red card. As far as I know if it hits your arm on the goal line it's a straight red, but I am not sure.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I saw that, gutted they're still in with a mathematical chance. Denmark Japan should be a good game judging by last nights results. Looking forward to tonights game too, I'd love it if we got a point against the Italians.
| | | Becks wrote: | | | Hey JJ - I see Harry Kewell got sent off in Australias draw with Ghana. Fricken dirty as team Australia are at the moment. They were all waiting for Kewell to return too, and now he's gone and stuffed it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [jimmyjames] Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:54:20 PM | |
|
Not sure, I guess, judging by what happend to Kewell you're right. Did you see the All Blacks, best game they've played in ages, average opposition though but it was good to see Dan Carter find some of his old form.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Becks from Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:49:46 PM)| | | Becks wrote: | | I heard somewhere they need to beat Serbia by 3 goals, not sure if that's right though. Just watching a replay of the Aussie match now, lots of Aussies up in arms about the red card. As far as I know if it hits your arm on the goal line it's a straight red, but I am not sure.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | I saw that, gutted they're still in with a mathematical chance. Denmark Japan should be a good game judging by last nights results. Looking forward to tonights game too, I'd love it if we got a point against the Italians.
| | | Becks wrote: | | | Hey JJ - I see Harry Kewell got sent off in Australias draw with Ghana. Fricken dirty as team Australia are at the moment. They were all waiting for Kewell to return too, and now he's gone and stuffed it up. |
|
|
|
|
