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!