World Cup 2010 Thread

[Walker]

Despite the clearly offside goal, Mexico showed they could control the ball and penetrate the Argentinian defence, even if they couldn't get more than one goal from it. Unfortunately, that is bad news of Argentina. Maradonna's managing skills have been held in question before, and that sort of thing has gone quiet since the World Cup started because of Argentina's excellent attacking players, but one wonders what will happen when they go against a team like Germany who can control the ball, get through midfield and score.

Luckily for me, I said this World Cup felt like a Germany World Cup, so now I go back to backing them, followed by Ghana, followed by Spain.

Edited June 27, 2010 by WalkerWGZ

[sahyder1]

I just love how when it happened to us (twice) people in this thread were saying that sure it sucked but that's the game and no reason to shout out for FIFA to make changes because it won't. We said it'd be different if it happened to England or some "big" team.

Well, now it happened to England and there's a hell of a lot more people chirping about how FIFA needs to make changes

I'm sorry, I think there's a big difference between offside and the ball crossing the line. I know that might be hypocritical because I am English, and I would be angry if England had scored a goal when they were onside. But there's something very, very different about it. And the US one's happened in a group stage and they still made it through. If we had won the game, it wouldn't be as a big of a deal.

But that goal denied us 2-2, and that could've changed the whole game.

Yes, we were shit afterwards and deserved to lose. But it will always be a what-if situation. However, somehow, I'm more glad we lost 4-1 than 2-1. Because if we had, I'd be fuming - as would everyone in the country.

No...there is not a big difference from the two aside from you being a fan of England and therefore you're trying to tell yourself that you got screwed. Both were goals. Both were horrible calls from the officials.

If you want to go into the what-ifs US having a win vs Slovenia would have created more momentum for the US too and who knows how that translates into a different US game tomorrow. The whole "what if" just doesn't make sense if you just want to play it for one side.

[Jimmy]

Oh, and imagine the uproar if they'd have reversed the Mexican decision and not the England one. Everything would've been fucked.

The Mexican situation is different because they blatantly showed Tevez standing behind the offside line heading the ball into the goal, on the big screen in the stadium. Before that the Mexican players were like 'fine, whatever', but then they saw the replay and stormed the ref. How they could ignore the blatant proof is beyond me. I don't give a shit if he pointed to the middle line, you're still allowed before the whistle to reverse the decision. They showed Zidane a red card after the 4th official used a replay! Who's going to criticize the ref if he says it's a goal kick? 'Oh you reversed an unfair goal, shame on you!'.

Oh definitely. It just wouldn't be fair to use video technology to aid a decision in one game, and not another.

I just love how when it happened to us (twice) people in this thread were saying that sure it sucked but that's the game and no reason to shout out for FIFA to make changes because it won't. We said it'd be different if it happened to England or some "big" team.

Well, now it happened to England and there's a hell of a lot more people chirping about how FIFA needs to make changes

I'm sorry, I think there's a big difference between offside and the ball crossing the line. I know that might be hypocritical because I am English, and I would be angry if England had scored a goal when they were onside. But there's something very, very different about it. And the US one's happened in a group stage and they still made it through. If we had won the game, it wouldn't be as a big of a deal.

But that goal denied us 2-2, and that could've changed the whole game.

Yes, we were shit afterwards and deserved to lose. But it will always be a what-if situation. However, somehow, I'm more glad we lost 4-1 than 2-1. Because if we had, I'd be fuming - as would everyone in the country.

No...there is not a big difference from the two aside from you being a fan of England and therefore you're trying to tell yourself that you got screwed. Both were goals. Both were horrible calls from the officials.

If you want to go into the what-ifs US having a win vs Slovenia would have created more momentum for the US too and who knows how that translates into a different US game tomorrow. The whole "what if" just doesn't make sense if you just want to play it for one side.

You're kind of twisting my words there, but you're right, it does boil down to the fact I'm an England fan. The US problem was that theu couldn't score goals.

Ultimately, England's problem is we could stop them going in.

[Rich]

The two problems lead to the same scenario though... ELIMINATION

[sahyder1]

Oh, and imagine the uproar if they'd have reversed the Mexican decision and not the England one. Everything would've been fucked.

The Mexican situation is different because they blatantly showed Tevez standing behind the offside line heading the ball into the goal, on the big screen in the stadium. Before that the Mexican players were like 'fine, whatever', but then they saw the replay and stormed the ref. How they could ignore the blatant proof is beyond me. I don't give a shit if he pointed to the middle line, you're still allowed before the whistle to reverse the decision. They showed Zidane a red card after the 4th official used a replay! Who's going to criticize the ref if he says it's a goal kick? 'Oh you reversed an unfair goal, shame on you!'.

Oh definitely. It just wouldn't be fair to use video technology to aid a decision in one game, and not another.

I just love how when it happened to us (twice) people in this thread were saying that sure it sucked but that's the game and no reason to shout out for FIFA to make changes because it won't. We said it'd be different if it happened to England or some "big" team.

Well, now it happened to England and there's a hell of a lot more people chirping about how FIFA needs to make changes

I'm sorry, I think there's a big difference between offside and the ball crossing the line. I know that might be hypocritical because I am English, and I would be angry if England had scored a goal when they were onside. But there's something very, very different about it. And the US one's happened in a group stage and they still made it through. If we had won the game, it wouldn't be as a big of a deal.

But that goal denied us 2-2, and that could've changed the whole game.

Yes, we were shit afterwards and deserved to lose. But it will always be a what-if situation. However, somehow, I'm more glad we lost 4-1 than 2-1. Because if we had, I'd be fuming - as would everyone in the country.

No...there is not a big difference from the two aside from you being a fan of England and therefore you're trying to tell yourself that you got screwed. Both were goals. Both were horrible calls from the officials.

If you want to go into the what-ifs US having a win vs Slovenia would have created more momentum for the US too and who knows how that translates into a different US game tomorrow. The whole "what if" just doesn't make sense if you just want to play it for one side.

You're kind of twisting my words there, but you're right, it does boil down to the fact I'm an England fan. The US problem was that theu couldn't score goals.

Ultimately, England's problem is we could stop them going in.

How am I twisting your words? You're the one who went into the whole "what if" scenario. Once you bring the "what if" scenarios in and only apply it for one team your point is nullified in my opinion. Like I said, fans of every team can create "what if" scenarios. They don't mean anything. England couldn't score any goals either so what exactly is your point?

Plus, you admitted your view is biased so that ends that.

[DFF]

Well, that was fun wasn't it

At least Argentina v Mexico was (generally) a good game, with a belting goal from Tevez.

But yes, England. I forget who said it earlier, but I agree with the principle of dropping the team and starting afresh. I would basically drop anyone who played in the game today - first 11 or otherwise - and make them work for it all again.

With that in mind, here's a suggested line-up* for our next international against Hungardy on 11th August (assuming we play 4-4-2, like we always bloody do):

GK Hart

DR Onoura (or Richards)

DL Warnock

DC Lescott

DC Jagielka

MR Adam Johnson

ML Young

MC Hargreaves

MC Gosling

FC Crouch

FC Bent

* Note, this does make some slightly unrealistic assumptions of fitness. Otherwise, so it, play Rodwell instead of Hargreaves.

[METALMAN]

lol

[Dont Fear The Reaper]

Onoura? as in Iffy Onoura?

[METALMAN]

Nedum Onuoha I presume.

[Crybaby Bunting]

It's the English hyperbole problem.

We got beaten by a few youngsters and now you want to replace the team with everyone who's under 25... forgetting that Germany needed to have a Schweinsteiger, Klose and Podolski type of player in order to create so many chances

[DFF]

Onoura? as in Iffy Onoura?

>_>

No, 'Nedum Onuoha

Obviously some kind of Freudian slip there.

[Gazz]

We need a Turkish playmaker...

[DFF]

It's the English hyperbole problem.

We got beaten by a few youngsters and now you want to replace the team with everyone who's under 25... forgetting that Germany needed to have a Schweinsteiger, Klose and Podolski type of player in order to create so many chances

I wasn't suggesting a permanent dropping of the entire team. Moreso dropping them all for the next game and giving a load of fringe players/youngsters a chance.

[therockbox]

GK. Joe Hart

DR. Glen Johnson

DL. Ashley Cole

DC. Gary Cahill

DC. Jolean Lescott

DMC. Michael Carrick

DMC. Lee Cattermole (the closest thing we've got to a out and out 'ball winner,' discipline would be a problem though)

MC. Frank Lampard (deserves a chance for England in the role he plays for Chelsea, free of defensive responsibility)

AMR. Adam Johnson

AML. Gabby Agbonlahor

FC. Wayne Rooney (the best we've got. Making him the focal point would probably help)

England need to get away from 4-4-2, every other forward thinking nation moved away from it years ago to the infinitely more flexible 4-3-3/4-5-1. As bad as Carrick has been for Man Utd he's still the only player we have produced since Scholes who is remotely capable of doing the same sort of thing the likes of Alonso, Xavi, Pirlo etc do (obviously to a lower standard). Capello dropped a bollock by not taking Parker with him because even he is far more mobile than Gareth Barry, who looked like he was pulling a caravan at times. That isn't Barry's fault, because he's not a defensive midfielder, but we needed another option.

In truth though it doesn't matter what system England use, we won't improve dramatically until we start producing players that are completely comfortable on the ball. Teams like Germany thrive on getting possession in tight areas because they can drag the opposition around; we just shit ourselves whenever put under even the slightest pressure. This idea that the players 'trying harder' is somehow going to improve us needs to go as well, it annoyed me to no end when before the Slovenia game all the pundits were saying what we needed was more 'passion, pride and commitment.' No, we need to be calm and patient when we've got the ball, and accept that the idea of CRASH BANG WALLOP football doesn't work at this level.

[HailtotheYo]

It's the English hyperbole problem.

We got beaten by a few youngsters and now you want to replace the team with everyone who's under 25... forgetting that Germany needed to have a Schweinsteiger, Klose and Podolski type of player in order to create so many chances

Two of which are 25

[METALMAN]

Seriously, I don't think metalman should be allowed to support any teams in the rest of the world cup... he is like the bad luck charm of the devil himself

I think the charm has broken

[Rich]

Seriously, I don't think metalman should be allowed to support any teams in the rest of the world cup... he is like the bad luck charm of the devil himself

I think the charm has broken

[The Kraig]

We need a Turkish playmaker...

You let Colin Kazim-Richards bugger off and play for Turkey!

Luckily you still have secret weapon Billy Mehmet, he's still eligible.

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

Absolutely gutted in all honesty. I really thought we'd do it, but we lost to a much better side on the day. The Lampard goal was ridiculous and COULD of changed the entire game, but these things happen to teams on a regular basis. Either way, we didn't deserve to win.

The bigger disappointment was Rooney. Too much hype and to be quite frank, he didn't deliver at all. Poor in every single game. All I can hope is that this fires him up for United in the new Premier League campaign. People will slate the team and say they had no drive, emotion and didn't want it, but I'm still fully behind them all. Gerrard was by far the stand out player of our tournament and worked his ass off today. Milner is the latest player to be too overrated and I was in near shock when Heskey was brought on towards the end. Just not good enough. We've got the players and we SHOULD be doing so much better, but there's a lot of work to be done. Hopefully some of these players learn from this and drive themselves even more.

Gutted, but good luck to Germany. People can slate us all they want, but we'll eventually pick ourselves up and try to work towards building for the future.

[Crybaby Bunting]

I really thought we'd do it, but we lost to a much better side on the day.

There's something strangely irritating about that sentence :/

I really thought we'd do it, but we lost to a much better side on the day.

Lemme guess, your metaphorical Olympic torch will be passed onto another country before the end of this world cup