quinch on 19/6/2010 at 23:12
I think we need to acknowledge that English footballers aren't as good as we think they are. They have been saying this in Scotland and Ireland forever and it's true.
At club level they are niche players, surrounded by foreigners who are much more well-rounded on the ball. They are not properly fluent in football at the highest level.
ercles on 19/6/2010 at 23:50
Quote Posted by N'Al
No.
Australia did exceptionally well to hold on to this draw given they were down to 10 men for 3/4 of the game. They even looked like the more likely of the two teams to score again.
I fell asleep at the 55th minute, but up to that point I thought Australia were terrific at the start, and then fell apart, even prior to kewel's sending off. It seemed like every posession we'd just send it back to Schwarzer and he'd bomb it long where we'd more often than not turn it over. I agree with Kewell being red carded, although the Australian press is probably going to go nuclear today about the whole thing. The ball shouldn't have even been near the goal at that point, our defense was awful. That said, the yellow in the first half should definitely have been a red, considering it seemed to be much more agressive than Cahill's tackle in our first match.
Rug Burn Junky on 20/6/2010 at 01:37
Quote Posted by Namdrol
Such consistency (tied to money and the skill said money can buy), does suggest that the -
Quote:
"fluke random chance"
doesn't have that much of an effect.
If that's the conclusion you draw, I can only assume that you don't understand math or you're not paying attention. This is the kind of thing that you should get intuitively if you've ever studied statistics.
Premier league is awarded based on the entirety of the season - over ~40 games, the effects of any one game are minimized and these things tend to even out, at least to the point where you'll still get a "good" team winning, even if it's not necessarily the "best." It's going to come from the same upper echelon, so the fact that it's the same few teams over a relatively small sample size like 18 years is meaningless - especially where monetary advantages render the same few teams consistently that upper echelon.
But in any given game, the luck factor is still present, and that makes quite a difference in a single elimination tournament. Don't get me wrong, that's a factor in any sport, it's just that the more you decrease the scoring, the more luck plays a role, and few sports have less scoring than soccer. This is just common sense, and I don't see how you can dismiss it.
Medlar on 20/6/2010 at 08:34
Quote Posted by quinch
I think we need to acknowledge that English footballers aren't as good as we think they are.
Yet we are there in SA :rolleyes:
Chill pill Iggles, if it is meant to be it will work out perfectly :D
Scots Taffer on 20/6/2010 at 11:07
Quote Posted by ercles
IAustralia were terrific at the start, and then fell apart, even prior to kewel's sending off. It seemed like every posession we'd just send it back to Schwarzer and he'd bomb it long where we'd more often than not turn it over.
Precisely. The defence were a fucking shambles and as soon as they got the ball into midfield they actively sought ways to pass it back rather than push forward. Seriously, at one point they pushed forward and when they were getting close to the danger zone, in the space of four passes had it back to the keeper. In spite of this, their ballwork between players atrocious. They need to spend another year just learning to fucking pass, and also perhaps look before winging a ball in, it helps if there's a player to pick it up.
Ghana weren't some amazing side, they had that scrappy ingenuity that a lot of the lesser disciplined African teams possess - they passed well, their defence was okay, but they took too many chances far out, especially against the Aussie side who they could have danced rings around. That's another point, how many times did I see the Aussies invite penalties by failing to tackle UNTIL they got into the box. How fucking stupid can you get?
The Phantom on 20/6/2010 at 17:09
Italy - New Zealand 1:1, that's a surprise.
Oh and can we edit the thread title to "... Brazil and <s>England</s> Argentina" ?
hopper on 20/6/2010 at 17:49
When GBM did that joke, it was funny.
What is it with all the top teams this year? How come they struggle so hard against lesser teams? Italy only managed a draw against NZ, England against USA, Spain lost to Switzerland, Germany to Serbia - hell, even Brazil looked less than compelling against N.Korea. Nevermind France, who have been abysmal even compared to their low expectations. Of all the favourites, only Argentina seems to have lived up to expectations so far. Are they all being jinxed by the vuvuzelas, or what?
SD on 20/6/2010 at 18:48
Quote Posted by hopper
What is it with all the top teams this year? How come they struggle so hard against lesser teams? Italy only managed a draw against NZ, England against USA, Spain lost to Switzerland, Germany to Serbia - hell, even Brazil looked less than compelling against N.Korea. Nevermind France, who have been abysmal even compared to their low expectations. Of all the favourites, only Argentina seems to have lived up to expectations so far. Are they all being jinxed by the vuvuzelas, or what?
As you say, they're the top teams, so their players play for all the top clubs.
What this means is that you have footballers who tend to play more club matches, and at a higher intensity, than those of the lesser nations.
So while a national side like Algeria might be composed of fringe squad players from mid-table sides in the French First Division, they've probably played half as many matches this season as England's players have.
Exhaustion is a great leveller.
Medlar on 20/6/2010 at 19:37
Quote Posted by SD
Exhaustion is a great leveller.
60 matches a season and then the world cup on top is far too many but it will never change as the clubs always want their pound of flesh.No doubt international teams do suffer through player burn out.
