So... no World Cup thread yet? (also featuring TTLG fantasy world cup game) - by D'Arcy
D'Arcy on 12/6/2006 at 21:05
The key word there is <i>fair</i>. I simply don't think it's fair to have four places awarded to CONCACAF teams. Especially because no team from that confederation has ever done anything particularly exciting in a previous tournament. Anyway, it's like you say: it's probably more fun to watch exotic teams like Jamaica, or Angola in the World Cup, but they sure won't help raising the quality of the tournament.
Paz on 12/6/2006 at 21:05
Italy there, managed by Paul O'Grady.
What was Motson smoking in the first half? "YES IT'S GUNG-HO GHANA IN FULL ATTACKING FLOW!" (meanwhile, Italy force corner number 58)
Personally I'm pretty happy with the balancing act regarding the nations represented. No-one has looked particularly outclassed so far - and I think that's almost certainly a direct reflection of the faith shown by FIFA in the 'smaller' countries across the past few tournaments. In fact the worst team so far have probably been Poland (although I think that was just an off day and dodgy tactics).
It's not really fair that South America get 4/10 (and potentially 5/10) teams into the finals from their qualifying group. Without that, though, you'd just get Brazil and Argentina every single time. The World Cup is at least partially about developing the game in various parts of the globe where it needs a helping hand. I'd rather see T&T in there than .. I dunno, Denmark (sorry Danes, nothing personal).
When it comes down to it, only 32 teams can make it. Someone of fairly high quality is always going to be pissed off. Every continent needs reasonable representation and Europe just happens to be massively fat with football!
D'Arcy on 12/6/2006 at 21:22
I liked Italy tonight. They seemed quite solid, and won the game without much effort. Plus, huzzah for Buffon getting a clean sheet - 7 more points in the Fantasy League :)
Shug on 13/6/2006 at 00:20
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Japan-Australia certainly was entertaining as two mediocre teams with leaky defences facing off against each other generally are ;).
However I hate that blueshite twat Cahill even more now for bringing his gay little shadow-boxing celebration on to the world stage. Hopefully he'll snap both of his cruciate ligaments in training and we won't have to endure the embarassment for a long time.
While I certainly won't suggest we're an elite team in this World Cup, I wouldn't say we're that bad and our defence wasn't terrible - the only goal we conceded was quite dodgy (if coach Hiddink's reaction on the sideline was any measure anyway, he was raging pretty hard). For anybody that didn't see it, a Japanese attacker simply lobbed the ball into the goalsquare and our keeper was taken out by another player, allowing the ball to simply trickle into the back of the net. The ref disagreed with any obstruction though, and it was awarded.
As for Cahill? Well, if you kick 2 goals (one of them an absolute SIZZLER) in 4-5 minutes with less than 10 minutes to play after being 1 - 0 down in the first World Cup Australia have played in 30+ years, you can do whatever the fuck you want. He turned our situation from "certainly not going to make it out of groups" to a fighting chance.
Your smug big-dog act is a bit annoying in light of how terrible England was in its first game - at least Cahill showed he's capable of putting his own goals in :D
Myoldnamebroke on 13/6/2006 at 00:27
Cahill also should have been sent off and a penalty awarded against him just before he scored, so try not to go on about him too much ;)
The keeper had already made the mistake before he was taken out - it was a possibly a foul, albeit a soft one, but if it had been given he'd have been lucky as the goal would have been scored anyway.
Pre-tournament bet on the Czechs at 33-1 looking good at the mo :cool:
Shug on 13/6/2006 at 00:34
I'm sorry, what? He was yellow carded fairly, there was nothing he did that deserved a red card.
I wasn't "going on about Cahill" until apparently saving Australia with two late goals made him deserve to have both cruciate ligaments snapped at training.
I fail to see how responding to that garbage makes me anything like D'Arcy
Myoldnamebroke on 13/6/2006 at 00:38
The red card was for a second yellow that would/should have been given if the penalty was. 'Going on about' was a poor choice of words as I tried to end a badly-written sentence.
Responding to StD's garbage is exactly what makes you like D'Arcy :D
Shug on 13/6/2006 at 00:39
oh noe he's killed the joke
Paz on 13/6/2006 at 00:40
Regarding penalties, have FIFA issued a mandate not to give any in this tournament? I've seen a few decent shouts turned down flat now (most notably the Mexico-Iran game).
Also, can any PRO REFS give their view on the Kuffour-Iaquinta thing tonight? Iaquinta is put clean through and gets Kuffour's studs down the back of his achilles - surely 'tis a red card! But wait, Iaquinta was offside so the play is called back.
Well, fine. Call the play back for the offside, but surely Kuffour can still be sent off (or at least booked) for dangerous play/professional foul antics? Otherwise Italy lose a player (as it happens he was ok, but still) and Kuffour goes unpunished despite the referee clearly seeing what has happened. The offside nullifies the foul (in the sense that Italy won't get a free kick on the edge of the box), I appreciate that, but why should it act as a Men in Black style memory wipe for the VIOLENCE? It just seems a bit ... odd.
Myoldnamebroke on 13/6/2006 at 00:45
I shall have to watch out for my ligaments. oh noes you've killed my counter-joke
Kuffour could still have been sent off for serious foul play, if that was what it was in the ref's view. But a professional foul is denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity - the attacker being offside stops that opportunity, which is the only thing that makes it different to a normal foul. I've not seen the tackle - I just listened to the game on the radio - but I assume the ref didn't view it as a dangerous if he didn't send him off.
