2017 Wimbledon Final: Federer v Cilic

[Federberg]

Argh!!! In 1998 a whole nation was complaining about him. People on the street were saying that he could only score against small clubs in Spain. I am just one more who was disappointed. But I do not give him a hard time for 1998 because, as I said before, Brazil sucked hard that year.

You mentioned Zidane -- for me the guy was pure class. You can tell a guy is good when he plays looking forward, and not looking down the ball. Take him out of France and they wouldn´t even reach round of 16.

You do realise that he then went to Italy and did the same thing? All that small club stuff is nonsense mate. Absolute tosh! He made the best defenders in the world look like clowns

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why the hell I argue with amateurs?

Ok, he is good. But, first of all, he is Brazilian for heaven´s sake. See the other Ronaldo, Neymar, Rivaldo, Romário, you will find hours of such dribbles. I will tell you why:

The ones you see in the beginning, where you pass your foot over the ball from one side to the other, is the basic dribble you try all the time -- if you have the minimum coordination to do that, and that he does. This will work (fool the defender while you keep control of the ball) some percentage of the time -- you try it 20 times in a match, you can make it work 3 times. You look like a god in the highlights, due to the selection.

There are two variations of this dribble: end it up moving the ball to the inside and let it hit your other leg -- classic "futsal", or indoor football move. Those guys do it all the time (so it is quite popular here, no wonder he would try it).

The second one you suddenly move your foot under the ball on the way out, and then move the ball forward -- the "elastic" which Rivelino made famous in the 70´s. He did twice on the video (ok, I never saw those). Rivelino did it twice per match.

Oh, and he also uses the other classic futsal dribble, where you step on the ball while you spin your body. You should see "Falcão" from futsal doing this.

All this talk for one basic point: those are percentage plays: I remember him trying them over and over in our national team matches. His success rate is not particularly high. (while I agree that, on the run, his success rate is quite good).


The video goes on and later more and more dribbles are his classic ones, full speed and quick acceleration in one direction. He is quite good at that, surely.




Yeah, the right perspective.

But I very much doubt this notion (not your word, but your sources). I was in Buenos Aires a few months ago and once in a bar I saw some Argentinians discussing wildly. One guy left saying "you are nuts". They were precisely arguing about Maradona and Pelé, 2 for each side. Actually all Argentinians who think Maradona is better than Pelé are Boca Juniors supporters. They also think that blue and yellow uniform is beautiful, and that Palermo, their striker who once was able to miss three penalty kicks in one match, was a football player.

This post doesn't say much at all, other than explain the different versions of a step-over to someone who's been playing Football since I was 5.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You mentioned Zidane -- for me the guy was pure class. You can tell a guy is good when he plays looking forward, and not looking down the ball. Take him out of France and they wouldn´t even reach round of 16.

Interesting you mention that considering Zidane was awful early on in the tournament, got sent off in the second match of the group stages against Saudi Arabia, got suspended for the subsequent match AND the Round of 16, was anonymous in the dreadful 0-0 draw with Italy, got saved by Thuram of all people against Croatia, until he remembered to wake up for the final. So they actually pretty much made it to the quarter finals without him.

Zidane is one of my absolute favorites but if you think people were complaining about Ronaldo's performances in 1998 leading up to the final (despite his 5 goals), you really seem to have forgotten how sub-par Zidane was. People only remember the headers in the final.

In 2006 on the other hand, Zidane was otherworldly. I'm an Italy fan first and foremost so I was thrilled in the final, but part of me has to admit it was a shame Zidane couldn't go out on top, because he had a sensational World Cup.

 

[mrzz]

who's been playing Football since I was 5

And now you are 6? WOW! I knew you were a wonder kid. Because only a guy who´s been playing football for less than a year would say the things you say... unless you´re playing with British. Than you could well have been playing for a century. In that case you´re forgiven.

Interesting you mention that considering Zidane was awful early on in the tournament, got sent off in the second match of the group stages against Saudi Arabia, got suspended for the subsequent match AND the Round of 16, was anonymous in the dreadful 0-0 draw with Italy, got saved by Thuram of all people against Croatia, until he remembered to wake up for the final. So they actually pretty much made it to the quarter finals without him.

Zidane is one of my absolute favorites but if you think people were complaining about Ronaldo's performances in 1998 leading up to the final (despite his 5 goals), you really seem to have forgotten how sub-par Zidane was. People only remember the headers in the final.

Brrffftttt! I don´t even remember the headers in the final -- everyone here knew Brazil would lose, the most common prediction was "2-0 with two goals out of corner kicks". Zero merit in scoring against that shitty defense.

So, I rephrase: Without Zidane they would not have qualified.. wait, they were the hosts. But it seems you´re judging a player for the number of goals. 100% of the plays by France would pass through his feet on mid-field. They struggled against Paraguay (round of 16, no Zidane as you said), only scoring after almost 120 minutes of play, and have not scored against Italy mostly because their strikers were shit.

Yes, Thuram got lucky in that semi (honestly helped by the referee, in the first goal stepping over the ball and pushing the defender to get the ball in the first place. If it was the other way around I am sure it would have been a foul).

Anyway, you are right I forgotten how sub-par he was. In fact, I barely noticed it at the time, as I was so pissed off with the dreadful showings of our national team -- the only decent match was against Chile. I was making a general remark, because Zidane, notwithstanding that particular world cup campaign (you are right it was sub-par), is an extremely good football player (as you agree), light years ahead of any other French player with the single exception of Platini. And, as you said, bad world cup or not he scored the goals in the final -- pretty good for a sub-par showing for a player of a nation who never won -- and never will win again - a world cup.

 

[Federberg]

And now you are 6? WOW! I knew you were a wonder kid. Because only a guy who´s been playing football for less than a year would say the things you say... unless you´re playing with British. Than you could well have been playing for a century. In that case you´re forgiven.



Brrffftttt! I don´t even remember the headers in the final -- everyone here knew Brazil would lose, the most common prediction was "2-0 with two goals out of corner kicks". Zero merit in scoring against that shitty defense.

So, I rephrase: Without Zidane they would not have qualified.. wait, they were the hosts. But it seems you´re judging a player for the number of goals. 100% of the plays by France would pass through his feet on mid-field. They struggled against Paraguay (round of 16, no Zidane as you said), only scoring after almost 120 minutes of play, and have not scored against Italy mostly because their strikers were shit.

Yes, Thuram got lucky in that semi (honestly helped by the referee, in the first goal stepping over the ball and pushing the defender to get the ball in the first place. If it was the other way around I am sure it would have been a foul).

Anyway, you are right I forgotten how sub-par he was. In fact, I barely noticed it at the time, as I was so pissed off with the dreadful showings of our national team -- the only decent match was against Chile. I was making a general remark, because Zidane, notwithstanding that particular world cup campaign (you are right it was sub-par), is an extremely good football player (as you agree), light years ahead of any other French player with the single exception of Platini. And, as you said, bad world cup or not he scored the goals in the final -- pretty good for a sub-par showing for a player of a nation who never won -- and never will win again - a world cup.

Interesting.... you'll give full credit to Zidane for scoring those important goals, but no love for the fat homo at the next World Cup? Logically inconsistent...

 

[mrzz]

@Federberg, we are talking about football... from where in the world you took the idea that logic is invited to this conversation?

No love for the the fat homo -- that´s my new motto! Two prejudices in one sentence!!!! Thanks!

Seriously, obviously Ronaldo is an extremely good player -- I was hoping you guys would forgive my hyperbolic language. Being a good striker, he will score, as he did. He was important in 2002, even if a post would score those goals on the final. But you know I don´t like to argue with facts, he was there, he score the goals in the finals, credit to him.

My point -- if I have point here, after all this is a side discussion -- is that he was the striker of the team with greatest success in world cup history, and you can fill pages with the names of great Brazilian players, some of them playing right next to him in that World Cup. Zidane played for France...

 

[Federberg]

@Federberg, we are talking about football... from where in the world you took the idea that logic is invited to this conversation?

No love for the the fat homo -- that´s my new motto! Two prejudices in one sentence!!!! Thanks!

Seriously, obviously Ronaldo is an extremely good player -- I was hoping you guys would forgive my hyperbolic language. Being a good striker, he will score, as he did. He was important in 2002, even if a post would score those goals on the final. But you know I don´t like to argue with facts, he was there, he score the goals in the finals, credit to him.

My point -- if I have point here, after all this is a side discussion -- is that he was the striker of the team with greatest success in world cup history, and you can fill pages with the names of great Brazilian players, some of them playing right next to him in that World Cup. Zidane played for France...

Lol! I hear you buddy. As a Tottenham Hotspur fan, I'm reconciled to runninng away from logic

That was a good French team though mate. They went on to win the European Cup as well. I would understand your point of view more if you hadn't put me in the position where I had to argue against one of my favourite players of all time Romario... But I will never concede that Romario was a better player than Ronaldo. You lost me on that one!

 

[mrzz]

Ok, let´s not get in to a new fight. But, about Romário:

1) The guy did not practice. This is not a legend, it is true. People use the world "talent" in different ways, but I cannot think of a better definition of it.

2) He is one of the few guys that you can compare a team playing without him and a team playing with him. Brazilian national team was basically the same in 1993 (qualifiers) and 1994. We would lose almost one out of two matches before he was finally called (for the last match of the qualies). Afterwards, 7 wins and a draw (on the final). He participated in or scored all the goals. What can one say?

 

[Federberg]

Ok, let´s not get in to a new fight. But, about Romário:

1) The guy did not practice. This is not a legend, it is true. People use the world "talent" in different ways, but I cannot think of a better definition of it.

2) He is one of the few guys that you can compare a team playing without him and a team playing with him. Brazilian national team was basically the same in 1993 (qualifiers) and 1994. We would lose almost one out of two matches before he was finally called (for the last match of the qualies). Afterwards, 7 wins and a draw (on the final). He participated in or scored all the goals. What can one say?

Hey! You're preaching to the choir. There's a goal he scored when he was with Barcelona, that I still watch on youtube. He had his back to the goal, with defenders approaching him from both sides. He spun around and toe poked it in, and the look on the defenders faces. He was extraordinary. I'm just saying that Ronaldo is something I had never seen before or since. The fusion of pace, power and skill!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Since when did Federer and Cilic start playing football? :scratch:

 

[brokenshoelace]

Since when did Federer and Cilic start playing football? :scratch:

I watched that final and Cilic didn't look much of a tennis player so who knows?

 

[mrzz]

Since when did Federer and Cilic start playing football? :scratch:

The final was on grass, there was a ball, and there was kicking. It was football.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The final was on grass, there was a ball, and there was kicking. It was football.

Cilic had blisters on feet. How the hell do you think he can play football?

 

[mrzz]

Cilic had blisters on feet. How the hell do you think he can play football?

How do you think he got them?

 

[Moxie]

The Reality Train has left the station. All those looking for more sense than nonsense might look elsewhere. All those in favor of nonsense, say "Aye!"

 

[mrzz]

 

[Federberg]

So I'd recorded the Federer v Cilic final, and seeing as it was such a rubbish final, I had planned to delete it. So this weekend, before deleting it, I thought I would give it one last go. Hadn't really noticed this before, but at the end of the 2nd set, when Cilic takes the injury time out, they remove the tape on his left foot, and for about 20 seconds you can see the blisters (looks like there were two, one much larger than the other). I couldn't believe it, I've seen bad blisters before. Heck, I've had bad blister before. But this was nothing! And my conviction about that is reinforced by the fact that the commentators just ignored the visual and carried on talking about whatever it is they were talking about. Not one of them, Mac, Henman or Castle says something like "that looks awful, perhaps that's why Marin is crying like a little baby!" I still don't buy it, that he was hampered by those blisters...