Soccer/Football, The Beautiful Game

[MashaFan]

Play Off's last match
[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEOjcr4DcaI[/video]

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

yes..a surprisingly exciting match to watch seeing as it was 'only' a wc play off.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I wish Ibrahimovic was in the WC too. He will be missed.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

oh noooooooo :huh: :huh:

messi and Ronaldo are both injured..la liga isn't the same,

and robin van persie is injured..but he is prob going to be back for the prem man utd clash at Tottenham h.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So what does everyone think of the World Cup draw, and FIFA doing a shameful job with their arbitrary changes just days before?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Sorry for Juve BS. It took 2 days but Galatasaray is through. Horrible weather in Istanbul.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

So what does everyone think of the World Cup draw, and FIFA doing a shameful job with their arbitrary changes just days before?

England are in a toughish group..we got uruguay (suarez), Italy in north brazil and the time was put back 3 hrs to accommodate European tv (now 11pm GMT, k.o),

folk say brazil have an easy group, argentina had a cupcake group, iran/Nigeria/??..

and Portugal are in a so-called 'group of death' :emperor: with Germany or Holland and a strong African team..as you can tell ive not looked too closely at the draw but thought I'd chip in with a comment.:grin:

 

[brokenshoelace]

Sorry for Juve BS. It took 2 days but Galatasaray is through. Horrible weather in Istanbul.

I don't want to be a bad sport but it was a farce that the match was allowed to be played in those conditions. The thing is, if it was stopped last night, how on earth was it allowed to continue today when the weather was just as bad?

Regardless, Galata deserve praise, as they defy the odds to go through in an incredibly tough group. Juve paid the price for the early draws in their first two matches.

 

[brokenshoelace]

So what does everyone think of the World Cup draw, and FIFA doing a shameful job with their arbitrary changes just days before?

England are in a toughish group..we got uruguay (suarez), Italy in north brazil and the time was put back 3 hrs to accommodate European tv (now 11pm GMT, k.o),

folk say brazil have an easy group, argentina had a cupcake group, iran/Nigeria/??..

and Portugal are in a so-called 'group of death' :emperor: with Germany or Holland and a strong African team..as you can tell ive not looked too closely at the draw but thought I'd chip in with a comment.:grin:

England's group is more than "toughish." It's the toughest group of the tourney.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Sorry for Juve BS. It took 2 days but Galatasaray is through. Horrible weather in Istanbul.

I don't want to be a bad sport but it was a farce that the match was allowed to be played in those conditions. The thing is, if it was stopped last night, how on earth was it allowed to continue today when the weather was just as bad?

Regardless, Galata deserve praise, as they defy the odds to go through in an incredibly tough group. Juve paid the price for the early draws in their first two matches.

I cannot disagree. The pitch got killed attempting to clear it too...and it has heating! Go figure....It was not fun, but Galatasaray managed to create some chances in the second half and took advantage of one.

For Juve, now they have the chance of playing the final of Euro League final at home, no? Not too shabby.

 

[Kieran]

Johnny Giles has a book I was browsing in, during my morning visit to town: The Great and the Good.

Now, this book has the potential to maybe irritate anyone who's less than rigid in their definitions of the word "great", which Gilesy rightly believes is applied too liberally and has effectively become meaningless. I would recommend the foreword, which you can read online in the link above, just go to "click to look inside."

Now, reading the bit of the book today, I came across my favorite team - and I think Britbox too: Brazil 1982. Giles believes they had the ability to win the World Cup that year, but they had a huge flaw. It wasn't exactly their defence, as is usually alleged, but that they tried too hard to be brilliant and beautiful all over the park. They believed the publicity about them, he says, and thought that by playing like this, they were following the tradition of the great 1970 side.

Giles has a different way of judging the 1970 side, and it amounts to saying what's obvious but often overlooked in the sentimental version: that they were ultimate pragmatists and that defenders didn't have to be brilliant - they had to defend first, and most importantly, and then feed the ball forward. He doesn't say the 1982 team couldn't defend, but that the defenders were fatally encouraged by Tele Santana to join the party, show a few tricks and entertain. The business end of things got overlooked. He singles out Junior, who'd dribble out of his own box, whereas he should probably have cleared the ball to Socrates or Zico, kept his lines clear - first and foremost.

It was a thrilling team, but he has a point: had they got pragmatists in the back line - or if Santana had told his defense their premier duty - they'd have cleared the lines and let the midfield and attack do the tricks, the entertaining, yes, and also maybe get the glory, which would then be bestowed on the whole team.

Along with a World Cup winners medal.

Interesting book, he talks about the players he faced and modern players and managers too. I think I'll get this book.

From the library!

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

a coach asking his defenders to be flambouyant can only end in chaos and gloom..

brazil were going for a 3-1 lead with more attacking and at some point a woeful pass across the penalty area was unsurprisingly intercepted by paolo rossi..(I think it was that part of match).

before that 2nd match of the 2nd phase..(confusing or what), rossi had not scored in the first 4 matches of italys wc campaign despite starting all of them.. so poor marking and idiot passes helped end his goal drought.

brazil vomited away a world cup title in 1982..through ego driven narcissism and fiasco boy goings-on.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's really interesting how we tend to glorify things that are in the distant past, rather than the not-so-distant past.

I don't deny for one second that the 1982 Brazil side is one of the best to never win a World Cup, and were more than capable of snatching the title that year. However, what's really funny is that nobody talks about the failure of Brazil's 2006 side, when it arguably was a better team, and certainly more complete, when you factor in the defensive line. Dida, Lucio, Roberto Carlos, Cafu, Emerson, Gilberto Silva, Kaka, Ronaldinho, Adriano, Ronaldo. For my money, easily the best side never to win the World Cup.

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, Broken, I was 16 during the '82 World Cup so it's all part of the same lived-in past. The Brazil of Socrates and Zico sparked something in everyone that year. They really were that extraordinarily gifted and ridiculously entertaining. They made playing football look beautiful again. I even think that had they won the cup that year their influence would have been massive. Instead, a great but less interesting Italian side won it and football went into such a depression of dullness that the powers that be were forced to act, scrapping the back pass rule after the dismal and uninspired 1990 World Cup.

I don't lay the blame for the dreariness of the sport at Italy's door, but they were a great team who didn't capture peoples hearts or imaginations.

There are people of a certain age who used rhapsodise about Hungary in 1954, then Holland in 1974, then Brazil in 1982, and I think it's because these sides were just too immensely gifted and potentially influential in the most positive aspects that it was a physical shock to the system that they didn't get their mitts on the cup.

Interestingly, all three of these adventurous and heroically skillful teams eventually lost to supremely efficient - even ruthless - pragmatists, who were also great but not so fondly remembered...

 

[brokenshoelace]

In fairness, Broken, I was 16 during the '82 World Cup so it's all part of the same lived-in past. The Brazil of Socrates and Zico sparked something in everyone that year. They really were that extraordinarily gifted and ridiculously entertaining. They made playing football look beautiful again. I even think that had they won the cup that year their influence would have been massive. Instead, a great but less interesting Italian side won it and football went into such a depression of dullness that the powers that be were forced to act, scrapping the back pass rule after the dismal and uninspired 1990 World Cup.

I don't lay the blame for the dreariness of the sport at Italy's door, but they were a great team who didn't capture peoples hearts or imaginations.

There are people of a certain age who used rhapsodise about Hungary in 1954, then Holland in 1974, then Brazil in 1982, and I think it's because these sides were just too immensely gifted and potentially influential in the most positive aspects that it was a physical shock to the system that they didn't get their mitts on the cup.

Interestingly, all three of these adventurous and heroically skillful teams eventually lost to supremely efficient - even ruthless - pragmatists, who were also great but not so fondly remembered...

I wouldn't say Football was necessarily dull in between 82-90. I mean, that era is mainly remembered for two of the most talented Footballers we've ever seen, and two of the few genuine "artists," Platini and Maradona.

On a side note, it's interesting you talk about capturing people's heats and imagination. Brazil in 82 certainly did that, but I find it odd how much reputation influences people's views. For instance, everyone was thrilled Spain won the World Cup in 2010. It was the triumph of attacking Football, they said. And yet, they did it by scoring the fewest amount of goals of any World Cup winning side in history, and essentially passing the ball to death (and not in that gorgeous prime-Barcelona under Guardiola kind of way). Their triumph at Euro 2012 (save for the final) was just as putrid, I thought. I still remember their opening game against Italy, where the Vicente Del Bosque opted to start with ZERO attackers. Yes, zero. Cesc Fabregas (a central midfielder) occupied that role.

I still think the 2006 Brazilian side isn't discussed enough. The main reason why the 82 side is more fondly remembered is because of the fact that they actually were performing very well in the World Cup (and playing great Football) until getting knocked out. Meanwhile, in 2006, despite all the hype, the Brazilian side really never got going. In fact, all of their performances (save for the one against a poor Japanese side) were very disappointing. And yet, on paper, I don't think I've ever seen such a squad. Speaking of "making people dream," in my history of watching Football, I've never seen anyone do that the way Ronaldinho did. It's not that he's the best I've seen (he isn't), but nobody before him (or since) played Football that way. Between 04-06, that guy was a magician. He entered the World Cup having led Barca to La Liga and the Champions League, and all eyes were on him. If that wasn't enough, he was joined by arguably the second best player on the planet at that time, Kaka (who a year later single-handedly won Milan the Champions League). With Cafu and Roberto Carlos, they had two of the greatest attacking full backs of all time, and their strike partership consisted of Adriano (when he was one of the best strikers around, and before he completely ruined his career) and easily one of the greatest strikers ever, Ronaldo (though admittedly not quite at the peak of his powers). Just how that squad under-performed so badly is beyond me.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

I got into football because of the 1982 world cup.

 

[Kieran]

On a side note, it's interesting you talk about capturing people's heats and imagination. Brazil in 82 certainly did that, but I find it odd how much reputation influences people's views. For instance, everyone was thrilled Spain won the World Cup in 2010. It was the triumph of attacking Football, they said. And yet, they did it by scoring the fewest amount of goals of any World Cup winning side in history, and essentially passing the ball to death (and not in that gorgeous prime-Barcelona under Guardiola kind of way). Their triumph at Euro 2012 (save for the final) was just as putrid, I thought. I still remember their opening game against Italy, where the Vicente Del Bosque opted to start with ZERO attackers. Yes, zero. Cesc Fabregas (a central midfielder) occupied that role.

I still think the 2006 Brazilian side isn't discussed enough. The main reason why the 82 side is more fondly remembered is because of the fact that they actually were performing very well in the World Cup (and playing great Football) until getting knocked out. Meanwhile, in 2006, despite all the hype, the Brazilian side really never got going. In fact, all of their performances (save for the one against a poor Japanese side) were very disappointing. And yet, on paper, I don't think I've ever seen such a squad. Speaking of "making people dream," in my history of watching Football, I've never seen anyone do that the way Ronaldinho did. It's not that he's the best I've seen (he isn't), but nobody before him (or since) played Football that way. Between 04-06, that guy was a magician. He entered the World Cup having led Barca to La Liga and the Champions League, and all eyes were on him. If that wasn't enough, he was joined by arguably the second best player on the planet at that time, Kaka (who a year later single-handedly won Milan the Champions League). With Cafu and Roberto Carlos, they had two of the greatest attacking full backs of all time, and their strike partership consisted of Adriano (when he was one of the best strikers around, and before he completely ruined his career) and easily one of the greatest strikers ever, Ronaldo (though admittedly not quite at the peak of his powers). Just how that squad under-performed so badly is beyond me.

I think football was degrading and became almost cancerous at the 1990 World Cup, despite the shining lights like Maradona in the 80's. Once the back pass rule was scrapped we had a great European Championships in 1992, and generally the game has been better.

The Brazil team of 2006 is proof of what Johnny Giles is saying. In certain conditions, they're great players but they didn't show it when it mattered, at the World Cup. I think there's a lot of skill there but not necessarily players who'd grace any all time eleven. For them to be "the greatest team never to win the World Cup" without ever actually being a great team is the nub of it. The World Cup was waiting for them, but they didn't bring it. I don't remember being hugely affected by them because another thing had happened to Brazilian teams in the meantime: they played like Europeans. This is because they played in Europe, but still, they don't overwhelm spectators as much now with magic.

Totally agree about Spain. They were just better than anyone else but even still they struggled to get goals and could have been in real trouble against a horrible and second rate Dutch team in the final, which wouldn't be the case with really great teams...

 

[brokenshoelace]

The Brazil team of 2006 is proof of what Johnny Giles is saying. In certain conditions, they're great players but they didn't show it when it mattered, at the World Cup. I think there's a lot of skill there but not necessarily players who'd grace any all time eleven. For them to be "the greatest team never to win the World Cup" without ever actually being a great team is the nub of it. The World Cup was waiting for them, but they didn't bring it. I don't remember being hugely affected by them because another thing had happened to Brazilian teams in the meantime: they played like Europeans. This is because they played in Europe, but still, they don't overwhelm spectators as much now with magic.

I think it's a bit of a harsh assessment. Cafu and Ronaldo were multiple time World Cup winners. Gilberto Silva, Dida, Roberto Carlos, Lucio, Kaka and Ronaldinho were all in the team that won the World Cup in 2002 (as were Ronaldo and Cafu of course). So it was pretty much the same side with a few substantial additions. It certainly was a great side.

 

[Kieran]

I think it's a bit of a harsh assessment. Cafu and Ronaldo were multiple time World Cup winners. Gilberto Silva, Dida, Roberto Carlos, Lucio, Kaka and Ronaldinho were all in the team that won the World Cup in 2002 (as were Ronaldo and Cafu of course). So it was pretty much the same side with a few substantial additions. It certainly was a great side.

That's fair enough, I forgot that Ronaldinho was a youngster in the 2002 team, as was Kaka. In that case, since the majority of them were World Cup winners previously, they're not really the "best side never to win the World Cup". The great Hungarians and Dutch, the Brazil of 1982, none of these players ever got that far, and this is why they strike the romantic chord more fiercely.

Of course, it's a fantasy football argument, who's the best not too. I think in terms of impact, Hungary and Holland were much more influential and revolutionary than any Brazil team post-1982, but of course, ya dance with the one who brung ya...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think it's a bit of a harsh assessment. Cafu and Ronaldo were multiple time World Cup winners. Gilberto Silva, Dida, Roberto Carlos, Lucio, Kaka and Ronaldinho were all in the team that won the World Cup in 2002 (as were Ronaldo and Cafu of course). So it was pretty much the same side with a few substantial additions. It certainly was a great side.

That's fair enough, I forgot that Ronaldinho was a youngster in the 2002 team, as was Kaka. In that case, since the majority of them were World Cup winners previously, they're not really the "best side never to win the World Cup". The great Hungarians and Dutch, the Brazil of 1982, none of these players ever got that far, and this is why they strike the romantic chord more fiercely.

Of course, it's a fantasy football argument, who's the best not too. I think in terms of impact, Hungary and Holland were much more influential and revolutionary than any Brazil team post-1982, but of course, ya dance with the one who brung ya...

Yeah, I guess it's a bit more eye-opening that someone like say, Zico never won the World Cup. So in that regard, if we're going strictly with players who have never won the WC, Brazil 1982 takes the cake. However, you could argue that it's even more dumbfounding how badly the 2006 side under-performed given that that most of their players had been there already, and therefore, had the experience.

At the end of the day, all of this is a testament to why the World Cup is the biggest prize in all of sport. It only takes place once every 4 years, and obviously enough, only one team can win it. If you miss your opportunity as a player, you're really unlikely to get another one. Four years is a long, long time.

In that regard, despite my issue with their "pass the ball to death" approach, it is a bit of a relief that Spain overcame that hurdle in 2010. It really was a golden generation (one that, amazingly enough, is still going strong), and they were too good not to win it. Their dominance over Football in the past 6 years is a testament to that. With the exception of Euro 2008, where they were brilliant, they really haven't performed that amazingly, and yet were still good enough to win every major tournament they've participated in.

Likewise, in 2006, despite not being among the heavy favorites due to the scandals back home, Italy's World Cup triumph was equally "just." I know they're not everyone's cup of tea, but that team was ridiculous across the field. Their defensive line was probably the best in World Cup history, with Cannavaro giving the performance of a lifetime. The likes of Buffon, Cannavaro, Nesta, Pirlo, Del Piero and Totti, are flat out legends of the game, so it makes sense to have a gold medal back home. It's a shame Maldini had retired internationally and missed out. He certainly deserved to hold that trophy.

The one nation that continuously misses out is Holland, despite as you mentioned, repeated "golden generations" (the 1974 side obviously, and the side that won Euro 1988 with Van Baasten, Rijkaard and Gullit). Funnily enough, as you alluded to, the side that came the closest was actually a relatively sub-par side (2010), who didn't exactly play Holland's infamous "total Football." Come to think of it, the final that year was a disaster.

I do wonder whether the Argentine side is good enough on the whole to win it next year. Their attacking line is as good as any, but I'm not sure if they have enough quality across the pitch. I'd be happy for Messi if he gets it.