Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Official World Cup 2006 Thread
- Thread starter Blue Velvet
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Argentina vs. Germany should be a completely unpredictable match. Slightly superior talent (Arg.) versus the team with the homefield advantage (Germ.). This game is a coinflip.xsedrinam said:
England vs. Portugal - I'm going with England if only because Portugal will tired and a bit frustrated after their last match, although the opposite may be true in that they come out full throttle and steamroll the Brits.
Italy vs. Ukraine - Italy, no doubt.
Brazil vs. France - Joga Bonito will take this, unless they give Henry any room to work with.
xsedrinam said:
Those really are some interesting observations. I'm crossing my fingers he's right about Germany's defense for this upcoming game with Argentina. Germany managed to pull through to the final last WC, I'm hoping they can do it again.
xsedrinam said:
1. Germany's defense is not what it used to be. It's not as strong, but then they are playing a different style of football that is pleasantly surprizing. I mean, a German team that gains a lead and then trys for more goals?? Their win against Sweden looked easy. Now, is that because Sweden were weak opposition or because the team is playing so well. This game will be a test of that, I think.
2. If Portugal win, the quarterfinals will have two Portugese speaking teams playing each other (France doesn't have a chance IMHO), both with a star player by the same name (actually, Brazil has more than one already). Not that this means much... colonizer playing colonized? I'm gaming on England though. I want to see England step up their game and am hoping they will for this match (they know how dangerous Ronaldo can be).
3. Italy, to my mind, hasn't played especially well this tournament. I'd bet on Italy anyway, but I see them going out in the quarterfinals.
4. Brazil. France might give them a run for the money, but I don't see Brazil going out until the final, if at all.
yt
it was amusing to see Aragones fuming over losing to France. He'd be better off complaining that Puyol's foul on Henry was pointless rather than pretend it wasn't a foul. Not only that but they lost by two clear goals and scored none themselves apart from a penalty. So how can he say Spain 'deserved' to win?
Poetic justice as well, considering his racist remarks towards Henry in the past.
Poetic justice as well, considering his racist remarks towards Henry in the past.
1. Anyone's guess. Germany is 4 - 0 -0 and Argentina's got one draw against them. They struggled versus Mexico, and Germany's won by a considerable margin most (all?) of the time. However, Argentina's been working magic with the ball and I've been more impressed with their play than Germany's... I'm betting that Argentina will play up to the occassion and prevail in the end.
2. England almost has a sure bet. Deco's out. Ronaldo got pulled early on in the last game - anyone's bet as to how he'll be able to play. A lot of yellow cards on starting players and the red cards still in effect - that blasted ref. Comparatively, England's played possibly the cleanest out of all the teams thus far, and as a result, comes in with several strong starters, and we've seen Beckham's magic with free-kicks near the goal and Rooney's determination. We've also seen some fantastic players not play in the last match, and we could see them played out here if need be. I'm predicting that just from the sheer damage of Portugal's last game, England will be able to scrape by with another 1 up victory.
3. I haven't much been following these teams, Ukraine came out of nowhere though, dominating Switzerland 3-1. Italy, though, seems to be playing to the level of their opponents, and for nothing other than knowledge of the Italians versus the Ukrainians, i'm sticking with the tried and true Italy.
4. Brazil vs. France - remember the World Cup '98 finals? Payback time? Ronaldo is playing stronger than ever (morale boost from his new record?) - and uninjured for a change. Kaka, Kafu, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Dida, there's no doubt that this Brazil team has a lot of great and brilliant players, but they've yet to start playing as a team. Nevertheless, I think that they can pull through this one, but I doubt they'll be able to squeak by Argentina unless they start giving assists rather than trying to score goals.
2. England almost has a sure bet. Deco's out. Ronaldo got pulled early on in the last game - anyone's bet as to how he'll be able to play. A lot of yellow cards on starting players and the red cards still in effect - that blasted ref. Comparatively, England's played possibly the cleanest out of all the teams thus far, and as a result, comes in with several strong starters, and we've seen Beckham's magic with free-kicks near the goal and Rooney's determination. We've also seen some fantastic players not play in the last match, and we could see them played out here if need be. I'm predicting that just from the sheer damage of Portugal's last game, England will be able to scrape by with another 1 up victory.
3. I haven't much been following these teams, Ukraine came out of nowhere though, dominating Switzerland 3-1. Italy, though, seems to be playing to the level of their opponents, and for nothing other than knowledge of the Italians versus the Ukrainians, i'm sticking with the tried and true Italy.
4. Brazil vs. France - remember the World Cup '98 finals? Payback time? Ronaldo is playing stronger than ever (morale boost from his new record?) - and uninjured for a change. Kaka, Kafu, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Dida, there's no doubt that this Brazil team has a lot of great and brilliant players, but they've yet to start playing as a team. Nevertheless, I think that they can pull through this one, but I doubt they'll be able to squeak by Argentina unless they start giving assists rather than trying to score goals.
I found this article (sorry, it's in Spanish) to be one of the most comprehensive for analysis of both Germany and Argentina in view of their Friday match. For those who may not read or speak Spanish, it gives the following, comparative stats:
Total games played against eachother - 16 (4 draws, Germany 5 wins, Argentina 7 wins.)
This World Cup:
Total Possession Time: Germany - 227 minutes, Argentina - 205 minutes
#Shots taken before scoring: Argentina - 4, Germany - 8
**Counterattacks launched: Germany - 26, Argentina - 6
% Successful Centering to team member: Germany - 30%, Argentina - 15%
Total Shots/Shots on Goal Ratio: Germany - 78/38 = 49%, Argentina - 41/21 = 51%
I thought the **Counterattack stat was significant. Stats aside, that's why they play the match. It should be exciting to watch.
Total games played against eachother - 16 (4 draws, Germany 5 wins, Argentina 7 wins.)
This World Cup:
Total Possession Time: Germany - 227 minutes, Argentina - 205 minutes
#Shots taken before scoring: Argentina - 4, Germany - 8
**Counterattacks launched: Germany - 26, Argentina - 6
% Successful Centering to team member: Germany - 30%, Argentina - 15%
Total Shots/Shots on Goal Ratio: Germany - 78/38 = 49%, Argentina - 41/21 = 51%
I thought the **Counterattack stat was significant. Stats aside, that's why they play the match. It should be exciting to watch.
dogbone said:
I think spain did deserve to take it into extra time.
What did you think about henry's blatant dive for the freekick and the face clutching to get puyol a yellow?
The difference was Zizou, like so many times in the past, he stepped up to the plate and created and scored a goal. In my opinion he is the greatest player of all time and without a doubt in the same category as Pele and Moradonna.
BakedBeans said:
The free kick was in order for a clear obstruction but it could have been a yellow card to Henry as well.
Edit: However I'm mystefied why you thought they 'deserved' to go through, (as opposed to France 'deserving' to go through). They couldn't score a goal (I don't count the penalty because it's not as if they were clear through) and France wasn't 'parking a bus in front of goal' as Mourhino puts it. Please explain why they deserved to go through against a team that scored 3 goals against them. All of them good. Even the free kick was a good goal.
Yeah, I know what the freekick was given for, although it was soft and only given because if henry's antics.
You can't have it both ways, you argued the penalty against Australia was deserved when I have not seen any commentator anywhere who didn't think it was dodgy.
dogbone said:
Who gives a flying **** what commentators think?
You might want to look at the clip i posted where terry vendables (ex england manager and respected pundit) says how clear the penalty is. It IS a clear cut pen for studs in the back achilles... You need to learn the rules of the game before coming across with your factual statements.
I'm not having anything both ways, they are completely different situations that bare no resemblance to each other.
BakedBeans said:
Calm down and read my post again. I was referring to you saying the *Australian* penalty was well given. Yet now you are complaining about the free kick being awarded for a clear foul. Whether Henry dived or not doesn't make it less of a foul. Anyway I'm still mystefied how you can claim Spain 'deserved' to go through. On what basis? I mean they couldn't score. If France didn't give away a penalty, it would be 3-0. A pretty decisive scoreline. Face it, Spain have underperformed yet again where it really matters.
dogbone said:
It was a penalty. Simple as that. Well, according to the rules of the game that is. He was denied a scoring chance. Lying down in the area denying someone a shot at goal (and them tripping over you) is different to using strength to get to the ball first
The defender was using his strength, I've not said it wasn't a freekick, It was soft and only given because of the dive - it henry had stayed and chased then it wouldn't have been given.
I didn't claim that.
I claimed that Spain deserved to take it into extra time. On 83 minutes a debatable (or as Ruud gullit put is "no way a freekick") freekick is given, they score, after which they have to come out and attack, which they did and left themselves a little open. I'm convinced that if henry stayed on his feet it would have remained 1-1 for 8 more minutes.
I think spain played the better of the two teams over the 90 minutes. goals are what count and france go through, which is fair enough. That's the way the game goes sometimes, I didn't say france didn't deserve to win.
dogbone said:
ahh, so you can't play better and win then?
Thats funny, because I've seen it happen about a thousand times. I've seen teams camp in their own half all game and play really badly then hit on the counter twice with two shots on goal and win 2-0
Score doesn't always reflect a performance, as you have so blatantly described when talking about england.
gekko513 said:So what are peoples favourites for the semis? As in, who do you want to see make it to the semis.
I'm cheering for Germany, Ukraine, England and France. (How European of me) Though I think it's more likely that Italy and Brazil makes it.
My feelings exactly!
I won't be cheering the Italians, but I assume they will get through.
Not too sure about Brazil v France. That one is a 50-50 for me.
As for the Spain v France match: 3 legit goals. It was one of those penalties that despite the fact it was a foul in the box, not many refs would have given it. IMHO the ref was spot on in giving a penalty to any sort of foul in the box.
I wish all refs would be so consistent.
Henry made a dive. Yep. And so did the Spanish player who was fouled in the box. The French defender stepped on his heel, but the Spanish striker managed to dive forward. Still was a foul, but also was a dive to exaggerate the situation.
But as I said before..... however irritating this is, and how childish it looks, everyone does it. It is part of the modern professional game to trick the referee in giving you at the very least the benefit of the doubt. Dive 3 times in the penalty area, and you probably get it the 4th time. Simulate an injury, and the opponent probably gets a yellow. The Spanish can't complain about the way the French played against them.
Germany v Argentina
For me, Argentina. They are a lot better than the German side (Who have looked Impressive without beating anyone really hard). Argentina have such strength in depth.
Argie win.
Italy v Ukraine
Italian win. Boring game I think. Will watch it because I have to, not because I really want to.
Italy win.
Brazil v France
France might have impressed people with a win yesterday. They still haven't convinced me that they are champion material. Brazil haven't hit 3rd ear yet.
Brazil win
England v Portugal
Portugal the form team going into this. I think England will close them out in defence and nick a goal upfront.
England Win
For me, Argentina. They are a lot better than the German side (Who have looked Impressive without beating anyone really hard). Argentina have such strength in depth.
Argie win.
Italy v Ukraine
Italian win. Boring game I think. Will watch it because I have to, not because I really want to.
Italy win.
Brazil v France
France might have impressed people with a win yesterday. They still haven't convinced me that they are champion material. Brazil haven't hit 3rd ear yet.
Brazil win
England v Portugal
Portugal the form team going into this. I think England will close them out in defence and nick a goal upfront.
England Win
BakedBeans said:
I think you meant "lose". Anyway I know what you meant and of course the losing team can play better but it doesn't happen with 3-1 or 3-0 scorelines though. And without the penalty which I can't count because it didn't impede a goal, it would have been 3-0. Usually the situation where the losing team played better is a 0-1 or a draw and penalties. In this case you can't say that France camped in their own half even though they did defend well. Teams don't score 3 good goals by 'parking a bus'. This really is a case of the best team won. Although Spain did play a good game and it was one of the best to watch.
dogbone said:
Rubbish.
I've seen liverpool win 4-0 by "parking the bus" in the houllier era. they used to sit and defend all game them hit on the break with owens pace. Dreadful at times it was. I've seen teams win 3-0 with just two shots on target.
I'm saying spain played better over 90 minutes. They scored less goals and that is the stat that counts.
Well if they were defending with everyone back and were still able to hit four times on the break then the other team weren't good enough. The 'parking the bus' tactic can only be called into question if a team is trying to go for a nil all draw for a point. You're telling me that a team that can't get past a defence and ALSO at the same time lets in four goals on the break can have played better?
dogbone said:
yeah. We were battered all game, goal line clearances, wood work hit, last ditch tackles and then hit on the break with an owen goal.
It's not what happened last night. but over 90 minutes spain were more impressive. I've just watched the game from beginning to end. if you take the goals out then spain were by far the better side, as i have repeatedly said, its the team that scores most to win. A great performance isnt necessary.
More impressive to you perhaps, but then you are impressed with England
What is Aragones getting at here. Is he saying that when the score was 2-1 and it was the last few minutes that Spain had given up anyway? Because that's what it sounds like. Even after Italy stole the match against Australia with 10 seconds to go. Injury time winners are not that rare. If Aragones is saying that Spain gave up (unlike Australia, when Japan was given a goal through a ref mistake) then Spain definitely didn't deserve to go through. Teams should fight to the end.
Aragones said:
What is Aragones getting at here. Is he saying that when the score was 2-1 and it was the last few minutes that Spain had given up anyway? Because that's what it sounds like. Even after Italy stole the match against Australia with 10 seconds to go. Injury time winners are not that rare. If Aragones is saying that Spain gave up (unlike Australia, when Japan was given a goal through a ref mistake) then Spain definitely didn't deserve to go through. Teams should fight to the end.
BakedBeans said:
I've seen that happening alot too.
Actually take a look at the Champions League, and you will find it happens more often than you think, and yep, especially with the Italian sides.
It's their way of playing: let the opponents have the ball, let them make the play, and yes, they will probably have a few chances, but they will make a mistake. And a mistake that high up the park will lead to lots of room for the defending (read: Italian) side to break into. You need skillfull and very fast strikers in your squad, but the chances created on the break are usually goals because of the amount of space the strikers have.
In the end the other side seemed to have played better, and created more chances. Trouble is, three breaks could spell 3-0.