The Official 2006 FIFA World Cup thread. (3 Viewers)

Magister

Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
98
Location
Riverina
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Hey, Otay!!

I wasn't suggesting that we'd win because the Azzuri had 10 men-I think we could have got over them if they still had 11. What I meant was that it was obvious that they were wilting a bit towards the end of regular time and we were still full of running. I believe that if the last sub had been brought on (Josh) superior fitness and his height and nuisance value in the box would have prevailed. I am not knocking the Italians, but I believe they got out of gaol in the most fortunate of circumstances for them, and the cruellest way for us.
 

Far_Q

New Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
27
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Not to be negative and such but as much as everyone is saying that this will be the cornerstone to future success, I highly doubt it, the round ball game will never be the sport we will be great at, rugby league, afl and union will always be our top achieving sports.

In four years time most of our players would have aged, some would be retired and I doubt we will produce another kewell, viduka, Aloisi etc for quite some time...

This was our great chance with most of our players at the peak of their powers, but we let it slip away and the experience of the italian team got them through...
 

Komit

Byahhhhhhhhhh
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
688
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Far_Q, it shows how much little you know about the sport in Australia. There are players well on their way to being better than this group of players. All they need to be is nurtured by a strong technical environment which I think the Socceroos' success may pave the way for. Don't look at the recent U17 failure because Ange Postecoglou is shithouse. Trust me. I have experienced the quality of youth football all around Australia and it definitely is promising. Even more interesting is that many of the top youth players in NSW and Victoria are coming from rural areas.

As for rugby league, AFL and union - they are highly unimportant in the scheme of global sport. Maybe union is played by more countries, but even that is monopolised by 3 or 4 nations. The real football is where it's at and Australia does have the potential to be great at it. Australia is ranked 42nd in the world, but they are easily the number 1 team in Asia and a top 15 in the world. Watch Australian football rise in the new Asian competitions and watch the youth flourish as less renowned players are given all-important caps at this top level.

Back on track with the World Cup (yes, it is still on):

I'm excited about France v Spain match - should be a cracker. I continue to stand by Spain. If they lose, I'm fucked.

Ghana could upset Brazil but expect them to start firing. What I would like to see more of is Juninho and Fred. They give the Brazilians a whole new dimension in atack (if that is at all possible).

Finally, interesting that 6 out of the final 8 are European nations. I sure hope we get a European winner - had enough of the Cup going to gyspsy nations.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
844
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
haha yeah i almost forgot there were other games going on.

if i can be fucked, i'll be up for spain v france - i think spain will pull through. although france will have zidane back, so that's a hard one to call. i expect no mercy from brazil on beating ghana.

BUT THE BIG ONE, germany v argentina, should be great. i think england will come out on top against the portugese; who knows what will happen with italy v ukraine.
 

Mountain.Dew

Magician, and Lawyer.
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
825
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
This is the answer to all the controversy about new technology for refs:

Technophobia by Bruce Crumley said:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/2006/wcup/technophobia.html

Twenty-six minutes into a first-round World Cup game last week, Japanese midfielder Shunsuke Nakamura launched a speculative ball into the Australian penalty area. Aussie goalie Mark Schwarzer charged impetuously at the cross, collided with — or was pushed by — a Japanese player, and the ball sailed into the net. Foul or goal? Egyptian referee Essam Abd el Fatah initially had no doubt, brushing aside furious Australian protests. (The Egyptian later apologized to Schwarzer for allowing the goal.) The call wasn't decisive; Australia scored three times in the last 10 minutes to win the game. But say the score had ended 1-0? And say it had been a semifinal? Then the arguments would have been reverberating for years.

Listen to some football revolutionaries, though, and they'll tell you there's no need for endless pub debates about disputed calls. Video and verification technologies have developed in such a way that it is possible to quickly settle a call one way or the other. If the gizmos that are available had been around years ago, the history of the Cup would surely be very different. The "Hand of God" quite certainly would not have helped Diego Maradona in Argentina's quarterfinal against England in 1986; Geoff Hurst's second goal for England in the 1966 final would probably not have stood; and surely, surely, German goalkeeper Harald Schumacher would have been sent off in the 1982 semifinal against France after an atrocious foul on Patrick Battiston, seen by everyone but the referee. But video replays weren't available and reliable back then. They are now, though. So why aren't they being used in the Cup?

Ask former French defender Frank Leboeuf why what he calls "urgent and available technological solutions" aren't being used to reduce referee error, and his answer is plain: because of the conservatism of football's global governing body — the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). Well known for its grip on the organization and evolution of the game, FIFA has dismissed or forestalled a series of recent proposals to enhance refereeing accuracy. Why? Because video consultation, FIFA's officials believe, risks creating long stoppages of play. The resulting loss of fluidity and speed, it is argued, would harm the game more than officiating errors do. Other electronic-verification technologies have yet to be deemed reliable enough. The sole innovation in this Cup is the introduction of wireless devices that allow all four match officials to communicate during action.

FIFA can be accused of many things, but rushing into change isn't one of them. "Human error is part of the human game of football — whether by players or referees," says one unapologetic FIFA official. "When technology has been found to be a foolproof, useful tool for referees that won't detract from play, it will be used. Not before."

That sounds reasonable, but the ferocity with which FIFA and the International Football Association Board (IFAB) — which oversees all questions of the game's rules — hew to their collective line beggars belief. In addition to the purists' reluctance to change, Leboeuf says FIFA's hostility to innovation may also reflect its "fear that surrendering partial control to technology in refereeing could be the first step in FIFA losing complete authority over the game elsewhere."

FIFA has already backtracked on plans to launch a new system at this current World Cup that can determine whether balls have fully crossed goal lines. Developed in part by Adidas, the "Smartball" contains a computer chip that emits a radio signal 2,000 times per second to nearly a dozen antennas around goal areas. That feed is relayed to a computer, which determines the exact position of the ball on the pitch and sends a signal to referees when the ball crosses the line. Granted, the system doesn't seem to be foolproof, but whatever the glitches, FIFA is curiously obdurate in its position. Last October, for example, French football league officials announced that they planned to test video consultation during closed-door games. FIFA nixed the plan. "It's forbidden — the International Board hasn't authorized it," former French footballing great Michel Platini told an international conference after the French plans were revealed. "Anyone who wants to experiment with video will expose themselves to sanctions," said Platini, who is chairman of FIFA's technical committee.

What could be so threatening from video that FIFA would ban closed-door testing of it? "I have no idea — it's incomprehensible," says Frédéric Thiriez, president of the French league. Following Platini's scolding last year, Thiriez made an official presentation to the full IFAB last March, requesting approval to test video. It was rejected. "I understand people might be suspicious of the efficiency or impact of video in football," says Thiriez. "But to prohibit experimentation? It's an insult to human intelligence."

Football's conservatism seems odd given that other sports have embraced video replays. The National Football League in the U.S. began using video in 1986, and has used digital instant replay since 1999. In 1992, video replay was introduced to international cricket and since 2000, video has gradually expanded to international and European Heineken Cup rugby-union games to give referees visual confirmation of questionable tries. Rugby referees have also been equipped with wireless communication units that allow assistants to tip off the man in the middle if he misses something. Tennis has adopted Hawk-Eye technology, which uses multiple digital cameras to track and predict ball trajectories in 3-D. Time was when the tennis, rugby-union and cricket establishments were bywords for conservative, 19th century attitudes to their games. Now it's football — in many respects, the great modern game — that looks set in its ways. If you think that makes sense, you didn't watch Japan vs. Australia in a bar with a bunch of outraged Sydneysiders.
 

Magister

Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
98
Location
Riverina
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Surely you are not calling US a "gypsey nation"?

On another tangent: I was actually in the Netherlands when the Socceroos played them in Rotterdam. I watched the game with a bunch of expat Aussies, Irish and a few Dutch, along with a somewhat bemused gang of women from the Rood en Wit cricket team with whom I'd been playing. They were shellshocked at the Aussie onslaught: I don't think they had ever faced an assault like our guys threw at them!! Technically, the Oranjes were superior, but rather precious. When 3 of their stars got injured, courtesy of some strong, but mostly fair tackles, the crowd was up in arms. They didn't like the 1-1 draw at all and the papers next day, if my understanding of Dutch is good enough, was critical of us for being too tough and their boys for being too soft!! I got into a stand-up "debate" with some Dutch supporters for calling their players "soft pussycats"- and lived to tell the tale!! Strangely enough, Marco van Basten, their coach, did not complain and was actually quite complimentary about the Socceroos both in print and on TV. I knew then that we at least had the Europeans worried!!
 

blue_chameleon

Shake the sauce bottle yo
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
3,078
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Far_Q said:
we let it slip away and the experience of the italian team got them through...
Experience nothing.

They took the win from a contraversial penalty in the last minute. Had nothing to do with the experience.

Also, umm......Tim Cahill ring a bell? At his age, it certainly seems he will be around for a many years to come. Aloisi isnt that old is he? Maybe Kewell and Dukes and a few others wont see the next World Cup, but to say that the team will be severely depleted by next World Cup (and wont be able to counter this) is a bit rich dont you think?

This isnt the FFA of a decade ago.
 

Komit

Byahhhhhhhhhh
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
688
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Makes a good point, BUT, there is not way it should be implemented if it will ruin the flow of the game.

@Magister: I meant the Gypsy nations of South America. I would not have minded Australia bringing back the cup. Not at all. :)
 
Last edited:

Mountain.Dew

Magician, and Lawyer.
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
825
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
previous post on pg 171 lost in a sea of emo posts:

========================================

first of all, australia played extremely well against the behemoth that was italy. we could not be prouder of our socceroos. they played their hearts out, played to the true spirit and traditions of the game. and for that, i am honoured that an important part of my identity is that i am australian. im sure that many ethnic migrants and their generations would feel the same thing as well.

might as well get the referee thing out: that was a poor decision. we all know that. the referee even knew that. fair enuff, we hate the ref. but this is human nature. we are fated to make mistakes, whether it be minimal or astronomically significant. the referee did what he had to do, and he only had that split second to make that decision, AND STICK TO IT. once uve made it, weather the storm that will inevitably come. i have done refereeing before, and i know how it feels from the ref's side over such controvesy. IF the ref was to reverse his decision, there would be an absolute outburst from the italians, even more violent and more vocal than the australians would. it would have made the situation much much worse. that is the true nature of refereeing. if it is that refs could change their decisions all the time once they have made a decision, the integrity of refereeing would crumble.

our leaving was a symptom of that human error. it was the way the cookie crumbled. just as long as FIFA will learn from this mistake and hopefully the quality of world soccer refereeing would be better, not from 2010, but the next match onwards.

on the contrary, i didnt feel that Australia dominated the game. maintaining most of the possession of the ball doesnt mean that u dominate the game. creating GOOD opportunities to score more than ur opponent is what is known as dominating the game. and no, i am not saying the azzuri dominated the game either. i felt that australia lacked that 'something' in attack that would get the italians running for their money. that 'something' could be kewell, but im not prepared to make that judgement. there are a few reasons why i thought australia had very slim chances at getting the ball behind the net.

- Italian defence was superb. on their half, THEY outnumbered us in their half. 10-11 italian players hung back on defence, while we only maintained 8 or 9 in attack. even when they where down to 10. notice that all of Australia's through balls and penetrations where covered by more than 1 italian. there was very little chances for crossing the ball. the italians marked the flanks extremely well. where ever the ball went, the italians followed. i felt that the italian's tactic was simple. maintain a defensive fort, capitalise on australia's mistake, counterattack, score. wash, rinse, repeat. if it came to a penalty shootout, statistically speaking, the italians have the advantage - the most expensive (implying the best) goalie in the world. theoretically, we would lose in the penalty shootouts.

- we werent fast enough in attack. we tried to mimic the brazilians in taking our time to build up our attack, but really, we where playing the italian's game. thats what they want. an attack that is slow, steady and systematic. their defense met that perfectly. if the australians where a bit faster, they might of had more chances at scoring. we didnt capitalise enough on the red card either. bring at least one defender into attack. we needed to take that risk. our domination of possession (not the match) meant that we could take that risk. more of our numbers on their side might of shifted the balance in our favour. but, we still hung back on 3 defenders.

- the aussies gotta learn to strike the ball at the 'right direction'. there was a superb chance by chipperfield when he cracked the ball straight at the italian goalie. straight at him. we gotta learn to kick it so that it is out of reach of the goalie's hands. thats how kewell scored the 2nd goal against croatia. to the sides of the goal, not the centre. bresciano attempted to do exactly that with his 'flying saucer' balls (a bit like argentina's 2nd goal against Mexico) but couldnt get enough spin to get the back of the net. this i felt was an indication that the aussie offence was a little bit struggling and wavering against the azzuri full on.
 

_dhj_

-_-
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
1,562
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
blue_chameleon said:
Experience nothing.

They took the win from a contraversial penalty in the last minute. Had nothing to do with the experience.

Also, umm......Tim Cahill ring a bell? At his age, it certainly seems he will be around for a many years to come. Aloisi isnt that old is he? Maybe Kewell and Dukes and a few others wont see the next World Cup, but to say that the team will be severely depleted by next World Cup (and wont be able to counter this) is a bit rich dont you think?

This isnt the FFA of a decade ago.
By experience I think he meant experience in knowing when to dive

Tim Cahill is at his peak. Aloisi is about 30 and will be past it at the next world cup.
 

_dhj_

-_-
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
1,562
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Mountain.Dew said:
Komit said:
Makes a good point, BUT, there is not way it should be implemented if it will ruin the flow of the game.
eh? please clarify ur position.
Official FIFA spokesperson.
 
Last edited:

Komit

Byahhhhhhhhhh
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
688
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
More like the whole team lacked experience in such big game, pressure situations. Penalty or not, the ball should not have been where it was at the time. This is an indicator of the inexperience the 'Roos lacked - not in terms of age.
 

Lainee

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,159
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
acmilan said:
I completely agree and couldnt have said it better. Im just glad there are some people who realised that this result doesnt taint football at all. It may or may not have been a bad decision, but it wouldnt be the first nor the last, its the nature of the game. ...etc
And it's the very nature of the game I'm questioning. This incident is just one of many that disillusions the whole sport. Despite it being a beautiful game it's just rift with injustices waiting to happen. As much as I really want to embrace soccer the thought that a team can win because of blatant mistakes, mistakes not attributable to the players on the field but to a third party, makes me question that decision. I subscribe to 'the best man should win' ideology and it's totally against my genetic makeup to accept that theatrics wins the game.
 

Komit

Byahhhhhhhhhh
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
688
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
@MountainDew: The implementation of new technology is undoubtedly the only way poor refereeing decisions can be weeded out. BUT, such technology tends to ruin the flow of the game as it will create too many pauses which will negatively effect the how the game is played and watched. If a system that allows refereeing errors to be neutralised that will minimally effect the game can be implemented then by all means do it, if not, then don't even bother.
 

_dhj_

-_-
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
1,562
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Mountain.Dew said:
lol im not sympathizing with the refs at all.
Not you, Komit - the guy who's lecturing us on how Australia deserved to lose and how technology should not be used.
 

Mountain.Dew

Magician, and Lawyer.
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
825
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Komit said:
@MountainDew: The implementation of new technology is undoubtedly the only way poor refereeing decisions can be weeded out. BUT, such technology tends to ruin the flow of the game as it will create too many pauses which will negatively effect the how the game is played and watched. If a system that allows refereeing errors to be neutralised that will minimally effect the game can be implemented then by all means do it, if not, then don't even bother.
hear hear. thanks Komit!
 

Komit

Byahhhhhhhhhh
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
688
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Lainee said:
And it's the very nature of the game I'm questioning. This incident is just one of many that disillusions the whole sport. Despite it being a beautiful game it's just rift with injustices waiting to happen. As much as I really want to embrace soccer the thought that a team can win because of blatant mistakes, mistakes not attributable to the players on the field but to a third party, makes me question that decision. I subscribe to 'the best man should win' ideology and it's totally against my genetic makeup to accept that theatrics wins the game.
You must realise that theatrics did not win the game. It was the overall performance of the team. If the Socceroos scored or did not allow Grosso to get into the box, then the "theatrics" would never happened. Sure, the critical moment was the bad decision, but it could have been avoided.

In general though, "the best man should win" does not apply to football. In football, it is "whoever makes the most of their chances". Typically, the better team will create more chances and the better team will invariably make use of these chances. However, this "ideology" is prone to flaws which is evidenced by games being won by the lesser team.

Finally, if you are addressing the Italy v Australia game then the better team did win. Italy had clear opportunities on goal, whereas Australia created pretty much nothing. In the end, the better team did win, even if it was in undeserving circumstances.
 

_dhj_

-_-
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
1,562
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Komit said:
@MountainDew: The implementation of new technology is undoubtedly the only way poor refereeing decisions can be weeded out. BUT, such technology tends to ruin the flow of the game as it will create too many pauses which will negatively effect the how the game is played and watched. If a system that allows refereeing errors to be neutralised that will minimally effect the game can be implemented then by all means do it, if not, then don't even bother.
Sorry but that is a very poor excuse for not providing the option of video replay for the referee. When a controversial decision like a penalty or a sending off is made, the stoppage it creates is long enough for the incident to be replayed more than many times.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top