2010 South Africa FIFA World Cup thread

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yes but England were so ridiculously shambolic at the back there is no way they were going to score as many as they would concede. The English defence was so so bad there is no way I can see that goal making a difference.
You can't let the disallowed goal cloud how ridiculously bad England were playing.

[Green Spanner]

But the goal, disrupting their attack. Goals have an undeniable effect on the mindset of the team (e.g if a team is 2-0 down at half time, they will tend to go all out in the second half, having nothing to lose, such as in the US-Slovenia game where the US equalised probably due to this).

Yes, England's defence was lacking, but you have to bear in mind that Germany was on the attack. If the goal had been allowed, it could have thrown them off enough for England to launch a counter-attack, making any issues with defence far less relevant.

Again, I'm not saying if the goal had been allowed, England would have won like, 2-12. What I'm saying is that claiming that a goal conceded not long after another that would have equalised would have had absolutely not effect on anything is actually pretty dumb, especially as you seem to be suggesting that the only factor in the game was England's defence.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm not saying its the only factor I'm saying its by far the most dominant factor. And Germany would have been on the attack anyway, that's how this team plays- they've been on constant attack in all their games. The English forwards were doing nothing and the midfielders had one tactic of just rushing the centre which the Germans had fairly well worked out, nobody on the wings. All of England were bad but the defence were worst.
Yes you could say that goal would have changed things but to do so you would have to ignore how both teams were playing. The german goals were all due to England not being able to defend, whereas England goals- particularly the disallowed one- were more out of nowhere and unlikely to repeat.
If anything I think Germany would have scored more if the England goal went in as the pressure would force them to focus more- they got rather profligate in the second half with thier good lead.

I just don't see moral papering over large tacitcal and technical deficinies

[Ravashak]

Originally Posted by Melfice

Ironically... Holland. ¬___¬ EDIT: Rather, that is the most common form. It's simply the Netherlands, and it's the Dutch who inhabit it.
Which IRKS ME TO NO END, for reasons mentioned earlier.

I sooooooooo understand and agree with this, I try to educate people about this too, but it's quite an uphill battle. Might help that I don't live in either of the two provinces, but in (south east) North Brabant, which is south of the Sewer of Europe (Rhine for Germany, and Meuse for France).

[BloodyMage]

There were massive holes in the English defence from the very beginning, and the German players were very good at spotting those holes and getting into the position. Going in to the second half drawing might have boosted morale, but their defence had lacked awareness and marking right from the beginning, so I can understand why they would still have lost despite the disallowed goal, though maybe Germany might not not have gotten both of their second half goals, and maybe only one, because the goal would have rallied them a little. Still, England played poorly and didn't deserve to win, with or without that goal, so yeah.

[krogothwolf]

Well, even with a called off goal, it could also have motivated England with the we can beat them and maybe they could have played stronger.

I hate the whole "if the goal counted" argument because honestly the way I see it a team should be able to overcome those sorts of things, don't blame crap on the crappy refs that have to ref a game with split second decisions. If England was a great team they would have been able to battle back.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

Well, even with a called off goal, it could also have motivated England with the we can beat them and maybe they could have played stronger.

So they played like a 3rd division side instead of a sunday pub team? They would have needed massive improvement.
Really the biggest problem was the tactics. Pretty much every playthe english were out of position- they had no width, all the midfielders were bunched in a group, they were playing a very static 4-4-2 even when 3 goals down which prevented any good opportunities. England actually dominated possession but never had the opportunity to do anything with it. Germany were running out of midfield, across the marking zones and just catching everybody out of position.
To be honest this has been a problem with England for a long time. Under Sven when they ahd better success opponents would normally dominate games but superior England finishing would help them out.


To move to the Argentina game, has Maradona played us all with his bizarre selections and antics and is actually a good manager? Cause Argentina are really firing.

[Bells]

FUCK YOU MARADONA!!

Mexico Got robbed blind!! I got really mad about game... that illegal goal broke the focus of Mexico that opened that silly mistake for the second goal.

The honest result of that Match was 1-1

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

So they played like a 3rd division side instead of a sunday pub team? They would have needed massive improvement.

Wow! Germany let a sunday pub team score two goals on them?

Now that is embarrassing.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It was a combination of Germany also being poor and individiual efforts by the english