2010 South Africa FIFA World Cup thread

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Germany England- here's hoping for England loss on penalties. Among media there seems to be almost a desire for the game to go to penalties so England can purge their demons.

Edit: Comical refering rules out an England goal. 1966 in reverse?

[Green Spanner]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Edit: Comical refering rules out an England goal. 1966 in reverse?

Even if England loses, at least the Germans can't complain anymore about '66.

Or at least, they shouldn't complain anymore.

EDIT: Game might as well end now to be honest.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

England has conference level defending. Germany could have scored 10. David James the keeper has been englands best player by a mile and they still conceded 4 which says something.
In championship manager I once perfected a no defence (0-7-3) strategy but I was considerably more successful than England who also don't seem to be playing any.

[Green Spanner]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

England has conference level defending.

I disagree. Players in the conference seem to give a shit, which is more than can be said for England throughout this whole competition.

Seriously, we should spend the next four years training up the successors to these aging prima donnas.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Time till someone said on the BBC that the disallowed goal would have changed things: 5 min. Oh dear.

[krogothwolf]

Originally Posted by Melfice

You guys really wouldn't like it if I said "Hey, I'm going to New York this summer!" And then I end up going to Florida, or something, right?
Or... or... "Hey, I'm going to Montreal!" and then I end up in... Vancouver.
While fully meaning the USA and Canada respectively.

Actually, it should be more like mentioning Alberta or BC and ending up in Quebec. Even then it's a bit forgivable because Canada is freakin huge.

do you guys have a short form for The Netherlands to be called?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

This argentina side are going to be very very hard to beat.
Another bad referee decision, one argentina goal miles offside. Made even worse because it was shown on the big screen at the ground (which is not allowed) so everyone knew ref was wrong.

[Melfice]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

Actually, it should be more like mentioning Alberta or BC and ending up in Quebec. Even then it's a bit forgivable because Canada is freakin huge.

do you guys have a short form for The Netherlands to be called?

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. (Also, thanks for the correction on Canada-stuffs.)

*sigh* Forget my little rage from earlier?

Also, my parents were raging on Germany winning. Despite my arguments of England having been shit this tournament and that, for once, Germany hasn't scored the winning goal in the last five minutes, they still argue that Germany is always lucky.

I agree that the disqualified goal (or, rather, the non-goal) from England should have counted, but I doubt it would have made a real big difference in the end, regardless of what any sports-reporter says. Germany was on a roll, and there was little stopping them.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The majority of reports I've read, including the hundreds of comments on the guardian, agree that the goal would have changed nothing. And anyone who doesn't is wrong because England were awful, their defencewas awful, they were lucky it was 10-1. That goal would have changed nothing, German were slaughtering hteir defence.

[Green Spanner]

The thing is that the goal would have happened very soon after Germany already conceded. That may very likely have put Germany off balance, allowing England to potentially take the initiative.

You have to factor the psycological aspects of the goal really. The ultimate effects it would have had is hard to say, but to say it would have made no difference is just naive.