-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
South Africa: 2010 World Cup
- Thread starter Timmay
- Start date
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
It seems like some of the more hyped European teams have really struggled. France and Italy eliminated, Spain had a bad opener, England struggled in two games before picking it up, Germany had a bad day against Serbia...only the Netherlands has looked as good as advertised.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Yes, Portugal too. Interestingly enough, the Brazil-Portugal game is 1 vs. 3 in the FIFA world rankings. I wonder how often teams ranked that highly have met this early in the tournament.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Not a bad showing for the New World so far. 
The American confederations only sent 8 teams to the tourney, but 7 of them are moving into the next round...thanks mostly to South America's 5-for-5 showing in group play.
With 16 teams left, Ghana is the only African side remaining, South Korea and Japan represent Asia, and there are 6 European teams still playing...but they're all paired with other European sides in the next round, so that number will be cut in half before the quarterfinals. The south Pacific confederation had its only team (New Zealand) knocked out. (Australia competed in the Asian qualifying zone this time.)
Aside from the US game, the most interesting second round games to me look like Brazil-Chile, Germany-England — and especially Spain-Portugal, with two of the top three teams in the world rankings who also just happen to be geographic neighbors!
The American confederations only sent 8 teams to the tourney, but 7 of them are moving into the next round...thanks mostly to South America's 5-for-5 showing in group play.
With 16 teams left, Ghana is the only African side remaining, South Korea and Japan represent Asia, and there are 6 European teams still playing...but they're all paired with other European sides in the next round, so that number will be cut in half before the quarterfinals. The south Pacific confederation had its only team (New Zealand) knocked out. (Australia competed in the Asian qualifying zone this time.)
Aside from the US game, the most interesting second round games to me look like Brazil-Chile, Germany-England — and especially Spain-Portugal, with two of the top three teams in the world rankings who also just happen to be geographic neighbors!
Looking at the bracket, almost anything can happen...it isn't set in stone at all. I mean we could see a Brazil/Spain final just as easily as we see a Chile/Paraguay final.
Time to make a guess, though. US plays Spain for third. Brazil and Argentina battle it out for all the marbles.
Time to make a guess, though. US plays Spain for third. Brazil and Argentina battle it out for all the marbles.
heart broken...but Ghan was clearly the better team, aside from the low class, obvious time wasting the last 15.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
It seems minimal in light of the second half, but England clearly got robbed on that no goal.
For this to be the biggest sporting event on the planet, it surprises me how unsophisticated the officiating setup is. The excuse is that the linesman was behind the play, but in truth, he was exactly where he was supposed to be along the sideline. The game just isn't set up to let the ref get a good view of situations like that where the ball is just over the line.
Say what you like about American sports, but we typically require the officials to be in a decent position to make the big calls — whether it's being right along the end zone plane in the NFL or right over home plate in baseball. They might get it wrong sometimes, but when they do, it's their fault. Here, it just looks like an intrinsic failing of the game. I'd think the world's biggest sport would take getting it right more seriously.
But...like I said, it doesn't matter a whole lot in light of the final score.
For this to be the biggest sporting event on the planet, it surprises me how unsophisticated the officiating setup is. The excuse is that the linesman was behind the play, but in truth, he was exactly where he was supposed to be along the sideline. The game just isn't set up to let the ref get a good view of situations like that where the ball is just over the line.
Say what you like about American sports, but we typically require the officials to be in a decent position to make the big calls — whether it's being right along the end zone plane in the NFL or right over home plate in baseball. They might get it wrong sometimes, but when they do, it's their fault. Here, it just looks like an intrinsic failing of the game. I'd think the world's biggest sport would take getting it right more seriously.
But...like I said, it doesn't matter a whole lot in light of the final score.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Happy days........
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I have a Scottish co-worker who's distraught today. He seems to have embraced the English team pretty heavily. Which view is more typical there, his or yours?
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Mine, but there are some (usually those who follow Glasgow Rangers and of 80s forward generation) who are willing to support England because of the British angle and down to the recent history of having English internationalists play.
I'm more of a traditionalist and want England to lose at everything, of course I am behind enemy lines. :animwink:
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Another bad non-call gives Argentina a goal.
I'm kinda glad I don't get too invested in soccer except for this tournament every four years. I've never seen a sport designed with such indifference to getting it right. (Although I have to admit baseball comes close.)
I'm kinda glad I don't get too invested in soccer except for this tournament every four years. I've never seen a sport designed with such indifference to getting it right. (Although I have to admit baseball comes close.)
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Its the impact of TV technology on the game. Refs have always been blind and made mistakes its jut that now we have 97 camera angles and slow motion to analyse something that the three officials see once at normal speed.
What is more contentious is when the press use technology selectively to single out players or teams.
What is more contentious is when the press use technology selectively to single out players or teams.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I can see that point. What I wonder is why the officials can't have access to the same technology as everyone watching on TV. We have this same argument over whether baseball should allow replay. I don't see a good reason for not using technology that exists. It's just an arbitrary handicap, like making the refs watch the game with an eyepatch would be.
Some people say technology compromises the purity of sport, but I don't get it. They're out there using modern balls, not a pile of rags stitched together or a lump of leather. This isn't the game as it was played in 1930, so why should it be officiated that way?
Just my view...and it goes well beyond soccer.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
I have noting against the technology providing the rules governing its use are clear and strictly enforced
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
In this case at least, it appears to be elementary. Mexico has bigger problems than that call. It looks like the last CONCACAF squad will exit today. With the whole continent out, I don't have much left to root for. Guess I'll latch on to Ghana for as long as they last.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
For the time being I have the Dutch and Brazil.
The Scotts just cant get over their jealousy of England when it comes to sport. Instead of focussing their energy on being anti-England they need to use it to improve their own teams.