World Cup 2010

[Van Basten II]

Yep and only people from Switzerland can stop people from Spain

Edited July 13, 2010 by Van Basten II

[Swinging Swede]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that Iniesta resembles Lucky Millinder?

[king ubu]

Yep and only people from Switzerland can stop people from Spain

Yeah, but hardly anyone else played such a bad WC...

[brownie]

Yep and only people from Switzerland can stop people from Spain

Yeah, but hardly anyone else played such a bad WC...

There was no worse team than France

[Swinging Swede]

Quick question: Which was the only undefeated team in the World Cup?

[Jim R]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that Iniesta resembles Lucky Millinder?

Nice! Now what ever happened to that "Look-alikes" thread...? :rsmile:

Quick question: Which was the only undefeated team in the World Cup?

New Zealand!

[Swinging Swede]

That is the surprising but correct answer!

[J.A.W.]

They played only 3 games, which made it easier to remain unbeaten

[sidewinder]

Yep and only people from Switzerland can stop people from Spain

Yeah, but hardly anyone else played such a bad WC...

There was no worse team than France

I can think of one...

[kenny weir]

They played only 3 games, which made it easier to remain unbeaten

That's true. But for a country of 3 million people, with players who have day jobs and where rugby union is the national religion, it's quite an achievement.

"Kiwi" Kenny

[Cliff Englewood]

Mr Renia could you please sit down, you're disturbing the other passangers.

[Aggie87]

It seems like if you never lost a World Cup game, you should have at least one world championship to celebrate.

I guess I know that's not how it works, but congrats to the Kiwis anyway!

[Cliff Englewood]

In relation to the Kiwis, you also have to win a game occasionally to be considered even mediocre. To be honest they probably overachieved by getting 3 draws in what was a very poor competition in terms of quality football.

[Brad]

Only a poor officiating decision (more diving) prevented them from beating Italy and moving to the group of 16.

[Cliff Englewood]

Ain't no party like a Dirk Kuyt party cause a Dirk Kuyt party don't stop...

Only a poor officiating decision (more diving) prevented them from beating Italy and moving to the group of 16.

Maybe, but how shit were Italy, they actually finished below NZ and they were the defending champions!!!

I'm all for plucky underdogs and all that but a bit of perspective please and lets see how they do in the next W.C.

[Brad]

Maybe they were crap but NZ deserved the three in that match, and that match was one of the more exciting ones I saw in the WC as Italy was desperate for a win and NZ held them off.

[kenny weir]

In relation to the Kiwis, you also have to win a game occasionally to be considered even mediocre. To be honest they probably overachieved by getting 3 draws in what was a very poor competition in terms of quality football.

Overachieved?

Oh, absolutely - that's the point. They were widely expected to be cannon fodder and worse for all three teams they met. That turned out not to be the case. They were competitive. Didn't win a game. BFD. If you don't want to share in the goodwill that has been extended to them by all and sundry, that's fine, too. But there's plenty of people who consider them a thumbs-up story from a tournament sorely lacking in them.

Kiwi Kenny

Edited July 14, 2010 by kenny weir

[sidewinder]

Meanwhile, in the wacky world of FIFA rankings, England moves up to No. 7. Words fail me !

Edited July 14, 2010 by sidewinder

[kenny weir]

Maybe they were crap but NZ deserved the three in that match, and that match was one of the more exciting ones I saw in the WC as Italy was desperate for a win and NZ held them off.

I agree. For me sheer quality and brilliance comes and goes, and generally I prefer Jimmy Forrest over John Coltrane.

I'm into drama which is why, when it comes to English soccer, I prefer the championship and the scrabble to avoid the drop from EPL to the multi-multi-millionaires at the top.

In that context, the NZ/Italy game was as good as anything @ WC '10

[porcy62]

Meanwhile, in the wacky world of FIFA rankings, England moves up to No. 7. Words fail me !

No surprise. Paul, the octopus, is skyrocketed to No 2, just after the Spain. Overall, he will be the next CEO of FIFA, a huge leap forward after Blatter. A totally useless creature, Sepp, put him in a zoo, next to the monkey cage..and BTW don't feed the animal.

[Van Basten II]

By the way, here's the call of the winning goal by Spain radio. No need to understand spanish

http://www.elpais.com/audios/deportes/Final/Mundial/Gol/Iniesta/Holanda/0-Espana/elpauddep/20100711csrcsrdep_23/Aes/

[sidewinder]

Meanwhile, in the wacky world of FIFA rankings, England moves up to No. 7. Words fail me !

No surprise. Paul, the octopus, is skyrocketed to No 2, just after the Spain. Overall, he will be the next CEO of FIFA, a huge leap forward after Blatter. A totally useless creature, Sepp, put him in a zoo, next to the monkey cage..and BTW don't feed the animal.

Can't agree more !

I'll bet the expat octopus has done big things for the balance of trade in Oberhausen. Great marketing by the Burgermeisters !

[Cliff Englewood]

In relation to the Kiwis, you also have to win a game occasionally to be considered even mediocre. To be honest they probably overachieved by getting 3 draws in what was a very poor competition in terms of quality football.

Overachieved?

Oh, absolutely - that's the point. They were widely expected to be cannon fodder and worse for all three teams they met. That turned out not to be the case. They were competitive. Didn't win a game. BFD. If you don't want to share in the goodwill that has been extended to them by all and sundry, that's fine, too. But there's plenty of people who consider them a thumbs-up story from a tournament sorely lacking in them.

Kiwi Kenny

I don't think it has anything to do with not having any goodwill for them, the only team I had no goodwill for was France, for obvious reasons. The problem I have with the World Cup in general is not so much the competition itself, its the people who watch it thinking it's the best the game can offer. It's not, in fact, it is probably at least as much, if not more about promoting the game in areas where football is not the number one sport, N.Z., Japan and the USA would be good examples. So with that in mind the whole N.Z. thing was sucessful as there will probably be a few more kids there playing football in the next few years.

However as the true All Whites fan that you are, you would of course be aware of the teams N.Z. had to beat to get to the W.C. Finals in the first place, countries with even less professional players than they have. From a purely footballing point of view, there are 3 maybe 4 teams I would have rather seen in the W.C. than the Kiwis, Russia, Croatia, Ireland of course, that could have possibly provided far more entertaining games and still had the potential for the whole "I didn't see that result coming/upset factor". The problem with FIFA and the WC in general is they want to make sure that everybody gets a go, so that even the fat kid gets to score a goal. N.Z. were the fat kid.

For me a real thumbs up story would have been an African team getting maybe as far the semis, further than they did get anyway, with an African coach, not an overpaid white coach their Federations brought in just after they qualified.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Cliff Englewood

[kenny weir]

In relation to the Kiwis, you also have to win a game occasionally to be considered even mediocre. To be honest they probably overachieved by getting 3 draws in what was a very poor competition in terms of quality football.

Overachieved?

Oh, absolutely - that's the point. They were widely expected to be cannon fodder and worse for all three teams they met. That turned out not to be the case. They were competitive. Didn't win a game. BFD. If you don't want to share in the goodwill that has been extended to them by all and sundry, that's fine, too. But there's plenty of people who consider them a thumbs-up story from a tournament sorely lacking in them.

Kiwi Kenny

I don't think it has anything to do with not having any goodwill for them, the only team I had no goodwill for was France, for obvious reasons. The problem I have with the World Cup in general is not so much the competition itself, its the people who watch it thinking it's the best the game can offer. It's not, in fact, it is probably at least as much, if not more about promoting the game in areas where football is not the number one sport, N.Z., Japan and the USA would be good examples. So with that in mind the whole N.Z. thing was sucessful as there will probably be a few more kids there playing football in the next few years.

However as the true All Whites fan that you are, you would of course be aware of the teams N.Z. had to beat to get to the W.C. Finals in the first place, countries with even less professional players than they have. From a purely footballing point of view, there are 3 maybe 4 teams I would have rather seen in the W.C. than the Kiwis, Russia, Croatia, Ireland of course, that could have possibly provided far more entertaining games and still had the potential for the whole "I didn't see that result coming/upset factor". The problem with FIFA and the WC in general is they want to make sure that everybody gets a go, so that even the fat kid gets to score a goal. N.Z. were the fat kid.

For me a real thumbs up story would have been an African team getting maybe as far the semis, further than they did get anyway, with an African coach, not an overpaid white coach their Federations brought in just after they qualified.

Hell, I certainly don't think the WC is the best the game has to offer.

In reflecting on the WC, I'd rather base it on what happened ... rather than what maybe should've happened.

And hey, the fat kid behaved with poise and decorum that some of the hot shots couldn't even get close to.

Edited July 15, 2010 by kenny weir

[Cliff Englewood]

In relation to the Kiwis, you also have to win a game occasionally to be considered even mediocre. To be honest they probably overachieved by getting 3 draws in what was a very poor competition in terms of quality football.

Overachieved?

Oh, absolutely - that's the point. They were widely expected to be cannon fodder and worse for all three teams they met. That turned out not to be the case. They were competitive. Didn't win a game. BFD. If you don't want to share in the goodwill that has been extended to them by all and sundry, that's fine, too. But there's plenty of people who consider them a thumbs-up story from a tournament sorely lacking in them.

Kiwi Kenny

I don't think it has anything to do with not having any goodwill for them, the only team I had no goodwill for was France, for obvious reasons. The problem I have with the World Cup in general is not so much the competition itself, its the people who watch it thinking it's the best the game can offer. It's not, in fact, it is probably at least as much, if not more about promoting the game in areas where football is not the number one sport, N.Z., Japan and the USA would be good examples. So with that in mind the whole N.Z. thing was sucessful as there will probably be a few more kids there playing football in the next few years.

However as the true All Whites fan that you are, you would of course be aware of the teams N.Z. had to beat to get to the W.C. Finals in the first place, countries with even less professional players than they have. From a purely footballing point of view, there are 3 maybe 4 teams I would have rather seen in the W.C. than the Kiwis, Russia, Croatia, Ireland of course, that could have possibly provided far more entertaining games and still had the potential for the whole "I didn't see that result coming/upset factor". The problem with FIFA and the WC in general is they want to make sure that everybody gets a go, so that even the fat kid gets to score a goal. N.Z. were the fat kid.

For me a real thumbs up story would have been an African team getting maybe as far the semis, further than they did get anyway, with an African coach, not an overpaid white coach their Federations brought in just after they qualified.

Hell, I certainly don't think the WC is the best the game has to offer.

In reflecting on the WC, I'd rather base it on what happened ... rather than what maybe should've happened.

And hey, the fat kid behaved with poise and decorum that some of the hot shots couldn't even get close to.

I think you're missing my point, I am baseing my opinion on what happened. I didn't expect anything from this WC, I was in no way looking forward to it and not just because Ireland weren't there, (however judging by how bad the whole thing was thay might have done ok, better than France anyway) but because the WC usually disappoints, at least most of the ones I can remember from my lifetime. There is way to much club football played in an average season to expect players to be able to step up again and perform for another 3 weeks. But usually there are a couple of classic games, or a player you've never really heard of before stealing the show and then has every big club in the world wanting to sign him. Did that happen this time?, maybe some of the German games, though you can't really count the ones against the Aussies or England as they didn't really put up much of a fight, Honda for Japan stood out but he's already playing at CL level with CSKA Moscow so he doesn't really count, alot of the Geman players are also playing at a decent level. So if NZ getting 3 draws and not disgracing themselves is a highlight, for anyone other than a Kiwi that is, it kinda just proves what a shit WC it really was.

Although that octopus rocked. Does he do Lotto number by any chance.