Has anyone noticed how France always lose when playing outside Europe, and always win very strangely inside Europe?

Don't forget their miraculous Golden Goal against Brazil.. :mischief:

I would accept it was luck if strange things happened once, but it I always get nervous when France plays within the borders Europe.. what strange deal have they paid for this time? :p

France FC?

Well, who cares. You know what I meant. FT then :p

No European country has ever won a World Cup outside Europe, so it is not really a French thing...

I would even say that no European countries ever won any MATCHES of the Euro outside Europe.

Clearly, something is fishy here !

Forget about France. I want to know why Italy play in blue. Now, there's your conspiracy.

Why is that a conspiracy?

Forget about France. I want to know why Italy play in blue. Now, there's your conspiracy.

No, I want to know why Italy plays in white with dead ugly golden imprint

That's called style... :lol:

Has anyone noticed how France always lose when playing outside Europe

Oh yeah, you mean how they miraculously won the world cup in 2002?

:rolleyes:

Oh yeah, you mean how they miraculously won the world cup in 2002?

:rolleyes:
You mean how they were kicked out of that tournament without scoring a single goal :D

Why is that a conspiracy?
I see, they've gotten to you. Damn you! Damn you all!

I see, they've gotten to you. Damn you! Damn you all!

All I wanted was an answer...

We are all looking for answers.. :coffee:

We are all looking for answers.. :coffee:

I just want one :p

Do you really know what you want? That is the queston, my friend..:coffee:

edit : double post

Don't forget their miraculous Golden Goal against Brazil.. :mischief:


What are you thinking about ???? :confused:
Could you refresh my mind...?? :crazyeye:

The 3 goals that France scroed in the final? Might be why he used the smilie...

By the way. Do you remember Barthez's red card at the final of the UEFA cup against Valence ? Wasn't it on a similar action than James against Henry ?

You were all saying it was fair. Obviously James should be out too if I follow your logic. :D

By the way. Do you remember Barthez's red card at the final of the UEFA cup against Valence ? Wasn't it on a similar action than James against Henry ?

You were all saying it was fair. Obviously James should be out too if I follow your logic. :D
Barthez deserved the red card for the foul, not for the tactical situation. I am against sending off a player for being the "last man" in a situation that leads to a penalty (which almost always includes the keeper). If the keeper commits a foul outside the area (or uses his hands) he should rightfully be sent off. But not in the area.
That all has nothing to do with the nature of the foul. Some fouls deserve being sent off no matter where they are committed. Barthez' one was one of those, James' wasn't.

It would have been a little too harsh to have conceded 2 goals in 2 minutes and had your goalkeeper sent off...

Barthez deserved the red card for the foul, not for the tactical situation. I am against sending off a player for being the "last man" in a situation that leads to a penalty (which almost always includes the keeper). If the keeper commits a foul outside the area (or uses his hands) he should rightfully be sent off. But not in the area.
That all has nothing to do with the nature of the foul. Some fouls deserve being sent off no matter where they are committed. Barthez' one was one of those, James' wasn't.What was the difference ? Both were commited in the penalty area. Both players blocked the feet from the forwards. Both were made as last defender. Don't see any difference I'm sorry.

It would have been a little too harsh to have conceded 2 goals in 2 minutes and had your goalkeeper sent off...And suddenly... it's "too harsh" :mischief:

And suddenly... it's "too harsh" :mischief:

I didn't see Barthez's sending off so I never commented on it in the first place... :p

What was the difference ? Both were commited in the penalty area. Both players blocked the feet from the forwards. Both were made as last defender. Don't see any difference I'm sorry.
If I recall correctly Barthez jumped into the attacker with his feet first, which in German is called "gestrecktes Bein" (literally "streched (out) leg"). This is an "offense" on its own, even worse if done with both legs, because it highly risks injury for the attacked player, unlike "just" to throw someone over.

I didn't see Barthez's sending off so I never commented on it in the first place... :pDon't worry, I agree with you. :)

A yellow card in both case would have been enough. I simply consider red card + penalty as a double sanction. Except if you break the jaw from the forward in the penalty area and send that same forward to the hospital, that's quite too much. But in those case, obviously no fault are whistled.

Schumacher (German GK) and Battiston (French forward)
Spain 82 World Cup, Seville, semi-final, July 8th 1982.

Don't worry, I agree with you. :)

A yellow card in both case would have been enough. I simply consider red card + penalty as a double sanction. Except if you break the jaw from the forward in the penalty area and send that same forward to the hospital, that's quite too much. But in those case, obviously no fault are whistled.

Schumacher (German GK) and Battiston (French forward)
Spain 82 World Cup, Seville, semi-final, July 8th 1982.
This is pretty much the point. For those who said it was fair to send off Barthez he did risk to severly harm the opposing player. And the intention is what counts, you can't wait for an x-ray of the attacked one until you pull out the card. James' foul was a clear foul and surely deserved a penalty, but not more exactly because that would be double punishment.

This is pretty much the point. For those who said it was fair to send off Barthez he did risk to severly harm the opposing player. And the intention is what counts, you can't wait for an x-ray of the attacked one until you pull out the card. James' foul was a clear foul and surely deserved a penalty, but not more exactly because that would be double punishment.I hardly see how barthez fault was worse. Both blocked the legs of the forwards in the same way. Anyway, obviously we won't agree on that point so let's stop talking about it. ;)

I hardly see how barthez fault was worse. Both blocked the legs of the forwards in the same way. Anyway, obviously we won't agree on that point so let's stop talking about it. ;)
I explained it in the post you didn't reply to...

I explained it in the post you didn't reply to...They both blocked the legs the same ! That was my answer ! I don't know where you've seen Barthez tacle as more dangerous than James' !!!

Well, I personally do not necessarily see too much of a difference in it. I was screaming "red card" all over the place when James tackled Henry. But I may be biased... ;)

Well, I personally do not necessarily see too much of a difference in it. I was screaming "red card" all over the place when James tackled Henry. But I may be biased... ;)This being said, it's obvious that two goals in the additional time is already enough. :D

My point was to be sadistic. I think I'll stop here by the way.

And I hope England will go far in the competition by the way, I want all great teams far in the competition ! Which includes Germany of course !

They both blocked the legs the same ! That was my answer ! I don't know where you've seen Barthez tacle as more dangerous than James' !!!
I think Hitro is saying that Barthez's jumped in with two feet, a so-called two-footed challenge, which is a better good way of breaking someone's leg. Either that or little Timmy is stuck down the mine again.

Personally I thought James should have been sent off. He clearly brought Henry down stopping a goal-scoring chance. Why goalkeepers don't stay on their feet is beyond me. Henry knew the tackle was coming so all he had to do was get to the ball. If James had remained standing then Henry would have harmlessly kicked the ball out.
Originally posted by Marla_Singer
I want all great teams far in the competition ! Which includes Germany of course !
:lol: That's a good one. :lol: Germany a great team. :lol: Brilliant. :goodjob:

:lol: That's a good one. :lol: Germany a great team. :lol: Brilliant. :goodjob:Germany Titles :

World Cup 1954 (in Switzerland)
Euro 1972 (in Belgium)
World Cup 1974 (in Germany)
Euro 1980 (in Italy)
World Cup 1990 (in Italy)
Euro 1996 (in England)
Last final played : World Cup 2002 (in Japan/Korea)


England Titles :

World Cup 1966 (in England))
Last final played : World Cup 1966 (in England)



You were saying ? :rolleyes:

The current German team?

The current German team?Well. They've reached the final two years ago. I would have dreamed that for my team ! :cry:

The current German team?
Still better than England, and she included that as well. ;)

Youre only as good as your last game.

Youre only as good as your last game.
And the next game is the only one that matters. ;)

Unless you are currently playing and then thats the game that matters...

I have said this before, but in another context.

The home advantage is really really strong.
-Only once a WC final was won on the enemy continent.
-Since the beginning in 1930, only 9 countries have ever made it to the WC final (Germany, Italy Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chechia, Hungary, Holland and the organising country). Small note: 1950 didn't have a final officially.
-Only 6 countries have ever won the WC final (Germany, Italy Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and the organising country).
-ECs are only won when being either Germany, or by being near your home (Danes in Sweden, Holland in Germany, Chechs in Yugoslavia, French in France or Holland/Belgium).

Though statistics are no laws, and most certainly no guarantee for anything, I think it would be weird to put it all aside.

From this point of view, it is not too weird that the French only perform near home.

England never ever does anything right on a WC, except the one at home. Same for France. France didn't qualify in '90, and '94....

Edit: 1934 to 1930. Point still stands ;)

France did not qualify for 2002 either, and their poor performance is why Brazil must now qualify for 2006.

Ah ah, this thread is funny. France has a team like any other country, period.

I couldn't care less about statistics : it's for people who like to take bets or don't seek new stuff. I was quite pleased to see good new teams in 2002 : Korea, Turkey, Senegal made my days. Though I would have liked some strong teams to be better (Germany in final was a joke, Italy played their crappy plan against Korea, etc...).

I don't think that only the last match only matters. Since it is done like all the other ones as well. And what if it was played by many replacement players, unlike the match before ?

A little correction : the 1st World Cup occured in Uruguay in 1930.

I think it's very good that former winners now have to qualify again. Obviously our direct qualification to the last World Cup didn't inspire Roger Lemerre at all. We were freaking out when we watched those "friendly" matches against Chili or Australia ; this was crappy management. And I wouldn't even disagree if the team playing at home had to qualify too (maybe a bit harsh, but it could help the team).

By the way. Do you remember Barthez's red card at the final of the UEFA cup against Valence ? Wasn't it on a similar action than James against Henry ?

You were all saying it was fair. Obviously James should be out too if I follow your logic. :D

Yeah, James should have been sent off. And Silvestre too when he brought down Rooney.