Germany '06 WC Final: ITALY vs. FRANCE

[Rhye]

Like everybody then. Including italian fans back in 2000/2004 Euro... or argentinian this year, etc.
Let's not exclude anybody from it to be equitable, I guess you won't mind me quoting absolutely everybody right?

Italian fans back in 2000? We were equalised in the last seconds of the game, isn't it a tragic way?

Italian fans back in 2004? You should admit that going out of a group phase with 5 points is unusual and honestly sucks.

Argentinian fans this year? They were truly the better team. Maybe the BEST team of the whole tournament.

 

[azzaman333]

what Zidane basically is saying, and you seem to agree, is that verbal provocation is just as bad as actual violence and I heavily disagree with that. that's what disappoints me in Zidane.

The problem is, verbal provocation IS as bad as actual violence.

 

[Dell19]

The problem is, verbal provocation IS as bad as actual violence.

No it isn't. Verbal insults are not the same as violence and especially so when its just being said to provoke a reaction.

 

[azzaman333]

No it isn't. Verbal insults are not the same as violence and especially so when its just being said to provoke a reaction.

I experienced constant verbal insults for over a year when i was 11-12. I was also frequently beaten up. What hurt more in the long run was the verbal insults (it still hurts now).

Sure, violence causes instant pain, and I'm certainly not advocating it, but people underestimate the power of words.

 

[Grisu]

nope, words only hurt if you let them hurt you. the same technique doesn't work with actual violenece, that's for sure.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I don't see how words could hurt unless you let them. I'd look at people and ask myself, why do I give a **** what you think about me? If anyone is important enough to cause you harm with their words, they usually wouldn't.

If I was the player Zidanne was and was being insulted by Materazzi I'd probably ask him what he's won*.

*Since at that point it was bugger all compared to Zizou

 

[azzaman333]

Its not worth trying to explain this anymore...

 

[Akka]

I don't see how words could hurt unless you let them.

nope, words only hurt if you let them hurt you.

Sorry, but these are totally stupid comments.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Sorry, but these are totally stupid comments.

Read the rest of my post and then answer your own post accordingly

 

[Akka]

Read the rest of my post and then answer your own post accordingly

I've read the whole post, and my answer doesn't change (and doesn't self-apply ).

The "I don't give a damn blabla" is the usual theorycraft people always says when they judge such a subject. But reality is : people DOES react to words, and ARE wounded by words.
Perhaps some happy few are able to completely detach themselves from what's being told to them, and stay calm ever under the most horrible insults/provocations, but it's then any combination of one or all of these reasons :
- They are among the handful of people, who are blessed with this particular strenght of self-control far above the average, and can effectively control themselve all the time.
- They are in full delusion, and THINK they can hold themselves, but reality is different.
- They were simply not insulted in the "good" way.

The only people completely above whatever is said to them whatever the case, are clinical cases who simply have a severed emotional link to reality.
Most people simply have different degree of self-control and emotional intensity, and above all different personnal histories resulting in different "soft spots".
If you know the soft spot of someone, you can wound him by words alone, and any amount of theorycraft about how you can be above this, is, well, theorycraft.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Words Can Hurt Speech

You don't realise it but you've actually agreed with what I've said.

People do have differing levels of self-control and that's what I was getting at. You should maintain the self-control that lets you assess how much credance you give to someone how chooses to insult you. Most people who would choose to insult you aren't worth enough to you to be bothered about. Granted if my own Mother started insulting me THAT would be different, but to suggest that I should be a jibbering wreck because a stranger shouts "w*****" out of his car is frankly ridiculous.

BTW, what is Theorycraft?

EDIT: Oh and my post does self apply. You can label my comments stupid if you like but given the source of the labelling you'll excuse me if I pay little attention to it.

 

[kryszcztov]

I love it when fans can't accept that their team got beat by a better and more deserving team. They always try to make up some excuse to make themselves feel better about it. It is quite amusing. Keep it up Krys, I like to laugh.

One very simple question : Trézéguet is a bit more lucky and doesn't miss his penalty shot (Buffon couldn't stop it) ; the penalty shoot-out continues, and France win the damn thing. The only difference with what really happened is the course of the penalty shoot-out (there is still 1-1 after 120 minutes, Zidane was red carded, etc...). France are world champions. Are you still claiming Italy was the better and deserving team in this scenario ? It's a very simple question, as you can see. My opinion is clear : France dominated the game from 45' to 120'. Even with France playing with 1 man down for 10 minutes, Italy were hopeless to score.

Hahahaha, good on you to notice I am in the US. And I am on this board too. And I like football.

Exactly. What you were saying IIRC, is that you could see this issue continue on this board only. I guess (I guess !) that in the US they talk about it less than in Europe (media), but maybe I'm wrong. Because here it's all over the news, not only at CFC.

If you are going to get really hypothetical, if there was a different official there probably wouldn't have been a penalty kick in the opening minutes and Zidane would have exited in style with the game over in regulation.

No comment. Pick your Dolorean and get lost to the future !


A word about the insults. People don't choose to let themselves be insulted or not. Sure you can work on that yourself through the years, but it's not an instant decision. Much like homosexuality : people don't choose to be homosexual, contrary to what many people think (fortunately, not all of them). Zidane completely told why it is that : he is the man he is (he is a man with honour before being the football genius he can be), and he can't help it. Plus, Akka has already explained it quite well. And azzaman333 too : verbial pain lasts longer than physical pain.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

One very simple question : Trézéguet is a bit more lucky and doesn't miss his penalty shot (Buffon couldn't stop it) ; the penalty shoot-out continues, and France win the damn thing. The only difference with what really happened is the course of the penalty shoot-out (there is still 1-1 after 120 minutes, Zidane was red carded, etc...). France are world champions. Are you still claiming Italy was the better and deserving team in this scenario ? It's a very simple question, as you can see. My opinion is clear : France dominated the game from 45' to 120'. Even with France playing with 1 man down for 10 minutes, Italy were hopeless to score.


Exactly. What you were saying IIRC, is that you could see this issue continue on this board only. I guess (I guess !) that in the US they talk about it less than in Europe (media), but maybe I'm wrong. Because here it's all over the news, not only at CFC.


No comment. Pick your Dolorean and get lost to the future !


A word about the insults. People don't choose to let themselves be insulted or not. Sure you can work on that yourself through the years, but it's not an instant decision. Much like homosexuality : people don't choose to be homosexual, contrary to what many people think (fortunately, not all of them). Zidane completely told why it is that : he is the man he is (he is a man with honour before being the football genius he can be), and he can't help it. Plus, Akka has already explained it quite well. And azzaman333 too : verbial pain lasts longer than physical pain.

I like how you make a hypothetical statment, then rag on someone for making a hypothetical stament in the same post.. priceless...


HAd Italy lost lost in OK"s I would not have said we deserved it, I would have said... ****.. Lost on PK's again... we really need to practice those things... And I would of congratulated France for coming up good in the clutch.


But we did not lose.. France did. Wake up and smell the coffee. Get ove it. Can you really deny that Italy was the better team through out the tourney? You sound more stupid with each post.

If you seriously think France was better though out the tourney, you need mental help.

The problem is, verbal provocation IS as bad as actual violence.

If it was there would be penalties for it, and most game would end up being played with only the goalies left on the pitch...

 

[Mega Tsunami]

One very simple question : Trézéguet is a bit more lucky and doesn't miss his penalty shot (Buffon couldn't stop it) ; the penalty shoot-out continues, and France win the damn thing. The only difference with what really happened is the course of the penalty shoot-out (there is still 1-1 after 120 minutes, Zidane was red carded, etc...). France are world champions. Are you still claiming Italy was the better and deserving team in this scenario ? It's a very simple question, as you can see. My opinion is clear : France dominated the game from 45' to 120'. Even with France playing with 1 man down for 10 minutes, Italy were hopeless to score.

Yes but if Italy had a bit of luck too, they could have been 3-1 up at half time (game over) with three almost identical headed goals from corners.
Ifs, buts and maybes.
Italy were, on balance, the better side and deserved to win.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

Well said.


Also, if the dog had not stopped to lick its balls it would have won the race.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Also, if the dog had not stopped to lick its balls it would have won the race.

"The Dog" didn't lick his balls, he stopped and stamped on someone elses

 

[Hitro]

I've read the whole post, and my answer doesn't change (and doesn't self-apply ).

The "I don't give a damn blabla" is the usual theorycraft people always says when they judge such a subject. But reality is : people DOES react to words, and ARE wounded by words.
Perhaps some happy few are able to completely detach themselves from what's being told to them, and stay calm ever under the most horrible insults/provocations, but it's then any combination of one or all of these reasons :
- They are among the handful of people, who are blessed with this particular strenght of self-control far above the average, and can effectively control themselve all the time.
- They are in full delusion, and THINK they can hold themselves, but reality is different.
- They were simply not insulted in the "good" way.

The only people completely above whatever is said to them whatever the case, are clinical cases who simply have a severed emotional link to reality.
Most people simply have different degree of self-control and emotional intensity, and above all different personnal histories resulting in different "soft spots".
If you know the soft spot of someone, you can wound him by words alone, and any amount of theorycraft about how you can be above this, is, well, theorycraft.

As the Prince already mentioned, as a general thing this is not an opposing view to that of people who say words matter less than violence.

Noone said words generally would never matter, if that was the case language wouldn't have any emotional connotations and that is obviously not the case.

But fact remains that, as the Kaeptn said, words will only hurt if you let them, a fist punch in your face will always hurt.

And of course everyone but emotional retards can be hurt by words. But that only be words of people you care about. If someone I really like would say I am an ******* that might hurt me, but if some random stranger on the street does it I would shrug it off (or "insult" him back).

This issue is about something different, it is about the stupid notion of "honour", which is exactly which makes it so bad. One of the main problems with Arab and Turk immigrants in Western Europe (for many of whom in France Zidane is sort of a role model) is that many adhere to that nonsensial and downright dangerous idea(l). My (and most "Westerners") ideal of society involves free speech, that means that you may have to cope with people saying all sorts of things you find dispicable without reacting violent.
Even moreso in an emotionally heated surrouding such as a football pitch.

 

[kryszcztov]

I like how you make a hypothetical statment, then rag on someone for making a hypothetical stament in the same post.. priceless...

Except that the only hypothetical statement I'm making here is about the penalty shoot-out...

HAd Italy lost lost in OK"s I would not have said we deserved it, I would have said... ****.. Lost on PK's again... we really need to practice those things... And I would of congratulated France for coming up good in the clutch.

Penalty shoot-outs are filled with luck. In 1998 we were lucky against Italy, in 2006 we weren't. Winning or not on penalties doesn't change anything in the skills of both teams (someday you'll shoot your penalty well, someday you won't, even if practice can change that a bit). The game ended as a draw, in case you missed it, the only thing that changes is that you have the Cup, and we don't. My point is that the "deserving" factor is set at 120', not after the penalty shoot-out. In 1998, both teams were equal, as it ended 0-0.

But we did not lose.. France did. Wake up and smell the coffee. Get ove it. Can you really deny that Italy was the better team through out the tourney? You sound more stupid with each post.

If you seriously think France was better though out the tourney, you need mental help.

We beat Spain (a team many thought would go far or maybe win the WC !!!), Brazil (the champions), Portugal (the best team they had since 40 years, with Scolari the world champion), and we drew to Italy (lost on PK). I believe France dominated each of the 4 games. Try to compare that to Australia (and how it ended), Ukraine (they were very unlucky too, even if weaker), and Germany (your best match of all, kudos for that one). And if you come back to the group stage, I'll remind you that you drew to the USA, and that, like us, you were still unsure to go through after 2 games. About the stats, we got 3 goals against (1 on PK against Spain), you got 2 goals against (1 own goal against the USA, 1 PK against France). But the final speaks for itself : after the 1st half, there was nothing to do for Italy, even at 11 v 10.

@ Hitro : Your point is moot. Zidane was red carded and as such was punished. All the more as this was the end of his career. I don't know what you're trying to defend or attack. We all say he was wrong to do so, Zidane included. I'll repeat it again, like John Lennon ("God") : we all say he was wrong to do so, Zidane included. Got it ? I also think that honour is an obsolete notion, but I understand that some people still think it's important for them, much like I think religion is an obsolete notion, but I understand and respect people's faith. I have the slight feeling that Materazzi knew how to hurt Zidane, otherwise I don't know why he would have insulted his family, and several times. A simple question : why did Materazzi do that ? Why ? We all talked about Zidane's motives, but not about Materazzi's. There is 10 minutes to go in the WC final, and that Italian dude throws away grave insults to an opponent who did nothing wrong to him. Is this the behaviour of someone who is about to become world champion ? YES or NO.

 

[Akka]

You don't realise it but you've actually agreed with what I've said.

No.
You said : "words hurt only if you let them hurt you".
I say : "words can hurt you if they hit a painful spot".
The difference laying precisely in the fact that you do not chose what hurts you or not. Your past, your sensitivities and the "skill" of the insulter are what counts.
Your only possibility is to be able to control yourself or not, and in case of overwhelming anger/pain, you won't be able, period.

You say that self-control decides how hurt you are by what people say.
I say a total and resounding "no", and say that self-control decides only if you lose your control over how hurt you are, and not at all about if you're hurt or not.

You cannot "decide" to not be hurt or not. The idea itself is totally idiotic, it's like saying "I'll decide to love this one", or "I'll decide to become enthusiast".
Being hurt, being angry, being happy and the like, are EMOTIONNAL states, and you have little conscious control over them.
You can only control how you react, and only if you're not overwhelmed (which happens, though only very rarely and in extreme circumstances).

BTW, what is Theorycraft?

It's an expression that, AFAIK, comes from video games boards, which designate the pointless theory-based reasonings (theory-craft, so ^^) that look sound and good on paper, but simply don't work like that in practice.
(you can see a LOT of theorycraft when people talk about strategies to be used when you play such class in PvP at World of Warcraft, or such race in Warcraft/Starcraft and the like ; there always is a nice counter to everything on paper, and seemingly perfect strategies with perfect numbers, but then there is the actual practice which throw a lot of it out of the window)

 

[Akka]

This issue is about something different, it is about the stupid notion of "honour", which is exactly which makes it so bad. One of the main problems with Arab and Turk immigrants in Western Europe (for many of whom in France Zidane is sort of a role model) is that many adhere to that nonsensial and downright dangerous idea(l). My (and most "Westerners") ideal of society involves free speech, that means that you may have to cope with people saying all sorts of things you find dispicable without reacting violent.
Even moreso in an emotionally heated surrouding such as a football pitch.

Gotta partially disagree here.
I have a healthy disgust of what is so often called "honour" by many troublemakers (sadly, many times of middle-eastern origins) which is basically "look at me and I'm insulted and can bring several friend to beat you up because it's a point of "honour". Just a pretext to justify unjustifiable violence. A "reasoning" both hypocrital and vicious.
But at the same time, I accept and recognize that you should be entitled to "fight back" if someone attacks you, even verbally. I'm also VERY tired of the "Western" point of view that you should take crap in the face all days and never be allowed to slap back the agressor.

Intent makes the agressor, and I have also a healthy disgust for the opinion that you're not to be punished just because you're "skillful" enough to "push to other to the fault". I see the initiator of an agression as the guilty one, and sneaky calculations like that are even more disgusting than a frank, direct punch in the face, because they reveal an even more cunning, vicious and malicious mind than the simple brute.