World Cup 2010 Final!

[dgfred]

That's not how it works in football. Or in most other sports either. By that measure, neither Henry nor Maradona were breaking the rules with their famous handball incidents, and that doesn't pass any sense check.

Maybe it's seen differently in a few sports - I mean, do you consider that Gaylord Perry was only cheating when he got caught ? Conceivably you could argue that trying to get away with the spitter or a corked bat is just part of the heritage of baseball. And, if so, maybe that applies to Barry Bonds juicing himself too ?

Well they both were breaking the rules only after the fact, since both teams won. They were not punished by giving them red cards or by taking away the goals.

If I was coaching a team much slower or with less 'style' than my upcoming oponent I would hope and plan for a strategy of aggressive defense to take away some portion of that speed and style. I would stress pushing the envelope to some extent until the ref put a stop to that strategy.

Cheating and rough play are totally different. Taking PHDs or 'doctoring' the bat/ball, and DELIBERATELY using a handball are cheating.... rough play is a strategy/tactic that was taken to the extreme because the ref didn't really put a stop to it.

 

[dgfred]

Drogba crushing van Bommel's privates with his hand wasn't seen by the referee... is tha, too, rougher-than-usual-play?

Not at all, just a poor sportsman. The difference is between tough, hard-nosed defensive play and just playing dirty.

 

[Takhisis]

So Poletti in '69 was just a tough player... right...

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Well they both were breaking the rules only after the fact, since both teams won. They were not punished by giving them red cards or by taking away the goals.

They were still breaking the rules at the time they committed the offence. Not sure what "breaking the rules after the fact" is supposed to mean ? If you don't get caught then it's not a foul ?

Cheating and rough play are totally different. Taking PHDs or 'doctoring' the bat/ball, and DELIBERATELY using a handball are cheating.... rough play is a strategy/tactic

Right. You're going to love this guy... The Man Himself

Marco was always keen to "push the envelope".

 

[GinandTonic]

The Man Himself

Pah!



According to theory his heart and mind will follow.

 

[Takhisis]

They were still breaking the rules at the time they committed the offence. Not sure what "breaking the rules after the fact" is supposed to mean ? If you don't get caught then it's not a foul ?

Rules are broken regardless of whether they're punished or not, which is what Mr. dgfred doesn't seem to {want to} understand.

Right. You're going to love this guy... The Man Himself

Marco was always keen to "push the envelope".

Well... as the song says... 'those who died, are justified'...

 

[MCdread]

Pah!



According to theory his heart and mind will follow.

Damn GinandTonic, I so had that post prepared before I read the last page of the thread.

Materazzi and Drogba still have a lot to learn.

 

[Jos Ballenbak]

pfff aren't you a bit overreacting, comparing van Bommel with Materazzi and Vinnie Jones. van Bommel is a very aggressive and sometimes annoying player, but he never gives off a killer aura like those two guys do.

 

[Takhisis]

Or, at least, he didn't until this year's WC.

 

[MCdread]

Well, Vinnie Jones is a class apart.
Materazzi is sometimes a bit too vilified, but he's prone to have a mental block and just do some outrageous foul.
van Bommel is a bit more professional. He's not a mental sadistic like Vinnie and isn't a brute like Materazzi, but he has a stealth method that consists in a cocktail of fouls that are on the edge of what's acceptable (and sometimes over the edge), provocation, little tricks, unsettling the opponents and conditioning the referee. He has perfected it over his long career too. I seem to remember that he was more prone to lose the plot and get red cards a few years ago. Now he's a master of getting away with it.

 

[ThERat]

What annoys me most is the facial expression. Always trying to look innocent or like a victim. Even De Jong had to raise his arms after his gong fu kick telling us he didn't do anything (poor him getting an unjustified yellow).

Van Bommel is a dirty player no matter what. His fouls are just less obvious and he really has mastered the art of kicking and elbowing without being punished.

 

[FredLC]

This reminds me when France became world champion in 1998 (I start talking like English dudes always referring to 1966 but anyway). When France has won 3-0 over Brazil, we could hear everywhere on international media that the French government had bought the game, and that they poisoned Ronaldo.

Unfortunately, among the millions of fans, there will always be a minority of bad losers... and you will always hear them trying to spoil the celebrations. There's just one thing to do, ignore them.

The myth that France didn't deserve its world cup victory lasted very long, and even after we won the euro in 2000, there were still people considering the 98 WC final as a fraud. It's only since 2006, after France defeated Brazil again (for the third time in a WC) and that final we lost on shoot-outs against Italy, that this story of fraud became more silent...

Well. many people in Brazil still believe t. It's idiotic (even though it's true )

Regards .

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well. many people in Brazil still believe t. It's idiotic (even though it's true )

Regards .

What a country of bad losers.

When we see the joy of the Spaniards living their own collective fairy tale, and we think about the blasé and nonchalant attitude of Brazilian crowds when they actually win it (as if they've already seen it all and it's just normal), we can't help thinking the Spanish people deserved it more.

 

[luiz]

Well. many people in Brazil still believe t. It's idiotic (even though it's true )

Regards .

It's usually the same people who believe Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks and that the gringos want to steal the Amazon. Idiots, in other words. No Brazilian with good sense believes in any that.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's usually the same people who believe Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks and that the gringos want to steal the Amazon. Idiots, in other words. No Brazilian with good sense believes in any that.

Yeah I see what you mean.

But anyway, no matter the teams, there will always been millions of fans and among them, some bad losers who'll try to spoil the fun to the victorious opponent. When France lost the 2006 final, the defeat was very bitter to many people, most even fully forgetting Zidane's idiotic headbutt and putting all the blame on the "evil Italians".

I don't believe there's a convenient way to handle a world cup final defeat. It's always a big frustration because we were so close and despite everything... so far from it.

That's part of football after all.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For me it's easier when you weren't the best team on the pitch at that time. I can understand people in '74 and '78 had issues with dealing with the defeat. But in '10 I can say: the best team won. We were close, but the best team won.

Still aggravating as hell though

 

[dgfred]

Rules are broken regardless of whether they're punished or not, which is what Mr. dgfred doesn't seem to {want to} understand.

Well... as the song says... 'those who died, are justified'...

What is 'not understood' is by those that don't (want to) know the difference between aggressive/rough defense and dirty play. A broken rule has no effect on a match if it is not called... so what is your point? It is still much different than plain dirty play whether seen by the ref or not.

 

[luiz]

What is 'not understood' is by those that don't (want to) know the difference between aggressive/rough defense and dirty play. A broken rule has no effect on a match if it is not called... so what is your point? It is still much different than plain dirty play whether seen by the ref or not.

And what everyone is saying is that van Bommel and de Jong not only broke rules, but were actually quite dirty.

 

[dgfred]

And what everyone is saying is that van Bommel and de Jong not only broke rules, but were actually quite dirty.

That I understand.

My point all along was that I agree with rough/aggressive play to try to slow down a quicker, better passing ball control team... not dirty play. And it is the ref's job to curtail this rough play if overdone.

What I didn't understand was some saying players were cheating by playing rough (not karate kicks and nut-grabbing) and on certain handballs when nothing was called. If the ref is looking right at the play and calls nothing... the fault lies with him.

 

[Takhisis]

Mr dgfred, have you ever played football? Ever tried watching it, following a couple leagues at a time? You sound just like a tourist.
And you still haven't answered. Was Poletti being 'a rough player' in 1969, yes or no?