The Official 2010 Football & World Cup Thread

aginor wrote: New Zealand were the only national team that did not loose one match during the tournument, I big aplaud for that

Yes an incredible performance. A country of about three million people where rugby is the religion and football is well down the pecking order managing to draw with the World Champions.

harmonium.ro wrote: I keep reading lots of interesting stuff about this World Cup. Here is some. Normally, the World Cup is a great showcase of the major trend (or trends) in tactics. It displays the current most played tactic with the best examples, and gives the best indication of what tactics will the coaches use in the next few years. This time, the WC has shown that the best teams rely (like Juan said above) on both attack and solid defense, not just one of them. That is why the successful teams played a 1-4-2-3-1 system. Its advantages are: - with two defensive midfielders you have better control and don't get exposed. From the high profile teams, only Argentina played with just one defending midfielder, and that appears to be why they were so vulnerable. - in the attack, you get a very flexible, dynamic and mobile system with one central forward, two attackers on the wings and a clear head behind them, for the decisive pass. This is the system brilliantly put to work by Mourinho at Inter (Milito in front, Eto'o on the right, Pandev on the left and Sneijder behind). For example, at the World Cup Holland implemented this system with Van Persie (front), Kuyt (left), Robben (right) and Sneijder (behind), Germany had Klose, Podolsky, Muller and Ozil, Uruguay had Suarez, Cavani, Arevalo (or Perez) and Forlan, etc. It's a sort of a rhombus. Do you remember this thread? Well, I just saw some stats about where did all the goalscorers at this World Cup from. So: - players from the La Liga (Spanish league) scored 29 goals - players from Bundesliga (German) scored 21 goals - players from Premier League (English) scored 19 goals - players from Serie A (Italian) scored 16 goals - the rest: Holland 9, France 8, Mexico 5, Turkey 5, etc. A clubs hierarchy: - Bayern Munchen: 12 goals (four countries, two Germans, one Dutch, one Argentinian) - Atletico Madrid: 8 goals (three countries: Forlan 5, Tiago 2, Simao 1) - 5 goals: Barcelona (Iniesta 2, Yaya Toure 1, Marquez 1, Puyol 1), Real Madrid (Higuain 4 & C.Ronaldo 1), Valencia (David Villa) The first English club in this list is Chelsea with 3 goals (Drogba, Malouda, Kalou). Man UTD has just one goal! It's even bellow Bolton, who had two goals.

World Cup 2010 b4usleep awards
Best game USA-SVN 2-2
Worst game JAP- PAR 0-0 (5-3 after pens)
Best goal Van Brnckhorst (Ned) NED-URU
Best referee Ravshan Irmatov UZB

harmonium.ro wrote: I keep reading lots of interesting stuff about this World Cup. Here is some. - players from the La Liga (Spanish league) scored 29 goals - players from Bundesliga (German) scored 21 goals - players from Premier League (English) scored 19 goals - players from Serie A (Italian) scored 16 goals - the rest: Holland 9, France 8, Mexico 5, Turkey 5, etc.

A small and maybe an unnecessary correction: Goals from Turkish league players is 6
4 Vittek Slovakia
2 Elano Brazil

My problems with this World Cup:

- too many ugly matches, too many teams with defensive strategy
- I'm not sure what exactly is the reason (sometimes bad coaching, sometimes bad shape of the players, sometimes the context from club teams is too different to that of national team), but I saw too much talent wasted (Messi, Rooney, C.Ronaldo, etc.)
- half-empty stadiums. Also, this leads to another question: what will they do with them next? Will they ever recover their investments?
- awful referees. Think of Germany - England, Argentina - Mexico, Spain - Holland, Spain - Paraguay, etc.
- this awkward situation with video proof
- lack of associated events to bring colour (but maybe they existed and didn't make it in the media)
- symbols: Shakira, WTF? I mean, it's the first time Africa gets a World Cup, they have this amazing music culture, and they pick Shakira to disseminate the image of the World Cup to the World? Even she admitted she had no clue about football.
- the noise. Not hearing the crowds cheering and singing is awful.
- the local TV directors showed they have little experience with football transmissions: very little dynamics, problems with the replays, etc. However, I liked the views from the camera above the pitch, and the slow-motion replays.

What I liked:

- beautiful stadiums
- hierarchies were blown over
- I don't think any more 32 teams is too much, most of the teams that I nominated as not worthy shown later that they can play quality football.

How about you guys?

Speaking of offensive football... Look how Iniesta's feet look now:



and



How can someone say in these conditions that Spain didn't attack enough?

jampa17 wrote: I know you disagree Alex, but that's my point of view. I hope you at least get it and respect my view...

Actually I don't disagree, I agree with you on most points Like:

- it wasn't a beautiful World Cup. Almost all of the teams came to play safe, with the "first let's not lose, then we'll see" strategy. The few teams who came at this World Cup to play offensive: Spain, Ghana (they had the best average per match number of shots!), Mexico, Argentina, England, Uruguay, USA and Italy (!!!). That's very few! Some other teams discovered they know how to attack only when they desperately needed points... but that's shameful IMO. So in conclusion I can understand why most people are disappointed with this Cup. Myself I can appreciate defensive, cautious football, and I can like it when it comes as the genuine talent of a team (but I don't like it when teams come with the mind set to defend all their way through the tournament just because that's the most secure strategy). So I found some pleasure in the game of some of the defensive teams at this Cup. I've seen excellent defense+counterattack play, my favourites from this perspective were Holland, Brazil, Chile, and I liked Paraguay and Switzerland in many moments. But overall, there were simply too many teams who came to play safe.
Also, I did found a lot of enjoyment in the surprising results. This WC has shown an almost total disregard to hierarchies, and I liked that. But those awful matches from the group phase will be remembered for ever...

- whoever saw Spain for the first time now and wanted to see their famed "total football" was disappointed. Yes, I can agree with that. But how did this happen? Well, Spain came to this World Cup as the biggest favourite and, as it is known, success amplifies exposure. By now, their opponents knew what is the only strategy against Spanish total football: total defense, plus lethal counterattacks. All their opponents at this World Cup played that, because it was their only chance (only Germany thought different, and they were smashed). And I can agree with the fact that the spectacle put out by a defensive team trying to kill the game by kamikaze defending and by a team that attacks, but struggles hard to find solutions because the opponents defends too strong, is not of the most pleasant kind. As I said above, I like defensive football too so I was pleasantly surprised by Switzerland, Chile, Paraguay and Holland. But overall I agree that Spain's matches weren't the most pleasant. But that's because their opponents tried to kill the game, not because Spain is not awesome.
We know Spain is awesome - we fell in love with it at the EURO tournament two years ago. EURO is a Cup where teams rarely play that kind of total defense (Romania was the only one, at the last EURO ). That's why Spain won the EURO "en fanfare", displaying amazing football. And that's why we wanted them to win this time too. And it was a pleasure to see the them win, even if the games were more or less destroyed by the fierce defense of the other teams. I guess you guys need to start watching the EUROs if you want to see beautiful football!

jampa17 wrote: Spain did have more control in ball possesion than any other team, but that doesn't mean that they attack more or did something different than just passing.

Read my stats again: besides having the best possession, they also had the most attacking actions and had the most shots. What the hell does that mean, other than they were the most offensive/attacking team?

jampa17 wrote: I don't know if you remember Colombia of the 90's, when Valderrama was the captain? they played similar to Spain and that is just boring.

How could I not remember Columbia? We beat the hell out of them... Twice! Yes there was a similarity in playing style, but they were nowhere near that good. Pele said they will win World Cup 1994... But Pele is famous for being wrong

jampa17 wrote: There's no sense for me to spend two hours watching a team passing around the ball but hoping that one individuality of Villa save them from a draw.

Like I explained above, I agree with this. It didn't look like the total football we were expecting - but it was because the opponents played the total defense strategy and they were damn good at it! The fact that Spain could overcome such amazing defending is a great achievement.

jampa17 wrote: Another thing to dislike them is that is just the Barcelona with 4 more boys out there.

Why is this to dislike? It's an amazing thing for Barcelona, not a bad thing about Spain...

jampa17 wrote: I like football when the teams attack AND defend, whe both teams meets in the middle and the make a good performance AND win, more than just pass around the ball, made a goal and then again pass around the ball.

Agreed - I can only invite you to watch the next EURO together with us, the games are much more open in those tournaments

jampa17 wrote: So from now on, maybe football will be more about winning without playing, you see that Brazil is already playing like that. I hope that, as well as Greece in 2004, this will be only a big mistake in history of football.

Where have you been all this time?  Unfortunately it's been win over play since two decades ago (the start of the last age of modern football). Offensive, "total football" teams (almost) always lose. For example, probably the most beautiful national team of the modern era was IMO the Holland team from the nineties. That great team with Bergkamp, Overmars, Seedorf, Kluivert, Davids, Ronald de Boer, Cocu, Van der Sar, etc. They never won anything because they always met pragmatic opponents who always managed to annihilate them and win the penalties In WC 1994 they met Brazil in the quarters, at EURO 1996 they finished 0-0 with France in the quarters and lost the penalties, at the World Cup 1998 they finished 0-0 with Brazil in the semis and lost the penalties, and at EURO 2000 they finished 0-0 in the semis and lost the penalties Pragmatic teams almost always win over offensive teams.

jampa17 wrote: I know you disagree Alex, but that's my point of view. I hope you at least get it and respect my view...

Like I detailed, we basically agree on almost everything I'm just prolonging this discussion because I like to talk about football


Edited by harmonium.ro - July 13 2010 at 05:49

I actually was "rooting" for Spain this year.
I mean I didnt watch any games, and found out they won like the next day...but yea
HUZZAH!

EDIT:
Of course their win had everything to do with the almighty and all knowing Paul.
HAIL


Edited by JJLehto - July 13 2010 at 02:09

So apparently football (see I did it ) is 100% useless, OR staged by those who hold stock in octopus companies. I for one have been moved by it all. I have decided to give up allegiance to any country, even the world and now pray to Paul the Octopus.

Hail