why soccer?
Jun 29th, 2006, 11:03 AM
#161
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAn Paris
I agree that Brazil was not at its best against Ghana, but certainly, we did not win because of the wrong call by the referee. There were 2 other goals, remember? And though Ghana had good speed, and tried and tried, they could not find the goal.
I agree that Brazil was not at its best against Ghana, but certainly, we did not win because of the wrong call by the referee. There were 2 other goals, remember? And though Ghana had good speed, and tried and tried, they could not find the goal.
Jun 29th, 2006, 11:31 AM
#162
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I love Brazil, that game was very close until the blown call.
Goal 1 -- legit.
Goal 2 -- no goal.
Goal 3 -- a clear product of a gambling defense that Ghana used in the late desperation of an unwarranted 0-2 hole.
I'm happy that Brazil advanced because I'm planning a day around the game with France, but it would have been a much better game with FIFA's help-the-haves, penalize-the-havenots officiating.
Goal 1 -- legit.
Goal 2 -- no goal.
Goal 3 -- a clear product of a gambling defense that Ghana used in the late desperation of an unwarranted 0-2 hole.
I'm happy that Brazil advanced because I'm planning a day around the game with France, but it would have been a much better game with FIFA's help-the-haves, penalize-the-havenots officiating.
Jun 29th, 2006, 11:36 AM
#163
Repete, if you believe the conspiracy theories, this refereeing is because of the big American corporate sponsors. Nike paid good money to sponsor Brazil, and milliomns in advertising - they want to make sure Brazil make it to the final.
I am not sure I believe this, but the World champions playing a centre forward who resembles Homer Simpson may give the rumour some credence. (There was a persistent rumour after 1998 , when Ronaldo played despite having spent 4 hours in hospital after a fit, that the company had intervened and insisted with the Brazilian football association that he play)
I am not sure I believe this, but the World champions playing a centre forward who resembles Homer Simpson may give the rumour some credence. (There was a persistent rumour after 1998 , when Ronaldo played despite having spent 4 hours in hospital after a fit, that the company had intervened and insisted with the Brazilian football association that he play)
Jun 29th, 2006, 01:25 PM
#164
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willit,
Really, you don't believe this stupid Conspiracy Theory, do you? We never needed Nike's intervention to win the World Cup 5 times (1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002), we really don't need them to make to the finals now. And even if we don't make it, we still have the team that has won more World Cups, the player who has scored the most goals (Ronaldo, even if he looks like Homer Simpson), the team with one of the longest winning streaks in World Cup games... Surely, this is not all resultant from Nike's intervention, is it?
Really, you don't believe this stupid Conspiracy Theory, do you? We never needed Nike's intervention to win the World Cup 5 times (1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002), we really don't need them to make to the finals now. And even if we don't make it, we still have the team that has won more World Cups, the player who has scored the most goals (Ronaldo, even if he looks like Homer Simpson), the team with one of the longest winning streaks in World Cup games... Surely, this is not all resultant from Nike's intervention, is it?
Jun 29th, 2006, 01:43 PM
#165
Brazilnut - I don't necessarily believe it all, or even most of it. I know that big corporate sponsors have extreme amounts of power - England were offered a very lucrative sponsorship deal for 5 years but with the proviso that Beckham remained captain during that period.
Brazil have some fantastic players, but I cannot see how Ronaldo gets into the side above Adriano and Robinho - he is almost static at times. I know he is the record goalscorer, and the 1998/2002 Ronaldo is one of the all time greats, I am just not convinced that the 2006 version is better than the other options Brazil have. There is nothing that will convince me that somebody other than the coach had the final say for Ronaldo playing the 1998 final - any sensible medical opinion would have forbidden it.
Brazil have some fantastic players, but I cannot see how Ronaldo gets into the side above Adriano and Robinho - he is almost static at times. I know he is the record goalscorer, and the 1998/2002 Ronaldo is one of the all time greats, I am just not convinced that the 2006 version is better than the other options Brazil have. There is nothing that will convince me that somebody other than the coach had the final say for Ronaldo playing the 1998 final - any sensible medical opinion would have forbidden it.
Jun 29th, 2006, 01:52 PM
#166
Brazilnut - don't get me wrong, I am not critisizing Brazil - I just thing that the "powers that be" would prefer Brazil, Italy, Argentina, France Germany etc to succeed. I singled out Nike , but Pepsi would be equally involved. I can barely work out who is advertising what anymore - Ronaldhino, Beckham, Zidane, Henry, Figo seem to be selling everything.
I am interested to see how the quarter finals work out - I was surprised to see France beat Spain, I am amazed England beat anybosy - even Equador. Argentina still look the best side to me (I am not convinced about the Brazilian defence), although I have an increasing feeling that the cup has Germany's name on it.
I am interested to see how the quarter finals work out - I was surprised to see France beat Spain, I am amazed England beat anybosy - even Equador. Argentina still look the best side to me (I am not convinced about the Brazilian defence), although I have an increasing feeling that the cup has Germany's name on it.
Jun 29th, 2006, 02:59 PM
#167
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the most part, I think FIFA is just so conservative that the they'd love to see the old order continue -- six European, two S.A. teams in the quarters seems to be a favorite mix. Newcomers rarely get the calls and officials seem to be much more ``careful'' in their fouls, cards and other calls against traditional powers.
There are all kinds of examples about how change resistent FIFA is, including of course, its very slowly and uneven confronting of the sport's racism blight.
And while fans and Europe and South America might not be as aware of it, the seeding of Mexico ahead of the U.S. was another illogical example. All one has to do is look at the results.
Would that have prevented the U.S. from crashing in Germany? They stunk up Game 1. Who knows? It's just one of many shams.
There are all kinds of examples about how change resistent FIFA is, including of course, its very slowly and uneven confronting of the sport's racism blight.
And while fans and Europe and South America might not be as aware of it, the seeding of Mexico ahead of the U.S. was another illogical example. All one has to do is look at the results.
Would that have prevented the U.S. from crashing in Germany? They stunk up Game 1. Who knows? It's just one of many shams.
< Deuuuuutschland >
Jul 3rd, 2006, 02:17 PM
#171
What a relief england went out - I don't think I could have endured another match like that. I hope all the doubters were watching on Saturday night, rather than on Sat. pm - the France v Brazil match really was a beautiful game!
