World Cup 2006
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
Rys said:
Sure, it was tense and suspenseful. However, it was also riddled with technical errors, a disgraceful lack of understanding among the players and poor finishes. I'd say the quality of the game was so-so.
Italy and Spain has shown the most convincing and consistent performance so far, IMO.
Mariner said:Gerd Muller is the top World Cup goalscorer by 2 goals at the moment. 14 goals in 2 World Cups.
Ronaldo is on 12 so he needs a couple to match Muller.
I suppose you're right in the fact that he's almost the leading Brazilian World Cup scorer!
By one goal only : Just Fontaine scored 13 goals and he is second, Ronaldo is third. Moreover Fontaine scored 13 goals in one World Cup only
The following will be a controversial post, but I have to get it off my chest.
Everytime WC rolls around, like the World Series, I am reminded of how much I hate football (soccer), just like I hate baseball. Two of the most boring games on the planet. Football is like watching grass grow, it's a game where 99% of the time no one scores, and all someone has to do is get in a lucky shot to upset a much better team.
Atleast the baseball fans can claim that scoring and statistics in baseball have real meaning. But in football, if Team A scores 2 points and Team B scores 1 point, does that mean Team A is twice as good as Team B? Well, in basketball, if Team A scores 100 and Team B scores 50, you can tell right away that Team A is *ALOT BETTER* than Team B. No lucky shot, no one acidentially tripping or deflecting a ball can account for it. Sure, averaged over an entire season, you might get an accurate reflection, but in a single game, the scoring is a pretty piss-poor way to judge who was the better team.
I guess I'm just impatient. Hockey has many of the scoring features of football, but I find it more appealing because of its faster pace. But I generally prefer sports where the scoring is a more accurate reflection of skill (basketball, tennis, volleyball) or where I perceive there is advanced strategy (the 'chess' playbook RTS aspect of gridiron football and the high specialization of the players)
I guess I'll be told I haven't learned how to appreciate football. I guess not, I haven't learned to appreciate watching other people play golf either or drive hundreds of left-hand turn laps at NASCAR either. But everytime I try to watch a football game, immense boredom sets in. The last time I had any excitement watching football was watching Iraq at the olympics and the drama that they might achieve an upset win. However, I count the fact that they even got so far against much better teams as a flaw in football.
Everytime WC rolls around, like the World Series, I am reminded of how much I hate football (soccer), just like I hate baseball. Two of the most boring games on the planet. Football is like watching grass grow, it's a game where 99% of the time no one scores, and all someone has to do is get in a lucky shot to upset a much better team.
Atleast the baseball fans can claim that scoring and statistics in baseball have real meaning. But in football, if Team A scores 2 points and Team B scores 1 point, does that mean Team A is twice as good as Team B? Well, in basketball, if Team A scores 100 and Team B scores 50, you can tell right away that Team A is *ALOT BETTER* than Team B. No lucky shot, no one acidentially tripping or deflecting a ball can account for it. Sure, averaged over an entire season, you might get an accurate reflection, but in a single game, the scoring is a pretty piss-poor way to judge who was the better team.
I guess I'm just impatient. Hockey has many of the scoring features of football, but I find it more appealing because of its faster pace. But I generally prefer sports where the scoring is a more accurate reflection of skill (basketball, tennis, volleyball) or where I perceive there is advanced strategy (the 'chess' playbook RTS aspect of gridiron football and the high specialization of the players)
I guess I'll be told I haven't learned how to appreciate football. I guess not, I haven't learned to appreciate watching other people play golf either or drive hundreds of left-hand turn laps at NASCAR either. But everytime I try to watch a football game, immense boredom sets in. The last time I had any excitement watching football was watching Iraq at the olympics and the drama that they might achieve an upset win. However, I count the fact that they even got so far against much better teams as a flaw in football.
Zeross said:By one goal only : Just Fontaine scored 13 goals and he is second, Ronaldo is third. Moreover Fontaine scored 13 goals in one World Cup only
Back in those days teams played with just 2 defenders and 5 strikers so you can see why a few more goals were scored!
I'm sure nobody will even get close to scoring that many in one tournament again!
DemoCoder said:
It's not controversial at all, it merely reinforces all our stereotypes than Yanks don't "get" football.
That's precisely the point of football, precisely why it's so attractive to the Rest Of The World. It's not a game where the final score is a measure of the relative qualities of the teams to three decimal places. Upsets can and do happen -- just follow the English FA Cup for a few seasons and you'll see this. When they do happen it leaves supporters of the winning team feel elated at having accomplished a giant-killing act, supporters of the losing team feel absolutely gutted, robbed! It's all about the passion.
Frankly I find a game like basketball boring precisely because it's a game where scoring is the norm.
Interestingly, the latest edition of The Economist talks about the World Cup as opposed to the Olympics and champions the unpredictability of football as the reason it is the greatest sporting show on earth.DemoCoder said:
Interest in any sport is a matter of taste. Baseball is obviously an inferior version of cricket to me, but there are plenty who'd disagree without having ever watched baseball. Ultimately if it bores you don't watch it. Otherwise you sound like someone moaning about a TV show when the control is in your hand.
Precisely, one of football's main attractions is its unpredictability and the endless variations of emotions you can go through during only a single match. Its not about statistics or just about who has the best players (if that was the case the leagues and cups would be incredibly boring - Real Madrid and Brazil would have won won every title of the past 2 decades), there's a myriad of other factors that decides a football game and its great exactly because of that.
A sudden change of weather, one substitution, awesome crowd support or a stupid ref decision can really make a difference. A single stroke of brilliance or a freak shot can turn the tide of the game. That's a major part of football's apeal. I disagree about no tactics or strategies being involved though, the right tactics will win or loose a match more often than you may think. Also teamplay is a major factor in football, you have to anticipate your teammates moves out of the continuously evolving game, not like in American football, where the game is constantly interrupted and the coach has to tell his players what to do every damn time they make a play. Might be more strategic, but I'll take the less predictable nature of football above that any day. The brilliance is in the intuitive and often unpredictable moves and passes of a creative midfielder, not in the 300 page strong book of the coach.
Hey, many football games can be hiddeously boring, I know that all too well, but those that aren't are often spectacular to watch. I still fondly remember the match Czech Republic vs. Netherlands from the last European Championship, damn that was a fine game! Awesome pace and constant offensive football waging from one side of the pitch to the other. Even my girlfriend stayed glued to the TV and constantly "oooooh"ed and "awwwww"ed ...
A sudden change of weather, one substitution, awesome crowd support or a stupid ref decision can really make a difference. A single stroke of brilliance or a freak shot can turn the tide of the game. That's a major part of football's apeal. I disagree about no tactics or strategies being involved though, the right tactics will win or loose a match more often than you may think. Also teamplay is a major factor in football, you have to anticipate your teammates moves out of the continuously evolving game, not like in American football, where the game is constantly interrupted and the coach has to tell his players what to do every damn time they make a play. Might be more strategic, but I'll take the less predictable nature of football above that any day. The brilliance is in the intuitive and often unpredictable moves and passes of a creative midfielder, not in the 300 page strong book of the coach.
Hey, many football games can be hiddeously boring, I know that all too well, but those that aren't are often spectacular to watch. I still fondly remember the match Czech Republic vs. Netherlands from the last European Championship, damn that was a fine game! Awesome pace and constant offensive football waging from one side of the pitch to the other. Even my girlfriend stayed glued to the TV and constantly "oooooh"ed and "awwwww"ed ...
You don't get it. Football isn't boring. An individual game may be boring but not the sport. It's not any more "boring" as a good thriller is "boring". It's all about suspense and the eventual relief. The little or not so little injustices just add to the drama. If the game was plain boring it wouldn't be as successful as it is.DemoCoder said:
Football is like a Hitchcock movie, stuff like Basketball is like a Michael Bay movie.
DemoCoder said:
I think it's a cultural thing. Americans like tedious, high-scoring games. Pretty much everyone else likes exciting lower-scoring games!
If you think that luck will ever overcome skill in football you are seriously mistaken.
The League competitions in football are always won by the best team due to a combination of individual skill and teamwork. Individual games are almost always (95%+) won by the 'better' team as well but there is always the other 5% chance of an upset. You seem to think that it's not a fair reflection of the game if the underdogs score a lucky goal which wins the game. This is a negative view. You've still got to admit that they've stopped the opposition scoring enough goals to win (or the opposition hasn't played well enough to win) so they deserve the victory. The only time when a result isn't deserved is due to a poor refereeing decision and they can happen in any sport.
Uncertainty is by far the best aspect of football - England are playing Trinidad and Tobago in about 5 hours and on paper we ought to hammer them. However, T&T should have been stuffed by Sweden as well but though a combination of good play and missed opportunities by their opponents earned a heroic and deserved draw. This has added an extra edge to today's game - worry in England players' minds, and hope/confidence in the minds of T&T. Obviously I hope England win!
I must say that of all the American sports, I find Gridiron one of the most tedious (Baseball is worse). There is absolutely no dynamism in that game whatsoever compared to football (or soccer, if you must) which is the most dynamic of sports. I seriously think that this lack of dynamism (stop, start, stop, start with passages of play lasting just seconds) is why Gridiron does not hold a great deal of interest to other countries in the world as we have football or Rugby both of which are much more dynamic.
Different horses for different courses I suppose! :smile:
