Messages

31

Football / Re: Donovan rips Beckham

« on: July 02, 2009, 02:53:30 PM »

From what i've read, I feel Landon talking the truth..but to air it in public just makes him an even worse teammate and leader than the guy who he is criticizing. He has potentially created an even bigger rift in the dressing room. And the timing of it is crazy. It would be one thing if he made those comments if it was clear Becks was never coming back, or if things were going to work out for Landon in the Bundesliga and he wouldn't have to deal with the Englishman (it woulda still be unprofessional, but i coulda better see why he fire de shot)...But it looks like he knows full well he has to play with Becks and he sees it as something he has to confront him about.

The auther Grant Wahl writes for Sports Illustrated and this book smells of either vendetta (like he personally trying to get back at Beckham for something)..or a push for stardom by writing something sensational. I surprised a current teammate would fall for that bait. The author must know by publishing a book with this kind of slant he was going to do a lot of damage.

For the mother of all conspiracy theories though...the timing of this book too suspicious. How is the 'Beckham Experiment' failed if it not over. How come the book coming out exactly on Becks return. What if this is just MLS drumming up some drama for the league and Landon and Beckham in on it. Nahhhhhh...never was a big conspiracy theorist..I feel Landon eat dat bait and I for one will be checking out Galaxy games just to see if is pure hate and they acting normal

32

Football / Re: CONCACAF gives USA 7 more Gold Cup roster spots

« on: July 01, 2009, 06:45:34 PM »

How yuh forget:

* A 2-0 semi-final victory in 2009 Confederations Cup over the World No. 1 team Spain.

World Cup would take precedent over any other competition.

See how that list didn't include when the US had beaten Brasil (U23) 1-0 in the Gold Cup some years ago.

It was not a Brazilian Under 23. It was 1998 and the starting 11 included Taffarel, Junior Baiano, Mauro Silva, Edmundo, Zinho, Romario, Ze Maria and Flavio Conceicao. Guys like Doriva and Elber was getting a run in that tournament too. All big players at the time including a few WC 94 veterans, and some that played in 1998. Not their strongest squad, but definitely a senior squad with some big name players thrown in the mix

33

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 29, 2009, 10:31:35 PM »

Of all the people who saying that T&T players have poor first touch, I eh hear any of them point out how many times the Brazilian players showed poor first touch during that last game. Who else notice that?

for the most part, the first touch look good to me. Davies speed caused some discomfort in the 1st half and whole tournament Kaka just look a little off when receiving the ball to me. i not sure how he won tournament mvp. doh talk about ramires in the semis and the final. but in the 2nd half when Brazil really up the tempo, them fellas look sharp. Considering the pace that the US plays at, and you realize they couldn't get near the Brazilians, it seems to me Brazilian technique was sharp. maybe i was too caught up in the game and really didn't pay enough attention. but it didn't stand out beyond Kaka and Ramires.

34

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 29, 2009, 04:04:43 PM »

No sah ... my comment is not limited to black people... if it was, I would have said ("More black people") ... and yes, all I can speak of is from my experience.  I have been coaching in the US north east for the last 10 yrs..and could count on one hand, how many "minority" coaches, I have coached against.  90% of the players we have played against are non-minorities..  why is that?  My team plays at a high level, at highly regarded tournaments and leagues...and this is the mix of coaches / players that I have seen. 

My point is that how is it for a US national team, that the national mix is not better represented?  Things may be different in your neck of the woods, but here..the fellas that could afford, generally rise to the top. 

Now we could get into the discussion about how SOME minorities spend their money,the priorities they set and their planning for the future.  Is it a case of spending on XBox and Jordans, over signing up scholar-athlete Johnny in a sports program that could help pay for his future education? 

What you fellas are talking about is a familiar and often discussed topic.  There are definitely socio-economic divides at play that could be potentially hurting youth development here in the U.S. - but considering that 5 of the starting XI for the U.S. yesterday were non-white players, (Howard, Onyewu, Clark, Altidore & Davies)...and another 5 non-white players (Adu, Beasley, Wynne, Torres & Robles) were on the bench, the minority representation on the current U.S. team compared to minority % of the US population would suggest a fair amount of integration.

I think the U.S. could more benefit from a different form of flare & expression on the field often associated with players from the lower socio-economic classes than a mere racial integration of it's US MNT roster. 

I'd add Bocanegra, who is Hispanic, as are Torres and Robles. Lifeisgood's experience seems like the norm in most parts of the US. It's been a well publicized criticism of US soccer at the grass roots level, but there have been some changes and there is an organized effort to make the sport more accessible to all. Today's US team is far more mixed than the teams of 10-15 years ago.

35

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 26, 2009, 10:42:21 AM »

Oh yeah sorry Frico... the newest addition for the SWNet Dictionary..

back-sideness
Meaning:  When someone .. (today we will use Frico as an example) is talking out of their arse.  Also known as Loose bowel syndrome of the mouth.

 

  I like de word but I would prefer if yuh spell it "backsided-ness".  Dat extra "d" in dey give some symmetry in pronunciation. 


  Omar calling fuh man to let odder man hate in peace.  Tank yuh very much, Omar.  Like a man cyah jook de usa on dis site at all boy.  Is only a setta 9-eleveners comin' wit dey gunz blazin!   

oh gyad....backsided-ness, 9 eleveners...allyuh on fire today

36

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 26, 2009, 09:57:17 AM »

Mango Chow here's a question,how much do you think England would have put pass Brasil yesterday or for that matter SA?
I'd like to say again that there's too much hype about Brasil and Argentina,when you watch them play they look as ordinary as any lowly rated European team,their players are sold for exorbitant sums and the majority dont produce.Mnagers live in hope that their magic would show up,It does now and then.African players on the other hand have been getting exposure for many years,the fact is only one African team showed that they can match anybody but sadly they haven't progressed enough.You said that I should wrap myself in the Union Jack,tell yuh the truth,I wont even do that when they win the WC IN 2010,HOPE YUH SEE WHAT I'VE SAID,WHEN THEY WIN THE WC 2010.

frico...just as you don't think people shouldn't be too high n Brazil, you are kinda going overboard on describing what you consider their mediocrity. Brazil stutters every now and then, but generally they've been class. You really think Brazil has been poor when winning 4 of the last 5 Copa Americas. Playing in 3 of the last 4 world cup finals and winning 2. Kaka and Robinho looked poor yesterday, but that is an exception, not the rule. Sure the playing field is a lot more even, and their transfer prices are not an indication of their superior skill, but a combination of playing ability, marketability etc..Brazilians command a kind of implied premium simply by being Brazilian. Don't get mad at that...sure they are benefitting from their past style and success, but they do bring some serious skill and joy to the game even today. So, did you see Brazil beat Itay 3-0 in this tournament...why didn't you make your point about their mediocrity then? What about the 2-1 over Italy earlier this year in London, or the 6-2 thrashing of Portugal before that? What about the thrashing of Argentina in the Copa America, or the last Confed Cup final, or the 3-0 win the friendly in London. This Brazil team is not my favorite, but have some balance. One poor performance and you come out of the woodworks...were all the other successes just luck.

what would England do yesterday? England could not even qualify for Euro 2008 so you'll never know. I saw a bland Brazil play England last year at Wembley and hold them 1-1..Even when Brazil plays poorly, they know how to get a result most times. And they did it in England. Again...you pick and choose your spots, but don't look at the overall picture. In recent years, Brazil and their players have been top level by any standards. I not saying they are unplayable or unbeatable and I sure not saying to discount the US either, but you kind of overdoing it. Brazil eh mediocre...Easily on of the best teams on the planet with some superbly gifted players. They just not the only ones

37

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 25, 2009, 03:15:18 PM »

I was calling for Alves and Pato from the half. Dunga looked way too passive.

Can't believe Ronaldinho can't make this side...they have no imagination.
Robinho is a disappointment as usual.

The Brazilian attack depends almost entirely on Kaka and Robinho winning individual battles. It is not an attack based on much collective play/ball movement. If Kaka and Robinho have trouble springing free, Brazil has next to nada. Dat, apparently is Dunga's plan and he sticking with it. It often works, but every so often yuh see a game like this from Brazil. Gilberto Silva needs to go. Anderson need to be playing dat role and it's in these kinda tournaments he supposed to be getting groomed. He adds a lot more ability on the ball and is strong defensively.

And yes...Brazil needs Dinho. And altho he has been medicre for the senior team, I think yuh need Diego for games like this, to come one as a sub and provide some spark from an attacking central position. And start grooming Hernanes from SP.....dat is a bad bad #10

hear nah....I calling for de Fat Man too. He play some boss ball in his last two games. And he might atually be getting fatter.

Brazil doh usually play toots twice in a row, so I kinda expect dem to come good in the final. But before SA 2010, something hadda change

38

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 25, 2009, 02:19:37 PM »

Daiz how dey does do it. Undeserved in many ways..but Brazil will punish yuh like dat.

39

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 25, 2009, 02:17:43 PM »

Brazi is mediocre when they aren't playing on the break. The center circle is empty when they are on the ball because they have no skilful midfield organizer on the pitch. Brazil has no ideas on the ball and just walk to back and forth until they can get it to Robinho or Kaka, and pray for them to do something with their individual ability. Every once in a while Brazil puts down a stinker like this....

On the contrary, South Afrtica has plenty of purpose and ideas on the ball. Dey just need Benny up top

40

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 25, 2009, 10:40:38 AM »

Agree and disagree. I don't think the standard for what is 'good' football changes that much.

Filho yuh missing the context of my post. I don't think that it changes either.

Kicker was making the point that elan was criticizing the US for negative ball when he was praising Chelsea for their tactical mastery.

Elan then went on to use possession stats as a differenetial between Chelsea nand US in their respective games and I was making the point that elan was critical of possession as a measure of "the better team" back then but he is using it as a measuring stick now.

Hence the "moving goalposts" comment.

ok..cool.

41

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 25, 2009, 10:26:13 AM »

Second half USA played NO FOOTBALL whatsoever. They parked all of City Gate and Morvant Taxi Stand in fron the goal.

When Chelsea did that against Barca, it was genius though.... 

What ever you say. Check the possession stats from that game.

I never knew football was won and lost with possession stats.
Games were determined by goals last I checked.
2 - nil is no fluke. That is a deserved win

Yuh wasting your time Marcos. The "goalposts" for what is good football will always change. The word during the Barca-Chelsea games was that despite Barcelona having much more possession, Chelsea had more chances. Never mind they miss the chances (i.e. not that great football after all).

Here the US create chances too and (shocker) actually score goals but now possession is how you evaluate a team's performance. That is the kind of blinkered logic yuh does get from these analysts.

Agree and disagree. I don't think the standard for what is 'good' football changes that much. To be honest, i think the actual goal of teams like the US is to develop players so they can play something like Spain. Until then, they have to effectively use tactics that employ their strengths. I agree that the US deserved to win and they played well..but to me it is understood that "well" really means they played effectively. Spain would probably beat the US 7 out of 10 times playing the same way. Putting 10 men behind the ball and hitting on the counter can work in a one-off, but the US can't beat Spain consistently like that and I doubt Bob Bradley will say that the US football education is done and they are going to perfect that art of 10 men behind the ball (altho in truth, the US played some nice  attacking football in the opining 25 minutes eh). But I think that's why fans and coach's still point to possession..Poor possession is useless, but the right possession means your players run less and and the opposition runs more and lose shape more often. It creates chances and keeps your players relatively fresh which is important over a season or long tournament. Competition stats showed that Michael Bradley, Landon Donavan and Clint Dempsey have run the most miles this tournament. It's the kind of stat that coaches don't actually want. Good possession football helps with that. So the US was effective and an inferior team can beat a superior team if they use the right tactics. But over a sustained period, I would bet most teams aspire to playing more than a backs against the wall counterattacking game.

42

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 24, 2009, 03:04:25 PM »

Great win for the US. I eh go lie...it eh bad watching Spain get humbled.

The US is going to be tough for whoever they play in the final. Throughout this tournament (and WC qualifying) Bradley has been trying a lot of different combinations and made a couple of personnel decisions that hurt the team balance and their performance.

But now they settle on a very solid back 4. Playing BocaNegra on the left is brilliant. Spector is a good player on the right and Onyewu and De Merit showing great fight, and chemistry. That back 4 was a big problem for the US for a while..especially that left side..As long as them fellas fit, I think BB find his starting back 4 for the remainder of qualifying at maybe even 2010. US also realize that the Clarke / Bradley combo in the middle giving you real steel. And the last part is BB finally had the guts to play two fast, physical forwards. This occupies the opposition back line and allows guys like Donavan and Dempsey room to run and create. When they were playing only 1 forward up top, the mf was under too much pressure.

US made some great discoveries this tournament. And that is waht these kinds of tournaments are for.

Hoping for a Brazil v US final.

43

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 23, 2009, 07:28:56 PM »

The Egyptians could have blamed the media from day one, instead they went on and on about being tired in the post-game press conference and in subsequent interviews. They said the Brazil and Italy games took everything out of them..as if the US didn't play the same too teams before. So this round of excuses eh sounding too truthful.

44

Football / Re: Football thoughts

« on: June 23, 2009, 02:30:08 PM »

All I'm saying is he needed the oppertunity to show his ability, fuh various reasons Man Utd weren't willing to take a prolonged risk. Barca were willing to give him the oppertunity and he has shown what he can do. I dont think that is an improvement as a player but rather him finally showing what was already there. Hey, but we can agree to disagree. I respect your opinion. In the end we both agree that at this moment he is a very good defender.

yup breds..i  actually agreeing with you on that part. but isn't that what improvement is? i guess i just consider what you describe as an improvement. i see what you saying as the reasons to level of his performance. but i not looking at improvements as just a change in ability. If Eto'o, for example, start next season playing real toots because he out of shape and out of form, but finish the season strong as he get back his legs, sharpness and confidence...I still consider that he improved as the season went along even if he didn't become a better player per se. Good example is henry last year vs this year. He real improve...but is not necessarily that he became a technically better play, but his performance improved a lot for a variety of different reasons.

Personally, I think it hard to rule out that a young player like Pique wll not improve the more he gets to play. I understand you don't think that is the case. That cool. But what I'm saying is more apparent to me is that by getting more playing time, his performance improved, regardless of whether he became a technically better player. If you saying his performance today is the same as the beginning of the season, then we disagree on that too. Like yuh say..no scene. Daiz what de forum for. respeck

45

Football / Re: Football thoughts

« on: June 23, 2009, 10:50:43 AM »

I think Pique was always ah boss player, his English experience did improve him as a player but I don't think he has significantly improved from what he was in the UK. I think his way of playing is more suited to Spain/Italy were play is less frenetic. I believe his early season jitters at Barca were more to do with him settling in to the Spanish style of play again. Nuff times I saw him with the reserves on MUTV getting caught in possession and not being dominant in the air...which was his two main failings (IMO) when playing in England. It was one of the main reasons the English media always seemed to view him as the weak link during Champions league games. It isn't that he wasn't good at those things is just he didn't adapt as well or a quickly as Vidic so he remained a fringe player. He was bound to come good given the oppertunity and an extended run as a starter.

don't know if I agree with everything you've said there, but fair enough. I realize many of you would not have shared my surprise or think the improvement was all that great cuz you had a different opinion of the player and/or his earlier performances. but i am not sure why you and palos seem to take my statement to mean that he wasn't good to begin with. you both made the point that he was always a boss. all i said was that he improved..boss players can improve too. but his performances at the end of the season have been majestic and have been an improvement over the early season form. sure it may simply have to do with getting a run in the side, or playing in a league that is more to his strengths (although his performances against ManU and Chelsea may indicate otherwise) but not all players take their chances the way he has and grown at such a rate. I actually find him to be the best central Spanish defender right now. Your last statement in bold is all I saying..he come real good this rounds and it's the best football he has played in his senior career..whatever the reasons. But I understand why you guys don't think it's that huge an improvement

46

Football / Re: Football thoughts

« on: June 23, 2009, 09:51:40 AM »

I've never seen a player improve over a year like Gerrard Pique.

Pique was ALWAYS a boss.

He was the best player on show in the U 20 world cup in Canada....when Sergio Aguero, Pato & Diego Capel had all the headlines.

He manners Pato when Spain played Brazil in Vancouver.  At Man U....he was stifled & regressed.  Moving back to Barca was the best thing that could have happened to him.

Watched that WC...And Pique was indeed a standout. But to be honest, he has improved since then and the guy who played the CL final against ManU and is now a regular in the Spanish squad is better than the guy who started the season for Barca. You could see (what looked like) a bit of nerves in the beginning. Man playing like an accomplish baller now, as if he doing this as long as Puyol and co.

And as a Brazil man, I have to correck yuh, but Pique and Pato didn't come up against each other much..pato was playing wide up front against Spain. Jo also had a tendency to pull wide. Pique wasn't playing like a marker, but was cleaning up de crosses and runs from deep. When Jo got hurta nd came out, Brazil employed a more traditional #9 (forget his name) who would have had more contact with Pique. Also, anyone realize Pato was 16 in that tournament and actually young enough to play in this year's Under 20 WC....Imagine, Brazil's top striker  at Under 20 level is a kid called Walter. he was the top scorer in qualifying. Coach said he would be on the bench if he could have used Pato. Imagine..you are the top scorer for the Champions of South America / WC qualifying..and you not good enough to make the strongets starting 11

47

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 22, 2009, 09:35:45 PM »

filho lend mi the magnifying glass nah

haha. i hadda ask Omar how to make de ting bigger. i just followed his instruction to post. bess yuh watch kicker version

Just increase the numerical values in the html code...I think they are the first characters in the code in square brackets. 

alright...tanks. the original is better. hard luck for the ones in quotes

48

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 22, 2009, 08:58:10 PM »

filho lend mi the magnifying glass nah

haha. i hadda ask Omar how to make de ting bigger. i just followed his instruction to post. bess yuh watch kicker version

49

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 22, 2009, 01:20:01 PM »

This basically described the whole 90 minutes right here....I eh go lie, I love Brazil..but dat was a lil too disrespectful. Stankness. I still hadda laugh tho'

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/4ufOk_XRnow" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/4ufOk_XRnow</a>

50

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 22, 2009, 09:39:22 AM »

    Nobody is "denying" you your entitlement to your opinion, Filho, stop acting like Drogba.  Your assertion that every team that wins the WC "deserves" is a case-closed, end-of-discussion assertion and that is fine but beneath that assertion, debates will ensue and that is all I am saying so roll yuh sleeves back down, padnah.  Of course there is no debate that Maradonna cheated, not even from me, so I eh no what you goin' on with about "blind Argentinians", however England had time to recover and the fact that they weren't able to just might have had as much to do with Maradonna's/Argentina's play as it did with his/their cheating.  While there may be debate as to whether or not the ref "helped" Italy, (IMO it was a dive) the call came at a time that left Australia little or no time to recover,

game is the same length..time to recover is irrelevant. ever think that the fact that Australia did little to score during the game had something to do with Italy's play? And England did recover. They scored the same number of legit goals as Argentina. The fact that they didn't score as many goals as Argentina has nothing to do with Argentina's play, but the fact taht Argentina cheated. The fact that Argentina could not score enough legit goals has nothing to do with england's play?

and (again) nor did Italy look convincing in that game, nor have they looked convincing ever since, so there are some that are going to say that they didn't "deserve" to win that game, and subsequently, of course, the World Cup.

I guess you missed Italy school Germany in the semifinals, or their 1st 45 minutes against France in the final where they were clearly the better team and France beneftted by a big Malouda dive and 'undeserved' penalty.

What I want to know is, what is wrong with me (or anybody) feeling that way?  

nothing. why the drama..where did I say it was wrong? i gave an opinion..you are projecting something unto that opinion that I frankly doh understand

Sure, England created more chances when John Barnes came on.  It also looked like Italy created more chances when Rossi came on yesterday, too.  Does that mean that either of those teams "deserved" to or looked like they had a chance of winning?  No, at least, not in my opinion.  

Big difference between 2-0 and 3-0 at this level, and once it was 2-1, England was far more in the game than Italy ever was yesterday. Poor analogy

No different from the debate that may ensue over whether or not the usa "deserve" to be in the final four of the Confederations Cup over Egypt: over the course of three games, there are some who will feel that they didn't and some who will feel otherwise, especially since the two red cards they recieved will give ammunition to the latter side of that argument.  Since it came down to one game, the usa "deserved" to win because they did what they had to do Egypt didn't so tough luck for Egypt.  But there may be debates about it, all the same and that's the nature/result of competition, isn't it?    

you getting on like I am the Master of Debate Censure. I didn't know my opinions carry all dat weight 

 

I now seeing this......too bad because I woulda responded to every last one....as it is... I eh have the time no more.....but to make a last jook: YOU is the one getting on like you are the Master of Debate Censure.   

haha. respeck breds

51

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 22, 2009, 09:39:02 AM »

     ....and you are entitled to it and I don't care if it makes sense to you nor do I care what your intellectual ratings are or how many words you use.  Maradona's hand ball helped Argentina win against England just like the ref's (many will say poor) call "helped" Italy beat Australia.  That statement there or nothing else I say has to make any sense at all.  It ain't supposed to.  It's an opinion.  All that other shit you talking is just your disappointment that I won't whither to your view.   I was only joking when I tell yuh yuh acting like Drogba and I have since made it clear that I was only joking when I told you to roll down your sleeves (for the umpteenth time) but I guess since my opinion differs from yours, and I am just as willing to stand by my own convictions as you are to stand by yours, that somehow translates that I am trying to deny you your right to disagree with me?   Kiss my ass boy. Yuh full o' shit.       

i not disappointed that we don't agree. at no point have i been disappointed or tried to change your opinion. i don't see the point. you made points, i made counterpoints. I never made any references asking why you can't see my way, or wondered how you could have such and such an opinion. i just pointed out where i disagreed. Eventually there was a lot of side noise, but I was basically engaging discussion behind your rationale and explaining my rationale. i apologize for some of the thinly veiled insults, but i can't stand when people put 'words in my mouth' and I felt like that was what you were doing and I reacted to that a little strongly..otherwise, is just my opinion i was putting down

besides, you'ze a brazil man. Anybody who respeck de selecao cool by me  

52

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 22, 2009, 09:15:37 AM »

    Nobody is "denying" you your entitlement to your opinion, Filho, stop acting like Drogba.  Your assertion that every team that wins the WC "deserves" is a case-closed, end-of-discussion assertion and that is fine but beneath that assertion, debates will ensue and that is all I am saying so roll yuh sleeves back down, padnah.  Of course there is no debate that Maradonna cheated, not even from me, so I eh no what you goin' on with about "blind Argentinians", however England had time to recover and the fact that they weren't able to just might have had as much to do with Maradonna's/Argentina's play as it did with his/their cheating.  While there may be debate as to whether or not the ref "helped" Italy, (IMO it was a dive) the call came at a time that left Australia little or no time to recover, and (again) nor did Italy look convincing in that game, nor have they looked convincing ever since, so there are some that are going to say that they didn't "deserve" to win that game, and subsequently, of course, the World Cup. What I want to know is, what is wrong with me (or anybody) feeling that way?   Sure, England created more chances when John Barnes came on.  It also looked like Italy created more chances when Rossi came on yesterday, too.  Does that mean that either of those teams "deserved" to or looked like they had a chance of winning?  No, at least, not in my opinion.  No different from the debate that may ensue over whether or not the usa "deserve" to be in the final four of the Confederations Cup over Egypt: over the course of three games, there are some who will feel that they didn't and some who will feel otherwise, especially since the two red cards they recieved will give ammunition to the latter side of that argument.  Since it came down to one game, the usa "deserved" to win because they did what they had to do Egypt didn't so tough luck for Egypt.  But there may be debates about it, all the same and that's the nature/result of competition, isn't it?  
 

Chow..you have some issues you need to work out. I shoulda realize dat when you went on a mighty long diatribe about US soccer when you had a problem with Zeppo. The forum might not be the best place to do it tho. now calm down and go back a little and you will see that I presented my opinion the very same way you and GunnerStunner did...there is nothing 'case-closed' or 'end of discussion' about it. roll down my sleeves? don't act like Drogba? for what? a difference off opinion? hahaha. you see how men does get when people disagree with them...There is absolutely no difference in the way I present my oinion and the way you and GunnerStunner did. Look at the posts again...I guess it is only an opinion when it aligned with yours. You telling me that people should be allowed to have differences of opinion and look how juvenile you get as soon as there is a difference with yours...pot calling the kettle black. needed a good Monday morning laugh anyways...

ignore this...old post that I accidentally deleted that Chow already responded to. Just thought I'd put it back in case anyone was wondering where it went  

53

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 22, 2009, 08:56:57 AM »

    Nobody is "denying" you your entitlement to your opinion, Filho, stop acting like Drogba.  Your assertion that every team that wins the WC "deserves" is a case-closed, end-of-discussion assertion and that is fine but beneath that assertion, debates will ensue and that is all I am saying so roll yuh sleeves back down, padnah.  Of course there is no debate that Maradonna cheated, not even from me, so I eh no what you goin' on with about "blind Argentinians", however England had time to recover and the fact that they weren't able to just might have had as much to do with Maradonna's/Argentina's play as it did with his/their cheating.  While there may be debate as to whether or not the ref "helped" Italy, (IMO it was a dive) the call came at a time that left Australia little or no time to recover,

game is the same length..time to recover is irrelevant. ever think that the fact that Australia did little to score during the game had something to do with Italy's play? And England did recover. They scored the same number of legit goals as Argentina. The fact that they didn't score as many goals as Argentina has nothing to do with Argentina's play, but the fact taht Argentina cheated. The fact that Argentina could not score enough legit goals has nothing to do with england's play?

and (again) nor did Italy look convincing in that game, nor have they looked convincing ever since, so there are some that are going to say that they didn't "deserve" to win that game, and subsequently, of course, the World Cup.

I guess you missed Italy school Germany in the semifinals, or their 1st 45 minutes against France in the final where they were clearly the better team and France beneftted by a big Malouda dive and 'undeserved' penalty.

What I want to know is, what is wrong with me (or anybody) feeling that way?  

nothing. why the drama..where did I say it was wrong? i gave an opinion..you are projecting something unto that opinion that I frankly doh understand

Sure, England created more chances when John Barnes came on.  It also looked like Italy created more chances when Rossi came on yesterday, too.  Does that mean that either of those teams "deserved" to or looked like they had a chance of winning?  No, at least, not in my opinion.  

Big difference between 2-0 and 3-0 at this level, and once it was 2-1, England was far more in the game than Italy ever was yesterday. Poor analogy

No different from the debate that may ensue over whether or not the usa "deserve" to be in the final four of the Confederations Cup over Egypt: over the course of three games, there are some who will feel that they didn't and some who will feel otherwise, especially since the two red cards they recieved will give ammunition to the latter side of that argument.  Since it came down to one game, the usa "deserved" to win because they did what they had to do Egypt didn't so tough luck for Egypt.  But there may be debates about it, all the same and that's the nature/result of competition, isn't it?    

you getting on like I am the Master of Debate Censure. I didn't know my opinions carry all dat weight 

 

54

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 22, 2009, 08:37:20 AM »

 Jed, yuh jes being an ass now.  I does always tell yuh to roll down yuh sleeves and button yuh collar and it has always been purely in jest.  There is nothing in anything I have said that claims you are supposed to agree with me or anything I say "or else".  You are simply twisting things now.  In fact, I am saying that because people have differing opinions, and differing views there are always going to be debates.  That's all.  Of course, if I were to take the stance that "whovever wins, deserves to win" then that leaves for little discussion and that, if anything seems juvenile to me.........at least, in my opinion.......but of course, I would be aligning my view with yours if I always felt that way, wouldn't I?  
   My diatribe with zeppo had everything to do with his comments about the South African people being able to "afford" tickets for this and next year's tournament and I am happy to have that issue because, to me, that strikes at the crux of a whole lot more things in life in Africa than have to do with football.  You don't like it?  Too bad, because I'm going to express myself whether or not you feel it's the best place for me to express it.        

whatever you say yes Chow . I think it's pretty clear you overreacted to a simple opinion. your whole point was to somehow say i was not open to others difference of opinion..which is ironic given your failure to recognize that my post was simply a difference of opinion itself. it is absolutely ridiulous to say that the case is closed because i think the WC winner deserves it..it's not juvenile and it does not close the door to discussion, it's simply one point of view, for which numerous counter-arguments can be made. sorry you hit a mental roadblock with that statement..I'll try to simplify my opinions to less than 10 words next time...you real good yes. I juvenile and closed to debate by giving that opinion? give me a break. Or better yet..make a list of differences of opinion that acceptable to you and I'll try to comply.

Also, honestly you eh making no sense with any of the justifications you make for Maradona's handball vs Italy's penalty against Australia. Just my opinion...

55

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 22, 2009, 05:40:31 AM »

Italy never deserved that world cup

   The bogus penalty they were awarded against Australia reinforces that.

And Maradona punched the ball in the goal with his hand against England.....Whoever wins the world cup deserves it...every winner has its fair share of luck (or cheating) along the way

......and as long as people have opinions (which they are all entitled to), debates will always ensue as to whether or not one team or another "deserved" anything, whether it be a good result or a bad one.  Fact is, Argentina looked far more convincing against England and throughout the tournament in '86 and hence, more "deserving" of winning that tournament  than Italy looked against Australia and throughout that particular tournament in '06.  The Australia game stands out in many people's minds and is debated just like Maradonna's "Hand of God" is.  Argentina looked quite dominant against England and Maradonna's transgression may not have quite been the game changer that Italy's bogus penalty was especially at such a crucial time of the game.  There was no guarantee that they, the footall icons, were going to beat Australia on PK's......every World Cup has its fair share of upsets along the way and maybe the referee in that game deprived us of one.    

sure you're entitled to your opinion. apparently i'm not entitled to mine. you agreed with gunnerstunner..i did not. so not sure what the snarky comment in your opening was about.

who cares how impressive Argentina looked. inferior teams beat superior teams in the world cup all the time. just like you said in your close. the ref very well may have deprived us of an upset. there is no concept such as deserved unless the referees materially influenced the game with bad calls. And on that point, England deserved to be at 1-1 after Lineker's goal. But I understand what you mean by "deserve" and form that point of view..every team that wins it "deserves" it, imo. Maradona's handball was the worst of the two transgressions, since in many people's opinion, the Italy penalty was legit. There is noone who believes the Maradona handball was legit...not even blind Argentines. The only 'fact' is that Maradona had to cheat to guarantee that Argentina beat England. There is no measure as to whether they had a better chance of winning that game without Maradona's handball than Italy did without Totti's penalty. It can be argued that once Barnes came on, England made the better chances..and on any other day Lineker would have had a double. in the end..i was ecstatic that Argentina beat England...but they did not deserve it, no matter how you look at it..they cheated. sometimes the better team does not do enough to win and there is no telling how that game would have ended if both teams played within the rules of the game

56

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 21, 2009, 08:25:59 PM »

Italy never deserved that world cup

   The bogus penalty they were awarded against Australia reinforces that.

And Maradona punched the ball in the goal with his hand against England.....Whoever wins the world cup deserves it...every winner has its fair share of luck (or cheating) along the way

57

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 21, 2009, 06:59:53 PM »

Chow..Zeppo coming for yuh 

I think poor Mango Chump just swallowed his vuvuzela.

    

     It sure beats what Spain will have you and your team swallowing on Wednesday!


          

Damn Chow is fadder's day, take it easy nuh man!

  Every good father knows that he has to administer tough love from time to time......especially when is a outside chile. 

allyuh trying real hard boy 

58

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 21, 2009, 02:36:28 PM »

that 2nd half was much more like it.. Rossi showed why he shouldve been starting this game.

I dont know if allyuh men does follow this Italy side, but imo Daniele De Rossi's international career has been a true disappointment. From indiscipline and getting put out at crucial tournaments to lacklustre performances for somebody of his reputation...

Time for italy to go in fresh blood.. Santon, Rossi, Balotelli, Pepe, Montolivo is the future.

Ah find nobody eh talking Felipe Melo. Man eh put ah foot wrong whole game. Who he playing for?

Hoss...Melo is a big player for Fiorentina. As ah Italy fan yuh disappoint meh dey.

doh talk about Italy 2nd half nah. It was already 3-0..dat half doh count for nutten. Doh study it..Italy is a big side. I wouldn't watch dem slight in 2010 at all

59

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 21, 2009, 02:33:42 PM »

Egypt sell out or what?
How yuh go score 3 on Brazil, beat Italy and be looking like crap vs the US?

       Are you one of them that still underates the US?keep your hopes up Breds.Sometimes i wonder if is we just don't like the US or is it they really not playing good Football.  

I ent mention nothing about the US play.
Look at how Egypt playing. They looking like they was happy with a 1-0 loss and still move to the Semis

Let's face it..Egypt it shit. The Brazilians were cruising 3-1 at the half against them...they said jetlag and fatigue caught up with them in the 2nd half. Everyone thought it was excuses, excuses...but it looks like it was true. They were extremely lucky against Italy and shoulda colleck at least 4 in the 2nd half alone. And look how Brazil pop down Italy normal normal. Egypt luck ran out. They having a hard time in qualifying..they have a nice brand, but de 4-3 loss and the 1-0 win was apparently them overachieving.

US is shit too..But the only team I didn't want to go through was Italy. Egypt couldn't get the job done, so I glad the US obliged. Great day of ball. Laters Italy

60

Football / Re: Confederations Cup Thread

« on: June 21, 2009, 02:26:59 PM »

Chow..Zeppo coming for yuh