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
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?
This US win looks good for CONCACAF.
People here ain't thinking about that. Too short-sighted.
usa winning looks good for the
usa, not concacaf. Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, T&T
AND the usa doing well in FIFA tournaments looks good for cocacaf. Not just the two perennial super powers all the time, over and over again.
**** jack warner has been good for concacaf. He just hasn't been good for T&T football (but that's up for debate, I'm sure.)****