Confederations Cup Thread

[Dumplingdinho]

Did T&T deserve to be in the World Cup Finals in 2006?

  ...yuh real wicked palos.

[triniairman]

Zeppo will have every right to be happy....3-0!?!?!?and dis US team supposed to be so shitty...ah know de anti-US men on de forum eh liking dis one atall, atall, atall....Go Brazil!!!!!

I eh go lie, I can't stand that team, especially Donavon.

[Zeppo]

U.S. shows passion and heart to rout Egypt

Bob Bradley could have looked at the scenarios the United States needed to advance in the Confederations Cup and decided that Sunday's game against Egypt would be a game to rest veterans and give youngsters a look. He could have decided, as most might have in his position, that beating Egypt 3-0 and having Italy lose 3-0 was such an improbability that even planning for that possibility would be crazy.

Bradley ignored all that and instead showed confidence in his team when there were plenty of reasons not to have confidence. He gave Tim Howard a rest, starting the capable Brad Guzan instead, but the rest of his lineup was as strong as he could field. He selected a starting lineup and showed faith in a group that responded with a performance that won't soon be forgotten.

Bradley watched his own son deliver a Father's Day present in the form of a clutch goal, then struggling veteran Clint Dempsey repaid Bradley's faith in him with a vital goal that helped the United States pull off a 3-0 win and edge out Egypt and Italy for a berth in the Confederations Cup semifinals after Italy collapsed in a 3-0 loss to Brazil.

(continue)

[Filho]

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

[Brownsugar]

Go Spain!!!....
Go South Africa!!!

[reggae-fan]

Go Spain!!!....
Go South Africa!!!

This US win looks good for CONCACAF. defeating the African champs in such emphatic fashion in a game that matters counts for something.  Obviously they choked against the likes of Italy and Brazil...but you get the feeling that Brazil and Italy could maul anyone on any given day. Look, Brazil even had the audacity to Drub Italy 3-0.

South Africa aside, CONCACAF has done better than CAF AND AFC. I wont even mention OCEANIA. In fact, if our teams do well in South Africa next year, i dont believe it would be far fetched for CONCACAF to lobby FIFA to switch our play-off spot with the 5th place CONMEBOL team to playoff with New zealand (almost certain to be the top finisher in Oceania).

I'd be surprised if New Zealand do any better than any of our 3 or possible 4 CONCACAF representatives, thats of course if New Zealand gets there.

[Dinner Mints]

This US win looks good for CONCACAF.

People here ain't thinking about that. Too short-sighted.

[Mango Chow!]

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.)****

[reggae-fan]

   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. 

Flawed logic. Costa Rica do well, CONCACAF looks good, but USA do well, USA looks good? It might also be worth noting that the USA is not currently playing the best ball in CONCACAF...maybe COSTA RICA is.

Say waht you want, but this is an excellent result for CONCACAF football. Hope the USA go all the way to the finals, and win it to boot.

[Mango Chow!]

   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. 

Flawed logic. Costa Rica do well, CONCACAF looks good, but USA do well, USA looks good? It might also be worth noting that the USA is not currently playing the best ball in CONCACAF...maybe COSTA RICA is.

Say waht you want, but this is an excellent result for CONCACAF football. Hope the USA go all the way to the finals, and win it to boot.

   I never said that Costa Rica doing well is good for concacaf but not the usa.  Get your facts straight and learn to read and understand what a writer is saying.  I would really like to see the correlation between the usa doing well in this or any other tournament (as badly as they have looked, too) and concacaf as a whole when, the usa (and Mexico) have been getting results in the World Cup since 1930.  There is no question that the usa has improved since its re-entry into the world stage in 1990. There is no question that Mexico are the other power house in our region and there is no question as to Costa Rica's potential.  They showed what they are capable of in 1990 and they have not looked as good ever since but every now and then they get a result or show some kind of form.  Those three teams are the status quo in concacaf.   Jamaica's victory over an up-and-coming Japan in '98 and T&T's draw against Sweden in '06 is not enough for concacaf to rattle any sabres and say we are all that in international football.  More teams like Haiti, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Canada, jamaica, Honduras, etc., have to step up and show that they can hang with some of the top teams for us to be taken more seriously and anything else you tell me is just a flawed attempt at logic.  

[Dinner Mints]

   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. 

Flawed logic. Costa Rica do well, CONCACAF looks good, but USA do well, USA looks good? It might also be worth noting that the USA is not currently playing the best ball in CONCACAF...maybe COSTA RICA is.

Say waht you want, but this is an excellent result for CONCACAF football. Hope the USA go all the way to the finals, and win it to boot.

   I never said that Costa Rica doing well is good for concacaf but not the usa.  Get your facts straight and learn to read and understand what a writer is saying.  I would really like to see the correlation between the usa doing well in this or any other tournament (as badly as they have looked, too) and concacaf as a whole when, the usa (and Mexico) have been getting results in the World Cup since 1930.  There is no question that the usa has improved since its re-entry into the world stage in 1990. There is no question that Mexico are the other power house in our region and there is no question as to Costa Rica's potential.  They showed what they are capable of in 1990 and they have not looked as good ever since but every now and then they get a result or show some kind of form.  Those three teams are the status quo in concacaf.   Jamaica's victory over an up-and-coming Japan in '98 and T&T's draw against Sweden in '06 is not enough for concacaf to rattle any sabres and say we are all that in international football.  More teams like Haiti, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Canada, jamaica, Honduras, etc., have to step up and show that they can hang with some of the top teams for us to be taken more seriously and anything else you tell me is just a flawed attempt at logic.  

So until the likes of Wigan and Stoke start regularly challenging Barcelona or Milan, the successes of Man U and Chelsea, etc. are of no consequence to the status of the Premier League? Got it! Can't believe my logic was so flawed before.

[Mango Chow!]

    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...

  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.        

[Mango Chow!]

   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. 

Flawed logic. Costa Rica do well, CONCACAF looks good, but USA do well, USA looks good? It might also be worth noting that the USA is not currently playing the best ball in CONCACAF...maybe COSTA RICA is.

Say waht you want, but this is an excellent result for CONCACAF football. Hope the USA go all the way to the finals, and win it to boot.

   I never said that Costa Rica doing well is good for concacaf but not the usa.  Get your facts straight and learn to read and understand what a writer is saying.  I would really like to see the correlation between the usa doing well in this or any other tournament (as badly as they have looked, too) and concacaf as a whole when, the usa (and Mexico) have been getting results in the World Cup since 1930.  There is no question that the usa has improved since its re-entry into the world stage in 1990. There is no question that Mexico are the other power house in our region and there is no question as to Costa Rica's potential.  They showed what they are capable of in 1990 and they have not looked as good ever since but every now and then they get a result or show some kind of form.  Those three teams are the status quo in concacaf.   Jamaica's victory over an up-and-coming Japan in '98 and T&T's draw against Sweden in '06 is not enough for concacaf to rattle any sabres and say we are all that in international football.  More teams like Haiti, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Canada, jamaica, Honduras, etc., have to step up and show that they can hang with some of the top teams for us to be taken more seriously and anything else you tell me is just a flawed attempt at logic.  

So until the likes of Wigan and Stoke start regularly challenging Barcelona or Milan, the successes of Man U and Chelsea, etc. are of no consequence to the status of the Premier League? Got it! Can't believe my logic was so flawed before.

  The status of the epl is as a direct result of the successes of the big four and maybe a couple other teams
outside of that but not because Wigan and Stoke have done anything.  I'm quite sure the status of the epl in European football will grow even more when teams like Everton, Aston Villa, West Ham, ManCity, etc., start getting more positive results in European competitions, maybe even Wigan and Stoke too, but they have to first get there.  Just like I'm sure that the status of concacaf will grow when more of the teams that want to carry the torch for concacaf can step up and show that they canget results and/or show some progress.  Until then, it's just status the quo doing as they always do.  How is that "good" for concacaf?

[Filho]

 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...

[Filho]

    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 

 

[Mango Chow!]

 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...

     ....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.       

[Brownsugar]

This US win looks good for CONCACAF.

People here ain't thinking about that. Too short-sighted.

sssttteeeuuupppsss....yeah like I would really take seriously anything RF pronounces on....GO SPAIN!!!...

Omar, ah glad to see yuh posting after the game....ah woulda been worried  ...and I agree 1000% with you, the 2002 World Cup was Italy's for the taking, they were robbed blind!!...So even though I was upset when the referee awarded that bogus penalty in 2006 to them against Australia, I eventually chalked it up to karma being bitchy as usual....

Ah well on to the World Cup, btw Italy qualify for next year as yet?? 

[Filho]

    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  

[Mango Chow!]

    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  

  No scene, Filho.  I hope we still cool.   

[Mango Chow!]

    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.   

[Filho]

     ....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  

[Filho]

    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

[Marcos]

I wonder how many ppl jumpin on the Brazil bandwagon?

I eh drinkin dat koolaid yet.
Sadly Brazil is turning into every other present-day, world-class football team. Hard working and swift on the counter.
I guess in a world where results are all that count, this was bound to happen.

RIP ginga

[Mango Chow!]

I wonder how many ppl jumpin on the Brazil bandwagon?

I eh drinkin dat koolaid yet.
Sadly Brazil is turning into every other present-day, world-class football team. Hard working and swift on the counter.
I guess in a world where results are all that count, this was bound to happen.

RIP ginga

  I not quite giving them this tournament yet.  I hope they play well and beat South Africa......then I expect and hope that the fifa Rankings reflect the result of the (expected) final between them and Spain, however it turn out.  I just want them to win.....at all times.

[dinho]

This US win looks good for CONCACAF.

People here ain't thinking about that. Too short-sighted.

sssttteeeuuupppsss....yeah like I would really take seriously anything RF pronounces on....GO SPAIN!!!...

Omar, ah glad to see yuh posting after the game....ah woulda been worried  ...and I agree 1000% with you, the 2002 World Cup was Italy's for the taking, they were robbed blind!!...So even though I was upset when the referee awarded that bogus penalty in 2006 to them against Australia, I eventually chalked it up to karma being bitchy as usual....

Ah well on to the World Cup, btw Italy qualify for next year as yet?? 

Italy almost there, is basically a formality now...

Girl, them fellahs embarass meh side yesterday. Heads hadda roll starting with Toni (not Lippi though).

Ah mean who is 30-something year old bake Lucio to be out-sprinting 20 year old Rossi and staring him down at the same time like is ah friggin pappy show?? This is Italy man!!  Conceding 3 goals to any team on the planet goes against the very core of what an Italian national team signifies.

hopefully it was a wake up call.

PS: Ah tempted to argue the Australia penalty call eh.. Ah mean Grosso was coming in on goal and the Aussie fellah pelt he frame, lie down and get zero ball... ah mean, objectively speaking , what Grosso was supposed to do there besides go to ground after the defender impede his progress?

[Marcos]

Ppl wonder why Italy plays a defensive, boring brand of football.
Yesterday was the answer.

[Observer]

I wonder how many ppl jumpin on the Brazil bandwagon?

I eh drinkin dat koolaid yet.
Sadly Brazil is turning into every other present-day, world-class football team. Hard working and swift on the counter.
I guess in a world where results are all that count, this was bound to happen.

RIP ginga

Good point Marcos.

Wha yuh expect from Dunga? But yesterday they look dam good doing it  And doing it to Italy sweeten de brew 

[FF]

I wonder how many ppl jumpin on the Brazil bandwagon?

I eh drinkin dat koolaid yet.
Sadly Brazil is turning into every other present-day, world-class football team. Hard working and swift on the counter.
I guess in a world where results are all that count, this was bound to happen.

RIP ginga

Good point Marcos.

Wha yuh expect from Dunga? But yesterday they look dam good doing it  And doing it to Italy sweeten de brew 

me ent care nah... i see plenty ginga yesterday...

ginga til i on de ground holding meh belly laughing

[palos]

Italy are quite capable of playing attractive, flowing football.  They more than have the players to do it.  But they are an example of where football becomes cultural.

It's not in Italy's football culture to play attractively for any consistent time period.  They're a fight you to the death kind of team who are at their very best when their backs are against the wall and the odds are against them.  A 10 man Italy is more dangerous than an Italian XI IMO.  I doh like them as a team to watch but I respect de hell out of them and they have some absolutely fanatastic players.  Always have and likely always will.

As for them not "deserving" to win WC 2006....I wonder who "deserved" to win it?  Germany?  Germany played the best they could possibly play against Italy and Italy flat out, straight up BEAT THEM.  No bad calls.  No teefin by de refs.  Dey beat Germany in front dey own fans.  Germany...who is one of the toughest team in ALL of foottball...especially at home.

Italy is a boss team.  Yuh doh have to like dem.....but underestimate dem at yuh peril.  Confederations Cup is nothing much in the overall scheme of things.  If this was a World Cup tournament, this same Italian team would have found a way to qualify for the next round and once they have....EVERYBODY...including my side Brazil...would fear them.

[Observer]

Italy are quite capable of playing attractive, flowing football.  They more than have the players to do it.  But they are an example of where football becomes cultural.

It's not in Italy's football culture to play attractively for any consistent time period.  They're a fight you to the death kind of team who are at their very best when their backs are against the wall and the odds are against them.  A 10 man Italy is more dangerous than an Italian XI IMO.  I doh like them as a team to watch but I respect de hell out of them and they have some absolutely fanatastic players.  Always have and likely always will.

As for them not "deserving" to win WC 2006....I wonder who "deserved" to win it?  Germany?  Germany played the best they could possibly play against Italy and Italy flat out, straight up BEAT THEM.  No bad calls.  No teefin by de refs.  Dey beat Germany in front dey own fans.  Germany...who is one of the toughest team in ALL of foottball...especially at home.

Italy is a boss team.  Yuh doh have to like dem.....but underestimate dem at yuh peril.  Confederations Cup is nothing much in the overall scheme of things.  If this was a World Cup tournament, this same Italian team would have found a way to qualify for the next round and once they have....EVERYBODY...including my side Brazil...would fear them.

I agree 100% Every competition has it's refereeing ups and downs and now with 40 cameras and all the analysis, the referee job is getting harder and harder. Italy got the call against Australia, I for on felt it was penalty, you cannot be half pregnant, its a foul so its a penalty, simple! Italy in 2006 were the most balanced squad, along with France IMHO and because of that the scores were dead locked after 120. PK's were the order of the day & the rest is history.