Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Suarez broke the rules, and was penalised in the correct way: penalty, red card, suspension.
So if "cheating" is defined as "commiting an offence", then he cheated, and so do most players in most games. But if it includes the notions of intentionally deceiving, and getting away with it, then clearly he didn't get away with it, and could hardly have expected to.
Rugby players "cheat" whenever their team has a sizeable lead (more than 3 points) late in the game, and the opposition are desperately trying to get 5 or 7 points. The defenders will give away 3, usually with a yellow card. It's simple arithemetic, playing the odds. Suarez did the same.
There is, of course, the penalty try option, but that is usually controversial and sparingly enforced. In football, there could be an argument for a "penalty goal", but as in rugby, that would just shift the location of the grey area and the debate.
I don't like the way Uruguay won, at all. But it's a lesser crime than constant cynical fouls on gifted players, of which there were plenty in the Brazil-Netherlands game.
-
The comparison is not necessarily winning the respective World Cups but performing well below realistic expectations. England should have topped their group and by virtue of a relatively easy draw made the semi-final.
The comparison is of top players freezing on the big stage perhaps due to fright and the overwhelming expectations of their countrymen and news media.
And that's the nub of the debate in England now. Top players who under-achieve, or ordinary players who look good for their clubs, surrounded by world-class foreigners?
I tend to the latter view. Of course Rooney is class, but England had to fill out their squad with technically limited players who just don't match other nations' top players for technique, but more than match them in salary.
When fans are arguing about whether to throw on Heskey or Crouch to save England, that's a pretty good indicator of a shallow talent pool.
-
Heh, I thought that might rankle. ;)
At least Italy get to vary the script, anyway. England's is sadly predictable.
-
England's defending was ... naive. Well, that's what the commentators would have called it if they'd been an African team. They made more mistakes in three minutes than Ryan Nelsen & co in three games.
John Terry can take a large share of the blame for that.
-
Yes, England should have got further, by topping their group and being in the other half of the draw. But that would only have delayed a meeting with a Big Gun (with due respect to Ghana).
As soon as they played a real contender - probably Brazil/Netherlands in that half - they were likely to come undone. That's what has happened in every World Cup since England won it. If they qualify, they always get out of their group, and never reach the final. Only the stage of elimination varies, and then not much.
Their supporters would happily swap with Italy, and alternate total rubbish with occasional trophies.
-
No, football England aren't like the All Blacks every four years. It's a popular view in NZ, comforting but false.
The All Blacks are usually ranked number 1 in the world, or close to it. They consistently prove their quality by beating everyone else in the (smaller) world of rugby, and then stuff up at the RWC.
Football England are not, and haven't been for decades, number 1 in the world. They manage to lose to teams like Northern Ireland between World Cups. Every four years, they have a consistent pattern: they get knocked out by the first top quality team they face (Germany, Portugal, Brazil, and Argentina). Tabloid hype aside, hardly anybody who follows football was picking them to win this World Cup. Teams like Spain (European champions) are simply, incontrovertibly ... better at football.
The All Blacks don't have that excuse.
-
Did the Kiwis deserve a place in the last 16?
No. Because they didn't win, or give themselves the chances to win, whereas Slovakia and Paraguay did.
The All Whites have massively over-achieved at this World Cup. Before the tournament, I had a crazy patriotic bet at the TAB. New Zealand to get a point. Heart ruling head. Or so I thought.
Outstanding defence proved me wrong. But, overall, we weren't good enough to go through, and the second half of the last game illustrated this. The All Whites just didn't have the pace and creativity that can change a game, whereas the two teams who qualified did, and against Italy, they were each rewarded with three points.
I'm afraid it was a missed opportunity in the end. Not a failure - far from it - but very frustrating. Especially knowing that one goal would have meant playing Japan, not the Netherlands.
Then again, Ryan Nelsen would not have played in the next game, so maybe we left the party just in time ...
-
I swear the last couple of days have been like living in a Stephen Jones column. Somebody make it stop!
Let me generalise about generalisations.
If you live in Football-Media-World (either physically or online), then the old stereotypes are spouted, challenged, mocked and sooner or later have turned into cliches that are mouldier than the mince pie hiding at the back of your cupboard since Christmas.
If you live somewhere else - say, in the New Zealand media - then the World Cup arrives from a distant planet. And all the stereotypes are fresh from the bakery.
African defenders are naive, Brazilians play samba soccer, Germans are efficient, yadda yadda. Never mind that the Africans and Brazilians and Germans could all be playing for the same club in the same Champions League and are interchangeably talented or hard-working or dirty or rubbish. Never mind that England are coached by an Italian, Greece by a German, Australia by a Dutchman, Argentina by ... well, let's not go there.
The stereotypes are a handy substitute for knowledge, and our media (with a few exceptions) just aren't that interested in football. That's no crime, of course, but it does grate when people pretend to know, when clearly they don't (Martin Devlin, I'm looking at you).
The saving grace is that we're getting commentary from people like John Helm who do know their stuff, and are (mostly) not patronising us or the players. I'm enjoying that.
Anyway, this was just a long-winded way of saying: Giovanni, you are not alone. Well, not until Italy win the drawing of lots, in which case we'll be round your place with the pitchforks and torches ... ;)
-
Meanwhile, One News trailers feature All Whites goalscoring hero, John Key. Yes, it's all about the politicians, that's the real story here. Vomit.
-
A nation has only really arrived at the World Cup when they have a proper controversy, leading to years of indignation, buttressed by photographic "evidence" and a rumour mill that's always hiring.
Did it cross the line? Should it have been a red card? Was it handball? Was it offside? (Answers No, Yes, Yes and Yes, with reference to 1966, 1982, 1986, and 2002, respectively). There are dozens more.
I don't think Italy's dodgy penalty and NZ's offside goal quite measure up. Not when one team is overjoyed with the result, and the other team can still qualify anyway.
So yeah, I'm looking forward to elimination at the hands of the FIFA tosser. That would be a grievance worth nurturing.
Giovanni, stick around. The PA Football XI is under-strength as it is.