# World Cup 2010! Go go go!



## k3ng (Jun 12, 2010)

For all the football fans! (I refuse to use the term soccer)

Teams anyone? I have a lot of people banking on Spain to win for some reason. 

But USA England 1-1? Can you believe that just happened?


----------



## Patrick (Jun 12, 2010)

k3ng said:


> For all the football fans! (I refuse to use the term soccer)
> 
> Teams anyone? I have a lot of people banking on Spain to win for some reason.
> 
> But USA England 1-1? Can you believe that just happened?



Yes, England aren't particularly good. Brazil should win the tournament. Spain won't. Loads of people fancy them to but they always choke under pressure. They're the biggest bottlers.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 12, 2010)

I watched it. Gave me an excuse to sit around for a couple of hours and not do much of anything. My dad was over and he was for England, which was really annoying. I wouldn't have asked him over if I'd known that. At times, he's a bit of an Anglophile, mostly because he's Canadian, I guess. Or maybe it was just to be contrary. Wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## Baron (Jun 12, 2010)

JosephB said:


> I watched it. Gave me an excuse to sit around for a couple of hours and not do much of anything. My dad was over and he was for England, which was really annoying. I wouldn't have asked him over if I'd known that. He's quite the Anglophile, mostly because he's Canadian, I guess, or maybe it was just to be contrary. Wouldn't be the first time.


 
Ne escape even at home, eh Joe?


----------



## Patrick (Jun 12, 2010)

JosephB said:


> My dad was over and he was for England, which was really annoying. I wouldn't have asked him over if I'd known that.


 

Really? You take it that seriously? I laughed when our goalkeeper, Green, made that terrible error. The standard of football at the world cup is worse than the Europa league.


----------



## Intel (Jun 12, 2010)

Green is a chump. Did you see that goal?! Ridiculous.[-(


----------



## JosephB (Jun 12, 2010)

Baron said:


> Ne escape even at home, eh Joe?



Heh. I guess not.




Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> Really? You take it that seriously?



No, I'm just kidding. I'm really not that into it, although I'd like to see us do well, of course. My dad doesn't care that much either. He was just looking for an excuse to see his grandchildren.


----------



## Sam (Jun 12, 2010)

It was a laughable performance. I just love how the media and pundits hype England up at every World Cup, only for them to look like morons when England fail miserably.


----------



## playerpiano (Jun 12, 2010)

No credit to us Yanks? We discovered that the world cup is a bracket. That's all we needed to turn it into an excuse for office pools and boozed up rhetoric and that's all America needs to win! Well...that and bad performance at the net by the other team....just saying.

In other world cup news. America is a likely candidate for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022. 1994 set an attendance and monetary record and the current proposal while being mostly under the radar is the highest in terms of inherent seating capacity and ready made infrastructure that FIFA has ever come across owing most ironically to the massive amount of American Football stadiums in America and the lack of proper football stadiums there. The average seating capacity at the seventeen stadiums is 77,000 and none are less than sixty thousand and none of the stadiums are older, most have been built within the last two years or will be newly renovated at the time of the games.


----------



## alanmt (Jun 12, 2010)

I am for Portugal this cup.  You know why.


----------



## garza (Jun 12, 2010)

Brazil. I'm cheering for Mexico, but it will be Brazil.

The U.S. should be made to stay home until they learn to call football 'football'. What they call football up there ought to be called junior grade rugby.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 12, 2010)

alanmt said:


> I am for Portugal this cup.  You know why.


 
Cristiano Ronaldo?


----------



## k3ng (Jun 12, 2010)

I used to like Portugal when Figo was around. They did great last time around.

And it's been what, 44 years since England's won the Cup? They haven't pulled it together since.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 13, 2010)

garza said:


> Brazil. I'm cheering for Mexico, but it will be Brazil.
> 
> The U.S. should be made to stay home until they learn to call football 'football'. What they call football up there ought to be called junior grade rugby.



American football is much more of an impact sport than rugby. Rugby's just for great big fat blokes who like to roll around in the mud with each other and for the referee to decide who wins each game.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 13, 2010)

garza said:


> Brazil. I'm cheering for Mexico, but it will be Brazil.
> 
> The U.S. should be made to stay home until they learn to call football 'football'. What they call football up there ought to be called junior grade rugby.



American football isn't "junior grade" anything. I don't know why it comes up in discussions about the other kind of football. They share a name and that's it. It doesn't have anything to do with rugby either, except the shape of the ball.


----------



## Sigg (Jun 13, 2010)

Germany 4 : Australia 0


----------



## k3ng (Jun 14, 2010)

Poor Aussies.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 14, 2010)

Spain should win. Winning Euro '08 showed they're too good to choke now. The best team I've ever seen is the current Barca side, and although Spain don't have Messi, they still have six Barca players and can add Torres and Villa to the national team.

England are in the mix, good dark horses that can only improve. USA are a lot better than people think but still needed the goalie blunder to get something.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 14, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> Really? You take it that seriously? I laughed when our goalkeeper, Green, made that terrible error. The standard of football at the world cup is worse than the Europa league.


I must admit I laughed as well.

At first.

Then I began to get angry at the commentaters feeling sorry for him. They said he redeemed himself with that average save later. No he didn't, it's his bloody job! It's not his job to give opponents goals when the team are busting their guts.

Heskey was just as bad missing that sitter. Just as bad. A proffesional so-called striker should do better.

EDIT: It must be demoralising for the team as it was for us watching it. It temporarilly made us think we were useless (until our logic came back into play.)

It's football and these things can happen. Better the blunders happen now, than in the final.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 14, 2010)

spider8 said:


> Spain should win. Winning Euro '08 showed they're  too good to choke now. The best team I've ever seen is the current  Barca side, and although Spain don't have Messi, they still have six  Barca players and can add Torres and Villa to the national team.
> 
> England  are in the mix, good dark horses that can only improve. USA are a lot  better than people think but still needed the goalie blunder to get  something.


 

You're in fantasy land.There are loads of teams that have a better chance of winning the tournament than England. Brazil, Spain, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Holland, France and Portugal. With the possible exception of France and Argentina (because, with Maradona as manager they can't defend), I'd fancy those teams to beat us. England are not so much dark horses as they are outsiders.

On a brighter note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQM1S-L0pCs&feature=popular


----------



## Sam (Jun 14, 2010)

The problem is, the English media always hype up the team above what they're capable of achieving. Okay, they have some world-class players: Rooney, Gerrard, and Lampard to name but a few. But Spain, Argentina, and Brazil have world-beaters: Xavi, Iniesta, Villa, and Fabregas for Spain; Messi, Tevez, and Aguero for Argentina; and Kaka, Ronaldinho, and Pato for Brazil. I fancy Spain, if I'm being honest. I just don't think Brazil have the same togetherness which they had during the last two World Cups. Spain won Euro '08, and they got the cat off their back by doing so. They know what it takes to win now, and they have too many brilliant players. 

I see England taking second place in their group and having to face the Germans in the knockout stages. That won't be easy. Overall, I can't see them winning.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 14, 2010)

Sam W said:


> The problem is, the English media always hype up the team above what they're capable of achieving. Okay, they have some world-class players: Rooney, Gerrard, and Lampard to name but a few. But Spain, Argentina, and Brazil have world-beaters: Xavi, Iniesta, Villa, and Fabregas for Spain; Messi, Tevez, and Aguero for Argentina; and Kaka, Ronaldinho, and Pato for Brazil. I fancy Spain, if I'm being honest. I just don't think Brazil have the same togetherness which they had during the last two World Cups. Spain won Euro '08, and they got the cat off their back by doing so. They know what it takes to win now, and they have too many brilliant players.
> 
> I see England taking second place in their group and having to face the Germans in the knockout stages. That won't be easy. Overall, I can't see them winning.



The team that wins the world cup will be the most organised defensively and panics least under pressure. Germany, Italy or Brazil, for me. Holland is my dark horse to win.


----------



## k3ng (Jun 14, 2010)

I'm not too sure about Germany. They seem to be doing well now, but they're all a bunch of young guns. That may be a good thing. But then again, Italy has proven that sometimes the older more experienced squad kicks more butt.


----------



## alanmt (Jun 14, 2010)

Yay for Germany.  If Portugal can't win, Germany is my second choice.  I wouldn't mind if the U.S. or England somehow managed to pull it off.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 14, 2010)

alanmt said:


> Yay for Germany.  If Portugal can't win, Germany is my second choice.  I wouldn't mind if the U.S. or England somehow managed to pull it off.


 

Well, England aren't as bad as the U.S, lol.


----------



## k3ng (Jun 14, 2010)

Brazil and Portugal show their stuff tomorrow! Should be interesting to see if the Brazilian team has still got it together. I'm a little bummed Ronaldinho isn't playing though.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 14, 2010)

Here's your world cup in a nutshell

http://gizmodo.com/5563432/world-cu...ed:+gizmodo/full+(Gizmodo)&utm_content=My+MSN


----------



## Blood (Jun 15, 2010)

k3ng said:


> Brazil and Portugal show their stuff tomorrow! Should be interesting to see if the Brazilian team has still got it together. I'm a little bummed Ronaldinho isn't playing though.


Naw, shouldn't be interesting at all. Unless a riot breaks out, or the ball is a human head.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 15, 2010)

Sigg said:


> Germany 4 : Australia 0


 
Didn't the USA thrash Australia too last week? But look how the USA struggled against England. You'd better hope England win the group, for Germany to avoid a quick flight home.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 15, 2010)

At first, when I first heard those horns, I thought there might be a  plague of locusts or something going on in South Africa. Jeez, that's annoying. What the hell is the matter with those people? Can't they just watch the damn game without making that ruckus?


----------



## Patrick (Jun 15, 2010)

spider8 said:


> Didn't the USA thrash Australia too last week? But look how the USA struggled against England. You'd better hope England win the group, for Germany to avoid a quick flight home.


 

As long as England play kick and rush football, they will never win the world cup. The player England has missed the most for major tournaments is Paul Scholes. If Paul Scholes was still playing for England, we'd be a genuine football side and not a long ball team.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 15, 2010)

That's the kaiser talking. He's worried about playing us.
I agree that Scholesy will be missed, but not that much.


----------



## Sam (Jun 15, 2010)

Scholesy would have got the ball down and played it -- a la Xavi Hernandez. There's nothing I detest more than a team who play long balls. It's why I support United and love watching Barcelona. If they play it long, it's pinpoint more often than not.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 15, 2010)

We'll miss Scholes. But we didn't play it long much against USA, though we played it long a bit more than if we'd had Scholesy.

But we're still a good team. Come on, Mermaid, where's your spunk!


----------



## spider8 (Jun 15, 2010)

HAHAHA. After watching the Brazillian limpdicks tonight against NKorea, I'm convinced this is a wierd world cup. For Brazil to be playing Robhino at all shows their lack of panache. 

I felt so down after the England game, but now I feel so good. SoooooGoooD!

We can B&Q it!


----------



## Sam (Jun 15, 2010)

Not likely. 

Still Spain for me. Too many world-beaters.


----------



## k3ng (Jun 15, 2010)

Don't take the koreans lightly! I'm rooting for South Korea to at least reach the quarter finals if not the semis.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 16, 2010)

Same old Spain, same old bottlers. 1.0 Switzerland. :wink:


----------



## Baron (Jun 16, 2010)

Switzerland 1, Spain 0.


----------



## k3ng (Jun 16, 2010)

So much for world beaters.


----------



## Sam (Jun 16, 2010)

Yeah, well even the best world-beater in the game can't get past the team bus. Switzerland took it and parked it in front of their goalkeeper, Jose-Mourinho-style.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 16, 2010)

Sam W said:


> Yeah, well even the best world-beater in the game can't get past the team bus. Switzerland took it and parked it in front of their goalkeeper, Jose-Mourinho-style.



Sour grapes, Sam. :wink:

Switzerland don't have the players to pass the ball around like Spain so they played to their own strengths and they were better at playing to their defensive strengths than Spain were to their own strengths on the day. Spain didn't really create any chances to feel like they should have won. Spain were also one dimensional. In situations like that you have to change your play up, you can't just expect to pass your way through and Spain tried that same trick over and over all game.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 17, 2010)

Now would be a good time to nip down the bookies and put a fiver on Spain. I remember Denmark drawing and losing their first two games in Euro '92 then going on to win it. After the first two games a German friend put a tenner on them at 100 to 1 and won a grand!

...I don't think Spain will slip to 100 to 1 though. Their still my favourites.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 17, 2010)

spider8 said:


> That's the kaiser talking. He's worried about playing us.


You are so right. No one wants to play Engerland!


----------



## Patrick (Jun 18, 2010)

England 0, Algeria 0.

A massively exciting game!


----------



## Sigg (Jun 18, 2010)

USA was robbed of their win against slovenia, aren't the rich americans supposed to be the ones to bribe the refs?  Oh well, a tie is better than a loss.

and WTF germany?!  you bring shame to my heritage.


----------



## Sam (Jun 18, 2010)

England have zero chance of winning anything. They couldn't even beat Algeria, for crying out loud.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 18, 2010)

Sam W said:


> England have zero chance of winning anything. They couldn't even beat Algeria, for crying out loud.


 
Algeria are simply awesome.


----------



## terrib (Jun 19, 2010)

Anyone want to make a wager on Argentina taking the World Cup? 

And you are right, Sigg...the US of A was screwed big time!


----------



## spider8 (Jun 19, 2010)

spider8 said:


> You are so right. No one wants to play Engerland!


 
I'm afraid that now everyone wants to play us.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 19, 2010)

Sam W said:


> England have zero chance of winning anything. They couldn't even beat Algeria, for crying out loud.


 
Cast your mind back to 1990, and England's game against Ireland (1-1). Blatter said it was the worst game of football in the history of the world cup. He said he would like it to be erased from people's memories. I think it was worse than the Algeria game, it was like Wimbledon vs Wimbledon. And of course, for these little teams, playing England is probably the highlight of their careers, and they're really up for it. This is why Germany and Spain have lost. 

In 1990, after Ireland went home, we went on to lose on penalties in the semi-final after outplaying eventual winners Germany.

Last night felt like deja vu.


----------



## Tom (Jun 19, 2010)

I can't believe we only managed a draw against a shit team we should easily have beaten.

I'm ashamed to call myself Algerian.


----------



## Baron (Jun 19, 2010)

At least England has managed to beat the Aussies in the rugby today in Sydney.  England 21 Australia 20.


----------



## k3ng (Jun 21, 2010)

Brazil still on course...

Italy drew New Zealand. What in the world. There's some weird shit going on this world cup I tell you.


----------



## Katastrof (Jun 21, 2010)

Portugal v. N. Korea 7-0! Man, I just caught the second half, but it looked like the Portuguese were playing a high school team...


----------



## Martin (Jun 24, 2010)

Japan for the championship...


----------



## k3ng (Jun 26, 2010)

Looks like Team USA is out. Congrats on making the final 16 though, but Ghana is through to the final 8!


----------



## spider8 (Jun 27, 2010)

Ghana play Uruguay for a place in the semis. This is why it's so disappointing for England to only come second in the group. Our route to semis is Germany, then Argentina. Big difference.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 27, 2010)

spider8 said:


> Ghana play Uruguay for a place in the semis. This is why it's so disappointing for England to only come second in the group. Our route to semis is Germany, then Argentina. Big difference.


 
Stop making excuses. If we're good enough we'll beat them both. Beat Germany for the first time ever on penalties and then knock out Maradona's Argentina with a handball.


----------



## Sam (Jun 27, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> Stop making excuses. If we're good enough we'll beat them both. Beat Germany for the first time ever on penalties and then knock out Maradona's Argentina with a handball.



Good luck with that. 

I actually think England are going to break their duck against Germany today, but I think Messi and co will be too much to handle. Provided they get past Mexico, that is.


----------



## Martin (Jun 27, 2010)

I was so happy Ghana won their 1/8. Their team has such a positive energy it's really a pleasure to watch them. Furthermore I'm sure it means so much to all the people, not only those of Ghana but of all Africa. Nothing to do with USA, I would have liked to see them further as well.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 27, 2010)

Oh well, the world cup is a poor competition anyway. Sub-standard football that gets over-hyped once every four years. Hopefully Wimbledon will get the attention it deserves now that England are out.


----------



## Sam (Jun 27, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> Oh well, the world cup is a poor competition anyway. Sub-standard football that gets over-hyped once every four years. Hopefully Wimbledon will get the attention it deserves now that England are out.



Sore loser, Mer? 

But, all things being fair: Frank Lampard's goal was so far over the line it was a joke. That's given, it's a completely different game. Germany would have probably still won, because England were hopeless, but you never know.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 27, 2010)

Sam W said:


> Sore loser, Mer?
> 
> But, all things being fair: Frank Lampard's goal was so far over the line it was a joke. That's given, it's a completely different game. Germany would have probably still won, because England were hopeless, but you never know.


 
You know my attitude towards international football. To be honest, it bores me no matter who I am watching. The top club teams like United, Cheslea and Barcelona would destroy any of the national teams.

On Lampard's goal, you're right, if that had been given, as it should have been, then we wouldn't have been chasing the game for Germany to hit us on the counter so often.


----------



## Sam (Jun 27, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> You know my attitude towards international football. To be honest, it bores me no matter who I am watching. The top club teams like United, Cheslea and Barcelona would destroy any of the national teams.



Agreed. Far superior. It's a shame that the World Cup is the most watched sporting event, and the people watching it don't get to see anything like the standard of club football. Look at Messi for Argentina in the Finals. No goals (he's hit the post). With Barca, he's unstoppable. 47 goals last season. Different system, different style, and different class.


----------



## Sigg (Jun 27, 2010)

De de de de de de de de


----------



## Patrick (Jun 27, 2010)

Sam W said:


> Agreed. Far superior. It's a shame that the World Cup is the most watched sporting event, and the people watching it don't get to see anything like the standard of club football. Look at Messi for Argentina in the Finals. No goals (he's hit the post). With Barca, he's unstoppable. 47 goals last season. Different system, different style, and different class.



That's international football all over, though. 

Rooney was poor this world cup but the service he received was equally poor. Defoe can't hold the ball up or play any decent one-two's with anybody because he's just a simple goal poacher with pace. Lampard only ever thinks of having a shot and Milner, on the right, hasn't got any pace. The only occasions England looked creative in the final third was when Gerrard linked up with Rooney and Capello never took that as reason to play Gerrard just behind Rooney up front. So the manager was just as bad as the play the England players produced. Talk about a waste of a four-year contract. Complete waste of big money.


----------



## Baron (Jun 27, 2010)

You'd be getting far more entertainment value watching Glastonbury.  I'm watching Ray Davies as I type and his performance is superb.  It was no effort for Muse to prove they're still the best live band in the world.

The football just doesn't compete.


----------



## Sam (Jun 27, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> That's international football all over, though.
> 
> Rooney was poor this world cup but the service he received was equally poor. Defoe can't hold the ball up or play any decent one-two's with anybody because he's just a simple goal poacher with pace. Lampard only ever thinks of having a shot and Milner, on the right, hasn't got any pace. The only occasions England looked creative in the final third was when Gerrard linked up with Rooney and Capello never took that as reason to play Gerrard just behind Rooney up front. So the manager was just as bad as the play the England players produced. Talk about a waste of a four-year contract. Complete waste of big money.



Agreed again. Capello has been nothing but an autocratic dictator. I ranked him as one of the great managers before he took over England. Now, he's a laughing stock. To play Emile Heskey up front with Wayne Rooney is a joke, especially when Defoe has been prolific for Tottenham this season. And to leave out Walcott! Okay, the lad was crap in the warm-ups, but he's got blistering pace and would have relished running at the Germans this afternoon. Capello got it wrong. Big time. You've got to play Gerrard in the middle of the park behind Rooney. He's a far better playmaker than Lampard. And I would have Joe Cole over Milner all day long. 

I think Guy Mowbray's comment for BBC summed it up: "You can bet that Wayne Rooney will be banging in the goals in August for Manchester United". Damn right. That's 'cos United can play.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 27, 2010)

Baron said:


> You'd be getting far more entertainment value watching Glastonbury.



That's rubbish as well.


----------



## Foxryder (Jun 27, 2010)

I wonder what that Uruguian referee and the linesman were thinking? That should have been a goal! 


WHAT happens then to the technological approach to football? As I love the idea to be implemented, I still don't fancy it in the game.


----------



## Sam (Jun 27, 2010)

Why? It would put an end to all these debates. And how long would it take for the fourth official to walk over to a monitor and see whether a goal was a goal, or a player was offside? Twenty seconds, that's how long. In the NBA in America, if a player is awarded a three-pointer when it was in fact a two-, the referee can waive off the extra point at _any _point in the game, if he sees video evidence to prove it. They usually see it at half-time. 

It's about time the footballing world stopped living in the past and started embracing the future.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 27, 2010)

Sam W said:


> It's about time the footballing world stopped living in the past and started embracing the future.


 
Mexico is the second team this round to become the victim of a terrible decision. Same old teams getting the bad calls in their favour. First Germany and now Argentina.


----------



## Sam (Jun 27, 2010)

My point exactly. Tevez clearly off-side, and even after the referees saw it on the big screen they couldn't reverse it. Complete b***ocks.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 27, 2010)

I don't follow the NBA, but in American football, you lose a time out if you ask for a video review and the call stands. Otherwise, it would get out of control. In the NBA, who decides if a play is reviewed or not? How would it work in football?


----------



## Sam (Jun 27, 2010)

The coaches ask for a play to be reviewed if they think an error's been made. It's usually done at the end of the quarter or half. I'm familiar with the NFL one, Joe. 

The problem with football is: There's no timeouts, and no-one knows to what degree technology should be brought in. For goal-line decisions, offsides, penalties, throw ins, free kicks? Unfortunately, there's so many arguments for and against that it looks unlikely that technology will ever be implemented. Which is a disgrace.


----------



## k3ng (Jun 27, 2010)

I find it extremely annoying that FIFA continually rejects goal line technology and all other forms of electronic help. And what irritates me more is that they said they were going to use 2 extra officials to help in place of that technology and they didn't do so for this event. If ever there was an epic fail, this would be one.

England could've really used that goal. Shame.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 28, 2010)

Sam W said:


> But, all things being fair: Frank Lampard's goal was so far over the line it was a joke. That's given, it's a completely different game. Germany would have probably still won, because England were hopeless, but you never know.



That's what I think. Because we got a hammering though, it won't be seen as an excuse, but it is annoying. 

What the hell happened to Roo? He looked mostly as good as _me,_ if you dressed _me_ up and put me out there.
I don't get it. It just looked like he couldn't play. One of the pundits said that against Algeria he looked like a Sunday park player, but I don't think he even looked that good. I also think he looked unhappy all the time. I would have dropped him during the Algeria game, and never used him again, unless he could explain why he was playing like that. And I was amazed at how good he was at ManU all season.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 28, 2010)

There's no real need to actually stop the game to look at a replay. They could do it while the game carries on and make a decision. 

Any result-affecting mistake could be looked at without stopping. i.e. If a converted penalty turns out that the striker dived to get it, you can chalk the goal off and book the striker. 

You can't have countries investing millions on getting good players, fans each spending thousands following their team (club or country), to have it blown away by a human error that is no longer necessary.

1986, Scotland went out of the world cup on goal difference. Aitkin scored a good goal against Denmark, ruled offside, lost 1-0..
Belgium knocked Russia out with two offside goals.
England went out to the hand of God. This was twenty-four years ago. I won't be holding my breath for technology anytime soon.


----------



## Sam (Jun 28, 2010)

spider8 said:


> That's what I think. Because we got a hammering though, it won't be seen as an excuse, but it is annoying.
> 
> What the hell happened to Roo? He looked mostly as good as _me,_ if you dressed _me_ up and put me out there.
> I don't get it. It just looked like he couldn't play. One of the pundits said that against Algeria he looked like a Sunday park player, but I don't think he even looked that good. I also think he looked unhappy all the time. I would have dropped him during the Algeria game, and never used him again, unless he could explain why he was playing like that. And I was amazed at how good he was at ManU all season.



The system at United is completely different, and Rooney is surrounded by players he trains with week-in, week-out. I'll be the first to admit that he was completely useless at this World Cup, but he _will _be banging the goals in for United come August.


----------



## k3ng (Jun 30, 2010)

Portugal are out! Yay!

I wished Japan made it. Too bad. There go the last of my asian peeps.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 30, 2010)

Spain won't win it. 11 brilliant, individual players but they cannot play together as a team.

Paraguay is my tip. Stubborn back four and they always create chances up front.


----------



## k3ng (Jul 2, 2010)

The dutch take out Brazil!!! WOhooooo!!!!!

On the edge of my pants praying Ghana make it through on penalties...

*Edit


Dangit! Uruguay win on penalties 4:2... curses! There go the last of the Africans too. But, well done them! Great performance.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 2, 2010)

k3ng said:


> Dangit! Uruguay win on penalties 4:2... curses! There go the last of the Africans too. But, well done them! Great performance.


 
LOL!! Thanks big mouth! I had the Uruguay match taped and was just about to watch it...


----------



## Patrick (Jul 2, 2010)

I didn't watch the Holland, Brazil game because my favourite tennis player was in the middle of knocking out Andy Murray in the semi-finals at Wimbledon. Holland was one of my picks to win, so I am not too bothered that Brazil have gone out to them.


----------



## Sam (Jul 2, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> I didn't watch the Holland, Brazil game because my favourite tennis player was in the middle of knocking out Andy Murray in the semi-finals at Wimbledon. Holland was one of my picks to win, so I am not too bothered that Brazil have gone out to them.



I had a feeling Nadal would be too strong for Murray. Especially on grass. If it had to have been on hard-court, Murray would have had the edge. Having said that, Rafa looks back to his best. So glad to see him getting over his injuries. He's my favourite player on the tour by miles.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 2, 2010)

Sam W said:


> I had a feeling Nadal would be too strong for Murray. Especially on grass. If it had to have been on hard-court, Murray would have had the edge. Having said that, Rafa looks back to his best. So glad to see him getting over his injuries. He's my favourite player on the tour by miles.



I tipped Nadal to be the successor to Federer before most really knew about him and before he'd won any slams. That was during the Miami masters. I can't remember the year. I said that he had the game to beat Federer in the final (this was when Federer was winning every Masters tournament going), and was told by others he had no chance and that he was too much of a methodical/coached kind of player to beat Federer. He took the far more experienced Federer to five sets and had chances of his own to win the game. He's won far more slams and Masters tournaments than Federer had at his age. Nadal's biggest worry will be with injuries later in his career because he relies so much on his physicality in matches. He's definitely a great competitor and champion though. If he wins Wimbledon this year, that's essentially back to back titles for him because he couldn't compete last year due to injury. He's also made four Wimbledon finals on the bounce now, which would have been unthinkable to anybody who saw him when he first came on the scene as such an obvious clay-court specialist.


----------



## spider8 (Jul 3, 2010)

It's two or maybe even three years since Fed's been at his best. I think he's now rubbing shoulders with the likes of Djokovic, Murray, Berdich, Roddick, etc. In other words, a good dark horse bet. Wimbledon's surface is a lot slower than it was a few years ago too. Fed may still pick up a couple of slams in the next few years though. But I think he'll get worse before he gets better, and may not win any more slams at all. 

I like Berdich and Nadal, and don't know who to root for. May the best man win.


----------



## k3ng (Jul 3, 2010)

Get your own thread wimbledon. :lol:


----------



## spider8 (Jul 3, 2010)

k3ng said:


> Get your own thread wimbledon. :lol:


 
Now that England are out, no one's interested in the world cup. World Cup shmurled cup.


----------



## Sam (Jul 3, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> I tipped Nadal to be the successor to Federer before most really knew about him and before he'd won any slams. That was during the Miami masters. I can't remember the year. I said that he had the game to beat Federer in the final (this was when Federer was winning every Masters tournament going), and was told by others he had no chance and that he was too much of a methodical/coached kind of player to beat Federer. He took the far more experienced Federer to five sets and had chances of his own to win the game. He's won far more slams and Masters tournaments than Federer had at his age. Nadal's biggest worry will be with injuries later in his career because he relies so much on his physicality in matches. He's definitely a great competitor and champion though. If he wins Wimbledon this year, that's essentially back to back titles for him because he couldn't compete last year due to injury. He's also made four Wimbledon finals on the bounce now, which would have been unthinkable to anybody who saw him when he first came on the scene as such an obvious clay-court specialist.



[ot]I remember watching Nadal win his first slam at the French when he was still in his teens, and I can recall thinking that the kid was playing too far behind the baseline and only for his speed and defensive skills he would have had a hard time winning. I watched him at Wimbledon the same year, and he went out in the second round, playing the same way he did at the French. I thought: If this kid can get a game-plan for all the surfaces, he could be a real force in years to come. And, credit to Rafa, he's learned that different surfaces require different strategies, and has improved his game incredibly well to adapt to all of the surfaces. 

If he can keep free of injuries for the next six years, he has every chance of at least equalling Sampras' hall of slams. Federer may get another two or three before then, though. [/ot]


----------



## Sam (Jul 3, 2010)

spider8 said:


> I like Berdich and Nadal, and don't know who to root for. May the best man win.



[ot]I can't call this one. Berdych is a massive hitter, and he overwhelmed Federer in the quarters. Nadal doesn't usually do well against those kinds of players, but the Wimbledon grass has slowed almost to the point where it plays like clay now, and since we've had incredible weather and Centre Court looks like a clay court at this point, I think Nadal has the slight edge in that department. He also has the edge mentally, having played in nine slam finals. This is Berdych's first. 

It's gonna be tough. I'll go with Rafa in five, in another thriller.[/ot]


----------



## spider8 (Jul 6, 2010)

I'd like Germany to win. I've nothing against the others but it would be nice for a mostly young, mostly inexperienced and unhyped team to do it. No real stars but playing as a good team. In that respect, similar to Holland. Though they've a few players with loads of caps.

As far as Uruguay are concerned, I don't know why the ref wasn't allowed to give a goal against them for that handball. Perhaps it's not in the rules. It's not out of the realms of possibility for that defender to pick up a world cup winners medal.


----------



## Sigg (Jul 6, 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/10521867.stm


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 6, 2010)




----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 6, 2010)

Parasite correlated with World Cup Success

http://science.slashdot.org/story/1...ashdot/slashdot+(Slashdot)&utm_content=My+MSN


----------



## Patrick (Jul 7, 2010)

I think I was the only one in this thread to pick out Holland as a dark horse.


----------



## k3ng (Jul 7, 2010)

Well whoever wins the final, it'll be a first. Go Netherlands.


----------



## Sam (Jul 8, 2010)

Everyone wrote off Spain after they lost their first game. Not me. Last night, they showed the Krauts how to keep possession of the ball and play football. That has to be one of the best midfields in World Cup history. I tipped Spain at the start of the tournament, and I'm sticking with that.


----------



## Loulou (Jul 8, 2010)

My brother put a bet on at the very start that it'd be a Holland/Spain final and he's won a considerable amount of money because the odds were crazy back then! Don't think he cares right now who wins. I think it'd be great to see Holland do it.


----------



## Sam (Jul 11, 2010)

Sam W said:


> Still Spain for me. Too many world-beaters.



What did I say? I'm not one to say I told you so . . . but, well, I told you so.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 11, 2010)

Sam W said:


> What did I say? I'm not one to say I told you so . . . but, well, I told you so.





Best team in the tournament, despite their loss to Switzerland in the first round.


----------



## Sam (Jul 11, 2010)

I admired the way the Dutch played throughout the tournament up to the final, but they should be disgraced about the way they went about that final. Van Bommel should have walked. De Jong should have been arrested. It was ridiculous. I was never so happy to see a Dutch team beaten. They deserve everything they get, which is nothing.


----------



## k3ng (Jul 11, 2010)

The Dutch did play well. Initially anyway.

Well deserved Spain. Intense match pretty much all the way through. 

And it looks like Paul the psychic octopus has got a clean record.


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jul 12, 2010)

Wow. Looks like I missed this one. Oh well. Never been a big sports fan anyways. Congratulations to Spain, nonetheless.


----------



## k3ng (Jul 12, 2010)

What are your thoughts on Thomas Mueller winning the Golden Boot? I think that kid has a ton of potential and he's going to be quite the player in the future.


----------

