Guardian 25 Stunning World Cup Moments

Perhaps. But Italy loses Orsi and Monti (who play for Argentina instead), and that may well tip the scale for them, despite the 12th man Mussolini.

 

If you write about "25 stunning world cup moments", one would expect you to put there the top 25 stunning moments, or at least something close.
Then again, I guess this is subjective. And of course the Guardian are writing first of all for an english, or maybe british, audience. So, whatever, as long as it's a good read for them.

 

I did not know the usa had been hacked so bad in the semis

 

Argentina was far superior that game. Even if you take away the illegal hand of god goal, Argentina still would have won. There's no denying the amazing goal of the century. England did nothing the entire game.

 

This absolutely has no place here. Nothing stunning, just a thrashing of a minor team by another not very good one (Hungary didn't advance themselves from the group).

I guess they'll have to write about the QF group of death and particularly about Brazil - Italy. I'll hold my comments until then.

 

Voeller was asking for a spitting, not for his provoking behavior, but for his permed mullet and awful mustache

 

After Kahn fouled Del Piero in Euro96, being the last man on defense a potential red card but the referee didn't even warn him although he called the pk that Kahn then saved, World Soccer magazine wrote: "The indelible German goalkeeper right to stay on the match no matter what kind of foul they commit." An obvious reference to the Schumacher incident.

A heart-breaking elimination for the team that played the better football that day. Had Germany been reduced to ten men, I don't see them surviving the extra time.

 

you know, i was thinking about that game the other day and unless my memory is shot and i am misremembering things, England had two chances late late in the game when John Barnes came on. if my memory is right he had two crosses from the by line that Lineker converted one. Now had Lineker done the businesses both times we could have been having a very different conversation had the HOG been caught.

Now this is taking some assumptions on my part as we know the game is not linear ie HOG disallowed, Linker scores late 1-1 etc etc. Arg certainly could have scored other chances in my what if scenarios. but what i am getting at is the highlighted comment above.

had the HOG been taking away there is no certainty that Arg would have won. As it as stands it was a lot closer than it should have been with Lineker missing a good opportunity to tie it up.

 

You're right. I take back my statement. Would have been an interesting ending. I think Argentina still would have won though

 

let me put it this way, Argentina should have won (and they did) As I said if we play the "what if" game, we can say that if Lineker scored both then.... but we have to be fair to both sides so we would have to say as well if argentina scored theirs then....

the only thing i can say with certainty about england's chances of winning was that Lineker missed one of 2 great chances.

I will surmise though that had he scored both and the game was tied at that point, the statement that argentina would stil have won would have to be tempered a bit. there would have been a huge lift to the england team and a relative drop to the argies. that cannot be discounted. at that point if lineker scored it would have been a 50-50 game at that point. England would have the same chance to win as Argentina.

at any other point in the game Argentina had the better chance to win at least 60 - 65%

 

In the "what if-game", we can also think what would have happened "if" from the begining of the game the referee would've been less benevolent with the english players and would've started showing cards at them, very likely that England would have ended with 2 or 3 players down, and with that number advantage, Argentina would've thrashed them and the HOG wouldn't have been necessary. Maybe even Lineker wouldn't have had any of those 2 chances to score, as England would be in a very bad position to attack and defend at the same time, with 2 less players than their opponents.

"what if-games" give a lot of space for anything to happen .....

 

no doubt, that is why i said we have to be fair on both sides. although you have to look at it through 1986 eyes and not todays eyes. a lot of things were allowed back then and arg certainly could have reciprocated.

i think the better team won. i was just pointing out that the theory that arg was vastly superior while true meant little in the end as those two chances (one of which was converted) showed. the legend that was Maradona was partly forged by the lineker miss. had he scored, the HOG would have just been a missed call instead of the folklore it is today.

 

Maradona would still have won it at 2-2, like Rossi did for Italy in WC82 after Brazil had drew level once again. Also, Argentina had an even closer miss than Lineker's header (which was not a miss proper but a clearance by the defender), when Tapia's cannon shot hit the post and bounced off when it seemed more likely the ball would bounce in.

But the fact that both Lineker's diving header and Tapia's strike did not go in just shows that it was meant to be all about Maradona. Special players tend to make themselves the protagonist of such narratives.

 

I don't know about that. How do you know what's allowed and what's just ref error ?
The best example I can think of, Tassotti vs. Enrique 94. The ref did nothing about it, then FIFA banned Tassotti for 8 games based on video. So it happens. You can say the incident was gruesome, but then the penalty was also harsh. And that's exactly why they stepped in, otherwise for less severe fouls they just let it happen, even though it isn't what the ref was supposed to do. And in other similar situations other refs or maybe even the same ref can make a different decision.
Problem is, everything is horribly fuzzy in football. Today as back then.
I can only say that I watched the game recently and IMO there was an elbow in the face of Maradona that warranted a clear straight red. By the standards of that time. Which makes all discussion about the HOG rather moot.

That's a bit twisted. So you admit Argentina was indeed vastly superior then you say it meant little.
It doesn't happen this way. If one team is really superior, as Argentina no doubt was, they rally when they have to and win it in the end. (They did this exact thing with Germany, who probably were a bit better than England anyway.) And when they are 2 up they usually slow down and let the other team play a bit, and maybe even score once. Sure, surprises happen, and they say 2 - 0 is a tricky score for a reason. But very likely it wouldn't have happened even if the english hadn't missed that chance.

 

Huge assumption (which we will never know the answer to) but I agree with your sentiment in that special players of this type (attacking) tend to make things happen somehow. Good point on the Argies chances as well. Funny how the memory works, I remembered the England chances well but some how blocked out that Argentina had their team on the field too

The HOG can never be moot as you cant use one rule violation to justify the other. If you want to say ( and I would not dare disagree) that multiple red cards should have been given, then fine. The HOG goal should not have stood and I dont think even you can disagree with that.

Your comment bolded: Let me try to rephrase - Argentina was superior and in the end it almost didnt matter as England had good chances at the end to tie it up. From there it would have been a 50-50 proposition.

Note that if Maradona was not playing for Argentina, I would say the entire momentum remained with England. But Argentina would have an equal shot at winning not becasue they were superior but becasue the had maradona (who made them superior) i am not sure if I am making that point well hopefully you get what I am saying. Put antoher way, England had a decent chance of winning the game had it gone to extra time (I am not saying that England had the better chance just that psychologically they had a bit of a pep in their step)

 

TBH I am not even sure what the heck i was arguing for or against with these guys.

Good thread BTW

 

Of course it shouldn't have stood. But an english player should have been out by then, which would have almost certainly rendered the HOG unnecessary. So the HOG is definitely not that big a deal as the english make it to be.

It wouldn't have been 50-50 as we agree Argentina were superior.

Not a bit.

This is a bit clearer. You mean they would have had a better than normal chance because psychologically they had the upper hand being the ones who just equalised. I don't think so. This usually works for more or less equal teams, but Argentina were better. If you just say they'd have had a decent chance, then fine, it's hard to argue against that. I'll just say then that Argentina still would have had the better chance and you'll probably agree and everybody is happy.

Anyway, the main point is that the officiating on the whole wasn't against England, considering the red card they were spared. And that with 100% good officiating, as far as we can know Argentina very likely still would have won.