I don't quite understand this bit... In what way was the HOG necessary or unnecessary? At the time the score was 0-0. Are you saying that IF England had been reduced to 10 men that Argentina would already have been a few goals in front and so Maradona wouldn't have handled the ball? Or is it unnecessary in that you assume that Argentina would have scored several goals against a reduced England anyway? Either way there are far too many ifs to make much sense of it. Argentina were indeed the better team, and deservedly won. But the Hand of God goal was neither necessary or unnecessary. It was simply a goal that shouldn't have stood. To surmise that Argentina would have won anyway is pure conjecture and ignores a common trait in football that the better team does not always win.
This is not how it works. The ref's mistakes clearly favored Korea which increased their chances. Italy did their part too but without the ref errors they most likely would have won. Oh, that line again. They didn't only have themselves to blame. They had themselves and the ref to blame. The most important part of which is of course the ref. Players and teams are supposed to make mistakes. Refs should be competent and impartial. A smaller nation that also happens to be the host. The policy of letting unexperienced refs from lesser football countries decide important games is quite clearly flawed. If FIFA use it, then they are very susceptible of doing it exactly for being able to fix games and hide behind honest ref mistakes. If the recipient of such favorable ref errors is the host nation, twice in a row, then yes, it stinks. I'll believe the conspiracy theory in such a case, and I think it's reasonable. The fact that the ref in question later was caught smuggling certainly doesn't help FIFA's cause. It's brushed away on the grounds that the minor team would have lost anyway. Which is very likely true. I'm not saying it's fair but that's how it is. The only fair solution would be for FIFA to clarify the rules, reduce the grey area, and use video refs. I'd rather say, particularly since Spain were involved. On my site (on the history page) you'll see a clear case that Spain were the most cheated team in recent times. On this bit I agree.
Exactly. It's not pure conjecture. It's not certain fact either, but in this case I dare say it's very likely.
Not sure what we were (are) haggling over. I think my inital point was that it was closer than it should have been (2-1 with England missing chance to make it 2-2) until somebody pointed out Argentina had one there at the end too. The probably should have had a red card or two even by the then-standards of the time. England would have a better than normal shot at winning in extra time due to pyschological factors but any team with a Maradona in it has just as a good a shot if not better at winning at any stage. why are we quibbling again?? (reaches for another beer)
So players are human and make mistakes but refs should never make mistakes? Are refs robots incapable of errors?
Without the ref errors Italy most likely would have won? Yes. I agree. But without Vieri missing an open goal in the last minute Italy would definitely have won. Therefore to me their own (or rather Vieri's) failing was more significant than the referee's. Yes it's true they could blame themselves and the ref legitimately, perhaps I should have phrased that differently. But the point I intended was that despite anything the match was in their own hands and it was Italy's own failings that let Korea back in. Panucci gifting the equaliser and Vieri missing an easy winner. Most of the controversy came later in extra-time. It was Italy's own fault that the match even went to extra-time. The ref at that point was not the most important factor. I agree with you about Spain, certainly in 2002. To me that was far dodgier than Italy's defeat, but not being a conspiracy type I prefer to think it was pure incompetence from out of their depth officials, but who knows really.
In an English newspaper, we all knew this one as coming. The day Gazza cried and English football changed forever... http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jun/03/world-cup-25-stunning-moments-gazza-cries-1990 I still find this match and shoot out painful viewing - I was a teenager at the time and of course this was the furthest England had progressed in a World Cup that I'd been aware of and to lose in such a way after having played so well in the semi-final, although not particularly in the rest of the tournament, was heart breaking. A depleted and not very impressive Argentina awaited in the final and it felt as though the winner of this semi final would win the World Cup. This was of course well before us English had got used to going out of tournaments in this way - now it seems the msot likely way of exiting and causes far less distress. Also having fought back with a nicely taken goal to equalise what was frankly a rather lucky German goal didn't help! Both teams hit the post in extra-time, and both teams had the incentive of facing a Caniggia-less Argentina. Of course Gazza was a mental basket case, hence his tears which don't compare favourably to the likes of Michael Ballack who suffered the same fate in 2002 - instead of falling apart he went up the field and scored Germany's semi-final winner over South Korea. But still - Gazza's tears struck a chord and became the image of the tournament for England which symbolised a new upsurge in football's popularity (which had been on the wane for years through the 80s - terrible stadium conditions, hooliganism etc.) culminating in the Premier League just 2 years later. Without Italia '90, England's semi final, and Gazza's tears, the behemoth that is the Premier League may have taken a while longer to come about. West Germany were the best team in that tournament though, and deservedly won the title. But it oh so nearly could have been us...
Stunning was the fact he didn't get a direct red for his tackle. That fault (a furious sliding tackle from the side directly over the integrity of the opponent with the ball over 2 meters away of the play), could've perfectly meant the oposing player the end of his career, and all he got from it was a yellow card. He and England got it cheap back then. No wonder this whole series of reports is from an english tabloid. They look issues as being odd or wrong when things are done by others elsewhere, but when whom acts criminally are themselves or one of their own, they condone it and prefer to stick to the sorrow moment that the "criminal" may be passing through, due to his fault. Compared to how they condemmned the famous "famous hand of god" of Maradona, these english press should be condemning Gazza over how cheap he got it back then, instead of his weeps or the sorrow face he put afterwards, as this guy wasn't crying over what he just did (if it were the case, he would have my empathy), but crying because he knew that if England would win, he would miss the final.
Hmmm - perhaps it might have been a red by today's standards but hardly back then. Criminal? Crikey... And the Guardian could hardly be described as a tabloid. But anyway - yes, they are from an English point of view as it's an English newspaper. Nobody is claiming these to be the 25 most stunning moments in the World Cup from a global point of view. Several of them are naturally England, or Scotland, focused. We may yet get a look at Northern Ireland shocking Spain in 1982. Others give a more global view and several are written by non-British journalists which can't really be criticised as being English-centric. But anyway, it's all intended to provoke discussion and stoke the interest ahead of the opener next week so it's all good.
back then and lots before it, that type of faults were red carded, as well. before 1970, cards didn't exist, but for that type of brutal play, the offender still got sent off, most of the times. Fair point and accepted
It's one thing to pay for your own mistakes, and another thing to pay for the mistakes of others. Ultimately, it boils down to this: if you believe there's nothing to be done to improve things, then OK, they have to be accepted as they are or we wouldn't have football. But I don't believe it. I think there's a lot to be done and they don't do it. In this particular case, this includes selecting the wrong refs for the 2 games, as we discussed.
Not to mention sweet revenge for the HOG. Well, it wasn't to be. Indeed that was a very strong performance from an english team. Germany were the favorites, and England fought back, well, like there was WWII all over again, for lack of a better comparison. Only this time the germans won it in the end. For all I know that was one of the cleanest WCup wins ever.
Well here's the moment all those with the "these opinions are so English-focused" attitude have been dreading/looking forward to. This English newspaper which is of course freely available online to our friends from overseas have turned their attention to 1966 in this "shocking moments" countdown. However, I suppose aware of their international readership and the accusations of a on-eyed view of things it's not been done in the way you'd expect. Or perhaps even the English are sick of going on about whether it crossed the line or not. (It didn't cross of course, but the linesman gave it so it counted. England got lucky that time, but no players broke the rules unlike in some other 'controversial' incidents...) Enjoy! http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jun/05/world-cup-25-stunning-moments-no23-1966
Actually, you don't need to apologize for it. A controversial call in a WC final, possibly the most debated one of all, naturally belongs in the list.
Agree with everything you said. The fact was, Italy did not play very well in 02 and they were complaining about the refs from the first game till the last. I think it's because there's a lot of match fixing that goes on in that country. And yes. bad calls are a part of the game until FIFA does something about it. When a big football coutnry gets favorable calls, its part of the game. When a small footballing country gets favorable calls, they're cheating
This quote was amazing "we hate it when European reporters asked us if we ate monkeys and had witch doctors". Maradona said of the Milan crowd cheering Cameroon "I'm glad I can cure the racism from the Italian fans". I guess some things never change.
Please, stop spamming this thread. It's not about various posts on your website. It's about a series of articles in the Guardian.
A bit more England focus for you all - he defending champions went into 1970 with hat was regarded as a better squad than that of '66 but an inability to hold onto a 2-0 lead and a goalkeeper with the squirts put paid to any hopes of retaining the trophy... http://www.theguardian.com/football...up-stunning-moments-gordon-banks-england-1970
Who are you guys backing to step up to the plate this year ? Domestically Ronaldo edged Messi but will the Argentinian shine this year in Brazil ? Have a look at our Twitter https://twitter.com/OneMilStadium for some interesting debates !