Joe Havelange: 66 and 74 World Cups were fixed to favor the home team.

It happened after the game. Additionally, the Argentine players tried to break into the English changing room to attack the English players. You are certainly correct that Ramsey forbade his team from swapping shirts with the Argentineans immediately after the game, but the "animals" remark was made at a later press conference.

 

2002 was fixed too. Have you seen Korea get so many calls?

Face it, it happens, home teams get the calls. its not worth worrying about.

 

So Holland beat Brazil in 74 thanks to a German referee. Anyone who knows anything about Dutch-German relations would laugh at that really loudly to start off with, but anyone who's ever actually watched the full 90 minutes of the game falls of their chair in hysterics at anyone's claim that the Dutch didn't deserve to win that game.

 

havalanche is considerd blatters mentor,isn't he?

no surprise then why blatter and platini are so anti english.

 

In 1974 Brazil had a very solid defence (compared to 1970) but they were uninspired and dull offensively. Reaching the "semi" was the optimum they could achieve with that team. With Holland, Poland and Germany around, there was no way they could have asked for more than fourth place.

 

That Polish claim of having been betrayed in 1974 is the single most ridiculous "myth" ever designed by a losing side. People just need to watch that game to see how ridiculous that claim is. Germany was every inch as disadvantaged as the Poles having to play on that rain-soaked pitch. How anyone could make up a "advantage" for the Germans is beyond stupid.

 

I was at all of Brazils group games in 1966 and can tell you they were totally outplayed by Hungary and totally out kicked and outplayed by Portugal. That was not a vintage Brazilian team by any stretch. If any wc was fixed it was 1978 when Argentina knew exactly what they had to do to advance....beat Peru by 6...which they of course did.

 

Mind you, saying that there was unethical referee selection in '66 is not saying that England wasn't a worthy champion. They were. It's unfortunate that the organizers felt that they should push this advantage. I'm not saying that the referees where crooked either. Rather, it was case of assigning referees with an interpretation to the game convenient for the organizers. That had a lot more effect in '66 then it would now. It was obviously a big deal because FIFA incorporated quite a few changes to the referee process. Even so, England was a deserving champion.

About the '74 world cup being fixed, no way.

 

Havelange can say all he wants about 74 but the Dutch were simply an amazing team that tournament.

[youtube]M5YLG57a2GE[/youtube]

 

Argentina needed to win by 4 goals the other two were just extra.

 

Fair enough...still one of the reasons that all final group games kick off at the exact same time these days.

 

You must have not watched the game too carefuly then, dude. See what happens in the second half, (when the Gerries score) after the area around the Poland penalty box is dried by the German crews, and compare that very same penalty area when Poland had to attack it in the first half.

 

and your point is???a waterpitch affect the offensive and the defensive of both team..the german defenders had to deal with waterpitch too ..so please no cherypicking...but i still dont get your point..the people did everthing to dry the field so i dont see whats wrong....pathetic excuse of the poles....

 

The crews of course used the half-time break to try to further dry the pitch to make the circumstances less irregular. So of course the penalty boxes were less dry in the second half compared to the first half.

 

Yea, but what he's saying just makes the Dutch that much better. They were screwed.

 

So I watched this game again to look especially for the claims made here.

The following has to be said: The crews tried to dry the water-soaked pitch for about one hour (kick-off postponed). They did not succeed equally in all parts of the pitch. Notably one half of the pitch was more soaked with water (not the penalty box!) than the rest of the pitch. At half time the crews concentrated on drying that part of the pitch which during the first half had the most pools of water, hence that part of the pitch was less soaked with water during the second half.

The Poles attacked that part of the pitch during first half which was more soaked than the other half and Germany had to defend that part. The Poles played fairly well during that first half while Germany looked liked struggling more with the conditions in their half. But regardless of how well each team coped with the circumstances, it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that the crews did try to dry one part of the pitch less well than the other part. Even if they had been willing to do this in order to somehow "help" the home team, how could they have known in which part Germay would be playing?? They began their job one hour before the actual kick-off and when they were finished drying, they still did not know which goal would be the German goal during first half, as this would only be decided immediately before kick-off. Hence it was a pure and utter coincidence that Poland attacked that half of the pitch were more water was around during first half.

This Polish conspiracy theory is embarrassingly stupid.

 

Could only watch it with the sound turnt off. It hurt my ears.

 

Also people intend to forget that it could have been 2-0 if Höness had not missed the PK (stopped by the great Tomaszewski).

 

It's actually not so difficult to manipulate a coin toss. As also wikipedia writes (James Randi also knows). Would an ignorant footballer be so clever to see it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_flipping
In the end this condenses to good faith in the referee.

Poland had the kick off, meaning that Germany could decide the most favored side to play on (and at half-time some more cleaning could be done, or not).

Only thing I never was able to find was who actually won the coin-toss. Do you know? And took the toss place before the last moment delay of the game, or after the delay?

About this the stock television commentator (ARD) said: "The organization thought about everything. Thousands of guards, enormous parking lots, beautiful press facilities and big luxury rooms for the 'very important persons'. But nobody thought about the pitch, apparently."

Someone of the actual organization committee, called Rainer Zobel, said: "It is a shame this stadium has already troubles with water. It never should have happened."
http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:011236633:mpeg21:a0088

Doesn't seem one side thought: 'yeah, great, playing in a swamp' - to be fair.

 

....The question is: Which of the three of 'em is the bigger crook...