Matchday Thread | GROUP A

So does Mexico have any chance against the Netherlands? These have been two of the most impressive teams so far this tournament...

 

WCs held in Europe: 34, 38, 54, 58, 66, 74, 82, 90, 98, 06
WCs held in South America: 30, 50, 62, 78, 14

 

very hard for me to predict anything on this match.
holland impressed me today again, didn't expect them to win over Chile.
mexico is great but we have not seen how mexico reacts when facing a difficult situation...they have not seen any team take the lead against them till now.
i agree both teams are among the most impressive at the moment.

 

This is looking to me like it could be a repeat of what happened in 2006, when Mexico were impressive in group play and played an outstanding game against Argentina in the round of 16, who were probably the most impressive side to that point. It was a battle, Argentina won in overtime but came up short against the hosts in the quarterfinal...

The winner of this game won't play the hosts but the winner of D1 v E2 which could be Italy?

 

Expected more from Modric and Rativic, but I believe they were played somewhat out of position. Croatia's goalkeepers and fullbacks were poor, and Mexico took advantage with thrust through the wings. Chicarito wakes up from his scoring slumber at the right time, Mexico can definitely beat the Netherlands.

 

there are strong chances the winner plays costa rica or ivoiry coast in 1/4

 

I expected more from Croatia today. THey must win and it looks like they were not hungry for it. MExico took it in the second half and won it. I was ruling for Croatia.

 

i Liked our center backs and right back...to me Lovren and Corluka have nice future together in NT though Tin Jedvaj might arrive within 2-3 years...
but what can you do when the first real opportunities for opponents give goals most of time. Our goalkeeper is one of the weakest players of the 32 starting squads...

 

Wrong calls sometimes are not that evident in games. Rewatching the Mexico v Cameroon in ITV player I detected a clear push of Moreno (15) over Choupo Motingo (8) in the penalty area during a corner kick. It happens at 22:54 of 1st half. In the 2nd half there is jump of Marquez at the back of Eto'o also in the penalty area. This was at 63:03. Finally there is a handball by Marquez, also in the penalty area, at 84:11, with a clear replay appearing at 85:15 of game time. You can go to ITV website and check the match and the actions that I pinpointed.

So fans in Cameroon could argue that 3 PK in their favour were not awarded, and adding the disallowed goals of Mexico, the real score could have been 3-3 (presuming that all PK were converted).

I wonder why it did not get that much attention from the match commentators.

 

I certainly was expecting a little more of Croatia against Mexico.
What was the realistic expectation croatians fans had in their team previous to the WC?

 

most Croatians are not surprised of the loss and expected it since the second games...they knew that get a win over a Mexican team needing only a tie would be too complicated, then of course when it's not played there is always hope, but what happened was more or less expected.

 

Referees are human. They make mistakes. It happened in every game on this W.C., on every freaking World Cup so far and it will continue to happen. It's part of the game and there's nothing you can do about it. Brazil has played in 20 World Cups. Do you really think we never suffered with bad calls???Nobody deliberately tried to screw Croatia and if Croatia was the best team, it would have scored more goals and won the game like Brazil did so many times when faced with bad refereeing. That's what good teams do.

Croatia is not better than Brazil, It wasn't in that game and it never will be. Reality check, dude: Brazil is a world-class team. One of the top in soccer history. Croatia is not. It fought hard, it was luck to face an anxious and still not fully prepared Brazil, but lost. It is as simple as that. Now stop whining and get over it! Root against Brazil if you wish, but stop blaming others for Croatia's failure.

 

'Balkan states' representing - 4 losses and 1 win, the sole win against a self-destructing Cameroon. Should have been Serbia...

 

This is true. They are the deserving winners of Group A and got screwed due to refereeing mistakes. However the two goals against Cameroon that were wrongly disallowed in my opinion were disallowed due to human error, not conspiracy. Why on Earth that penalty against Croatia wasn't given is surprising. If anything, Mexico with its huge market interests FIFA and if there was interest in manipulating results, more likely FIFA would want Mexico to advance over tiny Croatia, so, they'd be more likely to help them rather than hinder them. I do think the penalty against Croatia was probably not given as a sort of compensation for Croatia, because oh boy, there can't be any penalty more clear than that.

 

Are we doing the"my team is the only one who doesn't give up" routine? Didn't we just go through that with the Americans?

 

Oh, good. This makes me feel a little better. I was feeling kind of guilty that Mexico didn't win the group on goal differential. So, all ref mistakes being corrected, Brazil would still win the group, assuming that the Oscar goal would have happened in spite of the penalty on Fred not being called - I know momentum was then in their favor but it becomes too much speculation - I'd rather think of this in terms of deleting goals wrongly allowed to stand or scored from wrongly called penalties, assuming that real penalties not called would have been converted, and putting back on the board wrongly disallowed goals - all things considered, Brazil would still win the group - don't get me started on saying that the Croatia goal against Brazil was wrongly disallowed - I don't think so at all; in one of the angles on replay we see that the defender clearly committed a foul on Julio Cesar and the overwhelming majority of refs will call that; goalies enjoy some protection in the eyes of refs and when they are bumped out of a play, almost always the ref calls a foul on the goalie; that goal was correctly disallowed, in my opinion.

 

This is very true. Mexico are the United States' rivals and in spite of the fact that I have five close Croatian friends and was rooting for Croatia (and against Mexico due to the rivalry) at the beginning of the game, little by little I started to feel proud of CONCACAF and found myself enjoying Mexico's competent and aggressive play, not to forget that their coach is very entertaining. They show a lot of drive and passion, and I like that in a team. Well done, Mexico! Congratulations on having advanced, and I guess I'll be rooting for you against Holland! Hopefully the US will advance too and we'll get three CONCACAF teams in the round of 16. I think our confederation is earning a lot of respect this time, and the idea that we are a ridiculously weak confederation in the minds of Europeans and South Americans must be put to rest with the strong showing our teams are having.

 

In spite of having a lot of sympathy for Croatia (I have five close Croatian friends) and in spite of the fact that I was rooting for Croatia to advance alongside Brazil, I agree with your post, except for one thing: "one of the top in soccer history." Make that *the* top team in soccer history. This can't be denied. Brazil is ahead of all other nations in soccer stats and is *the* number one team in history (the current edition is not necessarily so, but we are talking history, all 20 cups considered), and that's why we are so hated.

 

You guys royally messed up! Why the hell did you oust Panama? The perfect opportunity to show Mexico the door and you decided to play football... ech...

 

Well, that's what we do - we try hard every time. That's what JK said in an interview when the journalist asked if the United States and Germany would play softly to secure a draw and advance, leaving behind Ghana and Portugal. He said "if we did this sort of thing, Mexico wouldn't be here." It is preposterous to think we will collude with Germany for a draw. Culturally we would never settle for this sort of thing (and the Germans wouldn't either, after the repercussions from the time they did engage in this shameful behavior against Austria). It's un-American. Maybe we'll get screwed because we'll be trying too hard and then we'll lose that game, and Ghana will beat Portugal and advance, but we'll go down fighting. This said, of course if it's a draw by 70 minutes, I can't imagine that either team will keep pushing hard and risk injury and yellow cards, but if it happens, it won't be the result of collusion but rather the normal dynamics of a third match of group stage when advancement is in sight.

 

Oh wow. This shows the evolution of soccer in the United States. We get simultaneous broadcasts of all matches, both in English and Spanish, and I can put both third round matches on my split screen and see them at the same time, not to forget that we can also get these matches online on tablets and smartphones, in high def and perfectly stable streaming, again from two online providers, WatchESPN and Univision Deportes, also in multiple languages (WatchESPN has even a Portuguese language feed). I would have expected that traditional soccer countries in Europe would have all sorts of viewing alternatives, but it looks like the United States is doing a better job! I like it!

 

Of course there are alternatives but Europe is different because of EBU (the eurovision guys) when it comes to the Wc and Olympics
http://www3.ebu.ch/home
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Broadcasting_Union

Because of EBU they ensure that every country gets the maximum coverage. And you do that by broadcasting on national channels. If EBU was active in USA they would make sure the WC would be seen on FOX NBC ABC or CBS.
On cable we all have the same alternatives.

edit: I just read on wiki CBS NBC and ABC are EBU partners sonow you know why there are games on ABC

 

Well, the over-the-air versus cable issue is not that important in the United States given that mostly everybody has cable or satellite and the folks who have decided to "cut the wire" have online subscriptions that give access to live streaming including in TV sets which these days are all equipped to do direct online streaming. The importance of over-the-air TV has declined steadily in the United States and some of our main sports are routinely shown on cable stations like ESPN and nobody complains because almost all American households receive ESPN. The below-poverty-level exceptions do exist, but those rabbit ear antennas are extremely rare nowadays. Even the FOX NBC ABC CBS channels, most people watch them through cable or satellite subscriptions rather than over the air, given that the former are more stable. If you drive around any American neighborhood you'll see lots of satellite dishes on the roofs but you won't see the rabbit ear antennas for over-the-air reception.

But you are right in the fact that when I first replied to this issue, I wasn't accurate and was comparing apples to oranges since our main coverage is through a cable channel. The thing is, I'm so used to it being accessible everywhere that I didn't even think of ESPN as a cable channel, I just thought of it as "readily available TV for everybody to see, in the United States." But sure, my point wasn't valid because on cable Europe does have the same alternatives.

I'm not an expert on TV ratings and viewership figures but I think chances are that the penetration of cable and satellite TV in the United States is higher than in Europe.