2014 FIFA World Cup™ Quarter-Finals: Netherlands vs Costa Rica|Sat, Jul 5, 4:00 PMET

Discussion in 'World Cup 2014 - Knockout Rounds' started by JohnnyFutbol, Jul 2, 2014.

?

Team to Advance

Poll closed Jul 4, 2014.
  1. Netherlands

    80.0%
  2. Costa Rica

    20.0%
  1. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    What is poor and inaccurate about the Wall Street Journal?
     
  2. puyol

    puyol Member+

    FC Barcelona
    Dec 24, 2009
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
  3. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark

    Yeah, I'm sure the German players would rather celebrate Christmas with a bunch of Argentine strangers than be with their families. :rolleyes:

    The fact the match couldn't even sell out (looks like acres of empty seats to me), says a lot about it. You can dress a pig up in diamonds and pearls, but it's still a pig. That match was not remotely comparable to a bona fide World Cup match. You can't substitute the real thing, and certainly not in December!
     
  4. waitforit

    waitforit Member+

    Dec 3, 2010
    Valcea
    Club:
    FC Steaua Bucuresti
    Nat'l Team:
    Romania
    You're not getting it. The record it's irrelevant because there is only one competitive game to draw for. This isn't USA vs Mexico for example teams that meet each other in the HEX and in the Gold Cup all the time. This is not Brazil having 7 straight wins in the world cup either. Strange indeed that the teams that have the most games at the world cup only met once
    This is about 2 teams that met once 12 years ago.
    The 100% record is pretty much meaningless. The record not what the game represented that is another thing
     
  5. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Not to mention that not a single player on the pitch that day will be suiting up tomorrow.
     
  6. Moishe

    Moishe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Boca Juniors
    Argentina
    Mar 6, 2005
    Here there and everywhere.
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Why would the Germans want to be in BsAs in December? How about it is a hell of a lot better than a European winter? December in Argentina is summer which you clearly didn't know. Also he didn't say the friendly was anywhere near as important as a WC match but to deny friendlies back in the day only shows your youth. Friendlies at one time were taken pretty seriously for what they were.
     
    Pipiolo, canis and argentine soccer fan repped this.
  7. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Haven't you heard? There are lots of Germans in Buenos Aires. Odds are some of the German players do have family there. At least the ones who are actually German.
     
    Pipiolo and Moishe repped this.
  8. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Because Buenos Aires rocks, that's why.

    It doesn't matter what it looks like to you, fact is attendance was at 90% capacity. I also never said this match was comparable to a WC match, nice twisting of the argument which just shows you are desperate.

    Actually, history plays a huge factor at the WC, it's really the main reason why Brazil got past Chile and Colombia, two teams with at least slightly better quality sides than them.

    These traditions are important and color the context of the match. You ask the Germans when they play Italy, or your own NT when it plays Portugal.
     
    Christina99 repped this.
  9. waitforit

    waitforit Member+

    Dec 3, 2010
    Valcea
    Club:
    FC Steaua Bucuresti
    Nat'l Team:
    Romania
    #684 waitforit, Jul 7, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2014
    So history was the reason Chile hit the crossbar in the 119th minute or why Brazil missed 2 penalties?

    Also I repeat myself these are teams that encounter each other often in competitive games. In fact they met all the time
    Brazil and Germany met once
     
  10. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    I've already said as much...
     
  11. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    What, you think I'm an idiot? Of course I know Argentina is in the southern hemisphere. As for not being in Europe in winter, Europeans like snow for Christmas. I've never gotten used to sunny Christmases in California. It's just not the same.
     
  12. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    "It doesn't matter what it looks like to you, fact is attendance was at 90% capacity. I also never said this match was comparable to a WC match, nice twisting of the argument which just shows you are desperate."

    "Desperate." LOL. Yeah, I'm desperate about a match played in December in Buenos Aires 27 years ago.
     
  13. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    I think Pipiolo works for the Buenos Aires board of tourism. :D
     
    canis, DutchLion, Hayaka and 1 other person repped this.
  14. Pumas111

    Pumas111 Member

    Feb 3, 2014
    Oxnard
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Wow old man, I must of really hit a nerve. Taking my comment out of context, I was specifically referring to the game against Italy. Costa Rica definitely bunkered against Holland. I find it amusing that you find the time to manipulate my comment and take pictures of your TV just to prove you're "right." It's creepy to think that an old man was thinking of me the whole time he was watching the game...
     
    jaycrewz repped this.
  15. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    #690 VFish, Jul 7, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2014
    It wasn't really bunkering, it was playing the offside trap to perfection. Costa Rica must have caught us offside a record # of times! I keep thinking one time they are going to get it wrong and then boom, Holland score. Never happened.

    And we prefer to be called "senior citizens" punk. ;)
     
    Pumas111 and jerrito repped this.
  16. canis

    canis Member

    Jun 10, 2014
    La reina del Plata
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    I think Van Persie missed that memo.

    :ROFLMAO:
     
    Pumas111 and jerrito repped this.
  17. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    No doubt, it was so frustrating. IIRC there might have been a time or two the linesman might have got it wrong but even then it was oh so close.
     
  18. Calcio Pauly

    Calcio Pauly Member+

    Jun 17, 2012
    Club:
    AC Milan
    #693 Calcio Pauly, Jul 8, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2014
    Awe need a hug?

    [​IMG]

    Only in your mind, young man. One day you'll grow older and learn more. I'm confident you can do it.

    In the meantime, I look forward to more of your football "insights"

    There was no manipulation. I was interested in knowing if that was your idea of high pressing. I guess we all know now that it was. Easy target.

    Cool.
     
    jerrito repped this.
  19. Tuco

    Tuco Member

    May 6, 2005
    Amsterdam
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    I don't recall ever saying the Wall Street Journal as such had poor and inaccurate journalism. I'm quite familiar with the paper, seeing as how a former roommate of mine, a banker, had it delivered daily. The articles are well-written by people who come across as being well-educated, though I would not consider this to be a source for good football journalism. Further, I think this is a sentiment that would be shared by the editorial staff: their focus is on their intended readers, i.e., people whose interest lie in the financial sector; successful or aspiring directors and managers; consumers keen on luxury goods and conspicuous consumption, etc..


    The intended audience of that paper is not one specifically interested in football, seeing as how they generally tend to have a paltry sports section. Compare WSJ to online sources like Zonal Marking and you'll see what I mean.
     
  20. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Yes, but if they report (and count) the number of faked injuries and such, I don't see a reason why it would be unreliable. Actually, a publication without intricate ties to the football business might sometimes, in some cases, be more reputable and come with more credible outcomes of research.
     
  21. Tuco

    Tuco Member

    May 6, 2005
    Amsterdam
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    Therein lies the problem I have with this particular report they issued: the simplicity of its results -- and the meagre data and criteria they provide -- caters to lazy acceptance of its claims, all the while trying to pass itself off as "research", as something with any more authority than what Joe Blow at the bar can tell you.

    Had a publication, in this case WSJ, provided that graphic as a supplement to a discussion of the problem of faked injuries, then I would be more than ready to accept this as some sort of research. As it stands, however, all we have is one graphic -- clearly intended for easy, uncritical dissemination by readers -- that does not elaborate on how its stated criteria are applied.

    I quote:

    To be fair, it is actually possible to get hurt playing soccer. You can clang heads. You can snap a hamstring. You can get spiked in the soft tissue. There were nine injuries in total that forced players to be substituted from the game and to miss, or potentially miss, a match. These were discarded. That left 293 cases of potential embellishment that collectively took up 118 minutes, 21 seconds.​

    First, there's the rhetorics the author had to throw in there so as to appease those ignorant of football: "it is actually possible to get hurt playing soccer." This claim isn't too far removed from the views held by those who see soccer as a wimpy sport, where contact is generally so minimal so as to not hurt you.

    Secondly, there's the criteria themselves: if you read it closely, you'll see that an injury is only considered real if it forces a player to be subbed out. Everything else fell under the category of "potential embellishment."

    What is "potential embellishment"? If the ref stops play because I really did hurt my ankle during a tackle or because I fell poorly, does this fall into the realm of potential embellishment, provided I am not subbed out? Even if that fall may have slightly impaired my condition for the duration of the match? According to the WSJ's criteria, yes, this, too is a "potential" embellishment. A better example is Alvaro Pereira's ko. Going by the research's criteria, this is another potential embellishment, seeing as how Pereira played the rest of the game.


    This isn't to say that I disagree with labeling teams like Chile and Brazil as having been very prone to lie down on the field in their first round games.
     
    jerrito repped this.

Share This Page