Yeah, I'm sure the German players would rather celebrate Christmas with a bunch of Argentine strangers than be with their families. 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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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...
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.
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.
Awe need a hug? 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.
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.
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.
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.