and lets be consistent here, the footstamp against Egypt led to a VAR review and disallowed goal, against England it led to OMG Messi is undefeatable, superhuman, bestever, inevitable. Argetina plays to the last whistle and deserves credit for that they also getting away with far more than anyother team has or would.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never claimed there was a fixed set of criteria before 2009/10. That's a strawman. My point was that the Ballon d'Or criteria have become increasingly inconsistent since 2009/10, which is why I gave multiple examples across different years. Instead of addressing any of them, you cherry-picked the opening sentence, ignored almost my entire post, and argued against a position I never took. If you want to disagree, address the examples I gave rather than an argument I never made.
Why should I address those examples if I believe there was never some standard ? You made an assertion that it changed after a certain year. So you should be able to describe how it was before and how it became. That's what I am asking. And mind you, I don't think there should be some standard. Like best player in CL winning team or WC. What changed after 2009 is that there were a couple of players doing things nobody in modern times had seen.
I never claimed there was a perfect or fixed standard before 09/10. My point is that from 09/10 onward, the application of the criteria has become increasingly inconsistent, and I gave multiple examples to support that. If you believe those examples don't demonstrate increasing inconsistency, explain why. So which is it? First you argue I need to prove the criteria changed. Now you're saying there shouldn't be any consistent criteria at all. If that's your position, then why are you demanding that I define a standard before and after 2009/10? Whether those players were unprecedented is beside the point. My argument isn't that they didn't deserve to win. My argument is that similar achievements were evaluated differently depending on the player or the year. That's the inconsistency I'm talking about, and simply saying "they were extraordinary" doesn't address it.
For England to win anything they have to stop with that stupid “it’s coming home”, then maybe they’ll win something. Tuchel is to blame but so are the players. nobody showed any kind of leadership once they started to go back and allow Messi and co to overwhelm them. That includes our very own Jude. For sure “king Henry” was not there (all game and in the 1/4 as well). i fu(kn hate Messi and Argentine played most games as if they are Paraguay and not one of the greatest football nations on earth. They deserved to advance only because of that 2nd half determination
To say inconsistency increased, you need to provide the before and after. You just showed the after. That's all I am saying.
My starting point is 09/10. That's the period my argument is about. How far back do you expect me to go 5, 10 or mabye 30 years back?.If you think my examples from 09/10 forward don't show increasing inconsistency, than you are welcome to explain why.
Whats exciting to watch is Argentina's remontada ability. They go down, make it ugly then turn it on and win the game in the last 15mins. Reminds me of a certain team.
Definitely not a moron but that loss was on him more than anyone. Everyone could see that coming, and he had the hydration break to adjust.
Would be better than a bunch of a-holes who have got favorable calls all tournament. Spain has much more class to their play and on field behavior than Argentina dose in my opinion.
Because that robotic Barca dna side to side possession play and control at all times has become stale to watch as a fan. The chaos from argentina and that intent to attack and score goals and come backs is far more exciting. But spain will probably nullify all that energy and just not give up possession and make everything boring.
There is an art and beauty to a possession style game, and there are many variations to this approach. Spain is not playing Barca 2010 TikiTaka.
Spain or Argentina are not there to entertain or to become popular. National teams compete in these tournaments for their own country and themselves. The club level approach is that you have to play in a way that makes the team successful and popular but a national team is not competing in a market space other than a niche market outside its own borders. People hated Greece 2004, but that doesn't matter one bit now and England would drag the carcass of a relative for an impromptu spirit ritual if it meant winning a tournament even if it's in the exact same fashion.
Winners win, losers complain, yell at the sky and wonder what if. The fate of the loser is to look at the grapes and call them sour. "oh, look at the way they won".
England benefited from officiating themselves during the tournament. Decisions go one way or another. A player gets sent off for talking behind his hand in an argument meanwhile Rice spoke to three Argentina players behind his hand and wasn't sent off. Maybe speaking behind your hand in a tussle is allowed "en ingles", and the rule is a coded anti latin american rule made up to help the europeans. Oh well. Maybe there will be some intervention to give England an inflatable world cup trophy for la playa.
🫂🇦🇷🇪🇸 Luis de la Fuente and Lionel Scaloni.Beautiful to see. 👏🏼 pic.twitter.com/t3A4mWJIeP— Fabrizio Romano (@FabrizioRomano) July 18, 2026
Because everybody gets both sides of the whistle. I sorry for not partaking in a stupid discussion that I have chosen to remove myself from. You've seen how I approach the clubs referee hysteria as well. I consider it a cop out and a way to embrace defeat as fate. If you think the refs gave Barca 7 Ligas and Argentina a world cup final appearance be my guest.
I don’t think anyone is looking for validation. The facts are there. You want to be ignorant and ignore that Barcelona paid the referees or that Argentina FA has direct ties to money laundering that’s up to you. But don’t dismiss the other side as stupid.