Match 17|South Africa vs. Uruguay|16-06-10|Post-Match Thread [R]

I didn't watch the match....but arguing over a penalty when the scoreline was 3-0 seems pointless. Did SA look like they could get an equalizer when it was 1-0?

Too bad SA won't go through, it seemed like it would have meant a lot to them. To be honest though they didn't really ever have the quality.

I'm getting more and more impressed by South American teams....

 

No. They didn't have a chance. I agree that arguing over the penalty was pointless, but that's likely what prompted the fans to leave the stadium which is part of why it was such a flashpoint topic. I also think that ppl need to lay off the fans for a moment.

 

Uruguay really performed today. Well done to them.

As for South Africa, their World Cup dreams is almost over..

We'll see how France plays in their next game before deciding whether or not if they would take out South Africa.

 

Uruguay deserved it and RSA didn't but come on, the score is 0-1 and you give a penalty and send off the keeper resulting in a forced substitution of your best player. How is that not deciding the outcome of the match?

Regarding the penalty. Horrified.. It reminded me of Australia's exit in 2006 when, sure, the defender is in the player's path but he throws himself onto the defender. Here, again, the keeper is out but the striker dives and picks up a small contact on the toes. Ridiculous and a horrible way to be (almost) out of your own tournament.

BUT! If France and Mexico tie tonight, my God what an interesting last round we have then! RSA would with a win over France (any score) take second place if only Uruguay doesn't lose to Mexico. I think two out of three of these results are totally normal:

Mexico-France could very well end with a tie. The French are torn with internal conflict and look uninspired.

Uruguay shouldn't lose against Mexico considering their football of last night and also the fact that they would then come second which equals the difference of playing Argentina versus playing South Korea or Nigeria. How do you like that for incentive!

Then, coming to the last of these three results which will see RSA trough: RSA win over France. I say, anything can happen in football and with France getting two draws and perhaps more internal conflict, RSA could very well perform a stunning miracle and make it through!

Here's to hope! Let the games begin!!

 

Based on today performance and the reaction of their fans, I'm cheering for SA to make history by being the first World Cup host to fail to reach the knockout stages

 

What reaction of the fans? Have I missed something or are you referring to the fact that they left the stadium early?

 

Hmmph.

I don't get this anger. I guarantee we would have seen fans burning the stadium if Germany had lost 3-0 to anyone in the group stage in 2006. Cut these ppl some slack, we've never seen a home performance like this in a World Cup bc this is the worst team ever to host it. They wouldn't have qualified at all if they weren't hosting it. We have nothing to compare this to, but suddenly ppl are all "righteous indignation" with S. Africans.

Ppl are so full of it.

 

OK, I watched the replay. 1st goal was slightly lucky, 2nd goal was more than well deserved.

Better team won.

 

What do you think the reaction of the fans meant?

 

Could it be argued that the goalkeeper's challenge was not careless, reckless, and excessive force was not used?

Not looking to get flamed or anything, I'm sincerely curious. What's with the attitude these days of any contact being bad? Is football not a contact sport?

 

Not to discredit Uruguay, but the first goal killed us off. It is very hard for SA to come back from behind...especially when some calls don't go your way and when you don't show up. Knowing SA's game quite well, i can assure you they did not show up for some reason. Extraordinary cold weather may have contributed to their lethargic start, which only grew in momentum for Uruguay.
Their focus was not there either...certain touches, especially from Modise, was much unlike him. Sure Uruguay forced this on us, but surely we did NOT show commitment to counter this. We definately did not show...If we showed and lost, id have more heart. Very hard for us to pshycologically recover from this, especially when the mental part of the game is definately not our best part....especially when its on a low...

 

South Africa has seemingly gotten worse and worse overall in the last five years or so, and they were a very quality African side not too long ago. African Cup and two straight World Cup appearances to not making it in '06 and a poor African Cup in '08 to not making the African Cup this year and now this. What's happening down there? It can't all be Perriera.

 

why cant it be Parreira? I never liked this guy. And that replacement he got to South Africa, Joel Santana... the only thing Joel is able to win is the Carioca state league besides a brazilian league with Vasco in 2000, but back in 2000, we had playoffs and he only was hired by Vasco in the return match of the semifinal (that is, he only coached Vasco for 3 matches before winning the national title)

Parreira won the brazilian league in distant 1984 with Fluminense and a Copa do Brasil with Corinthians. And the 1994 World Cup, but he had the strenght of the brazilian squad behind him, and also Baggio´s help.

 

I wouldn't say Parriera has been good, because they've only gotten worse since he was hired, quit, and then re-hired, but South Africa's slide began before they hired him. 8 years ago they might have been competitive enough to take advantage of hosting. Now...

But you're right, it seems Parriera's hiring might have set their national program back another 5 years. South Africa may have given him too long a leash. Had they completely cut ties when he quit in the first place they might have corrected course by now under someone else. Was Hiddink available at the time?

 

thats QUITE the nonsense. It was a clear penalty, no dive.

The real problem was that the Uruguayan player who suffered the penalty was offside, thus, the ref should have called an offside, not the penalty. (an uruguayan player kicked the ball, and the player who suffered the penalty was NOT offside... but before the ball reaches him, another uruguayan player deflected the ball, and now, the uruguayan player who suffered the penalty WAS offside)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcXALDSYj58"]YouTube- WM 2010 Penalty Uruguay Offside Analysis!! OFFSIDE!! HD![/ame]

 

Many things...that i am not in the mood debating now. Long term, we still have the same talent and potential as back then. Management wise and character wise, our players may have lost it.

But for one thing i will compare us to England. High expectations...high underperformance...high pressure. Which is why ive said many times that i don't believe England will win this world cup...they have just too much pressure...like us...The pressure was not for us to win the world cup, but to reach the second round. The focus was too much on failing to qualify. Hence, maybe resulting in us not reaching the second round.

Pareira to me is a good coach. He has lifted our spirits, but one game has undone almost all of it. It is not always his fault if the players don't perform. We just had an off day yesterday i feel...it must have been pressure. Uruguay didn't make it easy. The ref was the kind that frustrated us...

At least all of us can agree that SA has not been given a hand by the ref as many conspiracy people believed here...Last night to me favoured Uruguay more, except for the one injury causing challenge we made on one of the U players which may have been yellow carded at least. Or was our player carded for it?

 

Uruguayans love to pull some upset at the World Cup hosts.

dont forget the Maracanazzo, in Rio, when Uruguay beat Brazil 2-1 and won the 1950 Brazil World Cup in front of the largest world cup crowd ever, over 200 thousand people.

some say the Maracanazzo molded and hardened the brazilian team, and we wouldnt be so succesful later if not for it.

from Wikipedia

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pMmRFKKZfk&feature=related"]YouTube- El día que Brasil lloró | Uruguay campeón del mundo 1950[/ame]

 

I don't agree. Pareira has been one of the longer running coaches in a while. They actually kept someone instead of just firing like in the past. Part of the long running problem since winning Afcon, was that we fired coaches left right and centre. This time around they kept Pareira...We have had good results against Denmark, Columbia and even Mexico. One match should not mean all the good work is undone.

All i can say is that South Africa must go all out against France. We can rather have a good display and lose, than have a defensive display and almost win.

[LINEUP-4-4-2]Mphela, Parker, Nomvhete, Pienaar, Sibaya, Tsabalala, Twala, Booth, Mokeana, Gaxa, Josephs[/LINEUP-4-4-2]

I am telling you, that this lineup can cause damage, even to France. Nomvhete is good on the left and can be a third striker - very experienced and skillful. Which would mean Pienaar can follow up to the left AND be central in a preferred position. Parker can bring in pace and commitment to the team as well as support Mphela. Sibaya could disrupt midfield with his stocky tenaciousness. Booth should bring some confidence in the defence and the team, to help out Mokeana. Twala played better for me thus far than Masilela....I know the midfield will be slightly vulnerable, but we need to attack and take risks with this game. Pienaar is also a good hustling player which can attack and defend, so two defensive players is not needed.
The above system can at times, easily switch from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 with no hassles...

The coach should select those that want it most....

 

Very naive post about South Africans. The coloureds are already supporting Brazil (pace Steven Pienaar). There's no solidarity between the black South Africans and other black Africans. It had been Cote d'Ivoire taking apart The Boys last night, there would be lynchings today in the townships.

With the exception of the South Africa group matches, very few of the local blacks have bought tickets for other matches. The matches are overwhelmingly attended by a combination of foreign fans, foreigners resident in S.A., and South African whites and South African Indians/Middle class light skinned coloureds. Those South Africans have really got into the WC spirit and are wearing South African colours to all matches and blowing their vuvu's but they are in the stadia for the once in a lifetime experience.

The black South African fans only want to see South Africa win. Their leaving at 80 minutes was beyond belief, unless you live here.

And let me explain a curious phenomenon : in the USA, teenage girls think that any American TV program featuring teenagers is real life and they model their behaviour and speech on what Hollywood dishes up.

In South Africa, people model their behaviour on TV commercials! The South African fans act as though they are on camera for a TV commercial in the making. And this applies not just to WC commercials but the typical cornflakes commercials on tv, as well.

And I was so happy to see France vs Uruguay in person in Cape Town.
It was a heads up about Diego Forlan and his mindset coming into this WC.
The man is possessed. He knows he is playing for posterity, not for his next contract. In the 2 matches so far, he's the Johan Cruyff of this WC.

 

Regarding to South Africa's diminishing performance that is true if you look at the afcon cup.In 1996 they won then it was 2nd,semis,quarter,group stages * 4
and 2010 where they did not qualify.

There's still the france game so it's a chance at least.
The penalty was unfair bcos of offside, but Khune did clip the uruguayan.

I think the italy penalty in 2006 was worse than this one excluding the offside.

 

It's hard to tell from the angle on that video, but in a screencap someone posted earlier, he is clearly offside at the moment of the deflection.

The Uruguayan deflects the ball with the shin of his left leg. I managed to get a better screencap at the exact moment the ball leaves his shin, courtesy of ESPN3 (left click to view the image in higher quality) .



Suarez is definitely offside, at least if that deflection counts.

 

Possessed? Forlan has been great for 4 or 5 years now. So this should really come as no surprise. 2 european golden boots in 3 years. When are people going to start giving this man the credit he deserves?

 

He is, but if you move it even one frame back it looks much closer. Suarez is moving one way and the SA defense is moving the other way. This is one of those plays that it's almost impossible for the human eye to catch in real time.
I am OK with this being a benefit of the doubt call. You can't reasonably expect this to be called offside 100% of the time, and it doesn't excuse the South African goalie for his lunge.

 

While I do think he was offside. I can certainly not blame the refs/ARs for missing it. The initial ball is mishit goes into a crowd and takes a couple of slight defections. How many times do shots at goal take slight deflections of the defense that are not noticed by either the refs or linesman, resulting in goal kicks that should be corner kicks.

In the end, Uruguay played well and deserved the win. South Africa had a bad day and bad luck on a couple of defections.

So far the best defense is either Uruguay or Switzerland, with North Korea and Paraguay competing for the bronze.

 

That's the thing. Either the assistant missed the deflection or he didn't think there was a deflection by the Uruguayan player. If there was no touch there, then it's not offside.

I never did see enough of the incident to tell if there was a touch there.