Match 63 (3rd Place) - Uruguay v Germany - Post-Match Thread [R]

Huh?

He'll be 32...since its 12 years from now. Don't forget Forlan is 31 so he COULD be in contention, just saying.

 

maybe they'll do it alphabetically the next time. though luck Uruguay

 

That was also a nice goal specially if you are looking for power and accuracy but Forlan's goal had style and finesse that makes it more memorable. Just look at the goal again and pay close attention to the flight of the ball when Forlan received it: about 2-3 feet off the ground, slightly behind him, and yet on his first touch he put enough power and accuracy with so much style and finesse.

 

i think the true loser here is uruguay. if the ref never tried to gift ghana into the semis with that FK call right before the "hand of the devil" uruguay enter the dutch match with Suarez and they win.

With Suarez, a healthy Lugano, and a healthy Lodeiro Uruguay would have been in the final

 

no, i think it's the same crap as saying Germany would be in the final with müller. that's bullshit. both, uruguay and germany were simply outplayed, no matter if they had a risen Pelè in their team. And uruguay didnt beat the B-team of germany with suarez...

 

The true loser is Uruguay...

1. Because they really did lose
2. They are 0-2 since the Ghana game and since they couldn't get the moral victory by grabbing 3rd place...people will forever question their advancing this far in the tournament. At least if they won 3rd place they could've shut some people up.

And how was giving Ghana a PK somehow a gift by the ref? He was doing his job.

 

I do not want to get in the middle of this,but the PK the Ref. correctly did give is not in the original post. The 'FK' was the point of the REF. gift call. I did watch the game,as all in this WC, and watched on DVR. IOM the Ref. made a very weak,or bad call for the FK. The 'FK' was the start of the mess at the end of the game. No 'bad' call,no FK, no 'mess',no handball etc. The end 0-0, with PK would have still gone on.

 

Not if we'd have Johan Neeskens Johan Cruijff and Superman out of his f'ing weelchair they wouldn't

 

Netherlands - Uruguay was closer than Spain - Germany, even without all their missing players, a bit more fair refereeing could have seen Uruguay playing the final. The last minute foul against Ghana was a bs call and it resulted in both Suarez and Fucile missing the semi.

Oh, and never make assumptions on what happened in a third place match.

 

Bitter, huh?

 

I just want to go on record as saying I am now a huge fan of Uruguay. I love to watch them play, which is something I never thought I'd say before the Cup began.

That said, your comments are beyond silly.

 

Why are they beyond silly? Is Suarez not a game changer for Uruguay? More so, he plays in the Netherlands and knows their system all too well. Also Lugano and Fucile are among the best at their respective positions this WC.

 

Because he broke the rules and was punished by the laws of the game. If he plays Holland still wins IMHO.

 

I wonder how Uruguay would have done with better reffing. In addition to that horrid free kick call that led to all the controversy vs Ghana, Uruguay were also screwed by the linesman against Holland. I am not talking about the Dutch second goal, but the three blown offsides calls against Uruguay early in the game that prevented great scoring opportunities. And then there is the obvious foul not called before Van B....'s excellent strike and the red card earned by but not giving to Aogo (sp?) in the fourth minute of the third place game.

That is one hell of a lot of game changing bad calls to overcome. And yes I realized that all teams have to deal with this stuff, but I do not remember seeing such a mountain of bad game changing calls go against one team in such a short time span. The smaller teams have to put up with this much more that the big teams who usually get the calls in their favor. And Uruguay is the smallest of the small in term of population and political influence. Just imagine the Holland game with the incorrect offsides not being called against Uruguay and the foul being called before Van B.."s goal. You get the same game with possible a very different outcome. Would Uruguay have won with better reffing, there is no way to know. But I think the game would have had a very different complexion without those horrid incorrect early offsides calls taking away excellent scoring opportunities from some very good strikers.

 

They are a pretty exciting team to watch and perhaps the only team that has made the game fun to watch in this tournament. The front players have quite a bit of freedom to express their individuality and yet with a great cohesion and teamwork instead of premadonans. I am very thankful as a neutural fan.

He does have a valid point. His whole point is based on the fact that the handball was the result of a bad call made outside the box when the Ghanian player was cleanly dispossessed. With seconds on the clock and ball in the Uruguayian possession, they could have a) mount a quick counter which is their game, OR b) kick off the ball and kill the very few seconds on the clock. The game would have gone into PKs with Suarez still in the game and no ban. If you get a chance, watch the play and pay close attention when the Ghanian player gets cleanly dispossessed and the call and the ensuing handball.

P.S. It's also noteworthy that while the handball replay was shown several times when it happened but the foul call which led to the handball was never shown on replay.

 

Sorry my friend, but whoever ends up Fourth (4 th) in every WC with nock-out rounds, it means it has lost its 2 final games...... Now if you can show me only one fourth place (4) in WC history, that has won only one of the two final games ?, then I `ll eat my laptop at the top of Mt. Everest, OK.........

 

Ghana wasn't going to do any better than Uruguay. The other 3 teams are just far superior.

 

jesus all the bitterness towards uruguay ...is aweful, it makes me hate europe. and the MODS here are like FIFA

say something about england and you'll be out the door pretty fast. just sayin'


to all of you uruguay haters, GFYS

 

You know...I love how Uruguay fans are trying to play the victim as if they somehow were robbed of a goal. But no, I'm not bitter...just amazed that this is still allowed in such a popular, global sport.

 

Technically-speaking yes, but there are many who don't believe they won that game. It says something that they kinda became 4th by default simply because they made the semis.

 

I disagree. While I don't think they would've won the WC or anything, I think they would've put up a better fight against the Netherlands than a depleted Uruguayan team did. They had the attacking power to challenge Holland and they were peaking at the right time. They played much better in the Knockout Rounds than they did during the Group stage.

 

Any conditional where the antecedent is false is true, whatever the consequent.

Examples:

"If pigs could fly, India would have won the world cup five times already." = True

"If pigs could flt, Brazil would have won the world cup five times already." = True

"If Ghana had defeated Uruguay, they'd have won the World Cup." = True

 

Some are very stubborn. Let me put it to you in another way. Find me only one semifinalist in WC history, who hasn`t finished in the top 4 of the tournament.

These are facts my friend, its not a technical issue.

 

Both conditional and antecedent has to be atomic. When you use the word "would" in the last atomic sentences in your examples you violate this. The sentence "If Ghana defeated Uruguay, Ghana won the 2010 world cup" is true, but the atomic "Ghana won the 2010 world cup" is not true, and any argument that shows otherwise is false. The sentence "Ghana would have won the World Cup" is not atomic. By the way, it is also true that "If Ghana defeated Uruguay, South Africa won the 2010 world cup".