QF 9/23 Brazil vs. Australia [R]

Thank you, that requires talent. As a Certified Referee Assessor I think I know what I am talking about.

 

This was the worst brazil game so far. Worst by far. Brazil didnt played 1/5 of what it knows, and you cant blame Australia for it, but Brazil itself.

In fact, Australia was WEAK. During the whole game Australia was WEAK and should be easy to win. But Brazil had a mental blockdown of some sort. It seems the brazilian girls thought the game was easy. They started the match and it looked easier than they thought.

They lost concentration. Were already thinking in the next match. Started doing STUPID, THE MOST STUPID NON FORCED ERRORS. Then Australia scored one and the girls were like "what, this shouldnt be happening". Too late, there was no concentration anymore.

The coach was even more stupid. Why CBF doesnt ********ing choses a GOOD brazilian coach for the women team? He made what? Only one sub the entire match? With Brazil playing that badly? Several players were LOST on the field. He made one sub in the last minute of the match... that sub should had been no more than 15 into the 2nd half.



Funny thing I notice here is people saying Brazil faced a real challenge. Quite the contrary. Australia was piss poor. THe real challenge was Brazil itself and their lack of concentration in important moments.


But it came in good time. Against a half good team, it would have proved fatal. Maybe Brazil will be "vaccined" against this now, since they had the needed warning.

 

the proof that it was Brazil that played badly and not Australia that played well was the number of unforced errors and missed passes from Brazil´s side. The same passes connected in the NZ/China/Denmark matches. Against Australia, they missed the passes. When the passes connected, on a number of times, the receiving player completely missed the "timing". It was LAME.


Worst than that, and shows even more the lack of concentration from Brazil instead of a 'fight put on by Australia" is that Brazil had TWO reverted throw-ins!!

One reverted throw-in is already a serious lack of concentration of a player. It SHOULD NOT EVER HAPPEN.

Two reverted throw-ins is a rarety.

 

boohoo. Quit the angle-saxon english speaking bias.

The call was not for dangerous play. The call was for holding the ball with the legs. Ball holding is illegal and awards an indirect free kick. It doesnt matter if the player is standing up or down. You cant hold the ball by pressuring it with your two feet or leg.


And yes, it was INDIRECT free kick. And Marta kicked it directly.


ONE MORE PROOF of the total lack of concentration from the brazilians. How the hell didnt Marte notice the referee arms up?

 

I'd have said the same thing if an Australian had covered a Brazilian flag during the Brazilian anthem. It's something that might be done any other time during the match, but anthems are the time to show respect.

 

You seem a little confused. I've never heard of "ball holding."
Playing in a dangerous manner involves several things. One is playing the ball while you're on the ground. Another is kicking above the waist. Another is putting your head below the waist. All of these things, to be called playing in a dangerous manner, must have an opponent nearby. The restart for playing in a dangerous manner is an indirect free kick.
People usually holler "dangerous play" when they mean "playing in a dangerous manner."

 

No, its not dangerous play.

Ball Holding would fall in the IMPEDANCE (Obstruction) part of LAW 12

http://www.carosi.freeserve.co.uk/corshamreferee/law12/law12imp.htm

 

if an australian had done the same thing to the brazilian flag during the anthemn, specially in a joyfull playfull manner like it seemed on TV, where both people were laughing, no brazilian would be saying anything.

 

wahhhhhhhhh. d'abord ne te soucis pas de ton orthographe, mon ami belligerent avec l'avantage du latin.

 

I don't see anything in that link that discusses what you're talking about - "Ball Holding"

 

Thank you for your reply. I saw the infraction as one of tripping outside the box. But yes, if the referee saw it as holding it could easily be a PK.

 

no, the result doesnt indicate nothing. Watching the game indicates everything. I gave several CLEAR reasons showing why Brazil had a total mental blockdown/breakdown and you didnt even asserted any of them.

The final result is NOT all that goes down in the books. If it was, nobody would remember 70s Holland or 1982 Brazil. 3-2 CAN be considered a challenging game, but it depends on FACTS.

Fact is it was not challenging. Brazilians made it challenging by mental breakdown and bad coaching.

its not my problem if saying the truth is insulting to them. The fact Brazil almost lost has nothing to do with Australia. Its all to blame on the brazilian girls and the coach.

both the aussie goals came from impossibly ridiculous mistakes from the brazilians, result of a mental breakdown.

I dont care what the australian coach says. I saw the other Australian matches. Australia is a WEAK team. And the fact that Brazil can completely lose its concentration like that and start doing stupid childish mistakes says Brazil is as weak as Australia, just on a different field (Brazil is MENTALLY WEAK, Australia is skillfully and tactically weak).

 

I am sure you, the unknown poster on an internet forum, has a more insightful and knowledgeable opinion of Women's Football than Tom Sermanni, who has only coached internationally since 1995 and domestically in the WUSA.

Take off your rose coloured glasses for 5 minutes. Brazil were matched by Australia. You argue that Brazil had 55% of possession and were in their full "Joga Bonito" mood, while Australia was playing direct on the counter attack by using their pace down both flanks, constitutes being "dominated". This is utterly wrong.

The nature of football is that teams play to their strengths. The Matilda's main strength was their determination to bleed for their jersey and their never-say-die attitude. Maybe if the Matilda's were not amatuers who play in local leagues, some of whom have to work up to 3 part-time jobs to support their footballing dreams, they would not have been so prone to conceding early-goals throughout the entire tournament.

Give credit where credit is due. Brazil look good to win the WWC, but theres no need to demean the opposition, especially considering Australia will most likely be Brazil's most difficult game.

 

Neither side was anywhere close to their best. Both Australia goals were the result of mistakes by Brazil defenders. But the second Brazil goal was also the result of mistakes by Australia defenders, starting with a woefully underhit back pass. This looked like a match between sides playing on two days' rest (as did Norway-China, where the only goal came from another mental lapse).

This match was a challenge for Brazil. That said, with more rest this contest would not likely have been so close. Brazil has quality that Australia doesn't, and even in this match that showed through. Australia's greatest weapons are their pacy forwards, and they are most dangerous with balls played to their feet. But the Brazil defenders were just as fast as Walsh and de Vanna. On the other hand, a better rested Brazil would only be more proficient at holding possession inside Australia's half.

 

my opinion is the same as brazilians commentators, people whose only interest is SOCCER and comment soccer in one of the most important countries when the matter is soccer.

a half decent commentator in Brazil knows more than Tom Sermanni about soccer. Besides, coincidentally, the brazilian players and coach said the same thing. They blamed it on their own concentration, because they thought it was PIECE OF CAKE. They never blamed Australia for doing good.

I dont argue that. You are the one arguing that. My argument is that Australia is a ************ team, and that Brazil played incredibly bad due to they being SHIT mentally.

Australia was not Brazil´s most difficult game. Its the game Brazil made the most difficult, because of Brazil itself. And Brazil doesnt look good to win the WWC, if it doesnt maintain emotional stability.

 

The word challenge was brought by you if I am not mistaken. The game being challenging doesnt means Australia is any good. Two ************ teams can make a game challenging to each other. A good team in a bad day can make a game challenging for themselves against a much weaker side.

the FIFA rankings are distorted even on the male side. Besides, there is a huge gap in women´s soccer, resulting in the VERY WIDE SCORES... England 11-0 Argentina. COME ON. Anyone can see there IS a big drop in the ranked teams. Much bigger than anything seen on male´s soccer.

the way Brazil was commiting the most stupid mistakes ever, a stronger side would have score about 5 times at least.

yes, same thing you do with your own view. For example, you are still ignoring all the evidence I gave you of Brazil having a nervous/mental breakdown.

Weak teams once in a while make to the quarter finals of the male world cup. Besides, unlike males soccer, there are MANY MORE weak teams in the WCC, as proved by the very wide scores, usually one of the two teams scoring 0 goals.

I didnt saw Norway matches, so I really dont know if Australia played well in that game, or if Norway played badly.

And you tell me I am the one ignoring facts to prove my point

 

And perhaps Brazil had won that game due to Australia's mental lapse also. If you continue to blame it on their mental concentration (or lack of), then that's just an excuse for not performing. Every team will have their good games and poor games. In this case, it seemed to be a bad game for both teams involved.

However, I should acknowledge that Brazil was indeed the more gifted team in this encounter and deserved the win. I don't doubt their quality for a minute. But the Aussies have heart and they took a lot from their world cup campaign. and i agree with craig fosters quote that Brazil gave Australia a lesson in football terms, but we gave them a lesson in real spirit and heart. I admired Australia's persistence... and yes, you can blame this on Brazil's mental lapse, but regardless of that, Australia continued to try. and that's what Soccer is about. Giving it your all.

Brazil is a quality side and deserved the win, I think they have the right ingredients to win this WWC, however, soccer is not purely about winning, it's about spirit and never letting up even if you may be 2-0 down. In this regard, I think Australia were the true victors.

 

So you know Australia is a weak team because you saw their other games although you don't know if they played well against Norway because you don't know if Norway was playing badly...

Let me straighten this out for you. Norway is a good team and played very well in the group stage. Australia is a good team. Australia is a rapidly improving team since the last World Cup.

Brazil's a fine team and has a great chance to win the Cup.

 

For all the pretty foot work and dirty hacking how can anyone give Brazil so much credit.. if Brazil ever play fair and teams don't have to fear geting they foot broken or whatever I don't see them geting many results from even mid-level teams.. there have never beaten USA or Germany and that speak volumes.. untill they beat either of them playing fair will I ever give them any credit... that all fans of Brazil.