Earlier I posted that Crespo's goal was a high kick and that Henzie was a straight red, it was only done to start controversy but the bottom line is that most Mexican fans will support our Argentinean brothers vs. Germany. Vamos Argentina!!! 3-0!
Thanks for your support. I have warm memories of the Mexican fans. At the 1994 WC I went to watch Argentina vs Bulgaria, right after Diego was suspended, and I remember there was a huge Mexican sign which read, 'Maradona, Mexico esta contigo'. I never forgot that gesture.
My god this is a good example of how most of you Argies should be like Matias very nice comments non-irrogant!!
In all it was a good game except for that Heinze foul unexceptable!! Now whats done is done I will no longer come in here I will go back to the Mex forum. P.S. Me go for Argentina never .... never on your life I will go for Brazil it was my second choice then if Brazil falls out I don't care anymore!
Yeah I'd like to believe in all that Latin solidarity thing...heh If Mexico had gone through I would be a little resentful, but I would prefer they beat Germany rather than the other way around.
That's a bit much don't you think? Coming to THIS forum and insinuating that we are all ARROGANT. *ahem*
.... get over it. Heinze got a yellow card, the goal was allocated to Crespo and Argentina won 2-1. Nothing more to discuss here.
I would have been 100% behind Mexico. I like their all out style. And Borgetti is a real poison for defences. They deserved more. And, well, Salma Hayek is also Mexican
Dude I hate their style. They only play when they have in front Argentina or Brazil, but when it was Angola or Portugal they crapped their pants, they didn't even try, I'm glad we took them out, they wanted to eliminate us and kept talking about how they were better than us and the brasilians and we took care of them. By what they showed in the first phase they obviously didn't have what it takes to go another round.
Yeah, you forgot one thing. For some reason we always get a goal not called in every single game so far of the tournament, it's obvious that fifa wants brazil -germany final or there is something else going on, but the truth is, we are gettin cheated left and right every game. With mexico we should not have even played the overtime, they invalidated a totally legitimate goal that would have given us the victory.
Well, I mostly watch them when they play against us, and each time they give us a lot of trouble, and certainly not only in defending, so they must not be total rubbish... All this crap in the news before the match is all crap. All teams do it. The only thing I remember are the good relationship between our fans. I have experienced that in Germany before and after the match.
out of interest, has anyone seen a non-argentinian report of the game that says the ref got the heinze decision right? go on vipnerd, scour the net.
Bobby McMahon, Fox Soccer Channel: "I hope I don’t hex him but I think the referee Busacca is having a good game. He got it right giving Heinze a yellow card as Scaloni was in line with Heinze and could have got across."
Ok ... it might take me a few days thou. In the meantime ... explain us, how much is "all probability"? *rofl* Have you ever played football? With Argentines? . .
in da soup starting to sound like a bitter Mexican fan now We have already explained why it was not a red. Ayala was the last man and was going to challenge for the ball.
I think that we were lucky that the referee didn't give a red, but I also think his decision was fair and motivated. Of course, other people may have different opinions, but anyway the decision has been taken, and it's not like giving out an unjustified penalty in the last seconds of the match. No one got hurt in the tackle, and Mexicans had plenty of time to try to score more goals than us. Add to that, that we have been disallowed a beautiful goal that would have sealed the match well and good, and you have a quite balanced situation.
The Heinze card situation is debatable...the incorrect offside call at the end of regular time is not.
we got v lucky w a decision, a decision which had a profound effect on a v tight game. when we get good goals disallowed, we complain, when we get lucky, we should be able to admit it, or at least take it on the chin when others amongst us point it out. of course some will only ever see things from their team's point of view, like a parent who never believes their child may have done wrong. sometimes love deceives, in which case, it's best to ask a neutral, or in this case, read any report, from any press organ, from any major footballing nation. chances are they'll agree on two things: we're the most thrilling team in the tournament, and heinze deserved to go. that's why i asked if anyone had read any (non-argentine) reports that stated otherwise, i was just curious. outside of this argentina forum, in the world at large, everyone seems pretty agreed, at least from what i've seen and heard, altho i thank hoss for giving me an example to the contrary. bobby mcmahon huh? knows his stuff in my opinion, the ref bottled it, as he knew showing heinze the red would probably lead to a big footballing nation going out, a big decision indeed, and refs, however subconsciously, and however competent, can be influenced by such factors. i believe the furore this decision caused, and the aaccusations of the bigger nations being protected, influenced the ref the next day into sending off matterazzi of italy for a far lesser infringement.
The Heinze decision could have gone either way and nobody can complain. Heinze's foul was a tactical foul, he didn't intentionally try to injure the opponent, so in that sense it's a yellow card. Then the ref has to determine if he was the last man. As he pointed out, the ref saw Ayala and so determined that Heinze was not the last man. Nobody can argue against that judgement because it is his decision to make. It is not black or white like an offside, but rather it is a judgement call. If the ref had determined otherwise, we couldn't argue either. The ref has as his responsibility to assess the situation and make the determination and he did. End of story.
What? If a team ends up with 10 is certainly a much rougher route ... but to imply that Argentina would had lost is a coin toss as much as to say that regardless of the 10 men Argentina would had pulled huevos and win the match. You do have tons of faith in the players huh? PS: Mexico couldn't beat an Angola with 10. Sweden couldn't beat a T&T with 10 ... Italy beat Australia with 10. Portugal was most of the 2nd half with 10 and held to their 1-0 over Holland. PS2: You have the right to your opinion, but is just that, an opinion, not a fact. .
IDS, i agree with you that We were lucky to escape red card but again playing with 10 men doesn't mean you will automatically loose. just for example take Mexico vs Portugal. Mexico actually dominated the game and should have won the game after they were reduced to 10 men. If Heinze was red carded then Pekerman would have played with new system and this definetly would have made Mexico to change there system as well. and there you go, a new game with new systems. It could have gone either way but our player would have given little more, playing with 10 than what they gave with 11.
completely agree ILF, it certainly does not mean we would have lost, i only ever said 'probably', vipnerd has trouble reading. IMO it is 'probable' because it was a v tight game, mexico were v motivated and playing well, and both teams had played only three days earlier, meaning the disadvantage of being a man down would be highly accentuated. of course we could still have won the game, but it would have been a major blow no doubt. we got v lucky w that decision, there's no harm in saying it, altho some around here try to make it treason sorin justifiably got a yellow, now compare his infringement to heinze's. different colour cards exist to punish differing degrees of 'crime', no-one is suggesting heinze tried to injure the guy, just that he tried to stop him from scoring, which seems pretty obvious. i'm glad the decision went our way, naturally, and, as someone else pointed out, it's all academic now anyway.
This is the reason why I originally *rofled* ... the in all probability part. Which you obviously are trying to deny now. The rest is just your intepretation of the decision. Sorry for any confusion. .
i accept your apology, vipnerd, we all get confused from time to time. 'in all probability' is exactly what i meant, for that is my opinion. the team with more players has the clear advantage, altho that doesn't neccessarily mean they will win. 'football is all about opinions' so they say, and these forums provide proof of that. for example, our opinions of scaloni couldn't be more different.