admirschleck wrote
@Ryan - I am trying to "defend" Greece (tho I support Costa Rica), and you're suddenly attacking me. What's happening, Ryan?
sorry, mistook you for someone who said Greece play destructive football, I mean I haven't seen any explosions
Anyway why are you supporting Costa Rica!
Because anyone who love football and want the most deserving team to go on roots for Costa Rica, they are huge underdogs and noone in their right mind would have placed them as nr.1 in their group against 3 former world cup winners.
Well played in the end (you could argue they didn't deserve it )
Costa Rica held their nerve and got through in pens, not bad for them but they were aided by the Greek keeper who didnt look like he was going to get near a single penalty
GO GREECE! (future Euro 2016 winners, I know it!)
John St Ledger in Team Bunzl-Centrica and Team U25
Lachi wrote:
On a tournament, you play to win, not to shine.
Nobody forces you to watch these matches.
Spoken as a true anti-football fan.
Also there is such a thing as Fair play
I am only commenting, not approving the action I see on the pitch.
And I have not yet seen any footballer playing fair on this WC, so I am not sure what you wanted to say with that.
Edited by Lachi on 30-06-2014 00:27
admirschleck wrote:
God, why am I even trying to get in a proper discussion with you...What are you on today? Firstly, conditions were same for both Mexico & Netherlands and as I said today - both teams are adapted to these conditions, so bringing these weather arguments is hilarious. Secondly, Netherlands wouldn't be most scoring team without that match against Spain, but you can't take that from them nor blame them for shitty Spain. However, that doesn't make Spain a good team in this WC, nor Dutchie's football attarctive (it keeps bringing results, I agree, but you started all of this shit with game-play style).
Since we're at it, best cancel out Netherlands against Chile too, because they scored two late goals and they were such a defensive side. And cancel Australia too when we're at it, since Australia would have lost anyway and Netherlands were supposed to win 5-0... you know. It's somehow funny how you cancel out stuff out, from contact for a foul to whole matches, to suit your argumentation.
Also, Mexicans themselves have said that they intended to "kill the bodies" of the dutch in the heat. It's completley legit that they aim to play to their strengths, and they would be stupid if they didn't do it.
Good one by Costa Rica. Fell asleep though.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
No need to be sarcastic, you only bolded first part of my sentence and if you read the rest of it, you'll see its full meaning. Even though their group was strong on paper, it was easy job for Netherlands. I never said they're shit, actually opposite - they showed they're a great team, just that I don't like the football they're playing (defensive, "anti-football" (as how Jacdk would like to call it) and nothing besides RvP & Robben in attack).
admirschleck wrote:
No need to be sarcastic, you only bolded first part of my sentence and if you read the rest of it, you'll see its full meaning. Even though their group was strong on paper, it was easy job for Netherlands. I never said they're shit, actually opposite - they showed they're a great team, just that I don't like the football they're playing (defensive, "anti-football" (as how Jacdk would like to call it) and nothing besides RvP & Robben in attack).
Maybe you should be a bit sarcastic too, because how can you say with a straigth face, that this Group of Death - with World Champion Spain and one of people's favourite Chile in it - was an easy job for Netherlands?! You are talking about Spain & Chile like they are some goons in a qualifying stage. There's a reason why they are strong on paper because they are all fantastic football-players, and Netherlands were on the brink of losing both matches but turned it around both times. Really now, I'm at a loss for words and I'm baffled and I quote you again and then you surely must realize that your statement is hogwash.
admirschleck wrote:
Even though their group was strong on paper, it was easy job for Netherlands.
by the way, Robben & Van Persie are the strikers, of course they are the main source of attacks. Once again, you form reality to fit your narrative and argumentation. It's tiresome.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
See, every team from that group is now out of WC (except Oranges), so what I said is actually true - it was only strong group on paper. Spain was literally shit this time and I don't understand how can you count them as a serious team and opponent. I mean, they have a reputation of WC and EC winner, but if you actually watched their games this year (including frendlies), you'd realise why I keep saying that they're shit.
Of course Robben & Van Persie are attackers and are supposed to score goals, but what I wanted to say is that they two literally made most of chances by themselves, with someone else (mostly Snejider) just passing the ball and appearing from time to time. Constantly saying how bad my arguments are without actually making a good arguments yourself isn't the way to go. At the end, you won't make me like them as a team that way, so chill out. Last time I checked, I am allowed not to like someone play-style and to have my own opinion.
Edited by admirschleck on 30-06-2014 01:37
admirschleck wrote:
See, every team from that group is now out of WC (except Oranges), so what I said is actually true - it was only strong group on paper. Spain was literally shit this time and I don't understand how can you count them as a serious team and opponent. I mean, they have a reputation of WC and EC winner, but if you actually watched their games this year (including frendlies), you'd realise why I keep saying that they're shit.
"See, every team from that group is now out of WC (except Oranges), so what I said is actually true - it was only strong group on paper." ????
Sorry but you really make it sound like more than two teams advanced to knockout-stage. It were two teams and Chile missed out in the penalty-shootout in Brazil. I fail to see how this proves that the point of the Group being an easy job for Netherlands and "only strong on paper"?
Besides that, the first half of the match Spain was the superior side against Netherlands, and if Silva would have scored, the match probably (who know for sure?) would have been over. But Netherlands made a great comeback, turned the match around and put the first nail into Spain, with Chile finishing it off. I don't know what your opinion on Spain is in general but posts in this thread have shown that you have been as surprised as anyone of us by this NEL-ESP.
Spoiler
Both of your posts:
admirschleck wrote:
I'd really like to see all of these guys that keeps on blaming ref for the first penalty (the two in Mexico's match & one in Brazil's were both clear and they were ref's mistake) in that situation. There was no chance that ref could see that. It wasn't even clear after few slowed-down replays, so you can't blame referee for it, but a stupid defender.
Oh, and 2-1! Surprise, but I think Spain will score at least one more goal before the end of match.
Also, Costa is so fucking dirty. You just can't like him and this type of players generally, even despite he's a beast on terrain.
admirschleck wrote:
[/quote]
Of course Robben & Van Persie are attackers and are supposed to score goals, but what I wanted to say is that they two literally made most of chances by themselves, with someone else (mostly Snejider) just passing the ball and appearing from time to time.
Ah yes, by that meaning of yours, I think that's valid. Probably is so extreme at times because they miss Strootman but it's still valid attacking and - imo - far away from the catenaccio of Greece. Netherlands have scored in each match two goals so far, defensive football is usually a matter of scoring first goal and keeping the lead.
At the end, you won't make me like them as a team that way, so chill out. Last time I checked, I am allowed not to like someone play-style and to have my own opinion.
You can like and dislike whatever you want. I just don't see how Netherlands had an "easy job" with this group or why the 5:1 against Spain is not allowed to count as evidence for the attacking parts of Netherlands play like you argued. I'm pretty chilled alright.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Can we not use "anti-football"? I fail to see how one can judge if something is anti-football or not.
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
Shonak wrote:
"See, every team from that group is now out of WC (except Oranges), so what I said is actually true - it was only strong group on paper." ????
Sorry but you really make it sound like more than two teams advanced to knockout-stage. It were two teams and Chile missed out in the penalty-shootout in Brazil. I fail to see how this proves that the point of the Group being an easy job for Netherlands and "only strong on paper"?
Even if you count Chile in, it still doesn't make it a strong group. Two teams aren't enough for "group of death", how most of you called it. Playing against Australia and destructed Spain is easier than playing against England, Italy & Uruguay, you gotta agree. They almost draw against Australia and win against Chile was...like it was. Tight.
Shonak wrote:
Besides that, the first half of the match Spain was the superior side against Netherlands, and if Silva would have scored, the match probably (who know for sure?) would have been over. But Netherlands made a great comeback, turned the match around and put the first nail into Spain, with Chile finishing it off. I don't know what your opinion on Spain is in general but posts in this thread have shown that you have been as surprised as anyone of us by this NEL-ESP.
Yes, I was, as everyone else, surprised by that result, as Spain was one of the favourites because of their reputation and past. I still don't know how does this make sense and where did I say I wasn't surprised? After that match, nothing could surprise me, so Spain-Chile was somehow expected result for me.
Shonak wrote:
You can like and dislike whatever you want. I just don't see how Netherlands had an "easy job" with this group or why the 5:1 against Spain is not allowed to count as evidence for the attacking parts of Netherlands play like you argued. I'm pretty chilled alright.
I explained "easy" job part above. I never said Spain 5-1 result IS NOT allowed to count as a valid result, but you just can't use one match for evidence for the attacking parts & their game-play style. And I still fail to see the point of this discussion, so I'll simply stop it. What do you want to do? To prove me wrong for having such an opininon? Or to make me like Team A because of some players or their game-play style, which I don't like?
Edited by admirschleck on 30-06-2014 07:50
Shonak wrote:
"See, every team from that group is now out of WC (except Oranges), so what I said is actually true - it was only strong group on paper." ????
Sorry but you really make it sound like more than two teams advanced to knockout-stage. It were two teams and Chile missed out in the penalty-shootout in Brazil. I fail to see how this proves that the point of the Group being an easy job for Netherlands and "only strong on paper"?
Even if you count Chile in, it still doesn't make it a strong group. Two teams aren't enough for "group of death", how most of you called it. Playing against Australia and destructed Spain is easier than playing against England, Italy & Uruguay, you gotta agree. They almost draw against Australia and win against Chile was...like it was. Tight.
Funny that you consider England, Italy & Uruguay who all got kicked out by their own incompetence as a group of death and were all way too weak to win against the most outsider-ish team of the tournament - Costa Rica, whilst Spain - the team who have dominated Europe for the past years - and Netherlands - who were previous World Cup finalist, have thus achieved way more than England for almost 50 years - and Chile (who placed before Uruguay in the qualifying and have more than one excellent player, unlike Uruguay who have only Suarez - and if you're nice, than maybe count Cavani too) are an easy group. Australia hasn't been easy to win either with their tough play-style. If anything, Italy-Group has shown to be a Group of "Dumb way to die".
And finally, we are actual at the point where you basically start to say that the win against Chile wasn't really a win, because it was a close one. 2:0, a close win... Yup yup, the denial... I've said at the start of this discussion, that this would happen in a sarcastic tone and now it has come true.
I fail to see the reason behind your claim of a destruced Spain: If anything, they were destroyed by Netherlands in that game, however that was because of the quality of Netherlands in that case. Spain didn't go into this tournament with a crisis on their back or with many injured players. They had the same coach that lead them to two triumphs. Their potential is still incredible. Every player in this squad is world-class. Even the guys on the bench. Look the market price about for them and for the clubs whom they play. You talk about Spain like you talk about some unknown Team straigth from Asia or Africa.
They had one bad half that ruined their tournament. So what? See, my problem is: I think they have been shit in this second half of the match against Netherlands, yes, but Netherlands were also really great in this match. A football match is always played by TWO sides. However, you say - in your tone - that Spain are basically shit and that they are an easy team to beat, and that Chile is apparently an easy team to beat too ("even if you count Chile in" - you make them sound like some 3rd grade Nice-To-Be-Here Team, when they were from many people a secret favourite for the world cup), which just doesn't hold up with your arguments. Therefor Netherlands apparently had an easy job... which is untrue. If you want to see an easy group, watch Argentina and Belgium again.
Shonak wrote:
Besides that, the first half of the match Spain was the superior side against Netherlands, and if Silva would have scored, the match probably (who know for sure?) would have been over. But Netherlands made a great comeback, turned the match around and put the first nail into Spain, with Chile finishing it off. I don't know what your opinion on Spain is in general but posts in this thread have shown that you have been as surprised as anyone of us by this NEL-ESP.
Yes, I was, as everyone else, surprised by that result, as Spain was one of the favourites because of their reputation and past. I still don't know how does this make sense and where did I say I wasn't surprised? After that match, nothing could surprise me, so Spain-Chile was somehow expected result for me.
You yourself wrote:
Spain was literally shit this time and I don't understand how can you count them as a serious team and opponent. I mean, they have a reputation of WC and EC winner, but if you actually watched their games this year (including frendlies), you'd realise why I keep saying that they're shit.
First off, literally means this. You are basically saying that Spain is a pile of shit.
That aside, this definitely sounds like you apparently knew before the World Cup that Spain were to be kicked out of the group - big time, because you say that they are an awful team all year long. But no, you also claim they are favourites now but then again, the favourites are no "serious team"?! Can't you see that you run in circles, boy?! You even claim that they have been shit before this World Cup. Spain, the absolute World Elite, the number one in the FIFA World Ranking. If they are shit, than what is everybody else supposed to be? What's England, Italy & Uruguay huh? What about your home country then, how are awful are they? How shitty is football in general when one of the best teams is it?
Let me remind you, that Netherlands - Spain was THE sensation and the surprise of this World Cup. No one really expected that such a big win for the dutch. (However, I must admit: I have tipped on a win for Netherlands ). Don't be so pretentious as to claim that Spain is shit because of 1 1/2 games.
Besides that, the fact remains that Spain were the better side in the first half of the match and had the chance to seal the deal back then. Quite a thing to do for such a shit team to dominate your opponent for the first half. But believe it or not, Spain are not the first team that fell apart after an excellent first half,and won't be the last. It's common in football and it's part of the game.
I explained "easy" job part above. I never said Spain 5-1 result IS NOT allowed to count as a valid result, but you just can't use one match for evidence for the attacking parts & their game-play style. And I still fail to see the point of this discussion, so I'll simply stop it. What do you want to do? To prove me wrong for having such an opininon? Or to make me like Team A because of some players?
Again: You can like and dislike whatever the heck you want. But when you write stuff like this in a forum, than don't be surprised when people respond to it. This is a forum after all, a place of discussion. But I agree, it's really best we end this discussion now because seemingly we're running in circles with a logic like that.
Edited by Shonak on 30-06-2014 08:56
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
Shame, you would have learned something. At least next time, when you go around spiting your opinion around - like for example, Spain is a shit team, I can quote this stuff and the discussion with you ends right at the start. In the end, this might save me a lot of time. Edited by Shonak on 30-06-2014 09:07
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
) 
). Don't be so pretentious as to claim that Spain is shit because of 1 1/2 games. 
