World Cup Final

The World Cup final is over; some ludicrous number of people watched some team beat the other team. The next tournament will be held in Germany in 2006. If you haven't watched the game for whatever reason, obviously you might want to avoid clicking through (or reading any other news site, or talking to anyone...). Neither of those two links should be a spoiler, though.

And for those that did click through, the final standings are up, as are lots and lots of reports about the game.

Comments

Very good game

[DeafDumbBlind]

Some amazing saves by the Brazillian keeper.
But what was up with those announcers???
Their analogies made absolutely no sense. I think that I would have understood more if I had watched the game on Univision (and I don't speak Spanish)

Re:Very good game

[rudiger]

i will admit, i am not a soccer/football, but i did watch a few games, and all i can say towards the goaltending is wtf? on a penalty shot, they just take a guess and dive one way when the ball is kicked and hope for the best... one game, the guy made all of TWO saves, and the announcer was down on him, saying he appeared weak and uncertain. it just seems bizarre that one of the most important positions seems to be the worst played.

Re:Very good game

[Majik]

And here's the sad thing...
At 9AM cst coverage continues on univision whereas as soon as the game ended the abc coverage ended, how damn pathetic. Not even the trophy presentation! We've made good strides for soccer in the USA, but not enough...
Viva Univision [despite my not understanding much...]

Re:Very good game

[blahedo]

Yeah, I've been watching on Univision, mostly because I don't get ESPN; but after I'd already seen the US-Poland game, I caught the last ten minutes of it on ABC two days later (*two days* delay, jeez), and they had something like two basketball analogies and one (American) football analogy just in the time I saw it. And then they went ON and ON and ON about how completely bizarre it was that we moved on to the elimination rounds in the "strangest possible way"---you know, by doing better than the other teams. But the commentators just didn't know the rules or something, and were really weirded out by the fact that we could lose the last game of the group and still take second within the group.

Anyway, yeah, I've been watching Univision. The only thing I miss is the explanations for the fouls ("una falta! mumble mumble mumble...") and cards. Better than just watching on mute, though, because I can get the excitement level from the commentators at least. And I swear I understand more Spanish than I did three weeks ago. :)

Re:Very good game

[spongman]

+1, yeah, that's pretty telling isn't it.

all the US channels want to do is sell you something, and all the spanish channels want you to do is to learn some spanish.

i watched them take the cup, and i didn't understand the word they were saying, but at least they weren't trying to sell me shoes.

Re:Very good game

[haystor]

Penalty kicks are taken from 36 feet out. If you don't guess you end up just standing there. You really only have enough time to react and move your hands arms or legs a little bit in the time it takes for a goal to be scored. Basically you pick an area of the goal, try to get there, and hope you get hit. If its nearly at you, maybe you can move your limbs the extra few inches to make the save.

The goalkeeping in this world cup has been superb. Several of the games that have ended up 1-0 or 2-0 have been nothing short of spectacular with plenty of chances. The only thing holding the score down in some cases has been the goalkeeping.

Kahn in particular has had a great tournament, and while some may criticize his bobble that would be a bit harsh after the saves he did make in the final. Rivaldo did take a wicked shot that forced that drop.

Brazil's keeper was also out of his mind to make his save on the free kick in the first half.

Re:Very good game

[daveirl]

I'm not trolling but the commentary on American TV is terrible. When I was over in the US I was watching a match on ESPN and they were screaming GOOOAAALL!! and stuff like that. They picked that up off some South American commentator and to be honest it doesn't work if you're not South American.

Re:Very good game

[Otter]

Yeah, I've been watching on Univision, mostly because I don't get ESPN; but after I'd already seen the US-Poland game, I caught the last ten minutes of it on ABC two days later (*two days* delay, jeez), and they had something like two basketball analogies and one (American) football analogy just in the time I saw it.

ESPN had different announcers and commentators from the guys on ABC today. They were much better, just like their hockey games with Gary Thorne, Bill Clement and Darren Pang are much better than when a series goes to ABC and John Davidson.

Also, the ESPN/ABC broadcasts lagged Univision by 3-4 seconds, which provided a nice replay feature -- you could quickly switch to the English broadcast to see a play again.

Anyway, yeah, I've been watching Univision. The only thing I miss is the explanations for the fouls ("una falta! mumble mumble mumble...") and cards.

Interestingly, while the ESPN crew all agreed that the hand ball by Germany against the US was a correct non-call, the Univision announcers were foaming at the mouth that there should have been a penalty kick.

Re:Very good game

[thegrommit]

A similar thing happened during the Olympic hockey game. The US lost in the final, but NBC didn't bother showing them receiving their silver medals.

Given that professional soccer in the US is less popular than hockey, I'm pleasantly surprised that they even bothered to show the game live.

Re:Very good game

[saviorsloth]

"Interestingly, while the ESPN crew all agreed that the hand ball by Germany against the US was a correct non-call, the Univision announcers were foaming at the mouth that there should have been a penalty kick."

a little bit of info on what a "correct non-call" of a hand ball is in soccer, since i'm a soccer referee and this is something that i get a lot of grief from people about.
it isn't illegal to have the ball touch your hand, since the rules state that a hand ball is called only when a player intentionally strikes the ball with his hand, so when the ball touches a player's hand, the referee has to decide whether the player intentionally struck the ball or not, and if the ref decides that the ball unintentionally hit the player's hand, there is no foul and play continues. this is a sure way to get your ass yelled at, especially if everyone sees it and it's inside the penalty area like that was

Re:Very good game

[cozziewozzie]

During a penalty, the goalkeeper is not allowed to leave the goal line until the ball is struck.
The goal is 7.32 metres wide, leaving about 3 metres either side of the goalkeeper, while the penalty spot is 11 metres away from the goal line. It is impossible for any human being to watch the ball fly, then jump to stop it, as the speed of the ball can go over 100 km/h.

The only chance a goalkeeper has is to try to read the player's movements and guess which side of the goal he will shoot at. Even with shots coming from 20+ metres, the goalkeeper sometimes can't get to the right place in time.

During a penalty, the player is at such a clear advantage that only luck or nerves can stop a goal -- and that's the main reason people miss penalties -- they get too nervous and shoot poorly.

Re:Very good game

[El Puerco Loco]

even franz beckenbauer said the hand ball should have been called. we wuz robbed.

Re:Very good game

[SerpentMage]

Franz Beckenbaur has an axe to grind with the German trainer and German Football team. WHY? I have no idea. But it could be that he thinks he is the German God of football. And because the Kirch Empire who bought the rights to the Football coverage in Germany turned out to be the BIGGEST dud of his life. (Kirch group is bankrupt) He was supposed to be their star analyst. But it turns out that people enjoy watching the free TV stuff and did not buy into Premiere. The point is that Beckenbaur has been trumped in the spotlight and he wants to be back in it at all costs.

But the call was 100% percent correct. The arm did not even move to block or move after the block. It was there unintentionally, hence not a penalty.

Re:Very good game

[Kwelstr]

you are a referee????!!!! C'mon man, that WAS a penalty kick in any country where they play real FOOTBALL. You cannot stop the ball at the goal line with YOUR HAND if the hand is AWAY from the body. He saved the goal illigally, ergo, penalty kick to compensate.

I read the papers from England, Italy and Spain and they ALL agree on that one.

Now ref, go study some more will ya.

Re:Very good game

[teslatug]

I'm really MAD at ABC...they go and spend a ton of cash for the greatest sporting event in the World, and event which happens only once in 4 years, and they don't even show the game live (at least in my city they didn't). To add insult to injury, they delay the re-airing and then don't even show the handing of the cup ceremony. Damn bastards, they ruined it for the those of us stuck in the US. They should have let ESPN(2) have all the games live.

Another thing to complain about, was the camera work. I don't know if ESPN(2)/ABC had their own crew filming in Korea and Japan, but the camera angles were just horrendous.

Re:Very good game

[Nasheer]

But what was up with those announcers???

Now, a chance to get my karma back. (Probably burned it in the last post).

There was a moment TV showed a banner in the audience: It was in english, and read "God is Brazilian". This a very famous quote here.

Another one, this time in portuguese, the coach and the team showed to the audience read "Obrigado pelo carinho!", translated: "Thank you, Brazil, for your cherish!".

Other banners:

"Gaviões da Fiel" -> "Faithful Hawk": An organized group of enthusiasts of the brazilian team Corinthians.

"Pentacampeão" -> "Five-times Champion".
I don't remember other announcements, but if someone does, put them here so I can explain what they mean.

Re:Very good game

[Nasheer]

Excusez-moi, gentlemen, but I am a South American (BR) and now I am really curious on how the american commendators report a goal.

Do they simply say "goal" (no exclamation mark) and stop talking?

Re:Very good game

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I watched it on UniVision here. The best was hearing (in Spanish) "It's a bird, a plane, it's SUPER-KAHN!" and I don't even speak spanish either.

Re:Very good game

[Quikah]

I was more mad about the fact that they didn't even bother to broadcats it in HD when the whole thing is already setup for HD in Korea and Japan. They just needed to get the HD feed from then and broadcast.

Re:Very good game

[vrt3]

A penalty kick occurs when the defending team makes a foul in the penalty area, which is the larger of the two rectangles around the goal. (When a foul is committed outside of the penalty area, a free kick is taken from the place where the foul occurred.)

Penalties are also used to decide an otherwise undecided game, but only in world cup-style tournaments. In regular competitions, draws are perfectly acceptable (as in the first round of the world cup).

Re:Very good game

[packeteer]

I dont mean to diss on socc^H^H^H^H football but if you want to see some incredible looking goaltending watch some hockey. Football goaltending is good if you know how to appreciate it but if you watch hockey anyone can see some beautiful saves. In hockey the goaltender must stop an 8 ounce black puck made of vulcanized rubber from passing into the net... going sometimes upwards of 100mhp. What you expect goalies to do sound like EXACTLY what a hockey goalie SHOULD do. So leave football alone and watch some hockey...

Re:Very good game

[orange7]

No thanks. I used to watch hockey (go Pens), but have given up on the game as of this season. With the constant clutching and grabbing and fouling, it must be the dullest sport in the world. (Okay, I exaggerate -- there's always golf.) The only winning strategy is interfering with or screening the goalie while someone shoots from outside. Yawn.

I should make it clear I'm talking about the North American version. The larger-rinked European game is probably more fun.

A.

Re:Very good game

[Amanset]

Of course it has to be an offence that requires a direct free kick (so, for example, a backpass from inside the area that the goalkeeper picks up does not end in a penalty), but let's not confuse matters :o)

Re:Very good game

[ChiPHeaD23]

As far as I know the camera crews/feed are from a German company formed specifically for this purpose (and Germany 2006, apparently). Still, you figure that Germans would know soccer/football and have figured out how to show the damn BALL instead of showing player reactions when teams are close to scoring.

Re:Very good game

[Qrlx]

But what was up with those announcers???

The American announcers are not very good. That was definitely detracting from my enjoyment of this World Cup. I did watch may of the games on Univision, and my spanish ain't very good but I could understand a little here and there.

Someone said the US announcers said the Brazilian goal keeper looked weak? How about that save of Neuville's free kick? That was correctly described as "incredible" and "one of the best saves of the tournament" by the BBC announcers that covered the game for the CBC. (I live near Canada, thank God who I don't even believe in. Unlike Edmilson apparently who traded in his yellow jersey for Jesus Heart You. Great play from him, though; he saved Brazil's bacon a few times in the first half.)

Americans just don't understand world-level competitions. Look at NBC's pathetic coverage of Summer Olympics 2000 in Sydney. None of it was Live, most of it was about the Dream Team (since when did they change the Olympic motto to Higher Stronger Faster More Razzle Dazzle). By contrast, the CBC showed SEVENTEEN HOURS A DAY of LIVE Olympic coverage, and they bothered to show the athletes that won events, not only the atheletes that were Canadian.

If you watched the game on American TV, I'm guessing you missed the presentation of the medals and Cafu triumphantly lifting the trophy high in the air. Both Univision and the CBC had at least anohter hour of coverage after the final whistle, while my local ABC station was already into the home-town Good Morning America.

American coverage of International sporting events is emarrassing and offensive.

Re:Very good game

[porges]

In English, Portuguese, and German (in that order on the sign):

"Germany is a great team and fully deserves to come in second."

(Paraphrased.)

To translate "Obrigado pelo carinho!" I'd suggest "Thank you for your support"; "...your cherish" won't do, because "cherish" is a verb.

Re:Very good game

[packeteer]

If the stick is moving in a certain way there's only one direction the puck can go

no offense to you because you probably dont play hockey but... this is SOOOO not true... personall i DO play hockey... im a goalie too (maybe that explains my bias towards hockey goalies :))... i know from experiance that regarless of where there stick is pointing you simply cannot tell where the puck will go... a shooter can change the position of the stick while he takes a shot which easily makes any guessing you just did useless... the only thing a hockey goalie can do is move out and cut off the angles and readjust a little... very few goalies can react quick enough to a shot to stop it after its been released by the shooter... goalies of this skill level are the ones who end up in the NHL... THAT is why its fun to watch... in the NHL (and even semi-pro) the goalies can be on a completly different level then anyone else in the world which makes it fun to watch...

Re:Very good game

[pdcull]

To translate "Obrigado pelo carinho!" I'd suggest "Thank you for your support"; "...your cherish" won't do, because "cherish" is a verb. Carinho is a hard one to translate - it would probably be closer to something like friendliness (concern, tenderness, carefulness).

Re:Very good game

[uradu]

> American coverage of International sporting events is emarrassing and offensive.

Amen. Our ABC affiliate preferred to sell the 6am-12am block to a set of infomercials for tighter asses. So even though my TiVo thought it was showing me the World Cup at 7am, I had instead the enraging pleasure of watching spandexed women's asses. Only a call to the affiliate revealed the information that this game will only be seen tape-delayed at 12:30pm. The only thing that saved the individual's life at the other end of the line was the distance separation. For a few hours there I genuinely cursed living in this football-forsaking country.

Re:Very good game

[uradu]

> I read the papers from England, Italy and Spain and they ALL agree on that one.

Well, gee, the press of three countries famous for their love of Germany and German football. No offense, but the only good thing about Germany you'll ever read in an English rag is when it gets blown up by some terrorist nuke, and even that will merely be a "good riddance."

Besides, what counts is what the ref sees. You want unfair hand balls? How about Maradona's Hand Of God? Or how about even the US in the previous game?

Re:Very good game

[uradu]

Well, as a fellow German, take heart. At least you got a live ABC feed (it seems). Our affiliate in Chattanooga preferred to show tight ass infomercials instead, all morning long. While I enjoy a nice tight female ass in spandex as much as the next guy on most days, today wasn't the day for that. I was frothing at the mouth. Luckily Univision came through. You'd just think Spanish could come up with a shorter word for ball--even German managed to, and God knows we're not monosyllabic.

Re:Very good game

[uradu]

Oh please, a large hockey goalie can pretty much cover the entire width of the goal up with his body and the stick. If Kahn played hockey, he could widen himself to wrap entirely around the puny hockey goal.

Re:Very good game

[gleam]

where I am, univision was also 10 seconds ahead of ABC, so you could watch it on univision, and when something exciting happened, switch to ABC and hear about it in english the a second time.

-gleam

Re:Very good game

[packeteer]

this is not true... a hockey net is 6'x4' so i doubt that ANYONE is 6' wide... also a puck is MUCH smaller than a soccer ball.. a hockey puck can be shot between the legs or arms of a goalie AND a hockey can player has much mnore room to move around a hockey goalie... in fact a player can go behind the goal unlike football...

Re:Very good game

[Quaternion]

The camera crews weren't American -- I actually thought that the camera angles were alright, at least we got a lot fewer crowd shots. Have you watched an NBA game recently? 30% of the game is crowd shots, or interviews with someone in the crowd, etc etc.

Also, I don't think that ABC/ESPN spent any money to "win" the rights to show this. They were basically bribed (or at least, the deal was sweetened _considerably_) by the same soccer millionaires who've been propping up the MLS.

Of course, the ratings were decent enough that they'll probably be willing to spend their own money on it in 2006.

Re:Very good game

[Quaternion]

I don't really believe that "intentional" is _necessarily_ tied to whether you move your arm at the ball or not. I mean, someone _could_ "intentionally" leave their arm in the path of the ball, knowing that the ball will hit it and fall to their side. In that situation, the hand and arm would be stationary, but the right call would (should) be a handball. The rules say something about "intent," but nothing about whether you have to move your hand or not.

I'm not saying that was the case here, with Frings on the goalline... but my complaint is that that kind of stuff is routinely called a handball anyway. The US would have scored was it not for that hand. More likely is that Hugh Dallas just didn't see the handball, and uses the "well, it probably was unintentional" defense after the fact.

Re:Very good game

[SerpentMage]

Yes I agree regarding the definition that somebody could intentionally leave their hand in the way.

But in the case of the US game the arm was at the side of the player in a usual posture. It was not in a posture to stop the ball like a goal keeper would. It was totally unintentional and therefore the right call.

About not seeing the handball. I doubt that one. Did you see the speed at which the ref ran to block any discussion? He knew darn tooting well what happened and he ran to block off any complaints or arguments. He did not want a fight breaking out because he knew the call would be controversial.

Also the ref was Scottish and I really doubt that he was not paying attention. Most European refs have been pretty good and they have enough experience in the European leagues.

Re:Very good game

[Quaternion]

Like I said before: it probably was unintentional in this case. My complaint is that it still would have been called a penalty, unintentional or not, in most other situations.

As for seeing or not seeing the handball: my impression about the ref running in was that it was due to the fact that, immediately after the handball, the ball fell into Kahn's hands and a US player slid into him. Most refs are going to run in to protect a goalkeeper, and most refs will act decisive (even if they're not sure about _everything_ that happened) to assert their authority and keep the game calm (I know this from experience: I've been a ref myself for several years). And I bet (neither one of us can say for sure) that if he felt at the time that there was controversy, it was due to the possibility that the ball crossed over the line... or at least the possibility that the US players would say it did (personally, I don't believe it did).

I know the ref (Hugh Dallas) was Scottish, and it has nothing to do with him paying attention or not. Even the best refs make mistakes, I'm not blaming him (and I'm not alleging a conspiracy). It wasn't an intentional mistake, just the type of call that typically goes against the US, that's all.

As for European refs: I thought the Swiss ref (Urs Maier?) was pretty bad in a couple of games. And the Portugese ref? What was his name?

Refereeing problems didn't skip the Europeans either.

Re:Very good game

[ccp]

I agree with your post, but professional goalies do a lot more than that:

They study penalty shooters, their previous shots, their habits, how do they execute under pressure, etc.

Then, they look at the stance, the angle of approach to the ball, the position of BOTH feet, and at the last possible moment, they evaluate the information, choose a side and hope they guessed right.

NOTHING is simple at world class level.

Cheers,

Re:Very good game

[Abreu]

There have been lots of football goals shot between the legs of the keeper, mostly because the keeper (as in hockey) tries to stretch himself to try to cover as much of the shooting area as possible.

Brasil!

[hero]

Great game! Ronaldo's double gave him 8 for this world cup, securing the golden boot, and 12 lifetime, tying Pele for most goals by a Brazilian in the final. Amazing to see Brasil win it after all the trouble they had in qualifying, using 4 coaches and 70+ players!

Interestingly enough, Brasil will have to re-qualify for the next world cup since from now on the champion doesn't automatically get in. Germany does not have to qualify because they're hosting it.

Whoo!@

-hero.

Re:Brasil!

[theCulture]

Although you have to say the reason that Brazil had such trouble qualifying in the first place was because so many of their European-based players (often the best ones in the Brazilian squad, of course) weren't available for qualifying matches!

As for tying Pele, it's amazing, and impressive. But you have to remember that Pele spent an entire world cup injured after getting crocked (Brit term for being injured by being harshly marked) in the very first game - and that was when he was in his 20s, I'm sure he'd have scored plenty.

Afterall, this man has scored no less that 92 (count 'em!) hat tricks in his career!

Maradona eat your heart out.

Re:Brasil!

[krahd]

I'm sorry I have to strongly disagree.
The last match, at least, was useful to prove one thing about the world cup: regularity, that is, every match was awful, with everybody defending instead of creating something fun to watch.

Now, add the decisive role played by the referees (just remember brazil's imaginary penalty, germany's invisible hand-on-ball, spain vs korea, and a long etcetera...), and you'll have all the "world cup champion" concept relativized... it looks that the only two things that matter are how good are you defending and how much extra help you are able to afford.

Pretty sad... football is the greatest sport (and the FIFA is the most profitable sport-related-organization).

too bad!
krahd

Re:Brasil!

[imr]

Interestingly enough, Brasil will have to re-qualify for the next world cup since from now on the champion doesn't automatically get in.
Which is good for them, because you need the last qualification matches to know the real shape of a team and make final adjustements (like germany, whose team got reborn after the match against ukraine).

Re:Brasil!

[jayhawk88]

Why is it whenever I see the word "Brasil" I can't help thinking about that voice from the original Street Fighter 2 Arcade game? Go Blanka!

Re:Brasil!

[RebelTycoon]

Blah... I'll admit it... I am a poor loser.

They should have crocked Ronaldo... Sure that would have looked bad, and I probably wouldn't like to see it happen.

BUT DAMN IT. I WOULD BE PARTYING RIGHT NOW!!!

Instead I'm here reading Slashdot. This so sucks.

Re:Brasil!

[cozziewozzie]

BTW, the best world cup goalscorer of all time is still Gerd Mueller from Germany, with 14. If Ronaldo repeats his performance in the next world cup, he could beat that one too.

Re:Brasil!

[rodolfo.borges]

Defending? Brazil scored more times than any other team, and brazilian's defense was awful (just watch Brazil vs Costa Rica and you'll see).
And Ronaldo scored in all matches, with 8 goals in 7 matches (Rivaldo scored 5).

Re:Brasil!

[rodolfo.borges]

He made it all, and still he was far from his 100%. Next time he will be back with double strengh, beware!
(If they don't break him, I hope.)

Go RONALDO!

Re:Brasil!

[SerpentMage]

I do not think Renaldo will be around next time. And if he is then he will be a second round star player.

The difference with the German team is that most of the players are young. The Germans breaking the mould actually played a young player (go figure) with the tender age of 21. If some of you are saying huh? Germany has been notorious in the past in recruiting "seniors" to play in their team. In the last cup I think Germany either had the oldest or second oldest average age tema. I think only three players will retire (also their star goalie :( Kahn). Klose, Ballack, Neuville etc are all fairly young and they look VERY promising.

Re:Brasil!

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Portuguese is a tough language, I took some lessons last time I was down there. When you have one s in the middle of a word, it's pronounced as a z. So the Pronounciation is 'Brah ZILL'. interesting to hear the spanish channels pronounce it, they spell it Brasil, but pronounce it as an s, so it's Brah-SILL to them.

Re:Brasil!

[Nasheer]

I am a poor winner, but I'll help you. I am reading Slashdot too.

Re:Brasil!

[vrt3]

tying Pele for most goals by a Brazilian in the final

Yes, but must you must take into account that Pele did it with less games. Nowadays, 32 teams enter the world cup, whereas that number was 16 in Pele's time.

Re:Brasil!

[pdion]

Gerd Mueller is the top combined goalscorer since his 14 goals are from three competitions.
The best goalscorer from one competition is still Jyst(sp?), France with 13 goals in 1958.
Ronaldo is also the first topscorer to score more than 6 goals since 1974 (that's 28 years). In all the worl cups fronm 1978 to 1998 the topscorer scored 6 goals.

Re:Brasil!

[howlingfrog]

...with everybody defending instead of creating something fun to watch.

I beg to differ. Except for baseball, the following is true of every sport I can think of: If you don't know anything about it, good offense is fun to watch. If you do know something about it, good defense is fun to watch. If you really understand the strategy of a sport, the better it's played, the happier you are as a spectator. The rules favor the defense in football/soccer, which means that a match played perfectly by both teams will end in a 0-0 draw. You're right that quality of play wasn't up to par for the most part, but the low scoring is a counterexample to that, not an argument in favor of it. In this case, the low scoring was more a matter of bad offense than good defense, but you have to remember that good defense will beat good offense.

Re:Brasil!

[cozziewozzie]

Mueller's combined score is from two world cups, 1970 and 1974. The record you are referring to was Just Fontaine's 13 goals in 1958 which is unlikely to get broken anytime soon.

Re:Brasil!

[ajshankar]

Hmmm.. how's that?

AFAIK they both scored their 12 goals in 14 games. Check the stats...

Re:Brasil!

[uradu]

> I really hate the fact that the Germans got
> such an easy run to the final.

Yeah, because Cameroon and South Korea were such pushovers. Even the Saudis, if they really sucked so badly, how come none of the others in the group came even close to that 8:0 spanking? Face it, that 5:0 fluke was a gift from the gods, which not even Brazil managed to equal today. If any team beats Germany 5:0, you know Germany must be having a collective Ronaldo moment (ca. 1998).

Re:Brasil!

[Lemmy Caution]

The beauty of Slashdot: cosmopoliton pathos.

Sigh. Maybe someday Peru will be in the cup again.

Re:Brasil!

[0123456789]

I do not think Renaldo will be around next time. And if he is then he will be a second round star player.

The difference with the German team is that most of the players are young.

Um, Ronaldo is only 25, he'll be 29 at the next world cup. Hardly ancient. He'll be younger at the next world cup than Linke, Rehmer, Ziege, Bierhoff and Bode were for this one.

Re:Brasil!

[SerpentMage]

Agreed, but you have to remember the Brazilian tends to be young and the German team is young as well. And also remember that Renaldo has just come off a VERY serious injury. Renaldo had his day in the sun that will be it. It would be his third cup and he would have a secondary role.

All of the players you mentioned from the German team will most likley not be there in the next round. Bierhoff is gone and he hardly played even this time. Yes in the past the German team tended to have older players, but that is in the past.

Today I saw on the news (German news) that they are working on keeping the age of the team low. Hence players like Klose, Neuville, Ballack, Kehle will be preferred. The focus is going to be on getting young talent that can play very well.

The only reason why Germany did not win is because Germany had no goal scorers. And that is what they need to get going for the next round.

A Brazilian Geek

[nullard]

As a Brazilian geek, I had to check Slashdot after the game.

Penta!

Re:A Brazilian Geek

[Nasheer]

I didn't know that there were other BraSilian /.ters. In 5 years of /. I knew only 3 "brazucas", and NONE from their posts, but from RL.

In fact, I am pretty impressed that that this kind of new showed here. Maybe the fact that the yakees had their best World Cup helped.

--
"Eu, sou Brasileiro! Com muito orgulho! Com muito amor!"

Re:A Brazilian Geek

[BohKnower]

Five!!

At least 8 years to another team catch us, but I don't think this will happen so soon.

"Todo mundo tenta, mas só o Brasil é penta"

Re:A Brazilian Geek

[pdcull]

...second time lucky!

Remember all those 'Rumo ao Penta' posters around in 1998? At least they finally got used this time around.

...although where I am (interior of RJ) nobody seemed very interested until they had won the first few games.

Still it was a great ending to what started so badly. I hope they keep Felipão on for a while.

Re:A Brazilian Geek

[ChiPHeaD23]

Mais um!!!

I'm just glad it' over...

[56ker]

and things can get back to normal. For someone who's not interested in football - the last few weeks of having it right, left & centre (especially here in England) has been annoying to say the least.

Re:I'm just glad it' over...

[SparkyMartin]

Here, here, I second that! Finally it's off the air, not that it bothered me much since I didn't watch it.

Re:I'm just glad it' over...

[Ilgaz]

It will take 1-2 weeks before all football "specialists" tell their comments... So don't party yet :)))

Re:I'm just glad it' over...

[Nasheer]

Nah, you're just upset because we sent your spice kid back home.

Re:soccer?

[melloncollienet]

and real sport is one that requires no physical activity.

true world champions

[Gerp]

Brazil by far the best team in the world at the moment will have to qualify for the next world cup in Germany 2006 where as runners-up Germany get a free ticket as hosts, oh the irony!

The world cup was a fantastic success, it's great to see a competition where the world champions actually have to play teams outside of their own country unlike the superbowl or so called 'world series' ;)

Re:true world champions

[Gerp]

FIFA have changes the rules for the next world cup. For the first time the champions have to qualify, only the hosts get to the finals automatically.

Some would argue that the qualifying process is good the for the teams. France entered this years competition probably short of much needed competitive games under their belt and looked a little bit off the pace - I'm sure they will be back next time however.

Re:true world champions

[delphos]

The 'world series' has nothing to do the the
world. It was originally sponsored by the
(long dead) newspaper called the New York World.

Re:true world champions

[Jucius Maximus]

"The world cup was a fantastic success, it's great to see a competition where the world champions actually have to play teams outside of their own country unlike the superbowl or so called 'world series' ;)"

This is one of the things that make the Olympics great as well.

Re:true world champions

[Killeri]

Unless you didn't notice, the world champions of 1998 didn't win a single game in this tournament. Who knows what will happen to Brazil in four years. A good change, IMO.

Re:true world champions

[ostiguy]

Why do people get so worked up over this? In reality, the world series isn't that awful of a name - name me a baseball club anywhere else that could compete with the us pro teams?

That said, there is some talk of a baseball world cup, and despite the typical Euro's unwavering belief that only Americans play baseball, it would be pretty awesome to see a us side play a dominican side.

ostiguy

Re:true world champions

[cozziewozzie]

Brazil hasn't played against any of the top 10 ranked teams in this worldcup (with the exception of Germany in the final). And they struggled against England (ranked 11, I believe) and Belgium, not to mention Turkey (twice). They were only convincing against China and Costa Rica.

What makes you say they are by far the best team in the world? Despite the undeniable talent of Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and even Rivaldo (whose talents extend to acting), the team itself is the worst Brazil's had in decades.

Re:true world champions

[Ilgaz]

" not to mention Turkey (twice)."

Oh get over it, we are worlds 3rd team, fucking racist

Re:true world champions

[cozziewozzie]

I said that they had large problems playing with Turkey twice. The first game should have been a tie anyway. The fact that you have an inferiority complex to cure doesn't make me a racist. Congratulations to Turkey for excellent games and you go get a brain.

Re:true world champions

[Ilgaz]

Don't forget Galatasaray (which makes most of national team) is an UEFA champion too and Supercup. So, "not to mention", is like you speak about a surprise result or something.

They didn't play bad, we played good. And first game, yea that referee... Not to mention thousands of faxes/e-mails to our embassy apologizing for him, from Koreans.

I have no complexes and I am sure on Internet for 6-7 years and know attidude of people like you.

You get a pure clean mind that figures we are all homo sapiens or something

Re:true world champions

[jt007]

Can we settle this once and for all, Germany automatically qualify (as hosts in 2006), Brazil don't. Read the official FIFA announcement here.

Re:true world champions

[nickos]

Imagine that I made up a game that was similar to another game already in existance but only played by me and my mates. Then imagine that we held a little league and called it the Global League. Wouldn't that be daft?

Re:true world champions

[mickwd]

Rubbish - Brazil didn't struggle against England - and I'm an English guy saying this.

Not to say that Brazil were brilliant against us, though - more the case that we were poor (and no, I don't just mean the goalkeeper).

Remember that we also had a one-man advantage for 30 mins, yet we made it look like it was Brazil who had the extra man.

Re:true world champions

[nickos]

In England, baseball is not played or watched at all. School kids play a game called rounders which seems similar to baseball. I haven't heard of any other EU states having any interest in baseball either.

AFAIK cricket is played pretty much exclusively by ex British Empire countries and not followed by anyone else in Europe. I don't think cricket is as important to England as baseball is to the USA though - football is pretty much the universal sport.

Re:true world champions

[Hassan79]

I dunno though, could someone from Europe reply. Is baseball very popular over there?

Well, we in Tuebingen (Germany) have a baseball team that plays in the highest german lague, and their average number of spectators last year was 350!

Re:true world champions

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

When they played Costa Rica, sat most of their players for rest and yellow card issues, and still whipped their ass 5-2. Costa Rica got close (3-2) and Brazil just turned it up a notch and went to work, scoring 2 goals in like 10 minutes.

Re:true world champions

[RetroGeek]

name me a baseball club anywhere else that could compete with the us pro teams

Ok, how about the Blue Jays?

Re:true world champions

[mangu]

Alow me to pick a nit: the World Cup is not the same as the World Championship. The World Championship is played every year in Japan, matching the best club in South America against the best club in Europe. Therefore, the World Cup Champion is a national team that wins the World Cup, the World Champion is a club that wins the World Championship.

Re:true world champions

[EverDense]

In reality, the world series isn't that awful of a name - name me a baseball club anywhere
else that could compete with the us pro teams?

You seem to be living under the illusion that people in other countries care about baseball.

There is a lot of world, outside the USofA.

Re:true world champions

[rodgerd]

I hate to enlighten you, but next to cricket, baseball is irrelevant as a world sport.

Re:true world champions

[rodgerd]

Actually, the Dutch play cricket. Just not terribly well, it has to be said.

And those ex-British Empire countries constitute something like 1.5 billion people. Which puts the small fan base for baseball in perspective 8).

Re:true world champions

[Snoopy77]

Oh dear, just a quick search of the internet could have saved you the embarrasment of discovering that Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, The Carribean and Mother England have been competing in a World Cup for quite some time now (one-day cricket) and most of these teams have been playing test matches against each other for over a hundred years. There are also other emerging teams like Zimbabwe (hard to call them emerging now though - their actually quite a decent team), Bangladesh, Kenya and even Canada.

But just in case you were wondering we do play baseball down here in Australia and we actually won a couple years back a sort of baseball world cup. Yes, the US, and Dominican teams did not field any major league players (I think) but we won none the less.

Re:true world champions

[cozziewozzie]

No, I am not forgetting Galatasaray (or Fenerbahce or Besiktas), but we were talking about the World cup, right?

As for "not to mention", you misunderstood, but this is not a grammar discussion and your argument is a strawman because I never even hinted at being racist. You don't know me and you don't know attitudes of people like me.

Turkey have played an outstanding World Cup and have kicked the reigning world champions' arses twice. How do you want me to say it so you don't get offended?

My point was that Brazil are not by far the best team in the world, and I stand by it.

Re:true world champions

[cozziewozzie]

Agreed that England disappointed in that match, especially in the second half, but there were only two good chances in the whole game (and three goals) so you can't really call it anything but a struggle.

Re:true world champions

[Kuja]

Brazil, as any other team which won and will win any World Cup, won't have to qualify for the next World Cup. This a rule from FIFA.

Re:true world champions

[uradu]

> Rubbish - Brazil didn't struggle against England

No, not against England, but against Belgium they sure did.

Re:true world champions

[sekicho]

Tell that to a Cuban, Mexican, Japanese, Korean...

Re:true world champions

[ostiguy]

You seem to have not read my second paragraph. Why do Euros consistently discount the Dominicans, Cubans, Japanese, etc status?

ostiguy

Re:true world champions

[Snoopy77]

... Brit, South African, Kenyan, Zimbabwean, Pakistani, Indian, Sri Lankan, Bangladese, Malaysian, Indonesian, Australian, New Zealander, Jamacian, every other Carribean nation (except for Dominican Rep)

Re:true world champions

[Saint Fnordius]

"Brazil by far the best team in the world at the moment will have to qualify for the next world cup in Germany 2006 where as runners-up Germany get a free ticket as hosts, oh the irony!"

It was at the request of a lot of the members, as the qualifying round lets a coach iron out a lot of the problems in his team, keep cohesion, and so on.

The automatic qualification for France was (according to conventional wisdom) one of the leading reasons why they fared so poorly. The stars were too busy playing for their contract clubs, doing merchandising tours, and never really gelled into a team.

That said, I enjoyed the 2002 World Cup. It's one of the few pro games left that hasn't changed its rules to pander to the TV ad structure.

Re:true world champions

[BJH]

You forgot Fiji.

Re:true world champions

[CProgrammer98]

Bzzzzzt WRONG WRONG and thrice WRONG
Fifa changed the rules so now only the host nation(s) automatically qualify

Re:true world champions

[RoninM]

Of course, given the number of international players in the major leagues (you'd be hard pressed to find a baseball team without at least a starting player from Central America/the Caribbean), it's more and more becoming a world series.

Re:true world champions

[EverDense]

Aussie Rules is a game. Darts, now THAT is a sport.

go Ronaldo go

[atari2600]

Ronadlo erased the memories of the last world cup where he was unable to play thanks to an unwelcome fit. Teamwork won them their cup though.

About the champion being needing to qualify, i think thats good, since you see what happened to France..coming to the world cup having qualified and played as a team helps them in their campaign rather than come in from a dozen different clubs and expect to bulldoze the opposition.

.sig
Teamwork rules :)

Re:go Ronaldo go

[Gerv]

Ronaldo played in the last World Cup; his fit was just before the final, but he (controversially) played anyway, and had a terrible game.

Gerv

Re:Where are the US ?

[Lictor]

They were knocked out by Germany in the quarter-finals if I remember correctly.

Thanks for a amazing month

[Mindjiver]

I would like to thank all the teams that played in the world cup for all the joy and happiness they created in the whole world. Sports maybe can't make a better world but it can bring happiness to people all around the globe.

For me personally the joy I shared with my friends when Anders Svensson scored that amazing goal against Argentina will be with me for the rest of my life.

Now we just have to wait four years until the next world cup, it will be a long wait!

Great World Cup!

[Wenjie]

It was a great game. Brazil won it for a record 5th time, and to think they actually had problems qualifying for it. This World Cup also saw a couple of countries not known for their football catching up with the other traditional football countries, like Senegal, Turkey, Korea, and USA. All in all, this World Cup will be best remembered as a World Cup of upsets. Who would have thought that the defending champion, France, got kicked out during the first round, without having a single point, without scoring a single goal? It will also be remembered as a World Cup of controversies. Korea's path to the semi finals were filled with dubious referee decisions, so much so that one of the referee who was officiating the match between Italy and Korea, which the Koreans won eventually, was rumoured to be a target of the Italian mafia. Looking forward to World Cup 2006 in Germany!

Re:Great World Cup!

[Gerv]

France did in fact get a point, from a 0-0 draw.

Gerv

Re:Great World Cup!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the referees were pressured by FIFA to allow mediocre teams like Korea and Japan to advance to the quarter finals

Cough... USA...cough. FIFA is well-known for its pathetic desire to get football into the US market. God help us if they ever manage it - as I recently heard it put: it'll be four quarters, wider goals (higher score) and officials in pyjamas.

Re:Great World Cup!

[BJH]

mediocre teams like Korea and Japan

Agreed, the Korean matches were a joke, but were you actually watching the Japanese ones? They had to work for every point - they earned their place in the quarter-finals.

ABC Coverage in US!?!?

[duplicate-nickname]

In talking with friends around the country, it sounds like I'm not the only one who got up at 6:30 AM to find out that the local ABC station was not covering the World Cup final.

Why the fuck would a station rather schedule informercials instead of the World Cup final?? The most watched event on TV in the world and Americans are shown an easier way to roast chickens.

Luckily I'm in Michigan and have CBC available, or else I would have been watching it en espanol on Univision.

Was there anyone else here who didn't have ABC/ESPN coverage?

Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

ME. I am in bangor maine, I am from brazil, and I didn't watch. I actually called my parents in Brazil and listened to the whole game via the PHONE!!!!!

Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!?

[duplicate-nickname]

Yea, becuase this schedule:
6:30AM Paid Programming
7:00AM Paid Programming
7:30AM Living Word Outreach
8:00AM Coral Ridge Hour

would pick up more viewers than the World Cup Finals. Whatever...

Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!?

[sinserve]

ABC eats dick. They didn't even show us the celebration or even the ceremony.
I had to endure 15 minutes of "Prudential" and "Coca Cola" commercials waiting
for them to continue, but nothing. I had to flip through the chanels looking
for Telemundo, but I couldn't find it.

Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!?

[Guiri]

I actually called my parents in Brazil and listened to the whole game via the PHONE!!!!!

You know? There is a machine called "radio" or something like that ;)

Cheers.

Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!?

[Chris Pimlott]

In talking with friends around the country, it sounds like I'm not the only one who got up at 6:30 AM to find out that the local ABC station was not covering the World Cup final.

Sorry to hear about that. Here in Akron, OH, ABC not only showed it this morning, but they reran it at 12:30. Also, interestingly enough, ESPN _didn't_ air the 3rd place game live, but ABC did; and that was the more entertaining game in my opinion.

Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!?

[MxTxL]

I don't know what channel was carrying it, it was some weird channel, but it was the ABC coverage, with all the ABC logos and the ABC commentators and everything labeled ABC. But the channel definately wasn't ABC.

Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!?

[Anonymous DWord]

They played the World Cup on the radio in Bangor? Uh huh... I'm sure they had lots of listeners.

Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!?

[BJH]

For most nations that play soccer it is the only game in town, or rather, the country.

Yeah, just keep on telling yourself that while you play the baseball World Series with, what, a whole two countries?

Moron. I guess you think that everybody outside the US lives in mud huts and eats dirt, too.

Re:Where are the US ?

[Wenjie]

Just for info : 1st round USA 3 : Portugal 2 South Korea 1 : USA 1 Poland 3 : USA 1 2nd round Mexico 0 : USA 2 Quarter Finals Germany 1 : USA 0 A very good run for USA in this World Cup, I must say.

Let's hear it for the CBC

[s20451]

The CBC carried the semi-finals and finals live, and aired a number of games on tape delay. They also used the BBC audio feed, which provided probably the best English language commentary.

However, I'm told that FIFA was asking for an enormous amount of money for the rights to broadcast games ... CBC nearly didn't carry it, but they worked out some sort of deal. Maybe ABC thought it was too much to pay for a 6 AM broadcast ...

Re:Let's hear it for the CBC

[rbeattie]

It's even worse than it seems: ABC didn't have to pay a thin red dime for the rights. No one wanted to broadcast the games in the U.S. so Major League Soccer had to buy the rights and they GAVE Them way to ABC/ESPN just to promote Soccer in the U.S.

DISNEY SUCKS SOOOOOOO BAD.

-Russ

Re:Let's hear it for the CBC

[SerpentMage]

Funny thing I have an American buddy who lives in Ann Arbor and he had to watch the finals on CBC. For those wondering... CBC is Canada and he lives in the US close to the Canadian border (40 clicks).

He used to play college level football and hated the coverage that the American commentators had. They kept talking garbage (sort of like when European commentators comment NHL hockey, IT SUCKS!!!).

Re:Let's hear it for the CBC

[Anonymous DWord]

...and he had to watch the finals on CBC.

s/had/got/;

Re:Let's hear it for the CBC

[JonMartin]

Maybe they split the cost with TSN. TSN showed the games up to and including the quarterfinals live, then CBC showed the last four games live. All the while CBC and TSN were replaying the games off tape later in the day.

God bless the CBC and TSN. Fantastic coverage from both. If Americans only knew how terrible their networks' coverage of major international sporting events (eg. Olympics) really is...

Re:Let's hear it for the CBC

[SerpentMage]

How many have I heard? UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland (French, German).

Bzzt, Wrong

[tlhf]

They changed the rules.

tlhf
xxx

Re:Bzzt, Wrong

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

WHAT ??? they changed the rules and didn't tell me ???

someone will get royaly sued !!!

Brasilians do not have last names?

[zdzichu]

Accidentally seeing some match with brasilians, I saw, that they apparently don't have last names. Every team from other countries have players with First Name and Last Name, but not Brasil. Why?

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[Anonymous Coward]

The names on the back on their shirts are actually "nicknames" they have chosen. In general Brazilians have four names which they then choose a shorter moniker, much like the slashdot readers. Pele bears no resemblense to his full name, Edson Arantes do Nascimento.

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[jorlando]

That's easy to explain... here in Brazil people are called by their first name, calling somebody by it's last name is unusual (it happens mostly when there are two people with the same first name, so one is "elected" to being called for his last name...).
So all these players are known here by their first name... it would be very confusing for the Brazillian public see in the player's shirts their last names... even for foreigners, since almost nobody knows Ronaldo's last name (I know... but I forgot :-)

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[jorlando]

Vampeta is a nickname :-) It's a mix of "vampire" and "capeta" (devil). He got that nick when he was a child and his theeth were changing and fell...

It should be some kind of funny nickname that kids call themselves to bully each other and (at least in Brazil :-) ) if you don't like a nickname and express it... well, you've got a nickname :-)))

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[jorlando]

About the written things in the shirts, I didn't paid attention to them (I was yelling like a madman...), so I don't know what player's shirt you're talking about. But the were varius messages types... messages about winning the cup for the 5th time, messages to relatives, to the Brazilian public...

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[inerte]

It's Nazaro.

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[VEGx]

Most Brazilian players use "Actor names" just like Madonna.

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Dunno, maybe you should ask Magic that, or Madonna.

It's all nicknames, Brazilians are VERY big on nicknames, a very friendly, familiar kind of people.

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[jschrod]

On the shirts: Very often greetings to their beloved ones. Also many references to Jesus, I interpret them as prayers. E.g., one read "100% Jesus. 100% Bahia."

Best wishes to Brazil. As a German, I have to say, they deserved it - they were the better players. But then, vice world champion isn't bad as well; and we'll get our revanche in 4 years.

CU in Germany, world championship 2006.

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[Iber]

What about Roberto Carlos?

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[Da_man]

IT is claimed that Pele's nickname was given to him by an Irish Missionary Priest, based on the Irish word for a football, Peile.

Believe it if you like!!!

Re:Brasilians do not have last names?

[RoninM]

I would think Germany would be happy to just escape the US team. They were badly outplayed except in goalkeeping ("Chewbaca" Kahn is out of this world and a great sportsman; nearly pulled Donovan's arm off helping him up and is easily one of the ugliest goalkeepers in the world, though) -- not that Friedel did a bad job, he's also quite spectacular in goal.

In the Final: I don't know if Kahn keeps that rebound bottled up if he doesn't tear a ligament in his hand getting kicked by a Brazillian player. Or if Ronaldo didn't foul to recover the ball outside the penalty box (although the Germans should've just booted it clear; no reason for a guy on a team whose strength isn't in ball handling to try going through all of Brazil alone)... I'm not sure that first goal mattered, though. Brazil had found its rhythm and I think it could've been a lot worse than 2-0.

All well, Kahn's one of my favorite players (I hope he's back for 2006), and it's not just because the fun I can have with his name. Chewbaca Kahn not only aptly describes the fuzzy, yelling goalkeeper, but it reminds me of Shaka Kahn which makes me laugh. Of course, I should stop fooling around with his name before I draw the wrath of Kahn...

"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[Gerv]

Did you see the t-shirts? :-)

Great to see several Brazilian players (and the entire team, if that enormous circle was a prayer circle, which it seemed to be) giving credit where it's due for their talents and gifts :-)

Gerv

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[Gerv]

> Yes, coz all those years of hard work and
> determination doesn't mean a damn thing.

"I do everything through him who gives me strength" - St. Paul. Among the gifts they have been given are determination and drive.

To those players, knowing Jesus is more important than winning the World Cup.

Gerv

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[Ilgaz]

What a bad styled troll that is...

Come on man, trolls had a style before!

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[rutherford]

So this is why they kiss the "golden cow" (world cup) and hold it above every player, to show that Jesus is more important than the world cup?

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[Gerv]

Some players did that. Other players didn't. But, regardless of which did which, thinking Jesus is the most important thing doesn't mean you can't be happy when you win the World Cup :-)

Gerv

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[Flous]

What a weird thing to post here...

I mean, this site is a gathering of people who believe in science and logic (yes, we're all vulcans deep down inside, aren't we ;) ). Science and logic do not mix with religion. No science-geek in there right mind would believe in such a thing like a god. I believe what I see, I suspect what I deduct and I distrust what I'm told!

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[cruachan]

Hmm

Brazilian christianity is hardly something your average southern baptist is goign to feel comfortable with. In practise it's a mix of catholiscm and various african religons somewhat akin to voodoo

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[rutherford]

Exactly. There is no sense in believing what humans (!) wrote many years ago and then say this is true and all the facts which are able to be tested are wrong. The world is bad and many people are bad, religion does not change this. Moreover religion often makes the world even worse. Do something good instead of believing that somebody else will do it for you!

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[rbeattie]

Nice. Did you see those three guys trying to butt into every photo op also? Did you see them stop and "pray" while their teamates were congratulating each other? One of those guys pulled the same stunt during the European Cup after he scored.

How about these idiots (and you) giving credit where it's really due: the other players dedication to the sport and luck.

Fucking religious jerks. I can't stand you all.

-Russ

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[mangu]

Brazilian christianity is hardly something your average southern baptist is goign to feel comfortable with. In practise it's a mix of catholiscm and various african religons somewhat akin to voodoo

Not those guys with the religious crap in their shirts. Those belong to protestant sects that came right out of the US Bible Belt, either Baptists or Pentecostals.

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Depends on the region. In Bahia, it's very much like Santeria, where they pretty much worshipped the deities from Africa, and called them the names of Saints. The Portuguese pretty much turned a blind eye to this, pragmatic about it, decided to keep the slaves happy. In other areas, it's more like what we view as mainline Christianity.

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[Gerv]

The world is bad and many people are bad, religion does not change this.

You are correct. Religion does not change this - on the contrary, Christianity provides a rational explanation for it.

Gerv

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[Gerv]

Did you see those three guys trying to butt into every photo op also?

Yeah, that's right. Because there was only one camera in the stadium, and so they rudely stood right in front of it.

Did you see them stop and "pray" while their teamates were congratulating each other?

I saw the entire Brazilian team, coaches and all, praying in a massive circle.

Gerv

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[Gerv]

Science and logic do not mix with religion.

I don't agree. I'm a scientist by training, and a Christian - and I'm not the only one. There are questions Science cannot answer, because they are outside its frame of reference:

- Why are we here?
- What's the purpose of life?
- What happens after you die?

Gerv

Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"

[Max the Merciless]

I think that maybe we should all think of Jesus and pray all day. Yes that would be really useful and interesting...

Stuff that Matters

[rleyton]

How about the other part of the site's title? "Stuff That Matters", just because it's not geeky doesn't mean there's no interest on this site, and therefore matters to readers.

Good grief, it's the single biggest sports event in the world.

News alert: Some geeks like sport.

That doesn't mean I'm any good at sport though...

Re:Stuff that Matters

[CaseStudy]

Yeah, but the fact that we're nerds probably means that those of use who care about it have enough technical savvy to access news sites other than Slashdot.

Re:Stuff that Matters

[jedie]

yuck! you speak lies! sports are for people who like running after balls or people who try to avoid balls. sometimes they even _just_ run, not chasing anything, but they _just_ run!

let me emphasize that...
they _just_ run

I'm sorry, but physical strength isn't something humankind should be proud of. As Darwin clearly pointed out: evolution chose the path of intelligence over brute force for us humans.

Re:Stuff that Matters

[vittal]

err, no, darwin's theory of evolution is about better adaptation to the local environment; not intelligence.

if you survive better as a big, stupid brute, then that's what's important. unless you can utilise your intelligence for survival in your environment then it doesn't count for anything.

v
(having just spent the last few hours in the pub watching the football, and generally reducing my brain power by many pints damage :)

Re:Stuff that Matters

[Dr. Cody]

Sports my foot! This is a religious event.

Re:Stuff that Matters

[hdparm]

let me emphasize that... they _just_ run

Let me do it once again: - they_just_run!

Isn't this exactly what majority of /. geeks say about Linux distros when compared to WinDOS? So, you see, beside sport lovers within the /. community, there is a technical justification for mentioning big sport events in /. headlines as well.

Re:Stuff that Matters

[trumpetplayer]

"News alert: Some geeks like sport"

Other alert: "watching sports" is not sports in itself. (Be warned as it won't kill any overweight etc.)

Re:Stuff that Matters

[dolanh]

Actually most people consider the Tour de France to be the largest sporting event in the world. Depends on how you classify it. If it means viewers, you're spot on, with the Olympics likely second.

Very nice World Cup, but..

[GauteL]

.. spoiled by very bad referee decisions in the quarter final and semi final leading to the expulsion of Italy and Spain for a worse side (South Korea).

Nice to see new nations doing great in the World Cup final. Traditionally, it has been a contest between Europe, Argentina and Brazil, while this World Cup has seen Asia and even the US do well, while Africa dissappointed a little, except for Senegal.

This is NOT the best World Cup quality wise though. The standards were imho way better in France 1998 and possibly even USA 1994. The reason might be that the big european stars, or other stars playing in big european clubs looked pretty jaded in this World Cup, possible due to ever increasing amount of highly competitive games in Europe for the best teams, pretty close to the world cup (for instance Champions League).

If you go further back you may need to take into account that the tempo has increased considerably and defensive organization become way better, giving less goals. This is actually a sign of quality, the best leagues almost always have less goals than the poorer ones. This would mean that people might remember more chances and more exciting games, even though the teams would most probably loose against modern teams. Confusing eh?

Re:Very nice World Cup, but..

[haystor]

I appreciate your last paragraph. I think its a combination of better organized defense and most tugging/holding/professional fouls.

The professional fouls slow the game down a lot. There are almost no quick restarts anymore, and fouling is almost like a free timeout to set up the defense. It truly disgusts me that some guy that gets paid $6 million a year doesn't understand that he needs to be 10 yards away from the free kick. And he'll continue to not understand it until the wall is completely set up.

I don't see any changes to this though until they authorize a second official on the field. This second official would be in charge of cattle prod application. Sort of like a sin bin right there on the field.

Re:Very nice World Cup, but..

[Ilgaz]

South Korea? They just don't have enough exprience (as we did not too). Match between Korea and Turkey for 3rd position (I am turkish) was the only match I watched.

They play real active,continueus and they have amazing speed. You can't just say "worse side" to them. There are times that surprises happen on soccer world but it was not surprise.

I wouldn't care to post this reply but their hospitality and TRUE fair play,polite attitude amazed me as a turkish.

Re:Very nice World Cup, but..

[Gerv]

> It truly disgusts me that some guy that gets paid $6 million a year doesn't understand that he needs
> to be 10 yards away from the free kick. And he'll continue to not understand it until the wall is
> completely set up.

Yeah. In the English Premiership, they've nicked a rule from Rugby that if the wall isn't 10 yards, the free kick moves 10 yards closer to the goal. All the players miraculously learnt how far 10 yards is this year - it was like magic...

Gerv

Re:Very nice World Cup, but..

[orange7]

Of course, soon the attacking side will nick another trick from rugby; take the free kick as quickly as possible, so the defenders don't have a chance to get back 10. =)

A.

Re:Very nice World Cup, but..

[neoconfucius]

The European club players looked jaded because they were exhausted. This World Cup was moved up two weeks because of the coming rainy season in East Asia. The European club players' vacations were cut short. This would explain why they all seemed "jaded."

Re:Very nice World Cup, but..

[Black Jack Hyde]

Most of the players from Senegal played full seasons of club ball in France. Brad Friedel played a full season in the Premiership. The so-called pre-tournament favorites got out-hustled. When whining about exhaustion and officiating come up, the conversation's over.

Time for the traditional football world to wake up and smell the freshly roasted java. No one's scared of Italy or Argentina any more. Everyone has videotape, advanced training and conditioning techniques, and motivation. All the good players compete with their peers in leagues worldwide.

If you live in a country that "got jobbed" by poor officiating, maybe your team didn't put forth the effort you think they did. If you're depending on a 12th man in a black shirt to get your nation through, that's a real bad strategy.

Enjoy the next four years of criticizing your coaches and players. It was great to see Turkey and South Korea in the semis; don't be surprised if it happens again.

Jack

does that work both ways?

[gimpboy]

would it be ok if the germans gathered in a circle cursing god and jesus for their loss? i mean heck if you credit god for brasil's win, do you also give the big G credit for germany's loss? does it work out more like this:

good event = praise god.
bad event = the lord works in mysterious ways.

to me it's an all or nothing thing.

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

I didn't "credit God for Brazil's win", I said that it's great that they recognise that He gave them the talents they used to win. He gives everyone different gifts; theirs happen to be being good at football.

Gerv

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

So if Jesus is the Devil, then you must believe both in Jesus and the Devil. From where do you get your belief that both these people exist?

Gerv

Re:does that work both ways?

[GigsVT]

He gives everyone different gifts; theirs happen to be being good at football.

And here I was thinking hard work and practice is what gave them their "gifts", thanks for setting me straight.

Maybe if I pray a whole lot I will suddenly learn Java, it's something I've been meaning to do anyway, why waste times with books when I can beg my magical friend for skills instead!

Thanks, you probably saved me many hours of work and study.

Re:does that work both ways?

[rbp]

> "They always have that "god works in mysterious
> ways" ace card

Religious people work in mysterious ways...

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

> And here I was thinking hard work and practice is
> what gave them their "gifts", thanks for setting
> me straight.

If I worked as hard and practised as hard as, say, Lucio does, I would still not be as good as him at football. And I don't know if I'd have the qualities to work that hard anyway.

Among the gifts he's been given are great footballing skill, but also determination and drive.

> Maybe if I pray a whole lot I will suddenly learn Java,

If you had a relationship with Jesus, and believed in your heart that learning Java was something he really wanted you to do (for some good reason), and prayed about it, you may well find you found it easier to do than otherwise.

For example, I wasn't at all stressed about my final exams at the end of three years of University, despite being diagnosed a few weeks before with a malignant cancer. I believe this is because I asked God to help me and give me peace and reassurance, and he did. Here's the full story.

Gerv

Re:does that work both ways?

[GigsVT]

I believe this is because I asked God to help me and give me peace and reassurance, and he did.

Well, I'm glad you found something that worked for you. We all need something to believe in.

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

> Well, I'm glad you found something that worked for you. We all need something to believe in.

You imply that it doesn't matter what you believe, and whatever works for an individual person is good.

If that were true (that it doesn't matter), then everything you could possibly believe in would be equally worthless, and nothing would help - because you would know your choice was arbitrary and meaningless.

Gerv

Re:does that work both ways?

[Banjonardo]

Speaking of that, I loved the banner I saw in the audience saying "God is Brazilian"

The announcer didn't say anything, though. (I was watching Globo, the Brazilian channel.)

Am I the only one who hates Galvao Bueno?

Re:does that work both ways?

[unformed]

Exactly, you hit it right on the head. Beliefs are worthless. Praying to Jesus to make you better is simply a placebo effect to make you think you're going to get better.

It's all in the head. Some people need something to believe in, to create hope, because they are too weak-minded to do it themselves. Hence, religion.

Generally speaking, beliefs are worthless, as long as you are strong-willed enough to meet your goals on your own.

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

> Generally speaking, beliefs are worthless, as long as you are strong-willed enough to meet your goals on your own.

Like those Brazilian soccer players with "I belong to Jesus" on their shirts? Your argument claims they are weak-minded, and not strong-willed enough to meet their goals without a psychological crutch. Is that right?

Gerv

Re:does that work both ways?

[unformed]

I don't know them personally, but if they attribute everything they've done to Jesus instead of themselves, yes.

Re:does that work both ways?

[GigsVT]

You imply that it doesn't matter what you believe, and whatever works for an individual person is good.

Ah, you caught the subtle point, nice. :)

I'm not totally against religion, I'm glad it gives some people comfort, the same way I am glad that drugs give people comfort, or therapy sessions, or eating chocolate.

So my question to you, what makes your choice something that isn't arbitrary and meaningless?

For me, logic and observation makes things non-arbitrary and non-meaningless.

Re:does that work both ways?

[mill]

Not entirely true. Only a chosen few are blessed with "the hand of god"...

/mill

Re:does that work both ways?

[Kvasio]

Huh, I live in one of those tradicionally catholic countries; our archi-bishop prayed for victory of our national team.

Team did not make it though group stage; probably God did not like Polish school of football; they won only with US :-/ (definitely "the lord works in mysterious ways")

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

Using professional athletes as proof that belief in religion breeds success

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was doing that - not from my post, certainly. GigsVT claimed that people who believed in Jesus were weak-willed and weak-minded, and unable to reach their goals on their own without a crutch. I merely pointed out that when I look at the Brazilian team, I don't see weak-minded and weak-willed people.

Gerv

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

the concept of Jesus and illogical faith in other mythical beings has caused more wars and evil in the world than any other thing in history!

Militant atheism was behind both World Wars. Remember the Holocaust? Hitler's view was that Jews and homosexuals deserved to die, and that the Aryan race should prevail; how do you claim your view is more correct? Without a moral basis, you can't.

Lack of belief in God has caused far more suffering in this world than the antics of the power-hungry who use Christianity as a cover for their political battles (e.g. the Crusades.)

Gerv

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

what makes your choice something that isn't arbitrary and meaningless?

Because I studied all the evidence for the historicity of the Bible, read what it had to say, evaluated its claims against other possibilities and explanations, and concluded that Jesus rose from the dead. That makes him God, and all else follows from there.

Since then, my faith that I am right has been strengthened by seeing God work in my life and the lives of others.

Gerv

Re:does that work both ways?

[Listen Up]

Look, Gerv...Open your eyes to reality. Religion is a crutch for the weak mind, a mind that is selfish and self centered. This is especially true of Christianity (which happens to not be the oldest nor the most popular religion in the world). Just because we as a species have traveled in space doesn't make the ancient belief that gods traveled in chariets pulling the sun behind a team of horses any less true that your belief that a human being came back from his supposed death. I wrote a paper once for an independent study in college about the different versions of the Christian bible. Whatever version you have was written specifically to control, twist, and implant a moral and ethical character in the society in which it was practiced. If you ever learn to read Latin (which I spent 4 years doing), then maybe you should start reading, if you can find them, some of the original Latin scrolls. No translations by dark-age kings. You will open you eyes to the tragedy that was the Hebrews. A worthless group of murders who came down from the areas around Mount Zion and basically killed everyone who didn't believe in their God. Where did the two versions of creation come from? It was the long, enduring battle to kill off the belief in a female god, which was the prominent religion of the time. The snake (serpeant) and the horned bull? The two female symbols of power. What did the Hebrews/Jews/Christians do to those symbols? When did the female go from being the mother of all life, to a companion to the new creation Adam from the new Hebrew/Zionist god Yehwah (Jehovah...God), to being the downfall of mankind out of Eden? How did every culture which was not Hebrew, then Jewish, and then Christian become? Did they suddenly all perish because they did not believe in this new monotheistic God? Did you not study the massive killings and genocides by the Hebrews? The victors are always "righteous" and "holy" in their quests. They just used their new God as an excuse to kill. Christianity is simply an offshoot of that, and isn't that what is still happening today? Unbeknownest to the creators of the constitution, the United States has been declared a Christian nation (thanks to Senator McCarthy in ~1945 when the Communist were the devil and much more...and now President Bush), not a nation of free religions and free thinking? Don't you understand how and why Israel was created? Have you ever heard of the Zionist movement? Don't you see the true face of religion? Open your eyes man. Study the world of the real. Educate yourself in many religions. Believe all of them. Believe none of them. Look into the sky and into the mirror and never stop asking. When you can answer all of the mysteries of the universe in one word...Then you have lost.

Re:does that work both ways?

[danro]

Thanks... now I have to whipe coffee stains of my monitor.

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

If you ever learn to read Latin (which I spent 4 years doing), then maybe you should start reading, if you can find them, some of the original Latin scrolls. No translations by dark-age kings. You will open you eyes to the tragedy that was the Hebrews.

I can, in fact, read Latin - but I find your "analysis" of the origins of Christianity hard to take seriously, because the Bible was written in Hebrew (Old Testament), Greek and Aramaeic (New Testament). Therefore, the "original scrolls" were not written in Latin at all.

Gerv

Re:does that work both ways?

[Gerv]

So when do we get to the part where you explain away the arbitrary and meaningless?

Quoting myself:
"Because I studied all the evidence for the historicity of the Bible, read what it had to say, evaluated its claims against other possibilities and explanations, and concluded that Jesus rose from the dead. That makes him God, and all else follows from there."

My choice is not arbitrary (and therefore meaningless and useless) because I made it after being convinced by the evidence.

Gerv

Re:Who cares?

[Gerv]

> And stop calling soccer "football." There already is a football.

Stop calling football "soccer", and start calling the sport that you guys play but no-one else does "American football", which is a far more accurate term for it.

You have to face it on this one - both history and worldwide usage are not on your side. :-)

Gerv

Re:soccer?

[nickos]

Football obviously. How often does your foot touch the ball in niche American football?

Okay.

[mindstrm]

Mr. Smarty-man football genius..

What's he SUPPOSED to do, read the other player's mind a split second before he himself decides where he's kicking hte ball?

The reason they guess is because YOU CAN'T TELL WHERE THEY GOING TO KICK IT.

Worst played.. I think YOU better get in goal for a while and then judge.

Re:Okay.

[desdemona]

err.. maybe because the rules state the goalkeeper has to stay stationary on his line until the player strikes the ball?

Re:Okay.

[CProgrammer98]

You clearly know NOTHING about football! Dya think that with about 150 years of history in the game that maybe, just maybe, the world class teams just might have a little clue about how best to play the game???

Your suggestion of him coming out a bit further is illgeal according to the FA rules.

Re:Okay.

[Ilgaz]

He didn't say he is a football genious. As a guy from Istanbul,Turkey I have even seen people believing World Cup will end in 4 months.

Fair play man, even on slashdot...

;*) Congrats to the Brasil team and also thanks to slashdot not ignoring that hard work.

Re:Okay.

[El Puerco Loco]

Jump a split second after the ball is kicked? the ball is in the back of the net approximately 2/10 of a second after it is kicked, not much time to analyze the flight path and react appropriately, is it. the only thing they can do is guess

Re:Okay.

[rudiger]

i dont deny it, i find it utterly boring. to each his own.

Re:Where are the US ?

[swoopx]

very well may be an understatement. It was their best cup performance ever.

World == World

[azzy]

Footbal World Cup... open to the whole world... as opposed to World Series?

Re:World == World

[Gerv]

The World Series was named after a newspaper, IIRC. This is one example where the Americans are _not_ necessarily claiming that America == The World. :-)

Gerv

Re:World == World

[BelDion]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but sponsorship of the "world" series by The New York World is pure urban legend. The New York World never had anything to do with the world series, other than reporting on the matches like plenty of other papers did at the time. It really is plain old America = World arrogance after all.

You can a whole article about it yonder:

http://www.snopes2.com/business/names/worldser.htm

Re:World == World

[Gerv]

I stand corrected. Some American obviously fed me that line and I believed them. Naive me. :-)

Gerv

Re:World == World

[BrainInAJar]

No, no. You see... they let the (one) Canadian team play. That means it's open to the world.

go soccer.... um

[haukex]

1.5 billion expected viewers and the story has to be submitted by the one slashdot editor who sounds like he could care less? Come on, you can't *all* have slept through this...

Re:go soccer.... um

[Fuzzums]

Err, slept through what exactly?

Re:go soccer.... um

[haukex]

The game began at 7am EST, not exactly a friendly time for US viewers on a sunday morning! Us Europeans didn't have that big of a problem with it...

Re:go soccer.... um

[keysor]

Sounds like someone's trying to avoid a Lone Gunmen... :)

Trophy?

[echucker]

The ABC announcers kept harping about an 11 pound solid gold trophy, IIRC.... Umm, wouldn't that puppy be pretty durned malleable, and lose shape after it got paraded around the field and such?

Re:Trophy?

[kinnunen]

Funny thing that trophy.. The actual trophy is 18-karat gold, but FIFA keeps it locked in a vault somewhere. All the time. The one the players get to carry and kiss is just a gold-plated replica. I gues it makes sense on some level, the official trophy has been stolen twice (1966 and 1983, recovered the first time but the second time it prosumedly got melted for its gold). Still, it feels silly that the winners of the biggest single sporting event in the world are awarded with a fake trophy.

Darn, now on the next Karoake night...

[mikosullivan]

... I have to sing the Brazilian National Anthem, in Portuguese no less. I lost the bet.

Re:Darn, now on the next Karoake night...

[jorlando]

What a bet... for a non native speaker Portuguese is hell to pronounce... you'll have to find someone to coach you to do this :-)

By the way... sing the anthem only until the first chorus... it's acceptable and very usual to sing only the first part since it's quite long... if this satifies us, Brazilians, that is ok to you pay your lost bet :-)

Re:Darn, now on the next Karoake night...

[Banjonardo]

Ouvirao do Ipiranga as Margens placidas

Um povo forte, bravo e retumbante...

It's pretty hard for ME, and I'm Brasilian!

Re:Darn, now on the next Karoake night...

[rbeattie]

This is such a great bet. There was commentary over the anthem here in Spain so I could only hear a bit of the anthem, but it seemed REALLY fast. Good luck!

ALL the Brazillian players were singing it though, did you see? Coming from the U.S. where everyone knows our National Anthem (and thanks to Hollywood, 1/2 the globe does too) it warms my heart to see the players so patriotic. Spain's song doesn't even have words...

-Russ

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about a stupid soccer game? Real Americans don't. And stop calling soccer "football." There already is a football.

Errm, the thing that you call "soccer" has been called "football" for longer than you've had a country, let alone a national sport.

Obligatory Simpsons quote:

[ctid]

Bart: "Errr... Mom, why don't you let me call the game?"

Are there drug tests?

[WildBeast]

I watched a few games, and some players seem out of this world. They don't seem to get tired, they keep running as if the game has just started. So, my question is; is there any drug tests that are performed on the players?

We all remember Maradona, don't we?

Re:Are there drug tests?

[Snowbeam]

Yuo answered your own question. Yes, we all remember Maradona. He got caught out by a drug test administered by FIFA. He was also banned from travelling to this world cup by Japan for failing his drug tests in the past.

Re:Are there drug tests?

[ctid]

Up until about a week ago, they'd performed well over 200 tests, all of which came up clean. I've not seen any figures since then.

Re:Are there drug tests?

[eoin_murphy]

yeah, before and after each game players from each team are randomly selected for both blood and urine testing...

not that that'll stop the really determined. Just take a look at cycling or athlethics...

Re:Are there drug tests?

[Ilgaz]

Nothing changes he is the best player. Just check "dream team" thing on offical site.

Yes, they abused the guy too bad... He couldn't handle that fame either (as I guess)

It never changes he is a football genious though and will take long time to make a legend like that.

PS: He is in Cuba now, Castro takes care of him. Er, drug abuse treaty etc...

Re:Are there drug tests?

[daveirl]

There is strict Drug testing. Many of the Dutch team have tested positive recently. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/football/eu rope/newsid_1320000/1320729.stm

Maradona never used preformance enhancing drugs AFAIK. He was addicted to Cocaine and still is in my opinion the greatest footballer ever... yes better that Péle

Re:Are there drug tests?

[haystor]

The fact that more cyclists are caught doping than NFL players are caught using steroids is more indicative of cyclings efforts to actually get rid of doping.

Re:Are there drug tests?

[Noexit]

Cocaine is a performance enhancing drug. If it doesn't give you a heart attack.

Re:Are there drug tests?

[Snowbeam]

Damn straight! Personally after Pele, he comes 2nd in my overall ranking of footballers. This is based on football skill only, character and personality are put aside.

Re:Are there drug tests?

[Iber]

Just wanted to let you guys know that this years drug tests have been always performed by Korean doctors. FIFA was too cheap to bring doctors from foreign countries (unlike real crapy refs from all over the world). Some people think this explains the awesome physical level of the home Korean team

Did you see them agains Italy? It looked like 25 koreans against 11 italians

Re:Are there drug tests?

[cruachan]

Yes they are drug tested

The simple reason they can do this though is they are increadibly fit sportsmen. The average international of premier division player runs over 17 miles in the course of a match.

Re:Are there drug tests?

[Isle]

Drugs doesnt help you a lot in soccer. It helps, but not a lot:
It cant make you make better passes.
It cant make you shoot more accurate.
It cant give you a better tactically sense of where the other players are.

This is one of the attractive parts of soccer, you dont just need pure brawn like american football, or to be a freak like basketball. All you need is skill and to execise a lot. Everyone can train themselves to run what a professional soccerplayer runs during a fight (Unless they are pussies like american athletes ;-)

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[WildBeast]

I haven't watched the match, but stats say that Germany had actually more shots than Brazil. It's rather ironic, they won every game thanks to luck and thanks to a great performance by there goalie. Yet looks like in the last game, their goalie played horrible and luck wasn't on their side either.

these are symantics.

[gimpboy]

ok god didnt give germany the talents, skill, whatever. i'm sure you believe it is within god's power to do so right? god in his omnipotence decided not to give them to germany. i would find it just as logical for germany were to blame god for not giving them the required skills as brasils crediting god for the _skills_ that enambled them to win.

Re:these are symantics.

[gimpboy]

see these examples are part of the ``lord works in mysterious ways'' part of being god that i listed above.

Re:these are symantics.

[Gerv]

> ok god didnt give germany the talents, skill, whatever.

No, he did give them the talents and skills they have, too - whether they credit him for it or not. Who won is irrelevant. Everyone who has commented seems to think I said "God made it so the Brazilians won", and I didn't say that at all.

Gerv

Re:these are symantics.

[Gerv]

> Why didn't he prevent bad things from happen?

Because he's given us free will - and that means that people are able to choose to do either good things or bad things, even if that grieves him. If God was to force us always to do His will, we'd would be human, we'd be robots.

You can't have both human free will and a world where no-one ever sins; it's a logical contradiction.

Gerv

Re:these are symantics.

[gimpboy]

this is what you said:

Great to see several Brazilian players (and the entire team, if that enormous circle was a prayer circle, which it seemed to be) giving credit where it's due for their talents and gifts

I didn't "credit God for Brazil's win", I said that it's great that they recognise that He gave them the talents they used to win. He gives everyone different gifts; theirs happen to be being good at football.

while you didn't say "god made it so the brasilians won", you did give god credit for the talent and skills of the brasilian players. since a significant portion of their preformance is directly related to their skills and what not, the following is not a strange conculsion:

god gives skills --> brasilians use skills --> brasilians win

or cut out the middle man:

god gives skills --> brasilians win

now that is from the brasilians perspective. i simply asked if it worked the other way:
god gives skills --> brasilians use skills --> germans loose

i find it strange that when god helps christians they thank it, but when god does the opposite the christians simply say god works in mysterious ways. i am of the opinion that if god has that much control, then god is responsible. it seems very hypocritical to thank god for the good things and not attribute the bad things to it-they are all under gods control. sure you can say helping you wasnt part of gods 'plan'. i would say that when it does help you it just happens to be part of gods plan.

this is not ment as an attack on your religion, and i hope you do not see it that way.

Re:these are symantics.

[Gerv]

God gave skills and talents to both teams. This does not make it possible for both teams to win :-) If I were a Christian on the German team, I'd be saying thanks to God for getting me this far.

> i find it strange that when god helps christians they thank it, but when god does the opposite the
> christians simply say god works in mysterious
ways.

I wouldn't say that - that is, I wouldn't say that "God works in mysterious ways" if something bad happened. For a start, whether something is "good" or "bad" is often only really found out long after the event. More than once, something has happened where I've thought "What on earth is God doing? That's not what I asked him to do at all", yet looking back now, I am privileged to see what it was he was trying to achieve.

> this is not ment as an attack on your religion, and i hope you do not see it that way.

Of course not :-) The balance between human free will and God's sovereign will, and the discussions about whether it's appropriate to pray for victory (I'd say not) or thank God for your talents afterwards (I'd say Yes) are very interesting.

Gerv

Re:these are symantics.

[gimpboy]

God gave skills and talents to both teams. This does not make it possible for both teams to win :-) If I were a Christian on the German team, I'd be saying thanks to God for getting me this far.


so what do the people at the bottom say? thanks for not smiting me?


I wouldn't say that - that is, I wouldn't say that "God works in mysterious ways" if something bad happened. For a start, whether something is "good" or "bad" is often only really found out long after the event. More than once, something has happened where I've thought "What on earth is God doing? That's not what I asked him to do at all", yet looking back now, I am privileged to see what it was he was trying to achieve.


so have we seen the result of gods plan for the native americans yet? i'm not sure what they should be thankful for alcoholism or the successful casinos they own?

Re:these are symantics.

[Gerv]

so what do the people at the bottom say?

Everyone's given a set of different talents. If your team is bottom of the lowest league, perhaps football isn't one of them :-)

Gerv

Re:these are symantics.

[gimpboy]

if they followed your advice, the teams would disappear. the people at the bottom quit.. then there is a new bottom... those people quit... pretty soon brasil is both the worst and the best because they are all alone.

Re:these are symantics.

[ajshankar]

No it's not. How about a world in which everyone chooses to do only "good things." Still free will, but no sin.

Re:these are symantics.

[Gerv]

That isn't right, because people (like me; I suck at it) play football for more reasons than to be the best. Fun, friendship, being part of a team, that sort of thing.

Gerv

Re:these are symantics.

[Gerv]

Do you really think humans are capable of that?

There are people in the world today who try to live this way - attempting, in their own strength, to do only "good things". For one thing, they do it by whatever definition of good things seems appropriate to them - and this varies widely. One person's good act may be seen by another person as wrong; and who is to judge between them? Secondly, they always fail in their aim, even within their own definition. No-one is perfect.

Gerv

Brazil & Jeesus -> one fan less

[Kynde]

I have been a brazil fan all my life, but I was extremely disappointed in seeing all those fantastic bazilian players with "Jeesus loves you T-shirts" and praying. I mean, they took their national team t-shirts off and put the gold medal on their back just show the jeesus crap more.

Mixing politics and sports is worse enough, but mixing religious yada yada with anything is far worse...

(Slayer released 11/9 an album which said it well enough : "God hates us all" ;))

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[WildBeast]

What happened to Klinsman? Where is he? Did he retire or something?

Ronaldo is an amazing example...

[Rams�s Morales]

of what the human body is capable of.

It is incredible how he performed this world cup, after all those injuries.

I mean, four years of injuries, including a rebuilt knee, and 8 goals in the world cup??!!!

That's just amazing.

Re:Ronaldo is an amazing example...

[jt007]

Absolutely right mate, and with the goal scoring record he already has (37 goals in 57 games before the World Cup), IMHO he is almost certain to replace Pele as Brazil's greatest goalscorer and maybe player of all time, unless another terrible injury strikes him down!!

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[jonathan_atkinson]

Jurgen Klinsmann moved to Tottenham Hotspur (a London team) as a scout for a few years, but now I believe he is working as a football journalist for a German TV station.

--jon

Thank you!

[mikosullivan]

Thanks for that pointer! That should save me some trouble. I have a native Brazilian coaching me (the person I lost to, in fact). I'm typing out each word phonetically.

So much for....

[jaunty]

...explaining the game of soccer (football) to the unenlightened: Its a game were two teams kick a ball around, and after 90 minutes, the German team wins...:-)

Now we'll have to come up with an analogy that uses the Brasilian team (ie: they've won 5 world cups now, I think...)

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[sinserve]

> omg. blatant nonsense.

What exactly is non-sense? argue your points and refute mine, say something meaningful, wuss.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[Brazilian Geek]

In truth, those retards are born again christians. You're not the only one that hates that kind of stuff. We're a catholic nation but those f*ck*n' extremist christians ruin everything for everyone else.

Re:News for nerds??

[God_Retired]

Being born in the US, lived 8 years in Europe and 10 years in Asia and now living in the US again, there is no way in hell I would choose most of Europe or Asia over living here. That is just an idiotic, pompous or just ignorant statement. Now there are some countries in central America I wouldn't mind living in....

True freedom and true democracy. Not faked propaganda.

Hmmm, there are so many different ways to attack those two sentences I really don't know where to start. I think that I'll just leave them hanging. I trust the /. crowd to be bright enough to see the internal breakdown of logic.

As far as the topic, soccer. Yep, biggest sport in the world. Reason #1, all you need is a ball. Very easy for kids anywhere to play. Impoverished people (read most of the world) find it about the only thing they can play. But like Tiger Woods deadpanned when asked about World Cup after winning his last trophy,"You got the wrong country." That's about right.

Spoiler...

[Otter]

If you haven't watched the game for whatever reason, obviously you might want to avoid clicking through (or reading any other news site, or talking to anyone...). Neither of those two links should be a spoiler, though.

I had to work this morning, so I taped the game and figured I'd watch it later, without checking any news sites in the meantime. Woke up early and decided to watch. Headed into work at 10 and caught in a traffic jam of Brazilians waving flags and #9 jerseys out their car windows, honking horns and screaming.

Yeah, that might have been a spoiler.

Disappointing game, though. Very little Brazilian magic and Germany making the play as slow and ugly as possible. Both the US and Korea would have whupped the German team that showed up today. Still I'm glad to see Brazil win, and it seemed like most of the Americans stuck in traffic find it a particularly likable coutry, as well. (Tried to link to that picture of the Brazilian fan pulling off her bikini top next to the Turkish fans in robes and face scarves but it seems to have disappeared.

Anyway, the important thing is that the French were humiliated! And that Korea got knocked out eventually, although it took longer than I would have liked. (Stupid refs...) South Korea has to have taken over the title of "Whiniest Country in International Sports".

Re:Spoiler...

[Gerv]

> South Korea has to have taken over the title of
> "Whiniest Country in International Sports".

You are joking, right? When South Korea got knocked out, the fans were partying in the streets all night. There was no drunken hooliganism like we've seen in the past (sadly) from England fans after they lose. During every game, the Koreans played sportingly (none of this shocking Rivaldo-type behaviour, or diving, or hassling the referee) and played as a team.

Italy, on the other hand, got eliminated and spent the next two weeks whining about a conspiracy and demanding an investigation. One club sacked the Korean player who scored the Golden Goal against them, although they later realised how childish they'd been, and offered him his job back. Spain weren't much better.

Gerv

Re:Spoiler...

[soccerisgod]

Actually Peruggia's manager did NOT realize that it was childish. He realized Ahn's worth had risen dramatically, and he just wanted him back to sell him later - for a rediculous amount of money.

Re:Spoiler...

[Gerv]

OK - in which case it was even worse, because they were just being mercenary.

Fortunately, Ahn told them to stuff it. Well done him.

Gerv

Re:Spoiler...

[cozziewozzie]

And to make it even worse, he bet a fortune on Korea beating Germany in the semis, which the Koreans then lost, so he hates Ahn again ;-)

Re:Spoiler...

[badzilla]

Here is the Brazilian fan bikini top picture

Re:Spoiler...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

My favorite was the ABC guys predicting the game. One guy said "I think Brazil 2-1." Hmmm, I'm pretty sure Brazil will get 2, but....

Re:Spoiler...

[javiercero]

Well.... wasn't South Korea the same country that didn't want to attend the closing ceremonies of the winter olympic games this year, because one of their skaters did a dirty trick and got caught?
Jeez, now that is a country that can teach us about sportmanship.

Also Korea got 6 goals against them cancelled against them in 4 games, that has NEVER happened in a world cup before. Coincidence? Also there were lots of questions about the parciality of the referees in the Italy and Spain games. Specially the Spanish game in which even the final missed penalty kick was illegal (the Korean goalie was more than 2 meters ahead of the reglamentary line). So people are wondering, how come all the games that Korea hasn't been clearly benefited by the referees they have lost them?

The thing is that Korean representatives complained that if Korea did not advance far into the finals they would lose a ton of money. And Korea has a long history of corruptions/buy outs (i.e. their summer games, there were a lot of complaints about some of the Korean medals... esp the boxing fiasco). So teams like Spain, who did not lose a game were thrown out of the competition, where as a sub standard team like Korea who had a 60% winning percentage were promoted to the final 4. Then again that is why this world cup sucked big balls....

Oh well... money talks I guess.

Re:Spoiler...

[amabbi]

far be it for me to spoil your little delusional daydream...

first, as far as the olympics go, "dirty trick"? it was a questionable call, and while you'd hope that the koreans wouldn't have reacted so negatively, they did have a gold medal taken away, so you can forgive them for being a little upset. btw, the american winner ended up being disqualified in a later event for doing the same thing; i don't know if you can call it a dirty trick.

second, the every soccer commentator outside of spain that i've listened to says that the goalie moving past the goal line on penalty kicks is a rule that has never been called. in fact, the spanish goalie was doing the same thing.

what calls did korea have for them when they beat poland? portugal? the u.s.? there were certainly marginal calls in the game against spain, but the italians were just whiny losers. diving is a legitimate penalty. and besides, how many people were complaining when france (first round losers this year) won the world cup on their home turf four yrears ago?

Re:Spoiler...

[EaTiN cOfFeE bEaNs]

The officiating for this tournament has been some of the poorest I have ever seen in my life! FIFA, trying to be politically correct, selected their pool of officials based on equal amounts of referees from each participating. Now, if they wanted to do things right, they would pick the best referees. Period. Regardless of the nationality. In fact, 4-time FIFA referee of the year Calina from Italy (He's totally bald. You can't miss him.), who did the England-Argentina game and the World Cup final, wasn't even included in the pool! How can you have a tournament that is so big that the best referee the game has isn't even in the pool!?

Some of the calls that were bad ironically went in favor of the Koreans. They not only played like they were on uppers the entire time, but because they were smaller than every other team in the tournament, with the exception of Japan, and got an advantage in sympathy calls from the referees. The goal in the Spain game that Spain scored in extra time was clearly in bounds, yet the assistant on that side had his flag up to signal it went out. The Italians also have a reason to be mad, too. The second red cart to Totti in the second half for a dive was a terrible call as well. He was hammered and was called for a dive. Now, I respect these referees for finally calling the dive, but that call was made from 35 yards out and was blown. Everyone who's complaining about the referees have a good case. Even the president of FIFA has been complaining.

Re:Spoiler...

[gfreeman]

South Korea has to have taken over the title of "Whiniest Country in International Sports".

No, the United States still holds that title. Just read chunks of this discussion.

Re:Spoiler...

[Aapje]

First of all, Spain scored after the assistent referee had lifted his flag and the Koreans stopped playing. So we'll never know whether it was a goal or the keeper would have caught or stopped the ball. Secondly, Totti fell by himself. If you look carefully, you'll see that he's already falling when touched. Not that long before contact, he timed well, but a swalbe none the less. The second yellow card was justified. I've read that the Italian coach looked at the slow motion, ready for the ultimate rant, but wisely decided not to.

Now, I agree that the referees could/should have been better, but it really wasn't much better 4 years ago. The same political nonsense was going on then and mistakes weren't fewer.

PS. Statistics show that long distance call aren't much worse than short distance ones. In fact, referees make more mistakes when they are very close to an incident.

Re:Spoiler...

[RoninM]

first, as far as the olympics go, "dirty trick"? [...] the american winner ended up being disqualified in a later event for doing the same thing; i don't know if you can call it a dirty trick.

How would the fact that our skater did the same thing and got the same punishment for it make it less of a dirty trick? Maybe we Americans have a different definition of "dirty trick" than other countries? Just because one of our countrymen does it, doesn't make it okay. Cutting over and impeding another skater is not allowed regardless of who you represent..

what calls did korea have for them when they beat poland? portugal? the u.s.?

Er, they dind't beat the US; the game ended in a tie. Korea beat Portugal 11 on 9. And no one, despite the US's embarrassing loss, needed help to beat the Polish.

I'm not going to conjure any conspiracy theories about the (co-)host nation. Those are all rather absurd. The simple fact is that there was a lot of bad calls, but more went for South Korea than against them. The US got its fair share of bad calls in its favor (the handball against Mexico) and questionable/unpopular calls against it (the no handball, no goal against Germany). Bad calls happen, but when they consistently favor one team, it looks very bad.

there were certainly marginal calls in the game against spain, but the italians were just whiny losers.

If whining over a loss meant you didn't deserve a fair game, then the Korean team, whose mock speed skating celebration against the US was certainly a form of whining, shouldn't have made it out of the first round. Italy, for all their bad sportsmanship, did suffer some bad calls against them in the game against Korea; as did Spain and a few other teams.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[Gerv]

> I have been a brazil fan all my life

Really? Funny you didn't know half of them are Christians, then.

> I mean, they took their national team t-shirts off
> and put the gold medal on their back just show
> the jeesus crap more.

What a paragon of tolerance you are, sir :-)

> (Slayer released 11/9 an album which said it well enough : "God hates us all" ;))

So you believe in God, but not Jesus?

Gerv

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[cozziewozzie]

I can't believe this got modded up to +3. Kahn had a great game, he made only one mistake the whole evening, his first of the tournament. Give the guy a break.

Germans had more shots, were aggressive, had the most posession, and were even better one-on-one. Every champion needs a good portion of luck, and Brazil has had it today. There was none of the Brazillian wizardry in this World cup, they were one of the great disappointments for me as they played unimaginatively and got through most of their games through luck and ref help.

As for Gerald Asamoah, he's a bloody striker, of course he was late marking Ronaldo, he was sent in to score a goal.

Whats wrong with calling it gridiron?

[2g3-598hX]

Not that I know anything about american football... Same prob in australia between rugby (ARL, AFL, Union) and "soccer".

Re:Whats wrong with calling it gridiron?

[2g3-598hX]

More like people from other countries are smart enough, yet humble enough, to know that if someone from Australia says soccer they probably mean football.

Re:I'm just glad it's over...

[56ker]

It wasn't so much the matches & the endless replays and highlights that were so bad - it was the fact that every single programme, paper, (and a lot of websites) & companies that have nothing to do with sport decided to link themselves to the World Cup in sometimes very tenuous ways. As to watching it - I was asleep during the final which shows you how much I was interested in it. I thought most true geeks were against sport anyway as it was the one thing in school that the other kids would get to laugh at them and crow about how much better they are - maybe that was just my experience.

Re:Brazil is qualified

[Requiem]

FIFA changed the rules. The world champion team no longer qualifies automatically - only the host country does.

Slashdot seeing the light

[Lispy]

Nice to see that my favourite Newssite finally covers my favourite sport. The USA played some great football this time and I hope to see them in Germany next time. Brasil has really incredible players and its sad to see Oliver Kahn make his first mistake in the final game. But hey, thats football.
And we (Germany) will win 2006! ;-)

cu,
Lispy

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[2g3-598hX]

When sports people (or actors/musicians/anybody accepting awards) start thanking god...they're really trying to say that they won not just because of skill/luck/hard work but because God chose them over the opposition (They're god's chosen people). And we all know that kind of thinking leads to religious strife...

Re:Brasil

[suss]

Great game!

You were watching the same game as I, right?
Putting aside that your side won, this game was tedious and boring.
Yesterday's South Korea vs. Turkey game (for third/fourth place) was far more entertaining.
Brazil's gameplay throughout the tournament was disappointing and it's a good thing they have to qualify for the next.

And then there was reality

[Phelan]

After watching the game,
reading the media reports of the Telegraph, Sport1.de, espn etc. it seems pretty obvious that Germany actually outplayed Brazil over quite a stretch of the game. (At least the news sources would agree with me)...
Kahn made a mistake, he is afterall Human and that was the difference in the game, the second goal was caused by Jeremies being subbed for an attacker that did a rather poor job on defense to create the 2nd goal...and there it was... thats why people started celebrating 11 minutes early...
Both teams played excellet, it wasn't as dirty as I thought it would be...nobody collapsed holding their head after a ball touched their hand ;)

Good game...
contratulations to both...I think Brazil did very well and Germany definitely went beyond what was expected before the tournament started...

Peter

Re:And then there was reality

[gol64738]

haha, it's funny to see what comes around goes around. case in point: the USA team completely and utterly outplayed Germany, taking a higher shot and posession figure; but they lost because of lucky german shot and a bad ref call.
know what? i love Germany and everything.. i lived there during the 1990 World Cup Germany win over Argentina. completely awesome!

but the damn germans made themselves look stupid this time around. what was with them knocking the ball back to their own goalie like 5 times in a row?

Brazil came out in the World Cup with the thoughts of winning on their minds. Germany came out with the thoughts of trying to injure as many Brazillian players as possible...

no, the problem with this year's World Cup was the fact that Germany was in it.

Re:And then there was reality

[Prune]

>> Kahn made a mistake, he is afterall Human Heh, so much for "Deutschland Über Alles"

Re:And then there was reality

[uradu]

> what was with them knocking the ball back to their own goalie like 5 times in a row?

They were most likely trying to thin out the midfield by frustrating them and making them come after the ball. You have to view this game from the German perspective: the came in expecting to be totally outplayed, and with the full knowledge that they had no Ronaldos and Rivaldos. As the saying goes, if life hands you a lemon, you make lemonade. If you have a team weak in attack, you concentrate on its strenghts. I mean, for crying out loud, what exactly was everyone expecting Germany to do? Walk onto the field, take a look at the Brazilian team, and say "ok, you win, let's not bother playing?"

For that matter, all that rubbish about shattering South Korea's dreams. Again, what were the Germans supposed to do? Come in and say "well, we were planning on kicking the ball around a bit and having a go at a game, but we didn't realize that you have a DREAM, so in that case, let's forget the whole thing, you win, and congratulations."

Guys, let's face it, hardly anybody ever cheered Germany over the last three quarters of a century, save for the Germans themselves (and some Middle Eastern countries, oddly), yet they've managed to do quite nicely anyway, thank you very much. Nobody loves them much, but they don't expect it either. Brazil, OTOH, start crying and assuming the foetal position as soon as the home country stops sending tapes of cheering people in the streets.

With 1.5 Billion People!

[dmarien]

You think slashdot takes down servers? Advertise any type of soccer website to 1.5 billion people at the same time, and see the effect that has!

Re:With 1.5 Billion People!

[Chandon Seldon]

The slashdot effect has a big advantage:

- Everyone who sees something on slashdot *will* have a computer, an internet connection, and an open web browser.

Whats wrong with that?

[2g3-598hX]

Millions of people (Jews + Muslims)do... Anyway, most christians I meet are pretty ignorant of the real history of Christ...and the fact that he was actually a guerilla (one would nowadays say terrorist) leader in an intensely militant, warlike time/place.

Re:Whats wrong with that?

[Gerv]

> he was actually a guerilla (one would nowadays say terrorist) leader

I don't know of any people called "terrorists" who have committed no violent acts, and who preach peace and reconciliation consistently wherever they go...

Gerv

Re:Whats wrong with that?

[azzy]

That's a lie!!! Jesus was actually a gorilla!!!

Re:Whats wrong with that?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Azrael: The cat of Gargamel
http://www.hcmagazine.com/gui/content/ar ticles/smu rf_gargamelnazrael.jpg

Re:Whats wrong with that?

[Gerv]

"Peaceful proto-hippy" is your description, not mine. There is a middle ground between that and "terrorist".

Mark 11 continues:
And as he taught them, he said: "Is it not written:
'My house wil be called a house of prayer for all nations' (Isaiah 56:7)'
But you have made it a den of robbers."

The behaviour of the merchants and money-lenders was terrible - they were treating God's house (Jesus' father's house) as a bazaar, and profiteering from people's love of God.

Gerv

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[Ilgaz]

History didn't write such a religious propaganda at a world cup.

It was extreme, I know players are religious (or believes in religion) but it was damn extreme. I mean,really surprised me.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[Gerv]

Yeah, you're right. That religion thing - it's great for Sundays and all, but you can't let it affect your life. I mean, those people who act like their eternal destiny is the most important thing are total nutters. Far better to turn up on Sundays, sit quietly and listen, take part in the rituals (it's really important to do all these things exactly the right way) then go home and watch the football...

Gerv

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[sinserve]

Bring your argument to here, I am here to argue my points. If you don't have
anything to add to the discussion, SHUT UP, otherwise say something.

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[sinserve]

OMFG, the guys are complaining about how my post was moded when they don't have an idea themselves.

Ther Germans had an OK game in the first 20 minutes, after that they were DEAD. Rivaldo
had an entire side on his own, and the german defense was falling for no apparent reason.

I swear, Rivaldo made a habbit out of facing 2 to 3 defense players, only to be stopped by
the last. He was breezing through the first obstacles, but the germans wouldn't give him
enough space (meaning they had to mark him with TWO guys)

After that, the germans were passing wide passes. The germans can't keep the ball close to themselves.
The 11 specially had a ball stolen from him, just because he hit it too hard and sent it 5 meters
away from his body.

If you remember early in the first round, the germans were passing to each other slow balls, and
Ronaldo came close to stealing the ball that was passed to the goalie!

Oh No It Isn't

[Tim Ward]

It isn't all over. There's another week of grown-ups chasing balls about to endure (called "Wimbledon").

Re:call for JON KATZ on futbol !!

[soccerisgod]

After today, it's called Futebol! ;)

Re:Who cares?

[GeorgeTheNorge]

Don't know who is moderating, but this pass dialog deserves a collective 5.

Thanks for a nice brotherly laugh folks,

George the Norge - American Expat living in Norway.

USA's World Cup success

[Ella the Cat]

Hope this helps those of you who don't understand what the World Cup is all about

Origins of Football, Rugby and American football

[nickos]

"Soccer" comes from asSOCiation Football. IIRC, when the rules were originally standardised for this kind of game (at Canmbridge Uni), the majority agreed with the rules of modern football. This game was called Football. A few (from Rugby scholl and elsewhere) prefered a more physical game where you were allowed to hack (kick the legs of another player) and handle the ball. To diferentiate this kind of game from Football this was called Rugby Football, and later Association Football was retrofitted to normal Football to help people distinguish between the two.

At the time many public school types added "er" to the names of things. Rugby became rugger and association football, soccer.

For some reason, the Rugby version of football became more popular in the USA and the rules remained similar until, in the first few decades of the last century, large amounts of fatalities caused the US president to ask the American Rugby football players to change the rules (ball can be passed forwards etc).

I think theis sums it up but I may have some minor facts wrong.

Nick

congrats brasil

[Kinga_Ragon]

Last year Brasil perform very badly in their qualifying matches, and Ronaldo is injured. At that time, everyone is talking about Francais or Argentina as the champions. Nobody believe in Brasil, and nobody remembered Ronaldo. But I have high hopes on the Brasilian team, and I have high hopes on Ronaldo. (check out my google post: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:kingarago rn2001%40yahoo.com&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe= UTF8&selm=22401dcf.0111190414.1e166f2d%40posting.g oogle.com&rnum=19)

Now Brasil is the champion, and Ronaldo is the top scorer. Congrats to Brasil. And congrats to Ronaldo. And an entertaining world cup, need to wait 4 years for the next world cup.

Re:congrats brasil

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Ronaldo did play extremely well, good to see him get rid of the bad taste of the last world cup. Rivaldo also was dynomite. He helped on both of Ronaldo's goals, slamming the first shot hard enough for a rebound shot, and on the second pass from Kleberson, he faked like the pass was going to him, confusing the defense. Allowed Ronaldo to set up, and light up Kahn.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[Ilgaz]

Let me say one thing troll...

Sports=Sports

Sports+Politics AND religion doesn't match. Its the idea behind world cup and olympics etc. Whoever beats eachother on sports (via fairplay) wins. Nationality/Religion/Ethnics doesn't matter and its a shame that brasilian great players (tricked?) gone into such a lame show.

Wtf was that? Church? or a football stadium?

Jeez.

[justin_saunders]

"some ludicrous number of people watched some team beat the other team."

What an attitude!

And how many billions of people from all nations are involved in that other sporting event called "The World Series"....

Justin

set troll = 1
And BTW, its called football, because its game involving feet and balls.
set troll = 0

Arsenal Forever

Re:Jeez.

[balthan]

And BTW, its called football, because its game involving feet and balls.

I thought that was roshambo.

Re:Jeez.

[Joe Mucchiello]

I do believe the World Series is named for the newspaper that sponsored the first one. It was named the The World (or the World Something) and they had the nerve to name their competition after the newspaper. The newspaper is gone but competition remains. Just because you think World means "the whole world" in World Series doesn't mean it does.

Soccer? Football?

[Vuarnet]

I agree. American football, where only one player's feet ever gets in contact with the ball, is a misnomer.

I say you should call it... Tossball, or passball, or simply Pickupandcarryball. "Yeah, the Chicago Bears are the gretest team in the history of american pickupandcarryball."

Besides, american football is a wussy game compared to Australian rugby. There you play the game and take the hurting like a MAN, not run around lugging 30 pounds of armor.

Re:Soccer? Football?

[Jack Hughes]

Shouldn't that be pickupandcarrythenstopforatwominuteadvertbreakball

My community service for the day.

[2g3-598hX]

This is exactly what i'm talking about! The only reason I'm bothering to reply is that I believe fighting ignorance is important and worthwhile (although it does often seem a waste of time). Israel was being occupied, militarily, by the Roman Empire. The situation was remarkably similar to the situation in the west bank today, except today the Jews are the opressors, not the opressed as they were 2000 years ago. Explain this quote from the "prince of peace:" Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Yes, Jesus was probably a terrorist.

Re:My community service for the day.

[Gerv]

> Explain this quote from the "prince of peace:" Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a
> purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

On a long and hard journey, one might require a sword for protection.

Further along in the same chapter:
[Jesus is about to be arrested.] "When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear, and healed him."

Classic terrorist behaviour. :-)

It's obvious from this that Jesus' mention of "taking swords" did not mean you were supposed to attack people with them.

Gerv

Re:My community service for the day.

[2g3-598hX]

The point is not just that they had swords...but that Jesus was urging them to sell their own clothes to purchase one. And no a sword is not really the equivalent of a hand gun...for starters you need much more skill to use a sword than a gun effectively, which suggests some level of militancy amongst the disciples at least. Sure, they may have been just used for self-defence, but 12 men armed with swords and led does not, in my mind, constitute a group of men all concerned for their own protection but an armed force or militia.

You may say that merely owning a weapon does not constitute a crime...but at the time Jewish fanatical dagger men, zeloti, were roaming the streets of Jerusalem. Israel was a war zone, and in a war someone with a weapon is not a bystander, but a combatant. Incidentally, one of Jesus' disciples was named Simon Zeloti...

Anyway the main point (which you can take or leave) is that Jesus lived in a historical context and had tangible material goals (i.e. the overthrow of the Roman occupation), like many, many other Jewish messiahs of the time (as well as before and after him, until the diaspora). The idea of Jesus being a peaceful martyr who espoused love not war rather than a militant rebel was very probably created posthumously by his disciples. Many, many details from the new Testament (which is the only real source of information about Jesus) concur with this.

BTW all this is from two books Marvin Harris "Cows Pigs Wars + Witches" and "The Messianic Legacy" (forget the authors, same as "Holy Blood"), which argue convincingly for a historical Jesus.

Re:My community service for the day.

[Gerv]

Anyway the main point (which you can take or leave) is that Jesus lived in a historical context and had tangible material goals (i.e. the overthrow of the Roman occupation)

The Jews were _expecting_ a Messiah who would overthrow the Roman occupation, but Jesus did not have that as an aim. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", for example. And St. Paul wrote in Romans 13 that "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established."

Gerv

Re:My community service for the day.

[SmittyTheBold]

If I had seen thie thread earlier, I would have participated. But, good going. Too often people rag on Christ and it goes unchecked...

Re:My community service for the day.

[2g3-598hX]

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's" is universally misunderstood as Jesus emphasising the separation of authority between the ethereal Kingdom of Heaven from the corporeal world of man (and the empire of Rome).

However, much like the fundamentalists today who believe in the Rapture, many Jews believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was NOT the Afterlife but a real epoch whose time was about to come. The Kingdom of Heaven would be an earthly one as a direct replacement to the Roman Empire. Jesus's statement was actually a fiery refutation of Caesar's authority and a direct reference to taxes. Jesus is encouraging the people not to pay the Romans taxes.

As for what St Paul said, Paul was a Greek Jew who never met Jesus (except in a vision). The Christian Church must have been very submissive and obedient to the Roman authorities, merely to survive, but this has little bearing on Christ's actions when he was alive, as Christ had been dead for decades before they even wrote the Bible.

Which brings us to the whole point of this conspiracy. After Christ died, the Church of Christ faced a dilemma. To survive it could NOT go on with a military Messianic message of rebellion against Rome. If it did it would have been mercilessly quashed by the authorities, even more than it was already. And so it had to change it's central dogma from war and hatred to peace and love for pragmatic reasons.

And, as an anonymous c. pointed out, Matthew 10:34 has Jesus saying "I did not come to bring you peace but a sword." That seems hard to justify as statement by a peace lover.

If you want insight into Christ's times, although it is a dense read (classical phraseology), check out Flavius Josephus' War of the Jews . It will give you an idea of the chaotic, militant, incendiary and bloody situation Jesus stumbled into. My biggest problem with Christian teaching is that Jesus is portrayed as existing in a socio-cultural-historical vacuum, when he lived in a very interesting time. Context is everything.

PS - This is not as off-topic as some might imagine... football is a religious subject after all.

Re:My community service for the day.

[Snootch]

Which brings us to the whole point of this conspiracy. After Christ died, the Church of Christ faced a dilemma. To survive it could NOT go on with a military Messianic message of rebellion against Rome. If it did it would have been mercilessly quashed by the authorities, even more than it was already. And so it had to change it's central dogma from war and hatred to peace and love for pragmatic reasons.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to translate to "Well, originally they were horrible terrorist-type bastards, but there was a conspiracy to change it all before they wrote down any of the evidence we have. But before that they were all nasty, honest!"

Re:My community service for the day.

[Gerv]

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's" is universally misunderstood...

So you'd be the only person enlightened enough to know the truth? :-)

Jesus is encouraging the people not to pay the Romans taxes.

That's not what "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" means to me - the opposite, in fact, seems to be its plain meaning.

And so it had to change it's central dogma from war and hatred to peace and love for pragmatic reasons.

So people fighting for a cause will change their message completely in order to preserve their organisation's existence? If this is what happened, it would be a unique occurrence in the history of rebellious groups. Fanatical devotion to a cause is usually marked by a refusal to modify your message despite external pressure.

Regardless, your "They had a completely different aim, but changed it before any of the evidence was written down" thesis does seem somewhat hollow. Where are your sources for this conspiracy theory?

Gerv

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[Gerv]

I agree that the team which wins should not claim God chose them over the opposition. But there's nothing wrong in players giving credit where it's due for their abilities. If that's wrong, then so is "I'd like to thank Mum and Dad for supporting me all the way".

Gerv

Damn! Must be the aliens

[metlin]

"1.5 billion is the expectation for the final match -- accumulated for the 64 matches we expect more than 40 billion spectators," said Home Broadcast Services' (HBS) chief executive Francis Tellier on Saturday.

40 Billion. Is that just in the Milky way, or are we including the poor things in the other parts of the universe which we are filling with such transmissions?

I've always said that corpys had deals with aliens! See! See! See! :-/

Re:Damn! Must be the aliens

[avsed]

That's 40 billion **accumulated** - so that many viewings, not that many individuals pairs of eyeballs.

Dan

Can't understand.

[FreeLinux]

As the arguements rage back and forth on this story, I still can't grasp the rabid dissention against the World Cup and "soccer". There is constant comparison to American Football, yet to me the two are about as comparable as relativity and cheese!

When 1.5 billion people watch the World Cup with agonized anticipation people say "who cares" and "nobody's interested in that". Yet these same people think it is a great big deal that a paltry, in comparison, 131 million watched the Super Bowl and for months afterwards discuss the game and the commercials!?!?!?

People argue about the name of the sport. Despite the fact that most of the world refers to a game that is played almost entirely with the feet as Football(makes sense to me), the dissenters call it soccer and argue that it should never have been called football. These same people call a much younger game in which a ball may be kicked only twice over the course of a four hour period and is played almost exclusively with the hands, Football. Huh????

To be honest I enjoy both sports. But, I just don't understand how a small group of people can be so rabid in their dismissal of a sport that is, obviously, of tremendous significance to the entire world. Nobody said that you have to like it but, how can you not see it for what it truely is.

Re:Can't understand.

[zzyzx]

Just a nit. While sure, it's technically possible for a football game to only have two kicks in it, for that to happen, no one would score the entire game (until the last play td preventing OT) and no one would punt the entire game. That's an extremely unrealistic game; it would be like saying that a futball game could have the ball be kicked twice if the opening kickoff of each half was kicked in the air and the rest of game was heading it around.

Re:Can't understand.

[mattscape]

thanx for that comment. i totally agree.

Re:Can't understand.

[Dolohov]

The name is actually "association football" in the United States. The word "soccer" comes from that second syllable: association, from when they used to abbreviate it "assoc."

And I agree with you: It's a fast-paced, exciting game that people the world over can understand (As opposed to American football's predominant reaction "What the hell's a first down?" or "Why's he got his face in that guy's ass?")

I've always understood that the reason it never caught on in the US is that it's traditionally been hard to televise: You can't schedule time-outs for commercials, and there's only one break in the middle. Besides, it's one of the few games where it's more fun to watch in Spanish, regardless of the language you speak:

Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!! :)

Re:Can't understand.

[mrons]

Many games are called football because they are played on foot, instead of a horse.

Re:Can't understand.

[RoninM]

The United States, until recently, didn't have a professional soccer league. The fact is that many people in the states don't care about the sport because they simply haven't been exposed to a good quality of play with players that we should care about.

Note that most fans care about the teams that represent their locale in regional sports and their country in international sports. Until recently, we didn't have regional soccer and the US team didn't generate excitement.

As for the game's name, Americans will continue to prefer the term soccer because (1) like many other countries, we have a game already called football with a popular following; (2) it's an officially recognized term for the game internationally. We could've done far worse and invented our own term for the game...

Oh, and American football had semi-pro teams in the early 20th century. The modern game of soccer branched from rugby in the late 19th century according to FIFA. Given that American football shares much of soccer's history, I don't know how you can really claim that one's far older/younger than the other.

(Observation: Most messages that begin with expressing confusion over why X and Y are compared are the authors' comparisons of X and Y.)

Re:Can't understand.

[0123456789]

Oh, and American football had semi-pro teams in the early 20th century. The modern game of soccer branched from rugby in the late 19th century according to FIFA.

Wow, that would be impressive, given that the first recorded football (sorry, 'soccer') match took place in 1848. Of course, the game was played long before then. In fact, Rugby is widely acknowledged to have diverged from football in 1823 when William Webb-Ellis picked up the ball, while playing at Rugby school (hence the name).

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[GregWebb]

(Disclaimer - Christian)

Sir, why? Would you be personally offended if one took off his shirt and revealed a Tux vest?

Fact is, they think Jesus is important. They chose to reveal that, and in a world where the assumption seems to be that most people are agnostic and afraid to be different, I admire them for that. I wouldn't admire them any less if they were wearing a star of david, a crescent, a picture of Buddha, anything like that. They've got fame thanks to their talents and they're now using that to give them a small mouthpiece. Not unusual, just that when it's religious people tend to get shirty.

Really, I'm not one of these 'the whole world is in a conspiracy to bury the Bible!' Christians. That's patently untrue. It's rather irritating, though, to see this sort of senseless bashing.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The clock counts 'UP', what the hell with that? Wouldn't you rather know how much time is LEFT instead of how much time you've played?

You are probably one of my fellow Americans who always embarass our country by going to Britain and whining about people driving on the "wrong" side of the road. You are pathetic. God forbid you have to get used to accepting a different arbitrary standard then what you are used to. Do the words "grow up" convey anything to you?


2) Penalty time...nuff said.

Heaven forbid you actually learn to appreciate the sport for what it is, rather than damning it for what it is not.


3) Offsides...soo, you're not allowed to have a breakaway at all? I think if you get one you earned it, why should you have to WAIT for a defender to show up so you can continue? Screw that.

You are a fool. Soccer has breakaways all the time; you just can't camp out at the opponent's goalmouth and wait for the inevitable long pass (which is what happens when there is no offside rule - note that is offside, not offsides, you ignoramous). Offside rule forces teams to use a little creativity and imagination in their dribbling and passing. Your problem is that you are applying basketball standards to a very, very different sport.

4) Crowds literally KILLING each other by stampeding, throwing DARTS (for the love of God what would posses you to THROW FUCKING DARTS at people over a gay ass game?), and severe beatings? Go back to the stone age...oh wait Europe never left it!

If you think there are no riots or crowd violence associated with sporting events in the USA, you are a fool. Yes, some countries in Europe have problems with hooliganism. But these people would be violent whereever they are; soccer is just a convenient venue for their hooliganism.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[kubrick]

Sure, but it probably annoys all the people who paid $$$ for the replica shirts to see these "heroes" then taking them off as soon as the press attention hits. :)

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[sinserve]

WildBeast, a personal question, answer me honesly:
Was there any intended humor in your post?

You've watched a different game, read Salon review

[harmonica]

Am I being moded down for accurately reporting my experiences?

Well, your experiences are different from those of most other people. Salon has a more accurate review of the game.

Nobody would deny that Brasil deserved to win, in the end they got more chances and made more of them. But "the Germans sucked raw ass"? For anyone who actually watched the game and knows the rules, your original posting is a troll if I've ever seen one.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there's a language called English, used by some folks in a distant island and they call "football" a game in which you're not allowed to touch the ball with your hands.

Start calling your silly game with an oval (or eliptic) "ball" by another name -- "carryball" could be an alternative. Nobrainsball or Braindamagedball is also a good idea. :-)

Also, you are not America, ok? Canada is America, Mexico, Panamá, Colômbia, Bolívia, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, etc. etc. are all America. Stop doing that. Come up with a name to your country? Can't you organize some national poll and create a better designation?

And stop that inch, foot and other body part unit naming. How technical a spec can sound with inches and feet? That's anti-marketing! Good thing that there's no porn unit naming.

Worst world cup ever!!

[Iber]

To me the world cup lost all it's value this year the second Spain was unfairly kicked out of it. I've seen many games stolen by referees, but what happened in Spain-Korea was unheard of. I guess bringing soccer (and all its business) to the asian market is pretty important for FIFA

Same thing happened to Italy and Portugal, pretty much every decent team that played Korea. Whether you think it's a big plan to let Korea reach semifinals or just a logical consecuence of letting refs from countries like Uganda or Trinidad and Tobago reach this phase of the WC, there's something wrong here and it has screwed this year's world cup

BTW, people in Spain took it very seriously. There's this site that's holding a contest of fake pictures of the ref. The prize is suposed to be a trip to Uganda, the home country of one of the linemen.

Re:Worst world cup ever!!

[Iber]

I have nothing against you country, but you must be nuts if you claim that your refs are half as good or experienced as europeans or south americans. The elite of players deserves the elite of referees. I doubt there are many games in Trinidad & Tobago with over 3000 people

Also, I've seen the replay thousands of times, read newspapers all around the world, etc... and yours is the first opinion I see claming it was fair to disallow the goal. Can you point out any proof of your claims?

Re:Worst world cup ever!!

[PedroReish]

I don't get why Spain is bitching so bad about the refereeing against Korea. If they had longer term memory they would remember they stole the game against Slovenia in the first round. The referee did not call a blatant foul against a slovenian player which would have resulted in a penalty and then the ref issued a penalty for Spain 1 minute later on an excellent slovenian tackle that got the ball but not the player(i guess the theatrical dive by the spanish player helped).
I didn't hear Spain complain about that. If they had lost against Slovenia (which they should have) they wouldn't have qualified for the semis...
What goes around comes around. That's karma my spanish friends.

As for Italy, they got so many chance to put the game away. They lost because they just couldn't capitalize. No evil plan there.
As for Portugal, I can't say. I did not see that game.

____

Re:Worst world cup ever!!

[cozziewozzie]

Both 'disallowed' goals were scored after the game had been stopped and the defense had stopped playing. As such, they were not goals to start with. Sure, some bad calls against Spain, but I think the conspiracy theorists are blowing the thing up a bit too much.

The Beautiful GAME!

[loconet]

What Can i say, Im sad its over .. this past month have been my lowest slashdot reading time in years .. Football is the sport of the world, the sport of crowds, a BEAUTIFUL sport..

Congratulations Brasil!!
The world cup is once again South American!

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[WildBeast]

nope. I guess some moderators, really really like my posts or something :)

Re:Who cares?

[Gerv]

Er, hello? You just commented to my post, in "argumentative" style, but making the same points I did. What's with that? :-)

Gerv

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[Chris Pimlott]

The announcers also made the point earlier that it had started to drizzle a bit, so the ball was probably slick.

Too bad for Kahn, he had an amazing series; if Germany had won it he'd have probably gotten the Golden Ball.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[GregWebb]

Not sure. They saw their heroes win the trophy in those shirts, there'll still be a lot of photos of the team in them in tomorrow's papers. Not because there's a conspiracy against the Christian shirts but that they simply require too much explanation if they're what's in the sports pages.

Thinking back to the England-Denmark game, a lot of players swopped shirts afterwards, so half the England team left the pitch in Danish colours. Didn't see any complaint against that and I've seen them do TV interviews still wearing opposition shirts. Or, going back a few years, when Ian Wright broke Arsenal's club goalscoring record, he instantly ripped off his shirt and ran around parading a shirt with a Nike logo and his new record total. That's really blatant placement by Nike, but it was also the image all over the press. Ian was a hero to Arsenal fans, though, so no-one really cared as I recall.

Some might be annoyed but I can't see many being too sad.

The pressure is REALLY on Voeller

[MtViewGuy]

I hate to say this, but German coach Rudi Voeller has some major expectations to live up to come World Cup 2006.

And he better win or the German press (starting with Bild) will rip him to pieces.

"Soccer" is a perfectly correct term

[alienmole]

Stop calling [American] football "soccer"

I grew up in an ex-British colony which shall remain nameless, and although there was no American football, so no potential for confusion, we still called football "soccer", mostly. We had a "soccer team" and "soccer players".

This Short History of Soccer has a description of the origin of the term at Oxford in the 1880's. Although the term derives from a contraction of "association football", it is in widespread colloquial use, and appears in modern dictionaries. I don't see what purpose is being served by correcting people about it. Or is that just a pathetic attempt to tweak Americans?

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[bankman]

You have obviously never played football in your life and don't understand neither the rules nor the tactics. It's even possible that you haven't even watched the game.

Here's what I saw: Two very capable teams, a solid, convincing German start, Brazilian players who lost many 1o1s, a terrible mistake by Kahn (his only in the tournament), Brazil taking their chances, while Germany missing all of them.

All in all Brazil deserves to hold the cup (as would have Germany) and I was happy to see Ronaldo come back after his 4 year struggle, as a much better player than he ever was.

The parent troll should note that Gerald Asamoah ("the black...FAT ASS" as the guy so offensively stated) is a striker and not a defender. It wasn't his mistake, but rather bound to happen when the coach sends in an additional striker to replace a defender. With one-nil against the Germans, it was the right decision. Nobody cares whether you lose by one or two, try to even and your back in the game.

One last thing: The troll wrote :"Ireland,
Korea, Turkey and Croatia had a better game than Germany." If that would have been so, why weren't they in the finals?

Sinserve, the next time you write something about football, use all players' names and never their numbers. All players deserve this, for they played their hearts out and deserve a little respect. Every goddamn journalist knows and honors it.

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[freqqq]

wow, this comment is pretty unbelievable. you don't have any clue about football. back to school, american boy.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The clock counts 'UP', what the hell with that? Wouldn't you rather know how much time is LEFT instead of how much time you've played?

It's common in sports that measure time backwards (as you suggest) to still report goals the 'normal' (ie, soccer) way. eg. "The goal was scored by the Red Wings 4 minutes into the first period." Besides, soccer fans and players can both get far more drunk than their equivalents in USian football and STILL do the basic math to determine that 39:00 elapsed means 6:00 left. You're either converting one way or the other, so soccer decides to let the clock run the normal way.

Axis of Evil!!

[Mantour]

The reason maybe the Korea-Japan World Cup wasn't popular in the U.S. was presented hosted by an "Axis of Evil country". You know, theses evil people are playing around the Word "Football", it's one way to confused the U.S. in order to prepare an Terrorist plot. "Footballis a *MAN's GAME*, as we all know revolves around throwing a ball around and pinning the guy down, all while wearing tights." (I do hope this *IS* viewed as Sarcasm...)

Re:Why soccer is a bad game

[cruachan]

Jaw hits desk

This guy just hasn't the faintest idea of what he's on about.

Re:No, it's not

[rodolfo.borges]

It's not only the Americans. In English the name of the country is "Brazil". I'm for instance am a Brazilian, but I call It "Brazil" when I'm write in English.

Nothing to do with respec.

And nobody is a moron here.
Peace and Love! :P

hilarious AC post.

[GigsVT]

Man you made me spit coke all over my monitor. :)

why now?

[pamri]

I was wondering why you didn't set up atleast a poll on the Cup, considering that the "US of A" had entered the Quarters. BTW, I *had* sent a poll suggestion.

Wondering what the world cup has to do with "news with nerds". Well the world cup requires "The largest converged voice and data network ever". Avaya, one of the partners, also has some more details on it's site. If you could find a decent article written by a 3rd party, post it. Until then you have to make do with this.

Re:Why soccer is a bad game

[fatbastard10101]

A good goalie will beat a good offensive player EVERY TIME. The goalie has way too much of an advantage.

I would modify this to say a good defense will beat a good offensive player every time. Oliver Kahn, best keeper in the world no question, got schooled by Ronaldo during defensive lapses. (Granted, Ronaldo is not bad himself, but...)

If the D does its job mugging those pansy strikers, then the goalie will look good.

I don't know if it's fair...

[Oswald]

...for so many people to wonder when the US will "grow" into liking this sport. I don't hear anybody wondering when Japan will "grow" into liking chess.

I'm not sure why it's not more popular here. Many children play (what we call) soccer in the US, so I don't think it's lack of exposure. More likely, lack of big-league heroes. Very few men follow the professional teams in the US, so the boys see a lot more of baseball and (Amer.)football, and the cycle repeats itself.

I notice that the really popular sports in the U.S. have a lot of rules, that frequently get tinkered with (eg. NFL football, NASCAR racing). I don't know what this means, but there it is.

Re:I don't know if it's fair...

[allanj]

The rules get tinkered with to please the TV networks. They tried to "tinker" with soccer for the US World Cup, wanting 4 quarters and interrupts to check fouls, all in the name of the almighty commercials. They failed (fortunately), but that could go a long way towards explaining the lousy TV coverage in the US. "What? 45 minutes with no commercials? We're not having that!".

So you see - it's all about COVERAGE, and soccer is admittedly not suited for mainstream american style commercial television. Or rather, it's the other way around, I think...

Re:I don't know if it's fair...

[Oswald]

You're right, this happens all the time, but I meant stuff that effects how the game plays. For instance, not letting the defense block pass receivers more than five yards downfield, and changing the templates for car profiles in mid-season to make things more even on the track (to touch on the two examples I gave in the original post). It even happens in baseball--the designated hitter, inter-league play, and the sneaky way they change how 'live' the ball is are examples there. Americans don't seem to have any respect for playing a game in a time-honored way for long periods--short attention spans, I guess.

I guess it's obvious I would prefer more continuity, but the games that have it frequently don't prosper in the U.S. I don't know why.

Re:I don't know if it's fair...

[allanj]

I think I know why (as I said in MY original post) - it's about exposure. No sport, however fun to watch, will amount to much without TV coverage, and the massive flux of money that accompanies TV coverage. And any sport that requires longer continuous timespans would be of lower interest to the TV networks, so the sport would receive less money for TV rights, and would therefore develop more slowly, further lowering it's interest to the general public, and so on and on and on...

I must admit to not knowing the least bit about baseball (and not caring about that), but the other types of big US television sports I enjoy occasionally - even US style football. I live in Europe, so that definately colors my outlook of things. I do know about American style commercial-driven television, though.

The ever-occuring wish from the US concerning soccer is about having more goals scored and more interruptions. To that effect they've suggested the following (no particular order implied):

• bigger goals
• no offside rule
• four quarters
• an overseeing referee with access to video information (much like US football, I guess)
• Some more stuff that I've forgotten about :-)

With the exception of bigger goals, none of these would imply more goals scored. Removing the offside rule would seem to imply more goals, but in reality it would not. Here's why:

Imagine the recent World Cup finals had no offside rule. Consequently Brazil would camp Ronaldo out near the German penalty spot. To counter this the Germans would need to camp TWO defenders near him. Likewise, the Brazilians would need to park two guys way back down in their own defense. This would remove two general defenders from the ordinary defense, requiring a more defensive stance from midfielders, and so on. The effect would be to move the general layout of players BACKWARDS to take care of defense, which has turned out to be a very important factor in modern soccer. More so than offense, even though the bigger stars are attackers/goalscorers. The alternative would be a longer distance between defense and attackers (goal to goal style play), and that playing style has long been known to be rather inefficient. Fun to watch sometimes, but often looses you the game. You might ask where this rambling is heading: Moving players backwards is detrimental to goal-scoring, so removing the off-side rule is detrimental to goal-scoring, even though it sounds illogical. Suggesting it really tells of a lack of understanding for what makes the game "tick".

To sum it up - removing the offside rule as a "de jure" rule would create a "de facto" offside rule to defend against run-away chances, but needing more defensive players than now, which in my view would imply fewer goals scored.

Hum?What?Who?

[GdoL]

I'm here for the last 48 hours trying to finish my thesis, sometimes eating sometimes reading slashdot. And there it is. A slashdot post about something alien. Strange. Never heard of... A sport??? What is the taste of it? Can I order 2 for the way? They come with collectibles? Toys?

Re:Who cares?

[ninana]

We weren't the ones to call it soccer. You can blame that on the Brits. Football actually diverged into 2 different games - Rugby rules football and Association rules football. Association was slanged into soccer while rugby stayed rugby. When Rugby rules football was being played over in the US, it changed and morphed into what Americans call football. Have you ever wondered why Britain's oldest football magazine is called "Soccer World"?

Re:first post??

[SkulkCU]

no, no, no. You're doing it all wrong. It's:

First POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST!!!

Re:Brasil

[mickwd]

You mean the gameplay that made them the tournament winners, the tournament's highest scorers, saw their DEFENDERS running at goal, taking free kicks, scoring with spectacular overhead kicks, and with more fans amongst the "neutral" supporters than any other country by virtue of the way they play......

Yeah, the final wasn't great, but that was because Germany was trying to tie Brazil down, and not give them the time, space or possession they wanted - nothing wrong with that by Germany, it just doesn't make for a very entertaining games sometimes.

Re:Who cares?

[phunhippy]

Stop calling football "soccer", and start calling the sport that you guys play but no-one else does "American football", which is a far more accurate term for it.

You have to face it on this one - both history and worldwide usage are not on your side. :-)

Perhaps.. but your missing one key important detail about America here.... We ARE NUMBER 1!!! WE ARE NUMBER 1!!! WE ARE NUMBER 1!!!

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[jt007]

Not only as a scout my friend, he actually played for them too.

Re:Who cares?

[lalleglad]

I agree with you in spirit, but I would like to correct you on history. The first formal Football rules were written down in 1863, FIFA was founded in 1904 and the first WC was held in 1930 so even though it may seem it has existed for ages it is at least younger than the USA (1776 was it? ;-)

Probably the most artistic and graceful team sport there is, that actually is closer to war without weapons.

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[Ilgaz]

"One last thing: The troll wrote :"Ireland,
Korea, Turkey and Croatia had a better game than Germany." If that would have been so, why weren't they in the finals?"

Ahem, we were in finals (kind of) and became 3rd. Korea was at finals too matched with us to take 3rd (duh)

Don't waste us with the troll please :))

Re:Who cares?

[ianweeks]

Perhaps.. but your missing one key important detail about America here.... We ARE NUMBER 1!!! WE ARE NUMBER 1!!! WE ARE NUMBER 1!!!

You obviously didn't see the match. Brazil won. They're number 1.

(Ofcourse Brazil is in America too, but I don't think that is what you meant.)

Mess Gerv,get banned from Mozilla!

[Ilgaz]

Hum Gerv... I kinda remembered you... My replies made you k-line me from irc.mozilla.org which I have many friends to talk with? Since you are a mozilla developer,tsk... That fascist attitude... Geezus

I know this is off topic but can easily show how a person saying he is religious can abuse his powers (irc.mozilla.org) to make a guy banned from a IRC network with false reasons (flood or something,geez) and you, all OS guys, use people like him's work to battle against MS reign.

Off topic but for the record, I was k-lined from irc.mozilla.org which BELONGS to Mozilla.org (with a fake reason) community because I spoke his stupid religious stuff not needed for a DAMN sports match!

Now purge this post or something, I am not feeling good because of those happenings already.

A soccer and religion thread can make a one k-lined from irc.mozilla.org with false reasons. I can't comment anymore...

Re:Mess Gerv,get banned from Mozilla!

[Gerv]

My replies made you k-line me from irc.mozilla.org which I have many friends to talk with?

That's not true. I have no idea how to k-line someone. My knowledge of IRC is rather basic. Even if I did know how to do it, I believe it requires being an op in the relevant channel, which I'm not (unless it was #mozwebtools.)

#mozilla has bots which auto-op people, but I'm not on the list of people who get auto-ops (sad, but true.)

Lastly, I've never had a soccer/religion discussion on IRC. Perhaps it was someone else using my nick. I have no idea. But it wasn't me.

Gerv

Ronaldo Luiz Nasario da Lima

[mambru]

Now, some crap to avoid lameness filter:

X-Fry: That's it! You can only take my money for so long before you take it all and I say enough!

MLS Paid ABC and ESPN to carry the games

[El Puerco Loco]

MLS paid $40 million for the broadcast rights to the games, and also had to pay ABC and ESPN to carry them. Pathetic. They basically had to pay the networks as much as they would normally get in adverstising revenue for the time the games aired, and hope to recoup some of it from the ads that aired at halftime.

Re:MLS Paid ABC and ESPN to carry the games

[Nasheer]

Globo TV (Brazil) paid R$130 million, aprox. U$48 million for the exclusive right of transmition. Until the finals it had R$300 millions back in revenues and advertisement. I don't know how's their status right now.

The games were between 03:00 and 09:00. And they broke the record of audience in every transmition, with average 80% of audience.

The drawback to all brazilians: we had to watch the games with the narrative of the nasty Galvão Bueno.

Shite.

Take it easy, guys. I'm agnostic....

[Rams�s Morales]

...but I like their attitude.

Of course god nor any other magical entity from humans imagination had anything to do with their win.

They won because of their hard work, training, discipline, scientific nutrition, etc...

Simply take their prayers as a humility sign. Humility is a good quality.

Re:Why soccer is a bad game

[SirRichardPumpaloaf]

I think a lot of Americans (like myself) have a hard time with the idea that in soccer the best team doesn't always win. Because goals are so rare, a single fluky play or bad linesman call can change the outcome, whereas in basketball for example you have tons of chances to overcome a bad break. You can turn that around, though, and say that it makes the games more exciting since there is always a chance for a miracle. Just look at the NBA finals this year, what could possibly have been duller than that? I thought the World Cup was really enjoyable to watch this time around, although it's got a long way to go before it passes baseball in my affections.

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[bankman]

Sorry, my mistake. It was awesome to celebrate with the Turkish community here in Berlin.

No commercials!

[dirvish]

Maybe all soccer games are like this but I thought it was cool that the world cup games were televised without commercial interruption. Commercials would not have worked well with the continuous game play.

Re:No commercials!

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

All games are like this, there are no breaks or plays, so there's no spot to put them in. They put little ads here or there on screen during though.

Re:No commercials!

[dirvish]

I think the rest of the world may be on to something. Maybe soccer is better than American football...

Re:No commercials!

[Carlos Laviola]

If you notice, there are permanent ads on the field that are bought by Coca-Cola, Fujitsu, and other companies. Look at the sides of the fields, they're all surrounded by them. That's the common way of advertising in football. (And also, the occasional "quick ad" that the narrators do when someone shoots the ball far away, thus pausing the game for a few seconds until the reposition of the ball).

Anyway, it is much less annoying than the commercials on certain other sports.

Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone

[mangu]

It's actually her first name.

Re:Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone

[VEGx]

So are some of the names of the football player (but not all).

Re:Why soccer is a bad game

[Reality Master 101]

The fact you have to compare soccer to Ice Skating and Skiiing is pretty telling.

64 tons of american pride....

[ddd2k]

football is a far more accurate name for "soccer" anyways, since you are kicking it with your foot. i read this hiliarous editorial in TIME. says that Americans dont seem to care about football due to the lack of education in international geography. "the only countries Americans know are they ones that attack them." this is stereotypical... but still funny "you live in canada?, what state is that?"

Re:64 tons of american pride....

[Goose In Orbit]

Thought that was England/Britain

Re:# th POST!!!!

[Nasheer]

YES, YES, YES!!!

2-0 WE ARE THE BESTTEST TEAM IN THIS WHOLE WORLD!!!!

I must admit, I NEVER though this team would go so far! I was one of the 170 million coaches Brazil have and one of the 150 million who doubted this team would even participate the World Cup!

Thank God, I was wrong!!!

Sorry folks, burn my karma, kill me, but you can never deny that we are the only country that has won the Cup 5 times! (We where the only who had won 4 times, too, but now, this is old story!) =)

England may have invented the football (soccer sucks), but Brazil adopted it as a religion!

Re:American ego sparks again

[Reality Master 101]

Baseball !!! Come on dude, I haven't seen any game more boring than that.

Although I'm not really much of a baseball fan, baseball really is one of those sports that you enjoy a lot more when you understand the subtleties of the strategy, and I recognize that I don't really understand it that well. The reason I brought up baseball is that it's one of the sports that really can have a compelling defensive matchup.

Other sports, on the other hand, are just boring when you have a "big defensive showdown". (American) football is one of those I would classify that way. When you have two great defenses with two mediocre offenses you just see the two teams giving possession back and forth. Booooooring.

What's with all the religion bashing?

[bupernfut]

Could you imagine the pressure these guys are under and the relief they feel after the game is over? There were close to 1.5 BILLION people watching their every move! If they want to run around praying with slogans on their backs, so what? As anyone from a South American culture will tell you, religion plays a very pivotal role in many of their lives. I say let them have their moment. Why should they listen to Atheist Americans who barely give a damn about a game that many of them base their lives around?

Neither "foot" nor "ball"

[mangu]

The stupid game Gringos call "football" is actually "handellipsoid".

Re:Argenttina should be desperate...

[martissimo]

You can call him a coke sniffer, but do not forget that Maradona quite possibly scored the finest goal in WC history

funny that people still talk about "the hand of god" while that linked run of Maradona's 3 minutes later was truly breathtaking and far more memorable. I'm not even a Argentina fan, yet i feel lucky to have watched it.

Re:Why soccer is a bad game

[rbeattie]

You've been marked as Flamebait already, but please for future reference, shut the fsck up about your "opinions" about soccer. You're giving the rest of us Americans a bad name and just promote stereotypes of the U.S. that just doesn't get it. It's a great game. The whole world (minus you) thinks it's great. Do you REALLY think that you have some special insight that 1.5 billion people have missed? No you don't, so keep it shut.

-Russ

pitcher duels?

[mangu]

You mean, when people throw beer pitchers at each other in bar fights? Yes, those can be compelling. However, if you mean that "talk, talk, scratch your balls, spit, talk, talk, throw a ball, miss" thing that goes on in baseball games, I must disagree with you. I once saw a Dodgers vs. Giants game in LA, in 1991, when I got free tickets. Nothing will compel me to watch such a boring game again.

Re:pitcher duels?

[Reality Master 101]

You mean, when people throw beer pitchers at each other in bar fights?

You don't REALLY want to get into a comparison based on the violence of the spectators, do you? I figured I would leave that out since it's such an easy target, and soccer shouldn't be blamed for what the fans do when the watch it, but if you want to...

Re:Why soccer is a bad game

[Reality Master 101]

The whole world (minus you) thinks it's great.

"The whole world"?? I guess you missed this little part of North America called "The United States". The point is that only countries with few other options think it's great.

Do you REALLY think that you have some special insight that 1.5 billion people have missed? No you don't, so keep it shut.

As a matter of fact, I do, as I explained. Am I supposed to care what 1.5 billion people think who have few other sport options? That would be a big, fat NO. Just as I don't care what 4 billion people around the world think of the US who don't live here (not to say that ANY foreign opinion is worthless, only the vast majority).

Typical soccer fan. Criticize their sport, and they go off the deep end.

Re:Why soccer is a bad game

[Reality Master 101]

I would modify this to say a good defense will beat a good offensive player every time.

OK, I'll buy that. The point is that, as someone else pointed out, the game is too fluky when you have so few points scored. I think the "natural" score that a game like soccer should attain is about 20-25 points per side (and yes, I know that is a radical departure).

Congratulations Brazil

[uberred]

Excellent match.

Re:No, it's not

[Nasheer]

The most beautiful of the whole thing is the ideal of "FIFA Fair Play". No morons!

Also, you call them "Germany".
We call them "Alemanha".
They call themselves "Deutchland".

Anyway, thanks to the one who wrote "Brasil". It is often silly for a Brazilian to see the writing "Brazil".

Re:Why soccer is a bad game

[Reality Master 101]

You have no idea what you are talking about. There have been numerous rules changes over the last 20 years to facilitate attacking play - offside changes, less tackling, goalies unable to hold the ball for more than 6 seconds, no passbacks, etc etc.

And yet, there are still only 1 or 2 goals a side (if you're lucky). As I pointed out in another post, I think the "natural" number of points should be about 20-25 points a side. It would make it much less fluky than having one side score a goal, and then spend the rest of the time trying to prevent the other side.

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[pardonne]

He has moved to CA, and is keeping a low profile for a number of years. There was a mini interview with him on TV, what he thought of the US team, etc.

Pardonne

Offside...

[vrt3]

3) Offsides...soo, you're not allowed to have a breakaway at all? I think if you get one you earned it, why should you have to WAIT for a defender to show up so you can continue? Screw that.

I have the impression you misunderstood the rule a bit. If you have the ball, you are allowed to break away with it as much as you like, defenders or not. You're just not allowed to give a pass to a team mate who is camping near the goal.

But I agree the rule as it is should be abolished or completely changed, since it's too hard to tell for the referee in many circumstances.

Re:Offside...

[vague]

Ofcourse, abolishing that rule would completly destroy the game that is soccer. Teams would be forced to play with a lot more people on the defence, the number of goals scored would approach absolute zero, and it would not be anything near the beautiful game it now is.

It's very simple, without that rule the defence would always need one player closer to their own goal than each of the opposing players. Not pretty.

Re:Who cares?

[Boiler99]

When was the last time you heard of a crowd in the USA _stampeding_? Oh right it doesn't happen.

There is always violence associated with sports especially when alcohol is present. I'll definitely give you that. The observation is just that hooliganism in "football" is quite a bit worse than in other sports, and that is especially so in the United States.

People in the United States don't hate all you people from elsewhere, at least not in general. However, people in the US do (in general) dislike "football", why that is I can't guess, although I played it for quite some time when I was younger I can't seem to stomach it now.

Oh well, no sense in beating on you people who do enjoy it. Just like there is no sense in beating on someone who criticizes the game. Just leave it at that, a game, and move on ;)

one of the things that annoys about us sports

[Edmund Blackadder]

they tend to declare their world domination without even giving a chance for other countries.

The world series is not a world series. Not every team in the world had a chance to play.

And the superbowl champions are not the best in the world, because not every american footbal team had a chance to play. Sure they are probably the best in the world, but you still cant declare that, until the world has had a chance.

Re:one of the things that annoys about us sports

[sekicho]

In a way, though, the world really *does* have a chance... look at all the internationals playing in the major leagues now, who come to the States to play with a truly "world-class" team. Same thing with the major European soccer leagues.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[nathanh]

They chose to reveal that, and in a world where the assumption seems to be that most people are agnostic and afraid to be different

You're living in denial if you think most of the world population is agnostic.

Re:Soccer WC - what a joke

[Hassman]

Ummm... Go travel. Soccer is player *EVERYWHERE*.

unlike soccer which is played in a couple of European and Sth American countries

Right right. England, scottland, ireland, france, germany, spain, italy, czech rep, poland, argentina, brazil, mexico, S. korea, russia, etc.. (these are just a *small* smattering of places)

So soccer a joke internationally? no. you are.

Re:Who CARES?

[Hassman]

I dunno why this is on slashdot, but *I* care about the world cup. So do a lot of americans. Believe it or not, you don't set the standard.

The MLS has grown in popularity so much recently (and not since the USA did well in the cup).

In fact soccer is the #2 played team sport behind basketball in the US. Why don't you go and do some research to see how things really are before you go and embarrass yourself.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[GregWebb]

There's an awful lot of nominal believers in those categories. People who are brought up in a religion and stay in out of intertia rather than personal conviction.

I would suggest that most of the world has a general concept of spirituality as long as it doesn't impact too much on their day-to-day life. For example, look at the percentage of the UK population who consider themselves Christian against church attendance figures - they're nowhere near matching.

Re:Soccer WC - what a joke

[Gerv]

How predictable this tournament was.

Predictable? Portugal, Argentina and the champions France all get knocked out in the group stages, France without scoring a goal. South Korea beat Italy and Spain on the way to the semi-finals. Turkey come third. The USA even do well.

This is the least predictable World Cup for years.

Gerv

Re:If you're going to act superior, at least be ri

[warkda rrior]

That did not make any sense! ... it is universally known as Soccer, even in countries where it is primarily known as Football...

Care to elaborate on the difference between universal knowledge and primary knowledge?

Let's thank the germans

[SAN1701]

Because

1- They loose the game to us

2- They invented beer for us to celebrate

;-)

Deeply disappointed by Slashdot

[line-bundle]

Why did slashdot not have a single poll on the world cup. The comments on the top of the page just add to my hypothesis that the /. people don't even pretend to care for their international readers.

Re:Deeply disappointed by Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not just americans, we're the imperialists. You're not "international readers", you're our subjects. Why should we care? And if you don't believe me, just go ask our president.

Re:Who cares?

[Amanset]

There is a very good reasons why the clock counts up. A half is never a full 45 minutes. First you play 45 minutes and then the game is extended, at the officials' discretion, to make up for any stoppages during the game. Hence there is no definite number to count down from as there is no definite half length.

I suppose you could count down from 45, but you'd end up with -3 minutes or something.

Re:Bollox

[GauteL]

"Utter bollocks. If those two teams were so good, then they would have won. In a close game, referees decisions make a difference: don't have a close game in the first place. Italy good?"

You don't understand modern football do you? Almost all games are close in a World Cup. Brazils 4-0 over China and 5-2 over Costa Rica was exceptions rather than the rule.

The little things settle a modern game of football, like having two totally good goals turned down by the referee (Spain), both which should have settled this game. I never expected Spain to win with more than two goals even if they are a better side than Korea, so having two good goals turned down sure cheats them out of a deserved victory.
The game was then settled on a shootout, which is pretty much a lottery.

Italy also had good goals turned down, in addition to a VERY suspect send off for their star player Totti, into extra time. Even if you look the other way at the badly disallowed goals, they should at LEAST have hold on for a penalty shootout.

The truth is that Korea got helped through two games by bad mistakes from the referee. If it had been only one, then perhaps you could argue that they deserved reaching the semi-finals. But two?

I still don't think there was any corruption involved, just plain old mistakes, but Korea did NOT deserve to be in the semi-finals, and as of that, I'm glad Turkey beat them in the bronze-finals.

I've got nothing against Korea or Koreans, in fact they hosted a great tournament, and was definitely good enough to play with the big boys. I like the fact that there are now "new nations" joining the elite, but they still didn't deserve to reach the semi-finals.

Re:Who cares?

[tester13]

my friend from Brazil calls it "carry ball"

Brazilian Anthem

[Nasheer]

Brazies, if your are going to translate our anthem for the gringos, try at least to translate it to contemporary portuguese, first. Here we go:

"At the placid shores of the Ipiranga (river),
It was heard the trumbling yell of a brave people,
And the Sun of freedom, with is bright rays,
Shone in the sky of the motherland in this very moment.

If we can afford the guarantees of this equalty
with our strong arms, in your breast, O liberty,
Defy our own chest to death."

Enough for now. The other parts are limited to native Brazilians, only. ;)

Re:Brazilian Anthem

[shrikel]

How about this impeccably accurate translation ... from Babelfish?

(É brincadeira só.)

Actually, I'm a little impressed by Babelfish. A lot of it is actually not too bad.

I

They had heard of the Ipiranga the placid edges
Of a heroic people the thundering shout,
E the sun of the Freedom, in fúlgidos rays,
It shone in the sky of the Native land in this instant.

If the distrain of this equality
We obtain to conquer with strong arm,
In your seio, ó Freedom,
The proper death defies our chest!

Loved Native Ó,
Idolatrada,
It saves! It saves!

Brazil, an intense dream, a vivid ray
Of love and hope to the land it goes down,
If in your formoso sky, limpid risonho and,
The image of the Cruise shines.

Giant for the proper nature,
You are beautiful, you are strong, fearless colossus,
E your future espelha this largeness

Adored land,
Among others a thousand,
You, Brazil are,
Loved Native Ó!

Of the children of this ground you are gentile mother,
Loved native land,
Brazil!

II

Lying perpetual in splendid cradle,
To the sound of the sea and the light of the deep sky,
Fulguras, ó Brazil, florão of America,
Illuminated to the sun of the New World!

Of that the garrida land more
Your risonhos, pretty fields have more flowers;
Our forests have more life,
Our life in your seio more loves.


Loved Native Ó,
Idolatrada,
It saves! It saves!

Brazil, of perpetual love is symbol
Lábaro that you exhibit covered with star,
E says the green-parrot of this flammule
- Peace in the future and glory in the past.

But, if you raise of justice clava it strong,
You will see that a son yours does not run away to the fight,
Nor he fears, who adores you, the proper death.

Adored land
Among others a thousand,
You, Brazil are,
Loved Native Ó!

Of the children of this ground you are gentile mother,
Loved native land,
Brazil!

That's typical Italy

[MtViewGuy]

Italy, on the other hand, got eliminated and spent the next two weeks whining about a conspiracy and demanding an investigation.

Alas, that's real typical of the Italian reaction whenever a soccer match doesn't go their way. The result is conspiracy theories from the Italian press that makes X-Files seem like a minor incident. (shrug)

Indeed, Peri Luigi Collina (the referee for today's final game) is MUCH disliked in Milan for the way he ruled against powerhouse teams in the Italian Serie A series such as Inter Milan and Juventus a couple of years ago.

Re:Who cares?

[oldsk8r]

1668, William of Orange ?

Re:Brasil

[Paul Komarek]

I disagree. The first half sucked because *both* teams stunk up the place. Ronaldo and Ronaldinho couldn't keep their feet on the ball. I've never seen a Brazilian World Cup team play so sloppily. It wasn't until the first Brazilian goal that Brazil started playing well.

Germany did a decent job in the second half. Unfortunately, nobody told them that the goal is the big white thing with three poles and a net. As a result, the Germans kept kicking the ball over the endline anywhere *but* the goal. How did Germany manage to accrue something like 13 corner kicks and not score a single goal?

My conclusion is the both teams were to blame for the lackluster first half, and not Germany's style.

-Paul

Re:Who CARES?

[Hassman]

Oh ok. so a sport has to generate money to be popular. I see. Yay capitalism.

Your arguments are flawed. Rollarblading is popular, swimming is popular, downloading mp3's are popular, how much money do these wonderful activities generate again?

BTW, I don't personally know *one* native-born American who actually watches soccer on a regular basis

Now you do. You can include some of my friends too if it would make you feel better. Then you would know 7.

I better get back to watching and playing baseball (the most boring game in the world) because its on TV, and anything on TV must generate money and therefore be popular.

Re:If you're going to act superior, at least be ri

[livingdots]

"Europe refers to it as Football, it isn't universally referred to as Football. It is universally known as Soccer, even in countries where it is primarily known as Football."

Are you drunk? I have to ask, because that didn't make much sense.

First of all, several languages are spoken in Europe, and many of them are official languages in other parts of the world. For example, it's called "le football" in French, which is the official language in 28 countries and five continents. It's called "futebol" in Portuguese, which is the official language Portugal, Brazil and seven other countries in the world. It's called "fútbol" in Spanish, which is the official language in 21 countries -- including Diego Maradona's Argentina.

The only places in the world where it's predominantly referred to as "soccer" is in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where it's also known as "football". ("Soccer" is an abbreviation of "association *football*".) And when people all over the world learn English as a second language they are usually taught British English, where -- as we all know -- the game is usually called "Football" (the term "soccer" is also used, but less often). Also, FIFA (the international governing body of football) consistently refers to it as "football".

Qualifying is a plus

[Max the Merciless]

Look at France, previous world champsions who didn't have to qualify and bowed out without even scoring one goal!

France hadn't played a game "in anger" in the two years before the championship and were not battle hardened. Both Germany and Brasil had to struggle through to the finals, and I think this experience showed come the finals.

In Football (soccer) there is a big difference between a "star team" and a "team of stars". This World Cup really showed this. To make it to through you have to work as a tight unit. France, Argentina, Italy, and Portugal all possess top players, but they did not work well as a unit. S.Korea, Turkey, Ireland and even the USA don't possess top players, but they were cohesive teams.

As for the refereeing. It was apalling. Italy and Spain seem to have a pretty good case for bias. The probablity of so many match winning shonky decisions going in S.Korea's favour is pretty small. Makes you wonder if there wasn't some kind of directive from FIFA to help the co-hosts along. I hope not, but it makes you wonder. But having said that I thought the S. Korean team played brilliantly, and you can't take anything away from their effort, even if they were helped along by an invisible hand (linesman flag).

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[SmittyTheBold]

How extreme would it have been if they had worn "Pepsi" shirts instead? You would probably just look the other way.

Get over it...they were expressing their beliefs. At least this one was genuine, unlike some paid-for endorsement.

Booing...

[darekana]

Bra[s|z]il booing kahn was pretty weak.

Korea booing all the teams they played, except perhaps Germany...
that was kinda annoying too. I guess its better than getting shit thrown at you by the crowd like some of the qualifying matches.

Re:Where are the US ?

[swoopx]

Actually they advanced as far in 1930 as they did this year. Plus in 1930 there were only something like 16 teams to begin with? This world cup was the first time they ever won an elimination game.

Football in Australia

[hayden]

People argue about the name of the sport. Despite the fact that most of the world refers to a game that is played almost entirely with the feet as Football(makes sense to me), the dissenters call it soccer and argue that it should never have been called football.

Saying "football" in Australia doesn't really narrow it down much. It means Aussie rules in the southern and western states, rugby league or rugby union in Queensland and New South Wales and soccer to people of European or South American parentage. In the last couple of years or so both Aussie rules and rugby have move out of their traditonal homelands so that really doesn't work anymore. So there's a practical element to giving it a name other than football.

Also nobody here refers to American Football as just football.

To be honest I enjoy both sports. But, I just don't understand how a small group of people can be so rabid in their dismissal of a sport that is, obviously, of tremendous significance to the entire world.

To anyone who's not an American this comes as no surprise.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[kubrick]

I don't have a problem with that at all -- I'm not religious, but I'm happy for people to do anything as long as they don't try and hurt others.

The people pulling the financial strings of the game, though -- Nike, for example, and the Brazilian FA, which I have read is quite corrupt -- may not be pleased by the players' behaviour, and their disapproval has a lot more power than anything positive I could bring to the situation. :/

Hats off to both teams

[flip-flop]

Well, they were saying it will be the German robots versus the beautiful Brazilians, but that was all wrong! Germany came out with guns blazing and dare I say, in the first half they even dominated the Brazilians.
Unfortunately though, they were unable so score any goals (something which tends to be vital in football) whereas Ronaldo showed once again he is the world's best striker. That was the difference between the two teams tonight! Hats off to Germany, congratulations Brazil. And see you in 2006... will I really have to wait another 4 years?! :(

Ronaldo and the comeback song

[cesarcardoso]

All praises won't be enough for Ronaldo. He isn't supposed to play this Cup. Two years ago everybody doubt he would ever play again. But his faith and his extremely hard work made him play this Cup and scored and became the championship game MVP. And world champion again.

Great, Ronaldo! But please, not the haircut :-)

The Cup is ours!

[adunakhor]

Hello everyone!

YYYYYEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! The World Cup is ours! As a brazilian, I simply can't describe my joy in seeing my country world champion for the fifth time! The one and only! Some insteresting facts about this victory:

Ronaldo, maker of both goals that gave the cup to Brazil, lost the 1998 world cup, injured himself badly and most people thought he would never be able to play soccer again. What this man did was incredible! He recovered himself, restarted playing soccer, Felipe Scollari (our coach) believed in him, and he finished the championship as the number one atacker! He diserves it!

Cafu, excellent player, is the first and only player in the history of the World Cups to play three consecutive World Cup Finals!

Rivaldo will be considered the number one soccer player in the world, for sure! He was also very criticized before the World Cup.

Brazil is going crazy! Everybody here is in the streets partying! Simply amaaaazing!

A message to all brazilians reading this:

Parabéns seleção, parabéns Felipão! O pentacampeonato é nosso, e vocês merecem! O hexa já pode ficar esperando!

Re:Brasil

[uradu]

Both of you, which game did you watch? Germany SUCKED in the second half. The first half was their great one, the ball spending most of the time in the Brazilian half, often on its way towards goal. They played absolutely great attacking football in the first half. If they could have maintained the energy in the second half, the end could have been very different.

I'm about sick of this "beautiful game" crap

[uradu]

Football basically represents a war in game form. What determines the final outcome is a lot more than just who is attacking more often and faster. Part of the beauty is the strategy, not unlike a game of chess. If you want to see fancy shots and passes, maybe you should buy some Globetrotters tapes. Many people find it much more fascinating when a less favored team makes the most of its assets, finds some extra reserves and drive, and wins against the odds. Then again, there are also many that cheer on the playground bully as the beats up the smaller kids. Whatever rocks your boat. But cheering on Brazil in today's game pretty much falls in the latter category.

Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA

[uradu]

Turkey were absolutely splendid, once in a while it even looked like they could take Brazil. Well done, guys.

Re:Soccer opinions

[uradu]

> In short, when you hear or read somebody say that "Germans suck raw ass", that's a solid
> indication that the speaker knows next to nothing about soccer.

Or is British. They go out of their way to put down the Germans, deservedly or not. Their rags were yet again innundated with "boring German football" cliches over the last few weeks, yet I'll be damned if there's any difference between the styles of the English and German teams. In fact, with very few exceptions, Europeans in general pretty much play the same style of football. So if Germany sucked so bad, England did even more so, 'cause they went home earlier.

Re:Who cares?

[sekicho]

Why should we call it "American football" when we're already IN America? Do Irish people say "Gaelic football," or Australian people say "Australian football"? Not in my experience.

Besides, soccer is an international term as well. I know it's what the Japanese use, and I'm pretty sure it's what the Koreans use as well, and since they hosted the damn cup this year...

(Canadians play our version of football, too.)

MOD PARENT UP!

[pompomtom]

please... informative, if you will!

Re:Who cares?

[ignavus]

In Australia, if you live in Sydney and Brisbane, "football" means Rugby League. If you live in Melbourne or Adelaide, it means Australian Rules - quite a different code of football. Moral: no single game can claim a monopoly on the name "football".

The game Americans play (which is of little interest to most Australians) is usually referred to here as "gridiron". PS: We tend to be amazed (and amused) at the large amount of armour worn by US footballers - our footballers don't wear armour.

Soccer is played throughout Australia, often by members of migrant communities (our largest ethnic minority is Italian). The World Cup is very popular here - even among people who don't follow the local soccer competition.

Re:Who CARES?

[uradu]

> How much revenue does the fandom of this "#2 played team sport" generate?

Oh, about $4 billion worth of Enron playmoney. Or WorldCom. Or Xerox. How much would YOU like it to generate?

Don't let this happen to you: go to...

[ZeDanimal]

SoccerTV.com

It has a mailing list that shoots out an e-mail with televsion times for games shown throughout North America - including flash updates when warranted...like when ABC lets it be known its affiliates are not all carrying the World Cup Final.

Beyond this, just wanted to add my $.02 to some of the other posters here:

1. The ABC family (ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNClassic/ABC) coverage seemed okay, from what little I saw because...
2. The Univision coverage (in Spanish) was ridiculously fun to watch (though I can hablo espanol pretty well added to it, I'm sure). And Telefutura carried practically all the games on tape delay the following day, which makes me think...
3. There was no reason the ABC family shouldn't have shown replays of the games at decent hours on its lesser channels, unless its contract were such could only show the games one time, even in which case...
4. It's ridiculous that the Final wasn't on SOME US network, guaranteed. If ABC affiliates weren't all going to take it, it's better off on one of the ESPNs. With any luck though, I predict...
5. This will be the last World Cup to get such shoddy treatment. Boosted by the strong performance of US national team, the television ratings here were high enough that something more solid should be in place come Germany 2006.

Fingers crossed,
Danny

One name/nickname rooted in history of Brazil

[ZeDanimal]

In a game earlier in the Cup, the ESPN play-by-play announcer - I believe his name is Jack Edwards - provided a more specific answer that had to do with the development of the game there among the different classes. I'll do my best to rehash it here.

Edwards explained that originally, players from the lower classes of people were not allowed to play for the organized clubs in Brazil - a fact that seems to be accurate based on a web site I hit searching for more information: this page left over from a site dedicated to the 98 Cup. It provided the following:

"The first club formed was Sporting Club Rio Grande, on July 14, 1900, and for 20 decades (sic) football was the exclusive reserve of the white elite -- the poor, be they white, half-caste or black, were excluded."

Edwards went on to explain that the lower classes, denied access to the club teams, played pick-up games constantly - games that the elites were hesitant to play in due to the public embarassment that could result from associating with the lower class.

Shame, however, proved to be a lousy deterrent: the games proved too tempting for the elites to pass up for long. But reputation and family name were still important to a degree that they may not be today, apparently, from what I've read from other posters on the topic, and so in an effort to retain some level of anonymity when the matches were talked about (and written about in local papers, which happened as interest grew), the elites adopted the habit of using only one name - and often a nickname at that - to identify themselves for the games to protect their identity.

When the need for such secrecy ended (see below), the players and their names were still around and playing - and so the practice stuck.

I'm confident the basics above match Edward's narration on the subject.

Additional info: Assuming the story is accurate, Brazil can be proud of the way in which the sport that was to become its national pasttime helped open the society. The passion for the game, for the fun of it, broke down walls. I'm sure another important reason the gentry longed to mix into the lower class games was the quality of the competition, as can be evidenced by what happened when the lower classes were allowed to play for the clubs:

"The Rio de Janiero club Vasco de Gama, backed by Portuguese Country colonizers, was the first to break this taboo, forming a multi-racial team that won the Rio championship in 1923. Arthur Friendenreich, a half-caste nicknamed "The Tiger," was Brazil's first national football hero. Born of a German father and a black Brazilian mother, Friendenreich amassed 1,329 goals in a 26-year career. Football rapidly became the national sport..." (Also from this page.)

So soccer was a unifying force for the people of Brazil almost from its inception, it seems, and oh, what a power that force has helped wrought.

Congratulations on the Penta - so happy for Ronaldo - and here's to another great Cup going into the books.

Danny

Difference between American Football and Soccer

[vrassoc]

Soccer playing nations invite other nations to compete against when they organise a world championship :)

My favourite stories from this world cup

[the cobaltsixty]

Here are my favourite stories from this world CUP:

1) While broadcasting Saudi Arabia vs. Germany, the reporter goes to someone and asks: "Are you on which side: Arabia or Germany?" ... then he replies back: "Neither. I'm jew"

2) The first Turkey vs. Brazil referee was the best player on this game, and is responsible for the victory. So, when the Brazilian Team starts to tour brazil with the trophy, they must bring him on the party, too.

3) A Brazilian Radio, Joven Pan 2, called people on Argentina following it's elimination from the cup doing pranks. BTW, they recorded on wma. It follows this line:
(caller): "-Are you sad about Argentina's soccer team elimination?"
(argentino): "-Sure i am!"
(caller): "-But here, in brazil, we're so happy!"
(you hear a real party, with people shouting: "Brazil! Brazil! Argentina's on shit!")

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[nathanh]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it sounds awfully like the "Not A True Scotsman" fallacy. I'm not going to dispute what somebody labels themself: if they say they are Christian then I'm not going to label them agnostic simply because they don't attend church.

Re:Who cares?

[gfreeman]

my friend from Brazil calls it "carry ball"

I prefer the term "hugball"

Re:Who cares?

[gfreeman]

The triple alliance that defeated Louis XIV? Hardly relevant.

Re:Who cares?

[gfreeman]

Oh right it doesn't happen.

That'll be becuase you hardly have any "soccer" games there.

And I've seen plenty of reports concerning sports riots in North America on TV, both while I was there, and on TV specials here in Europe - so please don't tell me that there are no problems at North American sports events.

I can't be bothered to get URLs, but if you're too lazy to look, I'll oblige.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[GregWebb]

When their religion suggests:

* Certain lifestyle choices
* Regular fellowship with other believers

and they don't really do either, then I'm inclined to regard them as nominal christians at best and, realistically, agnostics.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[Kynde]

>> I have been a brazil fan all my life
>
>Really? Funny you didn't know half of them are Christians, then.

Ofcourse I knew they're mostly catholic and all that. I dont care wether they were sceptics or even satan worshippers, you brat. The point was that it was a world cup final not some hallelujah convention.

>> I mean, they took their national team t-shirts off and put the gold medal on their back just show the jeesus crap more.

> What a paragon of tolerance you are, sir :-)

Lol, are you serious ? Do you not understand the issue involved ?

Re:Who cares?

[oldsk8r]

No, the 1668 conquest of England by William of Orange.

European conspiracy theories...

[jotaeleemeese]

the media (what a great surprise) make a big fuss about this after watching 30 replays from 50 different angles for hours and hours.

Most of the "mistakes" where borderline situations in which the referess (or mostly their assistants) did not have a celar view of what was going on.

The "disallowed" goal of Spain against Korea for example (it is not really disallowed, it was never scored and given for good), the ball is crossed when it is exactly in the line. Check a replay, the linesman has at least two players obstructing his view of a very borderline situation.

We the public saw the best angle and the media cried murder. Sorry, but it seems like the media and the public are living parallel realities to what really happens in a pitch where difficult decissions have to be taken in a matter of instants.

Re:European conspiracy theories...

[batsman]

There were quite a few more mistakes than a single "disallowed goal". Three of such "phantom" goals and several (non) offsides in actions which could easily led to a goal (goal keeper alone against striker, etc).

The problem is that, even though there was no conspiration, the referees had no experience (coming from countries with little football culture such as Uganda and Egypt). Only after this match did Blatter, FIFA's president, change its criteria for the choice of the referees. It's no accident the referee of the final was Italian (Collina, often considered the best one in the world).

BTW, here are some of the facts which could sustain the conspiration theory (not that I believe in it):
* one of FIFA's vicepresident is Korean and will try his chance in the next presidential elections of S. Korea
* Blatter won FIFA's election shortly before the World Cup, with Villar's (the president of the Spanish football federation) support.
* Blatter's rivals control the referee designation council, and would have forced the presence of non-experienced referees to punish Villar for supporting of Blatter

Re:European conspiracy theories...

[GauteL]

The "disallowed" goal of Spain against Korea for example (it is not really disallowed, it was never scored and given for good), the ball is crossed when it is exactly in the line. Check a replay, the linesman has at least two players obstructing his view of a very borderline situation.

I'm sorry.. it wasn't on the line. It was actually as much as 0.2-0.3 meters on the right side of the line. If the linesman didn't see this, he should never have marked for it. In fact TV-images show that he actually looked in towards the goal instead of at where the actual action was, so in practise he marked for ball out of play, when he didn't have a clue wether or not that was the case.

I do think it was an honest mistake. I do not believe in conspiracy theories and corruption in this case, but Spain still would have won this game well before penalties if the referees was up to it.

Oh please...

[jotaeleemeese]

The first "disalllowed" goal of Spain only the ref knows, becuase thankfully, there is no good camera shoot of what happened. But of course if it was agains a big European team, it must be a conspiracy.

The second "disallowed" goal is not such: the referees made a detition (that the ball was out, maybe it was not, but that is said with a camera view that was very clear). This second was a mistake, but nothing out of the ordinary. Simply the technology that allows to see this so clearly makes us believe that is absolutely clear, which in the pitch it is not.

About Italy, Totti was diving all around the place, the referee got fedup. It reminds wolf-cry-lying I don't know why.

It's "assocation football" everywhere

[marnanel]

The name is actually "association football" in the United States.

Yes-- well, the name's "association football" everywhere, because it's the form of football that's standardised by the Football Association. And the name of the international football association, FIFA, is "Federation International de Football Association", i.e. "International Federation of Association Football". It's just that in some places it's also the default kind of football, so you don't need to add the "association" qualifier.

Re:It's "assocation football" everywhere

[csteinle]

Bzzzt. Football is not standardised be the FA. The rules of football are decided by the International Football Association Board, consisting of four FIFA members, plus one each of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Associations.

See http://www.fifa.com/fgg/index_E.html

Re:It's "assocation football" everywhere

[csteinle]

God I hate frames. Try http://www.fifa2.com/scripts/runisa.dll?m2:gp::671 73+fgg/laws instead.

Re:It's "assocation football" everywhere

[marnanel]

They are now, yes, but the Football Association were standardising the rules of football before FIFA was even thought of. See, for example, on that page where it says that FIFA originally mandated the "playing of matches according to the Laws of the Game of the Football Association Ltd."

Re:If you're going to act superior, at least be ri

[csteinle]

Actually, it's often refered to as Soccer in Ireland as well, to avoid confusion with Gaelic Football. Although the Irish governing body is the FAI, rather than SAI.

Not at 6:30, either?

[kiwimate]

We're just outside of Philadelphia. We were planning on watching the 12:30 replay which was listed on the schedule (even on the local tv station web site). But the news continued, and then some move started at 1:00. Couldn't figure out what was going on -- finally went on their website and found a short note saying "we apologize for the inconvenience". Oh yes -- and a headline announcing THE BL**DY SCORE!!! Thanks a lot, ABC.

Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less

[Rupert]

Sounds like you need to join the Church of England. They move their services if they clash with a World Cup game.

Re:Soccer opinions

[csteinle]

More specifically, English media. Us Celts (I'm Scottish), spend too much time slagging of the English to worry about Germany. And some of us have a soft spot for the German team because the USUALLY beat the English.

(Although I'm part German, so would support them anway.)

The funny part is, the English media slag off the German team something rotten, yet don't understand why the Scottish media is negative about the English team. It's rivalry, you idiots!

(Yes, I know the Scottish team sucks right now, but unlike the English press, we don't think we have a god given right to win every tournament.)

Re:Soccer opinions

[uradu]

> More specifically, English media.

Sorry, around here (US) we tend to ignorantly brush over the British/English distinction.

> The funny part is, the English media slag off the German team something rotten, yet don't
> understand why the Scottish media is negative about the English team. It's rivalry, you idiots!

I have to say, though, that as the inventors of fair play, the British (media at least) have a frightfully poor capacity for objectivity, especially when it comes to the Germans. They frequently take attacks well beyond just technical analysis and into the realm of ad hominem attacks and xenophobic characterisation. You'd think that in the bigger picture it would even out with the German media doing the same thing, but that's not true. I've rarely seen just plain nasty things written about the English in German papers (even Bild, which are the dregs of German rags). I'm afraid this is a very unilateral animosity.

Re:Who cares?

[verloren]

It's simple really - football is a game played with feet, whereas American football is a game played with Americans.

Re:Who cares?

[Papineau]

Actually, we play Canadian football (and call it that way).

Quick differences between Canadian football (as played in the CFL and univ leagues) and American football (as played in the NFL and all kinds of college leagues):

• 3 tries instead of 4, so it's more difficult to get your 1st try
• the field is bigger: 110 yards instead of 100, the endzones are 25 yards instead of 10, and I believe the width is different as well
• the posts are at the zero line rather than at the back of the endzone
• I believe the ball is a bit different, a little bigger (rounder) I think
• because of the size of the field and the 3 tries, the attack is much more pass oriented than in American football
• at the end of the season, it's like every games are at Green Bay.

I won't try to compare with the AFL (Arena football league) or the XFL (Extreme? football league) because I don't know well those two. I think the latter won't be back, but I could be mistaken.

We also call "soccer" what is known in the rest of the world "football", but I guess that's because of your (USA) influence.

Among the youngsters, soccer is more popular up here than hockey, and that's quite a feat for soccer. I hope we can qualify for and actually play honorably at Germany 2006.

Re:Bollox

[gthyni]

Lipsillar finns det gott om.

Or US readers

[sulli]

Dammit. The US team kicked ass. Certainly a goalkeeper poll would have been good.

Dammit

[sulli]

It was to avoid spoilers, for those of us who are in the Americas and watched on TiVo or tape.

I watched on TiVo in the AM Pacific time and thought it kicked ass. Loved Ronaldo's goals. I was pulling for Germany (really like Kahn) but it was clear that this was Brazil's tournament.

Re:Bollox

[GauteL]

I have just got to call crap on you. I didn't say ALL games were tight, I said most games were tight, even when there is a quality difference between the teams. I even listed exceptions.

And YES, all tight games are potensially upset by the referee, this has happened on countless occations. Normally, in a league system, I'd mostly say that these things even themselves out, teams have plenty of chances to "put things right" if they really are a quality side.

In a cup system (like the World Cup, a concept you do not seem to understand) a single mistake is often enough to loose the game. This means that teams are mostly more careful. If Korea had won on mistakes made by Spain and Italy, then of course this would be a victory as good as anyone.

This game however, was settled because the referee and his linesmen made huge mistakes.

So let me just as you one single question (you can totally ignore the rest of the post):

"Do you honestly expect Spain to have to score THREE perfectly good goals to win against Korea, even if they do not let anyone in?"

In practise this is what they would have had to do on this day. If the referee had done his job, Spain would have won comfortably. It may in fact not even have been a tight game.

You are extremely naive if you do not think ref-mistakes do interfere with the game sometimes. This was such a time.

I'm not spanish, and I'm not Italian. I do not even like the italian team that much, plays way too cynical for me, Spain was good to watch, except against Ireland, when they were pathetic. Korea played some nice football, and had they gotten through on their own merit, instead of several ref-mistakes in two matches in a row, they would thoroughly deserve it and I would even have cheered for them to reach the final, because I love an underdog. This has nothing to do with the "big teams failing to reach the semi-final".
Gaute

Re:Who cares?

[Snoopy77]

You have absolutely no experience then. Here in Australia we call it Australian Rules Football or Aussie Rules for short. And in my experience most Irish do say "Gaelic Football" so as to differentiate from football (a.k.a soccer).

Oh, so if the Japanese and *probably* the Koreans, both dripping in football history, use the term soccer then it has to be an international term. I mean, that's like 1% of the total number of nations who attempted to qualify for the World Cup.

So Canadians play a version of your football, American football would still apply since they are an American nation.

Re:Who cares?

[sekicho]

::sigh:: Call it whatever you want to call it. We'll still call it soccer.

Re:Who cares?

[gfreeman]

No, the 1668 conquest of England by William of Orange.

Perhaps you mean 1688 - and Parliament sent an invitation to William, in an attempt to avoid a Catholic takeover, and keep the nation Protestant.

By no stretch of the imagination can the landing in Devon be called an invasion of England. Public opinion was so against James - he proclaimed 'We cannot but heartily wish ... that all the people of our dominions were members of the Catholic Church; yet ... conscience ought not to be constrained nor people forced in matters of mere religion ...' which added to the many other actions that caused riots from 1686 onwards. Parliament had to act, and so invited William (and others) to put pressure on the King.

Didn't work out exactly - James abdicated.

Gooooo!!!!!!!!!

[Abreu]

Scream at top of your lungs:

Goooo(insert another 30 times string 'o') oool!!!! ...for about 35-50 seconds, or until your lungs collapse.

Thats the way a goal is called, at least South of Texas and North of Tierra del Fuego ; )

Damn lameness filter!