Slashdot Mirror
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.
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)
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
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.
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'
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
They were knocked out by Germany in the quarter-finals if I remember correctly.
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 ...
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
They changed the rules.
tlhf
xxx
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...
ooooooh! What does this button do? - DeeDee, Dexters Lab.
.. 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?
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.
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
France did in fact get a point, from a 0-0 draw.
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
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.
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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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...
... I have to sing the Brazilian National Anthem, in Portuguese no less. I lost the bet.
Miko O'Sullivan
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.
Bart: "Errr... Mom, why don't you let me call the game?"
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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.
What happened to Klinsman? Where is he? Did he retire or something?
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.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
see these examples are part of the ``lord works in mysterious ways'' part of being god that i listed above.
-- john
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.
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
> 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
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.
> 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
> 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
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.
> 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
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
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
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
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
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
It isn't all over. There's another week of grown-ups chasing balls about to endure (called "Wimbledon").
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.
-- john
"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
"My cat's breath smells like cat food." - The Tao of Ralph Wiggum.
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.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
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
> 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
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.
> 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
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.
m
You can a whole article about it yonder:
http://www.snopes2.com/business/names/worldser.ht
I am BelDion's
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.
> 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
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. :)
deus does not exist but if he does
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.
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.
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.
:-) 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.
> 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
Gerv
I stand corrected. Some American obviously fed me that line and I believed them. Naive me. :-)
Gerv
nope. I guess some moderators, really really like my posts or something :)
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.
> 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
Er, hello? You just commented to my post, in "argumentative" style, but making the same points I did. What's with that? :-)
Gerv
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.
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.
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.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
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
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.
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?
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?
-- john
I don't know them personally, but if they attribute everything they've done to Jesus instead of themselves, yes.
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.
:"Ireland,
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
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.
I feel so sig.
no, no, no. You're doing it all wrong. It's:
First POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST!!
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
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.
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!!!
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.)
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
Me
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.
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?"
Great Atrocit
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The stupid game Gringos call "football" is actually "handellipsoid".
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
Me
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.
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).
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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".
- Please, ignore everything written above.
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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?
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.
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.
You're living in denial if you think most of the world population is agnostic.
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.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
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
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.
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
"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.
my friend from Brazil calls it "carry ball"
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
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.
- Please, ignore everything written above.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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...
Black holes are where God divided by zero
They played the World Cup on the radio in Bangor? Uh huh... I'm sure they had lots of listeners.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
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.
± 29 dB
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.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
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.
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.
Turkey were absolutely splendid, once in a while it even looked like they could take Brazil. Well done, guys.
> 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.
> 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?
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.
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
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
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.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Thanks... now I have to whipe coffee stains of my monitor.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
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.
Sounds like you need to join the Church of England. They move their services if they clash with a World Cup game.
--
E_NOSIG
> 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.
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):
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.
Black holes are where God divided by zero
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
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!"
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.
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...
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
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..
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.
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.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
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
"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
"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
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
Scream at top of your lungs:
...for about 35-50 seconds, or until your lungs collapse.
Goooo(insert another 30 times string 'o') oool!!!!
Thats the way a goal is called, at least South of Texas and North of Tierra del Fuego ; )
Damn lameness filter!
No sig for the moment.