The One & Only 2010 World Cup Topic

I can't believe I'm saying this but I'm glad it's over.

Spain were better tonight but the game could have gone either way. Didn't appreciate dirty play from the Dutch at all.

Regarding who would be rightful winners, that's an impossible question to answer. My favorites would be Brazil but we all saw what happened there.

Best keeper - Casillas
Best player - Villa
Best young player - Muller
Best coach - Loew

Ugliest team - Algiers
Dirtiest player - Van Bommel
Worst move - Yakubu's miss
Things to forget ASAP - the vuvuzelas, referees, jabulani

Italy had a watertight defense that was by far the best in the tournament. They were the best side back then even if the football was unattractive.

This Spain side relied on David Villa to score anything and were defensively exposed (by Robben numerous times tonight as one example). They had a coach who thought, with 15 minutes left in extra time and penalties approaching that it would be a good idea to take off the competition's top scorer and their penalty taker for a player who cannot run.

There is no doubt they are the best team in the world individually and have a winning mentality but I don't agree with certain claims like

(a) they have been the best team in the world since the Euros (considering Holland's massive unbeaten streak).
(b) they are the most attractive side to watch (considering Holland, Argentina and Germany's goalfests).
(c) that they deserved the title (considering the aforementioned sides turned in, on average, better displays).

If you are Swiss, Portuguese, Paraguayan or perhaps even Chilean or Dutch, you must be feeling ripped off.

I would have loved if the world's most talented team won the World Cup on merit, took the trophy by the balls and said "beat us." But they limped the whole way through the tournament, never showed anything like their Euro form and frankly, that is a mammoth disappointment.

I am glad though for the Spanish and the Spanish players. Iniesta's Dani Jarque tribute sums up why I respect the Spanish win.

Caxi wrote:

Italy had a watertight defense that was by far the best in the tournament. They were the best side back then even if the football was unattractive.

This Spain side relied on David Villa to score anything and were defensively exposed (by Robben numerous times tonight as one example). They had a coach who thought, with 15 minutes left in extra time and penalties approaching that it would be a good idea to take off the competition's top scorer and their penalty taker for a player who cannot run.

There is no doubt they are the best team in the world individually and have a winning mentality but I don't agree with certain claims like

(a) they have been the best team in the world since the Euros (considering Holland's massive unbeaten streak).
(b) they are the most attractive side to watch (considering Holland, Argentina and Germany's goalfests).
(c) that they deserved the title (considering the aforementioned sides turned in, on average, better displays).

If you are Swiss, Portuguese, Paraguayan or perhaps even Chilean or Dutch, you must be feeling ripped off.

I would have loved if the world's most talented team won the World Cup on merit, took the trophy by the balls and said "beat us." But they limped the whole way through the tournament, never showed anything like their Euro form and frankly, that is a mammoth disappointment.

I am glad though for the Spanish and the Spanish players. Iniesta's Dani Jarque tribute sums up why I respect the Spanish win.

100% how I feel as well.

The Spanish weren't as impressive or attractive as they were at the Euro's 2 years ago but they showed they can grind out results even when not at their best, and that is a sign of champions. In the final they were the better team IMO, and on this particular day they deserved the win over Holland. For me, the Dutch weren't as awesome as people made them out to be and the Spanish got some dubious decisions and luck go their way. Sadly this World Cup was the worst I've witnessed (and I think most people would agree) and I'm glad its over.

Spain weren't at their collective best by any means, but individually they were probably the best side in the tournament and well done for that.

The main highlights of this World Cup for me were seeing NZ do as well as they did (in fact the Kiwi's were the only unbeaten side in the cup!), and enjoying the entertaining football the likes of Germany and Uruguay displayed.



Anyone have any thoughts on who they'd pick for a World Cup 2010 XI??

Spain is the first world champion in history to score less than eleven goals, in fact they scored eight. One of them, against Chile, was a keeper blunder. One, against Germany, was from a set piece. One, against Paraguay, was from off-side position. Today the Netherlands were lucky once (De Jong should have been sent off for his karate-kind of foul), but left alone by Howard Webb numerous times. Spain didn't have one game where you thought, oh my god, what a great team.

You could add numerous facts or interesting notes. For me, this is the worst World Cup ever. And Germany finished third, had the best youngster and winner of the golden shoe, played the most entertaining football of all teams and has a bright future, so I could be happy. Vuvuzelas, awful (very awful) referees and often stadiums not sold-out, the level of football... And then a horrible referee performance in the final, which heavily influenced the outcome of the game. Well done, Sepp Blatter, Mr. Corruption! Time to retire...

I don't think that Spain deserve to be both european and world champions but that's reality and I have to do with it. This wasn't one of the best WC's I've seen and that's not only because the football wasn't that good but also because the referee's made a lot of big mistakes, because of the vuvuzelas and because of the cold weather. It was a bad idea to make a WC in Africa. I have to say that there were some moments that I will never forget but compared to what I've seen in the previous WC's thats nothing. The Netherlands lost the game mainly because they don't have a good enough striker. Van Persie showed throughout the WC that he isn't that good like a lot of people think and say he is. Maybe Huntelaar should have gotten a chance to show what he can do in the starting 11 but thats past. I hope that the next WC in Rio will be much better and will have much more intersting and unforgettable moments. Maybe the only 2 things which FIFA did right in this WC was to give the final to Howard Webb and the right giving out of the prizes. The best game of the tournament was between Uruguay and The Netherlands.

After what you've seen yesterday do you still think it was the right idea to give the final to Howard Webb? I thought he was great before, but yesterday he was horrible. He made about five major mistakes, at least.

1) De Jong should have been sent of directly in the first half
2) Iniesta should have been senf of directly in the second half
3) Robben was fouled by Puyol as the last man, no red card, not even a free-kick
4) A clear corner for the Netherlands wasn't given 1:30 minute before the Spanish goal
5) Before the Spanish goal van der Vaart cleared out a pass to Iniesta who was probably off-side

You call that a good performance?

I'm looking forward to watch a game without damn vuvuzela ringing in my head. Goodbye Africa!

Il Capitano wrote:

After what you've seen yesterday do you still think it was the right idea to give the final to Howard Webb? I thought he was great before, but yesterday he was horrible. He made about five major mistakes, at least.

1) De Jong should have been sent of directly in the first half
2) Iniesta should have been senf of directly in the second half
3) Robben was fouled by Puyol as the last man, no red card, not even a free-kick
4) A clear corner for the Netherlands wasn't given 1:30 minute before the Spanish goal
5) Before the Spanish goal van der Vaart cleared out a pass to Iniesta who was probably off-side

You call that a good performance?

(1) and (2) were understandable decisions for a World Cup final. De Jong's foot was ridiculously high and late but to keep him on the field, there is a case. Same with Iniesta. With (5) it looked a close call. But (3) and (4) are incidents that cannot happen at the highest level. Robben, for once, was honest and you have to applaud that, when he didn't score, play needed to be brought back for a free-kick and Puyol needed to go. Simple as that. (4) I have no words for, really.

For me, decisions got worse as the game went on from Howard Webb who is generally a good, fair ref and more importantly, strict. Usually the guy has no qualms about flashing red, he is notorious for it. Therefore, what was he briefed with? Was he told to be lenient?

Is there now a case for changing refs at half-time in games to eliminate bias and fatigue and maybe generate fairer results?

Robben should have fell. He insisted on running and had two additional contacts with the ball where he could have taken a shot before Casillas closed him down. He didn't fall or shoot, he decided to try and go around the keeper. He only has himself to blame.

Other mistakes were business as usual. If Webb adopted a different criteria for yellow cards the match would end with 7 Dutch and 8 Spain players on the pitch by my count. Dirtiest final ever with over 13 yellow cards and a red card.

Im so glad FIFA had some brains and made the right decision and chose Diego Forlan as the best player of the tournament.

Some of you might enjoy this. During the world cup, we get interludes from comedic impressionists called Apres Match. For anyone who is Irish, this is side-splittingly funny since we know the pundits, their accents, their manner and can identify with the comedy but I've tried to gather some more "international" ones together.

(1) Didi Hamann joins the panel to discuss the German side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vqQWZg4Trk&feature=related


(2) Terry Venables causes mayhem in the Sky Sports studio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk28cdhFcMk


(3) Capello gets nasty with Becks and co.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04lfimk8uTU&feature=related

LazioS70 wrote:

Im so glad FIFA had some brains and made the right decision and chose Diego Forlan as the best player of the tournament.

This was voted by a panel of international sports journalists, not the FIFA.

The Capello is genius, such a good likeness! His big chin and funny way of exaggerating parts of the names like Waaay-N Roo-neeY.... Hamann was good, he got the twitchy eye thing going well at one point and the melon bit was funny... brilliant, although I struggled to understand some of the foreign language they were speaking at times

Il Capitano wrote:

Spain is the first world champion in history to score less than eleven goals, in fact they scored eight. One of them, against Chile, was a keeper blunder. One, against Germany, was from a set piece. One, against Paraguay, was from off-side position. Today the Netherlands were lucky once (De Jong should have been sent off for his karate-kind of foul), but left alone by Howard Webb numerous times. Spain didn't have one game where you thought, oh my god, what a great team.

You could add numerous facts or interesting notes. For me, this is the worst World Cup ever. And Germany finished third, had the best youngster and winner of the golden shoe, played the most entertaining football of all teams and has a bright future, so I could be happy. Vuvuzelas, awful (very awful) referees and often stadiums not sold-out, the level of football... And then a horrible referee performance in the final, which heavily influenced the outcome of the game. Well done, Sepp Blatter, Mr. Corruption! Time to retire...

Spain scored eight goals but that is not indicative of them. Every team that played against Spain except for Chile played the same way against Spain. They put every player except for one behind the ball and try to play only with counter attacks. Are Spain supposed to score four goals against opposition who only want to defend? If teams played properly instead of trying to stop Spain then we would all see them destroy the opposition and then you would say "Oh my God, what a great team". Spain are so superior to many teams that other teams change tactics to beat Spain. Spain change nothing when playing any opposition. There-in lies the difference. Spain was and is considerably, considerably better then every other team in the competition other then Brazil.

Netherlands was lucky once? They were lucky throughout the entire match especially in the first half. How hypocritical and pathetic that they complain to the referee when they referee favoured them a lot throughtout the game. Netherlands should have been down to six men.

Nigel De Jong - Straight red card for "tackle" on Alonso.
Mark Van Bommel - Tackle from behind on Iniesta and tackle on Xavi or Puyol or persistant fouling.
Arjen Robben - Pretesting to the referee and kicking the ball away when whistle had blown. If Xavi got booked for that then so should have Robben.
Robin Van Persie - Tackle on Capdevila and kicking the ball away. If Xavi got booked for kicking the ball away then so should have Van Persie.
John Heitinga - He got a red card.

Poetic justice that Netherlands lost right at the end. They never tried to play football. All they did was try to stop Spain and in a very cynical way. They are a disgrace and I think it would have been very for football as a whole for them to have won.

Spain were at least two levels above Netherlands. If Netherlands had tried to play football instead of karate and taken the game to Spain then most probably Spain would have scored I think minimum of five goals. Spain was controlling the entire match and posession. Spain had much more oppotunities to score and in extra time Spain was only creating chances. Netherlands was very lucky to get to the final. Brazil would have a better finalist.

Spain deservedly won the World Cup. On a technical level much better then any team. Defensively very solid and an awesome attack. Spain were the best team going into the competition and it is no suprises then they won and quite rightly so.

Um...Spain's tactic is to pass the ball around and try to break through the middle.

I remember Robben being on the end of two moves like this and being clean through on goal twice. Holland played better than Spain at their own game episodically in the match. Spain never got going, they weren't thwarted by bad tackling, they just didn't play well.

Thus, when Jesus Navas was brought on and Spain changed tactically, there was a considerable difference. However, throughout the whole game, Spain never looked like winning.

But it was Spain who had to alter their tactics; the Dutch have played like that all competition. Of course, when the spotlight is really on and biased, non-spectators (I include my own mother in this assessment) tune in, the Dutch game suddenly becomes a problem. The worldwide media billed it as style against grit a la Inter - Barcelona in the CL.

Nobody is defending the Holland decisions...but many are condemning episodes of favouritism towards the Spanish too. They were also "dirty" (by the definition of some) and could have had players sent off. Puyol's offense was more of a red than De Jong as far as I can see but maybe that's just me.

Personally, I thought it was very even and I do disagree with various decisions and think that Spain played the ball better. However, it was the Dutch who looked like scoring more than Spain for me and it's just a shame bad refereeing cost this one from going to penalties and down to the wire. That would have been fitting.

De jong's red card was a second yellow and the fact is Xavi or Iniesta or whoever actually fell whereas Robben stayed on his feet.

It hardly matters now. Robben had 2 golden chances to turn the game and didn't. Later he kept on complaining in a manner that deserved a yellow.

Anyone knows what the message to Mr Platter on the homepage means?

Caxi wrote:

Um...Spain's tactic is to pass the ball around and try to break through the middle.

I remember Robben being on the end of two moves like this and being clean through on goal twice. Holland played better than Spain at their own game episodically in the match. Spain never got going, they weren't thwarted by bad tackling, they just didn't play well.

Thus, when Jesus Navas was brought on and Spain changed tactically, there was a considerable difference. However, throughout the whole game, Spain never looked like winning.

But it was Spain who had to alter their tactics; the Dutch have played like that all competition. Of course, when the spotlight is really on and biased, non-spectators (I include my own mother in this assessment) tune in, the Dutch game suddenly becomes a problem. The worldwide media billed it as style against grit a la Inter - Barcelona in the CL.

Nobody is defending the Holland decisions...but many are condemning episodes of favouritism towards the Spanish too. They were also "dirty" (by the definition of some) and could have had players sent off. Puyol's offense was more of a red than De Jong as far as I can see but maybe that's just me.

Personally, I thought it was very even and I do disagree with various decisions and think that Spain played the ball better. However, it was the Dutch who looked like scoring more than Spain for me and it's just a shame bad refereeing cost this one from going to penalties and down to the wire. That would have been fitting.

Um...I said Spain tactics are???

Robben was clean through on goal twice. He messed up both times. Casillas made brilliant save after Robeen dallied and then Robben did not dive like normal after Puyol touched him and over ran the ball and then went flying over Casillas to get a penalty. I wonder why robeen never went down like normal. Maybe because there was still a chance to score...but still messed up.

Spain never looked like winning? Are you serious? My every fucking disgrace. Were you even watching the final or the friendly these team had in 2000? Spain was the only team that looked like winnning. Especially in the first half. Ramos had a header saved. Sergio Ramos dribbling in the box past Kuyt and sending shot wide. Villa just wide with a volley from a corner. Villa shot is blocked by Heitinga when only two yeards out. Should have scored. Sergio Ramos free header from the six yards out. Should have scored. Iniesta when he dribbled in the box but cut in and Sneijder cleared. All these in normal time. In extra time, Cesc was clean through and should have scored. Xavi also had a clear shot but hit Heitinga when about to shoot. Navas nearly scored with a deflected shot. Iniesta did score.

Spain altered their tactics how? They played like that throughout the competition.

If Johan Cruijff says the Dutch were "ugly, vulgar and anti-football". And that the "Dutch should have been down to nine immediently". Cruijff knows more about football then you so I would agree with him. Maybe he is also a biased spectator? You never cease to amaze. Would they have been able to keep the Spaniards out for the rest of the game with nine? No. They did not deserve to win. Puyol deserved a red more then De Jong? Maybe it is you but then again that is hardly surprising. Near enough studding someone in the chest kung fu style risking the victim broken ribs and puncturing the lungs is not a worthy of a red card more then what Puyol did?

Bad refereeing favoured the Dutch. They would have been down to nine after the first half and no chance for the rest of the game. They were a disgrace. It was a fitting end they lost right at the end. They got no less then they deserved.

Like some other poster pointed out...Caxi, stop talking out of your bottom.

Cruyff has a history of whining about anti-football, to be honest. Both teams were a disgrace. The Dutch for being butchers and the Spaniards for surrounding the ref and complaining after each and every whistle. Had Webb followed the letter of the rules neither team would have finished with more than 8 men, unless they smartened up and started to behave better. As far as I am concerned neither team can claim any moral highground.

Matrim wrote:

Cruyff has a history of whining about anti-football, to be honest. Both teams were a disgrace. The Dutch for being butchers and the Spaniards for surrounding the ref and complaining after each and every whistle. Had Webb followed the letter of the rules neither team would have finished with more than 8 men, unless they smartened up and started to behave better. As far as I am concerned neither team can claim any moral highground.

Cruijff has a history of whining or whatever but that does not take away from the fact he is right.

Taib wrote:

Um...I said Spain tactics are???

Spain altered their tactics how? They played like that throughout the competition.

You say they have no need to change tactics throughout the competition, no? They did it several times in the Dutch match alone. They didn't make "like-for-like" subs. They had no joy down the middle (reflected by the 0-0 scoreline) so they brought on Navas and went out wide. That constitutes as a change of tactic. So the Dutch played hard and dirty; it is they who have played the same way all competition and didn't relent in the face of the Spaniards.

Taib wrote:

If Johan Cruijff says the Dutch were "ugly, vulgar and anti-football". And that the "Dutch should have been down to nine immediently". Cruijff knows more about football then you so I would agree with him. Maybe he is also a biased spectator?

That's exactly what he is; world football knows that. I saw a couple of interviews with Dutch players who hinted certain members of the '74 and '78 teams would rather Spain won this WC. They didn't need to mention names. Cruyff has been eternally biased towards Spain, their style of play, the country that pays his salary. He has no remorse for the Dutch cause. I could be wrong but I believe that is blatantly apparent to many.

Seriously though, why are you using the alternative spelling of "Cruijff?" Just seems a little pompous, don't you think? Maybe I'm missing something but I was fairly sure he is universally known as "Cruyff" so that's how I'll address him.

Taib wrote:

You never cease to amaze. Would they have been able to keep the Spaniards out for the rest of the game with nine? No. They did not deserve to win. Puyol deserved a red more then De Jong? Maybe it is you but then again that is hardly surprising. Near enough studding someone in the chest kung fu style risking the victim broken ribs and puncturing the lungs is not a worthy of a red card more then what Puyol did?

It was dangerous, he should have went and bla bla but rules of the game state, quite simply,

high boot = yellow
last man committing foul = red

Generally, you don't try to stamp on people's chests in mid-air so Webb got that one right according to the law of the game. I'd take your issue up with FIFA; I don't make up the rules.

I've nothing more to say on the game.

Taib wrote:

Matrim wrote:

Cruyff has a history of whining about anti-football, to be honest. Both teams were a disgrace. The Dutch for being butchers and the Spaniards for surrounding the ref and complaining after each and every whistle. Had Webb followed the letter of the rules neither team would have finished with more than 8 men, unless they smartened up and started to behave better. As far as I am concerned neither team can claim any moral highground.

Cruijff has a history of whining or whatever but that does not take away from the fact he is right.

He is right about the "down to nine" thing but one man's antifootball's another one's great football so he isn't really right about that since quality football is subjective, as much as the likes of him and the average Barcelona fan might disagree. And he probably neglected to mention that Spaniards should have been sent off as well...

Matrim wrote:

Taib wrote:

Matrim wrote:

Cruyff has a history of whining about anti-football, to be honest. Both teams were a disgrace. The Dutch for being butchers and the Spaniards for surrounding the ref and complaining after each and every whistle. Had Webb followed the letter of the rules neither team would have finished with more than 8 men, unless they smartened up and started to behave better. As far as I am concerned neither team can claim any moral highground.

Cruijff has a history of whining or whatever but that does not take away from the fact he is right.

He is right about the "down to nine" thing but one man's antifootball's another one's great football so he isn't really right about that since quality football is subjective, as much as the likes of him and the average Barcelona fan might disagree. And he probably neglected to mention that Spaniards should have been sent off as well...

Subjectivity only goes so far. When something subjective becomes a general consensues it can be treated as fact even if a minority disagree. It is accepted that Spain played better football and Holland played a cynical, negative game designed to stop the Spanish. He did neglect that Spaniards should have been sent off but that is just captious. It is totally irrelevent since in the first half alone the Dutch would have been down to nine players and practically lost the match. It was only due to the fact that they were not down a player(s) that they made those two chances in the second half. I feel the referee could have prevented a lot of the fouls and dirty play in the second half and beyond if he had stamped his authority on game and shown red cards to the Dutch players in the first half. The players would have seen that the referee is taking the game serious and the players would have to watch themselves for the remainder of the game. Instead he did not and the players acted the way they did.