Argentina look the goods to me. Won S.America comp easily.

Also like Germany.

How good were Paraguy's goals!!!! WOW
Para's defence is a bit weak though

Italy nearly always choke.
Brazil have been struggling
France's defence isn't as good as it was in '98.
Spain's defence doesn't look up to scratch.

Don't know about the others. Crotia and Holland were good in '98, don't know about there prospects.

:grin:

Holland have as much chance as Australia grasscutter - they are watching it at home.
Ireland and Portugal finished ahead of them in the qualies.

One thing for sure - the reffing has been a disgrace.

refs have been good except for the ref in brazil match.

Italy were awesome in the 1st half, but closed shop in the 2nd half.

Brazil created enough chances for 5 or 6 goals - wouldn't write them off yet. Denilson should start the game though.

I agree - refereeing very consistant and has allowed the play to flow. Thought the ref in Brazil game gave them a few concessions - in particular their encroachment of the 10 yards at free kicks and the Rivaldo disgrace.
Argentina/Italy both impressive. Jury is out on Brazil/Spain. Gutsiest efforts by Senegal,Ireland and Sth Africa.
I think France are great bets at $3 to top their group. Should win the remaining two games after the "scare" and can't see Senagal coming up again twice.
Football has been first class - as you would hope/expect.

Argentina sure aren't looking so good at this stage..sent packing.. nor italy for that matter.
England have really been playing boring lacklustre,football,
Denmark have really impressed.. and Brazil r looking brilliant.
my pick for finals....for what its worth...Denmark against Brazil.

Brazil for me. Lumbar Sua Buceta!!!!!!

what does everyone think of the Joao Pinto incident in the Portugal v Korea match , after being shown the red card he has allegedly punched the ref in the stomach which is just out of the camera view and then the ref is saying quite clearly in his native language " he punched me in the stomach , he punched me in the stomach ".
If he is let of with a fine it would be disgraceful he should be banned for at least 12 months a stand has to be made some time or rather.

If he's intentionally punched the referee at least 10 years -which is probably effectively life. What about the other player who was trying to get the referee to change his mind and had both hands wrapped around the referee's face. He should also be put out for at least a year.

England have really been playing boring lacklustre,football,
Denmark have really impressed

Boring, lacklustre England 3
Impressive Denmark 0

Michael Owen is the key to this team. Now that he's scored his confidence will be sky high. I'm not saying they can win the tournament but it looks like they've turned the corner at least.

On the "assaults" punching the ref.....life
touching the ref as per the face incident.....12 months. Both penalties immediate and no avenue of appeal.

The worst aspect of soccer? Feigning injury.


[ This Message was edited by: Privateer on 2002-06-16 18:22 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Privateer on 2002-06-16 18:23 ]

The worst aspect of soccer?
1.The way referees are allowed to be intimidated when they award a penalty or send someone off.
2.Failure to use videos for offside calls - let the play continue and if a goal results chack the video. The same with penalties - consult the video before deciding who gets the free. When you consider how important a goal is the is no longer any excuse for wrong decisions.
3.Not enough scoring. Have the goals changed in size while players have been getting bigger and fitter over the years.
4.Feigning injury.

Make the goals 2m wider and a foot higher.
Reduce the no of players to 9.
The way Senegal and Brazil play the game is how its meant to be - good attacking football. Most of the Europeans play dead boring football. Players should also have to clear the halfway mark within 30 secs like basketball.

The goal size is fine. It didn't worry Germany when they beat Saudi Arabia 8 - 0 in the earlier rounds and remember Australia's record breaking scores against Pacific nations in the qualifying rounds?


Then again maybe we should think about increasing the goal. How about the width of the pitch and 10 metres high? We could have scorelines of 79 - 74. The goalkeepers can just shoot for goal when kicking in. Midfielders can shoot immediately upon kick off.

And consider some of these....

*Basketball rings could be 5 metres across.
*Holes in golf made bucket sized.
*Use 6 cricket stumps and make them twice the height.
*Get rid of the behind posts in AFL - everything scores 10 points.

Seriously, the historical rules that games are played by are what make our sports so interesting and at times dramatic and exciting to watch. Sure, there are some things that need minor alterations but generally speaking the little anomalies in the rules make the sport what it is.

Privateer - goal size is not a problem for a good side when they are playing a side they are completely superior to. The problem is when you have two evenly matched sides there is very little scoring - as a casual spectator this leads to several problems:
1. 0-0 draws are a bit boring!
2. If a side does score a goal they tend to go into a completely defensive mode to try to stop the other team scoring and don't take offensive risks - again leads to boring game to watch.
3. When you get to the end of extra time with a drawn match you go to the penalty shootout lottery which seems to me like a really stupid way to decide a sporting event at the World Cup level - may as well just toss a coin to decide the winner.

I would think that a modest increase in goal size (eg. extra 1m wide or 1/2m high, or both) would help to increase scoring opportunities.

Or maybe you prefer these ideas that my wife came up with after watching a match the other day:

Instead of policing the offside rule with video why not just get rid of it? That would certainly improve the scoring chances.

Also a rule used in some versions of indoor soccer - no passing backwards over the centre line.

Forgot to mention the idea my wife had for the stupid injury faking that goes on. Each team should have one nominated "injury substitute" player. Whenever a player is "injured" and falls to the ground in a dramatic way the rules should state that he must be removed from the ground for say 5 minutes and replaced with the designated injury substitute (obviously so that he can receive proper treatment for the injury). I think the incidence of these injuries would go down dramatically if the players were taken out of the game each time!

Perhaps some people are forgetting that the game is not there simply to provide the spectators with an "excitment at all costs" spectacle. There is a game to be won or played to their best ability by two teams. If it results in a nil all draw it is labelled as "boring", never mind that the players have tried their hearts out for 90 minutes.

Of course teams are going to protect a 1 - nil lead by flooding the defensive areas. They are after all, trying to win.

It is painfully obvious that some of the posters are "armchair experts" and have little or no understanding of the intricacies of this wonderful and ancient game.

Privateer - I am sorry - I must have mistaken Soccer for a spectator sport. I thought one of the main purposes of the game was to provide spectators with something good to watch. I certainly don't deny that the players are playing to the best of their abilities when they have a 0-0 draw but I just have to question whether making some minor changes to increase scoring chances wouldn't:

1. Provide a better spectacle for the viewing public (who in the end pay the salaries of those great atheletes).
2. Encourage a more attacking style of play which most people seem to agree is more enjoyable to watch and participate in.
3. Help avoid the ludicrous situation of the world champions being decided by a penalty shootout.

Now maybe this would destroy the game you think is wonderful but personally I can't see why it would. Surely the athleticism of the goalkeepers today is so far ahead of what it was when the goal sizes were originally determined that increasing the goal size slightly would just return the game to what it was when the ancient laws were layed down?

whatever....

One thing I forgot to mention and I certainly do not want to pander to the larrikin minority. But there have been reports done on soccer crowd violence and one of the reasons was the lack of scoring - the fact that a goal was so important and that the score and the game were often not related.
One side could be completely dominating the game but losing or the other side gets a beak and scores the only goal of the match. Not to mention poor refereeing which decides an entire game - eg. giving or failure to give a penalty.

It's one of the few team sports where the 20th best team can beat the 1st best team.

It would never happen in other football codes.

I suppose that adds to the mystery of the game, however luck, poor refs and silly rules play a much greater part in the game than other codes.

Chief, where are you from? Ever heard of AFL? Carlton is the best team in the league and they have barely won a game. And you don't think refs play a part in other football codes. Ever heard of Bill Harrigan? And let's not get started on silly rules. Like the melee rule......

Why am I here? I swore I would never come to the vortex that is the "middle thread".

Placegetter

Carlton couldn't beat an egg with a chef's help.

When was the last time Souths beat Brisbane or Newcastle?????? 1988?

Bill Harrigan??? Are you talking Origin - you're kidding! NSW won the 1st match by 28pts - had nothing to do with the ref.

And by the way, there are less than 20 teams in either code - therefore its impossible for the 20th team to beat the 1st team. I knew someone would fall for that.