re: England and WC 2014

quote:

---

Whether you think that's a red card or not it had nothing to do with the outcome of the game.

---

Que? Your logic is astounding. You can't say that Puyol's potential red card had more of an impact as a potential red card called on De Jong. If the Netherlands go down a man that early, the entire narrative of that game is changed. Does Robben even get that one-on-one opportunity if De Jong is sent off? You can't mourn hypothetical outcomes and completely ignore others. That's the point I'm trying to make.

quote:

---

Well three really. They also have only been beaten once in those matches and that in dubious circumstances.

---

They lost 4-1. The margin of victory alone overrides a goal that wasn't allowed. Does your tunnel vision also prevent you from reading final scores if they're not to your liking?

England were beaten three times. Penalty kicks are the final determining factor of knockout stage games. Sorry if that rustles your jimmies.

quote:

---

Also, if you want to judge goals scored per minutes played as the barometer then what are we to make of Spain? Take away the goals they scored against 9 man Italy and they average 1 goal for every 90 minutes and have only twice scored more than 1 in 10 knockout games. Twice is also the number they have failed to score in 120 minutes.

---

Well that ignores two crucial details. Spain also conceded only one goal in six games in the Euros, and two goals in seven World Cup games. You can't take away goals regardless of the number of opposing players on the pitch. A goal against 11 men is equal to a goal against 8 men. It still counts as one goal on your beloved final score.

quote:

---

Germany had 7 players in the box to 5 for Spain, poor marking and a determined effort from Puyol are what led to that goal. #English

---

Eight or nine outfield players and the goalkeeper normally defend on a corner. Puyol had a better chance of getting a head on the ball with less German defenders in the box. #Dumbass

quote:

---

Personally, IDGAF about a story. Who won the game is the only thing I care about.

---

Then why watch the whole match? Why not just watch the highlights afterwards? Seems like all the non-goal scoring moments are not worth your time.

Just curious, really.

I'm sure randy has never said "Chelsea deserved to win" or "Chelsea should have won" in a match they lost.

quote:

---

They lost 4-1. The margin of victory alone overrides a goal that wasn't allowed. Does your tunnel vision also prevent you from reading final scores if they're not to your liking?

---

Which completely goes against your whole "narrative" thing. An equalizing goal right before the half completely changes the game. Equally absurd because Germany's first or second goal was clearly offsides.

Does it excuse the way England played in the 2nd half? Hell no, but that scoreline is far from a fair indicator of the match thanks to criminal officiating.

quote:

---

Then why watch the whole match?

---

For when that moment arrives, duh. The rarity of truly meaningful moments are what makes the game great.

quote:

---

I don't understand how someone can separate the result from the way the team played. They are completely connected to one another.

---

I agree. Where I disagree is that certain stats somehow are an indicator of a team "deserving" to win. For example Chelsea v. Barca in the CL, Chelsea set out to allow Barca possession and play organized and compact make it difficult for Barca to break them down through the middle and hit them on counters. When they couldn't break them down through the middle they had no plan B and Chelsea were ruthless in finishing their chances. It was a masterful plan and execution. Yet of course all the clowns afterwards mourn about how Barca "deserved" to win. That kind of thinking is what I think is ridiculous.

Right, because it takes a real dumbass to value results over style.

Sure...I'll name you 10 better than your Brits.
ALL of these teams are "better" based on achieving significant international results since 1966 and/or purely because they preform in a superior manner to England...given the lesser "nature of it's size and resources" LOL
Brazil,Argentina,Uruguay,Spain,Germany,France,Holland,Italy,Portugal,Mexico....I'd lump the Brits in the upper half of the second ten with...Sweden,Denmark,Czech Rep.,Croatia etc.
By the way how many of these teams have a "size and resource" DISADVANTAGE vs. the Brits ? LMAO

Please tell us more about Englands' "size and resouce" disadvantages vs. ANY/ALL of the nations I listed......you must equate the Brits to who.....maybe Switzerland ?
Generally the "size and resouce" advantage is Englands...that's stupid talk/deflection and you should admit it !

Uruguay: 4th in WC2010, 1st in Copa America 2011, 4th in Copa America 2001 and 2007, 3rd in Copa America 2004
Mexico: 1st in last two Gold Cups, Round of 16 in last 5 WCs, U-23s won Gold in 2012 Olympics
Portugal: Semifinal in Euro 2000 and 2012, Runner-Up in Euro 2004, 4th in WC2006, Round of 16 in WC2010

England: Round of 16 in WC1996 and 2010, Quarterfinal in WC2002 and 2006, Quarterfinal in Euro 2004 and 2012

All three of those teams could be argued, based on results from the last decade or so, to be better than the English. Not saying they are or they aren't, but you can't laugh that off.