- 2,114
- Porto-Portugal
- arvore
- FCP CAMPEÕES
No. Their goalie is as good as Robert Green's right arm. The Maicon goal was really a pathetic excuse for goalkeeping. No wonder he was crying.
He was crying because he is afraid of the firing squad...
No. Their goalie is as good as Robert Green's right arm. The Maicon goal was really a pathetic excuse for goalkeeping. No wonder he was crying.
He was crying because he is afraid of the firing squad...
He was crying because he is afraid of the firing squad...
He said he didn't cry.I think Maicon was just really frustrated and when he scored the goal finally, he cried with relief... Because NK wasnt doing to bad and making it... "vely vely difficurt fol them to pray!"
And good game by Chile.
He said he didn't cry.
Well, Spain were the last great hope for the tournament to stop being boring.
I use the past-tense wisely. This is sheer drudgery. Discounting Germany, who managed to put away a truely awful Australian team (or at least 91% of it), only South Korea have shown any spark of genuinely watchable football. I quite enjoyed Japan, Chile and Brazil, but they all failed to put poorer teams to the sword like they ought, and Paraguay and New Zealand played above themselves and made better teams look average - while not being especially enjoyable themselves.
Anything but a 0-0 will do!
After the first round, if we compare the last WC to this one. We have 25 goals vs. 39 goals, 409 shots vs. 352 shots, 106 on target vs 155 on target, that means teams have shot 50 more times than the last world cup. There is 26% accuracy for the goal, whereas there a 44% accuracy last time. Once the ball is on target, 24.5% of attempts are goals vs. 25% last time. No change, so it can't be the players. If you look at that, how can it not be the ball? Going from 44% of Shots as SOG to 26% is a 41% decrease in balls that actually leave a foot or head and go towards net. It's not negative football (Japan actually had about the same shots/sog as 2006), it's the ball. I used stats from ESPN for this year vs. FIFA's site for 2006.
Regarding the Jabulani, found this in a comment section over at espn. Can't vouch for its veracity, but the guy at least types earnestly so his numbers could be accurate.
However, from what I've read, this ball has been used exclusively by several leagues around the world. So it seems to reason that if there were an obvious flaw it would have made itself known by now.
Others are suggesting the real problem lies with the combination of this "light" ball and high altitudes. I suppose there could be some transition zone where diminishing air resistance kinda makes this ball act more like a whiffle ball, which for those who haven't seen one is intentionally and exceptionally unpredictable.
If it is the ball, then one thing is for sure, these world class players will get used to it fairly quickly which means we shouldn't write-off the likelihood of some high scoring games to follow soon.BZZZZZZBZZZZZZZZBZZZBZZZZZ
BZZZZZZBZZZZZZZZBZZZBZZZZZ
BZZZZZZBZZZZZZZZBZZZBZZZZZ
BZZZZZZBZZZZZZZZBZZZBZZZZZ