FIFA World Cup 2010 Finals Thread

  • Thread starter Famine
  • 1,827 comments
  • 77,989 views
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...
 
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!"
 
Wowsers. Great save from Valladares - making a dreadful miss from Ponce.
 
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!"
He said he didn't cry.

And good game by Chile.
 
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.
 
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.

Agreed!I was expecting less dull games,also.
Most teams seem to worryed in trying not to loose which is never good for good entertaining Football where the goal is : TO SCORE GOALS:sly:
But I think we are only in the first game of groups phase,and hope that the risks taken have to increase,thus-hopefully- as well the quality of the matches:tup:

WOW. Switzerland just scored a Goal...odd one too.
 
Last edited:
Quick comparison

2010 - first round robin phase
16 matches in 6 days; 25 goals scored
1.6 goals per game; 4.2 goals per day

2006 - first round robin phase
16 matches in 6 days; 39 goals scored
2.4 goals per game; 6.5 goals per day

2002 - first round robin phase
16 matches in 6 days; 46 goals scored
2.9 goals per game; 7.7 goals per day

1998 - first round robin phase
16 matches in 6 days; 37 goals scored
2.3 goals per game; 6.2 goals per day

1994 - first round robin phase
12 matches in 5 days; 30 goals scored
2.5 goals per game; 6 goals per day

1990 - first round robin phase
12 matches in 6 days; 27 goals scored
2.3 goals per game; 4.5 goals per day

1986 - first round robin phase
12 matches in 5 days; 24 goals scored
2.0 goals per game; 4.8 goals per day

1982 - first round robin phase
12 matches in 6 days; 34 goals scored
2.8 goals per game; 7.6 goals per day

1978 - first round robin phase
8 matches in 3 days; 22 goals scored
2.8 goals per game; 7.3 goals per day


I remember 2006 seemed quite a dull tournament - albeit with a very good final - but... *yawn*

Edit: Another dull match, but at least a "shock" result :D
 
Last edited:
What an exciting second half...Great Football,amazing oportunities.
Bad luck for Spain the first great Surprise of the W.C.-after the disappointing performances of England and Portugal,but hardly unexpected.
 
Excellent result for Switzerland, first real upset of the tournament.

I didn't believe the hype around the football being much different but seeing the poor quality of crosses and long balls so far I'm beginning to believe that the Adidas ball is indeed too light.
 
Last edited:
Damn, I fell asleep. What was Webb doing at the end....it looked like he wanted Spain to score and got a bit carried away with the Spanish tempo.

Well done Switzerland.
 
m9rLj.gif
 
Oh crap, I didn't see the game, what happened to Spain? Not to underestimate Switzerland, but everyone was predicting at least 2-0 for Spain. :eek:
 
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.

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.

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.
 
^^^
I think the problem is more lack of ambition and skills from some(most? ) Teams:tdown:
 
I don't think you can cite lack of ambition. They are, apparently, shooting more, but a lower proportion (and in fact lower number overall) are going the right way.

As yet, no-one's shot from outside the box and scored. In a World Cup finals.
 
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.

I can explain the falloff in sog/shots. You see, when the players go to make a strik--BZZZZZZBZZZZZZZZBZZZBZZZZZ
 
I don't know which leagues have been using this ball, other than Germany which, could suggest it is the ball.
BZZZZZZBZZZZZZZZBZZZBZZZZZ
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

There have been comments made that because of the influence of European football over most of the nations, the teams are neutralising each other, I think there may be some validity to that too.
BZZZZZZBZZZZZZZZBZZZBZZZZZ
:rolleyes::lol:
 
Back