It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2010 FIFA World Cup thread

page: 31
13
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


Yep, fair doos.

Terrible England came up against a brilliant Germany and got hammered, no complaints here.

I think you will at least reach the semi finals - winning it might be asking too much. But in 2 to 4 years time I think Germany will be the best side in the world by some distance, they have the potential.

I would say to you though -

'Pride comes before a fall'

Onwards and upwards England...





posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against

Originally posted by LiveForever8
Sepp Blatter is in the crowd - I hope he's embarrassed.


*sarcastically applauds Sepp Blatter*

Good decision not getting goal line technology Sepp...Real good decision!



Frankly speaking, I just saw on TV that some of the British ''fossil members'' from the IFAB are blocking video technology from being implemented. I don't know about English managers, but Hiddink, Van Gaal, Cruyff and many others have stressed the necessity of video technology, but it seems they are not powerful enough to push it through.


IFAB is made up of representatives from each of the United Kingdom's pioneering football associations — England's Football Association (The FA), the Scottish Football Association (SFA), the Football Association of Wales (FAW) and Northern Ireland's Irish Football Association (IFA) — and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the international governing body for football. Each UK association has one vote and FIFA has four. IFAB deliberations must be approved by at least six votes. Thus, FIFA's approval is necessary for any IFAB decision, but FIFA alone cannot change the Laws of the Game; they need to be agreed by at least two of the UK members.


source



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


I really think we need it, I mean people obviously make mistakes especially on the world stage where pressure will no doubt he high and goal line technology would rule out human error in an area where it’s so important, where it can make a or break a team’s campaign by ensuring them into the next round or a flight ticket home. (I’m actually not referring to England here anymore, they’re out and they deserved to be out and it's the end of it as far as I'm concerned)

This is what really annoys me about the whole debate in all honesty.


Blatter chaired the IFAB on Zurich on Saturday and, as yet, has not commented on arguably the most contentious recent decision taken by the rule-makers of world football.

But in his column for FIFA.com, he said the universality of the game was paramount.

"The game must be played in the same way no matter where you are in the world," Blatter wrote.

"If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV.

"The simplicity and universality of the game of association football is one of the reasons for its success.

"Men, women, children, amateurs and professionals all play the same game all over the world.

"No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being.

"This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?

"It is often the case that, even after a slow-motion replay, ten different experts will have ten different opinions on what the decision should have been.

"Fans love to debate any given incident in a game.

"It is part of the human nature of our sport.”

"FIFA’s goal is to improve the quality of refereeing, making referees more professional and better prepared, and to assist referees as much as possible.

"This is also the reason why refereeing experiments [such as with additional referees or the role of the fourth official] will continue to be analysed, to see how referees can be supported."
(Source)

So according to him since every game must be played in the same type of format professional football is played does that mean a simple game in the park or my local pub team (which is in a league) must have a referee, 2 assistants and a fourth official then?

Cause it don’t happen.


Also as far as I'm aware many referees themselves have called for this goal line technology to be implemented, I mean it's not like it's taking jobs away from them, it's just about making the right decision.

I say bring it to the premiership on a trial, just to test them out, we can have maybe a maximum of 5 games where we use them, what's the harm in trying?

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by Mdv2
 




Blatter chaired the IFAB on Zurich on Saturday and, as yet, has not commented on arguably the most contentious recent decision taken by the rule-makers of world football.

But in his column for FIFA.com, he said the universality of the game was paramount.

"The game must be played in the same way no matter where you are in the world," Blatter wrote.

"If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV.

"The simplicity and universality of the game of association football is one of the reasons for its success.

"Men, women, children, amateurs and professionals all play the same game all over the world.

"No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being.

"This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?

"It is often the case that, even after a slow-motion replay, ten different experts will have ten different opinions on what the decision should have been.

"Fans love to debate any given incident in a game.

"It is part of the human nature of our sport.”

"FIFA’s goal is to improve the quality of refereeing, making referees more professional and better prepared, and to assist referees as much as possible.

"This is also the reason why refereeing experiments [such as with additional referees or the role of the fourth official] will continue to be analysed, to see how referees can be supported."
(Source)


What an Effing load of crap (IMO) Do all tennis matches have eagle eye technology? Do all cricket matches have cameras in the stumps? NO!

Why should football be any different? If anything, football should (have) been the first sport to benefit from various types of technological aids, given the general speed and complexity of the game!

Now, we're talking millions of pounds every week in the premier league and an equally respectable amount of money in lower leagues.

Does a 'sunday morning' game of football really compare to the FA cup final? or 'that' crucial promotion/playoff winning game? NO!

Non 'European founded football' fans need not apply



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

"No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being.


Ok........... so who's struggling?

What a load of total b@%$£*ks!

Is the ball over the line........or not?

Find another job MORONS!

Is this water hot or cold???........................
Ah haaa! i have a thermometer!
[edit on 27/6/10 by logicalview]

[edit on 27/6/10 by logicalview]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Argentinina scores an offside goal



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
Argentinina scores an offside goal


Void!



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Germany weren't great, England were crap.

The set up was all wrong, and our best players weren't playing to their strengths.

The germans played a 4231, and 451 system, which will beat 442 every time, simply because the extra midfielder gets between the 2 banks of 4 and creates havoc.

Terry was out of position, and the same for Gerrard and Rooney.

Rooney plays best as a lone striker, but was playing behind defoe. Gerrard wide left? Do me a favour - geez.

If we had set up as 4231, with King instead of upson, Lampard and Barry as the anchors, with Gerrard just behind Rooney, we would have been fine, especially with cole on the left and milner on the right - which would also have left the fullbacks free to attack, because barry could cover either side, depending on the focal point.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I dont know about that....I dont think the formation wouldve changed a thing. The Germans just play so well together. Ozil was definently a huge problem, as was Muller.

I think Ozil shouldve been maked by an anchor man though...so maybe having Lampard or Barry at the back may have helped



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Germany weren't great, England were crap.



You are right England is crap. Rooney not only never scores he dives a lot as well. Gerrard, Terry, Lampard, all over-rated. England is over-rated as a team. They do not belong among the elite teams of the world. They haven't for some time now. And I'm not the only one saying that.

www.cbc.ca...

But you are wrong about Germany. They were great.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Lets all get real about England, they could have played any formation and still would have lost. we never perform in tournaments. I have been watching all my life and can count the number of really good games on 1 hand. we need to take a serious look at our national game, from the bottom up. Stop making kids play on full size pitches with size 5 balls for a start. Then we need to decide if International football is as important as club football.
we need to put a cap on the amount of foreign players playing in England and make sure we bring through young english players. If we fail to do these things, we will never be successful on the International stage.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Having recovered from a state of total shock and disgust I think it's fair to say that Germany deserved their victory.

England's defence was atrocious.

We need to find out exactly why we can produce such talented individuals yet are incapable of playing together as a team.

Of course FIFA etc should introduce something like Hawkeye for goal line decisions and who knows how yesterday's game would have gone if we'd been given the goal. We were actually all over them at the time and their heads could have dropped.

But it's all if's and but's.
And it's just papering over the cracks.
We were crap.

Edit to add:

At least our one-day Cricket team are giving The Aussies abit of a thrashing.

Perhaps our footballers could learn a bit from them and find out how a medoicre team has worked hard, learnt lessons and developed into the best team in the world at present.

[edit on 28/6/10 by Freeborn]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
On the bright side,

if you kept the receipts for your England shirts

you can probably still get a refund.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Pretty sure it would have - capello set the team up to play with 2 rigid banks of 4.

The Germans played 4231 in attack, and 451 in defense.

In effect, this meant that the Germans outnumbered us in midfield when they were defending, and had 3 players between our banks of 4 when attacking, with our midfield unable to pick up the extra runners because the 2 German players who sat deeper kept them occupied.
Ozeil played a free-ish role, and the 3 forward midfielders rotated positions, causing confusion, and the England defense to be pulled out of shape.

You can watch the same thing happen every week in the EPL - 442 is ineffective against 4231/451 unless the team is just going to sit deep and defend for 90 minutes.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The fall of Blatter - they are going to look into video technology:



This one is also funny:



[edit on 29-6-2010 by Mdv2]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Watched the England Germany game. Though they might of been in it after that shot, then the 'incident' occurred. Blah, blah, blah, England had piss poor defence etc. the the goal line technology debate - won't happen for a long long time most likely. Extra linesmen at each end of the field in 2014 I believe.

Anyway, Paraguay vs. japan, oh yes, very boring and slow game, Paraguay winning the penalty shoot-out, hope Paraguay can step up and thrash the Spaniards. Can see the Argentines doing well, definitely a stand out team for me so far. Kinda got my money ont hem at the moment, perhaps a Argentinian and Netherlands or Brazil final..



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
By the way, the FIFA has excluded Lampard's goal against Germany from the match' summary, which is placed on its website. Talking about censorship.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


I had friends in the stadium during the match and they never once showed a replay of the 'goal' during the match or afterwards as they were waiting to get out.
They showed replays of every other incident.

They have only seen one replay since.

Looks like they have 2 weeks of stroking lions now till their flight home.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Let me add a little ATS theme to this thread.

According to a group of remote viewers, Germany will beat Brazil in the final. Let's see if they will be correct or frauds... :



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   


Brazil downed 2-1



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join