Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News

World Cup Final 781

Posted by michael
from the we-call-it-soccer dept.
The World Cup final is over; some ludicrous number of people watched some team beat the other team. The next tournament will be held in Germany in 2006. If you haven't watched the game for whatever reason, obviously you might want to avoid clicking through (or reading any other news site, or talking to anyone...). Neither of those two links should be a spoiler, though.

And for those that did click through, the final standings are up, as are lots and lots of reports about the game.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Cup Final

Comments Filter:
  • Very good game (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DeafDumbBlind (264205)
    Some amazing saves by the Brazillian keeper.
    But what was up with those announcers???
    Their analogies made absolutely no sense. I think that I would have understood more if I had watched the game on Univision (and I don't speak Spanish)

  • Brasil! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hero (25043) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @09:40AM (#3795234) Journal
    Great game! Ronaldo's double gave him 8 for this world cup, securing the golden boot, and 12 lifetime, tying Pele for most goals by a Brazilian in the final. Amazing to see Brasil win it after all the trouble they had in qualifying, using 4 coaches and 70+ players!

    Interestingly enough, Brasil will have to re-qualify for the next world cup since from now on the champion doesn't automatically get in. Germany does not have to qualify because they're hosting it.

    Whoo!@

    -hero.
    • Re:Brasil! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by theCulture (317496)
      Although you have to say the reason that Brazil had such trouble qualifying in the first place was because so many of their European-based players (often the best ones in the Brazilian squad, of course) weren't available for qualifying matches!

      As for tying Pele, it's amazing, and impressive. But you have to remember that Pele spent an entire world cup injured after getting crocked (Brit term for being injured by being harshly marked) in the very first game - and that was when he was in his 20s, I'm sure he'd have scored plenty.

      Afterall, this man has scored no less that 92 (count 'em!) hat tricks in his career!

      Maradona eat your heart out.
    • Interestingly enough, Brasil will have to re-qualify for the next world cup since from now on the champion doesn't automatically get in.
      Which is good for them, because you need the last qualification matches to know the real shape of a team and make final adjustements (like germany, whose team got reborn after the match against ukraine).
    • Why is it whenever I see the word "Brasil" I can't help thinking about that voice from the original Street Fighter 2 Arcade game? Go Blanka!
    • Great game!

      You were watching the same game as I, right?
      Putting aside that your side won, this game was tedious and boring.
      Yesterday's South Korea vs. Turkey game (for third/fourth place) was far more entertaining.
      Brazil's gameplay throughout the tournament was disappointing and it's a good thing they have to qualify for the next.
      • You mean the gameplay that made them the tournament winners, the tournament's highest scorers, saw their DEFENDERS running at goal, taking free kicks, scoring with spectacular overhead kicks, and with more fans amongst the "neutral" supporters than any other country by virtue of the way they play......

        Yeah, the final wasn't great, but that was because Germany was trying to tie Brazil down, and not give them the time, space or possession they wanted - nothing wrong with that by Germany, it just doesn't make for a very entertaining games sometimes.
    • Re:Brasil! (Score:3, Funny)

      by RebelTycoon (584591)
      Blah... I'll admit it... I am a poor loser.

      They should have crocked Ronaldo... Sure that would have looked bad, and I probably wouldn't like to see it happen.

      BUT DAMN IT. I WOULD BE PARTYING RIGHT NOW!!!

      Instead I'm here reading Slashdot. This so sucks.

  • by Gerp (20138)
    Brazil by far the best team in the world at the moment will have to qualify for the next world cup in Germany 2006 where as runners-up Germany get a free ticket as hosts, oh the irony!

    The world cup was a fantastic success, it's great to see a competition where the world champions actually have to play teams outside of their own country unlike the superbowl or so called 'world series' ;)
    • by Gerp (20138)
      FIFA have changes the rules for the next world cup. For the first time the champions have to qualify, only the hosts get to the finals automatically.

      Some would argue that the qualifying process is good the for the teams. France entered this years competition probably short of much needed competitive games under their belt and looked a little bit off the pace - I'm sure they will be back next time however.
    • by delphos (589265)
      The 'world series' has nothing to do the the
      world. It was originally sponsored by the
      (long dead) newspaper called the New York World.
    • Why do people get so worked up over this? In reality, the world series isn't that awful of a name - name me a baseball club anywhere else that could compete with the us pro teams?

      That said, there is some talk of a baseball world cup, and despite the typical Euro's unwavering belief that only Americans play baseball, it would be pretty awesome to see a us side play a dominican side.

      ostiguy
    • by jt007 (459122)
      Can we settle this once and for all, Germany automatically qualify (as hosts in 2006), Brazil don't. Read the official FIFA [fifa.com] announcement here. [yahoo.com]
  • go Ronaldo go (Score:2, Insightful)

    by atari2600 (545988)


    Ronadlo erased the memories of the last world cup where he was unable to play thanks to an unwelcome fit. Teamwork won them their cup though.

    About the champion being needing to qualify, i think thats good, since you see what happened to France..coming to the world cup having qualified and played as a team helps them in their campaign rather than come in from a dozen different clubs and expect to bulldoze the opposition.

    .sig
    Teamwork rules :)

  • Penta Campeao!
  • by GauteL (29207) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @10:08AM (#3795322)
    .. spoiled by very bad referee decisions in the quarter final and semi final leading to the expulsion of Italy and Spain for a worse side (South Korea).

    Nice to see new nations doing great in the World Cup final. Traditionally, it has been a contest between Europe, Argentina and Brazil, while this World Cup has seen Asia and even the US do well, while Africa dissappointed a little, except for Senegal.

    This is NOT the best World Cup quality wise though. The standards were imho way better in France 1998 and possibly even USA 1994. The reason might be that the big european stars, or other stars playing in big european clubs looked pretty jaded in this World Cup, possible due to ever increasing amount of highly competitive games in Europe for the best teams, pretty close to the world cup (for instance Champions League).

    If you go further back you may need to take into account that the tempo has increased considerably and defensive organization become way better, giving less goals. This is actually a sign of quality, the best leagues almost always have less goals than the poorer ones. This would mean that people might remember more chances and more exciting games, even though the teams would most probably loose against modern teams. Confusing eh?
    • the media (what a great surprise) make a big fuss about this after watching 30 replays from 50 different angles for hours and hours.

      Most of the "mistakes" where borderline situations in which the referess (or mostly their assistants) did not have a celar view of what was going on.

      The "disallowed" goal of Spain against Korea for example (it is not really disallowed, it was never scored and given for good), the ball is crossed when it is exactly in the line. Check a replay, the linesman has at least two players obstructing his view of a very borderline situation.

      We the public saw the best angle and the media cried murder. Sorry, but it seems like the media and the public are living parallel realities to what really happens in a pitch where difficult decissions have to be taken in a matter of instants.
  • go soccer.... um (Score:4, Insightful)

    by haukex (229058) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @10:29AM (#3795381)
    1.5 billion expected viewers and the story has to be submitted by the one slashdot editor who sounds like he could care less? Come on, you can't *all* have slept through this...
  • ... I have to sing the Brazilian National Anthem [thenationalanthems.com], in Portuguese no less. I lost the bet.
  • Eventhough I enjoyed playing soccer when I was younger, I have never enjoyed watching a soccer game. I think I have missed out on some of the finer things [missingleftsocks.com] to see at the soccer games. Here [missingleftsocks.com] is another example. I am going to watch from now on!

  • Dammit... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Junta (36770) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @10:38AM (#3795414)
    I haven't seen it yet and you go and spoil it by saying one team beat the other, now I know it wasn't a tie, gee thanks.
  • Jeez. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by justin_saunders (99661) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:48AM (#3795695) Homepage
    "some ludicrous number of people watched some team beat the other team."

    What an attitude!

    And how many billions of people from all nations are involved in that other sporting event called "The World Series"....

    Justin

    set troll = 1
    And BTW, its called football, because its game involving feet and balls.
    set troll = 0

    Arsenal Forever [arsenal.com]

  • Can't understand. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FreeLinux (555387) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:55AM (#3795738)
    As the arguements rage back and forth on this story, I still can't grasp the rabid dissention against the World Cup and "soccer". There is constant comparison to American Football, yet to me the two are about as comparable as relativity and cheese!

    When 1.5 billion people watch the World Cup with agonized anticipation people say "who cares" and "nobody's interested in that". Yet these same people think it is a great big deal that a paltry, in comparison, 131 million watched the Super Bowl and for months afterwards discuss the game and the commercials!?!?!?

    People argue about the name of the sport. Despite the fact that most of the world refers to a game that is played almost entirely with the feet as Football(makes sense to me), the dissenters call it soccer and argue that it should never have been called football. These same people call a much younger game in which a ball may be kicked only twice over the course of a four hour period and is played almost exclusively with the hands, Football. Huh????

    To be honest I enjoy both sports. But, I just don't understand how a small group of people can be so rabid in their dismissal of a sport that is, obviously, of tremendous significance to the entire world. Nobody said that you have to like it but, how can you not see it for what it truely is.
    • Just a nit. While sure, it's technically possible for a football game to only have two kicks in it, for that to happen, no one would score the entire game (until the last play td preventing OT) and no one would punt the entire game. That's an extremely unrealistic game; it would be like saying that a futball game could have the ball be kicked twice if the opening kickoff of each half was kicked in the air and the rest of game was heading it around.
    • Re:Can't understand. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Dolohov (114209) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @06:17PM (#3797077)
      The name is actually "association football" in the United States. The word "soccer" comes from that second syllable: association, from when they used to abbreviate it "assoc."

      And I agree with you: It's a fast-paced, exciting game that people the world over can understand (As opposed to American football's predominant reaction "What the hell's a first down?" or "Why's he got his face in that guy's ass?")

      I've always understood that the reason it never caught on in the US is that it's traditionally been hard to televise: You can't schedule time-outs for commercials, and there's only one break in the middle. Besides, it's one of the few games where it's more fun to watch in Spanish, regardless of the language you speak:

      Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!! :)

  • by line-bundle (235965) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @05:53PM (#3796982) Homepage Journal
    Why did slashdot not have a single poll on the world cup. The comments on the top of the page just add to my hypothesis that the /. people don't even pretend to care for their international readers.

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Working...