World Cup Final 781
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.
Very good game (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re:Very good game (Score:2)
all the US channels want to do is sell you something, and all the spanish channels want you to do is to learn some spanish.
i watched them take the cup, and i didn't understand the word they were saying, but at least they weren't trying to sell me shoes.
Okay. (Score:2)
What's he SUPPOSED to do, read the other player's mind a split second before he himself decides where he's kicking hte ball?
The reason they guess is because YOU CAN'T TELL WHERE THEY GOING TO KICK IT.
Worst played.. I think YOU better get in goal for a while and then judge.
Re:Okay. (Score:2)
Your suggestion of him coming out a bit further is illgeal according to the FA rules.
Re:Very good game (Score:3, Informative)
The goalkeeping in this world cup has been superb. Several of the games that have ended up 1-0 or 2-0 have been nothing short of spectacular with plenty of chances. The only thing holding the score down in some cases has been the goalkeeping.
Kahn in particular has had a great tournament, and while some may criticize his bobble that would be a bit harsh after the saves he did make in the final. Rivaldo did take a wicked shot that forced that drop.
Brazil's keeper was also out of his mind to make his save on the free kick in the first half.
Re:Very good game (Score:2, Informative)
ESPN had different announcers and commentators from the guys on ABC today. They were much better, just like their hockey games with Gary Thorne, Bill Clement and Darren Pang are much better than when a series goes to ABC and John Davidson.
Also, the ESPN/ABC broadcasts lagged Univision by 3-4 seconds, which provided a nice replay feature -- you could quickly switch to the English broadcast to see a play again.
Anyway, yeah, I've been watching Univision. The only thing I miss is the explanations for the fouls ("una falta! mumble mumble mumble...") and cards.
Interestingly, while the ESPN crew all agreed that the hand ball by Germany against the US was a correct non-call, the Univision announcers were foaming at the mouth that there should have been a penalty kick.
Re:Very good game (Score:2)
But the call was 100% percent correct. The arm did not even move to block or move after the block. It was there unintentionally, hence not a penalty.
Brasil! (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Brasil! (Score:2)
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).
Re:Brasil! (Score:2)
Re:Brasil (Score:2)
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.
Re:Brasil (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Brasil! (Score:2)
The difference with the German team is that most of the players are young. The Germans breaking the mould actually played a young player (go figure) with the tender age of 21. If some of you are saying huh? Germany has been notorious in the past in recruiting "seniors" to play in their team. In the last cup I think Germany either had the oldest or second oldest average age tema. I think only three players will retire (also their star goalie
true world champions (Score:2, Insightful)
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'
Re:true world champions (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:true world champions (Score:2, Informative)
world. It was originally sponsored by the
(long dead) newspaper called the New York World.
Re:true world champions (Score:2)
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
Re:true world champions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:true world champions (Score:2, Informative)
Bzzt, Wrong (Score:2, Informative)
tlhf
xxx
Re:true world champions (Score:2)
Not to say that Brazil were brilliant against us, though - more the case that we were poor (and no, I don't just mean the goalkeeper).
Remember that we also had a one-man advantage for 30 mins, yet we made it look like it was Brazil who had the extra man.
go Ronaldo go (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Brasil! (Score:2)
Very nice World Cup, but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
European conspiracy theories... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Very nice World Cup, but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
> to be 10 yards away from the free kick. And he'll continue to not understand it until the wall is
> completely set up.
Yeah. In the English Premiership, they've nicked a rule from Rugby that if the wall isn't 10 yards, the free kick moves 10 yards closer to the goal. All the players miraculously learnt how far 10 yards is this year - it was like magic...
Gerv
Re:Bollox (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't understand modern football do you? Almost all games are close in a World Cup. Brazils 4-0 over China and 5-2 over Costa Rica was exceptions rather than the rule.
The little things settle a modern game of football, like having two totally good goals turned down by the referee (Spain), both which should have settled this game. I never expected Spain to win with more than two goals even if they are a better side than Korea, so having two good goals turned down sure cheats them out of a deserved victory.
The game was then settled on a shootout, which is pretty much a lottery.
Italy also had good goals turned down, in addition to a VERY suspect send off for their star player Totti, into extra time. Even if you look the other way at the badly disallowed goals, they should at LEAST have hold on for a penalty shootout.
The truth is that Korea got helped through two games by bad mistakes from the referee. If it had been only one, then perhaps you could argue that they deserved reaching the semi-finals. But two?
I still don't think there was any corruption involved, just plain old mistakes, but Korea did NOT deserve to be in the semi-finals, and as of that, I'm glad Turkey beat them in the bronze-finals.
I've got nothing against Korea or Koreans, in fact they hosted a great tournament, and was definitely good enough to play with the big boys. I like the fact that there are now "new nations" joining the elite, but they still didn't deserve to reach the semi-finals.
go soccer.... um (Score:4, Insightful)
Darn, now on the next Karoake night... (Score:2)
Worth Watching (Score:2)
Dammit... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dammit... (Score:3, Funny)
Jeez. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Can't understand. (Score:2)
Re:Can't understand. (Score:4, Interesting)
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!!!!! :)
Deeply disappointed by Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where are the US ? (Score:3, Informative)
Let's hear it for the CBC (Score:2)
The CBC [cbc.ca] carried the semi-finals and finals live, and aired a number of games on tape delay. They also used the BBC audio feed, which provided probably the best English language commentary.
However, I'm told that FIFA was asking for an enormous amount of money for the rights to broadcast games ... CBC nearly didn't carry it, but they worked out some sort of deal. Maybe ABC thought it was too much to pay for a 6 AM broadcast ...
Re:Let's hear it for the CBC (Score:2)
It's even worse than it seems: ABC didn't have to pay a thin red dime for the rights. No one wanted to broadcast the games in the U.S. so Major League Soccer had to buy the rights and they GAVE Them way to ABC/ESPN just to promote Soccer in the U.S.
DISNEY SUCKS SOOOOOOO BAD.
-Russ
Re:Let's hear it for the CBC (Score:2)
He used to play college level football and hated the coverage that the American commentators had. They kept talking garbage (sort of like when European commentators comment NHL hockey, IT SUCKS!!!).
Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!? (Score:2)
Sorry to hear about that. Here in Akron, OH, ABC not only showed it this morning, but they reran it at 12:30. Also, interestingly enough, ESPN _didn't_ air the 3rd place game live, but ABC did; and that was the more entertaining game in my opinion.
Re:ABC Coverage in US!?!? (Score:2)
Stuff that Matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Good grief, it's the single biggest sports event in the world.
News alert: Some geeks like sport.
That doesn't mean I'm any good at sport though...
Re:Stuff that Matters (Score:2)
Re:Brasilians do not have last names? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Brasilians do not have last names? (Score:5, Informative)
So all these players are known here by their first name... it would be very confusing for the Brazillian public see in the player's shirts their last names... even for foreigners, since almost nobody knows Ronaldo's last name (I know... but I forgot
Re:Great World Cup! (Score:2)
Gerv
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop calling football "soccer", and start calling the sport that you guys play but no-one else does "American football", which is a far more accurate term for it.
You have to face it on this one - both history and worldwide usage are not on your side.
Gerv
Soccer? Football? (Score:2)
I say you should call it... Tossball, or passball, or simply Pickupandcarryball. "Yeah, the Chicago Bears are the gretest team in the history of american pickupandcarryball."
Besides, american football is a wussy game compared to Australian rugby. There you play the game and take the hurting like a MAN, not run around lugging 30 pounds of armor.
Re:Soccer? Football? (Score:2, Funny)
"Soccer" is a perfectly correct term (Score:2)
I grew up in an ex-British colony which shall remain nameless, and although there was no American football, so no potential for confusion, we still called football "soccer", mostly. We had a "soccer team" and "soccer players".
This Short History of Soccer [innotts.co.uk] has a description of the origin of the term at Oxford in the 1880's. Although the term derives from a contraction of "association football", it is in widespread colloquial use, and appears in modern dictionaries. I don't see what purpose is being served by correcting people about it. Or is that just a pathetic attempt to tweak Americans?
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Flamebait)
You have to face it on this one - both history and worldwide usage are not on your side.
Perhaps.. but your missing one key important detail about America here.... We ARE NUMBER 1!!! WE ARE NUMBER 1!!! WE ARE NUMBER 1!!!
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
You obviously didn't see the match. Brazil won. They're number 1.
(Ofcourse Brazil is in America too, but I don't think that is what you meant.)
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are probably one of my fellow Americans who always embarass our country by going to Britain and whining about people driving on the "wrong" side of the road. You are pathetic. God forbid you have to get used to accepting a different arbitrary standard then what you are used to. Do the words "grow up" convey anything to you?
2) Penalty time...nuff said.
Heaven forbid you actually learn to appreciate the sport for what it is, rather than damning it for what it is not.
3) Offsides...soo, you're not allowed to have a breakaway at all? I think if you get one you earned it, why should you have to WAIT for a defender to show up so you can continue? Screw that.
You are a fool. Soccer has breakaways all the time; you just can't camp out at the opponent's goalmouth and wait for the inevitable long pass (which is what happens when there is no offside rule - note that is offside, not offsides, you ignoramous). Offside rule forces teams to use a little creativity and imagination in their dribbling and passing. Your problem is that you are applying basketball standards to a very, very different sport.
4) Crowds literally KILLING each other by stampeding, throwing DARTS (for the love of God what would posses you to THROW FUCKING DARTS at people over a gay ass game?), and severe beatings? Go back to the stone age...oh wait Europe never left it!
If you think there are no riots or crowd violence associated with sporting events in the USA, you are a fool. Yes, some countries in Europe have problems with hooliganism. But these people would be violent whereever they are; soccer is just a convenient venue for their hooliganism.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
Gerv
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)
Who cares about a stupid soccer game? Real Americans don't. And stop calling soccer "football." There already is a football.
Errm, the thing that you call "soccer" has been called "football" for longer than you've had a country, let alone a national sport.
Re:does that work both ways? (Score:5, Funny)
And here I was thinking hard work and practice is what gave them their "gifts", thanks for setting me straight.
Maybe if I pray a whole lot I will suddenly learn Java, it's something I've been meaning to do anyway, why waste times with books when I can beg my magical friend for skills instead!
Thanks, you probably saved me many hours of work and study.
Re:does that work both ways? (Score:2)
You imply that it doesn't matter what you believe, and whatever works for an individual person is good.
If that were true (that it doesn't matter), then everything you could possibly believe in would be equally worthless, and nothing would help - because you would know your choice was arbitrary and meaningless.
Gerv
Re:does that work both ways? (Score:2)
It's all in the head. Some people need something to believe in, to create hope, because they are too weak-minded to do it themselves. Hence, religion.
Generally speaking, beliefs are worthless, as long as you are strong-willed enough to meet your goals on your own.
Re:does that work both ways? (Score:2)
Like those Brazilian soccer players with "I belong to Jesus" on their shirts? Your argument claims they are weak-minded, and not strong-willed enough to meet their goals without a psychological crutch. Is that right?
Gerv
Re:does that work both ways? (Score:2)
Re:these are symantics. (Score:2)
No, he did give them the talents and skills they have, too - whether they credit him for it or not. Who won is irrelevant. Everyone who has commented seems to think I said "God made it so the Brazilians won", and I didn't say that at all.
Gerv
Re:these are symantics. (Score:2)
Great to see several Brazilian players (and the entire team, if that enormous circle was a prayer circle, which it seemed to be) giving credit where it's due for their talents and gifts
I didn't "credit God for Brazil's win", I said that it's great that they recognise that He gave them the talents they used to win. He gives everyone different gifts; theirs happen to be being good at football.
while you didn't say "god made it so the brasilians won", you did give god credit for the talent and skills of the brasilian players. since a significant portion of their preformance is directly related to their skills and what not, the following is not a strange conculsion:
god gives skills --> brasilians use skills --> brasilians win
or cut out the middle man:
god gives skills --> brasilians win
now that is from the brasilians perspective. i simply asked if it worked the other way:
god gives skills --> brasilians use skills --> germans loose
i find it strange that when god helps christians they thank it, but when god does the opposite the christians simply say god works in mysterious ways. i am of the opinion that if god has that much control, then god is responsible. it seems very hypocritical to thank god for the good things and not attribute the bad things to it-they are all under gods control. sure you can say helping you wasnt part of gods 'plan'. i would say that when it does help you it just happens to be part of gods plan.
this is not ment as an attack on your religion, and i hope you do not see it that way.
Re:these are symantics. (Score:2)
> i find it strange that when god helps christians they thank it, but when god does the opposite the
> christians simply say god works in mysterious
ways.
I wouldn't say that - that is, I wouldn't say that "God works in mysterious ways" if something bad happened. For a start, whether something is "good" or "bad" is often only really found out long after the event. More than once, something has happened where I've thought "What on earth is God doing? That's not what I asked him to do at all", yet looking back now, I am privileged to see what it was he was trying to achieve.
> this is not ment as an attack on your religion, and i hope you do not see it that way.
Of course not
Gerv
Re:these are symantics. (Score:2)
so what do the people at the bottom say? thanks for not smiting me?
I wouldn't say that - that is, I wouldn't say that "God works in mysterious ways" if something bad happened. For a start, whether something is "good" or "bad" is often only really found out long after the event. More than once, something has happened where I've thought "What on earth is God doing? That's not what I asked him to do at all", yet looking back now, I am privileged to see what it was he was trying to achieve.
so have we seen the result of gods plan for the native americans yet? i'm not sure what they should be thankful for alcoholism or the successful casinos they own?
Re:these are symantics. (Score:2)
Re:these are symantics. (Score:2)
Because he's given us free will - and that means that people are able to choose to do either good things or bad things, even if that grieves him. If God was to force us always to do His will, we'd would be human, we'd be robots.
You can't have both human free will and a world where no-one ever sins; it's a logical contradiction.
Gerv
Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You" (Score:2)
Gerv
Obligatory Simpsons quote: (Score:2)
Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA (Score:2)
Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA (Score:2, Funny)
Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA (Score:2)
Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA (Score:4, Insightful)
Germans had more shots, were aggressive, had the most posession, and were even better one-on-one. Every champion needs a good portion of luck, and Brazil has had it today. There was none of the Brazillian wizardry in this World cup, they were one of the great disappointments for me as they played unimaginatively and got through most of their games through luck and ref help.
As for Gerald Asamoah, he's a bloody striker, of course he was late marking Ronaldo, he was sent in to score a goal.
And then there was reality (Score:5, Insightful)
reading the media reports of the Telegraph, Sport1.de, espn etc. it seems pretty obvious that Germany actually outplayed Brazil over quite a stretch of the game. (At least the news sources would agree with me)...
Kahn made a mistake, he is afterall Human and that was the difference in the game, the second goal was caused by Jeremies being subbed for an attacker that did a rather poor job on defense to create the 2nd goal...and there it was... thats why people started celebrating 11 minutes early...
Both teams played excellet, it wasn't as dirty as I thought it would be...nobody collapsed holding their head after a ball touched their hand
Good game...
contratulations to both...I think Brazil did very well and Germany definitely went beyond what was expected before the tournament started...
Peter
Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's what I saw: Two very capable teams, a solid, convincing German start, Brazilian players who lost many 1o1s, a terrible mistake by Kahn (his only in the tournament), Brazil taking their chances, while Germany missing all of them.
All in all Brazil deserves to hold the cup (as would have Germany) and I was happy to see Ronaldo come back after his 4 year struggle, as a much better player than he ever was.
The parent troll should note that Gerald Asamoah ("the black...FAT ASS" as the guy so offensively stated) is a striker and not a defender. It wasn't his mistake, but rather bound to happen when the coach sends in an additional striker to replace a defender. With one-nil against the Germans, it was the right decision. Nobody cares whether you lose by one or two, try to even and your back in the game.
One last thing: The troll wrote
Korea, Turkey and Croatia had a better game than Germany." If that would have been so, why weren't they in the finals?
Sinserve, the next time you write something about football, use all players' names and never their numbers. All players deserve this, for they played their hearts out and deserve a little respect. Every goddamn journalist knows and honors it.
You've watched a different game, read Salon review (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, your experiences are different from those of most other people. Salon has a more accurate review of the game [salon.com].
Nobody would deny that Brasil deserved to win, in the end they got more chances and made more of them. But "the Germans sucked raw ass"? For anyone who actually watched the game and knows the rules, your original posting is a troll if I've ever seen one.
Re:GermMUHAHAHAHAHA (Score:2)
Too bad for Kahn, he had an amazing series; if Germany had won it he'd have probably gotten the Golden Ball.
Re:Are there drug tests? (Score:2)
Re:World Cup on /. = End of the World. (Score:2)
Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less (Score:2)
Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less (Score:2, Redundant)
Gerv
Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less (Score:2)
Really? Funny you didn't know half of them are Christians, then.
> I mean, they took their national team t-shirts off
> and put the gold medal on their back just show
> the jeesus crap more.
What a paragon of tolerance you are, sir
> (Slayer released 11/9 an album which said it well enough : "God hates us all"
So you believe in God, but not Jesus?
Gerv
Re:Whats wrong with that? (Score:2)
I don't know of any people called "terrorists" who have committed no violent acts, and who preach peace and reconciliation consistently wherever they go...
Gerv
Re:My community service for the day. (Score:2)
> purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
On a long and hard journey, one might require a sword for protection.
Further along in the same chapter:
[Jesus is about to be arrested.] "When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear, and healed him."
Classic terrorist behaviour.
It's obvious from this that Jesus' mention of "taking swords" did not mean you were supposed to attack people with them.
Gerv
Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less (Score:2, Offtopic)
Gerv
Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less (Score:2)
Re:Brazil & Jeesus - one fan less (Score:2)
Thinking back to the England-Denmark game, a lot of players swopped shirts afterwards, so half the England team left the pitch in Danish colours. Didn't see any complaint against that and I've seen them do TV interviews still wearing opposition shirts. Or, going back a few years, when Ian Wright broke Arsenal's club goalscoring record, he instantly ripped off his shirt and ran around parading a shirt with a Nike logo and his new record total. That's really blatant placement by Nike, but it was also the image all over the press. Ian was a hero to Arsenal fans, though, so no-one really cared as I recall.
Some might be annoyed but I can't see many being too sad.
Re:Spoiler... (Score:5, Insightful)
> "Whiniest Country in International Sports".
You are joking, right? When South Korea got knocked out, the fans were partying in the streets all night. There was no drunken hooliganism like we've seen in the past (sadly) from England fans after they lose. During every game, the Koreans played sportingly (none of this shocking Rivaldo-type behaviour, or diving, or hassling the referee) and played as a team.
Italy, on the other hand, got eliminated and spent the next two weeks whining about a conspiracy and demanding an investigation. One club sacked the Korean player who scored the Golden Goal against them, although they later realised how childish they'd been, and offered him his job back. Spain weren't much better.
Gerv
Re:Spoiler... (Score:2)
Fortunately, Ahn told them to stuff it. Well done him.
Gerv
Re:World == World (Score:2)
Gerv
Re:World == World (Score:2, Interesting)
You can a whole article about it yonder:
http://www.snopes2.com/business/names/worldser.ht
Re:World == World (Score:2)
Gerv
Oh No It Isn't (Score:2)
Re:Britian's Fault (Score:2)
Not this year, they didn't knock anyone out
Re:Britian's Fault (Score:2)
We (Scotland) beat the Brazilians last time round... (only people we did beat!)
The pressure is REALLY on Voeller (Score:2)
And he better win or the German press (starting with Bild) will rip him to pieces.
Re:first post?? (Score:2)
no, no, no. You're doing it all wrong. It's:
First POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST!!