|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOne argument in particular to counter the essence of this video, with quite a few populist, but spurious premises, is this. There are only 9-11 teams that have qualified for the last five World Cups in succession. There are 2008, possibly more now, registered FIFA football playing nations. *Europe Spain England France Germany Switzerland I'm not sure if Portugal have achieved this too? I know Croatia missed out in 2010. *Asia Japan South Korea Australia Have Iran qualified for the last five WCs? *Africa Now that Nigeria has failed to qualify for the Qatar WC, I'm not sure any African football nation has achieved five successive WCs in a row? *CONMEBOL Brazil Argentina We stopped Uruguay in 2006. *CONCACAF Mexico The next question should be posed, why have Australia qualified five times in succession? It can't be argued that Asia is simply a weak Confederation. That is because Australia has beaten: CONMEBOL twice in WC sudden death play offs - against Uruguay 2006 and Peru 2022. Australia has also beaten CONCACAF once in a sudden WC death intercontinental play off - against Honduras in 2018. Australia have only directly qualified via Asian WCQers exclusively - twice - in 2010 and 2014. One of the reasons, not touched on by any of the 6 GGs in a video posted on here, is that the National Curriculum has been installed. It has put great emphasis on training Aussie coaches and having quality European powerhouse based coach education imparted in Australia. Prior to Rob Baan and Han Berger's Football Aus TD tenures, coaching was ad hoc all over the country. There was no consistency whatsoever. There might have been good coaching occurring at one club, or with one team, or a team in a suburb close by, but there was a lot of shonky coaching occurring in many settings. This was because there was no national coaching system established with European based methodology to ensure a mandated level of quality everywhere. This has led to far better tactical coaching by Aussie trained domestic coaches - in the Socceroos, Matildas, A League, W League, A L Academies, NPL clubs - senior, youth, junior. Any coach who does C Licence ( Semi - Pro and Pro) and beyond, has to undertake comprehensive match analysis training, and, has been trained to plan coaching sessions on the training track, based on those problems identified in the match performance of a team. When, Who, Where, Why, What, How? To use some technical terms: *There are three thirds of the pitch where coaches have to analyse Ball Possession and Ball Possession Opposition performance based on the previous game, or groups of games that a coach's team plays. * Four man moments - BP, BPO, Attacking and Defensive Transitions. * Communication and structure to organise teams. In Ball Possession formations can evolve depending on the phases of play - eg 4-4-2 Ball Possession Opposition, 4- 2-3-1 in back and middle third of the pitch in Ball Possession, then evolving to 4-3-3 alternating with 4-2-4 in the attacking third of the pitch for Ball Possession, reverting to 4-4-2 in Defensive Transition. The Socceroos did this against Peru, and particularly in the first half peruvian coach Gareco was going ballistic, because he couldn't counter the Aussie game plan. Ostensibly, Gareco is a master coach in South America, but he struggled to combat Arnie's game plan. Meanwhile, Peru used a simple 4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle in Possession and and a 1:4 midfield 4-5-1 in BPO - a simple game plan to negate. I think I'm correct in advancing this, but only the Czech coach of SFC after Kosmina and Butcher, has had any success since about 2010 when Aussie coaches were inculcated with the European powerhouse methodology from Football Aus coach education. Since I think it has only been the parent countries of the national curriculum coach education, that have succeeded in Australia - French, Dutch, Spanish or German - which is a amalgam of how Aussie domestic coaches have been trained. Despite not having improved technique greatly ( which takes a long time), until the recent graduates of about 8 years of Skills Acquisition Program have started coming through in the last few years at under 23 and senior level, tactically our teams are usually very good. Moreover, Australian national Under 16s, Under 17s, Under 20s and Under 23s, play a similar structure and formations as each other. It is easier for players to adapt to national team game plans as players progress through the underage ranks. Australian teams in 2022, are able to play far better as team units, than even in 2006. No matter how man GGs we had playing in European leagues, they were inexperienced playing international football until Pim's WCQ campaign starting in 2008. Playing 2 big sudden death games against Oceanian opposition, 2 big intercontinental two legged sudden death knocked out games, plus 3 games at the Federation Cup, amounted to 7 meaningful competitive games prior to the 2008- 2010 Asian WCQing campaign. _Now we play something like 20 WCQers. - 3 games at the WC -Circa 8 Asian Cup qualifiers -3-7 games at the Asian Cup *7 meaningful games every four years pre 2006 for the Socceroos. Now the Socceroos play 35 - 40 meaningful games every 4 years! The latter scenario is going to create a much more cohesive, battle hardened, match savvy team unit. The video claims that the Socceroos were used to big games at club level with the GG. True. But they weren't at international level. Our worst performance in the Asian Cup tournament was probably 2007, where the GG struggled. Decentric, with respect, can I ask are you a fan of the game of football? Im curious to know if you had a childhood obsession with the sport, a favourite club or clubs? A player you idolised growing up perhaps and pretended to be playing in the backyard or at school with mates? I dont mean with an analytical, calculating accountants perspective which you clearly enjoy that aspect of. Just wanting to understand the motivation behind the methodology. DId you ever play, or actively support a club? I pretty much disagree with the majority of your opinions and that reflects on the way I view the game as opposed to the way you do. I am by no means under the illusion that I am right (not even half the time) and you are wrong, its just that your approach to the sport is so foreign to me. Im not trying to be insulting in any way btw, genuinely curious. Fair comment, MSC. Played underage state rep, NPL youth and NPL senior level. Coached junior suburban, state feeder rep underage teams, adult women, country club Tech Dir and was an NPL club Tech Dir. Not so much this season, but have watched a lot of NPL senior level football. Grew up in England until age 10, supporting Liverpool and Glasgow Rangers. Also, supported my local town team - Glastonbury. I used to watch them live in 1965 and 1966. For most of the A L have supported Melb Vic, and then changed to Melb City a few years back. Plus I've recently wanted to see CCM do well. Hey Decentric, thanks for taking the time to respond. Sounds like you are a poor, lost, "football tragic" soul like most here.... :) I would take Decentric's CV with a pinch of salt if I were you. Charlize Theron for all you know.... :) I'm very happily married however pleased to meet you anyway. :P Your lucky I have soft spot for Diego .... :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
For all the talent they had I don’t think the GG were a great team, I remember we played a lot of long balls when trying to score as we didn’t have alot of creativity outside of Kewell and Bresc to create clear cut chances.
Even the Italy game when we played with an extra player in the second half we didn’t look like creating a chance against the Italians and we had little off the bench.
The Brazil game we created very little outside of the long range shot from Kewell.
The Japan game we were pumping long balls with those guys up front and by passing the midfield towards the later end of the match.
So yes the GG were a great generation of fantastic players and Hiddink as the tactician but we didn’t play a style that top nations weren’t bothered by us.
Ange P’s team from 2014-2015 was the best football I’ve seen the Socceroos play on an international level.
|
|
|
|
|
dirk vanadidas
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhen New Football took over from old soccer, some 18 years ago, I would constantly hear about the rise of China, the massive investment in Chinese football, how they will become a powerhouse, etc. etc. Yet they are every bit as crap today as they were 18 years ago. They are so crap, and likely to remain crap, and that is precisely why FIFA introduced the 48 nation World cup, so that crap football countries like China and India might one day fluke a world cup spot (China made it once before, but that appearance is eminently forgettable). So crap but champions of women Asian football
Europe is funding the war not Chelsea football club
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWhen New Football took over from old soccer, some 18 years ago, I would constantly hear about the rise of China, the massive investment in Chinese football, how they will become a powerhouse, etc. etc. Yet they are every bit as crap today as they were 18 years ago. They are so crap, and likely to remain crap, and that is precisely why FIFA introduced the 48 nation World cup, so that crap football countries like China and India might one day fluke a world cup spot (China made it once before, but that appearance is eminently forgettable). So crap but champions of women Asian football Yeh, well, Asian womens football is so strong. So strong, no Asian teams made the quarter finals last womens world cup. China lost 2-0 to Italy in the round of 16, and Italy has been a pretty weak team in womens football for the last 30 years. In conclusion, the Chinese women are doing better than the men - which isn't saying a whole lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xWhen New Football took over from old soccer, some 18 years ago, I would constantly hear about the rise of China, the massive investment in Chinese football, how they will become a powerhouse, etc. etc. Yet they are every bit as crap today as they were 18 years ago. They are so crap, and likely to remain crap, and that is precisely why FIFA introduced the 48 nation World cup, so that crap football countries like China and India might one day fluke a world cup spot (China made it once before, but that appearance is eminently forgettable). So crap but champions of women Asian football Yeh, well, Asian womens football is so strong. So strong, no Asian teams made the quarter finals last womens world cup. China lost 2-0 to Italy in the round of 16, and Italy has been a pretty weak team in womens football for the last 30 years. In conclusion, the Chinese women are doing better than the men - which isn't saying a whole lot. Asian women's football is so weak that 40 European nations are ranked lower than China.
|
|
|
|
|
BA81
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAnother point that Alfie makes, which is very true, is the media dominance of Aussie Rules in southern states. Plus he alludes to how hostile egg-ball is to football. All true.
I thought football was making inroads into egg-ball(AFL in particular); plus League and Union(to a lesser extent), were extremely hostile to football's emergence.
However, in recent times, football seems to be getting less and less media coverage. If the FFA/FA were smart, they would liaise w/the State Feds on strategising localised approaches to promoting/growing the game ie. that are considerate of the respective idiosyncrasies. Put simply, the current approach in use ever since the Crawford Report has pretty much done its job insofar as NSW and QLD(prob the ACT too) are concerned bc ⚽ traditionally was always that much more accepted as part of the Oz sporting furniture compared to in the AFL states, where the 'w0gb@ll' stigma still remains due to the whole 'AFL is our indigenous homegrown code and if it dies here, it dies everywhere' rhetoric.. Bottom-line is that ⚽-lovers from the AFL states are much more likely to be of a non-Skip background than their RL/RU state counterparts, so why don't FFA strategise accordingly? It only makes sense💡
|
|
|
|
|
petszk
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOne argument in particular to counter the essence of this video, with quite a few populist, but spurious premises, is this.
There are only 9-11 teams that have qualified for the last five World Cups in succession. There are 2008, possibly more now, registered FIFA football playing nations.
*Europe
Spain
England
France
Germany
Switzerland
I'm not sure if Portugal have achieved this too? I know Croatia missed out in 2010.
*Asia
Japan
South Korea
Australia
Have Iran qualified for the last five WCs?
*Africa
Now that Nigeria has failed to qualify for the Qatar WC, I'm not sure any African football nation has achieved five successive WCs in a row?
*CONMEBOL
Brazil
Argentina
We stopped Uruguay in 2006.
*CONCACAF
Mexico
The next question should be posed, why have Australia qualified five times in succession?
It can't be argued that Asia is simply a weak Confederation. That is because Australia has beaten:
CONMEBOL twice in WC sudden death play offs - against Uruguay 2006 and Peru 2022.
Australia has also beaten CONCACAF once in a sudden WC death intercontinental play off - against Honduras in 2018.
Australia have only directly qualified via Asian WCQers exclusively - twice - in 2010 and 2014.
Yes, it can be argued. And with relative ease simply because it's true. Consider how poorly Asian teams actually tend to do at the WC. Yes, it's great that Australia beat those countries. But it doesn't tell us much about how weak or strong tge AFC is. Sweden has beaten Spain, yet failed to qualify. North Macedonia has beaten Italy. Anything cam be claimed if you choose the right result. So let's look at actual results at the World Cup. How many Asian teams have got as far as the semi-finals of the WC this century? One. How many have made the quarters? Not many. It's bloody rare for them to get out of the group. I remember that Japan did in South Africa (?) and that waa fantastic, but rare, for our confederation. People on here love to say that North America is weak. Compared to Asia, it's not. They get fewer spots than Asia. Yet Mexico has the record, with Brazil, for most last 16 appearances at the WC. The USMNT are formidable and have somewhat recently got out of their group. Costa Rica has also recently made it to the last 16, possibly quarter-finals. And now Canada have qualified top. And yet, that's a weak confederation but Asia isn't? I would say Asia is now probably the weakest. Also, Decentric, the means of measuring success that you're using is problematic. Successive WC qualification is great but it's only one way of measuring success. And a somewhat unorhodox way, at that. For one thing, it's influenced by more than consistency. To a certain extent, it's a function of the level of difficulty of the route to the WC. Australia has qualified for five consecutive World Cups partly, at the very least, because it has one of the easiest pathways to the World Cup. You mention Croatia not qualifying in one WC. Since their qualification streak isn't so strong, is their any argument that they're weaker tham us? Meanwhile they have actually played in a World Cup final. Consecutive qualifications are great. But they don't say that much about the strength of the team Agree with most of this. IMO, the best way to measure the "strength" of a confederation is to check their success rate at getting out of the group stage of the WC. Since 50% of the teams get eliminated in the group stage and 50% go on to the 2nd round, this is a pretty good indicator. If everything was equal, each confederation would have 50% of their teams eliminated in the group stage and 50% of their teams proceed to the 2nd round. So if a confederation has a >50% success rate, by definition they're a stronger-than-average confederation, and <50% success rate means they're weaker than average. Over the past 3 world cups; 2018 Succeeded in the group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia Europe: Russia, Spain, Portugal, France, Denmark, Croatia, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, England North America: Mexico Asia: Japan Eliminated in the group stage; Asia: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia, South Korea Africa: Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia, Senegal South America: Peru Europe: Iceland, Serbia, Germany, Poland North America: Costa Rica, Panama 2014 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina North America: Mexico, Costa Rica, USA Europe: Netherlands, Greece, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium Africa: Nigeria, Algeria Eliminated in group stage; Europe: Croatia, Spain, Italy, England, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Portugal, Russia Africa: Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana Asia: Australia, Japan, Iran, South Korea South America: Ecuador North America: Honduras 2010 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile North America: Mexico, USA Europe: England, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia, Portugal, Spain Africa: Ghana Asia: South Korea, Japan Eliminated in group stage; Europe: France, Greece, Slovenia, Serbia, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland Africa: South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast Asia: Australia, North Korea North America: Honduras Oceania: NZ Success rate: South America: 14/16 = 87.5% (Amazing! Over the last 12 years, only twice has a South American team failed to get out of the group stage) North America: 6/10 = 60% (This is also a surprise, I didn't realise how successful NA has been recently). Europe: 22/40 = 55% Asia: 3/13 = 23% Africa: 3/16 = 19% Oceania: 0/1 = 0% (Admittedly a very small sample size) Going by this... South America and North America have a claim to get more spots at the world cup, at the expense of Asia & Africa. Or at least - when the world cup expands to 40 countries, these confederations are the ones most deserving of getting the extra spots.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOne argument in particular to counter the essence of this video, with quite a few populist, but spurious premises, is this.
There are only 9-11 teams that have qualified for the last five World Cups in succession. There are 2008, possibly more now, registered FIFA football playing nations.
*Europe
Spain
England
France
Germany
Switzerland
I'm not sure if Portugal have achieved this too? I know Croatia missed out in 2010.
*Asia
Japan
South Korea
Australia
Have Iran qualified for the last five WCs?
*Africa
Now that Nigeria has failed to qualify for the Qatar WC, I'm not sure any African football nation has achieved five successive WCs in a row?
*CONMEBOL
Brazil
Argentina
We stopped Uruguay in 2006.
*CONCACAF
Mexico
The next question should be posed, why have Australia qualified five times in succession?
It can't be argued that Asia is simply a weak Confederation. That is because Australia has beaten:
CONMEBOL twice in WC sudden death play offs - against Uruguay 2006 and Peru 2022.
Australia has also beaten CONCACAF once in a sudden WC death intercontinental play off - against Honduras in 2018.
Australia have only directly qualified via Asian WCQers exclusively - twice - in 2010 and 2014.
Yes, it can be argued. And with relative ease simply because it's true. Consider how poorly Asian teams actually tend to do at the WC. Yes, it's great that Australia beat those countries. But it doesn't tell us much about how weak or strong tge AFC is. Sweden has beaten Spain, yet failed to qualify. North Macedonia has beaten Italy. Anything cam be claimed if you choose the right result. So let's look at actual results at the World Cup. How many Asian teams have got as far as the semi-finals of the WC this century? One. How many have made the quarters? Not many. It's bloody rare for them to get out of the group. I remember that Japan did in South Africa (?) and that waa fantastic, but rare, for our confederation. People on here love to say that North America is weak. Compared to Asia, it's not. They get fewer spots than Asia. Yet Mexico has the record, with Brazil, for most last 16 appearances at the WC. The USMNT are formidable and have somewhat recently got out of their group. Costa Rica has also recently made it to the last 16, possibly quarter-finals. And now Canada have qualified top. And yet, that's a weak confederation but Asia isn't? I would say Asia is now probably the weakest. Also, Decentric, the means of measuring success that you're using is problematic. Successive WC qualification is great but it's only one way of measuring success. And a somewhat unorhodox way, at that. For one thing, it's influenced by more than consistency. To a certain extent, it's a function of the level of difficulty of the route to the WC. Australia has qualified for five consecutive World Cups partly, at the very least, because it has one of the easiest pathways to the World Cup. You mention Croatia not qualifying in one WC. Since their qualification streak isn't so strong, is their any argument that they're weaker tham us? Meanwhile they have actually played in a World Cup final. Consecutive qualifications are great. But they don't say that much about the strength of the team Agree with most of this. IMO, the best way to measure the "strength" of a confederation is to check their success rate at getting out of the group stage of the WC. Since 50% of the teams get eliminated in the group stage and 50% go on to the 2nd round, this is a pretty good indicator. If everything was equal, each confederation would have 50% of their teams eliminated in the group stage and 50% of their teams proceed to the 2nd round. So if a confederation has a >50% success rate, by definition they're a stronger-than-average confederation, and <50% success rate means they're weaker than average. Over the past 3 world cups; 2018 Succeeded in the group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia Europe: Russia, Spain, Portugal, France, Denmark, Croatia, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, England North America: Mexico Asia: Japan Eliminated in the group stage; Asia: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia, South Korea Africa: Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia, Senegal South America: Peru Europe: Iceland, Serbia, Germany, Poland North America: Costa Rica, Panama 2014 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina North America: Mexico, Costa Rica, USA Europe: Netherlands, Greece, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium Africa: Nigeria, Algeria Eliminated in group stage; Europe: Croatia, Spain, Italy, England, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Portugal, Russia Africa: Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana Asia: Australia, Japan, Iran, South Korea South America: Ecuador North America: Honduras 2010 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile North America: Mexico, USA Europe: England, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia, Portugal, Spain Africa: Ghana Asia: South Korea, Japan Eliminated in group stage; Europe: France, Greece, Slovenia, Serbia, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland Africa: South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast Asia: Australia, North Korea North America: Honduras Oceania: NZ Success rate: South America: 14/16 = 87.5% (Amazing! Over the last 12 years, only twice has a South American team failed to get out of the group stage) North America: 6/10 = 60% (This is also a surprise, I didn't realise how successful NA has been recently). Europe: 22/40 = 55% Asia: 3/13 = 23% Africa: 3/16 = 19% Oceania: 0/1 = 0% (Admittedly a very small sample size) Going by this... South America and North America have a claim to get more spots at the world cup, at the expense of Asia & Africa. Or at least - when the world cup expands to 40 countries, these confederations are the ones most deserving of getting the extra spots. depth matters too right? If you put brazil in oceania their ratio would look pretty good too but it doesn't mean america samoa need a world cup spot If you replaced Japan with Brazil it also wouldn't change our world cup qualification chances either since the original context was about how impressive it is to qualify 5 times in a row, the best way to measure this is the strength of each confederations team that finishes with a .5 place (or just misses out if a confederation gets a whole number of places)
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOne argument in particular to counter the essence of this video, with quite a few populist, but spurious premises, is this.
There are only 9-11 teams that have qualified for the last five World Cups in succession. There are 2008, possibly more now, registered FIFA football playing nations.
*Europe
Spain
England
France
Germany
Switzerland
I'm not sure if Portugal have achieved this too? I know Croatia missed out in 2010.
*Asia
Japan
South Korea
Australia
Have Iran qualified for the last five WCs?
*Africa
Now that Nigeria has failed to qualify for the Qatar WC, I'm not sure any African football nation has achieved five successive WCs in a row?
*CONMEBOL
Brazil
Argentina
We stopped Uruguay in 2006.
*CONCACAF
Mexico
The next question should be posed, why have Australia qualified five times in succession?
It can't be argued that Asia is simply a weak Confederation. That is because Australia has beaten:
CONMEBOL twice in WC sudden death play offs - against Uruguay 2006 and Peru 2022.
Australia has also beaten CONCACAF once in a sudden WC death intercontinental play off - against Honduras in 2018.
Australia have only directly qualified via Asian WCQers exclusively - twice - in 2010 and 2014.
Yes, it can be argued. And with relative ease simply because it's true. Consider how poorly Asian teams actually tend to do at the WC. Yes, it's great that Australia beat those countries. But it doesn't tell us much about how weak or strong tge AFC is. Sweden has beaten Spain, yet failed to qualify. North Macedonia has beaten Italy. Anything cam be claimed if you choose the right result. So let's look at actual results at the World Cup. How many Asian teams have got as far as the semi-finals of the WC this century? One. How many have made the quarters? Not many. It's bloody rare for them to get out of the group. I remember that Japan did in South Africa (?) and that waa fantastic, but rare, for our confederation. People on here love to say that North America is weak. Compared to Asia, it's not. They get fewer spots than Asia. Yet Mexico has the record, with Brazil, for most last 16 appearances at the WC. The USMNT are formidable and have somewhat recently got out of their group. Costa Rica has also recently made it to the last 16, possibly quarter-finals. And now Canada have qualified top. And yet, that's a weak confederation but Asia isn't? I would say Asia is now probably the weakest. Also, Decentric, the means of measuring success that you're using is problematic. Successive WC qualification is great but it's only one way of measuring success. And a somewhat unorhodox way, at that. For one thing, it's influenced by more than consistency. To a certain extent, it's a function of the level of difficulty of the route to the WC. Australia has qualified for five consecutive World Cups partly, at the very least, because it has one of the easiest pathways to the World Cup. You mention Croatia not qualifying in one WC. Since their qualification streak isn't so strong, is their any argument that they're weaker tham us? Meanwhile they have actually played in a World Cup final. Consecutive qualifications are great. But they don't say that much about the strength of the team Agree with most of this. IMO, the best way to measure the "strength" of a confederation is to check their success rate at getting out of the group stage of the WC. Since 50% of the teams get eliminated in the group stage and 50% go on to the 2nd round, this is a pretty good indicator. If everything was equal, each confederation would have 50% of their teams eliminated in the group stage and 50% of their teams proceed to the 2nd round. So if a confederation has a >50% success rate, by definition they're a stronger-than-average confederation, and <50% success rate means they're weaker than average. Over the past 3 world cups; 2018 Succeeded in the group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia Europe: Russia, Spain, Portugal, France, Denmark, Croatia, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, England North America: Mexico Asia: Japan Eliminated in the group stage; Asia: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia, South Korea Africa: Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia, Senegal South America: Peru Europe: Iceland, Serbia, Germany, Poland North America: Costa Rica, Panama 2014 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina North America: Mexico, Costa Rica, USA Europe: Netherlands, Greece, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium Africa: Nigeria, Algeria Eliminated in group stage; Europe: Croatia, Spain, Italy, England, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Portugal, Russia Africa: Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana Asia: Australia, Japan, Iran, South Korea South America: Ecuador North America: Honduras 2010 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile North America: Mexico, USA Europe: England, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia, Portugal, Spain Africa: Ghana Asia: South Korea, Japan Eliminated in group stage; Europe: France, Greece, Slovenia, Serbia, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland Africa: South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast Asia: Australia, North Korea North America: Honduras Oceania: NZ Success rate: South America: 14/16 = 87.5% (Amazing! Over the last 12 years, only twice has a South American team failed to get out of the group stage) North America: 6/10 = 60% (This is also a surprise, I didn't realise how successful NA has been recently). Europe: 22/40 = 55% Asia: 3/13 = 23% Africa: 3/16 = 19% Oceania: 0/1 = 0% (Admittedly a very small sample size) Going by this... South America and North America have a claim to get more spots at the world cup, at the expense of Asia & Africa. Or at least - when the world cup expands to 40 countries, these confederations are the ones most deserving of getting the extra spots. Well concluded Petszk and agree that measuring success at WC level is a difficult beast but your method is as fair as any Ive seen on here lately. Whats glaringly obvious is that if Japan never had their "new dawn" and 100 year plan the Asian confederation (with or without Australia in it) would be ALOT further down the pile.... One nation is literally carrying a whole continent+ a few outside islands on its own shoulders.....
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWhen New Football took over from old soccer, some 18 years ago, I would constantly hear about the rise of China, the massive investment in Chinese football, how they will become a powerhouse, etc. etc. Yet they are every bit as crap today as they were 18 years ago. They are so crap, and likely to remain crap, and that is precisely why FIFA introduced the 48 nation World cup, so that crap football countries like China and India might one day fluke a world cup spot (China made it once before, but that appearance is eminently forgettable). So crap but champions of women Asian football Yeh, well, Asian womens football is so strong. So strong, no Asian teams made the quarter finals last womens world cup. China lost 2-0 to Italy in the round of 16, and Italy has been a pretty weak team in womens football for the last 30 years. In conclusion, the Chinese women are doing better than the men - which isn't saying a whole lot. Asian women's football is so weak that 40 European nations are ranked lower than China. As I said, if you're losing 2-0 to Italy, you really ain't much chop.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOne argument in particular to counter the essence of this video, with quite a few populist, but spurious premises, is this.
There are only 9-11 teams that have qualified for the last five World Cups in succession. There are 2008, possibly more now, registered FIFA football playing nations.
*Europe
Spain
England
France
Germany
Switzerland
I'm not sure if Portugal have achieved this too? I know Croatia missed out in 2010.
*Asia
Japan
South Korea
Australia
Have Iran qualified for the last five WCs?
*Africa
Now that Nigeria has failed to qualify for the Qatar WC, I'm not sure any African football nation has achieved five successive WCs in a row?
*CONMEBOL
Brazil
Argentina
We stopped Uruguay in 2006.
*CONCACAF
Mexico
The next question should be posed, why have Australia qualified five times in succession?
It can't be argued that Asia is simply a weak Confederation. That is because Australia has beaten:
CONMEBOL twice in WC sudden death play offs - against Uruguay 2006 and Peru 2022.
Australia has also beaten CONCACAF once in a sudden WC death intercontinental play off - against Honduras in 2018.
Australia have only directly qualified via Asian WCQers exclusively - twice - in 2010 and 2014.
Yes, it can be argued. And with relative ease simply because it's true. Consider how poorly Asian teams actually tend to do at the WC. Yes, it's great that Australia beat those countries. But it doesn't tell us much about how weak or strong tge AFC is. Sweden has beaten Spain, yet failed to qualify. North Macedonia has beaten Italy. Anything cam be claimed if you choose the right result. So let's look at actual results at the World Cup. How many Asian teams have got as far as the semi-finals of the WC this century? One. How many have made the quarters? Not many. It's bloody rare for them to get out of the group. I remember that Japan did in South Africa (?) and that waa fantastic, but rare, for our confederation. People on here love to say that North America is weak. Compared to Asia, it's not. They get fewer spots than Asia. Yet Mexico has the record, with Brazil, for most last 16 appearances at the WC. The USMNT are formidable and have somewhat recently got out of their group. Costa Rica has also recently made it to the last 16, possibly quarter-finals. And now Canada have qualified top. And yet, that's a weak confederation but Asia isn't? I would say Asia is now probably the weakest. Also, Decentric, the means of measuring success that you're using is problematic. Successive WC qualification is great but it's only one way of measuring success. And a somewhat unorhodox way, at that. For one thing, it's influenced by more than consistency. To a certain extent, it's a function of the level of difficulty of the route to the WC. Australia has qualified for five consecutive World Cups partly, at the very least, because it has one of the easiest pathways to the World Cup. You mention Croatia not qualifying in one WC. Since their qualification streak isn't so strong, is their any argument that they're weaker tham us? Meanwhile they have actually played in a World Cup final. Consecutive qualifications are great. But they don't say that much about the strength of the team Agree with most of this. IMO, the best way to measure the "strength" of a confederation is to check their success rate at getting out of the group stage of the WC. Since 50% of the teams get eliminated in the group stage and 50% go on to the 2nd round, this is a pretty good indicator. If everything was equal, each confederation would have 50% of their teams eliminated in the group stage and 50% of their teams proceed to the 2nd round. So if a confederation has a >50% success rate, by definition they're a stronger-than-average confederation, and <50% success rate means they're weaker than average. Over the past 3 world cups; 2018 Succeeded in the group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia Europe: Russia, Spain, Portugal, France, Denmark, Croatia, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, England North America: Mexico Asia: Japan Eliminated in the group stage; Asia: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia, South Korea Africa: Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia, Senegal South America: Peru Europe: Iceland, Serbia, Germany, Poland North America: Costa Rica, Panama 2014 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina North America: Mexico, Costa Rica, USA Europe: Netherlands, Greece, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium Africa: Nigeria, Algeria Eliminated in group stage; Europe: Croatia, Spain, Italy, England, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Portugal, Russia Africa: Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana Asia: Australia, Japan, Iran, South Korea South America: Ecuador North America: Honduras 2010 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile North America: Mexico, USA Europe: England, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia, Portugal, Spain Africa: Ghana Asia: South Korea, Japan Eliminated in group stage; Europe: France, Greece, Slovenia, Serbia, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland Africa: South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast Asia: Australia, North Korea North America: Honduras Oceania: NZ Success rate: South America: 14/16 = 87.5% (Amazing! Over the last 12 years, only twice has a South American team failed to get out of the group stage) North America: 6/10 = 60% (This is also a surprise, I didn't realise how successful NA has been recently). Europe: 22/40 = 55% Asia: 3/13 = 23% Africa: 3/16 = 19% Oceania: 0/1 = 0% (Admittedly a very small sample size) Going by this... South America and North America have a claim to get more spots at the world cup, at the expense of Asia & Africa. Or at least - when the world cup expands to 40 countries, these confederations are the ones most deserving of getting the extra spots. This is a really informative post, Petszk. Thanks for doing the research. For a bigger sample size it would be useful to have done this for the 2006 WC in Germany, and after the Qatar WC too. I'm really gobsmacked at North America getting out of WC groups as much as they have? The Honduras we played for 2018 WC Russian entry, was easily the weakest intercontinental opponent we have had to play in sudden death play offs, compared to Uruguay or Peru in the last five WC campaigns. I don't think we have ever had a CONCACAF opponent at any WC we've qualified for? Is it fair to say we've had harder groups than average at WCs? Every one of the 8 WC groups has at least one powerhouse. Yet in 2014 we had Spain and Netherlands, 2 European powerhouses - and - Chile, who I think were South American intercontinental champs at the time? 2010 was a tough group too. Maybe 2018 was a bit easier, and we couldn't finish to save ourselves? I also had no idea, that Paraguay or Colombia had ever progressed past the group stages either? I thought Chile had only one done it once in our group in 2014, but not twice? Knocking out Uruguay and Peru makes it even more meritorious for the Socceroos to knock out CONMEBOL teams twice from WC entry.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xFor all the talent they had I don’t think the GG were a great team, I remember we played a lot of long balls when trying to score as we didn’t have alot of creativity outside of Kewell and Bresc to create clear cut chances. Even the Italy game when we played with an extra player in the second half we didn’t look like creating a chance against the Italians and we had little off the bench. The Brazil game we created very little outside of the long range shot from Kewell.The Japan game we were pumping long balls with those guys up front and by passing the midfield towards the later end of the match. So yes the GG were a great generation of fantastic players and Hiddink as the tactician but we didn’t play a style that top nations weren’t bothered by us. Ange P’s team from 2014-2015 was the best football I’ve seen the Socceroos play on an international level. Twice Culina had two cream puff strikes in the first half so the chances were there but who's going to take them?
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Luca Toni could have wrapped up the game in the opening 15 minutes, missing chances he'd normally take 9 out of 10 times.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLuca Toni could have wrapped up the game in the opening 15 minutes, missing chances he'd normally take 9 out of 10 times. Ah but if Kewell had have kicked his point blank shot just 1 foot left or right of the GK we would have have been 1 up.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xLuca Toni could have wrapped up the game in the opening 15 minutes, missing chances he'd normally take 9 out of 10 times. Ah but if Kewell had have kicked his point blank shot just 1 foot left or right of the GK we would have have been 1 up. I seem to remember also Emerton or Chipperfield smashing one straight at Buffon at some point in the game....
|
|
|
|
|
Booney
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 674,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xLuca Toni could have wrapped up the game in the opening 15 minutes, missing chances he'd normally take 9 out of 10 times. Ah but if Kewell had have kicked his point blank shot just 1 foot left or right of the GK we would have have been 1 up. I seem to remember also Emerton or Chipperfield smashing one straight at Buffon at some point in the game.... I think it was Chippers.
|
|
|
|
|
Keeper66
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xLuca Toni could have wrapped up the game in the opening 15 minutes, missing chances he'd normally take 9 out of 10 times. Ah but if Kewell had have kicked his point blank shot just 1 foot left or right of the GK we would have have been 1 up. I seem to remember also Emerton or Chipperfield smashing one straight at Buffon at some point in the game.... I think it was Chippers. I don't remember the chance, but Emerton was suspended for the game so it must have been Chipperfield you are thinking of. Also, Kewell didn't play against Italy because he was injured, so it couldn't have been him who missed a point blank chance.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xLuca Toni could have wrapped up the game in the opening 15 minutes, missing chances he'd normally take 9 out of 10 times. Ah but if Kewell had have kicked his point blank shot just 1 foot left or right of the GK we would have have been 1 up. I seem to remember also Emerton or Chipperfield smashing one straight at Buffon at some point in the game.... I think it was Chippers. I don't remember the chance, but Emerton was suspended for the game so it must have been Chipperfield you are thinking of. Also, Kewell didn't play against Italy because he was injured, so it couldn't have been him who missed a point blank chance. Ah yes. Just remembered that. Nevertheless someone had a point blank rocket straight at Buffon. Will look it up tomorrow.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xLuca Toni could have wrapped up the game in the opening 15 minutes, missing chances he'd normally take 9 out of 10 times. Ah but if Kewell had have kicked his point blank shot just 1 foot left or right of the GK we would have have been 1 up. I seem to remember also Emerton or Chipperfield smashing one straight at Buffon at some point in the game.... I think it was Chippers. I don't remember the chance, but Emerton was suspended for the game so it must have been Chipperfield you are thinking of. Also, Kewell didn't play against Italy because he was injured, so it couldn't have been him who missed a point blank chance. Checked this morning. Yes it was Chippers. (I got confused by Kewell's point blank shot in the Brazil match.) What a disaster Kewell didn't play for us in that game. We've had rotten luck at WCs.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xOne argument in particular to counter the essence of this video, with quite a few populist, but spurious premises, is this.
There are only 9-11 teams that have qualified for the last five World Cups in succession. There are 2008, possibly more now, registered FIFA football playing nations.
*Europe
Spain
England
France
Germany
Switzerland
I'm not sure if Portugal have achieved this too? I know Croatia missed out in 2010.
*Asia
Japan
South Korea
Australia
Have Iran qualified for the last five WCs?
*Africa
Now that Nigeria has failed to qualify for the Qatar WC, I'm not sure any African football nation has achieved five successive WCs in a row?
*CONMEBOL
Brazil
Argentina
We stopped Uruguay in 2006.
*CONCACAF
Mexico
The next question should be posed, why have Australia qualified five times in succession?
It can't be argued that Asia is simply a weak Confederation. That is because Australia has beaten:
CONMEBOL twice in WC sudden death play offs - against Uruguay 2006 and Peru 2022.
Australia has also beaten CONCACAF once in a sudden WC death intercontinental play off - against Honduras in 2018.
Australia have only directly qualified via Asian WCQers exclusively - twice - in 2010 and 2014.
Yes, it can be argued. And with relative ease simply because it's true. Consider how poorly Asian teams actually tend to do at the WC. Yes, it's great that Australia beat those countries. But it doesn't tell us much about how weak or strong tge AFC is. Sweden has beaten Spain, yet failed to qualify. North Macedonia has beaten Italy. Anything cam be claimed if you choose the right result. So let's look at actual results at the World Cup. How many Asian teams have got as far as the semi-finals of the WC this century? One. How many have made the quarters? Not many. It's bloody rare for them to get out of the group. I remember that Japan did in South Africa (?) and that waa fantastic, but rare, for our confederation. People on here love to say that North America is weak. Compared to Asia, it's not. They get fewer spots than Asia. Yet Mexico has the record, with Brazil, for most last 16 appearances at the WC. The USMNT are formidable and have somewhat recently got out of their group. Costa Rica has also recently made it to the last 16, possibly quarter-finals. And now Canada have qualified top. And yet, that's a weak confederation but Asia isn't? I would say Asia is now probably the weakest. Also, Decentric, the means of measuring success that you're using is problematic. Successive WC qualification is great but it's only one way of measuring success. And a somewhat unorhodox way, at that. For one thing, it's influenced by more than consistency. To a certain extent, it's a function of the level of difficulty of the route to the WC. Australia has qualified for five consecutive World Cups partly, at the very least, because it has one of the easiest pathways to the World Cup. You mention Croatia not qualifying in one WC. Since their qualification streak isn't so strong, is their any argument that they're weaker tham us? Meanwhile they have actually played in a World Cup final. Consecutive qualifications are great. But they don't say that much about the strength of the team Agree with most of this. IMO, the best way to measure the "strength" of a confederation is to check their success rate at getting out of the group stage of the WC. Since 50% of the teams get eliminated in the group stage and 50% go on to the 2nd round, this is a pretty good indicator. If everything was equal, each confederation would have 50% of their teams eliminated in the group stage and 50% of their teams proceed to the 2nd round. So if a confederation has a >50% success rate, by definition they're a stronger-than-average confederation, and <50% success rate means they're weaker than average. Over the past 3 world cups; 2018 Succeeded in the group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia Europe: Russia, Spain, Portugal, France, Denmark, Croatia, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, England North America: Mexico Asia: Japan Eliminated in the group stage; Asia: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia, South Korea Africa: Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia, Senegal South America: Peru Europe: Iceland, Serbia, Germany, Poland North America: Costa Rica, Panama 2014 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina North America: Mexico, Costa Rica, USA Europe: Netherlands, Greece, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium Africa: Nigeria, Algeria Eliminated in group stage; Europe: Croatia, Spain, Italy, England, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Portugal, Russia Africa: Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana Asia: Australia, Japan, Iran, South Korea South America: Ecuador North America: Honduras 2010 Succeeded in group stage; South America: Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile North America: Mexico, USA Europe: England, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia, Portugal, Spain Africa: Ghana Asia: South Korea, Japan Eliminated in group stage; Europe: France, Greece, Slovenia, Serbia, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland Africa: South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast Asia: Australia, North Korea North America: Honduras Oceania: NZ Success rate: South America: 14/16 = 87.5% (Amazing! Over the last 12 years, only twice has a South American team failed to get out of the group stage) North America: 6/10 = 60% (This is also a surprise, I didn't realise how successful NA has been recently). Europe: 22/40 = 55% Asia: 3/13 = 23% Africa: 3/16 = 19% Oceania: 0/1 = 0% (Admittedly a very small sample size) Going by this... South America and North America have a claim to get more spots at the world cup, at the expense of Asia & Africa. Or at least - when the world cup expands to 40 countries, these confederations are the ones most deserving of getting the extra spots. This is a really informative post, Petszk. Thanks for doing the research. For a bigger sample size it would be useful to have done this for the 2006 WC in Germany, and after the Qatar WC too. I'm really gobsmacked at North America getting out of WC groups as much as they have? The Honduras we played for 2018 WC Russian entry, was easily the weakest intercontinental opponent we have had to play in sudden death play offs, compared to Uruguay or Peru in the last five WC campaigns. I don't think we have ever had a CONCACAF opponent at any WC we've qualified for? Is it fair to say we've had harder groups than average at WCs? Every one of the 8 WC groups has at least one powerhouse. Yet in 2014 we had Spain and Netherlands, 2 European powerhouses - and - Chile, who I think were South American intercontinental champs at the time? 2010 was a tough group too. Maybe 2018 was a bit easier, and we couldn't finish to save ourselves? I also had no idea, that Paraguay or Colombia had ever progressed past the group stages either? I thought Chile had only one done it once in our group in 2014, but not twice? Knocking out Uruguay and Peru makes it even more meritorious for the Socceroos to knock out CONMEBOL teams twice from WC entry. Adding 2006 to the sample makes the totals look like this: Success rate: South America: 17/20 = 85% (Amazing! Over the last 16 years, only three times has a South American team failed to get out of the group stage) North America: 7/14 = 50% Europe: 32/54 = 59.2% Asia: 3/17 = 17.6% Africa: 4/21 = 19% Oceania: 1/2 = 50% (Admittedly a very small sample size. Considering this is out of 4 world cups, might be fair to say 1/4, and therefore 25% instead)
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Cleansheets
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 944,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xLuca Toni could have wrapped up the game in the opening 15 minutes, missing chances he'd normally take 9 out of 10 times. Ah but if Kewell had have kicked his point blank shot just 1 foot left or right of the GK we would have have been 1 up. I seem to remember also Emerton or Chipperfield smashing one straight at Buffon at some point in the game.... I think it was Chippers. I don't remember the chance, but Emerton was suspended for the game so it must have been Chipperfield you are thinking of. Also, Kewell didn't play against Italy because he was injured, so it couldn't have been him who missed a point blank chance. Checked this morning. Yes it was Chippers. (I got confused by Kewell's point blank shot in the Brazil match.) What a disaster Kewell didn't play for us in that game. We've had rotten luck at WCs. Not least because that total arse Cantelayo called a penalty on Lucas after Grosso had taken two extra steps before leaving a trailing leg and falling over. What a gyp!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Cleansheets
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 944,
Visits: 0
|
Also whatever prick in 2010 said Harry had handballed on the line when it was clearly his shoulder. That made a critical difference to our tournament.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Having watched since 1981-82 one constant in the Socceroos players is the poor first touch. Watching the Socceroos is like watching nine Dirk Kuyt's on the pitch. An Australian player with a good first touch is still the exception not the rule. You can pick him a mile away.
Even the Arabs now ave a better first touch.
Every football skill follows from having a good first touch. Yet 40 years later we are still just as shit at it.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHaving watched since 1981-82 one constant in the Socceroos players is the poor first touch. Watching the Socceroos is like watching nine Dirk Kuyt's on the pitch. An Australian player with a good first touch is still the exception not the rule. You can pick him a mile away. Even the Arabs now ave a better first touch. Every football skill follows from having a good first touch. Yet 40 years later we are still just as shit at it. Very true, and why I still place Kewell, Dukes, Zelic and Okon amongst my four best ever socceroos. Dukes is much maligned, but for a man of his size, his touch and ball control was exceptional.
|
|
|
|
|
petszk
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAlso whatever prick in 2010 said Harry had handballed on the line when it was clearly his shoulder. That made a critical difference to our tournament. Very true that! We were 1-0 up at the time. It gifted Ghana a penalty, and despite playing a player down for the remaining 65 minutes, they couldn't score again. Not unreasonable to think had that "handball" not been called, with no penalty and no red card for Harry, we would have at least continued with the 1-0 scoreline to win the match. That would have put us 2nd in the group, we would have got out of the group for 2 WCs in a row, and would have faced USA in the 2nd round.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAlso whatever prick in 2010 said Harry had handballed on the line when it was clearly his shoulder. That made a critical difference to our tournament. Very true that! We were 1-0 up at the time. It gifted Ghana a penalty, and despite playing a player down for the remaining 65 minutes, they couldn't score again. Not unreasonable to think had that "handball" not been called, with no penalty and no red card for Harry, we would have at least continued with the 1-0 scoreline to win the match. That would have put us 2nd in the group, we would have got out of the group for 2 WCs in a row, and would have faced USA in the 2nd round. And if we won that, I believe Uruguay... what a story that would have been
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAlso whatever prick in 2010 said Harry had handballed on the line when it was clearly his shoulder. That made a critical difference to our tournament. Very true that! We were 1-0 up at the time. It gifted Ghana a penalty, and despite playing a player down for the remaining 65 minutes, they couldn't score again. Not unreasonable to think had that "handball" not been called, with no penalty and no red card for Harry, we would have at least continued with the 1-0 scoreline to win the match. That would have put us 2nd in the group, we would have got out of the group for 2 WCs in a row, and would have faced USA in the 2nd round. And if we won that, I believe Uruguay... what a story that would have been I wonder which one of our players Suarez would have taken a bite out of,,,, or was that 2014?
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAlso whatever prick in 2010 said Harry had handballed on the line when it was clearly his shoulder. That made a critical difference to our tournament. Very true that! We were 1-0 up at the time. It gifted Ghana a penalty, and despite playing a player down for the remaining 65 minutes, they couldn't score again. Not unreasonable to think had that "handball" not been called, with no penalty and no red card for Harry, we would have at least continued with the 1-0 scoreline to win the match. That would have put us 2nd in the group, we would have got out of the group for 2 WCs in a row, and would have faced USA in the 2nd round. And if we won that, I believe Uruguay... what a story that would have been I wonder which one of our players Suarez would have taken a bite out of,,,, or was that 2014? Internationally I think was 2014. But 2010 was when he wanted to be the one to Carini instead of Muslera
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Two things I'd like to add:
1. Aussies just are not as good at sport as they think they are. Look at AFL - you can never play teh game at all and be a star in two years, Yet they think it's the greatest game in the world. Plus we dont really dominate anything that's a truly world class sport - cricket in patches maybe and who plays that?
2. The football fraternity pulls in opposite directions (for various reasons). Much to our detriment. If we were unified we'd be unstoppabale.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHaving watched since 1981-82 one constant in the Socceroos players is the poor first touch. Watching the Socceroos is like watching nine Dirk Kuyt's on the pitch. An Australian player with a good first touch is still the exception not the rule. You can pick him a mile away. Even the Arabs now ave a better first touch. Every football skill follows from having a good first touch. Yet 40 years later we are still just as shit at it. Basically everyone we play has a better first touch. Not just the arab countries. I'm talking Indonesia etc for pitys sake. It s ridiculous. Even our much touted young Socceroos are worse than their junior opponents so I don't see it changing for another while yet
|
|
|
|