The World Cup Final - Italy v France

[Jimbo 133]

Personally speaking, I'm quite happy Italy won on the night, I don't think there was anything in the game, Italy took the first half and France probably the second. It was a strange World Cup as there wasn't a team that stood out or looked like world beaters above all others.

 

France struggled to even make the knock out stages and Italy looked inefective infront of goal for most of the competition, only their ability to defend so well allowed them to progress.

 

All in all a disapointing world cup in my opinion, the so called best players in the world failed to shine and there were very very few memorable moments.

[Woodgate27 0]

Cheated their way to the title tbh

 

[Bombadil 0]

You cannot, simply cannot possibly be trying to say that the disjointed Italian attack is anywhere near comparable to the Argentineans, or the Brazilians.. Hell even the normally stoic Germans had a flare and invention about their forward play usually associated with Latin countries!

 

I'm glad Italy won; their defence merited the victory on their own. However I'm not so beguiled by Cannavaro and Materazzi that I'll heap praise upon their team-mates.

 

I can't think of many crafted chances from the Italians, the only time they threatened Barthez's goal were corners and the penalties at the end. Hardly the craft which you vaunt.

 

They were pretty much a one trick pony today, go for a corner and get the big men to attack the shockingly inept French defence. I don't recall Luca Toni having a chance other than from the corner, Totti was anonymous and while hard working, Camoranesi and Perrotta were ineffective.

 

So balls to your "balanced" side, at least France showed some vision and guile in their forward play.

 

It seems you have a chip on your shoulder, you think people hate Italy and that they've won in the face of adversity. Bollocks. They've won because they beat the teams they met, which is all any team can do. If Italy had met Argentina or Brazil I do not think we'd have seen much of the Italians. Oh and if you actually read my post I said that up until this tournament Italian football was synonymous with diving feigning injury etc.

 

They weren't close to being the worst offenders in this tournament and I would say they played the game in a better spirit than most teams.

 

However they were not the best team, they were not a balanced side and you're bloody minded fool if you think otherwise.

 

158034[/snapback]

 

I know you 'praised' the Italians for not resorting to cheating this time around, I read that correctly. What you seemingly fail to understand is that the World Cup is a knock-out competition. Your arguments are all ifs and buts. You can never say what might have happened if Italy had met Brazil or Argentina instead of someone else. For what it's worth, I think the Argies would have given them a hard time, but they would have comfortably beaten the Brazilians, who were the most disappointing team (after England). They did meet Germany though, who I think were the second-best team and the best team going forward, and they beat them deservedly. Hell, even the Germans agree that they were beaten by the better team.

 

And per definitionem, the balance is right when you score more goals than you concede, simple as that. And Italy are the only team who managed that.

[Guest alex]

I thought Italy were the best team in the tournament tbh. I.e. when it really mattered. Can't believe some people have mentioned Brazil as being better. I always have a soft spot for them but they were fucking awful.

[Meenzer 14058]

Henry subbed, Vieira subbed, Zidane off, BBC pundits gutted. That's good enough for me.

[Guest alex]

Henry subbed, Vieira subbed, Zidane off, BBC pundits gutted. That's good enough for me. 

158051[/snapback]

I know what you mean. I backed France pre-Tournament but I wasn't too gutted they lost. Nice that a country that actually gives a shit about the game won.

[MattM4 0]

Can't believe some people have mentioned Brazil as being better. I always have a soft spot for them but they were fucking awful.

I agree. I'm always a fan of Brazil as a second team, but they thought they could walk and never seemed to step of from strolling around the pitch, shockingly poor for a team that was dead on favourites to win it.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

I watched it with the Radio 5 commentary, even Graham Taylor was more bearable than Clueless and Camp.

 

He's a little shit Matterazi like, but you have to say whatever it is he says it works.

[The Fish 9006]

And per definitionem, the balance is right when you score more goals than you concede, simple as that. And Italy are the only team who managed that.

158049[/snapback]

 

 

 

so if a team has the Italian back four and Giorgis Georgadis, Fumaca, McClen, Maric, Andreas Andersson and Ameobi up front... that's a balanced side?

 

fuck off.

 

A "balanced" side is one where the defence is of the same quality as the attack and midfield.

 

Italy won because they had the best defence in the world. Had nowt to do with them being balanced or artful or anything else, they were just the best at defending.

[Guest alex]

Italy had the best side, which is all that matters.

[The Fish 9006]

they had the better team on the day, which is all that matters

[Guest alex]

they had the better team on the day, which is all that matters

158157[/snapback]

I thought they were the best overall too.

[The Fish 9006]

that team could beat any one, on their day.

[Guest alex]

that team could beat any one, on their day.

158161[/snapback]

That's a weird definition I reckon. Loads of teams fall into that category.

[Bizza 105]

[The Fish 9006]

that team could beat any one, on their day.

158161[/snapback]

That's a weird definition I reckon. Loads of teams fall into that category.

158163[/snapback]

course they do, I was just being awkward.

 

Look, Italy won because they beat the teams in front of them, which is all anyone can do. However they didn't have a "balanced" side and they weren't the "Best team" in the competition.

 

it's like when Greece won the European Championship, they weren't close to having the most talented side, but they did what was neccesary to win. Their tactics succeeded where pure talent and artistry failed.

 

Now Italy had talent at the back, but nothing up front. I would have thought Englands defence could have comfortably contained the Italian forward line. I don't think that England could have come close to scoring against the Italinas though. Of course this is all speculation. Italy played well enough at the back to carry the rest of the team to the final and then ultimately, success.

[Guest alex]

Both Italy and Greece were the best 'teams' respectively in those two tournaments. Greece even had the best stats fro possession / ball retention. I think both were deserved winners overall.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

Organised, consistent, with a little bit of luck, that's how to win a major international tournament these days.

[Woodgate27 0]

Organised, consistent, with a little bit of luck, that's how to win a major international tournament these days.

158189[/snapback]

 

And a little bit of cheating

 

To be honest they were the most consistent team in the tournament. They performed in every match, they should have beaten the yanks and they should have beaten us 4-0, they were sensational in the first half of that match and I remember thinking they would be the champions, if only I put money on them!

[spongebob toonpants 3604]

[Bombadil 0]

And per definitionem, the balance is right when you score more goals than you concede, simple as that. And Italy are the only team who managed that.

158049[/snapback]

 

 

 

so if a team has the Italian back four and Giorgis Georgadis, Fumaca, McClen, Maric, Andreas Andersson and Ameobi up front... that's a balanced side?

 

fuck off.

 

A "balanced" side is one where the defence is of the same quality as the attack and midfield.

 

Italy won because they had the best defence in the world. Had nowt to do with them being balanced or artful or anything else, they were just the best at defending.

158154[/snapback]

 

Comparing Georgiadis, Fumaca and McClen with Toni, Totti and Del Piero is absolutely ludicrous. Italy's strikers are, on paper at least, world class players. But even if they were shit, even if they did play with Fumaca and Ameobi - the fact is that they scored more than they conceded in every game they played, the US match excluded. What does that tell you? That the balance was right.

 

And to answer your pointless hypothesis - a team that has the Italian back four and a few below-average players up front and still scores more than it concedes is a balanced side, yes. It doesn't matter whether a team is balanced on paper (like England), it's the results (and performances, because Italy played well most of the time) on the pitch that count.

[The Fish 9006]

fucks sake Bombadil, it's not "Balanced"

 

it's effective, it's efficient, it's succesful, it's solid, it's composed, it's technically proficient, it's able, it's strong, it's, it's its,

 

but it's not bloody balanced.

[Bombadil 0]

Whatever it is, it's won them the World Cup, and deservedly so.

[The Fish 9006]

never said they didn't deserve it.

[Guest alex]

Italy have a good attack (Toni is the first player for decades to score 30 plus goals in Serie A), they have players who can link attack and midfield well (Del Piero/Totti), they have a very good midfield and a superb defence, not to mention a great goalkeeper. The one thing they lacked is pace upfront. I would say their team is pretty balanced. Perhaps not 'perfectly' balanced. Then again, what team ever is?