GDT: World Cup 2014, Brazil

[OilerFan4Life]

Disgusted watching Holland all tournament.

Didn't comment on it because of all the Dutch fanboys on this forum but thank god Argentina took care of them.

Robben is the biggest diver in the game.

Next time play to win instead of playing not to lose ORANJE nation.

 

[McJadeddog]

German football is the pinnacle of class. They only managed to take 1 point in the Euro Cup in 2000, completely tore down their football/youth football program and revamped it, and have since become one of the most dominant teams in Europe.

They just won the WC, the first European team to do it in South America, without their best player playing a single match minute (Marco Reus), and they had to knock off some good teams to get to the final.

All this praise coming from an Englishman mind you.

agree with all you said, except Reus being their best player... he is one of a group of 5-7 guys that are very important to the team (ozil, lahm, muller, neuer, kroos, schweinsteiger being the others in my opinion) ... i think an argument for "best player" can be made for at least 3-4 of those guys... a good argument could be made for reus as well mind you, so maybe i don't totally disagree with you, lol

 

[Replacement*]

Disgusted watching Holland all tournament.

Didn't comment on it because of all the Dutch fanboys on this forum but thank god Argentina took care of them.

Robben is the biggest diver in the game.

Next time play to win instead of playing not to lose ORANJE nation.

I'm always curious where "dutch fanboys" come from given its a small not overly populated nation and one that hasn't won much of anything ever.

"Oranje nation"

Its like seeing SanJose have the biggest fanbase..or at least seems like that online. What is it about Netherlands that captures so many fans. Or is it that they're all just more vocal? Marketing? Underdog status? Its like a fad you never understand that never goes away.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

I was wondering, and I didn't look back.

Wasn't there a concern about the Germans and only bringing one striker, etc, at the start of Tourney? Props to them on the win, that goal was fantastic, and that young man who scored it will probably have the best month of his life coming up.

 

[Replacement*]

I was wondering, and I didn't look back.

Wasn't there a concern about the Germans and only bringing one striker, etc, at the start of Tourney? Props to them on the win, that goal was fantastic, and that young man who scored it will probably have the best month of his life coming up.

There was the ridiculously false claim made by a few that Germany were reliant (overly) on Thomas Mueller for goals. With Germany ironically having the most balanced scoring of any club in the WC and not even Klose.

Anyway I love some of the revisionist thinking going on around the world from Journalists. to wit any Articles in the Journal, Globe and mail etc.

The rescripted account of the game from the gloried press scribes is that Germany was an unlikely winner yesterday and that Argentina had chance after chance and Germany did nothing all match until scoring the winner.

This despite Germany having the run of play most of the game, 60% possession, more shots, more scoring chances, more corners, more crosses into deadly areas.

Nor did Germany ever hit the post at the end of the first half(must have been my imagination, forshame for actually watching the match). In the rescripted account I'm reading today not one mention of that and as if Germany scored on their first chance in the match at the 113th minute after just being lucky to survive before that..

The lol account in the Globe and Mail has it that Germany won because Messi is tired and that Messi being tired had more to do with the result than all of Germany. wow, expected this nature of dismissive comment from some pundits.

When Germany last won in 1990 the English commentators particularly were all over Germany for apparently despoiling all of football. So not too surprised the fodder I'm reading and hearing today.

 

[Moose Coleman]

I'm always curious where "dutch fanboys" come from given its a small not overly populated nation and one that hasn't won much of anything ever.

"Oranje nation"

Its like seeing SanJose have the biggest fanbase..or at least seems like that online. What is it about Netherlands that captures so many fans. Or is it that they're all just more vocal? Marketing? Underdog status? Its like a fad you never understand that never goes away.

Great history (Total Football and all that, even if they don't play that way at all these days) their traveling support is boisterous and enthusiastic, but friendly. Bit of the underdog thing. And, unlike other western European nations I could name, there's few unpleasant historical associations (indeed, as a Canadian, I'm inclined to root for Holland due to the WW2 connection between our nations).

 

[Moose Coleman]

There was the ridiculously false claim made by a few that Germany were reliant (overly) on Thomas Mueller for goals. With Germany ironically having the most balanced scoring of any club in the WC and not even Klose.

Anyway I love some of the revisionist thinking going on around the world from Journalists. to wit any Articles in the Journal, Globe and mail etc.

The rescripted account of the game from the gloried press scribes is that Germany was an unlikely winner yesterday and that Argentina had chance after chance and Germany did nothing all match until scoring the winner.

This despite Germany having the run of play most of the game, 60% possession, more shots, more scoring chances, more corners, more crosses into deadly areas.

Nor did Germany ever hit the post at the end of the first half(must have been my imagination, forshame for actually watching the match). In the rescripted account I'm reading today not one mention of that and as if Germany scored on their first chance in the match at the 113th minute after just being lucky to survive before that..

The lol account in the Globe and Mail has it that Germany won because Messi is tired and that Messi being tired had more to do with the result than all of Germany. wow, expected this nature of dismissive comment from some pundits.

When Germany last won in 1990 the English commentators particularly were all over Germany for apparently despoiling all of football. So not too surprised the fodder I'm reading and hearing today.

I know it's hard to cheer for a frontrunner sometimes, but you must be reading different press reports than me. Every single piece I've read (including the Globe's) has given full credit to Germany for a great tournament and dominant performance in the final. They were the overwhelming favourites going in. If there were any criticisms they were that Germany succeeded despite not really showing their superiority until the semis. So yeah, the persecution complex here is pretty misplaced.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/799...nstead-of-32-teams-in-russia-fifa-tournament/

Canada might have a shot....right?? RIGHT????

 

[Replacement*]

Great history (Total Football and all that, even if they don't play that way at all these days) their traveling support is boisterous and enthusiastic, but friendly. Bit of the underdog thing. And, unlike other western European nations I could name, there's few unpleasant historical associations (indeed, as a Canadian, I'm inclined to root for Holland due to the WW2 connection between our nations).

Its 2014 and not say 1945 so surprised this would even be stated in present day. None of us even existed at the time of WW2.

Disappointing reference. I suspect you could be right and have wondered about that all along but its odder still.

Great football history? Again Holland have never won any major tournament afairc. Certainly zero WC's.

Although I realize in advance that in the Netherlands version of history they won in 74 and 78.

The "Total football" thing I see as yet another Holland favored bias rather than any objective look at what they've accomplished. Really I see the Dutch as one of the more cynical sides in football during the entire Robben era.

 

[Moose Coleman]

Its 2014 and not say 1945 so surprised this would even be stated in present day. None of us even existed at the time of WW2.

Disappointing reference. I suspect you could be right and have wondered about that all along but its odder still.

Not that odd. Canada and Holland have a lot in common beyond that.

Great football history? Again Holland have never won any major tournament afairc. Certainly zero WC's.

Although I realize in advance that in the Netherlands version of history they won in 74 and 78.

So consistently producing great sides, including two of the best to never win, plus one of the all-time great players in Cryuff is nothing? That's ridiculous.

FTR, they won the Euros in '88.

The "Total football" thing I see as yet another Holland favored bias rather than any objective look at what they've accomplished. Really I see the Dutch as one of the more cynical sides in football during the entire Robben era

Brazil has played a dull, plodding style since the '80s and people still think of them as the freewheeling samba boys. These romantic illusions are hard to topple.

 

[Replacement*]

I know it's hard to cheer for a frontrunner sometimes, but you must be reading different press reports than me. Every single piece I've read (including the Globe's) has given full credit to Germany for a great tournament and dominant performance in the final. They were the overwhelming favourites going in. If there were any criticisms they were that Germany succeeded despite not really showing their superiority until the semis. So yeah, the persecution complex here is pretty misplaced.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ing-end-to-a-great-world-cup/article19581846/

"Messi's Langour defined the match more than Germany" Oh really, that's not at all dismissing the winner or discrediting. An alternate piece could read Germany closed the door on Messi outside of a few early runs..

Kelly similarly gives an odd take on the run of the match (albeit not dismissive of Germany.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-soul-now-resides-in-germany/article19581941/

Argentina had its chances. No country takes its soccer more seriously (though many are tied for that lead). And so Argentines will ache for a generation over the breakaway that Higuain shot wide early and another that Rodrigo Palacio dinked over the net late.

Germany had almost nothing in that regard. It controlled play, but it rarely came to anything at the other end. It was 0-0 after regulation, and the fifteen minutes that followed.

jebus Germany shook the uprights solid from a few meters out. Shurrle was sent home free on a brilliant 4 touch passing play (in the box) and all he had to do is finish in the 70th minute. Shurrle sent in on another chance shot right at the goalie from close range with a yawning open farside. kros, who finishes such shots for fun had all day with the ball on his boot on a brilliant feed.
Several other crosses just missed klose, Mueller. To read the above is to think Germany had no chances prior to the winning goal. As "Almost nothing' reads.

In the George Johnson article in the Journal not one prior German chance is mentioned either. As if Argentina had the run of the play and Germany endured and stole the game or something.

Also keeping this footnote in mind. Germany beat Brazil 7-1 and yet not one article in the print journal even covering that story. What they had instead is an article on the Brazil collapse and national mourning while barely mentioning Germany who happened to have played in the contest..

Yeah weird editorial decisions as well as CBC yanking coverage away ASAP so that they could go to lol coverage of the Calgary Stampede. That was stranger still. I had to switch to ABC to watch Germany celebrate their cup win on the pitch and take team photo's and discuss the result of the biggest event in the world.

 

[Replacement*]

Not that odd. Canada and Holland have a lot in common beyond that.

Beer? Drugs? I'm not trying to be dense, I really don't know. Dutch nationality is well down the list as well in Canada.

So consistently producing great sides, including two of the best to never win, plus one of the all-time great players in Cryuff is nothing? That's ridiculous.

Or its bias. Where would you put Cruyff alltime. How do you legitimately define "two of the best never to win alltime" Its an opinion, nothing more. The actuality is that Holland lost to Germany in 74. I suspected the narrative must still deny that actual result.

FTR, they won the Euros in '88.

Oh good.

Brazil has played a dull, plodding style since the '80s and people still think of them as the freewheeling samba boys. These romantic illusions are hard to topple.

Well we've seen Brazil toppled. As never before.

 

[oil slick]

There was the ridiculously false claim made by a few that Germany were reliant (overly) on Thomas Mueller for goals. With Germany ironically having the most balanced scoring of any club in the WC and not even Klose.

Anyway I love some of the revisionist thinking going on around the world from Journalists. to wit any Articles in the Journal, Globe and mail etc.

The rescripted account of the game from the gloried press scribes is that Germany was an unlikely winner yesterday and that Argentina had chance after chance and Germany did nothing all match until scoring the winner.

This despite Germany having the run of play most of the game, 60% possession, more shots, more scoring chances, more corners, more crosses into deadly areas.

Nor did Germany ever hit the post at the end of the first half(must have been my imagination, forshame for actually watching the match). In the rescripted account I'm reading today not one mention of that and as if Germany scored on their first chance in the match at the 113th minute after just being lucky to survive before that..

The lol account in the Globe and Mail has it that Germany won because Messi is tired and that Messi being tired had more to do with the result than all of Germany. wow, expected this nature of dismissive comment from some pundits.

When Germany last won in 1990 the English commentators particularly were all over Germany for apparently despoiling all of football. So not too surprised the fodder I'm reading and hearing today.

The British press has been incredibly complimentary of Germany. All I've seen when reading the british press is worthy champions, and how well thought out and implemented their development plan was.

I just find it strange when people talk about how the British press is so biased. Of course, anyone who has followed the British press (and population) recently knows they (or at least the vast majority) are acutely aware of how bad their team is.

As you say, it's not 1990 anymore.

 

[Moose Coleman]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ing-end-to-a-great-world-cup/article19581846/

"Messi's Langour defined the match more than Germany" Oh really, that's not at all dismissing the winner or discrediting. An alternate piece could read Germany closed the door on Messi outside of a few early runs..

Except Messi was clearly hurt or otherwise impaired. Dunno why you think acknowledging that takes away from Germany's superiority, given Messi's status as the best player in the game.

Kelly similarly gives an odd take on the run of the match (albeit not dismissive of Germany.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-soul-now-resides-in-germany/article19581941/

Germany had really three legit chances all game. The post, Schuerlle’s shot into the keeper and then the goal. The rest were pretty bog standard fare that didn't seriously threaten the keeper.

You're seriously reaching here. I have a sense that any article that doesn't completely fawn over the Teutonic superiority and belitle the opposition would be considered crap.

 

[Moose Coleman]

Or its bias. Where would you put Cruyff alltime. How do you legitimately define "two of the best never to win alltime" Its an opinion, nothing more. The actuality is that Holland lost to Germany in 74. I suspected the narrative must still deny that actual result.

Yes it's an opinion, one which happens to be shared among people who follow the game. And of course they lost, who denies that? Seriously: bizarre stuff from you here.

 

[Replacement*]

The British press has been incredibly complimentary of Germany. All I've seen when reading the british press is worthy champions, and how well thought out and implemented their development plan was.

I just find it strange when people talk about how the British press is so biased. Of course, anyone who has followed the British press (and population) recently knows they (or at least the vast majority) are acutely aware of how bad their team is.

As you say, it's not 1990 anymore.

Thanks, I don't get the Brit papers. I read some sources online. Main story from Britain appears to be Linekers comments that Messi is jaded and tired and something wrong with him.

Anyway, good to see the British not having a grudge against Germany anymore. It had approached caustic fervor in 1990 and with the England call of the 1990 match being well publicized for its nonstop diatribes on Germany.

Don't get me wrong I generally like British football commentating and some of the best calls of the game represented but there seems to have been some poison as well in the past.

Watch 14minutes of this for some bias..

 

[Replacement*]

Yes it's an opinion, one which happens to be shared among people who follow the game. And of course they lost, who denies that? Seriously: bizarre stuff from you here.

I follow the game, its not my opinion.

Are you now invoking who follows the game and who doesn't(not established fact) or that assumed plurality(not a fact) substantiates an opinion (not a fact)

If you take a step back here I'm just holding you to your usual burden of proof precepts here.

That's all.

A simple question about why people like Holland results in typical nonsense about Holland Cruyff being the best player of alltime or Holland being the best team that never won. No bias there, haha

ps I watched Germany beat Cruyff.

 

[Ol' Jase]

Team wins. Claims media bias. Belittles another nation's very strong football traditions and heritage.

Right on cue.

 

[Replacement*]

Except Messi was clearly hurt or otherwise impaired. Dunno why you think acknowledging that takes away from Germany's superiority, given Messi's status as the best player in the game.

Was Messi clearly hurt and impaired when Germany entirely dismantled Argentina in 2010? Fact is Messi hasn't done much against Germany.

Germany had really three legit chances all game. The post, Schuerlle’s shot into the keeper and then the goal. The rest were pretty bog standard fare that didn't seriously threaten the keeper.

Well, Argentina had 2 shots on target allgame. Didn't score, and didn't even pressure consistently.

You're seriously reaching here. I have a sense that any article that doesn't completely fawn over the Teutonic superiority and belitle the opposition would be considered crap.

lol not at all. Merely describing the match that actually occurred on the pitch would suffice.

 

[Replacement*]

Team wins. Claims media bias. Belittles another nation's very strong football traditions and heritage.

Right on cue.

Speaking of cues looks like your dinner bell went off..

Must be another Dutch supporter that stopped even talking about the WC with Holland out. Oh poor sir brave Robben..

edit for poetic..

 

[Ol' Jase]

Speaking of cues looks like your dinner bell went off..

Must be another Dutch supporter that stopped even talking about the WC with Holland out. Oh poor Robben..

Not at all. As a Belgium fan, the last team I would be cheering for is Holland. However, as you have proved in this thread and throughout this tournament you have an extremely limited knowledge of football, I'm not surprised you would think this.

Just so bizarre that yet again you have brought a thread completely off track with your penchant for the spotlight. Almost fascinating.

 

[MikeModano9]

Messi (as much I love him him) winning the Golden Ball is a joke. Neuer, Muller and James Rodriguez all should of gotten it before him.

 

[Replacement*]

Not at all. As a Belgium fan, the last team I would be cheering for is Holland. However, as you have proved in this thread and throughout this tournament you have an extremely limited knowledge of football, I'm not surprised you would think this.

Yeah, as admitted I don't PRESENTLY have the best coverage from my provider and don't see as many games as I'd like to. Fair comment and I'm not oblvious of it as you might think. however, for decades I formerly had Satellite coverage most people would droll for and have been well aware of the football world for previous decades. Also that I've been watching WC play since the 70's makes my opinion perhaps unique in the thread.

Just so bizarre that yet again you have brought a thread completely off track with your penchant for the spotlight. Almost fascinating.

Actually its similarly bizarre that the WC game had been over for hours before anybody even posted on it. I kickstarted it. Yeah, I get ruffled and respond with stuff I shouldn't. Again point taken.

I don't like Mondays. I want to Celebrate, not be working...

That's where todays negativity is coming from if you're wondering..not sure what my excuse is at other times but half the times its Mondays, or work, or..

 

[Moose Coleman]

I follow the game, its not my opinion.

Are you now invoking who follows the game and who doesn't(not established fact) or that assumed plurality(not a fact) substantiates an opinion (not a fact)

If you take a step back here I'm just holding you to your usual burden of proof precepts here.

That's all.

It's a widely held opinion in football circles to the point that calling it an "opinion" is less accurate than calling it an article of faith. Those aren't always right, but in this, I'll give the conventional wisdom the benefit of the doubt over an opinion that is so far from the mainstream as to be invisible.

A simple question about why people like Holland results in typical nonsense about Holland Cruyff being the best player of alltime or Holland being the best team that never won. No bias there, haha

What is this "bias" nonsense? You asked a question about why Holland is supported, I gave a few possibilities, and you went on a a tangent about overrated they are and how they've never won anything (though they have).

 

[Replacement*]

It's a widely held opinion in football circles to the point that calling it an "opinion" is less accurate than calling it an article of faith. Those aren't always right, but in this, I'll give the conventional wisdom the benefit of the doubt over an opinion that is so far from the mainstream as to be invisible.

I'll quote this in another discussion at my later convenience. That conventional wisdom approaches fact when its convenient to argument.

What is this "bias" nonsense? You asked a question about why Holland is supported, I gave a few possibilities, and you went on a a tangent about overrated they are and how they've never won anything (though they have).

I guess theres bias all round. I don't see such great play. Didn't see it in this tourney. Saw Robben flopping a lot and being the most despised player in this tourney. Citing convenient conventional wisdom