Italy v Australia

goldorak · 06-27-06, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

As the Italians did.

They won because of the referee. It was aclear swalbe.

Let the bashing begin. :rotfl:
The dutch should look at their disastrous situation and early elimination, before start bashing other teams.

Fish · 06-27-06, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

As the Italians did.

They won because of the referee. It was aclear swalbe.

Let the bashing begin. :rotfl:
The dutch should look at their disastrous situation and early elimination, before start bashing other teams.

Lots of faults in that game, and I blame my team for not b eing profesional, but they where not alone there (referee, Portugees).

PS: Still having problems to edit my posts?

goldorak · 06-27-06, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

Lots of faults in that game, and I blame my team for not b eing profesional, but they where not alone there (referee, Portugees).

Yes, the referee did an awful job, he just couldn't control the match.
On the other hand, holland lost also because of tactical errors by Van Basten.
He is one of the greatest players ever (any my favorite since his days at the Milan AC

) but as a coach he sucks.

Quote:

PS: Still having problems to edit my posts?

I'm not sure i understand.
I only quote the part of message to which i'm responding.
I'm not about to quote 4 different messages at the same time.

Fish · 06-27-06, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

Lots of faults in that game, and I blame my team for not b eing profesional, but they where not alone there (referee, Portugees).

Yes, the referee did an awful job, he just couldn't control the match.
On the other hand, holland lost also because of tactical errors by Van Basten.
He is one of the greatest players ever (any my favorite since his days at the Milan AC

) but as a coach he sucks.

Quote:

PS: Still having problems to edit my posts?

I'm not sure i understand.
I only quote the part of message to which i'm responding.
I'm not about to quote 4 different messages at the same time.

Backspace doesn't work.

About van Basten, he is new to the job and won 23 from the 25 matches as coach of the national team, so we give him some more time.

06-27-06, 05:02 PM

I love it, these Australians saying the game of football is fundamentally flawed. What about cricket? The most ludicruos rule is the LBW (Leg Before Wicket). That purely goes on the opinion of one person...even if you had instant-reply, it would be nigh impossible to judge.

Now that IS a flawed sport... :hmm:

mog · 06-28-06, 08:00 PM

Do you realise that there are 11 players on a team, and each team bats twice? There's a total of 40 wickets to be taken in a game of cricket. The bad LBW decisions almost always balance out, and they hardly ever change the outcome of a game.

In soccer there is usually only 2 or 3 goals per game, and a penalty in the box is virtually a guaranteed goal! Cricket is a far more complete and thorough contest between the two teams.

06-30-06, 05:19 PM

What a load of rubbish. What about when "rain stops play"...or "bad light"...

and they decide the winner there and then? And, oh yeah, as if there's only 1 bad LBW decision...more like a good few per game. Cricket isn't a "complete" game. It's a bore fest, a bad excuse for fans to get hammered sipping on beer for 5 hours while you watch men wearing jumpers (for God's sake) supposedly participating in a "sport". In cashmere sweaters.

Please mummy, will you hold my jumper while I play with my friends..so he hands it to the umpire.

Bad decisions in football also balance out, usually. For example, no way should the Italian defender have been sent off for a harmless tackle. So Australia played unfairly with 1 extra man for near enough the entire match, and the penalty at the end equaled it out. There you go.

By the way, Australia played for penalties, seeing it was the only way they'd get through...and it didn't work. Tough luck. That's football.

06-27-06, 05:02 PM	#5
Kurushio Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I love it, these Australians saying the game of football is fundamentally flawed. What about cricket? The most ludicruos rule is the LBW (Leg Before Wicket). That purely goes on the opinion of one person...even if you had instant-reply, it would be nigh impossible to judge. Now that IS a flawed sport... :hmm: Last edited by Kurushio; 06-27-06 at 05:14 PM.

06-28-06, 08:00 PM	#6
mog Medic Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sydney Posts: 163 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Do you realise that there are 11 players on a team, and each team bats twice? There's a total of 40 wickets to be taken in a game of cricket. The bad LBW decisions almost always balance out, and they hardly ever change the outcome of a game. In soccer there is usually only 2 or 3 goals per game, and a penalty in the box is virtually a guaranteed goal! Cricket is a far more complete and thorough contest between the two teams.

06-30-06, 05:19 PM	#7
Kurushio Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	What a load of rubbish. What about when "rain stops play"...or "bad light"... and they decide the winner there and then? And, oh yeah, as if there's only 1 bad LBW decision...more like a good few per game. Cricket isn't a "complete" game. It's a bore fest, a bad excuse for fans to get hammered sipping on beer for 5 hours while you watch men wearing jumpers (for God's sake) supposedly participating in a "sport". In cashmere sweaters. Please mummy, will you hold my jumper while I play with my friends..so he hands it to the umpire. Bad decisions in football also balance out, usually. For example, no way should the Italian defender have been sent off for a harmless tackle. So Australia played unfairly with 1 extra man for near enough the entire match, and the penalty at the end equaled it out. There you go. By the way, Australia played for penalties, seeing it was the only way they'd get through...and it didn't work. Tough luck. That's football.