12/21/24
June 27, 2010
England Faces Germany in World Cup: All activity ceases in England and Germany today as they meet in the World Cup's group of 16. "We will do whatever it takes to get across the line into the last eight," said England captain Stephen Gerrard. Fan Darren Wright, who gave up a job to attend the game, was less confident: "I've supported England long enough to know not to get my hopes up."
Perhaps it's hope talking, but I think England wins this match.
posted by rcade at 09:55 AM on June 27, 2010
Hey rcade - still think that? This is an embarassment.
posted by kokaku at 10:32 AM on June 27, 2010
I know the defense in front of him fell apart, but David James is just dreadful. He should have stopped that second goal.
posted by rcade at 10:35 AM on June 27, 2010
I may have to eat my words awfully quickly - England robbed of the equalizer.
posted by kokaku at 10:39 AM on June 27, 2010
How in the world did the refs not call that a goal? This should be level! Criminy.
posted by rcade at 10:41 AM on June 27, 2010
I may have to eat my words awfully quickly ...
Within five minutes of your comment. That was funny.
posted by rcade at 10:42 AM on June 27, 2010
Goal-line tech, Sepp? Or will you cover your ears and tell us, "Na-na-na-na-na, I can't hear you!"
posted by jjzucal at 10:55 AM on June 27, 2010
"Goal-line tech, Sepp? Or will you cover your ears and tell us, "Na-na-na-na-na, I can't hear you!""
It'll be option two.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:04 AM on June 27, 2010
Maybe it'll be more of a "nein-nein-neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin-neiny-neiny-nein'
posted by kokaku at 11:10 AM on June 27, 2010
Going home after "losing" 2-2 will be a golden situation for England, as the press will be able to fire up the Righteous Indignation Machines and use noise to gloss over the real limitations of the team.
Of course, the real money shot will be if England can equalise and then go out on penalties after scoring three goals to Germany's two.
edit : 67 minutes will be a sigh of relief from Sepp
posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:14 AM on June 27, 2010
That looks more the England of the 1st half/group stage.
edit: 70 minutes, just ugly defense
posted by kokaku at 11:24 AM on June 27, 2010
Well, this should make the people who live on Munich 2001 quiet.
Meanwhile... if you need a goal, you of course turn to Emile Heskey.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:27 AM on June 27, 2010
Goal-line tech, Sepp? Or will you cover your ears and tell us, "Na-na-na-na-na, I can't hear you!"
Oh please.
I don't remember the English supporters demanding "goal-line tech" back in 1966.
Karma took a while, but it finally looped back and got England.
Of course, the final score removed any doubt about who should have moved on.
posted by grum@work at 11:52 AM on June 27, 2010
I don't remember the English supporters demanding "goal-line tech" back in 1966.
I'd love to see what goal-line tech would have been like in 1966. Big IBM mainframes spitting out punch cards alongside the net?
Not to make excuses for England, which deserved to lose, but it seems silly to assume that the botched goal call didn't matter. We don't know how the game would have unfolded after the shock of such a quick 2-2 equalizer. Games turn on major events like that.
posted by rcade at 11:57 AM on June 27, 2010
"I don't remember the English supporters demanding "goal-line tech" back in 1966. "
Err, yeah. That reads as a bit of a reach.
Glad the Germans went on to score a bunch, just so it'll switch focus back onto England's (lack of) performance. I can only imagine the preliminary headlines in The Sun offices at halftime...
Probably pictures of Sepp Blatter's face, smiling, super-imposed over the ball showing two feet into the net, with the goalline photoshopped into a World War I trench, Neuer in a helmet with a spike on the top while Lampard, draped in the Union Jack charges the area armed with Britannia's trident and in the background a pride of three Lions maul Michael Hasselhoff's face.
Now they'll just have to talk about our midfield.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:27 PM on June 27, 2010
Administrator! please hope me!
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:38 PM on June 27, 2010
Well, that was sort of what I expected -- and clearly, I could have taken something from the bookies -- though the shades-of-66 thing will make the Europa League's experiment with goal-line officials seem prescient.
A weird reprise of USA-Ghana in parts, especially the first goal. But England were found out very quickly. I didn't think they were anywhere near good enough to go far when I saw the squad; the group stage confirmed those thoughts. It's increasingly clear that Rooney's been carrying the injury he picked up against Bayern, but that doesn't mitigate the team's deficiencies. And the FA can't even "focus on youth" going forward, since the engine of that German side was from the U-21 squad that thumped England.
We don't know how the game would have unfolded after the shock of such a quick 2-2 equalizer.
We do know that zil in particular made the England back line look like training cones. That's enough to remove any sour grapes.
posted by etagloh at 12:44 PM on June 27, 2010
"I don't remember the English supporters demanding "goal-line tech" back in 1966. "
Err, yeah. That reads as a bit of a reach.
As I understand it, the "goal-line tech" to be employed at the 2014 World Cup will be an extra official to observe each goal line.
I'm pretty sure they could have had extra officials for the 1966 World Cup.
posted by grum@work at 12:46 PM on June 27, 2010
You've made a plucky attempt to salvage your snarky comment, Grum, but an extra referee isn't "goal-line tech." Unless he's a cyborg.
posted by rcade at 12:54 PM on June 27, 2010
"Coach Fabio Capello said the referee's decision to rule out England's second 'goal' was the turning point during the 4-1 defeat by Germany at the World Cup."
Oh noes. I was hoping we could avoid this nonsense.
I can only presume what Fab means is "I broke my glasses in anger when the goal wasn't given and, as a result, didn't see how woeful my team was for much of the rest of the game."
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:56 PM on June 27, 2010
How could FIFA not recognize the danger of putting cameras inside the goal without a means of correcting missed goal calls? We were robbed today of a really captivating moment when Lampard's equalizer dug England out of its grave just a few minutes after they fell behind 2-0.
posted by rcade at 12:57 PM on June 27, 2010
You've made a plucky attempt to salvage your snarky comment, Grum, but an extra referee isn't "goal-line tech." Unless he's a cyborg.
I haven't heard any real attempt to have instant replay or an officials-only camera inside the net for goal determination.
I assumed "goal line tech" was someone's attempt to pursue that matter, and I just wanted to point out that the only "tech" in the discussion is the extra officials.
posted by grum@work at 01:15 PM on June 27, 2010
posted by HATER 187 at 01:18 PM on June 27, 2010
Blatter's argument is that the use of replay creates a discontinuity between the top level and the grassroots game. That's clearly bullshit, as seen in the deployment of Hawkeye in tennis and cricket, before even considering the panopticon of North American sports. So it goes.
posted by etagloh at 01:20 PM on June 27, 2010
I assumed that the use of replay in a sport that doesn't stop the clock for any reason would lead to ridiculous "extra time" at the end of halves.
posted by grum@work at 01:49 PM on June 27, 2010
grum, here's the original writeup and it's a mixture of both:
"The application of modern technologies can be very costly, and therefore not applicable on a global level," Blatter wrote on the FIFA Web site. "Many matches, even at the highest level, are not even televised. For example, we have close to 900 preliminary matches for the FIFA World Cup, and the same rules need to be applied in all matches of the same competition."So he's actually arguing that if you have tech/replay in, say, the European qualifying rounds, you have to have it for Vanuatu-Fiji as well. As this further discussion notes, Blatter hypothesised about a foolproof goal-line system, but wouldn't go further.[...]
"If play were to be stopped to take a decision, it would break up the rhythm of the game and possibly deny a team the opportunity to score a goal. It would also not make sense to stop play every two minutes to review a decision, as this would go against the natural dynamism of the game."
posted by etagloh at 02:14 PM on June 27, 2010
Not only did they suck, but they were snake-bitten to boot. That was totally a goal... And then they let another two in. Just wow.
Hey, at some point you have to stop suggesting you invented the game as some kind of way of implying you're good at it. It's like Leafs fans telling people we've won the second most Stanley Cups - just none in the last 44 years.
Does that make me sound like a hick?
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:04 PM on June 27, 2010
I can see where Germany was the better team, but with England having to push for the "second equalizer", Germany spring two counter attacks for goals. Would that have been the case if England's first equalizer had counted? I know we'll never know and Germany definitely deserved the win, but how many of these finishes will we have to endure?
posted by Ricardo at 03:11 PM on June 27, 2010
Would that have been the case if England's first equalizer had counted?
I'd go along with the insta-analysis at ZonalMarking that points out the weakness of a system that most England players have abandoned at club level, and the failings of the players which led to the goals.
As I said upthread, the parallels with the USA-Ghana match were striking (something the Grauniad had foreshadowed) but Bob Bradley, to his credit, recognised that 4-4-2 wasn't working against the Ghanaian midfield and made the necessary changes, while Capello either thought the flurry before half-time made it worth persevering, or lacked the confidence / personnel to change. Going in level wouldn't have altered that.
posted by etagloh at 05:19 PM on June 27, 2010
England lost because their defensive setup failed. Not because of the disallowed goal.
There was no screen in front of the centre backs (that's mostly your job, Gareth Barry) which allowed Germany to run at Terry and Upson, who were both awful as well. Lampard and Gerrard didn't track back, which meant the German wide players could also run at Johnson and Cole.
Didn't Cappello watch the video of the group games?
posted by owlhouse at 05:41 PM on June 27, 2010
England was doomed from the start, as they never had a goalie available.
posted by Hugh Janus at 07:14 PM on June 27, 2010
The best defence will win the World Cup.
And that's probably not the first thing you think of when making Brazil the favourites.
posted by owlhouse at 08:16 PM on June 27, 2010
they never had a goalie available
Joe Hart was the best (English) keeper in the Premiership all season long, but Fabio obviously needed his arse to keep the bench warm throughout. Even before Rob Green's unfortunate gaff agains the US, both he and James had consistently proved themselves to be liabilities. He should have played Hart from the start, but that would have required boldness, something Fabio clearly lacks.
I'm Northern Irish, so I don't really care, but just once I'd like to see England go to a World Cup and from the first kick of the group stages just have a go. Every time they take 23 of the most talented players in the game and then stifle every last bit of creativity they possess with this 4-4-2 nonsense that none of them play week-in week-out. They should go and try to win in Brazil in 2014, instead of trying not to lose.
posted by JJ at 03:44 AM on June 28, 2010
I wonder if anyone can recall any major sports event staged over a number of days where the referees or judges have played such a negative role in the overall outcome of games or competitions. Olympic ice skating is always questionable but that is just one event so the Olympics are usually well done. All these referees are trained for only one sport on the biggest stage in the world and many are making embarrassing decisions. FIFA must be cringing during every game.
posted by gfinsf at 08:37 AM on June 28, 2010
I haven't heard any real attempt to have instant replay or an officials-only camera inside the net for goal determination.
For almost a decade, as mentioned on the ESPN broadcast, they've had the tech available to put a chip in the ball so it'd be a definite yes/ no situation with no replay delay. But because I can't have the same thing in a kick around with friends, FIFA says no. I have to agree with Alexi Lalas (gasp) who suggested FIFA loves the controversy.
posted by yerfatma at 09:38 AM on June 28, 2010
On the 3rd German goal (where they broke out after Lampard's free kick), is it common for a central defender who's come up for the kick (looking at you, John Terry) to turn and watch the play go the other way without ever doing more than jog a few feet, realize he's not going to catch up, then stop?
posted by yerfatma at 09:48 AM on June 28, 2010
I have to agree with a point made in the Guardian's World Cup Daily podcast from yesterday -- England could be looking at a dire period of international football over the next decade or so, as they do not seem to have much by the way of talent in the pipeline. The successful international sides (Argentina, Germany, Holland, Spain, Brazil, etc.) seem to have done a pretty good job of reloading and going with youth as the old guard have retired or been put out to pasture, but England just do not seem to have any young world class players ready to step into the shoes of the current crop.
posted by holden at 11:19 AM on June 28, 2010
But because I can't have the same thing in a kick around with friends, FIFA says no. I have to agree with Alexi Lalas (gasp) who suggested FIFA loves the controversy.
As I understand it, it's not that you and I can't play with the same ball, it's that a World Cup qualifying match between Palau and the Solomon Islands wouldn't have the technology installed at their field to use it properly.
(nor are their games broadcast for TV, so there wouldn't be instant replay available for use)
They would, however, be able to use an extra official at each end to watch goal line plays. Of course, that costs a lot of extra money for FIFA (+2 officials for how many hundreds of qualifying games?).
Offsides, however, will forever be at the whim of the referee and his assistants, until every soccer jersey is embedded with GPS/RFID chips and a central recording device is able to immediately send signals to the field to indicate instantaneous offside calls.
posted by grum@work at 12:01 PM on June 28, 2010
They should put the offside chips in the boots of the players, not their shirts, then we'd have some comedy moments with attackers trying to kep their feet behind a line they can't see while defenders thrust themselves feet-first up the pitch trying to catch the attackers offside!
posted by JJ at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2010
They should put the offside chips in the boots of the players, not their shirts, then we'd have some comedy moments with attackers trying to kep their feet behind a line they can't see while defenders thrust themselves feet-first up the pitch trying to catch the attackers offside!
Or you'll have 20 pairs of shoes sitting at midfield and everyone running around in socks.
posted by goddam at 06:11 PM on June 28, 2010
Or you'll have 20 pairs of shoes sitting at midfield and everyone running around in socks.
It's that kind of tactical innovation that's going to win the US the World Cup before too long.
posted by JJ at 02:57 AM on June 29, 2010
Unless England change their system today I expect them to be outnumbered 5-4 in midfield and we don't keep the ball well enough to overcome that deficit.