Mauricio Espinosa talks about his horror World Cup decision.

Dan wrote:

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Dan wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:You woulda lost anyway

Really? Come from 2-0 down just before half-time? Changes games goals like that.



And polska. That decision you're on about was a penalty. Your defender pulled some Austrian guys shirt, only got yourselves to blame.

Austrian guy pulled the defender's shirt as well. It went both ways.

IIRC a proper ref (IE not Webb) would've told them to stop, perhaps give both the offenders yellows, and replayed the free kick. Or atleast that's how I think it should've been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG00dOjZBbs

1:29.


No he didn't and it's a penalty.

Fucking Jop.

Now my memory is coming back. The free kick was replayed once already, before that where the Austrian guy pulled our defenders shirt. The referee stopped play and replayed the free kick, which led to that.

Still, I don't think it should've been given. Webb was just looking for a chance to make up for the first goal. I heard the whole conversation between Webb and his assistant from that game, and at half time. At half time they actually watched the video and declared they would make up for it if given the chance.

luke. wrote:

Kuled wrote:Ok.

Why are you repeating what your mum said when I asked her for anal?

Eww, she done you up your arse?

kyro7 wrote:

luke. wrote:

Kuled wrote:Ok.

Why are you repeating what your mum said when I asked her for anal?

Eww, she done you up your arse?

You beauty! What a hit son, what a hit!!

Danny B wrote:

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Danny B wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:

Danny B wrote:Tbh, if the goal had stood. I think we'll have won that game. I'll stand by that until I die

Think about it, at even at 2-1 to Germany they had the game wrapped up.

But at 2-2 at half time, our confidence would have been sky high. Their's would have been so low because they'd have had to go out and win the game all over again.

Germany would've had little problem winning it again.

Your idiot coach Capello would've sticked to the 4-4-2, the result in the second half would've been....

Midfield is chocked. You strikers standing on the other half of the pitch doing nothing for 97% of the game, with Germany counter attacking beautifully against England whenever England looses possession in Midfield (which was often seeing as said midfield is chocked). Result? Germany scoring 2-3 goals.

We wouldn't have had to go all out attack looking for 2 goals, so we wouldn't have been caught on the break

You have no clue how tactics work, do you?

That means fuck all. Germany would've still dominated England in the midfield, you'd still have two headless chickens in Heskey and Rooney standing about for most of the game, looking for a chance that will never come, due to your midfield being dominated, than you'd have your defenders facing 6 or 7 rushing Germans.

It was the perfect formula for German victory. It is how they beat other teams as well, and the primary reason England did so poorly in general in the WC, and in England's fixtures before it as well.

I blame your world cup failures 100% on Capello.

I stopped reading at headless chickens standing there doing nothing

Sean CFC wrote:Germany were far and away the better team than England

Yet by half time it would've been 2-2. Second half was influenced by the decision so that's irrelevant.

(polskaGOLA) wrote:Look at my reply to the one known as Ball's post.

You wouldn't have won either way. The smashing would've commenced afterwords anyway. Simply a clash of formations (4-5-1 rapes 4-4-2), Capello being a complete utter idiot, and the fact you were dominated in the midfield and your two strikers were choked from chances (again, Capello being utter idiot and clash of formations).

Spain were fantastic. What are you talking about? Yes they played boring football and got 1-0 wins most of the time, but that was what they wanted all along. They played their tactic to perfection and it got them their first trophy.

The team that performs better for more of the match doesn't always win. The smashing wouldn't probably have commenced afterwards because we wouldn't have had to push for an equaliser and the general feelings, confidence etc of both teams would've been different. Decisions change matches......you can't take a goal away from a team and pretend that it doesn't change EVERYTHING.

Spain weren't fantastic..they were pretty lucky to even get out of the group stages. They did their thing ok....but generally speaking the failures of Switzerland (post their Spain victory), Portugal and Holland were what won Spain the World Cup....not Spain's successes. Spain's success was coming out on top...but generally speaking Switzerland should have knocked Spain out or at least drawn them against Brazil.....Portugal and Holland had a host of chances to win and just didn't take them. (after half time Portugal sucked but should've been ahead before that really)

They didn't play their tactics to perfection that's just ridiculous....

Looking for chances that will never come? Bearing in mind, up to that point we had had the same number of shots as the Germans. Don't talk shit polska. It would have been a completely different game, not saying we'd have won, but it would have been much more likely.

Danny B wrote:I stopped reading at headless chickens standing there doing nothing

Why? It was true.

With your midfield being dominated, your midfield were unable to do ANYTHING. That includes supporting your two headless chickens.

If you don't see that, than there is no point arguing with you, you obviously have little grasp of tactical knowledge.

Headless chickens don't stand around doing nothing

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Danny B wrote:I stopped reading at headless chickens standing there doing nothing

Why? It was true.

With your midfield being dominated, your midfield were unable to do ANYTHING. That includes supporting your two headless chickens.

If you don't see that, than there is no point arguing with you, you obviously have little grasp of tactical knowledge.

And it seems you have little grasp of simple psychology. Losing a 2-0 lead right on half-time, so quickly as well, would have had a massive impact on the German side. And would have risen the confidence of the English tenfold. Do you seriously think the game would play out the same way with that? Because if you do, you're actually as thick as your posts suggest..

Luxz0rz wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:Germany were far and away the better team than England

Yet by half time it would've been 2-2. Second half was influenced by the decision so that's irrelevant.

(polskaGOLA) wrote:Look at my reply to the one known as Ball's post.

You wouldn't have won either way. The smashing would've commenced afterwords anyway. Simply a clash of formations (4-5-1 rapes 4-4-2), Capello being a complete utter idiot, and the fact you were dominated in the midfield and your two strikers were choked from chances (again, Capello being utter idiot and clash of formations).

Spain were fantastic. What are you talking about? Yes they played boring football and got 1-0 wins most of the time, but that was what they wanted all along. They played their tactic to perfection and it got them their first trophy.

The team that performs better for more of the match doesn't always win. The smashing wouldn't probably have commenced afterwards because we wouldn't have had to push for an equaliser and the general feelings, confidence etc of both teams would've been different. Decisions change matches......you can't take a goal away from a team and pretend that it doesn't change EVERYTHING.

Spain weren't fantastic..they were pretty lucky to even get out of the group stages. They did their thing ok....but generally speaking the failures of Switzerland (post their Spain victory), Portugal and Holland were what won Spain the World Cup....not Spain's successes. Spain's success was coming out on top...but generally speaking Switzerland should have knocked Spain out or at least drawn them against Brazil.....Portugal and Holland had a host of chances to win and just didn't take them. (after half time Portugal sucked but should've been ahead before that really)

They didn't play their tactics to perfection that's just ridiculous....

Obviously there would be different moods at half time had it counted. But Tactics are tactics, and England would still be heading into the second half at a serious disadvantage. You would've needed alot of luck to win that game.

Perhaps fantastic and perfection are to extreme of words. But Spain did play everything the way they needed to, and it resulted in them winning the cup. I disagree with your post stating that Spain played poorly is all.

Danny B wrote:Headless chickens don't stand around doing nothing

Dan wrote:

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Danny B wrote:I stopped reading at headless chickens standing there doing nothing

Why? It was true.

With your midfield being dominated, your midfield were unable to do ANYTHING. That includes supporting your two headless chickens.

If you don't see that, than there is no point arguing with you, you obviously have little grasp of tactical knowledge.

And it seems you have little grasp of simple psychology. Losing a 2-0 lead right on half-time, so quickly as well, would have had a massive impact on the German side. And would have risen the confidence of the English tenfold. Do you seriously think the game would play out the same way with that? Because if you do, you're actually as thick as your posts suggest..

England's confidence would've went down twentyfold when Germany scores their 3rd goal.

The tactical side of the game is really important. Simple confidence wouldn't have stopped Germany from dominating England tactically. FFS the 4-5-1 of this decade has evolved specifically to destroy 4-4-2's, and Germany displayed that brilliantly at WC2010.

(polskaGOLA) wrote:Obviously there would be different moods at half time had it counted. But Tactics are tactics, and England would still be heading into the second half at a serious disadvantage. You would've needed alot of luck to win that game.

England were worse off tactically but we still managed to pull it back so that shows that there's more to games than tactics. Capello could've changed it at half time and we could've come out on top......Germany could've been rattled and sunk. We were behind so Capello had to take risks.

(polskaGOLA) wrote:
Perhaps fantastic and perfection are to extreme of words. But Spain did play everything the way they needed to, and it resulted in them winning the cup. I disagree with your post stating that Spain played poorly is all.

I never said Spain were poor...........there is a big gap between fantastic and poor...i.e. the middle.

They did what they had to because they won in the end.....though IMO they should've had to have done more to win.

You keep talking about tactics. Are these the same tactics that saw Germany surrender a 2-0 lead?

Should have surrendered the lead all together, lucky fuckers

Luxz0rz wrote:

(polskaGOLA) wrote:Obviously there would be different moods at half time had it counted. But Tactics are tactics, and England would still be heading into the second half at a serious disadvantage. You would've needed alot of luck to win that game.

England were worse off tactically but we still managed to pull it back so that shows that there's more to games than tactics. Capello could've changed it at half time and we could've come out on top......Germany could've been rattled and sunk. We were behind so Capello had to take risks.

(polskaGOLA) wrote:
Perhaps fantastic and perfection are to extreme of words. But Spain did play everything the way they needed to, and it resulted in them winning the cup. I disagree with your post stating that Spain played poorly is all.

I never said Spain were poor...........there is a big gap between fantastic and poor...i.e. the middle.

They did what they had to because they won in the end.....though IMO they should've had to have done more to win.

Yes, There is more to games than tactics. As some of you pointed out, mentality of the players is important. (Although IMO it would've meant fuck all given the tactical differences between the two sides) and another thing is luck. Pure luck. England needed alot of it to get two back IMO, and England's luck ran out when the linesman didn't give the goal.

Capello wouldn't have changed at half time. If he would've, he would've changed his tactic following Egypt. Following each and every Group Stage game, and definitely before facing Germany's formidable 4-5-1. He didn't, and I don't expect him to in this timeline. If anything, getting 2 back would've put false confirmation in Capello's mind to stay with the 4-4-2 in the second half. I don't think Capello wasn't taking risks, he was being an idiot. England would've been better off dropping Heskey for a midfielder at half time, and playing a 4-5-1. If they did, I can definitely see the rest of the game being 50-50. However, that was not the case.

Spain didn't need to do more. That was the brilliance in Del Bosque's tactics IMO.

Dan wrote:You keep talking about tactics. Are these the same tactics that saw Germany surrender a 2-0 lead?

So some individual skill from some of the world's best players combined with a fuckload of luck, (especially with Lampard) = Germany having poor tactics?

Anyway, I gotta go now, so i'll come back later to finish this debate.

Funny how it's only the English who think England could have won the match.

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Dan wrote:You keep talking about tactics. Are these the same tactics that saw Germany surrender a 2-0 lead?

So some individual skill from some of the world's best players combined with a fuckload of luck, (especially with Lampard) = Germany having poor tactics?

Didn't say they were poor. But they couldn't have been as perfect as you suggest if they threw away their two goal lead.

Sean CFC wrote:Funny how it's only the English who think England could have won the match.

Well Polska's a bias fuck isn't he?

Danny B wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:Funny how it's only the English who think England could have won the match.

Well Polska's a bias fuck isn't he?

So are Lux and you to an extent

Sean CFC wrote:

Danny B wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:Funny how it's only the English who think England could have won the match.

Well Polska's a bias fuck isn't he?

So are Lux and you to an extent

Not as much as him. Polska won't give the English anything

Sean CFC wrote:Funny how it's only the English who think England could have won the match.

Why couldn't we? 2-2 isn't exactly an uneven scoreline is it?

Tbh, 2-2 at half time. Our confidence as high as it had been since qualifying, Germany's low as anything because they'd already won the game.. we'd have won. I'll never go against that tbh

Danny B wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:Funny how it's only the English who think England could have won the match.

Well Polska's a bias fuck isn't he?

I'm being quite reasonable I think.

I think if England had another manager, and played a 4-5-1, England would've had a serious shot at winning the World Cup IMO.

-------------------Green**------------------
Johnson------Ferdinand----Terry--------Cole
------------Berry---------Lampard-----------
Milner*-----------Gerrard--------------Young
-----------------Rooney---------------------

* - Or Cole, Lennon or whoever
** - Or Hart of whoever

That team can win the WC IMO, if well disciplined.

In all fairness, Germany's third and fourth goals came from counter-attacks because of England pushing their defenders up. Anyone who says Germany would have just won it 4-2 doesn't know what they're talking about.

Danny B wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:

Danny B wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:Funny how it's only the English who think England could have won the match.

Well Polska's a bias fuck isn't he?

So are Lux and you to an extent

Not as much as him. Polska won't give the English anything

Posted my last reply and scroll up to see this.

I have nothing against England you biased xenophobic cunts.

Fuck Barry, Green and Young tbh.

Walcott should be in there, as well as Hart.

Pick whoever from the likes of Carrick, Huddlestone etc.. to replace Barry