Mauricio Espinosa talks about his horror World Cup decision.

Danny B wrote:Even Greece's manager says he has no idea how they won it

Of course he didn't expect Greece to win it. Noone did.

But his tactics throughout the tournament were fantastic. The victory itself can be explained.

Yeah, defending for 90 minutes hoping for the lucky goal always works...

Danny B wrote:Yeah, defending for 90 minutes hoping for the lucky goal always works...

If you think that's what happened, your daft. Again.

What did they do then? They didn't exactly come out attacking playing free flowing football

Counter attacking football. And quite brilliant counter attacking football as well.

Tbh, I have never, ever watched a more boring team

Danny B wrote:Yeah, defending for 90 minutes hoping for the lucky goal always works...

(polskaGOLA) wrote:Counter attacking football. And quite brilliant counter attacking football as well.

Didn't 90% of their goals come from corners though?

Just checked, they scored seven goals in the whole tournament.

I think most were from set pieces yeah

Danny B wrote:"I was 150% prepered"

Is that why you missed what even my mum saw through the TV?

Fucking cunt

with that one comment, espinoza sounds arrogant and self important! the incompetent prick.

from my seat towards the back of the upper tier on the halfway line i knew it was without a doubt a goal.

i remember the incident vividly, so he wasnt on the bye line to see the ball cros the line but he was stood level with the 18 yard line where it would have been an easy decision to make.

im over Englands shocking performance at the WC, Germany deservedly won and i dont for a second think we would have won the whole tournament. what pisses me off is when officials dont admit to their own short comings and incompetence.

if a doctor made as big an error as that in their line of work they would be struck off the register, if a cab driver done the same they would lose their licence!

Espinoza is clearly not up to the job.

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Danny B wrote:Even Greece's manager says he has no idea how they won it

Of course he didn't expect Greece to win it. Noone did.

But his tactics throughout the tournament were fantastic. The victory itself can be explained.

it seems otto rehhagel got lucky at euro 2004 as the same tactics have been employed since and has got Greece nowhere!

that very ordinary greek team all played above themselves and everything clicked at the right time. it was not a managerial masterclass in tactics and they were painfully boring to watch although admittedly well drilled and determined.

Danny B wrote:

Bear wrote:

Danny B wrote:

SBSP_FIFA wrote: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.

Exactly. At 2-2 we'd have needed 1 goal, at 1-2 we'd have needed 2. We wouldn't have had to go all out attack, and wouldn't have been caught on the break that badly.

Erm you practically would have considering Germany would of wiped the floor if it went to penaltys, making Capello attack a bit then caught on the break by another German counter attack

We wouldn't have needed to attack as much if we were level, instead of a goal down

How does a team go to penalties? u think teams go to penalties at 2-1?


You need to stop thinking you're a genius

The way the counterattacked was very efficient for their stature, and their defending was superb.

Greece has gotten nowhere since because other managers have adopted their own tactics to counter Rehagel's.

Bear: Penalties has fuck all to do with this?

I'm saying if the score is 2-2 at half time, you don't need to attack as much as you do if you're 2-1 down, because Polska didn't appear to have grasped the concept

Danny B wrote:Bear: Penalties has fuck all to do with this?

I'm saying if the score is 2-2 at half time, you don't need to attack as much as you do if you're 2-1 down, because Polska didn't appear to have grasped the concept

You don't need to attack as much but u still need to attack, let me break it down for you

What happened
England + Full out attack = demolished

If it was 2-2
England + attacking a bit = still countered and beaten
You're probably thinking, why would England need to attack a bit? because England will get beaten by those German machines in penalties obviously

I'm not even gonna fucking bother

Less need to attack = less goals conceded. Problem logic? :troll:

Danny B wrote:I'm not even gonna fucking bother

Less need to attack = less goals conceded. Problem logic? :troll:

That's stupid logic because it still gets you beaten anyway

Not if you score more than them

luke. wrote:

Kuled wrote:Ok.

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

Fuck off you ugly cunt

Danny B wrote:Not if you score more than them

Well you're not going to are you, this is why u don't listen. If England attacked they would have been countered.

Countered, attacked or Penalties... which one do you want? You're acting like we actually had a good chance at winning, we didn't

(polskaGOLA) wrote:The way the counterattacked was very efficient for their stature, and their defending was superb.

Greece has gotten nowhere since because other managers have adopted their own tactics to counter Rehagel's.

oh so in 2004 rehhagel bemused his opposition with boring low pressure containing defending with a subtle blend of hoof ball and "getting it to the big lad up top". these are not ground breaking tactics, its called "percentage football" in England, someting that was rife in the 80's and was almost irradicated until the disparity of the premier league meant that managers like Sam Alladyce, Gary Megson and Tiny Penis (Tony Pulis) started using them as an alternative to playing with skill and finesse.

just as Spains victories in Euro 2008 & WC 2010 were a victory for football, Greece in 2004 was a victory for underdogs and "anti football".

The defensive displays were near faultless, dealing with pretty much everything! Greece never played to win, they played to not lose. and fair play to them 'cos they didnt lose in the knockout rounds and won the tournament the only way they could!

Bear wrote:

Danny B wrote:Not if you score more than them

Well you're not going to are you, this is why u don't listen. If England attacked they would have been countered.

Countered, attacked or Penalties... which one do you want? You're acting like we actually had a good chance at winning, we didn't

You say it as if we had no chance of beating then at all

Danny B wrote:

Bear wrote:

Danny B wrote:Not if you score more than them

Well you're not going to are you, this is why u don't listen. If England attacked they would have been countered.

Countered, attacked or Penalties... which one do you want? You're acting like we actually had a good chance at winning, we didn't

You say it as if we had no chance of beating then at all

We didn't realistically, the whole team chemistry was no where near Germanys and neither was the motivation. You're arguing that we should of had confidence and motivation but realistically if we got that goal it wouldn't have improved drastically because we performed terribly through the whole qualifying campaign. People say England dominated this England dominated that.... but we shouldn't be getting 2 goal wins to shit countrys ranked like 80th and expecting a lot of motivation to improve at a half time draw against Germany is moronic

We were terrible in qualification?

Rooney was the leading scorer in Europe, we scored 29 overall- the most I think, almost an average of 3 goals a game, stuck 9 sat the team who did the double over us in 08 qualifying, only lost once after we'd secured top spot...

It was a pretty much perfect qualification.

We had a poor group stage but it wasn't as bad as people were making it out to be.

We have the most scrutinising media and when you take a look at the teams in other groups most were struggling too.....

US game - good performance against a tough team undermined by Robert Green. Again we were the better team IMO...

Algeria - didn't take our chances but there were some promising signs IMO. The main point being that we were the better team for sure...

Slovenia - we were improving....should've done better but as has been proven by everyone.....no team is easy. We were the better team.....

Germany - ....disorganised but rallied together and then sunk by the officials. Didn't survive second half but it could've been a lot different.

Bear you're being ridiculous. Germany didn't have an answer to everything we did.....if that was the case then we wouldn't have gotten back to 2-2. We had a lot more experience than them....once we were level that would've counted for a lot.

Danny B wrote:We were terrible in qualification?

Rooney was the leading scorer in Europe, we scored 29 overall- the most I think, almost an average of 3 goals a game, stuck 9 sat the team who did the double over us in 08 qualifying, only lost once after we'd secured top spot...

It was a pretty much perfect qualification.

Croatia were shit and still aren't nothing special, we had 2 goal wins over teams like belarus and we dominated teams like Kazakhstan and Belarus who don't even play football and we're supposed to be some sort of worldbeaters in qualification? don't make me laugh our group was gash. Did Germany or Spain lose 1 at all? no, because they are a consistent and good teams

You're arguing that because we did dominated a couple of teams that don't even play football we should be beating the big boys, wrong Germany and Spain would of done the same thing and better

Also i was referring to qualification to the finals but still we were rubbish in both

You can only beat what's put it front of you, you twerp

Luxz0rz wrote:We had a poor group stage but it wasn't as bad as people were making it out to be.

We have the most scrutinising media and when you take a look at the teams in other groups most were struggling too.....

US game - good performance against a tough team undermined by Robert Green. Again we were the better team IMO...

Algeria - didn't take our chances but there were some promising signs IMO. The main point being that we were the better team for sure...

Slovenia - we were improving....should've done better but as has been proven by everyone.....no team is easy. We were the better team.....

Germany - ....disorganised but rallied together and then sunk by the officials. Didn't survive second half but it could've been a lot different.

Bear you're being ridiculous. Germany didn't have an answer to everything we did.....if that was the case then we wouldn't have gotten back to 2-2. We had a lot more experience than them....once we were level that would've counted for a lot.

Experience means nothing when it's not being utilized properly. It would have been pure luck including a slight improvement if the Lampard goal stuck (after missing the most amount of shots and still, it didn't stick). As soon as it was halftime we were slightly fired up then we came out and Germany played us again. I'm not saying we would have lost, i'm saying that a bit of attacking was needed to proceed but would have given us a tragic downfall once again

Danny B wrote:You can only beat what's put it front of you, you twerp

But did you beat Germany no, so that's irrelevant

You can't be expected to beat the officials...that's not the England players jobs.