World Cup 2014 discussion thread.

Argentina 0 x 4 Germany - 2010 World Cup Quarter Finals

Spoiler:

Argentina 1 (2) x (4) 1 Germany - 2006 World Cup Second Stage

Spoiler:

Argentina 0 x 1 Germany - 1990 World Cup Finals

Spoiler:

Argentina 3 x 2 Germany - 1986 World Cup Finals

Spoiler:

Argentina 0 x 0 Germany - 1966 World Cup Group Stage

Spoiler:

Argentina 1 x 3 Germany - 1958 World Cup Group Stage

Spoiler:

Argentina 0 x 0  Netherlands - 2006 World Cup Group Stage

Spoiler:

Argentina 1 x 2 Netherlands - 1998 World Cup Quarters Finals

Spoiler:

Argentina 3 x 1 Netherlands - 1978 World Cup Finals

Spoiler:

Argentina 0 x 4 Netherlands - 1974 Second Round Group

Spoiler:

Glen Miller wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:Holland were the better team and on the balance of play they deserved to go through. It's a shame on Costa Rica, they did the hard work of keeping it at 0-0 for 120mins and chance it on the even footing of a shootout only to let the composure they showed against Greece disappear.

I'm fairly sure the Krul substitution was pre planned. In training they've probably determined that Krul is a far superior penalty stopper than Cillessen. It's not that large a leap of faith when you consider that they used 4 keepers during qualifying and that most thought Krul was dead set to be 1st choice.

Agreed, and I'm not even sure about RR's claims that he would have taken the blame/looked like an idiot if he failed.  Cillessen has looked awful in this World Cup, taking him out wasn't a ludicrous action.  Still, he's done a good job I suppose.

I don't even know who that skrub is, why is he starting instead of Krul?

Zzonked wrote:

Glen Miller wrote:
Agreed, and I'm not even sure about RR's claims that he would have taken the blame/looked like an idiot if he failed.  Cillessen has looked awful in this World Cup, taking him out wasn't a ludicrous action.  Still, he's done a good job I suppose.

I don't even know who that skrub is, why is he starting instead of Krul?

He kept 16 clean sheets for Ajax last season. Granted it's easier to do that when you're playing for the dominate force in the Eredivisie than it is for Krul playing at Newcastle under a freak like Pardew. I guess that security is what persuaded van Gaal to play him.

Also, van Gaal confirmed it was always pre planned from the start because of Kruls superior penalty saving abilities.  

van Gaal wrote:We thought it through. Every player has certain skills and qualities and they don’t always coincide. We felt Tim would be the most appropriate keeper to save penalties. We had discussed it with Tim. He knew about their penalties because he needed to be prepared.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/06/louis-van-gaal-tim-krul-holland-costa-rica-world-cup

So much for it being a tactical masterclass It was exactly as I said it would be. Pre-planned because Krul was the superior penalty stopper, probably in training.

You make out like planning for every eventuality is a bad thing.

It's not a bad thing, it's just the most logical thing to do. To call that a tactical masterclass is hilarious and cringe inducing.

Brb, going to London today
I wonder if it will rain?
I better take my umbrella with me, just in case.
Sorted.

Brb, in London
Starts raining
I get my umbrella out

Wow, I'm a fucking genius. Tactical masterclass.

You never get anything done by planning.

Scott_LFC wrote:It's not a bad thing, it's just the most logical thing to do. To call that a tactical masterclass is hilarious and cringe inducing.

Brb, going to London today
I wonder if it will rain?
I better take my umbrella with me, just in case.
Sorted.

Brb, in London
Starts raining
I get my umbrella out

Wow, I'm a fucking genius. Tactical masterclass.

Really 

Scott_LFC wrote:It's not a bad thing, it's just the most logical thing to do. To call that a tactical masterclass is hilarious and cringe inducing.

Brb, going to London today
I wonder if it will rain?
I better take my umbrella with me, just in case.
Sorted.

Brb, in London
Starts raining
I get my umbrella out

Wow, I'm a fucking genius. Tactical masterclass.

You'd be surprised how many people forget to bring umbrellas when they go out, even if they think it might rain.

Umbrellas are very effective. Much better than the simple hood.

Better hope it's not windy though.

Can't believe how butthurt people are getting about Brazil
75% of the fouls they committed weren't actual fouls

Silva's yellow card is the worst of them all, IMO.

Scott_LFC wrote:It's not a bad thing, it's just the most logical thing to do. To call that a tactical masterclass is hilarious and cringe inducing.

Brb, going to London today
I wonder if it will rain?
I better take my umbrella with me, just in case.
Sorted.

Brb, in London
Starts raining
I get my umbrella out

Wow, I'm a fucking genius. Tactical masterclass.

That's just silly logic.  Just because it was pre-planned doesn't make it any less genius or gutsy.  Taking an umbrella with you in London is just common sense, and it is commonly done.  But changing a keeper right before a shootout?  How often do you see that done?  It may have been pre-planned but it still took guts to follow through with the plan, because if they lose that penalty shootout, look out!

This World Cup have been amazing.

I know I'm late to the party on this topic, but vis-a-vis Klinsmann, I agree that he made some mistakes (e.g. we didn't attack enough, sat Beckerman, no Altidore replacement, Donovan snub) but overall, you have to say we exceeded expectations.  Survived the Group of Death, pushed Belgium to the limit and almost had a chance to nip it.  Klinsmann deserves at least some credit for that, I think.  Even saying we didn't attack enough is Monday-morning quarterbacking because who's to say he didn't get it right?  Maybe if we attacked more, we would have conceded more.  Overall, I'm happy with the way the tournament went and the direction we're heading it.

menalawyerguy wrote:

Scott_LFC wrote:It's not a bad thing, it's just the most logical thing to do. To call that a tactical masterclass is hilarious and cringe inducing.

Brb, going to London today
I wonder if it will rain?
I better take my umbrella with me, just in case.
Sorted.

Brb, in London
Starts raining
I get my umbrella out

Wow, I'm a fucking genius. Tactical masterclass.

That's just silly logic.  Just because it was pre-planned doesn't make it any less genius or gutsy.  Taking an umbrella with you in London is just common sense, and it is commonly done.  But changing a keeper right before a shootout?  How often do you see that done?  It may have been pre-planned but it still took guts to follow through with the plan, because if they lose that penalty shootout, look out!

And in the event of a penalty shootout, it's common sense to sub on the goalkeeper who is better suited to dealing with penalties.

"How often do you see that done?"

Well, considering in normal circumstances, where the starting goalkeeper is probably the better penalty stopper in the first place, obviously, this situation isn't going to arise very often.

Christ.

Scott_LFC wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

That's just silly logic.  Just because it was pre-planned doesn't make it any less genius or gutsy.  Taking an umbrella with you in London is just common sense, and it is commonly done.  But changing a keeper right before a shootout?  How often do you see that done?  It may have been pre-planned but it still took guts to follow through with the plan, because if they lose that penalty shootout, look out!

And in the event of a penalty shootout, it's common sense to sub on the goalkeeper who is better suited to dealing with penalties.

"How often do you see that done?"

Well, considering in normal circumstances, where the starting goalkeeper is probably the better penalty stopper in the first place, obviously, this situation isn't going to arise very often.

Christ.

Yes, putting in your better PK keeper seems obvious.  That's not what made it amazing.  What made it amazing is that he saved his third substitution for that eventuality in the first place.  That's highly unconventional.  Think about the PK scenario.  The keeper is generally at the mercy of the kick-taker.  If the kick-taker does what he's supposed to do, it almost doesn't matter who's in goal.  The ball is usually going to end up in the net.  For that reason, the vast majority of managers would see more value in using the sub on an outfield player.  That's why it was so risky.  If they didn't win that shootout, he'd be getting ROASTED right now (not that it really matters to him.  His next gig is already secured).

Scott_LFC wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

That's just silly logic.  Just because it was pre-planned doesn't make it any less genius or gutsy.  Taking an umbrella with you in London is just common sense, and it is commonly done.  But changing a keeper right before a shootout?  How often do you see that done?  It may have been pre-planned but it still took guts to follow through with the plan, because if they lose that penalty shootout, look out!

And in the event of a penalty shootout, it's common sense to sub on the goalkeeper who is better suited to dealing with penalties.

"How often do you see that done?"

Well, considering in normal circumstances, where the starting goalkeeper is probably the better penalty stopper in the first place, obviously, this situation isn't going to arise very often.

Christ.

Find another instance of a team subbing on a keeper for a shootout.

menalawyerguy wrote:

Scott_LFC wrote:

And in the event of a penalty shootout, it's common sense to sub on the goalkeeper who is better suited to dealing with penalties.

"How often do you see that done?"

Well, considering in normal circumstances, where the starting goalkeeper is probably the better penalty stopper in the first place, obviously, this situation isn't going to arise very often.

Christ.

Yes, putting in your better PK keeper seems obvious.  That's not what made it amazing.  What made it amazing is that he saved his third substitution for that eventuality in the first place.  That's highly unconventional.  Think about the PK scenario.  The keeper is generally at the mercy of the kick-taker.  If the kick-taker does what he's supposed to do, it almost doesn't matter who's in goal.  The ball is usually going to end up in the net.  For that reason, the vast majority of managers would see more value in using the sub on an outfield player.  That's why it was so risky.  If they didn't win that shootout, he'd be getting ROASTED right now (not that it really matters to him.  His next gig is already secured).

He would not have gotten roasted for the substitution. He'd have gotten roasted for not seeing off Costa Rica in 120mins of football.
Loads of managers save their last substitution until the last few minutes of a games. Absolutely nothing groundbreaking about that at all. And it's not like Holland have a plethora of talent on the bench that they can bring on. He didn't leave some game changing super-sub on the bench and bring on Krul, these were his choices:

07 Janmaat- RB
08 de Guzmán- CM
12 Verhaegh- RB
13 Veltman- CB
14 Kongolo- CB
16 Clasie- CM
22 Vorm- GK

SBSP wrote:

Scott_LFC wrote:

And in the event of a penalty shootout, it's common sense to sub on the goalkeeper who is better suited to dealing with penalties.

"How often do you see that done?"

Well, considering in normal circumstances, where the starting goalkeeper is probably the better penalty stopper in the first place, obviously, this situation isn't going to arise very often.

Christ.

Find another instance of a team subbing on a keeper for a shootout.

Southend. January 2013 in the JPT semi-final.
And that wasn't pre-planned.

Keyser Söze wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:
Yes, putting in your better PK keeper seems obvious.  That's not what made it amazing.  What made it amazing is that he saved his third substitution for that eventuality in the first place.  That's highly unconventional.  Think about the PK scenario.  The keeper is generally at the mercy of the kick-taker.  If the kick-taker does what he's supposed to do, it almost doesn't matter who's in goal.  The ball is usually going to end up in the net.  For that reason, the vast majority of managers would see more value in using the sub on an outfield player.  That's why it was so risky.  If they didn't win that shootout, he'd be getting ROASTED right now (not that it really matters to him.  His next gig is already secured).

He would not have gotten roasted for the substitution. He'd have gotten roasted for not seeing off Costa Rica in 120mins of football.

Why? Costa Rica gave up two goals all tournament, one a man down and another being a penalty, that + their high line working pretty much perfectly you could argue they had the best defense in the tournament.

dena wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:

He would not have gotten roasted for the substitution. He'd have gotten roasted for not seeing off Costa Rica in 120mins of football.

Why? Costa Rica gave up two goals all tournament, one a man down and another being a penalty, that + their high line working pretty much perfectly you could argue they had the best defense in the tournament.

I'm assuming the Dutch media is as fickle as any other European media. Low expectations going into the WC after a disastrous Euro 2010 quickly change to expectations of winning it after beating Spain 5-1. They'd then turn on the team and call them bottlers for managing to gain a result like that in the group stage only to fuck up against little Costa Rica in the 1/4 finals.

Keyser Söze wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:
Yes, putting in your better PK keeper seems obvious.  That's not what made it amazing.  What made it amazing is that he saved his third substitution for that eventuality in the first place.  That's highly unconventional.  Think about the PK scenario.  The keeper is generally at the mercy of the kick-taker.  If the kick-taker does what he's supposed to do, it almost doesn't matter who's in goal.  The ball is usually going to end up in the net.  For that reason, the vast majority of managers would see more value in using the sub on an outfield player.  That's why it was so risky.  If they didn't win that shootout, he'd be getting ROASTED right now (not that it really matters to him.  His next gig is already secured).

He would not have gotten roasted for the substitution. He'd have gotten roasted for not seeing off Costa Rica in 120mins of football.
Loads of managers save their last substitution until the last few minutes of a games. Absolutely nothing groundbreaking about that at all. 

It's not just leaving the last substitution for the last few minutes, it's leaving the last substitution for the last few minutes to change keepers in anticipation of a shootout.  I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I'd bet good money that that is literally unprecedented in World Cup history.

Keyser Söze wrote:

SBSP wrote:
Find another instance of a team subbing on a keeper for a shootout.

Southend. January 2013 in the JPT semi-final.
And that wasn't pre-planned.

I also saw it happen in my beer hall rec league back in 2009.  That wasn't pre-planned either.  Manager did it only because I was too drunk to stay in goal for the shootout.

menalawyerguy wrote:I know I'm late to the party on this topic, but vis-a-vis Klinsmann, I agree that he made some mistakes (e.g. we didn't attack enough, sat Beckerman, no Altidore replacement, Donovan snub) but overall, you have to say we exceeded expectations.  Survived the Group of Death, pushed Belgium to the limit and almost had a chance to nip it.  Klinsmann deserves at least some credit for that, I think.  Even saying we didn't attack enough is Monday-morning quarterbacking because who's to say he didn't get it right?  Maybe if we attacked more, we would have conceded more.  Overall, I'm happy with the way the tournament went and the direction we're heading it.

I was really harsh on JK after the loss, but after re-watching the game, stepping back and thinking on it, I agree. We had a good world cup, and while I thought (like last WC) the draw (after the group stage) set up favorably (as favorably as it can get) for us, we should be proud of our efforts. Also, hearing the media reaction from people outside of the US has brought perspective. I don't think it's unfair to say we were one of the more exciting teams this tournament, our only dull game was v. Germany and our games had some great moments ("IT'S JOHN BROOKS, IT'S JOHN BROOKS")

As always the future never lets us down, I'm really excited to see the new generation we bring to Russia. We have a few roles to fill (left back, Beckerman role, wings) and I think some of the talent coming through MLS is exciting.

menalawyerguy wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:

He would not have gotten roasted for the substitution. He'd have gotten roasted for not seeing off Costa Rica in 120mins of football.
Loads of managers save their last substitution until the last few minutes of a games. Absolutely nothing groundbreaking about that at all. 

It's not just leaving the last substitution for the last few minutes, it's leaving the last substitution for the last few minutes to change keepers in anticipation of a shootout.  I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I'd bet good money that that is literally unprecedented in World Cup history.

Probably because the same situation has never happened before. 99% of the time, the GK starting the game is going to be the one better at PK saving. This was a one off situation where Holland had one GK better in play and one GK better at penalties. It will probably happen again if it were to be a draw after ET in the next round.

menalawyerguy wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:

He would not have gotten roasted for the substitution. He'd have gotten roasted for not seeing off Costa Rica in 120mins of football.
Loads of managers save their last substitution until the last few minutes of a games. Absolutely nothing groundbreaking about that at all. 

It's not just leaving the last substitution for the last few minutes, it's leaving the last substitution for the last few minutes to change keepers in anticipation of a shootout.  I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I'd bet good money that that is literally unprecedented in World Cup history.

I just explained to you that he didn't have a stellar bench to choose from anyway. The two players that could change the game for Holland in Lens and Huntelaar were already brought on. What was left were a collection of nobodies. As dena pointed out Costa Rica have been defensively solid this tournament. Coming through a group with three world cup winners by conceding one goal and then only conceding 1 other in the entire tournament during the last minute of a game after they were reduced to 10. Doesn't take a genius to be cautious and plan for the inevitably of a shoot-out. Manager routinely practice shootouts in training, I guess that's a genius move too?

When you bring this all together and couple it with the fact van Gaal already said Krul was their pre-planned, designated penalty shootout keeper it all becomes a logical decision.          

menalawyerguy wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
Southend. January 2013 in the JPT semi-final.
And that wasn't pre-planned.

I also saw it happen in my beer hall rec league back in 2009.  That wasn't pre-planned either.  Manager did it only because I was too drunk to stay in goal for the shootout.

lolol. I'm not sure if that was an anecdote or just a made up story but it has no bearing on my point. SBSP asked for another instance and I gave him one. One that occurred in professional football. I'm not going to sit here and pretend the JPT is even close to the World Cup, but that's not the point. The point is the context in which the two substitutions occurred. The semi final of the JTP is probably as pressured and important a game for Southend and Paul Sturrock as the World Cup 1/4 finals were for van Gaal and Holland. Maybe even more important and pressurized. You can't call one manager a drunk fool for doing it and another a tactical genius. It goes without saying the van Gaal is an infinitely better manager than Paul Sturrock and probably will never have the chance to make such a decision, but it's founded in logic to assume that had he have been in the same position as van Gaal he would have done the same thing.

RvP a doubt for the semifinal. Excellent news for the Dutch. Now he won't be able to bottle and cost his team another big game.

Bernard is an extreme manlet.

Can't see Brazil losing bruh.

Zzonked wrote:Bernard is an extreme manlet.

Just wanna put him in my purse.