Round 16 and Beyond

[FaaipDeOiad]

If this was the House of Commons Id be stood up waving my bit of paper and shouting "Ra, ra, ra!"

Eddie I completely agree. I wanted Aus to win and Im upset that they didnt. However, not all were like me (though I think most were) and for people to get upset that some in England didnt want an Aussie win after some of their anti-England statements takes the buscuit.

Seems that some can give it but cant take it.

I don't think it's failing to support Australia that annoys people, so much as saying it is "funny" that Australia were robbed by a poor decision etc. Anyway, I think it pretty much just comes and goes. There are people over here who want England to lose and people over there who want Australia to lose, and some of them are obnoxious about it and others aren't.

I will say though that I was pretty wholehearted in having England as my second team before this WC, and I usually support you lot after Australia and Ireland in international sport for various reasons, but after a few weeks of sharing this forum with particular English fans (certainly not all of you), and indeed watching England play some pretty dreary football, I've been preferring some other teams. So, I can see where Blaze and company are coming from.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Seems that some can give it but cant take it.

We've known that for some time now!

 

[marc71178]

Could all be true. But at the minute, we are in the World Cup, do hold the Ashes and do hold the RWC. So there

Don't reply to that turncoat...

 

[marc71178]

I bet England are thrilled they met Ecuador rather than Italy in the Round of 16.

That'll be something to do with winning the group and thus avoiding the best side in the group they could've faced.

 

[marc71178]

Matterazzi possibly didn't deserve a straight red, but (I think) he'd been booked already & a def yellow IMHO. The same end result.

He wasn't on a yellow and most definitely didn't deserve a red for it.

 

[marc71178]

Sorry, dont see that one...the act of getting in the way without contact doesnt mean its a penalty. if that is given 9 time out of ten, then 9 times out of ten its the wrong decision

No, actually, 1 out of 10 would be the wrong decision in that case - what a lot of people do not realise is that there does not need to be contact for it to be a foul.

 

[marc71178]

ok... thats ok, but another fact of the matter is that if the ref had have made the correct decision , no pen, easy as that

Except the referee made the correct decision.

 

[marc71178]

Phil Neville did exactly the same in Charleroi against Romaina in Euro 2000.

Result = we still abuse the hell out of him.

But isn't that more because he's an Owen Hargreaves wannabe?

 

[marc71178]

Because he went in for a challenge, obviously. The point is that Neill pulled out of the challenge well before the contact was made

So what was he doing with his arms then?

 

[marc71178]

We've known that for some time now!

I refer people to Mumbai 2004.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So what was he doing with his arms then?

His arms? Neill? He was holding them up to protest his innocence. What does that have to do with whether or not he made a challenge on the player?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, after the challenge his arms were indeed protesting innocence.

A bit like after the challegne Materazzi wasn't near the bloke he fouled...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes, after the challenge his arms were indeed protesting innocence.

A bit like after the challegne Materazzi wasn't near the bloke he fouled...

So your evidence that Neill attempted to make a challenge on the player is that he claimed he didn't? Excellent argument there.

He was stationary on the ground and not attempting to win the ball, and the player could easily have avoided him and instead chose to run straight into him in an attempt to win a penalty. What Neill did with his arms has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not it was a foul.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Italy was very stiff with their red. Australia didn't deserve to lose like that, but I don't think we deserved to win either. We didn't look like sustaining any pressure on Italy except for a 10 minute patch after Materazzi got sent off.

I still haven't had a real close look at it, but something concerned me about Neill's left hand - whether or not it clipped the foot of whoever was running at him (name escapes me now). The Italian player was still always going to hit the deck. Looked to me like Neill knew he screwed up by lunging, and pulled out to avoid any contact.

Italy's defence was too good for Australia, and the only way that Aus could have gotten through is on penalties IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Italy was very stiff with their red. Australia didn't deserve to lose like that, but I don't think we deserved to win either. We didn't look like sustaining any pressure on Italy except for a 10 minute patch after Materazzi got sent off.

I still haven't had a real close look at it, but something concerned me about Neill's left hand - whether or not it clipped the foot of whoever was running at him (name escapes me now). The Italian player was still always going to hit the deck. Looked to me like Neill knew he screwed up by lunging, and pulled out to avoid any contact.

Italy's defence was too good for Australia, and the only way that Aus could have gotten through is on penalties IMO.

I'd agree with most of that. I think Australia had a fair chance of winning in extra time, as Hiddink would have thrown on some fresh legs and probably put Kennedy up front, but in the 90 minutes played you couldn't say Australia deserved to win. We had a lot more of the ball but didn't create enough good scoring chances, much of which comes down to Italy and their superb defensive effort. Materazzi didn't really deserve a straight red imo, but I don't think you could say it was a total injustice that he got it either. It was a terrible challenge and no doubt a yellow, and when it happened I'd say most people recognised that he might get sent off for it.

Having said all that, Australia certainly didn't deserve to lose either. Italy had two or three really good scoring chances and didn't make enough of them, and 0-0 was the fair result after 90.

 

[Blaze]

marc - do you really think people want to read 8 posts in a row from you?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Must admit I find it funny how Blaze (a NZ man) was the one criticising the Poms about their reaction to Aus losing.

 

[age_master]

Yes, after the challenge his arms were indeed protesting innocence.

A bit like after the challegne Materazzi wasn't near the bloke he fouled...

because momentum carried him nearly 10 metres down the field perhaps? definate yellow and harsh red, but thats the way it goes some times. If you watched the game im sure you would have seen 5-6 occasions where Italy scored free kicks from dives.

That penalty at the end was a shocker though.

 

[howardj]

From what I've observed, against the very top sides, you get one or, at the most, two genuine goal scoring opportunities per match. Unless you take those, you lose - as instanced in Australia's games against Brazil and Italy.

 

[Dasa]

For what it's worth, I thought the penalty decision certainly wasn't blatantly wrong as some people have tried to suggest. When I saw it, I immediately thought it was a penalty and then thought how stupid Lucas Neill was trying something like that in that situation.