Originally Posted by Pothas
Do not see how he is talking bollocks in that article?
I just think he's assigning obscure reasoning to a random event. Brazil didn't go out of the World Cup because their manager was too angry, their world-class keeper just made an uncharacteristic boob in an important match and turned it on its head. It's an interesting point that he makes about the team losing their temper when things weren't going their way, but by that stage they were already 2-1 down to the Netherlands with fifteen minutes left- you're extremely unlikely to make it through from there regardless. It's certainly not what I'd call the reason for their failure to win the trophy.
All imo, obvz. But the point is that when you read an article on something you know a bit about you cast a much more critical eye over it than when you know nothing on the subject- which is usually the case when I read his articles.