Could we have reached the semi's like Uruguay?

[Noelys Guitar]

I'm almost certain we would have got out of Group 1. Our starting 11 against Uruguay would almost certainly have been Westwood, Kilbane, Dunne, St Ledger, O'Shea, Duff, Andrews, Whelan, Lawerence, Doyle and Keane. My guess is 0-0 v Uruguay. 1-1 Mexico. 2-0 win against South Africa. Probably second place to Uruguay and next up Argentina. I honestly believe we might have beaten them. We would have been their first "real" game. We are much stronger physically thean Mexico. And I feel we might have just shaded it. Then onto Germany....If only

[barney]

I'm almost certain we would have got out of Group 1. Our starting 11 against Uruguay would almost certainly have been Westwood, Kilbane, Dunne, St Ledger, O'Shea, Duff, Andrews, Whelan, Lawerence, Doyle and Keane. My guess is 0-0 v Uruguay. 1-1 Mexico. 2-0 win against South Africa. Probably second place to Uruguay and next up Argentina. I honestly believe we might have beaten them. We would have been their first "real" game. We are much stronger physically thean Mexico. And I feel we might have just shaded it. Then onto Germany....If only

Possibly, but we might also have gone out. Anyway, we wouldn't have been in that group because we'd have been seeded differently to France.

It's easy to look at it now and say we'd have done well like Dunphy the other night. But if England were looking at the tournament on paper, I'm sure they would say "We could have reached the semis or final because three of the four semi finalists aren't as good as us". Fortunately, football isn't played on paper so we will never know how we would have done.

[Schumi]

Possibly, but we might also have gone out. Anyway, we wouldn't have been in that group because we'd have been seeded differently to France.
We'd have been in the same seeding pot as France were, they weren't seeded. No guarantee that the groups would have ended up as they did obviously.

Based on us being in that group and everything else going as it did, I'd expect us to have gone out to Argentina in the last 16.

[Charlie Darwin]

Yeah, our seeding would have been the same as France but we'd only have had a 1/8 chance of drawing the same group as France did. The USA/England/Algeria group would have been tantalising, if only for the hugely overlapping populations.

As for Argentina, it would have been very tought for a side like us to beat them. Germany destroyed them because they were able to dominate possession and use pace to punish their defensive frailties. The way we play, we would have given them control of the ball and relied on set pieces to break them down. It's the same approach that allowed Argentina to dominate all their group games.

[Colbert Report]

Don't kid yourselves, Argentina would have destroyed us.

[endabob1]

We'd have done very well to get past Mexico & Uruguay, 2 very decent sides, even South Africa on home soil are not easy to beat (except for the Uruguay game where they were dreadful). If we did sneak 2nd Argentina would have battered us, If we somehow won the group we would have struggled against the pace and tempo of Korea and I rather suspect Ghana would have definitely beaten us, Uruguay were very resilient. Our issue is always a thin squad, take Given out for the tournament and we look weak add in a suspension or 2 for a couple of key players (imagine Dunne missing and us facing Argentina with St Ledger & McShane!) and we'd be in serious trouble.
That said if my aunty had balls etc.....

[Dodge]

SO we'd have reached the semi's even though bth teams to beat us for qulifiation were knocked out after finishing bottomw of their groups? (and we'd have been missing Shay Given....)

[mypost]

Anyway, we wouldn't have been in that group because we'd have been seeded differently to France.

As pointed out, France were unseeded, and using the criteria for the draw, we would have been in the same pot, and consequently the same group. Against the Africans, the Mexicans, and the red-card merchants, we'd have to fancy our chances of getting out of the group. Winning it is another question altogether, but we would have done a lot better than France did.

Whoever does win it, their "achievement" will be clouded due to how France got there. 31 countries qualified, 1 did not. Not by legal means anyway. It's a permanent stain on the entire tournament.

[seand]

Whoever does win it, their "achievement" will be clouded due to how France qualified. 31 countries qualified, 1 did not. Not by legal means anyway. It's a permanent stain on the entire tournament.

That's what they'll be saying in Germany, Spain, Holland or Uruguay alright. Let's not forget the permanent stain of Suarez's blatant cheating to knock out Ghana. Obviously not as stain-tastic as Henry, but it was only the quarter-finals after all.

Here are some stones.... build a bridge .... and get over it.

[pineapple stu]

SO we'd have reached the semi's even though bth teams to beat us for qulifiation were knocked out after finishing bottomw of their groups? (and we'd have been missing Shay Given....)
Richie Dunne too I think?

Might have made it out of the group. Definitely no further. The notion of us getting to the semis is almost as ridiculous as the idea that Henry's handball will forever cloud the eventual winners.

[Stuttgart88]

Regardless of what group we were in we could have gone either way in this WC. We’re certainly as well drilled without the ball as teams like Paraguay, Japan, Slovakia and even NZ have been so we’d have been no pushover. The last campaign, in my mind, laid a very strong foundation but gives as much cause for concern as it does for optimism: we concede too many careless, avoidable goals & we leave chances untaken. Only if these shortcomings were overcome would we have had a good WC.

We need to get smarter at each end of the pitch. I hope we’re not as threadbare in key positions next season, notably both full back positions, as we were at key points of the last campaign.

[ArdeeBhoy]

No. Though can see where the thinking comes from. But we're not as cute(or lucky) as Uruguay. Anyway, everybody knows we only have one big perfomance per tournament....

As for Argentina, maybe we'll have more insight on 12th August? Will Diego still be in charge? Really the AFA should use him as acheerleader, but nothing else.

[bennocelt]

Whats the point of this thread!! We couldnt beat a rubbish French team, or get one over the Italians.
Even Australia hammered us...........

[OwlsFan]

I'm almost certain we would have got out of Group 1. Our starting 11 against Uruguay would almost certainly have been Westwood, Kilbane, Dunne, St Ledger, O'Shea, Duff, Andrews, Whelan, Lawerence, Doyle and Keane. My guess is 0-0 v Uruguay. 1-1 Mexico. 2-0 win against South Africa. Probably second place to Uruguay and next up Argentina. I honestly believe we might have beaten them. We would have been their first "real" game. We are much stronger physically thean Mexico. And I feel we might have just shaded it. Then onto Germany....If only

Wasn't O'Shea injured and with the number of goalkeeping errors we have seen, I wouldn't have had huge faith in Westwood. Another 100 teams approx would have imagined they might have got to the semi-final as well having seen Uruguay (and indeed Paraguay). Australia slapped us around the place and yet they didn't qualify. Mexico would have beaten us and Uruguay are a better side than us. We would have done very well to have even survived the group.


We concede too many careless, avoidable goals & we leave chances untaken.

That's what average sides do and separates the good from the mundane

[barney]

As pointed out, France were unseeded, and using the criteria for the draw, we would have been in the same pot, and consequently the same group. Against the Africans, the Mexicans, and the red-card merchants, we'd have to fancy our chances of getting out of the group. Winning it is another question altogether, but we would have done a lot better than France did.

Whoever does win it, their "achievement" will be clouded due to how France got there. 31 countries qualified, 1 did not. Not by legal means anyway. It's a permanent stain on the entire tournament.

Assuming this isn't the wind up I suspect it is:

What a load of old twaddle. Shows a distinct lack of understanding of the game.

Reckon Uruguay don't consider themselves world champions of 1930 because they got a dodgy goal in the final and the Yugoslavs had a legitimate goal chalked off in the semis to put them 2-1 up?
Reckon Italy don't consider themselves world champions of 1934 because the Czechs accused the ref of being in Mussolini's pocket?
Reckon England don't consider themselves world champions of 1966 because Hurst's second goal likely didn't cross the line?
Reckon Argentina don't consider themselves world champions of 1986 because of The Hand of God?
etc. etc.

Those are just some major refereeing incidents off the top of my head that influenced the destination of the World Cup. Bad decisions happen. Just like life, you don't always get what you want or deserve. Winners accept they are part and parcel of the game we love and move on. Losers do what this country have been doing for the last 8 months.

[Wolfie]

Given our current level of organisation under Trapp - I'd like to think we'd have emerged from the group stage, at least.

Trapp would have had some concerted time on the build up to the finals to have had us very well organised on both attacking and defending "Set plays" for example. Our goals against Italy in Dublin were straight off the training ground and I think we'd have weighed in with a couple more in the finals.

I also think that Duff and Keane are always at least capable of combining and creating something from nothing and could well have delivered such a goal out there.

That said, I'm aware that we can conspire to shoot ourselves in the foot spectacularly in relation to concession of goals - but I'll.....ahem..... draw a conveniently discreet veil over all of that, thanks.

All academic and possibly a bit of wishful thinking but feck it anyway - why not????

There's many on here didn't give us an earthly of a chance against France before that game and we pushed them mighty close.

[Stuttgart88]

Even Australia hammered usThat was sooo last year.

We beat Paraguay recently. They did OK.

[Stuttgart88]

That's what average sides do and separates the good from the mundaneMy point was that it's not a huge step up for us to become what you'd call a good side.

I'm not sure Mexico would have beaten us. They'd have monopolised possession but we'd have scored from some well taken set-pieces :)

[mypost]

That's what they'll be saying in Germany, Spain, Holland or Uruguay alright. Let's not forget the permanent stain of Suarez's blatant cheating to knock out Ghana. Obviously not as stain-tastic as Henry

get over it.

Won't be happening I'm afraid. Whatever is said in Holland, Uruguay, Germany, or Spain, they took part in the finals where one competitor qualified by breaking the rules. Not only did they break the rules, the culprit was not caught, nor suspended for doing it.

As for Suarez, he was caught and punished for his actions, therefore he didn't "cheat". He will have to sit it out tomorrow, and possibly the third/fourth play off. The fact Ghana can't score from 12 yards is not his business.

[Stuttgart88]

As for Suarez, he was caught and punished for his actions, therefore he didn't "cheat". He will have to sit it out tomorrow, and possibly the third/fourth play off. The fact Ghana can't score from 12 yards is not his business.I'd say he was caught but that the punishment - for him individually and for his team - didn't fit the crime. Maybe it did as the rules stand, but morally it's about as extreme as it gets: certain winning goal denied by a clear & delibertate handball. His reaction "mine is the real hand of God" showed a total lack of humility and against this backdrop FIFA's decision to ban him for only one game was a massive (and easy) opportunity missed to show the world that it actually stands by its motto of "fair play". It makes them look like idiots.

I personally think that changing the rules to allow for a "penalty goal" when a goal is clearly denied by deliberate handball would actually be easy to implement.

[ArdeeBhoy]

But I'd be amazed if it happened.

If there was a World Cup for honourable draws, we'd win it! A respected neutral compared us with Switzerland which I thought was about right.
:-(

[Stuttgart88]

Did Shamrock Rovers do a Uruguay on Pats tonight? It's OK if Rovers do it :)

[mypost]

I'd say he was caught but that the punishment - for him individually and for his team - didn't fit the crime. Maybe it did as the rules stand, but morally it's about as extreme as it gets: certain winning goal denied by a clear & delibertate handball.

I personally think that changing the rules to allow for a "penalty goal" when a goal is clearly denied by deliberate handball would actually be easy to implement.

What would you change the rules for? The rules were applied, the mandatory punishment was given, and will be served tomorrow.

If somebody is found guilty of murder in court, what do you do? Apply the death penalty? No, you apply the relative sentence instead.

The only time you can call such an instance "cheating", is when there is no penalty and no red card awarded as a result. Did we do a Uruguay tonight? No. Pats did a "Ghana" instead. If you can't score the resulting penalty, you only have yourself to blame.

[Charlie Darwin]

It's hard to argue with the concept of a penalty goal - if the ball was definitely going in, then it's difficult to say one shouldn't be awarded. Still, I think goals should only be awarded when the ball crosses the line. The defender takes a calculated risk (it's probably not worth it early in a game but becomes more tempting as it comes to a close) and he will almost certainly be punished. It worked for Suarez but usually the penalty goes in and the defending team are down a man.


Did Shamrock Rovers do a Uruguay on Pats tonight? It's OK if Rovers do it :)
They did indeed :D

[mypost]

It's hard to argue with the concept of a penalty goal - if the ball was definitely going in, then it's difficult to say one shouldn't be awarded. It worked for Suarez but usually the penalty goes in and the defending team are down a man.

Which is why the rule is fine as it is.

[Stuttgart88]

What would you change the rules for? The rules were applied, the mandatory punishment was given, and will be served tomorrow.

If somebody is found guilty of murder in court, what do you do? Apply the death penalty? No, you apply the relative sentence instead.

The only time you can call such an instance "cheating", is when there is no penalty and no red card awarded as a result. Did we do a Uruguay tonight? No. Pats did a "Ghana" instead. If you can't score the resulting penalty, you only have yourself to blame.Come on, this is ludicrous. Remember when Willie Young tripped young Paul Allen in the 1980 FA Cup Final? It was the ultimate professional foul. As such occurrances were becoming more common the rules were changed. The rules change in football all the time because the game changes all the time. The rules as they stand were applied correctly, nobody doubts that, but moral justice would have been better served if - like in rugby union - the referee had discretion to award a penalty goal. The rule could be simple and unambiguous - only applying when handball prevents a certain goal. I know that rules and regulations give rise to all kinds of grey areas at the margins, but there are very few marginal instances of handball preventing a goal. Even the Harry Kewell incident vs Ghana would have been better & more fairly punished if a goal had been awarded and he had only been given a yellow card. THe punishment in my mind was too severe in that instance, but the ref had no choice but to apply it.

[pineapple stu]

Shock as mypost's arguments are nonsense.

On the penalty goal thing, one problem would be deciding if the the ball was going in or not. OK, the Uruguay one was obvious, but say you get a handball in the box and the ball was maybe going to hit the post, or there was another defender on the line behind the handballer who could maybe have blocked clear. What do you do then? A rule for the obvious transgressions has to hold for the borderline calls too.

[osarusan]

The only time you can call such an instance "cheating", is when there is no penalty and no red card awarded as a result. Did we do a Uruguay tonight? No. Pats did a "Ghana" instead. If you can't score the resulting penalty, you only have yourself to blame.

Your definition of what 'cheat' means is way off. It doesn't mean that you get away with something wrong, it just means you do something wrong.

People caught cheating in an exam are still cheating, even though they've been caught.

Suarez cheated just as much as Henry did, and whichever Rovers player was sent off on Monday night for handball.

By your definition, a player is not judged to be a cheat based on their actions in relation to the rules of the game. Rather, a player is judged a cheat or not based on if and how the referee reacts to their actions.

Surely you can see how illogical that argument is.

[Dodge]

If somebody is found guilty of murder in court, what do you do? Apply the death penalty? No, you apply the relative sentence instead.

The only time you can call such an instance "cheating", is when there is no penalty and no red card awarded as a result
By your definition someone convicted of murder can't be called a murderer as they've been punished for it

Every week you astound me with more and more wayward logic

[Stuttgart88]

What do you do then? A rule for the obvious transgressions has to hold for the borderline calls too.True, but the referee also has discretion to adjudicate on what's a "clear goalscoring opportunity" or whatever the guideline is when there's a professional foul, or even whjat's a regular foul or not. The referee's job is to adjudicate all through a game.

I agree that at the margins there are greay areas which are difficult to judge. For example, what about incidents like the Barcelona handball in the last minute in the 2009 CL semi-final when Ballack's goalbound(?) shot was blocked, probably inadvertently and from at least 10 yards from goal?

One argument in favour of the "penalty goal" is that many ex-pro pundits are saying they'd have done the same thing, or that their teammates would have. I'm not sure they would though if doing so was futile.

[Stuttgart88]

I have a certain sympathy for Suarez in that any player's real-time instinct is to try and prevent a goal when on the line*, especially when you've just saved one already and the follow up shot has been hit straight at you at pace. It was real backs against the wall defiance. However, his "real hand of God" bragging afterwards displays a real lack of humility and I think it's pretty low.

*whereas it's typically not a player's real time instinct to prevent a ball going out of play over the goal line with one handball while teeing the ball up perfectly with another. Cue furious debate...

[pineapple stu]

I'd say it's harder for him to plead instinct than Henry. And I still reckon he could have just headed it clear.

That said, it'll be very very difficult for them to win tonight without him. Not that that's much consolation for Ghana.

Fair points on the other issue though.

[mypost]

Come on, this is ludicrous.

The rules as they stand were applied correctly, nobody doubts that, but moral justice would have been better served if - like in rugby union - the referee had discretion to award a penalty goal. The rule could be simple and unambiguous - only applying when handball prevents a certain goal. I know that rules and regulations give rise to all kinds of grey areas at the margins, but there are very few marginal instances of handball preventing a goal. Even the Harry Kewell incident vs Ghana would have been better & more fairly punished if a goal had been awarded and he had only been given a yellow card. THe punishment in my mind was too severe in that instance, but the ref had no choice but to apply it.

We've all seen thousands of handballs preventing goals in the box, but penalties have been given, and punishments have been handed out. I don't have a problem with that.

I have a problem when handballs in the box are not seen by the officials and nothing is done about them. That is cheating.

Penalty try's I find are very very rarely given in rugby. Usually play simply continues.


By your definition someone convicted of murder can't be called a murderer as they've been punished for it

No that's your definition. I never said the above.


Your definition of what 'cheat' means is way off. It doesn't mean that you get away with something wrong, it just means you do something wrong.

Suarez cheated just as much as Henry did.

By your definition, a player is not judged to be a cheat based on their actions in relation to the rules of the game. Rather, a player is judged a cheat or not based on if and how the referee reacts to their actions.

Surely you can see how illogical that argument is.

It's not illogical, it's reality. You are a cheat, if you're not punished for breaking the rules. The difference between Henry and Suarez, is one was caught and punished for it, the other wasn't. I don't think I can make it any clearer.

He will serve that punishment tonight, not that it will make much difference. Holland are almost certainly in the final already.

[osarusan]

You are a cheat, if you're not punished for breaking the rules. The difference between Henry and Suarez, is one was caught and punished for it, the other wasn't. I don't think I can make it any clearer.
But my point is that you are a cheat if you do something which contraves the rules of the game, regardless of whether you are caught or not. The definition of cheating relates only to the action itself, not to punishment or lack of it. If your personal definition is dependent on a lack of punishment for violation of a rule, then your definition is wrong.

I've never heard anybody else argue that you are only a cheat if you don't get caught. It is an argument that doesn't make sense, as it means that two people committing exactly the same offence with exactly the same intentions could be labelled differently as a result of what the referee sees or doesn't see.

[mypost]

If cheating only relates to the action itself, then everything is cheating. Committing a routine foul is "cheating", and taking a throw in/free kick from the wrong place is "cheating".

It's not cheating, cheating is when you commit an offence and get away with it without punishment. Referees are there to make sure you don't get away with it. If the penalty wasn't given, I would agree with you. Suarez didn't get away with it. The penalty was given, he got sent off, and will miss tonight's game. Case closed.

[seand]

If cheating only relates to the action itself, then everything is cheating. Committing a routine foul is "cheating", and taking a throw in/free kick from the wrong place is "cheating".

Correct. Committing a routine foul or taking a throw from the wrong place is cheating. Not a particularly henious example of cheating, but cheating nonetheless.



It's not cheating, cheating is when you commit an offence and get away with it without punishment.
You are incorrect. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of any and all dictionaries. Check a couple of online versions. The definition is crystal clear and is not dependent on evading punishment. Suarez cheated. Henry cheated. And if he had been caught and yellow carded and Ireland went on to win the World CUp he would still have cheated.

You can certainly argue the morality of what Suarez did, but it is a fact of the English language that he cheated. If you disagree, you disagree with the very definition of the word cheat.

[geysir]

I don't have the opinion that Suarez cheated and I am surprised at some of what is expressed here.
There is little similarity with a premeditated or concious decision to cheat, say in an exam room, and an obvious instinctive action to stop a goal in the frantic last seconds of a game.
In fact, in the scheme of so called cheating, Suarez's action was much much less premeditated than diving to gain a free, claiming a throw in / corner when they know damn well they are trying to con the officials. He acted without thinking. He committed a foul. While he did try to con the ref on other occasions during the games, there was nothing that would come close to Ronaldo's or Robben's skilled and well practiced theatrics.
I don't know the Suarez chap nor did I hear his press conference but I would be more inclined to regards his reported comments as cheeky exuberance. I thought the Uruguayan manager dealt firmly and sensibly with the matter at his press conference. As South American teams go, Uruguay for the most part played the game with integrity, imo, more than most of the other teams. They did not lose the heads after that very contentious all important goal by Holland or bítch and moan about it afterwards. Overall the team are a credit to their nation and an example to others.

[Stuttgart88]

That's totally fair Geysir, but in this clear cut instance I think the game would be well served with a "penalty goal", but of course you can't create rules just for the clear cut cases. Whether his comments were cheeky exuberance or not, he'd have been best advised just to say nothing.

[ArdeeBhoy]

To be 'fair', footballers, as in soccer, have always cheated. Or certainly in my lifetime.
Myself and most peers included.

Maybe the rules are so flawed, it makes people act in such a c*ntish way? Though tend to think it's the players and just a reflection of wider Society. Or something.

[geysir]

Soccer is a game which allows a lot of loutish behaviour go unpunished, such as aggressive disrespect for the ref, false accusations, false implications, false claims for fouls throw ins, a lot of cynical low standard stuff which is not tolerated in any other field sport.

Suarez did not cheat in this instance, that is beyond any argument based on human behaviour on a sporting field, any argument based on the rules of the game.
He deliberately fouled the ball, for want of a more accurate description. There is not one player on any team in the World cup faced with ball going over the line in the last second, would not have handled the ball in the same blatant way. It is not cheating. I would be extremely critical if one of our players refused to stop the ball in similar circumstances. The price to pay, is a penalty conceded and a red card. Suarez did the correct thing, not a heroic thing or anything to boast about.

[geysir]

Also it should be noted in context, a Ghanian player blatantly dived to gain the free kick which led up to and caused the mayhem, without that blatant cheating, the ball was going out for a throw in to Uruguay.

[ramondo]

I'm almost certain we would have got out of Group 1. Our starting 11 against Uruguay would almost certainly have been Westwood, Kilbane, Dunne, St Ledger, O'Shea, Duff, Andrews, Whelan, Lawerence, Doyle and Keane. My guess is 0-0 v Uruguay. 1-1 Mexico. 2-0 win against South Africa. Probably second place to Uruguay and next up Argentina. I honestly believe we might have beaten them. We would have been their first "real" game. We are much stronger physically thean Mexico. And I feel we might have just shaded it. Then onto Germany....If only

To get back to the original point...

You seem like a nice guy Noely, but you don't half come out with some sh*te.

[Closed Account 2]

I think we would have been hard to beat (like NZ) but with injuries to Given etc, Robbie Keane switching clubs and Duff having had a long season with Fulham, we wouldnt have been at our best.

I would have been impressed had we made the second round (assuming we were in the French group). Getting out of that group would have been tough, Uruguay were very well drilled, the Mexicans are a talented quick side who could have caused problems with counter attacks (but they have a very weak keeper), and South Africa - as hosts - would have been very difficult to beat.

To get far at a world cup you normally have to win the group, Uruguay won that group and it gave them an easier route to the semis (Korea, Ghana, instead of Argentina, Germany).