2014 World Cup

[NeverFeltBetter]

Hmm: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/worldcup/2014/0626/626709-aguero/

If Argentina could get their crap together and play as good as they are capable of, they could be scary good. This won't help.

[bennocelt]

Perhaps Brazil isn't like most of Europe, where you can usually get away with staying in a hostel in the dodgy part of town for £15 a night. You could run into safety issues.

That said, I doubt he's staying for more than 3 weeks, especially if he's only arriving after the second game. That works out to about £100 a night, which is definitely more than you need to shell out. Same for "Enjoying the ambience". If you're spending £100 a night on just generally having the craic, you're either doing it wrong, or doing it very, very right!

I managed to stay in Korea 2002 for next to nothing for about a month, then went travelling around North China with roughly 20 pound in my pocket! Ah those were the days.
Was woken up in one night club in Seoul by Irish fans early in the morning as the Koreans dragged them off the street so they could get me up from my sleep as they were far too polite to disturb me, and they wanted to do a clean up.
Much more civilized now in Switzerland!:D

[Charlie Darwin]

Hmm: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/worldcup/2014/0626/626709-aguero/

If Argentina could get their crap together and play as good as they are capable of, they could be scary good. This won't help.
Arguably having Levezzi in there instead of Aguero strengthens the team. He's a more disciplined player.

[Razors left peg]

Looks like FIFA didn't agree with you Danny.

I thought it should be 6 months but Im happy enough that its a ban across all football. Brendan Rogers must feel like kicking him all the way to Spain after he has backed him so much in the past

[bennocelt]

Just to go back to a few comments on the Suarez incident...


It is weird, sure, but is weirdness worthy of greater punishment than, say, a forceful elbow to the nose?



Alan Shearer got it spot on last night, when he said you go on the pitch the last thing you expect is to be biten. You do expect a bad tackle or an elbow here and there, but a bite? No way. Delighted for Suarez, and Uruguay, can enjoy the rest of the world cup at home now, fool.

[bennocelt]

Knew Capello was making some money but shocked at the final total, over £6 million, wow

https://twitter.com/br_uk/status/476695055307390976/photo/1

[Razors left peg]

Today in the football is one of those days as football fan you believe in that the improbable can happen.

Im hoping for a massive turn around from Portugal. They have to turn around a 5 goal difference but if the Germans can beat the States by a couple,if Ronaldo turns up and all Ghanas camp problems surface on the pitch.......

Its unlikely but as a fan there are times when we still think the impossible can happen.

Having said that, the Germans and the States will probably play out a 0-0 draw and fcuk it all up!

[Charlie Darwin]

I'm hoping Germany and Ghana make it through. I'm expecting an easy win for Germany but not so confident on Ghana, although really they should on performances so far.

[Crosby87]

It's the hunt for red october. Klinsmann is big sean. He knows their tactics. But he thinks you are right to be concerned Charles. He gives the US chances one in three.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

There is no reason why Portugal shouldn't be able to go through.

I have no doubt that Germany and USA will deliberately play for a draw but if Germany try -and it's a big if - they could easily hammer USA. Portugal carved through the USA defence numerous times; and they are a poor team with an unfit star player, several strikers injured and more suspended; imagine what Germany could do to them.

If Germany could hold up their end of the bargain and win by several goals, I could see Portugal doing the same to a Ghana team that is falling apart at the seams.

[Razors left peg]

There is no reason why Portugal shouldn't be able to go through.

I have no doubt that Germany and USA will deliberately play for a draw but if Germany try -and it's a big if - they could easily hammer USA. Portugal carved through the USA defence numerous times; and they are a poor team with an unfit star player, several strikers injured and more suspended; imagine what Germany could do to them.

If Germany could hold up their end of the bargain and win by several goals, I could see Portugal doing the same to a Ghana team that is falling apart at the seams.

Heres hoping :)

[DannyInvincible]

Arguably having Levezzi in there instead of Aguero strengthens the team. He's a more disciplined player.

In spite of the squirting incident yesterday?


Looks like FIFA didn't agree with you Danny.

I thought it should be 6 months but Im happy enough that its a ban across all football. Brendan Rogers must feel like kicking him all the way to Spain after he has backed him so much in the past

Ha, they certainly didn't. What a lily-livered lot; I'm outraged! :p I understand Suarez will lodge an appeal via the Uruguayan federation.

I wasn't saying he was innocent, nor that he should be let of the hook, mind. He still engaged in a violent act that was deserving of some form of punishment at least. I just thought the response and process, first by the media and now by FIFA, which has seemingly positioned a bite in a moral-legal category much worse than an elbow, kick or punch to be a bit warped and sensational.

Have FIFA offered a detailed explanation into their reasoning as to why they've issued a record ban or did they just make a brief statement condemning "such behaviour" as intolerable? Other players have engaged in serious and harmful acts of violence too at this World Cup. That's all tolerable though?... Is that the message? Where's the consistency? Is it just because this one provoked such a media storm that it required harsh dealing with?


Alan Shearer got it spot on last night, when he said you go on the pitch the last thing you expect is to be biten. You do expect a bad tackle or an elbow here and there, but a bite? No way. Delighted for Suarez, and Uruguay, can enjoy the rest of the world cup at home now, fool.

I'm sure there are plenty of weird things that can occur in life but that you'd never expect to witness on a football pitch. I won't try and list them... :p

But just because a particular incident might be the last thing Alan Shearer would expect to witness on a football pitch wouldn't, in itself, make it worthy of a long-term ban. Is he suggesting "an elbow here and there" can be tolerated? He's off his rocker.

[DannyInvincible]

I'm assuming Muntari and Boateng haven't started for Ghana?

[NeverFeltBetter]

On the basis of the first 15 minutes, Germany could utterly slaughter the US if this game was a must win and played in better conditions. Could have scored four already.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Germany are being a lot more leisurely in the final third than they would be if they were playing Ireland in the Autumn. They are opening up the USA without much effort but they don't appear to possess the same incision or purpose they would usually have.

I will remember this when they show no mercy on us and win by 4 or 5 goals in a few months.

[DannyInvincible]

The US have a lot of men behind the ball, which makes it surprising that a casual Germany have been able to cut through them with such apparent ease.

A bit of perspective on the Suarez incident: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/worldcup/luis-suarez-bite-lets-move-past-the-shock-value-and-get-some-perspective-9563690.html


Danny Mills would send him to jail, Alan Shearer would ban him worldwide for “as long as I could”, which under Fifa statutes is two years. What heinous crime could Luis Suarez have committed to prompt such a response from two players who were not exactly shrinking violets on the field?

He bit someone.

He did not fix a match, which strikes at the very heart of sport. He did not use performance-enhancing drugs, which is the most insidious form of cheating. He did not go over the top and break an opponent’s leg, or shatter an opponent’s nose or cheekbone with an elbow. He did not attack a referee (he has done that, head-butting an official, but that was 11 years ago when he was playing youth team football at 16 and he received a long ban).

In my mind these are all worse acts than biting an opponent, especially given it was in the heat of the moment, and he did not pursue the act long enough to draw blood.

What he did was disgusting and horrible, sets a terrible example and would be deeply unpleasant to be a victim of. But Giorgio Chiellini played on. If Suarez had broken his leg with a reckless, even premeditated tackle (it happens) he would have been out until Christmas.

Suarez needs psychiatric help, not a jail sentence. He deserves to be banned, ideally for the duration of the World Cup with a longer sentence suspended on condition he has professional treatment, but is his offence really deserving of a longer ban than a player who has threatened the livelihood of another? It is the shock value, and the recidivism, which has accounted for the publicity and outrage.

There is also, clearly, a cultural issue. In Italy, according to a SkyItalia reporter, they are more interested in assessing who is to blame for the Azzurri being out of the World Cup at the group stage (Mario Balotelli appears to be receiving more blame than Suarez). In Brazil the incident seems to be regarded as comedy rather than horror.

In England, however, Suarez is beyond the pale. Diving, biting, cheating: he fits our stereotype of the South American footballing bad guy, the latest in a long line stretching back past Diego Maradona to Antonio Rattin. There is also a place, it should be said, for lovable South Americans, such as Ossie Ardiles, Gus Poyet, and all things Brazilian.

And yet, if the behaviour of Uruguayan Suarez is so reprehensible, how is it Dylan Hartley is still being picked for England’s rugby union team? The hooker was banned for eight weeks for biting the finger of Ireland’s Steven Ferris in a Six Nations international in 2012 – and a finger is rather more vulnerable than a shoulder. Nor was it his first, or last, offence. In 2007 Hartley was banned for six months for eye gouging, which, considering the possible consequences, is far worse than nibbling on a shoulder. He was also banned for punching an opponent and for abusing a referee. Last week this serial offender started for England against New Zealand, his 56th cap. No one seemed to be outraged.

[DannyInvincible]

Portugal 1-0 up due to a comical own goal.

[Razors left peg]

Keep beating that drum Danny, Im still not gonna agree with you :)

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I long for the days of Schwein and Reuses.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Everything bar the scoreline is showing the difference in levels between Germany and the US. Howard's positioning for crosses/across the face of goal passes and reflexes on some (otherwise basic) is making a big difference.

[DannyInvincible]

Klose with a near-repeat of his 2002 goal against us there.

[DannyInvincible]

Germany 1-0 up. How many do Portugal need?

[Razors left peg]

Germany 1-0 up. How many do Portugal need?
3 more.... the dream is on !!!!!!

[pineapple stu]

Three

Suspect the Americans might get more defensive now

[Razors left peg]

Or not.....

[NeverFeltBetter]

Americans need to kick on if anything. One Ghana goal from going out.

[pineapple stu]

One Ghana goal from going out? A Ghana draw and the US are through surely?

Ah. Ghana just equalised. Fair enough. Didn't see that coming.

[pineapple stu]

2-1 Portugal.

Now I think there's no point America attacking, cos it can only them up and make them more likely to concede. No point helping the goal difference swing. Just take your chances 1-0 will be ok.

[Razors left peg]

Ronaldo should have had 4 in this game, missed 3 very easy chances. Portugal could easily have been going through!!!

[NeverFeltBetter]

Yeah, and the States should have shipped far more than they did.

[Crosby87]

USA will beat an over rated Belgium Waffles side. 2-1 in extra time. Place yer bets now. Starts at 9 or 10 Dublin time Tuesday night. I expect all of you to be in fine form.

[NeverFeltBetter]

If Belgium play as well as they can - Hazard especially - they will make mincemeat of this American defence. It won't even be close. They (the US) faced a top quality in form attacking team for the first time in the tournament today, and even though that team was in second gear, the amount of breakthroughs they were able to get was really indicative.

[Razors left peg]

Belguim will need to improve on performances so far though, they are one of the disappointments of the Tournament I think

[bennocelt]

I'm sure there are plenty of weird things that can occur in life but that you'd never expect to witness on a football pitch. I won't try and list them... :p

But just because a particular incident might be the last thing Alan Shearer would expect to witness on a football pitch wouldn't, in itself, make it worthy of a long-term ban. Is he suggesting "an elbow here and there" can be tolerated? He's off his rocker.

Give over, no one goes onto a football pitch and expects to be bitten! That is weird. Depends who you are playing but elbows and knees can happen! Just look at France the other day!

As for the article, bit weak from the writer when you have to finish off comparing football to rugby, tut tut:rolleyes:

[NeverFeltBetter]

Russia went to pieces after conceding, just hoofing crosses wide over and over again in the last 15 minutes. Time for Capello to take a pay cut. Germany/Algeria will be great. Belgium play ugly and win again. Must be doing something right.

[BonnieShels]

So the big question is: what are we gonna do tomorrow with no games on?

[bennocelt]

So the big question is: what are we gonna do tomorrow with no games on?

Collect the wife from the airport, I fear the good times are over!:(

[Razors left peg]

So the big question is: what are we gonna do tomorrow with no games on?
Anything goin on with the Irish team that we can talk about ? :)

[pineapple stu]

Alan Shearer got it spot on last night, when he said you go on the pitch the last thing you expect is to be biten. You do expect a bad tackle or an elbow here and there, but a bite? No way. Delighted for Suarez, and Uruguay, can enjoy the rest of the world cup at home now, fool.
I think that's a surprisingly good point from Shearer actually. There was a lawyer on Radio Nova's World Cup show (with Roddy Collins - I know I know!) who was saying tonight that playing football is to some extent an acceptance of the fact that sometimes you're going to be victim of a bad elbow or a late tackle; it's unfortunate, but it's part of the game and the rules cover it. But you're not consenting to be bitten, so it's logical to punish offences like that a lot more seriously.


There seems to be some misplaced importance on catching (in the anglosphere). The priority is preventing goals; and sure catching the ball, and ensuring your team retains possession is the optimal way of doing this.
Thing is, punching the ball means you don't necessarily retain possession. Catching it does. Catch the f*@%ing thing. Nothing anglophilic about it; it's just better keeping in general.

Look at Iran - 92 minutes of an exceptional performance; the keeper punches when he could have caught, and 20 seconds later he's picking the ball out of the back of the net.

[pineapple stu]

So the big question is: what are we gonna do tomorrow with no games on?
If only we had some manner of watching football in this country when it wasn't on the telly.

[DannyInvincible]

Great scenes with Algeria qualifying from the group. Russia were very disappointing throughout and deserve to be going home. Did Belgium convince tonight?


Give over, no one goes onto a football pitch and expects to be bitten! That is weird. Depends who you are playing but elbows and knees can happen! Just look at France the other day!

I'm not disagreeing that it is a weird and unexpected act. I'm saying the punishment is a disproportionate response to the crime considering we've witnessed several other violent incidents like Sakho elbowing, Song hatcheting and Balotelli kneeing various opponents of theirs at this World Cup already without any talk whatsoever of potential long-term bans being dished out. Some people seem almost affronted by the notion that such instances of serious violence might be comparable to, if not worse than, the Suarez incident. It's crazy. Within that context, I feel the punishment itself dished out to Suarez is actually weird and untenable.

Zidane's punishment of 7,500 Swiss francs and a three-match ban in 2010 (although he never served it due to retirement) looks distinctly lenient in comparison. Do headbutts just happen too then? You think that wasn't as serious an incident or as deserving of as harsh a punishment as Suarez received today because it might have been perceived as less weird or less unexpected? You can't assess the severity of a transgression on the field on the basis of such nebulous and immaterial grounds as its level of weirdness or the degree to which it could have been expected.

So what objective criteria did FIFA apply to the case in determining that Suarez deserved a record four-month ban then? They've not been all that transparent in explaining the rationale behind their verdict. The actual degree of harm caused would have to be a consideration surely, as you'd expect it to be in the evaluation of the seriousness of any form of foul play or violent conduct, but if you look at the bite from such a perspective, I'm not sure it measures up. Perceived weirdness or unexpectedness certainly aren't criteria that ought seriously be used in order to determine the appropriate level of punishment warranted by a player's conduct either. Why are those other more destructive examples of violence from this tournament not deemed to be as punishable as a bite? I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why a bite is deserving of such extraordinary treatment. In fact, when I hear people advocating its special category status, it sounds like they're implicitly suggesting that other more detrimental forms of violence are somehow ordinary, usual or tolerable on the football field and not actually as serious.


As for the article, bit weak from the writer when you have to finish off comparing football to rugby, tut tut:rolleyes:

Moore wasn't comparing football to rugby. In what sense was his argument weak exactly? He was, in the context of what he deemed a "cultural issue", contrasting the reaction of the British media and public towards the bite of an English sportsman with the reaction unleashed upon a Uruguayan sportsman who has similarly bitten. He was highlighting how the Brazilian media were treating the episode in comical terms, as opposed to expressing a collective sense of horror like that expressed by the English media, whilst the Italian media were less scandalised and more focused on the result of the game, assigning Balotelli villain status instead. He was also suggesting there was a hypocritical double standard at play within the British media whereby the stereotypical "South American footballing bad guy" was condemned - with some clowns even arguing he should be locked up for life - whilst the English international rugby player was tolerated; he was later rewarded with further international caps. Sure, the rugby player was also punished for his bite at the time of the incident, but Moore's general position is a lot more level-headed than most of the over-the-top, emotionally-charged reaction I've encountered.


I think that's a surprisingly good point from Shearer actually. There was a lawyer on Radio Nova's World Cup show (with Roddy Collins - I know I know!) who was saying tonight that playing football is to some extent an acceptance of the fact that sometimes you're going to be victim of a bad elbow or a late tackle; it's unfortunate, but it's part of the game and the rules cover it. But you're not consenting to be bitten, so it's logical to punish offences like that a lot more seriously.

That's somewhat disingenuous of him, I think. Intentional violence is the issue here; not an unintentionally-trailing arm or leg. One does not consent to intentional violence being inflicted upon them simply by their entry on to a football field. Nobody should expect or accept intentional violence in a game of football. Should a bite be treated more harshly than a headbutt, punch or (intentional) elbow? I'm not convinced it should be, but that appears to be FIFA's position, for whatever reason.

[DannyInvincible]

I felt Dunphy and the panel made some good points on the incident during a discussion on RTÉ earlier: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/worldcup/2014/0626/626802-analysis-suarez-a-proportional-response/

A lot more insightful and discerning than the uncritical BBC crew anyway who almost sounded like they were toeing some sort of official line with the usually-assertive Brad in particular looking like he was taking his cue from Neville and Hansen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28046123

Suarez clearly has a problem, but it's the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the media/FIFA response that I find fundamentally problematic.

[BonnieShels]

Collect the wife from the airport, I fear the good times are over!:(

I feel for you. Let us remember the good times.


Anything goin on with the Irish team that we can talk about ? :)

I don't think we've discussed Jack Grealish enough.


If only we had some manner of watching football in this country when it wasn't on the telly.


Don't talk crazy. There's no local soccer til August.

[pineapple stu]

Don't talk crazy. There's no local soccer til August.

Now now Bonnie - sure aren't Celtic playing Champions' League next week?


Zidane's punishment of 7,500 Swiss francs and a three-match ban in 2010 (although he never served it due to retirement) looks distinctly lenient in comparison. Do headbutts just happen too then? You think that wasn't as serious an incident or as deserving of as harsh a punishment as Suarez received today because it might have been perceived as less weird or less unexpected? You can't assess the severity of a transgression on the field on the basis of such nebulous and immaterial grounds as its level of weirdness or the degree to which it could have been expected.
What would have happened if it was the third time he'd done it? That's an important difference with Suarez. Does he do a Tyson next? It appears clear he needs psychological help as well obviously.

I agree the ban is a little bit harsh - I think I'd have left out the four-month club ban in particular - but there was arguably an extent to which FIFA's hand was forced by the previous bans.

There have been other big bans - Leonardo for four games and Mauro Tassotti for eight games in the 1994 World Cup, both for elbows. Again, what would have been the punishment if it was the third cheekbone Leonardo broke? And if Leonardo hadn't been apologetic? I'd have no problem with actions like that being more common.

On a side note, the fourth official apparently - maybe breaching his duties - ordered that Antonio Valencia be sent off against France for his lunge. I've said before that this is the only way a video ref could work in football. Let's say the Italy v Uruguay game had continued as it had, and then two minutes later, the fourth ref, having reviewed the replays, gave the ref the ok to send Suarez off. It'd look a bit silly being sent off two or three minutes after your actions, but would it be an improvement to the game? I think it would.

[jbyrne]

not that russia really deserved to win last night but they would have every right to feel very frustrated by the added time at the end of the match.

4 added mins were notified around the 89 min mark but following on from this algeria substituted (surely another 30 secs should have been added so?) a player who felt the need to embrace half the algerian team walking off and then an unused algerian sub kicks the ball away and the ref wastes even more time by walking over to give him a yellow. the ref then blows up bang on 94 mins! russia probably wouldn't have scored anyway but very poor officiating in my view

[Stuttgart88]

I had to take a day off the internet yesterday. Firstly, Thanks to osarusan for pointing me to the totty thread. That Japanese girl has left a lasting mark on me, mentally rather than physically, unfortunately. That little bite thing she does at the end has to be the best bite of the World Cup so far, Suarez being a distant second.

Speaking of Suarez I liked this Glenn Moore article yesterday, well certainly the comparison to Dylan Hartley at least, although I just think biting is the lowest of the low.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/worldcup/luis-suarez-bite-lets-move-past-the-shock-value-and-get-some-perspective-9563690.html

As for the ban, I think Liverpool have a case to be aggrieved and the lack of symmetry between a club ban not extending to international duty, but an international ban can extend to club duty seems unfair too. I think rugby might have it right if I understand it correctly) in that red cards in themselves don't transfer over, but a suspension for extreme violent conduct can.

However, you could have a situation where the FA could ban a foreign player in advance of an international between his country and England, so bans for violent conduct might have to be imposed by UEFA or FIFA.

My personal view is that despite Liverpool being punished the fact remains that they bought a guy who they knew had issues. The top clubs didn't want him because they knew of his temperament. Also, it's just a fact of life that players can get crocked playing international football, or suspended. An economist would argue that all known factors and risks should be incorporated into a player's financial value. Sadly, it drives a wedge between club football and international football but hopefully clubs will be grown up enough to accept that such events are rare and rightly deserve punishment.

[Charlie Darwin]

That Independent article is pretty poor. I don't understand why it's being so widely quoted.

[Stuttgart88]

Give over, no one goes onto a football pitch and expects to be bitten! That is weird. Depends who you are playing but elbows and knees can happen! Just look at France the other day!

As for the article, bit weak from the writer when you have to finish off comparing football to rugby, tut tut:rolleyes:
Sorry, I'm playing catch up. I think Moore has a point. All of football's indiscretions get magnified beyond belief because of its significance and there are many in the rugby community who are too quick to pounce, in my opinion.

I think it's a real shame because outside of a few crappy incidents the general tone of this tournament has been very positive, plenty of players playing with smiles, forwards and goalkeepers in banter etc.

I do think some of the worst incidents still add a fascinating twist to the tournament, especially the differences in mentality across the globe that they highlight. I love that scene in Mars Attacks when the aliens gun everyone down seconds after announcing that they have come in peace. It's outrageous from our cultural standpoint, but not theirs! The world contains honest people, morally brave people, cheats and moral cowards. So does football.

[DannyInvincible]

What would have happened if it was the third time he'd done it? That's an important difference with Suarez. Does he do a Tyson next? It appears clear he needs psychological help as well obviously.

I agree the ban is a little bit harsh - I think I'd have left out the four-month club ban in particular - but there was arguably an extent to which FIFA's hand was forced by the previous bans.

To be fair, you make a good point. You'd have to assume that his recidivism would have been a major factor in FIFA's decision.


That Independent article is pretty poor. I don't understand why it's being so widely quoted.

It's the general gist of it and its urging for level-headedness that I found welcome. The reason's it's being so widely circulated, in spite of its faults, is probably down the fact it's one of the few mainstream pieces (that I've come across anyway) to go against the grain.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't think it really says anything that hasn't been widely agreed upon by all but the most hysterical hacks. Citing the lack of uproar in Italy is particularly misleading since it's obvious why it's not the major story there.