2014 World Cup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Heres hoping :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

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

---

In spite of the squirting incident yesterday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

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.

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

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.

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.

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/f...e-9563690.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn Moore

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.

---

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

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

I long for the days of Schwein and Reuses.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

---

3 more.... the dream is on !!!!!!

Three

Suspect the Americans might get more defensive now

Or not.....

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

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.

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.

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

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