NZ qualifies for World Cup

[gabi]

who's the second greatest?

Well. I'd go for Vanuatu. But the Solomons run em close.

 

[embree]

who's the second greatest?

Australia

 

[Lo Siento.]

You see, Lo Siento, *takes middle-aged suck on pipe* the thing about the "evidence" you crave, is that it doesn't exist. Earlier on the thread you asked:

And then you googled a bit and you found the story. I'm not intending to be patronising here but if you didn't know about those games, your evidence base is pretty flawed and you haven't exactly spent a ton of time thinking about them or the wider subject. Aanyway so you find the story and read it up.

But there's absolutely no evidence of the hard tangible form you ask for that any of Germany, Austria, Peru or Argentina threw/drew those games. It's just that a reasonably switched-on observer who knows their football would watch those games and pretty much straight off smell a rat.

My observations are in this sort of area. You are free to disparage Korea's football (de gustibus etc), personally I liked it, but if you want to argue that they only got as far as they did because things were rigged their way you need to argue how, when and why etc. I don't think you've done that or even tried to.

The reffing in 2002 was better than average I think. Seeing that cheat Totti sent off for diving was superb and massively overdue.

See, this is what conspiraloons thrive on, accusing others of naivety and ignorance based on supposedly reasonable observation. Take a look at any 9/11 thread and you´ll find people doing exactly the same thing.

Me, I´m applying Occam´s Razor here. The most obvious explanation is probably true. Now I may not have watched either the ´78 or ´82 world cup group matches. I wasn´t born. I have though watches and played in 1,000s of matches, been a season ticket holder for a club that´s played in the top flight, the second division and Europe. Watched every single game of every single world cup and European Championship since I was old enough to understand what was going on.

But fuck if I haven´t seen good sides play badly before, and if I haven´t seen players get injured before big games. The most likely explanation is that France beat Brazil fair and square. Why? Because none of the interested players, including the losers, have said otherwise. Because a conspiracy to rig the world cup final would involve too many people to keep quiet. Because we´re lacking even a basic theory as to who did it, how they did it, and why Brazil didn´t bother checking why their star centre forward suddenly came down injured/sick mysteriously on the day of a big game.

But, obviously only wizened old men with fetishes for little fellas playing tippy-tappy football in their own half could possibly spot key signs like "brazil playing badly" and "France winning in spite of a naff striker".

(oh, and for the record (a) I said from the outset I don´t think SK´s run to the semi´s was rigged. I think the referee in both those games made some mistakes in key decisions. Not rigged, just fallible refereeing.)

 

[co-op]

See, this is what conspiraloons thrive on, accusing others of naivety and ignorance based on supposedly reasonable observation. Take a look at any 9/11 thread and you´ll find people doing exactly the same thing.

Is this some new version of Godwins Law I wonder? The minute anyone sees inferences you don't agree with they are suddenly a 9/11 "conspiraloon"?

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my suggestion that France fixed the 98 final (or that the reffing in 02 was way better - ie fairer - than average World Cups), but I am finding your huffing and puffing through our exchanges that everything I say is "bollocks", I'm a deluded conspiraloon, who 'should go and watch another sport' etc etc tedious and unrewarding. Also I doubt that I'll ever agree about much in football with you if you missed how brilliant Korea were in 02. I'm guessing you like your Big Stars, and have all the stickers in your book.

Still, at least you've found out about some things you didn't know about World Cup history and you've heard a different point of view from yours - put with some reasonable humour and evidence of thought and knowledge I hope.

 

[co-op]

Now I may not have watched either the ´78 or ´82 world cup group matches. I wasn´t born. I have though watches and played in 1,000s of matches, been a season ticket holder for a club that´s played in the top flight, the second division and Europe. Watched every single game of every single world cup and European Championship since I was old enough to understand what was going on.

If you weren't born in 1982, that makes you - what? - 26 years old maximum. Say you start to really get your head around football in grown-up depth in your ? late teens? perhaps. you've got a grand total of about 8 years accumulated wisdom. It ain't that much. It certainly isn't "thousands of games".
JAT.

 

[ipo]

i was at the nz-bahrain match last week and thoroughly enjoyed it

 

[Lo Siento.]

Is this some new version of Godwins Law I wonder? The minute anyone sees inferences you don't agree with they are suddenly a 9/11 "conspiraloon"?

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my suggestion that France fixed the 98 final (or that the reffing in 02 was way better - ie fairer - than average World Cups), but I am finding your huffing and puffing through our exchanges that everything I say is "bollocks", I'm a deluded conspiraloon, who 'should go and watch another sport' etc etc tedious and unrewarding. Also I doubt that I'll ever agree about much in football with you if you missed how brilliant Korea were in 02. I'm guessing you like your Big Stars, and have all the stickers in your book.

Still, at least you've found out about some things you didn't know about World Cup history and you've heard a different point of view from yours - put with some reasonable humour and evidence of thought and knowledge I hope.

No, people that make claims that are far-fetched, without any evidence, or even a plausible explanation for the alternate events ARE conspiraloons. ´

And let´s not forget, these are the two claims:

1) France had a good team, a little bit of luck and played well in the final against a Brazil team that played badly on the day.

2) France had the draw rigged so they could get to at least the semis, provided they beat one of the pre-tournament favourites, then realising they´d obviously beat Croatia (who had just battered another pre-tournament favourite Germany), somebody (the French FA? FIFA? Eric Cantona?) set in motion the secret plan to make Ronaldo sick on final day, thus dooming Brazil to lose, even though they had 10 others perfectly decent footballers on the pitch, and could´ve left Ronaldo out if they thought he wasn´t fit.

I´m not claiming anything extraordinary happened. I´m following the accepted explanation of events from the French, Brazilians and the FA. The burden of proof or even reasonable explanation is not on me.




Oh, and presumably liking BIG STARS, explains the years I had a ST at Ipswich Town, and currently having one for Rayo Vallecano when I´m walking distance from Vicente Caldaron and 20 minutes from the Bernebeu. The wizened, experienced football watcher spot on once again.

 

[Lo Siento.]

If you weren't born in 1982, that makes you - what? - 26 years old maximum. Say you start to really get your head around football in grown-up depth in your ? late teens? perhaps. you've got a grand total of about 8 years accumulated wisdom. It ain't that much. It certainly isn't "thousands of games".
JAT.

I started going to football matches when I was 11. I´ve been watching at least a few games a week for 15 years, more than that in a world cup year, a busy work or a world cup year. So yeah, 1,000s.

 

[co-op]

Oh, and presumably liking BIG STARS, explains the years I had a ST at Ipswich Town, and currently having one for Rayo Vallecano when I´m walking distance from Vicente Caldaron and 20 minutes from the Bernebeu. The wizened, experienced football watcher spot on once again.

Well I had guessed you were probably an Ipswich fan from your "top flight, second division and European football" line - given your age there aren't that many other clubs it could be. But that doesn't make you immune to Big Star syndrome - I've found your attitude really aggressive, antagonistic and massively over-confident of your own (obviously previously unquestioned) certainties on this thread and those are attributes which I associate with that position.

But that you're an Ipswich fan makes me even more puzzled by your looking to denigrate the Koreans performance in 02. That George Burley side was a classic no-stars team and I followed their EUFA cup run with great interest and pleasure. To my - admittedly pretty casual eye - that team lost its way when it did bring a Big Name in - Finidi George.