That semi was all a bit disappointing for this viewer. Bulgaria seemed to have the attitude that they'd done their job and were happy to lie down and be tickled by the Italians. Both Stoichkov and Balakov were substituted, and went off smiling. I read subsequently that the Bulgarian team spent much of the time after the quarter finals in bars, though that may be an exaggeration.

If they are like a few of the Bulgarians I know, it probably was not an exaggeration.

The Sweden-Brazil semi was a snooze fest.

Baggio was at his best against Bulgaria, too bad he got injured which hampered him in the Final.

The Holland- Brazil qrtfinal was a great game as well

quote:

Originally posted by mikey1892:
It wasnt a successful tournament...it was the worst of my memory! Even the wonderous attacking Brazil were boring...

You're a moron.

quote:

Originally posted by Spinoza:

quote:

Originally posted by mikey1892:
It wasnt a successful tournament...it was the worst of my memory! Even the wonderous attacking Brazil were boring...

You're a moron.

Bit OTT mate,everyones entitled to their opinion.
Must say USA 94 doesnt stay in my memory as a classic,probably because the semis and final were so pitiful although when i think about it there were great games early on.
Also probably because their were no players who totally stood out IMO

Have we decided if Deutschland 2006 was a good World Cup or not yet?

I found it enjoyable due to the wealth of high scoring games and also because of the many knockout games that had to go to extra time and penalties.

Every World Cup needs a stand out moment and a stand out game too. Zidane's head-butt on Materazzi will live long in the memory, as will Germany v Italy.

WTF-- Baggio, Stoichkov, Romario all stood out at USA 94. You must have no memory.

The 2006 will be a great WC to me due alone to the fact that:


ITALIA

CAMPIONI DEL MONDO

quote:

Originally posted by MICHAEL_LA_VIOLA:

quote:

Originally posted by steviemacd:
we'll have to actually pay for a tournament we might not even be allowed to participate in.

Yes, "might not be allowed to participate in" sounds a hell of a lot better than "too sh*te to qualify", doesn't it?

I knew as soon as i posted the original quote that i meant to put"might not qualify for"(pretty much what MLV said for me in his own way.)
Of course the seeding system is wonderful making it progressively harder for smaller teams to qualify and easier for the big teams;and before you go on about seeding being on merit,thats c**p;on what basis were england and spain seeded this WC for example?England were even seeded in 82 despite having missed the previous 2 tournaments!

I agree about this seeding system rubbish - to be honest I hadn't really ever thought about it much until seeing the World Cup, but stating the obvious I know, but it's just unfair really. It was the Crazy Dutch, Argies, Ivory Coast and Marks and Spencers group that stood out the most. Like you say teams who've won nothing (even qualification) for decades still get seeded and usually get an easier run of games. FIFA do it to keep the big boys and it more entertaining presumably? Stating the obvious, again, but it isn't half a cynical way of doing things - it's not like they do it in the FA Cup

...oh and I found the World Cup entertaining myself, it tailed off a bit towards the end but I suppose that's bound to happen - some memorable games, brilliant goals (that Argentina one against Mexico) and I think the atmosphere really helped make it a success as well, hardly any bother and seemed like one big love in. I'd liked to have seen the mascot more though, it was some big lion or something, bit of mischief with the players would have been good

Germany 06 was the worst World Cup I've seen, with the possible exception of Italy 90. And at least the latter had a couple of decent semis, Cameroon v England and Holland v Germany. Germany v Italy was a good game but it says it all about the compeitition that this was regarded as the best. I can't think of another genuinely exciting game with good attacking football.

Goals aren't the only criteria, but a lack of them indicates somthing is amiss. Excitement in the case of 2006. Very exciting for Italy fans, but not great for football fans. There was an average of less than 2 goals per game in the knock out phase, the lowest ever.

Somebody mentioned a lack of outstanding players in 1994. I'd echo Duncan's expletive and add Hagi to his list. There were also a lot of other excting attacking players who excelled (E.g. Dumitrescu, Okocha, Yekini, Brolin) The only outstanding player in 2006 was Cannovaro. The winners were bereft of good quality attackers (let alone "greats") as were most teams. In fact the only team that did demonstrate wonderful attacking talent, Argentina, chose to leave it all on the bench at the crucial time.

Sorry, yes, Argentina v Mexico was also a good game, though the Argies' tendency to pass sideways forever detracted from it a tad.

I think those 2 games mentioned were better than any from the previous world cup, and I don't think there was a particular difference in terms of outstanding talent. For Ballack, Kahn and Ronaldo there was Cannavaro, Buffon and Pirlo. I agree there was a lack of attacking talent but that had much to do with strange formations failing to get the best out of best players like Henry and Rooney.

George , I forgot about Hagi. You are righ, he was really good at USA 94. Bebeto as well. Lechkov as well

You're quite right Calcio, 2002 was a pretty awful World Cup. I'd forgotten all about it, which is easily done. It was arguably as bad as 2006, but it had the huge saving grace of a very entertaining and attack-minded Brazil.

You're also right that strange formations (usually playing only one forward) stifled attacking play in 2006. Doesn't make the entertainment any better though. It's all a bit of shame because we've come full circle since 1990. To encourage attacking play FIFA came up with some excellent changes post '90 (though frequently derided by the football intelligentsia), such as the back pass rule, tackles from behind, getting injured players to leave the pitch and this led to the great 1994 World Cup. Now we're back to square one with negativity ruling the day and a cagey Italian team looking relatively positive.

Never mind, there's always the cricket.

2002 was rubbish but i found this year's world cup to be very enjoyable.

Lets be honest though, the World cup never holds a candle to a European Championship! 1996, 2000 and 2004 were all better tournaments than even the best world cup

2000 was a great tournament, up there with 1994, but 1996 was dismal. Hagi and Stoichkov didn't show up, Zidane was asleep, Holland were hopeless, Italy were Saachid, it was tedium followed by penalty shoot-outs all round. The Czechs were good, but even they were dull in the quarters and semis. And then there was Football's effing Coming Home. England had 2 good games, were mediocre in the other three, but a friend of mine still maintains England played wonderful football throughout and that Venables is a genius. I think he might suffer from the same memory-affecting condition as you Mikey.

This world cup the group stages were definetley the most exciting after that everything went very defensive from many teams!

Ukraine are to blame for that...

I found the 2006 world cup very enjoyable. Sure, it tailed off a little in the knockout stages, most tournements do this. Teams get scared of losing. The group stages, with a few expections (games usually involving Switzerland, France or Portugal) were very entertaining. It did lack an outstanding player and one outstanding game, though.

2002 was abject, although it had more goals than 2006 (i think). It was just a godawful competition.

quote:

Originally posted by mrsnrub:
I found the 2006 world cup very enjoyable. ... It did lack an outstanding player and one outstanding game, though.

The Germany - Italy semi-final was a fantastic match, and Argentina - Mexico was pretty tasty as well.

From a personal point of view, Czech Republic v USA and Argentina v Serbia were great matches as well, but that was because I went to them!

You're right about the outstanding player, although the same could be said of the past few world cups.