TRF's 2014 FIFA World Cup

[LittleGuy]

Argentina would never want the Falklands back, or the government would lose their last resort talking point when they need support.

Missed the game,but sounds like it was a poor one. If only we could have had three consecutive all European finals.

Yeah it's like Mugabe and the Whites which is why he'll allow them to still own buisnesses for now even though he's taking their farms. Than he can blame than again three years down the road.

 

[marianodan]

lol at all of your predictions guys, blind eurocentrism :lol:

 

[SelimNiai]

Got to agree with whoever it was that said this was Hollands last chance World Cup wise for a while. Sneijder, Robben probably won't be around or as effective in 2018.

Germany will be favourites for Sunday, not just because of their semi final win but in general they have played better than Messitina.

 

[Big Ewis]

lol at all of your predictions guys, blind eurocentrism :lol:

blind ?

 

[edumerino]

The best team Vs The best supporters in the final.

Fair enough!

 

[Thingimubob]

lol at all of your predictions guys, blind eurocentrism :lol:

How so, as in Germany will be favourites? Even without the 7 - 1 scoreline I'd say they've been putting in the best team performances all tournament. Obviously no-one is writing off Argentina at all, especially with Messi in the side, but Germany will still go in with a bit of an edge. It is the World Cup final though, anything can happen, and I do have a sneaking suspicion that Argentina might nick it considering all the hype around Germany. It's one of those things that have a habit of happening see France vs England in 2007, go from taking down the All Blacks to putting in a shoddy display against the English to get knocked out.

 

[marianodan]

How so, as in Germany will be favourites? Even without the 7 - 1 scoreline I'd say they've been putting in the best team performances all tournament. Obviously no-one is writing off Argentina at all, especially with Messi in the side, but Germany will still go in with a bit of an edge. It is the World Cup final though, anything can happen, and I do have a sneaking suspicion that Argentina might nick it considering all the hype around Germany. It's one of those things that have a habit of happening see France vs England in 2007, go from taking down the All Blacks to putting in a shoddy display against the English to get knocked out.

Nah, I meant the predictions for Holland-Argentina.

About the final... everyone will probably predict Germany to steamroll us, but it won't happen. It'll likely be a rather uneventful match with few shots, if Germany wins, it'll be 1-0, 2-0 at best if they catch Argentina off guard while they try to tie.

Pretty much like RWC 2011 final, everyone was predicting the All Blacks to win easy and in a spectacular way and it ended being a try-less match decided with penalties.

 

[Thingimubob]

Nah, I meant the predictions for Holland-Argentina.

About the final... everyone will probably predict Germany to steamroll us, but it won't happen. It'll likely be a rather uneventful match with few shots, if Germany wins, it'll be 1-0, 2-0 at best if they catch Argentina off guard while they try to tie.

Pretty much like RWC 2011 final, everyone was predicting the All Blacks to win easy and in a spectacular way and it ended being a try-less match decided with penalties.

Ah my bad, misinterpreted you! Yeah I'm expecting good the same tbf!

 

[Jaguares]

How so, as in Germany will be favourites? Even without the 7 - 1 scoreline I'd say they've been putting in the best team performances all tournament. Obviously no-one is writing off Argentina at all, especially with Messi in the side, but Germany will still go in with a bit of an edge. It is the World Cup final though, anything can happen, and I do have a sneaking suspicion that Argentina might nick it considering all the hype around Germany. It's one of those things that have a habit of happening see France vs England in 2007, go from taking down the All Blacks to putting in a shoddy display against the English to get knocked out.

That's what I was saying. If this were a rugby match, Germany would win by far. But this is football, you can put your 11 players on their own field throughout the 90 minutes and then win on penalties. That's something that doesn't exist in rugby. This is football, the champion is not always the best team.

Examples? WC 1974, the "Clockwork Orange" was the best team but lost the final match against Germany. WC 1982, Brazil was the best team but Italy was the champion. WC 2006, Italy was the champion but not the best team. Now, Germany is the best football team around the world by far but this is football.

 

[SelimNiai]

That's what I was saying. If this were a rugby match, Germany would win by far. But this is football, you can put your 11 players on their own field throughout the 90 minutes and then win on penalties. That's something that doesn't exist in rugby. This is football, the champion is not always the best team.

Examples? WC 1974, the "Clockwork Orange" was the best team but lost the final match against Germany. WC 1982, Brazil was the best team but Italy was the champion. WC 2006, Italy was the champion but not the best team. Now, Germany is the best football team around the world by far but this is football.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kmIzYvh9Dys" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Another one of your arguments just exploded in wrong

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

So you'd like the All Blacks to win every world cup? If it's about the best team overall then what's the point in a world cup? We could just decide beforehand NZ are the winners and that's the end of it. The unpredictable nature of football makes it exciting.

Conrad can you come back when you need more than one hand to count your brain cells on?

 

[Jaguares]

In football, you can score a goal after 5 minutes and then defend your bow with your 11 players near of your goalkeeper and can beat a better team than you. I've seen thousands of times, the Italians call it: 'Catenaccio'. In rugby it's impossible to happen. If you make a try against ABs at 5 minutes and then pretend to give the ball them and defend your own ingoal, they will make you many points, that's not a possible rugby strategy. You can't tie it 0-0 and then win on penalties or make a goal and then defend for 85 minutes about your goalkeeper. First because in rugby the ball is always in dispute, second because you can only kick forward or backward pass the ball, then you must always go forward and third because it isn't the same defense in football than defend in rugby. The physical wear is very different, you can defend in football for 90 minutes, it's possible. But you can't defend for 80 minutes in rugby without the ball. Why? Because shocks are stronger, injuries are more frequent and more severe. Anyone who has stepped on a rugby field knows it's impossible tacking for 80 minutes without the ball and then win a game. Sooner or later the more attacking team win. Football is different than rugby

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kmIzYvh9Dys" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Another one of your arguments just exploded in wrong

The last definition I saw on penalties in rugby was between Leicester and Cardiff, many years ago on the ERC. Is that something common in rugby? In the RWC (Since 1987 until 2011) How many times a team won through penalties? When I say penalties I talk about penalties after the game. No common penalties on the game, is not the same

 

[SelimNiai]

in football, you can score a goal after 5 minutes and then defend your bow with your 11 players near of your goalkeeper and can beat a better team than you. I've seen thousands of times, the italians call it: 'catenaccio'. In rugby it's impossible to happen. If you make a try against abs at 5 minutes and then pretend to give the ball them and defend your own ingoal, they will make you many points, that's not a possible rugby strategy. You can't tie it 0-0 and then win on penalties or make a goal and then defend for 85 minutes about your goalkeeper. First because in rugby the ball is always in dispute, second because you can only kick forward or backward pass the ball, then you must always go forward and third because it isn't the same defense in football than defend in rugby. The physical wear is very different, you can defend in football for 90 minutes, it's possible. But you can't defend for 80 minutes in rugby without the ball. Why? Because shocks are stronger, injuries are more frequent and more severe. Anyone who has stepped on a rugby field knows it's impossible tacking for 80 minutes without the ball and then win a game. Sooner or later the more attacking team win. football is different than rugby

So why compare them all the bloody time!?!?!

(I wanted this in caps lock to show my frustration but it wouldnt let me)

 

[Jaguares]

So you'd like the All Blacks to win every world cup? If it's about the best team overall then what's the point in a world cup? We could just decide beforehand NZ are the winners and that's the end of it. The unpredictable nature of football makes it exciting.

Conrad can you come back when you need more than one hand to count your brain cells on?

NZ hasn't always been the best team in the world. In the decade of the 70s, Wales were the best team. In the decade of the 90s, for many years Australia was the best team. South Africa was the best team in 1995. England and Australia were the best teams in the world in 2003, both would have been a fair champion. South Africa was the best team in the world in 2007, after it defeated several times to All Blacks. Remember the Tri Nations 2009, when Springboks beat 3 times in a row to All Blacks.

 

[psychic duck]

NZ hasn't always been the best team in the world. In the decade of the 70s, Wales were the best team. In the decade of the 90s, for many years Australia was the best team. South Africa was the best team in 1995. England and Australia were the best teams in the world in 2003, both would have been a fair champion. South Africa was the best team in the world in 2007, after it defeated several times to All Blacks. Remember the Tri Nations 2009, when Springboks beat 3 times in a row to All Blacks.

More complete rubbish.

1. Wales in the 70's were the best European team, and possibly 2nd best team in the world. They played the All Blacks twice that decade and lost twice.
2. New Zealand were the obviously the best team in 1995, and people with knowledge of rugby would know they were the favourites going into the final. In the first 9 matches between SA and NZ after readmission between 1992 and 1996, South Africa only won 1, and that was that final which went into extra time against a side suffering from food poisoning.
3. New Zealand beat Australia more often than not in the 90's, including a run of 7 straight matches between 1995 and 1997 and a record 43-6 defeat in 1996. Australia were only the best with a golden era around 1999-2001, so hardly dominating the 90's.
4. New Zealand had just gone unbeaten in the 2003 Tri Nations and had put 50 points on Australia away from home, that semi final was an upset against the form book which was a NZ vs England final, Australia were past it at that point and hadn't convinced in the earlier matches struggling past Argentina and nearly losing to Ireland.
5. New Zealand beat South Africa twice in 2007. And in their past 7 matches before that tournament South Africa had won just one game against them that was by 1 point when Rodney So'oialo single handedly lost the game. Jake White was actually coming under pressure for his job at one point around 2006.

So you are wrong on just about every point as per usual. New Zealand have entered nearly every World Cup as bookies favourite and considered the best team, bar a couple where they were considered very close 2nd favourites.

 

[Thingimubob]

The last definition I saw on penalties in rugby was between Leicester and Cardiff, many years ago on the ERC. Is that something common in rugby? In the RWC (Since 1987 until 2011) How many times a team won through penalties? When I say penalties I talk about penalties after the game. No common penalties on the game, is not the same

Urghhhhh you have a habit of bringing up matches that I'd rather forget still not 100% over that penalty shoot out, not been able to bring myself to watch it...

 

[SelimNiai]

The last definition I saw on penalties in rugby was between Leicester and Cardiff, many years ago on the ERC. Is that something common in rugby? In the RWC (Since 1987 until 2011) How many times a team won through penalties? When I say penalties I talk about penalties after the game. No common penalties on the game, is not the same

That was after the game. That game went beyond extra time just like the game yesterday.

Are you being retarded on purpose?

 

[Jaguares]

More complete rubbish.

1. Wales in the 70's were the best European team, and possibly 2nd best team in the world. They played the All Blacks twice that decade and lost twice.
2. New Zealand were the obviously the best team in 1995, and people with knowledge of rugby would know they were the favourites going into the final. In the first 9 matches between SA and NZ after readmission between 1992 and 1996, South Africa only won 1, and that was that final which went into extra time against a side suffering from food poisoning.
3. New Zealand beat Australia more often than not in the 90's, including a run of 7 straight matches between 1995 and 1997 and a record 43-6 defeat in 1996. Australia were only the best with a golden era around 1999-2001, so hardly dominating the 90's.
4. New Zealand had just gone unbeaten in the 2003 Tri Nations and had put 50 points on Australia away from home, that semi final was an upset against the form book which was a NZ vs England final, Australia were past it at that point and hadn't convinced in the earlier matches struggling past Argentina and nearly losing to Ireland.
5. New Zealand beat South Africa twice in 2007. And in their past 7 matches before that tournament South Africa had won just one game against them that was by 1 point when Rodney So'oialo single handedly lost the game. Jake White was actually coming under pressure for his job at one point around 2006.

So you are wrong on just about every point as per usual. New Zealand have entered nearly every World Cup as bookies favourite and considered the best team, bar a couple where they were considered very close 2nd favourites.

I disagree with you. I think for example if last year was a RWC 2013 and South Africa have been the champion, they would have been fair champions. In their last game against ABs in South Africa, they showed that they are at the same level than ABs. About WC 1995, nobody thought that in 1995 South Africa could beat Australia, however they did. And then at the final match they were at the same level than ABs, therefore they were the best team in the world at that time.

I also think that the victory of France over NZ in 1999 was very fair and in that moment France was better than NZ, surpassed them in all aspects of the game. New Zealand is the best rugby team in the world, that for more years was the best, no doubt. But were not the best team in every moment of the rugby history. When they were defeated by South Africa three times in a row, they were not the best team in the world.

 

[Feicarsinn]

lol

 

[Jaguares]

That was after the game. That game went beyond extra time just like the game yesterday.

Are you being retarded on purpose?

I never said otherwise. That was after the game. What I'm saying is that it is rare in rugby Netherlands defined their matches through penalties twice in this world cup. Leicester after the match against Cardiff, had no similar occasion.