Group C (3 Viewers)

[king Ale]

Yes, but a penalty in the last seconds of the game that goes in is quite decisive too .

But like I said, Australia had more than their fair share of luck.

Of course it is but Materazzi' sent off took place earlier, in the beginning of the second half. You'd never know if Italy would have even needed that penalty call in their favor if the ref hadn't made that mistake.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

He was shit in the first half, but in the second when we were under pressure he seemed to have found his timing and confidence. He made a few nice plays.

It's unfortunate he's been out for so long. From what I've seen, he keeps getting better as he plays more. I'm confident enough to say that I believe his play will continue the upward slope.

True. He's someone who needs to feel how a game is going.

I still don't think he's 100% fit. When Gooch is on his game and as long as he doesn't get pulled out wide, he's solid. He's not good enough to be a starter for Milan with their possession game and setup.

His tactical awareness can be pretty bad at times. At Standard too he was never the true leader of the defence. But with the right coaching that should be resolved.

 

[king Ale]

One could argue that Matarazzi leaving the pitch early was a blessing for the Azzurri.

Not really. He was one of their better players in Germany and scored decisive goals against Czech and France.

 

[Enron]

Yes, but a penalty in the last seconds of the game that goes in is quite decisive too .

But like I said, Australia had more than their fair share of luck.

I think the biggest issue about Grosso was that it wasn't clear he needed to dive. It looked to me that Neil had already committed to the tackle and that there were two conclusions:

1) It would result in a foul and Grosso would draw the penalty.

2) Grosso would avoid the tackle all together and make something happen.

Instead, Fabio literally dove over Neil and rolled around like he'd been shot.

 

[Seven]

You will see insults flying left, right and center towards England, France, Italy, Manchester United, Inter, Milan etc.
It's gonna be nice and the forum will look more civilized if we can ban all those insulting comments. But if not, then I see no reason why should the Azzurri be more privileged to Inter, Milan or France.

If you don't have the stomach for a joke and knee-jerk comments, then my experience in this forum tells me that Juventuz is a wrong forum for you or anyone else who can't take it.

The forum has its rules. Nowhere in those rules it is said that one can't say Fuck Inter or fuck the Azzurri.

Some of the comments are borderline racist though. And the way people speak of "Italians" and generalise them bothers me a lot. Not because I take it personally, in fact it's quite the other way around. I don't think these particular insults are aimed at me, because I'm not Italian. But all these grease references and this "insightful" talk about Italian mentality are moronic.

Of course it is but Materazzi' sent off took place earlier, in the beginning of the second half. You'd never know if Italy would have even needed that penalty call in their favor if the ref hadn't made that mistake.

No, but you do know that, in the end, the penalty decided the game.

 

[Bjerknes]

Of course not, you can't say that. Italy had to play with one man down for the whole second half. It did change the game a lot. Italy would have never probably needed that call if they could play with 11 men all game long.

That is speculation. Lets just look at the facts. Grosso won an illegitimate penalty by diving and that goal was what sent them through.

How can one not be a bit angry with that, especially fans of the other side?

 

[Seven]

I think the biggest issue about Grosso was that it wasn't clear he needed to dive. It looked to me that Neil had already committed to the tackle and that there were two conclusions:

1) It would result in a foul and Grosso would draw the penalty.

2) Grosso would avoid the tackle all together and make something happen.

Instead, Fabio literally dove over Neil and rolled around like he'd been shot.

True. And you could say it is cheating. However what is Neil doing there? Why does he move his arm like that? Clearly he is trying to stop Grosso.

But Grosso did dive. No question about that. But like I said: compare it to what happened to Italy in 2002 and you see that it's pretty much nothing. It's one call and Italy had a big call against them in the same game. It was a whole lot worse in 2002 when Korea blatantly bought their way to the semis, yet everyone called the Italians sore losers.

How the fuck am I supposed to say that they were cheaters in 2006 then?

 

[Seven]

That is speculation. Lets just look at the facts. Grosso won an illegitimate penalty by diving and that goal was what sent them through.

How can one not be a bit angry with that, especially fans of the other side?

But you're happy about 2002 .

 

[king Ale]

I think the biggest issue about Grosso was that it wasn't clear he needed to dive. It looked to me that Neil had already committed to the tackle and that there were two conclusions:

1) It would result in a foul and Grosso would draw the penalty.

2) Grosso would avoid the tackle all together and make something happen.

Instead, Fabio literally dove over Neil and rolled around like he'd been shot.

I think there was contact but Grosso exaggerated it way too much. You remember France' penalty against Portugal? Henry could have easily avoided that tackle, but there was contact and Henry "deliberately" fell.

 

[Seven]

Another thing to consider is that Malouda should never have gotten a penalty in the final .

 

[Enron]

True. And you could say it is cheating. However what is Neil doing there? Why does he move his arm like that? Clearly he is trying to stop Grosso.

But Grosso did dive. No question about that. But like I said: compare it to what happened to Italy in 2002 and you see that it's pretty much nothing. It's one call and Italy had a big call against them in the same game. It was a whole lot worse in 2002 when Korea blatantly bought their way to the semis, yet everyone called the Italians sore losers.

How the fuck am I supposed to say that they were cheaters in 2006 then?

So your logic states that if one person is cheated during a prior activity, then he cannot be considered a cheater if he does indeed choose to cheat at a time after the said cheating against him took place?

Why not say "Grosso cheated in 2006, but that's the World Cup for you. In 2002 Italy probably felt hard done after suspect calls helped Korea go through. Sometimes you're the windshield and sometimes you're the bug"?

 

[Bjerknes]

But you're happy about 2002 .

I didn't like Korea much either. But if we have to put things into perspective, I don't recall seeing the Koreans dive to win a penalty and win the game. Sure, they had the better calls, but that's to be expected with the home side. Italy didn't play them well enough in my view.

 

[Enron]

I think there was contact but Grosso exaggerated it way too much. You remember France' penalty against Portugal? Henry could have easily avoided that tackle, but there was contact and Henry "deliberately" fell.

I actually missed that game. Grosso's was just so obvious.

 

[Seven]

So your logic states that if one person is cheated during a prior activity, then he cannot be considered a cheater if he does indeed chose to cheat at a time after the said cheating against him took place?

Why not say "Grosso cheated in 2006, but that's the World Cup for you. In 2002 Italy probably felt hard done after suspect call helped Korea go through. Sometimes you're the windshield and sometimes you're the bug"?

No. That's not what I meant. This is how you do it legally:

In 2002 the judge says that Italians are sore losers, because they can't accept the myriad of wrong calls. The Koreans have every right to go through. They're not cheaters.

In 2006 the judge should stand by his judgment from 2002. He obviously cannot say the Italians are cheaters here.

 

[king Ale]

That is speculation. Lets just look at the facts. Grosso won an illegitimate penalty by diving and that goal was what sent them through.

How can one not be a bit angry with that, especially fans of the other side?

Because they had already been favored by the ref Andy. And I never said they shouldn't be angry but refereeing mistakes happen all the time, both for/against you. Italy received a few bad calls in 2002 and they received a wrong call in their favor four years later. That could well happen for the team you like and you'd agree that the other team's fans mentioning it at any chance even many years later would be really annoying.

 

[Enron]

No. That's not what I meant. This is how you do it legally:

In 2002 the judge says that Italians are sore losers, because they can't accept the myriad of wrong calls. The Koreans have every right to go through. They're not cheaters.

In 2006 the judge should stand by his judgment from 2002. He obviously cannot say the Italians are cheaters here.

How many penalties did Korea get in 2002?

 

[Seven]

I didn't like Korea much either. But if we have to put things into perspective, I don't recall seeing the Koreans dive to win a penalty and win the game. Sure, they had the better calls, but that's to be expected with the home side. Italy didn't play them well enough in my view.

They were kicked, beaten and elbowed in the face, had a goal taken from them, a red card instead of a penalty and to top it all off Korea actually did get a penalty in the first fucking minute of the game.

You can't win a game if the ref is this poor and biased.

 

[Bjerknes]

I think there was contact but Grosso exaggerated it way too much. You remember France' penalty against Portugal? Henry could have easily avoided that tackle, but there was contact and Henry "deliberately" fell.

I don't recall that dive, but if Henry did what you said, I wouldn't be surprised. He doesn't seem like the most fair player around.

 

[Seven]

How many penalties did Korea get in 2002?

You even forgot .

 

[king Ale]

So your logic states that if one person is cheated during a prior activity, then he cannot be considered a cheater if he does indeed choose to cheat at a time after the said cheating against him took place?

Why not say "Grosso cheated in 2006, but that's the World Cup for you. In 2002 Italy probably felt hard done after suspect calls helped Korea go through. Sometimes you're the windshield and sometimes you're the bug"?