Official Azzurri (Italy) Euro 2008 Thread (33 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Azzurri7

Pinturicchio
Moderator
Dec 16, 2003
72,692
Actually Francesco has a point. It somehow affects their performance mentally If they concede such a goal. But still, 2nd half was supposed to be diff for the Italians and they didn't really give it all to overcome the first goal they conceded. That said, Holland was better overall with or without Ruuds goal.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
Actually Francesco has a point. It somehow affects their performance mentally If they concede such a goal. But still, 2nd half was supposed to be diff for the Italians and they didn't really give it all to overcome the first goal they conceded. That said, Holland was better overall with or without Ruuds goal.
I think it's silly. It's one thing if a goal comes out of nowhere but when you just got lucky and RVN lost his balance after rounding Buffon, you shouldn't be so up in arms over a goal.
 

Dragula

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2006
805
Actually I think that the first goal was definitely offside and no matter what anyone says, even if Netherlands did win by 3 goals, that first goal is critical because it changes the mentality and tactics of the team that conceded. In a competition wherte there are only 3 group games, to go a goal down in your first game means you have to try to score to at least play for a draw. This can leave you susceptible to counterattacks which is exactly what happened. Hence, that first unfair goal changed the rest of the game and that's the bottom line.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,244
Look, there are far too many loopholes and differing opinions on this goal that it's impossible to come to a consensus. UEFA made a clarification on the issue defending the referee's decision, the head referee of the English Premier League says Panucci was active and therefore in the play, yet most other Prem officials would not have let the goal stand.

I mean, just get over it. There is always some stupid controversy you guys fall back upon to defend your own failures. It's annoying, and if you want to blame anyone for the goal, blame that idiot Panucci for the giving the ball away prior to the goal and then getting knocked over by Buffon only to fake out an injury.
 

HelterSkelter

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2005
20,626
Look, there are far too many loopholes and differing opinions on this goal that it's impossible to come to a consensus. UEFA made a clarification on the issue defending the referee's decision, the head referee of the English Premier League says Panucci was active and therefore in the play, yet most other Prem officials would not have let the goal stand.

I mean, just get over it. There is always some stupid controversy you guys fall back upon to defend your own failures. It's annoying, and if you want to blame anyone for the goal, blame that idiot Panucci for the giving the ball away prior to the goal and then getting knocked over by Buffon only to fake out an injury.
Please tell me,who here has used the first goal as an excuse for Italy's defeat?Every Italy fan here knows and admits that the team deserved to lose,regardless of the first goal.Had that goal not stood,Holland would have probably another one anyway.if you're trying to suggest that Rab and Francesco are using the first goal as an excuse for Italy's loss,then you've got another thing coming.

You enjoy poking fun at people,we get that.But brining up a point over and over again after it's already been clarified is pretty silly.

Incase you want to bring up the same point again,ill clarify it Again :

no one is using the first goal as an excuse for Italy's defeat,so your 'Defend your own failrues' theory' is rubbish.
 

Stu

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
17,557
I'm afraid you're missing the entire point. No one is saying the goal would have changed the game. Your bias against the Italians makes you think of them as crybabies, but no one has accused the referee.

What is important though is that UEFA don't change rules during the course of a tournament just to save some referee. You simply cannot do that.
The thing is, the goal did change the game, completely. I'm not complaining or anything because Italy's performance last night did not deserve any points but off the top of my head I can't think of a single chance Holland created after the first goal which wasn't from a counter attack. The second and third goals were from counters, RVN's one on one was from a counter, pretty much everything the Dutch did after 1-0 was counter. If Van Nistelrooy's goal had been disallowed the Italians wouldn't have been so open at the back and it might've been a different game, but again, let me reiterate. I'm not complaining.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
You enjoy poking fun at people,we get that.But brining up a point over and over again after it's already been clarified is pretty silly.
Andy's problem is that the people he wants to yell at are not here. :D Tommy Smith (whoever that is), the commentators on Goltv/Yanksports, all the ManU fans in his neighborhood etc. :D
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,244
Please tell me,who here has used the first goal as an excuse for Italy's defeat?Every Italy fan here knows and admits that the team deserved to lose,regardless of the first goal.Had that goal not stood,Holland would have probably another one anyway.if you're trying to suggest that Rab and Francesco are using the first goal as an excuse for Italy's loss,then you've got another thing coming.

You enjoy poking fun at people,we get that.But brining up a point over and over again after it's already been clarified is pretty silly.

Incase you want to bring up the same point again,ill clarify it Again :

no one is using the first goal as an excuse for Italy's defeat,so your 'Defend your own failrues' theory' is rubbish.
Just by harping about the issue page after page, means that people are using it as an excuse for the performance. Yes they are, even if they're doing it subconsciously.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,244
No, the goal did not change the game completely, because right after the goal was scored Holland kept owning your asses for the rest of the match, just like they did before the goal.
 

HelterSkelter

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2005
20,626
Would you not harp about an offside goal(if it was the first goal of the mach) if the US gets owned 3-0?You'd be pissed off.And so is every Italy fan.But no,its not being use an excuse to defend the team's poor performance.It might be used as an outlet for their frustratation,but thats about it.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,244
Would you not harp about an offside goal(if it was the first goal of the mach) if the US gets owned 3-0?You'd be pissed off.And so is every Italy fan.But no,its not being use an excuse to defend the team's poor performance.It might be used as an outlet for their frustratation,but thats about it.
If we got owned like that, no, I wouldn't be harping about the offsides goal. Instead, I'd rip apart my own team for looking like crap, for not being prepared, for looking like they didn't care, and for also fielding the wrong players.

I don't make excuses for my own team like some people on this forum.
 

Stu

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
17,557
No, the goal did not change the game completely, because right after the goal was scored Holland kept owning your asses for the rest of the match, just like they did before the goal.
Except that's not true. Yes they remained on top for the rest of the first half but their goal came from a counter after Italy committed players forward and Italy were the better team in the second half.
 

The Curr

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2007
33,705
Why oh why did Donadoni not play De Rossi and Chiellini? The defense badly needed some pace in the centre. Del Piero and Grosso were 2 of Italy's best players when they came on. They should start the next match.

Gio Van Bronckhorst played the best I've seen him play in years.
 

Alen

Ѕenior Аdmin
Apr 2, 2007
54,025
Except that's not true. Yes they remained on top for the rest of the first half but their goal came from a counter after Italy committed players forward and Italy were the better team in the second half.
Italians had a corner kick, it's not like they went all attack in 30 minute. They were losing 0:1 with 60 minutes to go.
They took the CK and they were slow like turtles when coming back.

They didn't concede the 2nd goal because they went all attack to equalise, lets get this straight.
 

HelterSkelter

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2005
20,626
If we got owned like that, no, I wouldn't be harping about the offsides goal. Instead, I'd rip apart my own team for looking like crap, for not being prepared, for looking like they didn't care, and for also fielding the wrong players.
I don't make excuses for my own team like some people on this forum.
Which is what every Italy fan on this forum has done for the last 24 odd hours.But anyway.Italy got owned.Should have probably lost 7-0 or somethng.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 33)