UEFA Euro 2012 Poland-Ukraine: Germans Glowing with Anticipation

Started by Pedrito, May 22, 2012, 03:50:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

And the winner iiiis....

A: Poland
0 (0%)
A: Greece
0 (0%)
A: Russia
1 (2.1%)
A: Czech Republic
0 (0%)
B: Holland
7 (14.9%)
B: Denmark
2 (4.3%)
B: Germany
20 (42.6%)
B: Portugal
5 (10.6%)
C: Spain
6 (12.8%)
C: Italy
2 (4.3%)
C: Eire
1 (2.1%)
C: Croatia
0 (0%)
D: Ukraine
0 (0%)
D: Sweden
0 (0%)
D: France
1 (2.1%)
D: England
2 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 45

Gups

Spain are, without doubt, the best international team I've seen.

That was a truly awesome performance.

Martinus

I love that someone voted for Spain in the poll today.  :D

Sheilbh

Extraordinary game for Spain.  Really impressive.

I felt really sorry for Italy after Motta's injury.

Quote from: FunkMonk on July 01, 2012, 08:57:54 PM
What if they win Brazil 2014 too? OMG  :ph34r: :ph34r:
I want Brazil to win that.  Just for the party afterwards :o
Let's bomb Russia!

FunkMonk

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2012, 06:42:28 AM
Extraordinary game for Spain.  Really impressive.

I felt really sorry for Italy after Motta's injury.

Quote from: FunkMonk on July 01, 2012, 08:57:54 PM
What if they win Brazil 2014 too? OMG  :ph34r: :ph34r:
I want Brazil to win that.  Just for the party afterwards :o

Languish meet in Brazil 2014. Party on, Wayne. :punk:
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

Pedrito

a quick analysis:

a coach cannot concede one, almost two players to this Spain (Cassano can play 30 to 45 minutes, Chiellini just back from a double injury).

I think the italians were completely emotionally discharged after the quite miraculous win against Germany, and by the fact that there was really no one who predicted they could arrive to the final.

Prandelli is a good coach, but he's lacking when he needs to make substitutions; furthermore, like many other coaches before him, he'd rather play physically exhausted players that got him tho the final than playing someone fresher but less experienced.

The use to play at very high levels during the year of almost all the spanish players did quite a difference - I mean, which one of the Spaniards did NOT play the Champions League 2011-2012? Maybe only Alba and Llorente.

This said, these spanish players are martians, and deserve this victory by large. I see no cracks in their mindset, and no generation change is going to upset them at least for four more years. Busquets, Alba, Fabregas, Navas, Piqué are all under 25 years; Iniesta himself, while playing at exceptional levels since several years, is only 28. I predict they will be the team to be beaten in Brazil 2014 too, at least.

Hats off.  :worthy:

L.
b / h = h / b+h


27 Zoupa Points, redeemable at the nearest liquor store! :woot:

Richard Hakluyt

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 03:55:06 AM
I love that someone voted for Spain in the poll today.  :D

I decided to go for accuracy rather than speed  :cool:

Zanza

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/07/euro-2012

QuoteONLY four years ago, Spain's national football team were considered the great underachievers of the game. That changed in 2008, when they won the European championship, their first trophy for 44 years.

[...]

But if the Spanish have become Europe's footballing superpower, which country has inherited its old mantle of underachievement? With no claim to scientific accuracy, Game Theory presents four possible pretenders to the unwanted crown.



Start with the obvious, to an Englishman, anyway. The English have won only one major tournament ever, the World Cup on home soil in 1966 (see chart), and have not even reached a semi-final since 1996 (again, at home). England has more people than Spain, a bigger economy and a league of similar quality: shouldn't the country that gave birth to the game have a team as good as Spain's? But as Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski pointed out in "Why England Lose" (first published in 2009 and reviewed here), "England are a good team that does better than most". They win matches (and tournaments) about as often (and as infrequently) as you would expect given the country's size, wealth and experience in international football. English fans at last seem to understand this. At Euro 2012, in which England were deservedly knocked out by Italy in the quarter-finals, the expectations of both press and public were roughly in line with the team's capabilities.

A second candidate is Turkey [...]

A third option is Russia [...]

The last choice is the most surprising: Germany. The Germans, of course, are a mighty footballing force. For them anything less than a semi-final is a catastrophe. The trouble is that they haven't gone on to win a tournament for a long time: 16 years, or eight competitions. Meanwhile, France, Italy and Spain have all picked up World Cups, European titles or both. The Germans seemed to have a great chance this time, with a side full of fine, young players, until they were floored by two first-half Italian goals in their semi-final. It is difficult to believe that this brilliant generation of Germans will not be World or European champions, putting an end to years of disappointment. But at each tournament there can only be one winner. And for now, that winner always seems to be Spain.

Iormlund

I don't think England qualifies. Sure, it has a big population, and a top league.

But it also has a distinct style that hasn't worked for ages. Rich clubs can work around that by hiring foreigners, but the national team can only field kids that have been trained around concepts that have been proven obsolete. It's a huge disadvantage.


Admiral Yi


Iormlund

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2012, 03:01:04 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 02, 2012, 01:22:29 PM
But it also has a distinct style that hasn't worked for ages.

Please elaborate.

England has usually played a game focused on physical strength, aggressive tackling and punting balls to trigger counter-attacks. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_ball. [In Spain we call it '¡Patapum parriba!'.]

The problem is that doesn't cut it at certain level. Modern, successful teams are built around pressure. If your side lacks players that can comfortably move the ball around, that means you are much more vulnerable to said pressure, which means you a) cannot attack effectively and b) are likely to lose a lot of balls close to your own area which is very dangerous.

Admiral Yi

What do you mean by punting the ball?  Is that a long pass to Andy Carrol so he can head it out of bounds?

Iormlund

Sort of. I used punting to try to (unsuccessfully?) imply urgency and lack of precision, since the main objective is for the player subjected to pressure to get rid of the ball as fast and easily as possible, rather than the build up to a goal itself.

Liep

"Af alle latterlige Ting forekommer det mig at være det allerlatterligste at have travlt" - Kierkegaard

"JamenajmenømahrmDÆ!DÆ! Æhvnårvaæhvadlelæh! Hvor er det crazy, det her, mand!" - Uffe Elbæk

Ed Anger

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2012, 03:27:08 PM
What do you mean by punting the ball?  Is that a long pass to Andy Carrol so he can head it out of bounds?

I'm glad Yi has joined me in Carroll dislike. Now join me with Liverpool sorta fandom and we can hate on him, father and son.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive