The World Cup!! (1 Viewer)

[Jerry Twig]

Other than the final there was nothing boring about that Italian team, they scored more goals than the "entertaining" French while displaying the fine art of defence through the imperious Cannavaro, the two full backs and their Keeper. Even Materazzi had a great final, mouthing off aside.

I :heart: good defence.

True, but I think Thuram played the best defensive game in the final.

 

[billygannon]

I can understand why Zidane won it.
He may not have been astonishing for every game, but he inspired the players around him. Maradonna did the same in 1986 - made a team that would not ordinarily do well get to the final.

Cannavaro was part of a defensive unit who all performed well. Lippi is a remarkable coach. It can't be said that he drove the team to get to the final. He was excellent at defending, but that was about it.

Zidane had a team made up of ageing players with a coach who wasn't the best.

 

[La La]

introducing....the zidane headbutt game.

.|..|

 

[It Will Never Last]

I can understand why Zidane won it.
He may not have been astonishing for every game, but he inspired the players around him. Maradonna did the same in 1986 - made a team that would not ordinarily do well get to the final.

Cannavaro was part of a defensive unit who all performed well. Lippi is a remarkable coach. It can't be said that he drove the team to get to the final. He was excellent at defending, but that was about it.

Zidane had a team made up of ageing players with a coach who wasn't the best.

Sorry Billser, but thats bollox.

The French didn't look too motivated in the group stages, or against Portugal for that matter.

So he got it for the Spanish and Brazilian games, his only two truly great games. Cannavaro was consistently top quality.

 

[Hector Grey]

Sorry Billser, but thats bollox.

The French didn't look too motivated in the group stages, or against Portugal for that matter.

So he got it for the Spanish and Brazilian games, his only two truly great games. Cannavaro was consistently top quality.

ah now, as bill pointed out, there was an issue with the manager... i think it was hard for the players, especially the older ones, to get motivated to play for him. He's naturally a negative coach, as evidenced against italy in the final, when they were on teh ropes and vieira got injured, Trez should had come on then. they tried to hold onto a 1 goal lead against korea.... disaster, and i think they played poorly aginst swizz because a) swizz do that to a team and b) nerves, losing that game, they would have imploded again. They we're great against spain and brazil, and frankly spain and brazil are better teams than Ukraine and Australia. Am i wrong? Given referees propensity to book players i'm not suprised they were so cagey against portugal. Yep, that team was divided and Zizou gave them focus. he scored 3 important goals. he took the piss out of the world champions, when ronaldinho and kaka' shared a pitch with him, they looked second best.

but yeah, cannavaro was excelent... and it's not a case of not giving it to defenders is it? kahn got it last time..

but zizou... he was one of the worlds greatest. ever. we'll recognise that in years to come, when our nippers are banging on about some snot nosed haircut who plays for the manchester rowdies plc.

 

[billygannon]

Sorry Billser, but thats bollox.

The French didn't look too motivated in the group stages, or against Portugal for that matter.

So he got it for the Spanish and Brazilian games, his only two truly great games. Cannavaro was consistently top quality.

But it's not bollox. Cannavaro was part of a well organised defence. If anything, Lippi was their man of the tournament. Zidane had nothing to work with.
And Italy were hardly inspirational in the group stages either. The Ghana match was their only decent performance. They were poor against the US and they were adequate against a deflated, ten-man Czech team with no strikers.
They barely scraped through against Australia. And then they had to play a poor Ukrainian team. So the German game was their only good performance - but they were evenly matched for that.

 

[avernus]

But it's not bollox. Cannavaro was part of a well organised defence. If anything, Lippi was their man of the tournament. Zidane had nothing to work with.
And Italy were hardly inspirational in the group stages either. The Ghana match was their only decent performance. They were poor against the US and they were adequate against a deflated, ten-man Czech team with no strikers.
They barely scraped through against Australia. And then they had to play a poor Ukrainian team. So the German game was their only good performance - but they were evenly matched for that.

they were a bit dodgy up front, but they were consistently excellent at the back and were mostly extremely composed and skillful in midfield. Toni was really unlucky to miss on several occasions. If he'd nailed that volley half an inch lower against ghana he may have had an entirely different world cup. Pirlo was amazing at all times. Totti was a bit up and down but mostly had a good WC.

They were most certainly not dull or average. They had plenty of flair and scored some tasty goals. They had a tough time against the aussies because the donkwald got sent off for being a twat - and they had to make changes to compensate and hold the aussies off. Same against the USA. none of these teams scored against Italy. None. That says a lot. Italy scored 2 against Ghana, 1 against the US, 2 against the Czechs, a peno against Oz, 3 against Ukraine, 2 against ze Germans and 1 against the French - conceding only an own goal and a penalty.

I think that equals a pretty fucking great world cup.

 

[nofriendo]

The golden ball has nothing to do with the team on a whole! Yes cannavaro was part of a good defence but zidane was part of a good midfield so i dont get your point. France barely scraped through the group phase (and one of the easiest groups!) and zidane was non-existent in those games. Zidane had two good games. When any team decided to put a player on him he became ineffective because of his age (gattuso had him pretty much out of the game in the final) If France had of won the world cup, yes, it would have been for zidanes performances in the knock-out stages but they didnt. So on the other hand you have a defender who played consistently well through-out the tournament. Once thing you have to remember is that Italy lost one defensive midfielder in de rossi (a change that didnt hamper cannavaro) and then lost a player rated as one of the best defenders in the world - nesta (and did cannavaro step up.....). Look at the point in the final when viera went off injured, did we see zidane after this, no. I think at times zidane has been great to watch in the tournament but overall its the wrong decision

 

[Hector Grey]

I think that equals a pretty fucking great world cup.

i think winning the thing equals a pretty great world cup.

 

[billygannon]

they were a bit dodgy up front, but they were consistently excellent at the back and were mostly extremely composed and skillful in midfield. Toni was really unlucky to miss on several occasions. If he'd nailed that volley half an inch lower against ghana he may have had an entirely different world cup. Pirlo was amazing at all times. Totti was a bit up and down but mostly had a good WC.

They were most certainly not dull or average. They had plenty of flair and scored some tasty goals. They had a tough time against the aussies because the donkwald got sent off for being a twat - and they had to make changes to compensate and hold the aussies off. Same against the USA. none of these teams scored against Italy. None. That says a lot. Italy scored 2 against Ghana, 1 against the US, 2 against the Czechs, a peno against Oz, 3 against Ukraine, 2 against ze Germans and 1 against the French - conceding only an own goal and a penalty.

I think that equals a pretty fucking great world cup.

Well, of course Italy had a great World Cup - they won it.

But what needs to be pointed out is that Cannavaro was hardly playing against the toughest attacking teams in the world.
Can you honestly say that Australia, or the US, or a Czech team without Koller, or Ukraine (where no service was provided to Shevchenko) posed credible attacking flair that needed to be dealt with?
Can it really be said that Cannavaro was carrying out virtuoso performances when he has Gattuso playing in front of him and Buffon playing behind him?

He is a great player. Certainly one of the great defenders. But he wasn't digging others out. He wasn't inspirational. He had class players around him who were all playing at the peak of their careers and bound together amidst the scandal that's affecting Italian football. Essentially the Italians won the tournament as a team.
Zidane got France to the final. Without him, they wouldn't have been there.
It's that difference which makes Zidane a more worthy winner of the Golden Ball than Cannavaro.
That's why Baggio (and Stoichov to some extent) is remembered as being the outstanding player of the 1994 World Cup. Or why Maradonna is remembered for the 1986 World Cup. Or Euesbio in the 1966 World Cup.

 

[billygannon]

The golden ball has nothing to do with the team on a whole! Yes cannavaro was part of a good defence but zidane was part of a good midfield so i dont get your point. France barely scraped through the group phase (and one of the easiest groups!) and zidane was non-existent in those games. Zidane had two good games. When any team decided to put a player on him he became ineffective because of his age (gattuso had him pretty much out of the game in the final) If France had of won the world cup, yes, it would have been for zidanes performances in the knock-out stages but they didnt. So on the other hand you have a defender who played consistently well through-out the tournament. Once thing you have to remember is that Italy lost one defensive midfielder in de rossi (a change that didnt hamper cannavaro) and then lost a player rated as one of the best defenders in the world - nesta (and did cannavaro step up.....). Look at the point in the final when viera went off injured, did we see zidane after this, no. I think at times zidane has been great to watch in the tournament but overall its the wrong decision

What you're forgetting is that Zidane was making the decisions for the French team. He was leading the team talks. He was inspiring the others around him to play well. He may not have played well in every game, but he lead them to the final.
And I would hardly count replacing Nesta with Matterazi and having to only rely on Gattuso as a defenisve midfielder as being a big handicap.

 

[billygannon]

And with regards to Zidane having poor group games...
It should be pointed out that they're not the defining games of the World Cup.

Paulo Rossi never scored in the group games in 1982 - yet he is remembered as being the great player from it.

 

[nofriendo]

maradonna is remebered for almost single handedly winning the world cup. If you want to look at it as a team, most of the "teams of the tournament" have zidane, ribery AND viera in them where as the majority have lahm, marqeauz, cannavaro and thuram or ayala. You seem to be talking like zidane was the only good french player! Thuram, makalele, viera, ribery and henry all had very good tournaments and they were more the reason france got out of the group phase than zidane was!! The golden ball should be given to the best player throughout the whole cup not someone who had two good games (even though he was very good in those games!)

 

[nofriendo]

What you're forgetting is that Zidane was making the decisions for the French team. He was leading the team talks. He was inspiring the others around him to play well.

thats strange, because I seem to remember cannavaro being the captain of the winning team!

 

[avernus]

thats strange, because I seem to remember cannavaro being the captain of the winning team!

yeah, but of course cannavaro doesn't do inspiring speeches or motivate his team mates.

 

[nofriendo]

yeah, but of course cannavaro doesn't do inspiring speeches or motivate his team mates.

In a recent poll 90% of people said they felt headbutts were highly motivational!!

 

[Jerry Twig]

Jesus,
They were both fairly handy.
What's so important about the poxy Golden Boot anyway?

 

[It Will Never Last]

Jesus,
They were both fairly handy.
What's so important about the poxy Golden Boot anyway?

I lumped €50 on Cannavaro to win it when Zizou got sent off.

Fucking hacks.

 

[billygannon]

Jesus,
They were both fairly handy.
What's so important about the poxy Golden Boot anyway?

The wearer of the Golden Boot will score a hat-trick in every game they play.
So Zidane will be a terror to the defences in the Veterans 6-a-side tournaments.

But all that said, Cannavaro didn't inspire the Italian team in the same way that Zidane inspired the French. It was Lippi who provided the guidance to the Italian team. Zidane had to go that much further than Cannavaro. Essentially Cannavaro did his job well. He did what he was asked to do. Zidane went beyond what was required of him.
For most of the tournament, Cannavaro didn't really have to play any tough teams. Germany and Ghana were the only teams who provided the Italian defence with any real threat. France had a tougher route to the final after the group stages.

It was a very poor World Cup. Almost as bad as 1990 (although 1990 had more magic and character - Costa Rica, Cameroon, Higuita, Gazza, O'Leary).

 

[Hector Grey]

seersly lads. relax.
it's just a matter of opinion.