It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The referee Milorad Mažić, is Serbian, isn't he?
This game got more heated than I thought it would, with a red card missing from the ref's pocket. Still, a lot of fun - even for a Confederations Cup final.
I love football, but it can be cruel sometimes...
Confederation Cups are always boring. Don't you think?
Should have? Maybe those teams should have won a trophy then?
We could have had England but didn't because they're are a joke and got humiliated in both competitions.
Winning is all that matters. Ask Greece if they cared how much possession they had or how many shots on target.
If you har watched both finals you would know they both deserved. And it is beyond doubt they would have made this tournament more interesting.
Loads of people deserve stuff they don't get. That's life. That's football. We deserved to beat Portsmouth in the FA Cup in 08 and go on to take the treble. We didn't. Football is littered with these sorts of scenarios. You must remember your boys nicking it at the Bridge in the CL when you were the inferior side?
Football after all is in the entertaiment business. If everyone played like Greece it would not be worth all those billions of dollars. It is typical English btw to claim style doesn't matter, then complain when a game or tournament is boring...
I personally couldn't care less about the confederations cup but the way the germans bag trophies is relentless. They won that tournament with their B team! Mental.
Here's the clip:
http://www.tv2.no/v/1013386/
The Arsenal argument.
Why is defending well and nicking one on the break something to be ashamed of? Why do the teams with 80% possession never get criticised for not finishing better or not being as solid at the back?
It's the same snobbish argument that thinks Leicester didn't deserve to win the league because they just soaked up a load of pressure and hit people on the break. Well if you're the better team and coach counter their strategy rather than bleat 'Yeah but we had 80% and created loads of chances.'
To quote Sean himself 'Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.'
I agree that the Brazil 82 team is fondly remembered (probably more so than the winning teams of 94 and 02) and was prodigiously talented but they were flaky at the back. Football isn't just about flicks and tricks unless you are playing on the beach. It's as much about not conceding goals than scoring them. History is littered with teams who everyone remembers as being great but who won bugger all. In Greece I'm sure Zagorakis is an icon. Don't criticise a small country for playing to their strengths rather than merely trying to be part of footballing legend for your entertainment.
Agreed. As a Liverpool and England fan I can tell you that style is more overrated than the Kardashians. When you've been as shit as we have for decades then come back here and tell me you don't care about winning as long as you are entertained. Losing 4-3 every week would soon become extremely boring even if you get to see 7 goals every game and your team spend the whole game doing rabonas and back heels.
You could claim no win in football is underserved. I disagree. Football is about the only sport where you can be completely dominant and outplay your opponent in every facet of the game and still lose. Some would claim that is the 'charm of the game'. Regardless some results in fotball are simply undeserved.
You are also elegantly skipping the main point of my post: That of which achievement is most valuable. Is being remembered as the hero, role modell and icon who dazzled fans with your creativity, the team that is remembered and celebrated and recruited fans for eternity because of your outstanding entertainment value really completely worthless? Is winning that one trophy more valuable than all that and 'everything that matters'?
But as always there is also a good dose of luck involved. After all, Chile made exactly one terrible mistake and was punished for it. Germany didn't manage to make another goal after awards, but had its share of mistakes as well.
Against Spain they really made the better game, but the Spaniards indeed have, at least in parts, the higher quality if we are honest.
The Chilean team should have had at least one dark red card and the goalie should have been send off for manhandling a player on the ground.
Arsenal are in talks about handing Jens Lehmann, their former goalkeeper, a coaching role as the shake-up of Arsène Wenger’s backroom staff gathers pace.
Now get a few more signings done!
No argument from me here, but of course the longer the game the more they got unhinged.
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/match/germany-vs-argentina/1220140/stats
Germany won this match by every parameter (shots on target, possession, completed passes, GOALS) that is quantifiable so they seem to have been the better team.
http://www.goal.com/euro2016/en/match/portugal-vs-france/8wntxjtjamz0hgfczwkde38q1/live
OK France have shaded it with 56% possession 13 shots to 9 and 724 passes to 577 but it hardly looks like the pummeling youre making out to be.
Can you furnish me with your formula as to which teams deserve to win? Portugal seem to have ridden their luck but then France got just as much in being handed a laughably easy draw of Ireland and Iceland to get to the semis after a doddle of a group. If any team 'deserved' to win Euro 2016 it was Italy who were tactically spot on and did a spectacular demolition job on Spain before being unlucky to lose on pens against Germany.
I agree that theres something fantastic about a smash and grab 1-0 against the odds where you ride your luck because this simply doesnt happen in other sports. But the two matches you originally stated where won undeservedly by the wrong country hardly seem to be in the category.
It's a legitimate argument but when you debate whether the likes of Puskas, Cruyff and Best are as good as Maradona and Pele at some point someone always says 'Yeah but... they never won the world cup.'
Teams like Hungary 54 and Holland 74 deserved to and should've won the world cup. They didnt but they are still much more revered than the teams that actually did.
Theres thousands of players out there with spectacular show reels on Youtube who are iconic (Baggio, Stoichkov, Hagi, Valderama, Weah, Cantona, Bergkamp - One Champions League and no World Cups between the lot of them!) and entertain and of course all of those guys will be remembered more than 95% of players who have won the World Cup or the CL.
All of the above are legends without doubt but you're missing the point that they didnt set out to be legends just from the way they played. They wanted to win. Ask any of these guys and they will all trade in a second their amazing dribble past 5 players and goal, their 30 yard free kick, their 40 goals in a season to have got their hands on the World Cup.
Many, many players who played fantastically entertaining football with style go down as legends around the globe.
All players who won the World Cup go down as legends, perhaps not in your purview, but in the eyes of the only people who really matter - their own fans.
'Ask the players' you say? Ok, lets ask Johan Cruyff:
- "There is no medal better than being acclaimed for your style. As a coach, my teams might have won more games if we'd played in a less adventurous way. Maybe I'd have earned a little more and the bonuses would have been bigger, but if people say that my Barcelona were playing the nicest football in the world with me as a coach, what more can I ask for? If you're appearing in the World Cup final it may be the biggest occasion of your life, so why be sad and fearful? Be happy, express yourself and play. Make it special for you and for everyone watching. For the good of football we need a team of invention, attacking ideas and style to emerge. Even if it doesn't win, it will inspire footballers of all ages everywhere. That is the greatest reward."
Yes, all players want to win, but some also value the way in which they do it. No, I don't think Johan would have traded Total Football for a World Cup trophy.
We started out discussing your statement that "winning is everything that matters". You have spent your last posts arguing why winning is more important. In other words a completely different discussion, and you have hereby admitted that style and entertainment indeed matters...
Some other notes:
1. When I wrote "Argentina should have been there", I am of course refering to the Copa America final. That should have been pretty obvious the way I wrote it...
2. France had an easy draw you say? I wonder what your assesment would be of Portugals then? A team that finished third in their group beaten by Hungary and Iceland (!!), a result that would usually have sent them home packing, and then were awarded Croatia, Poland and Wales (!!!) on the road to the final. If that is not a lucky draw I don't know what is... Has one single European champion had an easier route?
And can we at least agree on my opening statement that the competition would have been more interesting with France and Argentina in it?
I so nearly put at the end of the last post that the exception would Cruyff who could walk away from a World Cup for his principles. Now of course it looks like I'm backtracking.
But we can all play at that game:
'When the year starts the objective is to win it all with the team, personal records are secondary.'
'Being named among the best at something is special and beautiful. But if there are no titles, nothing is won.'
Lionel Messi
It's nice but ultimately not the objective. If it was the futsal world cup would be bigger than the actual world cup and this guy would be lauded as the greatest footballer who ever lived:
Ever heard of Dan Magness? Exactly - Same as Accrington Stanley.
I've been defending style and entertainment in the sense of a historical legacy but it never supplants winning. We can all say it was a travesty that Hungary or Holland didnt win the world cup when they were by far the best teams but the fact that they didnt is almost the thing they are remembered for most so fundamental is it to get over the finishing line if you wish to be considered truly great. Would Brazil 70 be regarded as the greatest team in history if they had lost in the final? No they would be remembered as a tragic near miss like Hungary and Holland.
I suppose your argument has some validity in that the German teams that won in 54 and 74 are remembered by no one outside Germany but, personally I have to interest in an England team being remembered around the world by foreigners as exceptional but unlucky losers. I'd much rather they bored their way to the title and were despised by everyone outside England for negative, destructive football if only they came home with the trophy.
My favourite World Cup was 94 when I could ignore results because of England's failure to be there and enjoy the entertainment. But then if results are irrelevant you might as well be watching Disney on Ice. Why is Baggio missing the penalty in the final after dragging them there by his Herculean performances almost Shakesperean in its tragedy if winning is not important? When through on goal in a World Cup final instead of keeping their head down and trying to hit the target why dont players try and dribble back toward the half way line to beat another 6 defenders and so create a legacy that will be remembered for eternity?
Why did Pep get criticism last season where he hasnt before? He's following the same 'philosophy' as always? Why is he suddenly coming under pressure for playing with the same style as his Barca team if trophies are meaningless as long as you entertain (and Claudio Bravo was entertaining last season - that is undeniable).
Apologies - because you were slagging Germany off in the previous sentence I missed that you were actually saying Argentina deserved to have been there as Copa America champions not World Champions.
But then once again your criteria as who 'deserves' to win is a grey area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_América_Centenario_Final
With 54% possession Chile seem to have been happy to play for penalties (which is their right, incidentally) but to say Argentina 'deserved' it when they had less possession and could only muster 3 shots on target out of 18 is pushing it somewhat. Thats not a team that has been exceptionally unlucky. Thats a team that cant finish.
I agree. Laughably easy draw for both teams but somehow its fine for France to be lucky up to the final but a travesty when their luck runs out and Portugal's doesnt? I'll repeat - Italy deserved this tournament, especially if we are now basing it on the new criteria of how easy your draw was: Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Spain, Germany just to get to the QF! And then France and Portugal after that! Only Ireland could you say they should comfortably beat and Sweden they probably shouldnt lose to. All the rest could have turned them over and they only lost on pens (yes I know they lost to Ireland but they put out a B team to rest players so comfortable were they in getting through the group) so where is your lament that the Confederations Cup would have been better with Italy rather than the exceptionally jammy France (piss easy draw handed to them as usual a la 2014 where they suddenly changed the seeding system for the draw to ensure France - who only just scraped through in the first place - got a group of Ecuador, Honduras and Switzerland whilst England got stitched with a group of Italy, Uruguay and Costa Rica)?
Would have been more interesting with Brazil too so why not give them a bye and forget they got raped out of their own World Cup 7-1 and didnt even get out of their group in the Copa America?
The only team that would have made it more interesting for me (but I suspect you might disagree ever so slightly!!!) would be England because then I might have watched what is a meaningless tournament. You see what happens when winning something doesnt matter? No one watches.
I for one find pleassure in watching football for its spectacle, not only to see my own team win or not, and I am capable of taking an interest in other teams than my personal favorites. I will continue to support those who play well and are willing to entertain and achieve something more than simply grabbing the trophy in the end, something you are never guaranteed to do no matter what philosophy you choose. Football after all is entertainment.
Knocked out in the qualifying round of the Europa League by Luxemburg part-timers.
Style and entertainment is the cherry on the cake. But what is an empty plate with just a cherry on it and no actual cake? If you have to sacrifice winning to achieve it then youre round the bend. Look at the Spurs and West Ham 'way' of playing attractive football. How many trophies has that generated over the years?
You seem to be claiming that football is all about cherries here:
You dont explicitly state that you agree with the above but it seems fairly clear that you do so mildly contradictory.
If football was mere entertainment why would I continue to watch England and Liverpool?
Yes you can watch other tournaments and other teams apart from your own just for entertainment purposes but thats reducing football to ballet or the theatre.
The only games that actually matter to your soul (or should if you are an actual fan rather than a tourist just watching 'entertainment') are the ones where your own team is playing. The reason football transcends other entertainments is that you actually care about winning and losing and it means something to you.
The perfect example. How 'entertained' do you think the Rangers fans were by this even if they had trapeze artists swinging from the crossbar, a seal balancing the ball on its nose and Jean Claude Juncker streaking?
That statement somehow stuns me. Way back when he coached Dortmund Juergen Klopp was never accused of playing boring football. Could you please enlighten me?
I hope Liverpool don't get knocked out of the CL in their playoff games.
Liverpool are a big club, they have aspirations of winning the title. Sexy football is fine for a club like Spurs, but it isn't enough for a club like Liverpool.
I'm talking over the last 25 years mate. And Jobo may call a season of Kevin Keegan football that barely got over the CL line into 4th when only up against the worst Arsenal and Utd sides for a decade 'entertaining' but when you are English and European royalty success is measured by silverware not goals scored so buy a f**king keeper Jurgen.
Not at all mate. I'm more than happy at watching hapless Karius and Klavan 'entertaining' me by coming up with ever more inventive ways to throw one in.
It's the Most Beautiful Game in the World. Don't you agree ?