Great game. Two good teams, a good referee (A couple of dodgy calls but generally very good), and a well deserved winner.

Italy will win this 1-0

Keeping '90, '96 and '98 in mind, don't you think this might perhaps have something to do with the mentality in the English game? Interestingly enough Owen Hargreaves plays in the same league as most of the confident German penalty takers, which might have som effect. I can understand blaming SGE for not winning in the 120 minutes of play, but putting a ball into the net from 11yds out surely involves the actual players too to some extent?

Nowhere in those three posts does r6 claim Sven is fantastic. He does have the audacious opinion that Sven hasn't only done wrong since taking over... horrible isn't it?

How brilliant is Ricardo on penalties? He got his hand onto all four penalties. A couple of them were poor, but still impressive.

Werder Bremen, and if he was to leave then there'd be bigger clubs in line . He's really impressed me though. Great in the air, pretty quick, got an eye for goal and works extremely hard. Also created a lot of space for Podolski in the Sweden game, I'd imagine he's the type of player that would make most strike partners better.

This result royally screwed my fantasy team over

If pure technical ability with the ball is all you rate, then I assume you'd rate a "goal poacher" as low as a shoddy defender? Since their strength lies in reading the game and being in the right place at the right time and not in technical ability. Bit pointless discussion to have I guess. You rate only technical ability, I rate things like reading the game as well. Each to their own. You're still wrong though

They have more technical ability. They don't have more ability to defend well. Take a striker and put him as a centre half and he'll be crap. Take a centre half and play him as a striker and he'll be crap. A brain surgeon wouldn't necessarily be a crap nurse, as he has all the medical training a nurse has, only more. That's the difference. The skill and ability for a defender is more physical and tactical (But also technical;winning headers, making tackles, directing blocks/interceptions to a fellow player etc), but that doesn't mean it doesn't take ability.

By the two of us and other people able to look past scoring charts yes. But not by most people no. Then again, I tend to disagree with "the masses" on a lot of things. Not gonna claim that makes them dumb (Nor that it makes me dumb) but I have my theories regarding that too

How could you say Rooney is comprehensively better than for example Cannavaro and Nesta? At dribbling, shooting etc. then ofcourse he is, because he's a FORWARD, they are DEFENDERS. Nesta and Cannavaro form the world's best central defensive partnership for Italy, and are also individually in the top 5 (Even an Italy-hater would have to include them in their top 10) defenders in the world. What makes a world class forward "comprehensively better" than a world class defender? You can't compare them like that, you can only compare them to players who play a similar role. As for importance to the team; Italy might very well have lost to Australia without Cannavaro, he was immense. I'll never buy the argument that strikers are somehow more important to the team... they're just more visible.

Are you talking about the one where he brings the ball down inside the penalty area? If so, it looked to me as if he brought it down with his chest. And if it did hit his arm he held it pressed against his body so shouldn't have been a penalty either way.

I havent done anything with this since buying my initial shares. Just don't have a real interest tbh

"Just make sure you send off a player early in the second half forcing us to bring on an inexperienced 4th choice centre half will you? Would look suspicious otherwise" Unless, ofcourse, you were refering to stores selling fine Italian-made suitcases, in which case I agree that transactions did take place.

That one is kinda crappy according to Brazilians on other forums. But I suppose it's entertaining anyway. Edimo #8.

I still feel that way yes. They're better at it maybe, but if you watched the game today I think you'd have found that it was the only time it happened (And a ridiculous dive from Gattuso of all people in his own half that resulted in nothing). Basicly when Italy play they could go a whole game, or several games, without any dives, but when it does happen once people will go "Cheating @#/?s!!! They always dive". It's not like they fell over as soon as an Aussie came near... so speaking of quantity no they don't dive more. Fans of teams with a more "honest" (hah!) reputation like England or the U.S ignore their own players cheating but are quick to jump onto teams with a worse reputation.

Horrible way to lose, but it wasn't undeserved IMO. Australia had their chance 11v10 for almost a whole half and created absolutely nothing. Had it been Toni/Gilardino instead of Iaquinta upfront alone for the second half I think they'd have won it earlier. But that's just pure speculation. And all this "Cheating *****s" as soon as someone mentions Italy annoys me. Seen over the whole game I think you'd find there was a lot *less* cheating from Italy than almost every other team in the tournament. The difference was that when it did happen it was significant. Things like appealing for penalty when you know there blatantly wasn't handball annoys me a lot, but noone will mention that because it was against Italy... EDIT: Hopefully this will take the shine off Neill's otherwise excellent performance and increase our chances of keeping him. I do feel for him though

He's apparently on his way to Rangers. Or at least he was, not sure what's happened to that.

If Portugal beat England, then Scolari will have knocked Eriksson out of every tournament Eriksson has qualified for

He plays for Modena in Serie B (Although they finished 5th, so will be in Serie A if Milan/Juve get relegated). So he plays at a decent level already. Very possible he'll move though.

Pirlo certainly is one to get me excited, but maybe that's due to my love for that particular type of player (Of which Tugay is one too). Gattuso is simply there to win the ball, and Perrotta is underrated by most. Italy play a narrow midfield, relying on Zambrotta/Grosso for width, and Totti + the front two also creating chances. So the fact that Gattuso and Perrotta aren't exciting doesn't mean much. Savage for example isn't exciting but he's certainly useful.

The amazing thing about Inter is that they'll probably fail to win even if Lazio, Roma, Juve and Milan all go down. They're turned spending big money with nothing to show for it into an art. A bit like Newcastle.

The penalty was definitely very very dodgy (And I watched the other game so didn't see much more than the goals), but seen over all three games I think it's clear that the best two teams in the group are through.

Did I say they were world class? I did say Ballack was (Which isn't an outrageous statement since he plays in England), but one player doesn't make a team. I wouldn't have said anything before the tournament as I hadn't seen much of them. I wouldn't say that they were better than Brazil (Unless they start playing even worse) no, but that's because I rate Brazil's squad quite a bit higher than the English. As do most people who aren't English. If all players played at max capacity under the ultimate system for them I'd take England over Germany, but even judging player by player England aren't miles better. Better yes, but nothing like you make it out to be. I also prefer to look at what the teams do on the pitch, rather than look at what clubs they play for and what the media thinks of each player. But maybe that's a silly way to look at this?' EDIT: oh yeah, something I thought I mentioned already but apparently hadn't: Germany are at home. That usually matters quite a bit.

Well comparing teams player for player would've meant a comfortable win for England against Sweden, a Swedish 6-0 beating of T&T etc. Form is really all that matters. Klose is on fire, as is their left wing with Schweinsteiger and Lahm. Ballack is world class, and Lehmann is an excellent keeper. Their defense has looked a bit dodgy, but the same can be said for England. Difference being that Germany creates a lot more chance, and most of all they can keep going for 90 minutes. England only show up for 45 minutes each game. But yea, convincing an Englishman that his team isn't quite as good as he thinks it is is pretty tough indeed. But I also base it on how well the opposition suits Sweden. As we've seen half a dozen times during the SGE and Lagerbäck eras England fits us well. We can cope with the long balls to Crouch and with Beckhams crosses. England created chances through Rooney (Who can do pretty much anything) and through Cole&Cole on our weak right flank. Germany play with more imagination and have a great left side too. Germany aren't a great team, saying they're a class above England during this WC rather says more about England than it does Germany tbh. Take of the St.George-cross-tinted glasses for a few seconds and you might see that.