Thread: Football WorldCup Final Play-Offs

Originally Posted by Scorpion89

My Hater of the French is very much part of this discussion since Paris decide to call of us Yanks cxnts so all bets are off Peter. Oh and for the record Ireland should have never had to play a Match Game what every happen to the rule your Qual. for the World Cup your in and you play thru the Torrny none of the BS Match Play. As for the Pel. in the 6 area not even close see I watch the fn game also Peter fair contact and it was the correct call. But I see your standing up for the little french Cheater hell he even admits he used his hands not once but twice that should alone disqu. the French for the World Cup, but hey we all know what ever the French want then FIFA will make sure they get it.

And you dont get it. Here are some facts.

Yes Henry "cheated" by handling the ball. But no there is legal framework what so ever to replay the game based on this. Handling of the ball happens all the time in the game, and yes sometimes it is a game changer if not seen by the officials.

The Irish also had 17 min after the French goal to get another goal that would have put them in the finals.. but they did not manage that and it was not a lack of chances. And lets not forget the Irish defence totally botched handling the attack that ultimate led to the goal... you do NOT let a ball bounce in the penalty area with opposition in there.. it is defending 101.

And yes the Irish were only in the game because they got a penalty (and scored the goal) in a game in the qualifying round and that goal (and draw) made them get enough points to get into the play-off against France. So they "cheated" also!

I dont care about your hatred of the French or the small fight with paris. What I do care about is the constant miss information about how France got to the world cup and the French relationship to FIFA. I bet if you asked Fifa and the South Africans, they would rather have the Irish in South Africa because Irish fans travel more and spend more than French fans.

So all I see is yet again another American who knows not much about the game attacking the French because they are French and totally disregards the actual facts.

Actually Futball was not invented in the UK some say it came from Scandiva but what is know the actual first pro game happen in 1862 in Boston Mass a full year before the FA was founded.

A "pro game"... yea right prove it. You do know that a "pro" game means they all were paid to play the game right? And since the laws of the game were not written down until a year later, then how could they be playing "football"? I know rugby was quite popular and pro sport in Canada at the time.. maybe you were thinking about that?

And it would not matter since the game basis for the game were started by the Cambridge Rules, set up at Trinity college in the UK in 1848. When the FA was formed and the first league was form in the UK it was 1863, the Cambridge Rules had been used and modified to form the "laws of the game".

As for claiming it came from Scandinavia.. no.. that was handball.

Untill Soccer decide to join the 21st Century they will always have these problems but hey at least American Football doesn't have a War start over a friggen Kids game.

Thank you for insulting 3 billion plus players and fans around the world..

Originally Posted by Scorpion89

Hey Peter guess what you don't know Jack about Fytball you ask here you go Buckwheat,

I see..

The name of the Team The Oneida Foot Ball Club, first formed in 1861 what that's two years before the Brits started any Pro or other wise League Games.

Ahh them. Well considering the basic rules of the game were not put in place before 1863, then in reality (you know the real world) they can not have played the football we know today, since the rules that govern it were not in place at the time.

Then again by your standards we have to go much much further back. The Mayan's played a game with a ball and their feet so they must have invented "football" right? Sure the rules were different, but it was a round thing kicked around right? So where does that put your claim then?

But back to the French and Irish game you along with the rest of FIFA keep saying you can replay or change the rules funny they did that what three or four weeks ago to have match play so the so-call top flight European Teams would have to face each other right off. So much for not changing rules typical FIFA BS.

What on earth are you babling about?

Hmm if the Game was started as you claim in the UK then why does it fall under a French Based International Ruled Group answer me that one Peter.

The Laws of the Game were made in the UK as I have stated and that start off what we know as organised football today. If you dont believe me, google it.

The rules have been tweaked and changed over time I dont deny that, but the basis for the modern game we know today goes back to the Laws of the Game from 1863.

Now saying that there was some rules made in Cambridge (in the UK) in the 1840s that the Laws of the Game is in part based on, but that does not change the fact that the rules for the game we know as football today were written in the UK.

Now the reason that FIFA has a french aspect is because it was formed in Paris in 1904 and the first president was a Frenchman. But that some how means that the FIFA of today, which is based in Switzerland and run by a Swiss guy, suddenly is "pro" French for enforcing the rules.. rules I might yet again remind you (funny how you ignore this fact), that put Ireland into the play-offs in the first place despite "cheating" themselves to a penalty in a key qualifying game?

As for me not knowing much about the game **** you buddy see I've been playing the games since I was 4 so yea asshole I might know a thing or two about how the game is played nice try bring your hatered of all things USA into the discussion.

And yet you know nothing of the game it seems.

As for my supposed hatred of all things USA... prove it.

I have made fun of American Football and Hockey.. Considering that American Football is based on a game invented by the British (unless you count the game played by the ancient Greeks), and hockey is a game invented mostly by Canadians (when under British rule), how can it be some sort of "hatred" towards the USA?

But hey at least USA games have never start a War between two Countries nor have they had player killed by fans or Refs killed by fans and when was the last time you heard of Riots happening at an American football Game( sure Raiders fans are scary but they don't start Riots).

Hey not footballs fault that it was used as an excuse to start a freaking war. That war would have started regardless, since the two countries (who are in South America btw) are still pissed at each other over the disputed territory.

As for violent fans.. so you are saying that LA Lakers fans did not riot when LA won last season? Or the cases of US fans of various sports including hockey going nuts in the stands and fighting?

Fans riots after the Montreal Canadiens won game 7 - 4/22/08 - Los Angeles-Southern California-LA Breaking News, Weather, Traffic, Sports - abc7.com

That does not count because it was Canadian fans? But it was hockey...in the NHL..

Or how about

Video - Fans Fight Over Hockey Stick At Ducks Game 11/19/09

Fighting over a stick.... Let me guess, because it is in California then it does not count because Californians are crazy?

Or how about

American Football: Oakland riots highlight ugly side of US sport - More Sports, Sport - The Independent

Let me guess.. its Oakland/San Francisco..liberal heartland and in California.. so it dont count?

How about

NorthJersey.com: Basketball game sparks small riot

a highschool game!.. that does not happen over here lol

another highschool game..

Atl Night Spots Riot breaks out at Alabama basketball game (Video)

This time in Alabama.. now that has to be "core USA" no?

Intresting you all name messi over ronaldo i cant think many clubs would take messi over ronaldo.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWiZs9RkNU8"]YouTube- Cristiano Ronaldo's Skills and Goals (recent years)[/ame]

Originally Posted by mikhail

Intresting you all name messi over ronaldo i cant think many clubs would take messi over ronaldo.

YouTube- Cristiano Ronaldo's Skills and Goals (recent years)

Depends really.

Ronaldo is an arrogant playboy, and with that comes problems. However he is because of this, also a very valuable "money making machine" for the club. Beckham was an average player but he could pass the ball like no other, and the girls loved him and because of this he was an icon money making machine.

Messi is very down to earth and actually a tad shy. This however is not too good for a marketing wise aspect. All Messi wants to do is to play ball.. he does not care about parties, ladies on each arm and how good he looks on camera.. Ronaldo does.

If you take the technical abilities of the two players then Messi beats Ronaldo hands down. Yes Ronaldo can dribble amazingly well, but if you look at how he dribbles it is a lot of walk overs and moving of the hips and the speed to confuse his opposite number and then bang he his past because he is faster.. he does not really dribble in classic term. Messi on the other hand does. He does like Maradona and Pele and Zidane.. sucks the ball to his foot and dribbles through opposition, using his size, agility and balance to get past his opposition.

Ronaldo on the other hand beats Messi on shot power and speed but only just.

If you look at vision, as in able to create and see the right pass at the right time... Messi hands down.. Ronaldo is far far too selfish a player. Messi can play a playmaker easily and often does, Ronaldo cant.. it is winger or attacker.. nothing else.

But yes most clubs if they look at the bottom line, would choose Ronaldo over Messi because he is an easier marketing tool.. but as a player, most would choose Messi I bet.

Originally Posted by PeteEU

Depends really.

Ronaldo is an arrogant playboy, and with that comes problems. However he is because of this, also a very valuable "money making machine" for the club. Beckham was an average player but he could pass the ball like no other, and the girls loved him and because of this he was an icon money making machine.

Messi is very down to earth and actually a tad shy. This however is not too good for a marketing wise aspect. All Messi wants to do is to play ball.. he does not care about parties, ladies on each arm and how good he looks on camera.. Ronaldo does.

If you take the technical abilities of the two players then Messi beats Ronaldo hands down. Yes Ronaldo can dribble amazingly well, but if you look at how he dribbles it is a lot of walk overs and moving of the hips and the speed to confuse his opposite number and then bang he his past because he is faster.. he does not really dribble in classic term. Messi on the other hand does. He does like Maradona and Pele and Zidane.. sucks the ball to his foot and dribbles through opposition, using his size, agility and balance to get past his opposition.

Ronaldo on the other hand beats Messi on shot power and speed but only just.

If you look at vision, as in able to create and see the right pass at the right time... Messi hands down.. Ronaldo is far far too selfish a player. Messi can play a playmaker easily and often does, Ronaldo cant.. it is winger or attacker.. nothing else.

But yes most clubs if they look at the bottom line, would choose Ronaldo over Messi because he is an easier marketing tool.. but as a player, most would choose Messi I bet.

I agree Ronaldo is very arrogant and annoying.However i still see him as more valuble if i had a must win game and had a choice between the 2 i feel he would be more likely to win the game for me.Look how man united are struggling without him.

Originally Posted by mikhail

I agree Ronaldo is very arrogant and annoying.However i still see him as more valuble if i had a must win game and had a choice between the 2 i feel he would be more likely to win the game for me.Look how man united are struggling without him.

You have a point somewhat. If you get a free kick near the penalty area, then yes, but that is the only difference really. Ronaldo is a far too selfish player compared to Messi, so Ronaldo will take the bull by the horns so to say and try to score himself before the team. Messi aint like that.

Originally Posted by PeteEU

As for violent fans.. so you are saying that LA Lakers fans did not riot when LA won last season? Or the cases of US fans of various sports including hockey going nuts in the stands and fighting?

Fans riots after the Montreal Canadiens won game 7 - 4/22/08 - Los Angeles-Southern California-LA Breaking News, Weather, Traffic, Sports - abc7.com

That does not count because it was Canadian fans? But it was hockey...in the NHL..

Or how about

Video - Fans Fight Over Hockey Stick At Ducks Game 11/19/09

Fighting over a stick.... Let me guess, because it is in California then it does not count because Californians are crazy?

Or how about

American Football: Oakland riots highlight ugly side of US sport - More Sports, Sport - The Independent

Let me guess.. its Oakland/San Francisco..liberal heartland and in California.. so it dont count?

How about

NorthJersey.com: Basketball game sparks small riot

a highschool game!.. that does not happen over here lol

another highschool game..

Atl Night Spots Riot breaks out at Alabama basketball game (Video)

This time in Alabama.. now that has to be "core USA" no?

I don't know if you want to get into an argument over violence of fans. There are isolated cases with other sports, and riots which have errupted in cities when their teams won and such. However, nothing to the degree to which soccer hooligans take it on a routine basis. It's quite possible to be killed in a soccer game for wearing the wrong colors in the wrong section. In America you may get made fun of, have some swear words thrown at you; that's usually it. Occasionally, fists will be thrown. But rarely are there deaths or beatings the likes seen by soccer fans, especially those from the UK.

Originally Posted by paris

What the hell is going on in here? This thread is about football, real FOOTball! Why don't you start your own thread about hockey or whatever sport you play you yankee cvnts

Real football is played with pads on a 100 yard field. Soccer is the word you're looking for you.