Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Winterfell
The point being that Italy was an early favorite ?
|
No. My original point is that while Italy had a deserved run to the final, their play in the actual final game was underwhelming and unsatisfying, when France were the better team for long parts of the game.
Quote:
Let me ponder on that, since you say they played well.
Italy had it really easy until the damned semi-Finals. Semi-finals. Put that in your brain. That was the 1st real test. They played so-so until then, and everyone called them dead unless they started moving, just like France, because of a lack of offence. Brazil, Argentina and the others big horses on the other hand crushed everyone, and Brazil faltered against France, in a well played game by the French. Italy won in overtime against Germany and France. Both match are considered russian roulette as everyone on the field is tired and any single mistake cost the Cup. It's luck. It's football. |
That's disingenuous. Brazil had one of the easiest qualifying groups, whereas Italy had Ghana (underrated by many), the Czechs (a dark horse) and the U.S. (who provided the big surprise in 2002). The group of death was largely considered to be the one with Holland and Argentina, but this group wasn't far behind. And the game with the Czechs was their first "real" test, not the semi's. And they played Ghana quite well, shutting down their midfield in a way neither the Czechs nor the Brazilians (who can thank their lucky stars for Ghana's crap finishing and the lack of Mikael Essien) could. I also wouldn't agree that the other teams 'crushed' their opponents. Argentina had one amazing game, against Serbia, and while they were arguably the better team, they hardly crushed the Ivory Coast or Holland. And they had to wait until the dying minutes to score the winner against a surprisingly resilient Mexico. Brazil won their games but looked largely underwhelming. If anything, it was Spain that looked the best after the group stages. Well, them and Germany, but they also played Costa Rica, an anemic Poland, and Ecuador.
But anyhow, I think you're getting mixed up here. It sounds like you're arguing that a team isn't a pre-tournament favorite based on how they played during the actual tournament.
And as an aside, I also wouldn't say that Brazil faltered against France as much as they were completely outclassed by them.
Quote:
| Calling Italy an early favorite is dumb. Might as well name 12 other teams "favorites" to prove your point. Brazil and Germany were the favorites. |
I disagree that Germany were *the* favorites. Most Germans didn't expect the team to advance past the quarterfinals, Ballack was making public statements about the lack of quality players, and Klinsmann was under immense pressure after two sub-par warmup games. Argentina were looking a better team. England had one of their strongest squads in years on paper, as did Italy. The Czechs were looking to make an impression. France's old boys wanted to bow out gracefully. I probably couldn't name 12 teams, but I could tell you at least half a dozen that had a very good shot at lifting the trophy. Brazil may have been the #1 choice by many, but they had a few teams nipping at their heels, and as you said, in football it's about a single mistake and a bit of luck. Thus my whole point -- expecting Brazil to steamroll everyone samba style and not consider Italy, England, the Czechs, Portugal, Spain, Argentina or France having a strong chance to lift the trophy is pretty silly.
I mean hell, Brazil's 1982 squad is considered to be one of their best ever, and they didn't win it either -- being knocked out, funnily enough, by Italy.
