I think they borrowed this from Cricket, the individual presentations.
I think that Lochdale was responding to the people in this thread who suggested that he wasn’t even the best player on his own team.
I don’t think that’s being super critical either. Maschereno had a great tournament. I think an argument ccan be made for either as the best Argentine this WC.
Has any network or organization put together a montage of top 10 games, or top 10 goals, of this WC? I’m a sucker for things of that sort, and ABC/ESPN didn’t seem to do one in the USA that I saw.
I think there are 4 possibilities for top goal of the WC, which really come down to whether you’re evaluating the goal itself, or the goal in context. In context, it’s 100% Goetze’s goal in the final, since it’s an already stellar goal, in the biggest context possible. Aside from that, I think the 3 other best goals were Van Persie vs. Spain, Tim Cahill vs. Holland, and James Rodriguez vs. Uruguay.
Not sure what I think the most entertaining game was. Some possibilities:
-Costa Rica vs. Greece
-USA vs. Portugal
-Final, Germany vs. Argentina
-Germany vs. Ghana
-Germany vs. Brazil
Interesting, 3 Germany games, each entertaining for pretty much completely different reasons
I agree. I didn’t see Roger Federer looking grumpy at Wimbledon because he had to talk to Sue Lawley during the trophy presentation. Though I might add that Federer is perhaps the epitome of class in such matters.
To be fair, Wimbledon is held every year, and it’s just one of four major tournaments. Messi won’t get another chance at this for four years, and he’ll be over 30 when he gets his next shot.
So what? Where’s the tournament frequency cutoff for not being a baby?
People who have been playing since childhood know what losing is, and how to do it, long before reaching national-side level. It’s tough to lose a Finals, sure, especially when a break or two the other way would have made the difference, but that’s part of sports. They can handle it, as they showed.
While I think Messi as the Golden Ball winner is ridiculous, I do agree with this. Just the fact that Argentina didn’t win will (unfairly) tarnish his reputation.
Personally, I would’ve voted for Maschereno. James would also have been a great choice. I think Robben and Navas were at least as good as Messi.
ESPN did do this for best goals. They have an entire section devoted to the World Cup, and there are a few best of categories in all of the hundreds of articles. Takes some looking around for them, though.
I think you’re being a bit unnecessarily … something here.
At best players have 3-4 chances of the World Cup in their entire career. The build up to the finals is a two year process. The comparison was with Wimbledon, which is yearly and one of four major tournaments. So in the time for the next World Cup to come around, Federer will have played, assuming he is injury free, in sixteen major tournaments.
Surely you can see a difference there?
Comparing it with cricket, I think there is all sorts of different ways of looking at it. For a start, the nature of the games. The Argentinians had just run around in the Rio heat for two hours and lost something that they won’t have a chance at for another four years. Someone losing a cricket match has been doing a lot of standing around and walking. The exhaustion level of the footballer is completely different to that of the cricketer, and that exhaustion levels adds to the desperate feeling of defeat. And I say this as someone who loves cricket and has watched it all of his life.
But frankly, a lot of it is that what happened after that game is not how it normally works with football. It seemed unnecessary as it was unnecessary because tournaments have shown in the past how quickly it can be done.
That would be Sue Barker. Sue Lawley is someone else entirely, though I can see how they are easily confused!
I agree that Robben was one of the best players of the tournament, but probably good that he didn’t get the Golden Ball after his diving.
Is this true though? Other than the aforementioned Wimbledon*, who does this? Certainly the major sports here in the US don’t make the runner-up (i.e., 1st Loser) stand around through a ceremony. They clear the field and let the winner get on with celebrating…
- The exception would be the Olympics, but I don’t count those because 1) It’s the Olympics. 2) The medal ceremony is generally not held right away but some time later 3) The 1st Losers get to look down on the 2nd Losers, so there’s at least that.
**Oh, and lest anybody miss it, the whole Loser thing is tongue-in-cheek.
OK. I don’t have access to the full game, so am going by The Guardian’s minute by minute.
2014 World Cup Final:
Final Whistle 10:36pm BST
Lift Trophy 11:06pm BST
Time taken: 30 mins
2010 World Cup Final:
Video here: FIFA World Cup 2010 Final - Spain Vs Netherlands FULL MATCH (English) - YouTube
Final Whistle: 2:25:48
Lift trophy: 2:41:26
Time taken: 16 mins
So, basically, they took twice the amount of time that they did at the last World Cup. Whether it is similar to other sports or not, for the World Cup Final it was an abnormally long length of time.
Or in other words the same as Lahm and Schwinestiger are and about 5 years younger than Klose.
He is still young enough to win.
Or in other words the same as Lahm and Schwinestiger are and about 5 years younger than Klose.
He is still young enough to win.
Fact is Germany were a well oiled machine. Messi was Argentina. They got further than they should.
And I say this as someone who was cheering the Argies and wants Loew to return to the 1970’s where he belongs.
Messi is 27. A player of his caliber could very easily play in two more World Cups. Maradona was 34 at the time of the 1994 World Cup and scored a goal before being suspended after the second game. Messi will be 35 in 2022.
Never watched NASCAR or Indycar? At the end of the race, the winner stands on the top of the podium and the runners-up stand below him. Same thing happens in every track-and-field event, not just the Olympics.
Granted, it’s slightly different because you already knew you would be first or second when the WC final starts.
I can certainly see a difference in how much each WC means versus each Wimbledon. That doesn’t mean I should approve of highly paid professionals pouting because they have to clap for their opponents for a couple of minutes.
Yes, these are all grown men who make millions of Euros. I’m sure they’ll be fine. However, you must acknowledge the odds of an individual returning to a World Cup final are virtually nil and that it takes two YEARS of joyless qualifying to even get in the tournament. A bit more gutting than your car finishing second in the Doritos 400.
But the point is that it’s so pointless. Why make them stand there at all? Do we gain from watching them sit there dejected for 30 minutes? Is collecting a silver medal some sort of public service? Let them stew in their locker room, not in front of 30 cameras.
The U.S. Open tennis tournament does, although the runner-up does have the consolation of receiving a rather sizable second-place check.
As for the major team sports, I’m pretty sure the reason the losing team doesn’t stand around for the ceremony is, there’s nothing for them to receive. In the World Cup and the Olympics, the second-place team gets second-place medals, but in MLB, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL (and whatever the FBS college football championship is called this week, for that matter), it’s just the trophy. (The winners usually get rings, but in the pro sports, these are paid for by the team.) The one exception I can think of is the NCAA men’s basketball championship, where everybody on both teams gets something (the winners get rings; I think the losers get miniature trophies) that is provided by the NCAA, although they might have the ceremony after the TV coverage ends.
On the contrary, if you play for for a top team, like Messi does, the chances are good. Klose played in the 2002 final and last Sunday…with two semi finals defeats in between. Cafu played in three finals, Zidane, Viera in two, Ronaldo, Rivaldo in two as well. Along with Voeller, Mattaus, Beckenbauer, Pele, Bertier, many Dutch from 1974 and 1978, and others .
Argentina have a young team and some good young lads coming through. I see no reason why they won’t have a chance in Russia.
Edit: This was in response to Edrosain.