World Cup 2010

[Celena]

I put a tenner of Germany to win the cup. Odds were 7/1 at the time (during the group stages) =D

[Saz]

7-1? They're probably pretty close to 7-1 to win it even at this stage, at the start of the tournament they were about 14-1 on Betfair. You got ripped off mang.

[Celena]

I didn't get ripped off. William Hill had it at 14-1 at the start too, but the odds changed after Germany hammered Australia. That's when I bet on Germany.

[Saz]

Oh I see. Anyway that bet's not looking too bad right now, huh. 4-0, bloody hell steam-rolled past both England and Argentina with ease, unbelieveable.

[Celena]

They'll beat Spain but I don't think they'll steamroll them. Spains defence is organized.

[Sage]

Fffffu- well there's no reason for me to keep watching. =(

[Celena]

The best two teams in whole competition were in the final despite the fact that it wasn't the final everyone hoped it would be. I'm pleased Spain won though, this is their golden age and they were the best team in the tournament.

[Saz]

Germany played the best football. Spain in particular, but Holland aswell, just grinded wins out. Not exactly the most entertaining football, but I guess it worked. 8 goals in 7 games isn't what you'd expect from the winners. It almost felt like Spain never got out of second gear, which I suppose just goes to how superior they are, that they didn't even need to play at their best to win the World Cup.

[Belle Hibiki]

The fouling was kind of regrettable. I still can't believe that kick to the chest wasn't red-carded.

[Celena]

I know a referees general mindset is to referee a world cup final without handing out red cards, but damn, that deserved a sending off. Van Bommel deserved to be sent off too. He got away with a lot of shit throughout the tournament. Howard Webb was way too lenient today.

[Alexander Trafford]

If Thomas Muller hadn't been suspended for the semi-final and Klose had been in top form (he had back soreness), the Germans would have won that game and then won the World Cup. Spain got lucky a lot during this tournament. They should have lost to Paraguay.

Netherlands slipped by a depleted Uruguay side as well. This was not the final I wanted to see, nor was it a final that included the two teams who were playing in top form.

[Celena]

Which two teams did you want to see in the final, Alex?

[Alexander Trafford]

Germany, Netherlands. Though I believe if the Uruguayan side would have been at full strength, they would have beaten the Netherlands.

[Rem-13]

I'm not sure I grasp your reasoning. Isn't 'up to form' really just 'up to what I expect'? There'd be no reason to hold the Cup if every nation did as expected. Germany had 90 minutes to score a single goal against Spain and they didn't, so they lost. Same with the Dutch. Spain won through attrition, not through 'good football', but they did win. A good, fluid game happens when two teams styles and skill levels mesh into something exciting, but that doesn't mean they are really better. Its hard to call it luck when you win, what, 7 games straight?

I'll admit I'm not a huge soccer fan, I've only followed it the past three years or so and then only casually, but I see this kind of talk in American Football and Hockey too (the only other two sports I follow). And hell, In hockey its best of seven every matchup in the playoffs, and people still bitch about lucky bounces on the puck.

[Alexander Trafford]

Netherlands is a better team than Uruguay, but they weren't playing better. Uruguay was playing better but lost to the Dutch because they had two or three men out on suspension. If every nation did as expected it would have been a Brazil, Spain final, which isn't what i asked for. I would have liked to see the two teams who were playing the best football during the tournament. I believe that was Germany and the Netherlands. But I'm admitting that Uruguay should have won their game against the Dutch, if they were at full strength.

And Spain winning by luck means that Paraguay hit the cross-bar on a penalty kick.

You really had absolutely no idea what i was saying. Up to form does not mean up to what i expect. It basically means 'teams that are playing in the best form' which means 'teams that are playing the best' not 'teams that have the potential to play the best' which would be 'what everyone expects. Bad translating.

[Celena]

No way were Uruguay playing better than the Dutch. The Dutch were more organized and played with much more precision. Diago Forlan just made Uruguay look good due to his spectacular performance in the World Cup. Looking back at most games, Diago Forlan was always the difference maker in Uruguay where as with the Netherlands, it was a team effort. Uruguay only stepped up against Germany.

[Alexander Trafford]

I think the suspended players for Uruguay would have made a significant difference in the semi-final, and, regardless, Uruguay was an exciting side since they had no right making it to the semi-finals. They were the most surprising team of this tournament. The Dutch were supposed to be there, Uruguay was not. Forlan was a great surprise, since United chased him out years back.

[Celena]

Forlan wasn't a surprise considering he single handedly took Liverpool out of the Uefa Cup and won his club the cup against Fulham. In fact, because of his form for his club and country I wouldn't be surprised if they named him World Player of the Year.

[Alexander Trafford]

Over Messi?

[Celena]

Yeah. Fifa take accomplishments into great consideration. It's why they gave it to Cannavaro in 06. Even though there were players from other countries who had performed better in World Cup 06, he was Italy's best player and they won the Cup.

If Barcelona had won the champions league and Argentina had gotten to the semi finals at least, then Messi would surely retain his title.