Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why so few goals scored so far?

Why so few goals?

  • Total voters
    36
Maltin said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8739146.stm

That mentions USA, Argentina and Germany but I'm sure I saw France mentioned earlier. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Only in the French Cup apparently, not the league.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/wo...-balls-Just-BUT-England-having-kickabout.html

51 per cent of players at this World Cup have had regular access to the Jabulani ball but not one of them is in England's 23-man squad - 377 out of 736 players used the ball pre-tournament
Click to expand...
 
Those krafty krauts eh?

Cheers for that info - our german drummer has been gloating following their demolition of australia - now i can come back at him with this bombshell ...

I think there's a lot of over cautious play and the ball may be a factor. Also none of the supposedly 'minnow' teams have read the script (i.e. new zealand, north korea) and have succeded in keeping the scores low. Some of the afrian teams seem to be playing a lot more cautiously then usual as well.

Bit early to dismiss the tournament though - it could be a slow boiling cracker. Argenitna, Brazil, Spain, Germany and.. er .. North Korea could yet come to the fore with their attacking prowess

Or we could end up with a France vs Italy final going to penalties after 120 minutes of over defensive tedium .....
 
you would think that if you were a pro with a chance of going to south africa, you would have bought some of the balls yourself to practise with as soon as they went on sale.

could altitude be playing an effect? the players seem to be tiring a fair bit towards the end and it could also have an effect on the way the ball travels. maybe?
 
discokermit said:
you would think that if you were a pro with a chance of going to south africa, you would have bought some of the balls yourself to practise with as soon as they went on sale.

could altitude be playing an effect? the players seem to be tiring a fair bit towards the end and it could also have an effect on the way the ball travels. maybe?
Click to expand...

They reckon they are the roundest ball ever!!

They had a piece about it on the BBC news, apparently it was developed in Loughborough. It is supposed to travel perfectly, but Keepers have slated it saying they move everywhere (just like the old floaters).

But surely if you get it down and pass it it shouldnt make that much difference to a Pro?

Just get it in the box and give it a big fuckin' wallop, that will get the job done.
 
StanSmith said:
Well Stan Cullis didnt like more than 3 passes to get a goal so if it was good enough for him its good enough for me :cool:
Click to expand...
i think cullis was being generous. perfect goal should be goalie boots it to winger who volleys it to striker who heads it in. anything else is frivolous showboating.
 
discokermit said:
i think cullis was being generous. perfect goal should be goalie boots it to winger who volleys it to striker who heads it in. anything else is frivolous showboating.
Click to expand...

Well it did say preferably less than 3 passes. It did the old boys alright.

I cant see that ever coming back into vogue, even though Stoke think 2 passes is excessive now.
 
Silva said:
Except you'd suddenly see a lot of teams playing fuckall in defense. Every time a teams feels shafted by a draw that would qualify both teams, there's a huge uproar. Imagine both teams not giving a shit about defense, and qualifying with a silly pre-arranged result.

TBH, I think the ball is partly to blame - but I'm wondering if the sport is just short on talent these days.
Click to expand...


An Ivorycoastian:hmm: said after the match that he was "very happy" with the 0-0 draw as it suited both teams.
Isn't that a kind of 'fixed' result under this system?
 
jiggajagga said:
An Ivorycoastian:hmm: said after the match that he was "very happy" with the 0-0 draw as it suited both teams.
Isn't that a kind of 'fixed' result under this system?
Click to expand...

The difference is that one or even both can still be fucked by the "arrangement", a thing that wouldn't happen, with, for instance, Denmark and Sweden in their Euro 2004 group (them and Italy all tied with 5 points).
 
jiggajagga said:
What we need is a rethink of the system in the 1st round.
How about 1 pt for a win 0 for a draw, 0 for a loss and 1 point for goals for?

There for if you win 1-0 you will get 2 pts. if you win 5-3 you will get 6 pts and even the losers get 3! This is the reward for an entertaining game.

Come on Blatter, this system is killing the Tournament!
Click to expand...
So you could have one team that wins each of it's group games 1-0, so would get 6 points, and another that loses all it's games by scores of 0-1 3-4 and 4-5, and the losing team would qualify instead of the winning one? Yeah, that'll work! :facepalm:
 
Silva said:
The difference is that one or even both can still be fucked by the "arrangement", a thing that wouldn't happen, with, for instance, Denmark and Sweden in their Euro 2004 group (them and Italy all tied with 5 points).
Click to expand...
i assume their thinking is that they will both beat korea dpr and thus it will come down to how well either of them does against brazil, thus ensuring that at least one of the teams goes thru? a loss for either in the opener could have effectively ended their tournament from the off? i don't know, it would be good to see someone going all out for a win sometime soon, spain perhaps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

not-bono-ever
Best performance so far ?
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
London_Calling
London_Calling
L
Why did Rooney play so badly in South Africa?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
5K
rosa
R
not-bono-ever
So U75 Gamblers...
Replies
8
Views
3K
souljacker
souljacker
Kanda
So... John Terry
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
tommers
tommers
AKA pseudonym
So who is not shaving?
Replies
0
Views
560
AKA pseudonym
AKA pseudonym
Back
Top Bottom