c4countdown

So, how many of you guys who are so vigorously bashing it have actually played with this ball? Most of the criticism pre-tournament seemed to be about the erratic movement, but I haven't seen much of that at all. Don't forget a lot of the games are being played at altitude which will affect the dynamics of any ball.

Most teams have played with an organised, defensive attitude, which for me better explains the low number of goals so far.

Paul Howe wrote:So, how many of you guys who are so vigorously bashing it have actually played with this ball? Most of the criticism pre-tournament seemed to be about the erratic movement, but I haven't seen much of that at all. Don't forget a lot of the games are being played at altitude which will affect the dynamics of any ball.

Most teams have played with an organised, defensive attitude, which for me better explains the low number of goals so far.

Well judging by the number of overhit passes and poor free kicks this WC, I simply cannot believe standards have dropped that badly over the last 4 years.

Marc Meakin wrote:

Paul Howe wrote:So, how many of you guys who are so vigorously bashing it have actually played with this ball? Most of the criticism pre-tournament seemed to be about the erratic movement, but I haven't seen much of that at all. Don't forget a lot of the games are being played at altitude which will affect the dynamics of any ball.

Most teams have played with an organised, defensive attitude, which for me better explains the low number of goals so far.

Well judging by the number of overhit passes and poor free kicks this WC, I simply cannot believe standards have dropped that badly over the last 4 years.

I think that part of it may be psychological now though - in that last game, Sneijder was trying to shoot from about 70 yards, presumably because he thinks that the ball will do some of the work for him.

Paul Howe wrote:So, how many of you guys who are so vigorously bashing it have actually played with this ball? Most of the criticism pre-tournament seemed to be about the erratic movement, but I haven't seen much of that at all. Don't forget a lot of the games are being played at altitude which will affect the dynamics of any ball.

Most teams have played with an organised, defensive attitude, which for me better explains the low number of goals so far.

The Confederations Cup was played in the same stadiums at altitude and there were no complaints about the ball. It was a goal fest too

Marc Meakin wrote:

Paul Howe wrote:So, how many of you guys who are so vigorously bashing it have actually played with this ball? Most of the criticism pre-tournament seemed to be about the erratic movement, but I haven't seen much of that at all. Don't forget a lot of the games are being played at altitude which will affect the dynamics of any ball.

Most teams have played with an organised, defensive attitude, which for me better explains the low number of goals so far.

Well judging by the number of overhit passes and poor free kicks this WC, I simply cannot believe standards have dropped that badly over the last 4 years.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has compiled statistics to back this up, I really suspect this is largely imagined though. More likely that:
- The quality in the first round is never that great (has there really been a massive drop off since 2006?)
- The ball travels further through the thinner air at high altitude

I will say it seems quite bouncy, and also that it doesn't make much sense (from a non-commercial perspective) to change the ball for the world cup.

james doohan wrote:
The Confederations Cup was played in the same stadiums at altitude and there were no complaints about the ball. It was a goal fest too

Why would anyone complain about the ball if it was the same one as always? I didn't watch the confederations cup but totting it up on wiki there were plenty of 1 and 2 nils, and 5 out of 15 games where more than 3 goals were scored. Oh, and there were a grand total of 3 games where both sides got on the scoresheet.

james doohan wrote:
The Confederations Cup was played in the same stadiums at altitude and there were no complaints about the ball. It was a goal fest too

Why would anyone complain about the ball if it was the same one as always? I didn't watch the confederations cup but totting it up on wiki there were plenty of 1 and 2 nils, and 5 out of 15 games where more than 3 goals were scored. Oh, and there were a grand total of 3 games where both sides got on the scoresheet.[/quote]

Confederations Cup - 44 goals/16 games - 2.75 goals a game
World Cup 2010 - 15 goals/9 games - 1.67 goals a game

Huge difference, and were it not the fact that the Germans used the ball in the most efficient way (ie. pass it on the ground) and scored four last night the goals per game ratio would be much worse

james doohan wrote:Confederations Cup - 44 goals/16 games - 2.75 goals a game
World Cup 2010 - 15 goals/9 games - 1.67 goals a game

Huge difference, and were it not the fact that the Germans used the ball in the most efficient way (ie. pass it on the ground) and scored four last night the goals per game ratio would be much worse

Outrageously small samples.

yer talkin balls!

Jon O'Neill wrote:

james doohan wrote:Confederations Cup - 44 goals/16 games - 2.75 goals a game
World Cup 2010 - 15 goals/9 games - 1.67 goals a game

Huge difference, and were it not the fact that the Germans used the ball in the most efficient way (ie. pass it on the ground) and scored four last night the goals per game ratio would be much worse

Outrageously small samples.

Even the whole World Cup would probably not be a big enough sample to statistically prove anything either way, so let's just work on our observations. I don't think there is that much of a difference, apart from the bounce.

RA RA RA RA NIPPON NIPPON

They've clearly been watching this.

Michael Wallace wrote:RA RA RA RA NIPPON NIPPON

They've clearly been watching this.

You sound like the BBC.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:RA RA RA RA NIPPON NIPPON

They've clearly been watching this.

You sound like the BBC.

...really?

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

james doohan wrote:Confederations Cup - 44 goals/16 games - 2.75 goals a game
World Cup 2010 - 15 goals/9 games - 1.67 goals a game

Huge difference, and were it not the fact that the Germans used the ball in the most efficient way (ie. pass it on the ground) and scored four last night the goals per game ratio would be much worse

Outrageously small samples.

Even the whole World Cup would probably not be a big enough sample to statistically prove anything either way, so let's just work on our observations. I don't think there is that much of a difference, apart from the bounce.

Fair enough, know zero about statistics to be honest but was trying to back my argument with a few numbers just, but the ball is fucking shite

My summary.
Ball on ground good.
Ball in the air, crap.
Which doesn't bode well for Englands chances.
No more route 1 football please.

Marc Meakin wrote:My summary.
Ball on ground good.
Ball in the air, crap.

IAWTP

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

james doohan wrote:Confederations Cup - 44 goals/16 games - 2.75 goals a game
World Cup 2010 - 15 goals/9 games - 1.67 goals a game

Huge difference, and were it not the fact that the Germans used the ball in the most efficient way (ie. pass it on the ground) and scored four last night the goals per game ratio would be much worse

Outrageously small samples.

Even the whole World Cup would probably not be a big enough sample to statistically prove anything

I dunno - even with those 'outrageously small' samples you get quite close to a statistically significant difference. If the goals/games ratio stays the same (including Japan's goal just now) then it would be arguable that there's a real difference (of course, whether this is due to the ball is much harder to 'prove').

Paul Howe wrote:So, how many of you guys who are so vigorously bashing it have actually played with this ball? Most of the criticism pre-tournament seemed to be about the erratic movement, but I haven't seen much of that at all. Don't forget a lot of the games are being played at altitude which will affect the dynamics of any ball.

Most teams have played with an organised, defensive attitude, which for me better explains the low number of goals so far.

I have this ball (well a replica anyway), and aside from it having an awesome name and an awesome look, it is just like any other football.

Michael Wallace wrote: I dunno - even with those 'outrageously small' samples you get quite close to a statistically significant difference. If the goals/games ratio stays the same (including Japan's goal just now) then it would be arguable that there's a real difference (of course, whether this is due to the ball is much harder to 'prove').

I don't disagree, but I think it's mainly down to good defensive organisation and a lack of similar attacking quality from most teams. I expect the first games of this one will prove to be something of an outlier and it will move back into the 2-2.5 goal / game range (for the record, Italia 90 is the stingiest world cup at 2.2, very marginally worse than 2006). Plus if you look back the confederations cup is always a high scoring affair (the last one was actually quite low compared to recent history) compared to the world cup, presumably because the world cup always sees the introduction of a new ball.

Paul Howe wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: I dunno - even with those 'outrageously small' samples you get quite close to a statistically significant difference. If the goals/games ratio stays the same (including Japan's goal just now) then it would be arguable that there's a real difference (of course, whether this is due to the ball is much harder to 'prove').

I don't disagree, but I think it's mainly down to good defensive organisation and a lack of similar attacking quality from most teams. I expect the first games of this one will prove to be something of an outlier and it will move back into the 2-2.5 goal / game range (for the record, Italia 90 is the stingiest world cup at 2.2, very marginally worse than 2006). Plus if you look back the confederations cup is always a high scoring affair (the last one was actually quite low compared to recent history) compared to the world cup, presumably because the world cup always sees the introduction of a new ball.

Yeah - I'm not making any claims about the cause of the difference, just correcting the claim that the whole World Cup is unlikely to give us statistically significant evidence of one.

I've not seen anything wrong with the ball. It's round and it bounces like any other football. Get over it.

It's official now. The England camp have blamed the ball for Rob Green's error on Saturday, and he'll be back in goal on Friday having impressed in training.

Matt Morrison wrote:It's official now. The England camp have blamed the ball for Rob Green's error on Saturday, and he'll be back in goal on Friday having impressed in training.

Apparently Green has been training away from the main squad practising stopping shots. Rumour had it he saved 650 out of 650.







He and Heskey will rejoin the main squad tomorrow!!

Matt Morrison wrote:It's official now. The England camp have blamed the ball for Rob Green's error on Saturday, and he'll be back in goal on Friday having impressed in training.

This ball shit is making me angry now. Everybody's absolved of making an error - overhit a shot or a pass? Misjudged the flight? IT WAS THE BALL! There was no way he should have let that shot in, regardless of whether it was with a Jabulani, a Shoot 5 or a pumpkin. He fucked up. That said, I don't think he shouldn be dropped on that one error alone, and I trust Capello's judgement in the matter.

I bet if you replaced Phil Taylor's darts with a Jabulani he'd still hit double 8 every time.

Jon Corby wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:It's official now. The England camp have blamed the ball for Rob Green's error on Saturday, and he'll be back in goal on Friday having impressed in training.

and I trust Capello's judgement in the matter.

I am sure that'll be a source of comfort to him.

Michael Wallace wrote:I bet if you replaced Phil Taylor's darts with a Jabulani he'd still hit double 8 every time.

Not if he was at altitude.

King Juan Carlos, Penelope Cruz,Miguel Cervantes,Hernan Cortes,General Franco, Placido Domingo, Pablo Picasso, Seve Ballesteros, the Man from Del Monte, the man from Del Monte! Can you hear me, the man from Del Monte, yoooooor boys took one hell of a beating.
Unlucky Spain.

Ever wanted to hear the FIFA anthem (what they play as the players walk on before the match) in full, MIDI-tastic glory? Go here - it's special.

Even though I've only been able to watch some of the games, the best performance of the world cup so far goes to the linesmen. I haven't seen them make a mistake yet. I wish the Premiership linesmen were this good.

craig wrote:Even though I've only been able to watch some of the games, the best performance of the world cup so far goes to the linesmen. I haven't seen them make a mistake yet. I wish the Premiership linesmen were this good.

Totally agree. The officials so far have been excellent apart from the referee in the Chile/Honduras game who was needlessly pedantic

craig wrote:Even though I've only been able to watch some of the games, the best performance of the world cup so far goes to the linesmen. I haven't seen them make a mistake yet. I wish the Premiership linesmen were this good.

Argentina's third goal was offside. The linesmen are rubbish!

Klose's second yellow was a terrible, terrible decision.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Klose's second yellow was a terrible, terrible decision.

Suits me. Up the underdogs!

His first one was quite soft too. Very harsh.

9 against 9 by the end at this rate.

Podolski's not had a very good game. They haven't looked as dangerous since Ozil came off.

Yesterday the commentators were criticising Domenech for not playing Henry. I wonder why he didn't...

Well I can't believe how poorly England played. What I just watched was absolute rubbish. Not once did they look like scoring and even looked vulnerable at the back. So...what the hell went wrong?

Ryan Taylor wrote:Well I can't believe how poorly England played. What I just watched was absolute shit. Not once did they look like scoring and even looked vulnerable at the back. So...what the bloody hell went wrong?

Concentrate on Facebook and answer my questions NOW.

Ryan Taylor wrote:Well I can't believe how poorly England played. What I just watched was absolute shit. Not once did they look like scoring and even looked vulnerable at the back. So...what the bloody hell went wrong?

IAWTP

If I wasn't plastered on beer and drunk then yes.

What did Rooney say?

Matt Morrison wrote:What did Rooney say?

YOUR MOMSO BAD AT FOOTBALL ARGH

Rooney said something along the lines of "booed by your home crowd, that's great that is".

#It's coming home, it's coming home, it's coming - football's coming home...#

Before the quarters, by the look of it.

I lolled at Gerrard implying it was a home fixture for Algeria. Only about 4500 miles out.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is better than France getting beat as Ireland beat Algeria 3-0.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is better than France getting beat as Ireland beat Algeria 3-0.

I love Henry.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is better than France getting beat as Ireland beat Algeria 3-0.

I never understand this thing of the home nations hating each other at football. I was gutted when Ireland didn't qualify, and it would've been a much better World Cup with them rather than the useless French.

After the 'nice to see your home/own fans boo ye' bit, did he say, 'fuck all the supporters'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l6BI8njPnw

Andy Wilson wrote:After the 'nice to see your home/own fans boo ye' bit, did he say, 'fuck all the supporters'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l6BI8njPnw

BBC claims "Nice to see your own fans booing you, that's what loyal support is", but I can hear both.

Think I heard that someone, maybe RTE, apologised for bad language having showed it again. He might have said, 'that's football supporters' but I can't hear, 'That's loyal supporters' to be honest. Fair play to the beeb for softening the blow though.

Just read on beeb that Princes William and Harry were in the dressing room after the game and left shortly before a random fan made it in and offered a few verbals. So after being booed off the pitch, the players had to make small talk with the princes and then listen to a fan bollock them in the dressing room. Must have been a great atmosphere

Here is the final standings for the c4c Prediction League:

1. Kai Laddiman 16
2. Marc Meakin 13



3. James Robinson 7

Did you practice by reading the predictionary?

Andy Wilson wrote:Think I heard that someone, maybe RTE, apologised for bad language having showed it again.

I think if he had actually sworn they wouldn't keep repeating it on (pre-watershed) TV, though.

Guess so. Bit of a stupid thing to do anyway. He may not have thought about the fact that he was just after playing so badly and effectively talking to all the fans at home.

Rooney is an idiot for what he did. His ego is far too big. Did he expect the English fans to cheer that? Fans at the game rightfully booed that abysmal display. He was one of the main culprits and played poor all game. He was reduced to shooting from stupid range which annoyed me. Why don't they get the ball on the floor for once and play some proper football. And Capello? Seriously. I thought we were gonna be great with him. Just what is he pratting about at? All will be forgiven if we win against Slovenia, but I honestly think it wil be a struggle, confidence is so low.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is better than France getting beat as Ireland beat Algeria 3-0.

I never understand this thing of the home nations hating each other at football. I was gutted when Ireland didn't qualify, and it would've been a much better World Cup with them rather than the useless French.

It's more just anti-English than owt else in my experience. There are many pubs round here I just won't watch England playing in, it's just no fun! It's usually friendly banter, but there are always some numpties who genuinely care that England lose, and make sure you know about it. Very tedious.

A lot of people I see doing the ABE thing seem to claim that it's partly because of English arrogance, which really baffles me because I don't think I know any England fans who don't think we're A Bit Rubbish.

Michael Wallace wrote:A lot of people I see doing the ABE thing seem to claim that it's partly because of English arrogance, which really baffles me because I don't think I know any England fans who don't think we're A Bit Rubbish.

As a good example, I'd expect there in Scotland at any world cup to be a lot of sweepstakes on how long it takes the commentators (esp. on ITV) to mention 1966 during a match, especially during England matches. I can almost hear the collective groan when it happens. So it's not so much the English people, it's more the media. As far as I noticed, it happened at 20:44 in game 1 and about 47mins in game 2...

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1075166

Interesting theory from Souness as to why England are under performing at 6:50 in, lasts about ten minutes, have to say it makes a lot of sense to me as the players almost seemed unfit against Algeria, if he is right its very bad news for Englands world cup