The case doesn't mean a clear cut mistake. There is a difference. And before anything I probably meant Parades unsportmanship..
It looks to me like he plays the ball cleanly, not the player, though there is a two-footed scissor action ultimately, which is why the Argentinian was asking for a free-kick (not red card) I guess. I don't see that the same way as the fouls I noticed and pointed out early (and a bit later too) in Argentina vs Netherlands 2022 anyway. Less of a clear foul, though with similarity in the scissor effect maybe, as compared to the Rabiot one vs Argentina that was pointed out too, to be honest. The 1974 rules were I guess not so geared towards red cards (not that they were impossible obviously - Pereira vs the Netherlands happened for example) as the 2022 ones before the World Cup, and there was no VAR system of course, but I'd not be calling for a review and/or red card on that I don't think (unless a closer view persuaded me it was more dangerous to the Argentina player than I'm perceiving from that video).
There were 13 red cards given during Premier League 2021/22, due to VAR (to find each instance it's best to search with 'sent off' and then it's evident the instances that were for 'challenges' as they put it) How VAR decisions affected every Premier League club in 2021-22 (espn.co.uk) I just assumed that's how it would be used in the World Cup too, plus like I say the rules on what constitutes a red card in the modern game are as 'harsh' as ever and the rhetoric had been I thought that dangerous (and especially malicious) fouls and challenges would be punished with them.
@Sexy Beast It would be nice if you could chill out a bit and have some respect for others. @PDG1978 is kind and reputable poster who contributes a lot to this forum and has extended the olive branch enough times... Just disagree and move on.
Two footed sliding tackle from behind is the most dangerous type of tackle. Opposing player has no time to react and the back of the foot is the most vulnerable part.. whether he hit him per se is irrelavant because that's a matter of a coincedence. It's a reckless and overly aggressive tackle 0:16 - two footed tackle from behind again. 0:22 - nowhere near the ball as some would say in this forum 2:22 - wtf is that from Suurbier Or let me just show you this: Argentina 2022 plays ballet compare to that.. 380 matches. 13 red cards because of var In 64 match tournament that is 2.6 red cards. Negligble on such a small sample size especially with obvious avoidance of giving red cards. Dangerous and malicious fouls are overlooked in club football all the time.
I am chill. I just dont sugarcoat my responses writing an essay to say 1 thing, but go straight to the point of disagrement. And use sarcasm only to shine light on ridiculous statements such is that Argentina 2022 is in any way or form an exceptionally aggressive and dirty team and are setting a wrong example to football world which has potential to ruin football.
I didn't say "exceptional", wouldn't use that word, but in relation to the standards of today, throughout all seven games, and the luxury/leeway the opposition had, it was a notable feature and an *advantage* (this is a keyword). More so than our lot in 2010, that received a lot more media backlash. As for that single Brazil game in '74; many things can be said about this (the 70s in general could be extremely rough; be it games like Celtic vs Atletico and the like, or some specific leagues - I already said myself the likes of Laseroms and Neeskens could be quite mean - which prompted a response/question by pdg and poetgooner). One thing that was certainly not right is how a West German referee officiated (and escalated) that last 2nd group stage game, with West Germany itself already through to the final (also Brazil left that match with scars and injured players; unlike 1978 they lost their match for 3rd place). Also from a (state-)hierarchical, the internal checks and balances, and organizational perspective that was not right. One might say we maybe didn’t see a 'Brazil vs Colombia 2014' game in 2022. That's something I would leave open and is plausibly true. Can give a more systematic and structured response but no desire for that now (what others already said above: lets agree to disagree and everything has already been turned upside down).
Thanks mate - you are certainly one of the nicest posters to chat with yourself I've noticed already. Don't worry about me getting stressed anyway - I think we said all we can now, and I think my observations are easy enough to understand, whether someone disagrees a bit or not (and maybe I should have realised it could be controversial to make the posts - I can only say they were motivated by the fouls themselves and not any bias against Argentina per se or anything like that anyway - and I mentioned 1990 just in the context of when they had a team that did commit quite a lot of fouls and got some bad rep for it). Like I said before your ideas for how to prevent too many sendings off while still keeping a lid on bad fouls and potentially tactical fouling too were certainly interesting. I'll not rep this post you made in case it seems antagonistic or self-congratulatory or something given what you said (but have repped you before and likely will again soon I'd imagine!), so I'm just writing this quick note of thanks instead. I'm just agreeing to disagree now, including re: his most recent post - if we're going to study the fouls we need obviously to be looking at all the ones (the bad ones anyway I mean) by Argentina during this World Cup, and then looking at the force, the part of the leg kicked, whether it was pre-determined or a late tackle where a player was going for the ball, a trip or a stamp etc etc. I'm not aware of a source to easily view them without searching through the full games at the minute though. Two footed tackles (fouls) where a player goes in with the studs into an opponents leg are clearly the most dangerous type of two footed tackles, so I wouldn't lump those Dutch 1974 examples in with those by default personally (I hope this is understood in terms of what I mean - every incident is different in essence - I'm not saying it might not be dangerous sometimes to wrap up an opponents leg in a scissor action).
People and media just like to villainize and bash us these days. That's the role they have reserved for us (the classic Anglo-German teaming up - Havelange already knew about this - not excluded). Market and size forces meant it has naturally evolved that way (another nice example is that Van Himst comment: he was Pele Blanc because L'Equipe decided so). Another great example is how that oranje F1 driver has been constantly put in the corner of the bad guy, long before he got close to defeating the BLM kneeler. The company line of the Guardian has become one of: Holland = colonizers, racists; Germany = modern, progressive, coming to terms with the past. The Athletic is even more awful, except for a few articles. Argentina - the G20 country and always part of the closest FIFA ExCom inner circle - is the champion 'everyone' wanted. Infantino, the Qatar organizers, the diaspora around the globe (USA not excluded), the advertisers, the Spanish and the Italians (just as in the 78 final officiating some crucial games, of course), the angry mob in the stands. The classic cop out by the 'experts' in the ref forum is: it is Messi/Argentina, you don't give him a card for diving, pushing, authority undermining handballing, or even talking (well, what happened at HT in the 74 final?). And a referee from certain nations "will not go down well in Buenos Aires" (sic) so are ruled out. The safety in the stands is of the greatest concern. I haven't said we were a particularly good team (yet actually still overperforming, something that also gets conveniently ignored and not appreciated anywhere these days - something like the 7th market value, amidst other player models, is still okay). Said that well before the KO stages. But it is also true that those (non-)penalty calls had an effect and injuries meant they couldn't keep up in extra time. Lahoz has gone into the row of the Russian referees (2006, 2021 etc) among others. 'World Sucker' putting three English players in their XI must be a joke, however. When has that happened before with a team leaving the QF and/or playing one top 10 level team. A fictional Benelux team (not that I am in favor of such fantasies at all) had stood a better chance at various points in time. Also in '74, with all those many (pre-tournament) injuries in defense. It also feels like those games like Brazil vs Colombia 2014 (a truly nasty one, with 55+ fouls in 90 minutes) tend to be forgotten or put aside quickly. As if it just doesn't serve the various interests. People like Tim Vickery have talked about how the players and countries creating a living for you (make your job as journalist possible; "standing on the shoulders") of course mean it works that way.
Anyway, I'm curious whether the World Cup will remain as important in the future. In some countries there are record figures (France, I read), in other countries a clear decline from the very first game on (Germany, Benelux). Might be that just like in others forms of popular culture there are no major events any more (no new Michael Jackson or so), this also happens to the World Cup. As in that for a month in every four years it interests more than half a country (and you cannot escape from it, on the radio, television) edit: I see and read this morning that Newcastle United has been receiving some fortunate help with penalties and the like
Is that just because the teams aren't doing as well? I suspect the Germans would be all over the game again if they were to start winning. And yes, Arsenal was denied at least one clear cut penalty last night
He didn't only say that about Pele, but also about Brazil as a whole. Yes it is true for Pelé, but it is also because of the sheer size of Brazil and their related cultures (the Portuguese language is something like 4th most spoken in the world, that's enough critical mass). He is standing on the shoulders of that as well (50 years after last kicking a ball - those things can be fleeting and ephemeral), and making a living out of that. Pele born in Iceland creates a different dynamic, and a different dynamic (and shield) for the Colombia vs Brazil type of games 50 years later.
I watched that interview on sky sports(?) a few days ago and if I remember correctly it was about how Pelé made the World Cup into what we know it as(the most prestigious competition in the world) And how journalists like himself were minnows standing on his great shoulders That was the context if I recall correctly I could be wrong and you could be right but I remember thinking it was a fair take by Tim vickery Nobody knows or cares about any World Cup prior to 1958 Uruguay winning in 1950 or west Germany in 1954 might aswell be science fiction That’s how irrelevant it is in the psyche of most football fans
Isn't that mostly because it was pre-TV era? Having said that, WC really shows advancements in TV and live coverage. Like, WC66 and WC70 were so much better than WC58 or WC62.
Partially And then there was a 17 year old black kid taking over a World Cup final in the era of racial segregation in America and apartheid in South Africa(Mandela in the 50s was a “terrorist” to the imperialists before he became a Nobel prize winner much later on) Pelé was an icon of football in an era where black people weren’t supposed to be icons/role models His profile and achievements singlehandedly lifted the status of that tournament I don’t know about the 1962 World Cup being lower on quality than 1966 or 1970 Do you have any data/footage for this?
On a humorous note to start: I think I ended up with 3 English players too lol (it's not a pattern I had for recent World Cups in general though I don't think, or World Cup XIs done retrospectively even perhaps, so whether that is different with World Soccer is possible)! I think Stones' place was open for others by the end, but I just didn't feel an obvious candidate had displaced him, while I didn't put Messi at CF, and did appreciate Kane's assisting qualities so since I went with somebody in the CF slot I put him there (had a true CF had a prolific or consistently excellent World Cup overall I probably wouldn't have ended up with him still in either though I guess). I did notice some disparity in the commentary (on TV at least) regarding Netherlands 2010 and Argentina 2022 (but also Argentina 1990 compared to 2022 like I said), but I said enough about it now I guess. Taking each 2021 collision in turn I'd definitely not have had Verstappen mainly to blame or anything myself (I said before I think at the end of that season, and also that the going off the track and keeping position by Hamilton had been under-mentioned since that was also a decision by the race director - I noticed that Carlos Sainz did refer to it again in this year's race at the same track though: I would say I'm guessing in terms of the result that that might not have meant that Hamilton didn't win the race had it not had a safety car incident though, just because his car seemed to have enough pace to have made an overtake on track or in the pit-stop period on that day, so he could have got himself ahead again if he'd given the place back). It's probably always been a little bit a case of British media giving the benefit of the doubt to British F1 drivers against rivals and/or painting rivals as bad guys though, in the case of controversial incidents (maybe not every collision between Hill and Schumacher was Schumacher's fault, and I seem to recall Senna being seen a bit in the 'bad guy' camp against Mansell in particular - there were one or two occasions where it was possibly fair enough, but maybe more would be made of it vs Mansell than vs a Keke Rosberg, a young Schumacher even, or a Prost - although I still can't decide who is predominantly at fault in every Prost-Senna collision to be honest, particularly the title deciding ones - I didn't read newspapers in the era where Senna was at Lotus and Mansell at Williams though as I was only a youngster, so I can't be sure what exactly was being written or whether there were also positive comments/articles about his humanitarian side before he died rather than just after, in the British Press). EDIT - Martin Brundle was relatively balanced and even sided with Verstappen on some of the collision incidents (and the going off track and keeping position moment I referred to), in the live commentary though, and was obviously a former English F1 driver. A lot of the 'hate' came from Hamilton fans I suppose (with social media posting now widespread), although also from some media sources. 2nd EDIT - Yeah, I think there should have been a penalty for the Burn challenge on Saka in Arsenal-Newcastle. Apparently, it's been suggested that Howard Webb is encouraging refs to stick with decisions more now, but reading this I'd say that's more if they still feel they are correct with their original call, so probably shouldn't have applied to this instance: Howard Webb wants greater VAR transparency in Premier League (espn.co.uk) @carlito86 I think @poetgooner meant the quality (predominantly the amount) of coverage of the games rather than the quality of football, if I understand correctly. I know that 'Eurovision' coverage of 1958 was quite widespread though, so probably more live games were broadcast than we would realise by just looking at what has become available to view now.
Some of the footage of Mané “herdsman” garrincha 62 is as clear as anything I’ve seen from 66 This is practically the same level of footage quality as the clips of Eusebio 66 I posted the other day Not exactly pristine but watchable 1970 is probably the year where the quality went up a whole different level it being the first World Cup televised in colour
Andrade of Uruguay was certainly also a major star in Europe, well before the second world war. Of course, the technology was different then (as well as the whole context of the Cold War and the relationship between USA and Brazil leadership). But to the extent it was possible, one might say he was as big a star as could be, back then. Live radio was a rarity or didn't exist. Not to forget other sport stars like Jesse Owens, or a number of jazz musicians (Armstrong, Davis, Monk, Baker, Parker). Black actors like Fetchit or Sidney Poitier (uncountable awards and among the best paid actors - in the same era as Pele became famous). With all due respect to Pele, but this is one of the things that can be overblown a little. Not the least by people as Vickery (otherwise an above average journalist). I have already talked about the incentives for that (and journalists themselves aren’t aware of all the time).
Yeah, maybe poetgooner meant primarily the amount of live coverage, but I'm not sure. Every 1966 game is now available to view of course, so we can end up with complete Opta stats calculations as well as see any game we choose ourselves. Like I say maybe more live games from 1958 (and 1962) were shown than is immediately evident now though. Actually, this page (and comparing to the list on Footballia maybe) could help with the answer to that question: ITV International Football Coverage 1955-1968 (royalwebhosting.net) At first glance, I don't think a lot more live footage was broadcast than we have access to now actually, at least on British TV (there was the issue of kick-off times not being staggered as is mentioned).
Hmm...maybe '62 and '66 weren't so different after all. This is just based on my recollection of watching the full replays of the game, so it can be very wrong. I think '70 was clearly better though. I had a much better time watching replays of that WC.
The #10 shirt thing is something similar; this was bound to happen anyway. In every team sport with a ball it is not the furthest forward that is the primary star (most of the time; of course you have a Ronaldo or Van Basten sometimes, or in basketball). So that it changed from the #9 to #10 as most desired shirt (more than #9 ever was, before the media and advert industry exploded in the late 50s) was part of trajectory. Of course, it became attached to Pelé and not to another country that had already won Olympic Gold medals or the World Cup. I do not doubt Pele his quality as a footballer and symbolic significance (the biggest of all players), but to a great extent he was part of 'revolutions' than really being an instigator and strategist behind it. Bit like this (and this is just one source): https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/may/06/beatles-did-not-revolutionise-music-study-claims Call me biased or stupid but I think figures as Di Stefano, Cruijff and Platini made more of an individual difference (which is something else than the symbolic value or the level as player; I am also a sceptic of Dassler pawn Beckenbauer by the way, though he is more like that than Pelé was, I feel/think - but also at an earlier stage in his life part of the FIFA furniture as Pele was).
We can hopefully agree the world Pele emerged in as a superstar was not accepting of black stars as it is today This world Few academy nominations(not wins) in the 50s by Sidney Poitier doesn’t change this I’m not a historian neither do I claim to be. The only thing I know about Jesse Owens is him standing up to hitler in the 1938 olympics Hitler being The biggest mass killer in human history next to ghengis Khan and probably non other Not familiar with his sporting achievements or world wide fame Did white kids in the 30s aspire to be like Jesse Owens or these jazz musicians you mentioned I highly doubt it
Yes, of course, but Pele was not the only popular figure. Whether it is Cassius Clay (as he was named then), pop artists or actors. It was changing and he wasn't the first. Also not the first black Brazilian to be the main star of his team. I mean, about Gullit we can clearly say he was the first in a few things. First European captain with a color to lift a major trophy; first in a few other ways. Pelé, with all due respect, has not those markers. Eusebio: clearly the first African born who was the first player in a few things. There is some falsehood about this too. It didn't happen that way.