And So Begins The Bulletin Board Material…

ale.. I’m crying myself softly to sleep every night.. I’m joking of course but I don’t rate the guy at all.. Yes he’s done well so far but he’s got one hell of a squad that did underachieve (performance wise). Then again I had the same feelings about Klinsmann before the WC.. We’ll see what Don can do.. If the game against Belgium is anything to go by they will have a good tournament and then he deserves to stay on.

Posted from  United States

not a big fan of don either as a coach but let’s just see how it goes with euro .. wouldn’t mind eating my words regarding this
i think don will opt for pirlo de rossi

Posted from  Australia

he should go with de rossi/pirlo. i agree. if it doesn’t work he has options as others have pointed out. the problem is he doesn’t have much time to mess around. he’d better get the right combo donw pat fast. None of these teams will be easy.

Posted from  Canada

He really is spoiled for choice.. Particularly up front.. and had Nesta and Totti not retired (and in Totti’s case not injured) this team would be just frightening.

Toni up front with Camo and Zambro on the wings and Totti, Pirlo, De Rossi/Gatusso behind them.. Then Grosso, Barzagli, Nesta and Panucci at the back.

Posted from  United States

I feel the team is relaxed for this tourny compared to the past where they seemed very nervous.

Posted from  Canada

Sneijder’s just said whatever it takes to psych people out. Unfortunately, I’m not sure he can reach the nadir of douchebaggery that Matrix has mastered.

I’m not taking Holland lightly, but then again, I’m not taking anyone in the group lightly. One mistake from Matrix or a mistimed Cassanata will be like cutting the wrong wire and detonating our chances.

I wonder, if the Don gets canned, would Lippi come back? What else does he have going on? He’s done nothing but spurned the advances of clubs all over Europe. I’m sure he’s not itching like Mourinho was, but I bet he’s ready to start coaching again, and likely at an international level.

I just got an e-mail at work from EA Sports that predicts that Portugal will beat Italy in the final 2-1. They also predicted that Brazil would beat the Czech Republic in the World Cup final. Let’s hope they’re wrong again.

Posted from  United States

The more I think about it the more I’m worried about Romania.. Not that they are better than Italy, but it’s my opinion that the team that slips up against them is the one who will be left out… (and there is bound to be at least 1 barring a massive collapse from Crystal’s boys). Any mistake as Sterling said in that game could spell the end of the Euros for Italy, France or Netherlands.

Posted from  United States

I hope Italy, if they are to lose, do it against teams like Czech Rep., Sweden or Switzerland or something like that so that rival jousitng is kept to a minimal. Their forum message boards are tame. Insert smiley face here.

Yeah, Sneijder’s comments were just gamemanship. As if to say “we’re here!” I’m cool with that. But Matrix, Chiellini, these guys, if I had my way, would be left on the bench unless needed in physical situations. The last thing they need is to see the Dutch run circles around them like in 2000 and see a player get red carded trying to stop the onslaught like Zambrotta did.

Yet,ironically, they outplayed France and neutralized Zidane in the final. Go figure. Karma (and four minutes of extra time) did them in, I suppose.

That’s just me.

Posted from  Canada

i think di natale should start. the man’s on fire.

Posted from  Australia

He HAS to start. He’s the creative spark plug and plays with speed. He’s Italy’s Ribery. Plus he forms a great partnership with Toni.

Posted from  Canada

Hey — I didn’t see this posted yet. A little trash talking between Toni and Ribery.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lkk86evzkRg

That was FANTASTIC!

Bravo to both!

Posted from  Canada

Someone here claimed the Dutch “always underperform”?

The FIFA and UEFA ranking doesn’t lie!

Holland is a country with 15 mio people. How many live in Italy? 45 Mio?

That means you should have 3 x as much talent as Holland. For a relatively small talent-pool, we basically develop more great players.

I think the big countries - people wise: England, France, Germany, Italy are underperforming. The Danes won in 1992, the Greek in 2004, Holland in 1988. Thrice in three years.

The big nations won in 1996 and 2000. Twice.

I rest my case

Posted from  Australia

Hello Jan,

First, it’s 57 million. A Dutch guy once tried to tell me Italy had 18 million people and he wanted to beat me up for thinking otherwise. He was drunk. Any-way…

Second, using the pop. thing is a dangerous game. You’re right up to a point. The big coutries will always have an edge. But how do you explain Norway’s winter games dominance? Why does India not produce great soccer players? It’s more subjective than you’re letting on.

The big countries will always be penalised in any sample you use. It’s like when people divide the number of medals won into the population to get a medals per person count. This is a faulty premise. A nation like the USA (with 300 million people) will always be penalised because there is a finite amount of medals to be won. Even if they won every medal the Bahamas would still be ranked ahead. Or even a country like Greece. So if you have a small pop. the numbers will usually be skewed in your favour.

Can we truly believe that the Bahamas is more athletic than the USA? Of course not. So you need a special set of crtieria to “rest your case” and I don’t see one.

My opinion is this:

Relative to the talent, an argument can be made that they have under performed. If you have the players than it is reasonable to expect to be treated like any big country. You can’t say we’re as good as anyone but when we lose we’re a small nation so we’re still better. That holds little logic.

Holland should have two world cups IN THEIR POCKET. Agreed? Who was better than them in the 1970s? No one. Same can be said of Hungary from the 50s. Do we blame pop. for that? Sweden has some famous players and a small pop. are they better than, say, France? Czechoslovakia has a rich soccer pedigree. Are they better than Germany?

Internal dissention is legendary with the Dutch so that played a role I’m sure. However, I still feel the achievements are great. If you look at Dutch teams in the finals of European tournaments, they’re record is actually very good. They’re certainly better than Spain and I’m evern tempted to say England were not for 1966. I always consider semi-finals appearances.

League wise, the Eredivisie has three TEAMS that won the CL - one more than Spain and equal to Italy yet the league is small compared to those. But you would have to rationalize it backwards for the big side too and see what that gives you. I haven’t done the math on that.

Small pop. countries will always play it both ways. We’re great because of our pop. and we suck because of our pop.

Let’s do a free form exercise and hopefully people will add to this. That way, we can arrive at some objective truth.

There have been 18 world cups right? Italy has won 4 (22%), Germany 3 (17%). They’ve each made it six times to the finals for a 33% total or if you will, over 60% of the time we’ve seen these two sides in a world cup final. Pop. is 56 and 82 respectively. Relative to Europe’s pop. they actually over achieve.

But all this overlooks one SIMPLE THING: THEY PRODUCE THE BEST PLAYERS AND TEAMS. You can’t deny this. You just can’t.

Let’s go further. Brazil’s figures are slightly higher (27% and 39%) Argentina is 11% and 22%.

How do you factor in pop. into this? Are ready to claim Argentina is a better soccer nation than Brazil because of the pop. diff? Brazil has 186 million and Argentina 34. Plus, Argentina has won more Coppa’s and are .500 against Brazil head to head all-time.

Are you ready to say Brazil under performs relative to Argentina, Italy and Germany? Some may think yes. Others will present other facts and ideas that state no. Does it really matter?

See where I’m going? That was a shallow way to use stats my Aussie friend.

But I do see what you mean.

Ever look at a book that lists the most notable soccer players in history? If you count the names, the Italians and Brazilians top the lists - usually in equal proportions. I’ve been reading these suckers for 20 years and little has changed. 186 million versus 57 million and you see as many Italian names as Brazilian. How does rationalize this? Well, one way you can say is that Italians just plain play the game very well - despite what some may think. The evidence will never support otherwise.

Anything beyond this is subjective and pure conjecture.

Just accept that have produced an awesome amount of players relative to their pop. and leave it at that.

No shame in that.

Posted from  Canada

Sorry for the bad grammar by the way. I just raced through it. The last line is pointed to Holland of course.

I want Holland to win a World Cup by the way. Not a Euro. I want them to join the special elite forces…

Posted from  Canada

Wow, thanks for all the bandwith… I totally see your point and of course population isn’t everything… But you claimed - or someone else actually did - that Holland underachieved, and I don’t think that’s true.

We have done very well (as a small nation) to compete with bigger (and nowadays richer) football nations. We qualified for a number of tournaments and you can’t say we were lucky during those tournaments (except for 1988).

In 1974, we played the best football. You can’t dispute that. We did lose the finals.

In 1978 we didn’t play that good, but we did reach the finals. But everyone now knows that Argentina should never have reached the finals (was it the Peru game they bought) and I don’t think Holland was ever “allowed” to win that tournament.

In 1990, we again had a great group of names, but infighting did us in.

In 1994, we lost against Brazil in the QF due to two big ref mistakes: one goal was clearly off side, the third goal came from a free kick that wasn’t one.

In 1996 we were kicked out on penalties.

In 1998 we were kicked out on penalties (playing fantastic football yet again).

In 2000 we were kicked out o penalties (forgot against who )

In 2004 we disappointed.

In 2006 it was a warzone against Portugal. Could have gone either way.

So, only one disappointing tournament, one tournament with massive infighting and the rest were tournaments where the circumstances did us in, and I don’t believe those performances can be called “disappointing”…

Are we splitting hairs?

Posted from  Australia

One thing is clear: the Dutch suck at penalty kicks…

Posted from  Australia

There is an interesting article in today’s Wall Street Journal about the Dutch FA finally taking some steps to address that. Unfortunately, it is behind their subscription firewall.

Anyone who has read Brilliant Orange will find the “plan” very reminiscent of the sensible advice that was rejected out of hand by the same organisation in the 90s.

Posted from  Italy

A little long winded but good points Squiggy.. And an interesting argument this population thing..

However it’s not population that nurtures talent. Developing football at a youth level is key. Having the necessary infrastructure in place as well as getting the opportunity to play in competitive leagues, being influenced by Maradona, Zola, Cruyff and the other players they have an opportunity to play with/against, etc… There are many other reasons.

A larger population does not mean a larger talent pool.. Or else China, India, USA and Indonesia would be the favorites going into every World Cup. Or if you consider regular WC participants with all the infrastructure necessary to grow and nurture talent it would be USA, Brazil, Russia and Japan.

England have 50 mn people while Italy have 57. Does that mean that the 7 mn made the difference of 3 WCs and 1 Euro, not to mention countless youth tournaments? No.

On the other hand, Uruguay have 3.3 mn people and 2 WCs. Thats around 1.65 mn per cup. Does that mean Italy needs to win 36 world cups to be as good a footballing nation as Uruguay? Does that mean Italy have to have 6 euros to be as good as Greece or 12 to be as good as Denmark?

Besides Italy have probably the 2nd best World Cups to population ratio behind Uruguay.

Posted from  United States

Netherlands have 3 finals appearances and one victory with a current population of 16 mn. Italy have 8 finals appearances with a population of 60 million. It’s comparable.

The Netherlands didn’t underachieve in terms of population. They underachieved in the number of tournaments actually won given the talent they had at their disposal since the 70s. If you can quantify talent (which you can’t) I think in terms of a trophies per talent ratio the dutch could be amongst the worst in Europe, rivaling Spain.

Posted from  United States

Yeah it was long winded - lo. But I’m glad you see my point.

Jan, I never said they under achieved before the last post. I pointed out, like Bashar did, relative to their talent they under achieved. Whereas, you can make an argument that Germany have over achieved in some WC.

I’m a fan of Dutch soccer and once wrote a piece about how they were among the best nations to not win a World Cup in history. As Bashar pointed out, they did reach three total finals which is excellent. Moreover, and as you point out, they have a strong track record. If only they were better on the kicks…it’s just one of those things. But I suspect Ronald de Boer got closer to the truth: they lack the killer instinct. At least that’s what my Dutch friend tells me.

Bashar, the UK actually has 58 million. France, Italy and the UK all basically have the same pop.

Posted from  Canada

LOL, I meant to write.

Posted from  Canada

That killer instinct aspect is definitely there, yeah…

I’ll check out that story ursus mentioned.

Posted from  Australia

Most of the time the Dutch played more attractive football.
But almost always the Italians played more successful football.
Just like the Germans.

Ah, such a great philosopher! That’s why you’re one of the greatest of them all!

Posted from  Canada