I didn't think Italy played at all well. Defensively they looked solid enough with the defenders playing very well. Not much going forward though. The less experienced players for Italy had a bad time time tonight. It wasn't helped by De Rossi's sending off and Totti having a poor game. Totti has always been a great player in Europe and Serie A but he never seems to do well as well on international games. At 29 this is his last chance really. A shame as I'm afraid he'll be remembered as a nearly great player as his injury before this World Cup was as much of a worry as Rooney has been to us I'd imagine?

Anyway fantastic to watch Ghana earlier! I love to watch 11 guys genuinely enjoy playing football and working so damn hard, competing so well and playing really attractive football.

well i did say before the game that italy are notorious slow starters and well there you go.

thats not to take anything away from the americans. that was one of the gutsiest performances that i have seen in a while. great stuff to watch and i really was cheering them come the end.

in the UK, we know mcbride as he plays here, but that donovan lad - great effort by him - always looked dangerous.

definately a moment to be proud of! all you can do now is go out and win the last match well and hope the other result goes favourably and well, funnier things have happened!!!

well done indeed! now all we need is australia to play the game of their lives tomorrow and REALLY cheer us up

Al

This is such a quality tournament it's hard to miss a game. Argentina have been extremely impressive.

I find it extremely patronising of the BBC pundits to constantly voice surprise when an african side does well.  

It's a shame the Ivory Coast are out, they have been almost good enough in a group which included Argentina (rated 6th on ELO) and Holland (rated 2nd). England and Italy would struggle in that group.

Ghana are a quality outifit. Essien has been the best holding midfielder in the English premiership (well Keano and Viera have left).

Good to see the US get a point (I'd backed them to qualify from the group with the Italians).

I wonder how Scotland will get on against Paraguay???

obiter wrote:I wonder how Scotland will get on against Paraguay???

We'd be slaughtered, IMHO. *

Paraguay underperformed this time, having lost in the knock-out stages to the eventual champions and runners-up in the past two World Cups.
To say nothing of beating Argentina at the end of last year as revenge for losing the Olympic Final (1-0 yet again) in 2004.

Seemed like fairly good value for the 400-1 odds, to be honest. Oh well...


=
* Given that, at present, we'd have difficulty outplaying the Faeroes.

obiter wrote:Jason Scotland plays for Trinidad & Tobago ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/shared/bsp ... 275674.stm

One against eleven? Probably about the same odds as our national team.

I've always been curious about something: the fact that the UK countries are allowed to qualify separately and compete with their own teams (and perhaps even face each other in competition) ... is that considered at all controversial, or is it pretty much just accepted and no one gives it a second thought?

Is there ever any international outcry for the UK to have just one team (which, in theory, would be three less teams for other countries to worry about, right?) Would a UK "all-star" team even work, or would the players and coaches just brawl with each other the whole time?

I am one curious 'Mercan ...

killjoy32 wrote:nope its always been the seperated countries and it will always be that way.

Having codified the modern game and formed our own national associations with separate league and cup competitions, we weren't going to sit back for a few decades until the rest of the world was up to scratch before playing international matches.

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Tayside and Central | Oldest football to take cup trip
BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Aberdeen nets football invention
(But avoiding any mention of the unofficial 1586 Greenland vs. England international).

killjoy32 wrote:its the same in rugby - we have england, ireland, wales, scotland etc...

Heh. And we can't even beat the Pumas at that...

killjoy32 wrote:

faro wrote:
Heh. And we can't even beat the Pumas at that...

yeah and we got stiffed by the wallabies too - not nice!

well this japan -v- croatia game is the pits so far... 10 mins to go...0-0 yawn (gee i sound like an american) - maybe we needa  multi-ball system to liven it up a little

Al

Now that would make the game more fun..
But really what Soccor needs is cheerleaders, yeah, cheerleaders

ShaneG.

the Home Nations .. why do we all get to play soccer ...

The UK is just that: a country of different nations united: all seperate, all with our own languages (although english predominates) and identities but bound together by a turbulent and troubled history. I'm Irish & British. Proud of both.

The history of rugby and football were such that the first internationals were played between the "Home Nations" and they never relinquished their status as independent football associations.

I come from a rugby family (although I'm not a rugby player). Rugby, like cricket is one of those colonial games that didn't go global. Soccer did so the historical anomalies stand out.

And, of course, Northern Ireland remain the current British Home Nations Football Champions (and have been for over a decade).

On Scotland ......

Archie Gemmil's goal in '78 ... awesome but best ever Scottish player ??? What about Jimmy Johnstone, Dennis Law or Kenny Dalglish?