Neymar OUT of the World Cup.........

[Warren]

Quality of refereeing in the Spanish league is awful. That was the best referee Spain has to offer!!

 

I don't agree with that. First the interpretation of the rules means that all foot ups are fouls and nearly all hand balls are booked. The attacking players are well protected most of the time. But this guy was for whatever reason last night on a totally different page to the La Liga I watch every week.

[Paul6754]

This same Spanish ref was very lenient in the Uruguay vs England game only giving Diego Godin a yellow card for deliberate hand band and denial of a clear goal scoring opportunity and then failing to give the same player a second yellow card for a clear block on Sturridge after around 30 mins, would have changed the entire game. Also the Uruguayans committed many dubious ferocious tackles which went unpunished.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Penalties for the Dutch, never won a penalty shoot out in WC history and so they bring on Krul to face the penalties. He could actually be a hero without having a touch in the entire game!

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

And he is, I had a bet on Argentina but they could have it tough now with Holland and then potentially Germany in the final.

[Guppy 4 England]

Think the Brazilians experienced karma. Serves them right no doubt fifa will ensure they get to the final with another sh it ref and linesman

[Paul6754]

The newspapers are talking about Tim Krul substitution as being inventive etc. It was a good move by Van Gaal but I remember the same tactic openly discussed on tv after an England lost on penalties to Germany in Italia 1990, it was suggested Dave Beasant should've been bought on for Shilton as the former had a better record of saving pens.

[davidatpreston]

Having enjoyed this World Cup more than any other since 1966, I now fear that I might have to sit through the untimate horror of a Brazil v Argentina final, which was always on the cards.

The optimist inside me tells me to hope for the Dutch to gain revenge for 1978 against Argentina (although they did partially do that with Bergkamp's wonder late winner in 94(?) I think it was) and then thrash the Germans in the final to avenge the cruel injustice of 1974.

I think the Brazil / Germany match is 50/50 and just for once I will support the Germans, as Brazil have been petulant and rather dirty and several of their players would find it hard to get in a Premier league side (fred, hulk) and only the wave of home fan hysteria has carried them this far, rather like it did with South korea and several other hosts who weren't really up to it.

However, as G4E pointed out, FIFA will want them in the final and I'd hate to be as cynical as to agree they'd fix it, but it is a worry that bias may creep in and decide a close match on an iffy penalty decision or suchlike.

Holland will find it hard to beat Argentina, but they do seem to have developed a winning mentality and control of the games, even when the scoreboard showed them to be struggling against Mexico and Costa Rica.

 

They have come from behind 3 times to win already, and have a team spirit this time - something that has cost them dearly in the past. They may also have a fair number of Brazil fans supporting them against rivals Argentina, so I have hope and maybe a flash or two of brilliance from Robben and van Persie can outdo the master Messi.

 

It's a game I am looking forward to very much. I find it fascinating that the bookies have Argentina as favourites to lift the World cup despite them not playing that well in most of their games, especially the turgid affair against Switzerland.

What is everyone's order of preference to win it - my own 1. Holland 2. Argentina 3. Germany 4, Brazil

[Santa]

The newspapers are talking about Tim Krul substitution as being inventive etc. It was a good move by Van Gaal but I remember the same tactic openly discussed on tv after an England lost on penalties to Germany in Italia 1990, it was suggested Dave Beasant should've been bought on for Shilton as the former had a better record of saving pens.

I always thought that back then you had to name 5 subs. Having the rest of the squad on the bench was a fairly recent thing.

 

Chris Woods was our no 2 keeper at the time and Beasant was a late replacement after David Seaman broke a finger.

[boltonsno1]

I always thought that back then you had to name 5 subs. Having the rest of the squad on the bench was a fairly recent thing.

 

Chris Woods was our no 2 keeper at the time and Beasant was a late replacement after David Seaman broke a finger.

 

I read about it a few weeks ago on Shiltons wiki page. I know anyone can alter a Wiki page, but it seems a strange thing to make up.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

I read about it a few weeks ago on Shiltons wiki page. I know anyone can alter a Wiki page, but it seems a strange thing to make up.

 

All the rest of the squad were kitted up and sat on the bench, I watched the Cameroon game recently with the two Lineker penalties.

 

It was a shame we didn't utilise Beasant that day as Shilts didn't get near any of the Germans penalties.

[Paul6754]

I always thought that back then you had to name 5 subs. Having the rest of the squad on the bench was a fairly recent thing.

 

Chris Woods was our no 2 keeper at the time and Beasant was a late replacement after David Seaman broke a finger.

 

I can't remember what the criteria was for substitutions/naming subs/who was a sub in Italia 90. On Peter Shilton's Wiki page it says " In his biography Bobby Robson later admitted that he had toyed with the idea of substituting Shilton with second understudy Dave Beasant for the shoot out, as Beasant, who played for Chelsea, had a particularly impressive record at saving penalties.[citation needed]", this seems to indicate (if true) that Beasant could have come on.

 

My point is that this is a tactic that had been thought of and discussed before Brazil 2014.