alpal78

I don't think Maradona and the players would be looking so happy if all those people surrounding the coach were shouting abuse at them. That's what I thought, but Arentina were just thrashed 4-0 by Germans and the fans are happy with them? Would not happen with England fans for sure

I'm confused with those pictures. Were the fans happy with them and giving them a warm welcome or were they showing their anger/frustration?!

Some good points made but I'm not standing for some of the tosh. The argument on formation is disingenuous. There is no way an England manager can win unless he wins the game. When a manager tries something different other than 4-4-2, pundits will just claim that we are England and we have to play 4-4-2 because that's what our players are most comfortable with (this is what happened to Eriksson). When a manager plays 4-4-2, pundits will say that we have to try something different. You just can't win. I agree that Johnson should have gone but people should give up on Cole. This is not the Joe Cole of 2006, he had a poor season at Chelsea and when he came on against Slovenia looked pretty ordinary. The decision to play Milner ahead of Cole was the best decision Capello made and I'm not even a fan of Milner. The point on the Slovenia game is rubbish, sure another goal would have been nice and we did try to get a second goal in much of the second half. But the pressure in the last 5-10 minutes was crazy (I was shivering). Concede one goal and we were out, it was the difference between qualifying and going back early. To suggest that we should have gone gung ho attacking in the last few minutes in search of the second goal and potentially sacrifice qualification, instead of playing keep ball at the corner is idiotic!

This is certainly the formation of the month/year...but there are two basic requirements. First the front four must have intelligent movements, off the ball and ability to interchange positions to confuse opposition's defenders. Second the team must have at least 2-3 really fast players who can break at speed. Sadly we don't have either, so this formation is unlikely to work for us. I'd rather we go traditional 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 because that's what our lot seems to be most comfortable with and pray really hard throughout the season - that's our best chance of survival.

then if he's not sure he doesnt give it. quite simple really. Then when they miss the penalty we get the same discussion. Wullie I don't think we can ever get an end to fans debating 'dodgy' decisions, but that does not mean we should not try to reduce them. If the ref is clear he should give a goal and no card. If he is not, then a penalty + red card. You are right in the case of the latter, if the penalty was not scored, people would still argue that it was a 'clear' goal. But at least when we have a clear situation like the Suarez handball, then the ref can give a goal which was what Ghana should have got.

I'd agree. Carragher is tough and street wise and wouldn't have allowed himself to be muscled off the ball like that. He's also an organiser who's not afraid to open his mouth. Capello fell to the temptation of picking an unchanged side after a win. Carragher was the better option and should have been restored to the team. Aye, it's exactly the kind of decision you expect a manager as good as Capello to get right. I just wonder if, like every England manager before him seems to have done, he had one eye on how it would play in the press. If you change a winning team and the guy you put in makes a costly error, you'll get torn to bits in the papers. All this is being said with hindsight. Before the game people were generally saying that Capello should retain Upson because he supposedly had a good game against Slovenia. In truth there is nothing much between Carragher and Upson, they are both pretty average and very slow. It's not hindsight on my part, but yes, picking Carragher wouldn't have been a very popular decision. Capello obviously rated Carragher to some extent, because he brought him into the squad from nowhere, and when King got injured, he put Carragher on, not Upson. The only reason that Carragher didn't play against Slovenia was that he'd picked up two yellow cards. Carragher was ahead of Upson in Capello's eyes, so why didn't he restore him to the team? He's had enough chances to weigh up the abilities of both players. One game shouldn't have changed things. Carragher has lost a bit of pace this season, so there's not a lot to choose between him and Upson purely on the playing level. But Carragher does have more big game experience and looks very much the stronger character. That's what we needed against Germany. Regardless of the fact who played against Slovenia and how Capello rated them originally, he made a judgement call to go with Upson based on his observations in training, which none of us have access to. There is no way to say whether we would have performed better with Carragher. It's also ifs and buts. Like you said the popular decision would have been put Carragher back in, that only shows that Capello made his own mind and did not bow down to external pressure just the way he dealt with the Joe Cole situation. Personally I think once we decided to go all out attack in search of the equalizer, including Terry going all the way up for a throw in, we were f***ed coz none of our defenders (except maybe Cole) have the pace to cope with German's lighting quick counter attacks. I was saying that Carragher would have actually been the unpopular decision. I doubt that you're right about the training performances. The simplest explanation is that he didn't want to change a winning side. Or rather, a side that had won a game. Ok take it easy. Nothing wrong with wanting to keep a winning side. It's not like we had Rio Ferdinand waiting in the wings to replace Upson. Given that there isn't much difference between Upson and Carragher, retaining a player whose morale/confidence must have been boosted after a crucial win is what most experience managers would do. The fact that we are sitting here after the game saying that it didn't work out and things may have been better with Carragher does not change that the quality of the decision at that point of time. Besides for me, aside from being outmuscled by Klose, Upson was not more liable than any of his other team mates.

I'd agree. Carragher is tough and street wise and wouldn't have allowed himself to be muscled off the ball like that. He's also an organiser who's not afraid to open his mouth. Capello fell to the temptation of picking an unchanged side after a win. Carragher was the better option and should have been restored to the team. Aye, it's exactly the kind of decision you expect a manager as good as Capello to get right. I just wonder if, like every England manager before him seems to have done, he had one eye on how it would play in the press. If you change a winning team and the guy you put in makes a costly error, you'll get torn to bits in the papers. All this is being said with hindsight. Before the game people were generally saying that Capello should retain Upson because he supposedly had a good game against Slovenia. In truth there is nothing much between Carragher and Upson, they are both pretty average and very slow. It's not hindsight on my part, but yes, picking Carragher wouldn't have been a very popular decision. Capello obviously rated Carragher to some extent, because he brought him into the squad from nowhere, and when King got injured, he put Carragher on, not Upson. The only reason that Carragher didn't play against Slovenia was that he'd picked up two yellow cards. Carragher was ahead of Upson in Capello's eyes, so why didn't he restore him to the team? He's had enough chances to weigh up the abilities of both players. One game shouldn't have changed things. Carragher has lost a bit of pace this season, so there's not a lot to choose between him and Upson purely on the playing level. But Carragher does have more big game experience and looks very much the stronger character. That's what we needed against Germany. Regardless of the fact who played against Slovenia and how Capello rated them originally, he made a judgement call to go with Upson based on his observations in training, which none of us have access to. There is no way to say whether we would have performed better with Carragher. It's also ifs and buts. Like you said the popular decision would have been put Carragher back in, that only shows that Capello made his own mind and did not bow down to external pressure just the way he dealt with the Joe Cole situation. Personally I think once we decided to go all out attack in search of the equalizer, including Terry going all the way up for a throw in, we were fucked coz none of our defenders (except maybe Cole) have the pace to cope with German's lighting quick counter attacks.

I'd agree. Carragher is tough and street wise and wouldn't have allowed himself to be muscled off the ball like that. He's also an organiser who's not afraid to open his mouth. Capello fell to the temptation of picking an unchanged side after a win. Carragher was the better option and should have been restored to the team. Aye, it's exactly the kind of decision you expect a manager as good as Capello to get right. I just wonder if, like every England manager before him seems to have done, he had one eye on how it would play in the press. If you change a winning team and the guy you put in makes a costly error, you'll get torn to bits in the papers. All this is being said with hindsight. Before the game people were generally saying that Capello should retain Upson because he supposedly had a good game against Slovenia. In truth there is nothing much between Carragher and Upson, they are both pretty average and very slow.

I wonder what the odds would have been before the world cup for Messi + Rooney + Ronaldo to only score one goal!

I'll agree with you to a certain extent. For some stupid reason James came out and stopped halfway. Upson I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, he was outmuscled by Klose and had to let him 'go' at some point coz otherwise it could have easily been a penalty. Besides nobody thinks of Upson as anything more than an average premier league center back. But of all the mistakes, Terry's was the worst and most amateurish, the fact that many think of him as a world class center back just makes it worse.

I think FIFA should get me to join their rule making board or whatever shit it is called You're spot on on why it is being discussed now, it's clearly the combination of a very rare set of circumstances (that still deserves thinking of nevertheless). First it was a clear goal, second Gyan missed the penalty and third there was no more time to play for Ghana to take advantage of the 11 vs 10 situation. Don't think something similar has ever happened.

Err did you watch Germany's first goal? When Terry basically completely misjudge the flight of the ball, quite simply the most basic skills required of any center defender let alone, a player many (including you?) say is a world class center back.

Asking such a question on a NUFC forum obviously skews the result coz most don't want others to think of them as less of a Newcastle fan. I voted for the World Cup coz I think the league cup is shit. I don't care if that means others think of me as less of a fan.

Zero you raised some good points including the example of the striker rounding the keeper. I agree with you as I stated earlier that it can't be goal + red cad, that would be excessive. It has to be a goal if clear or a penalty + red card if not clear. Yes it does put more pressure on the referee but I would say that the ref should give the goal only if he was sure, as he should have been in this case. Don't know bout you but that header for me was a clear goal, I didn't think it was going to hit any other part of Suarez. He stuck out his hand maybe slightly just in front of the line and but for the hand, it would have been a goal. If the referee is in doubt, he should give a penalty + red card. Since as many have said penalties would mostly be scored anyway, I doubt the attacking team would complain. In fact if there was still more than 30 minutes to play, they might actually prefer the penalty + red card scenario coz then they get to play against 10 man for the next 30 minutes. But if he was sure then giving a goal without any card to the offender is the fairest decision to both teams, it gives the attacking team their due without unnecessarily punishing the offending team anymore than they deserve. The 6 (insert whatever number) match ban might work as a deterrent but it does not give redress to the team who for all purposes have scored the goal. Regarding your example of the striker rounding off the keeper, I would just give a penalty + red card. For me a "clear goal" contain a few elements i) when the shot/header had already been made, 2) the shot/header had already beaten the keeper iii) the shot would have gone in had it not been for the handball. I realize listing down those elements makes it sound complicated, but I do think there are cases where one can make that judgement instantly (as in this case). Otherwise just give the penalty and the red card.

Are you kidding me? that comical defending for Gerrmany's 1st goal and inability to lead the backline generally throughout the game makes him one of the most culpable...that's not even counting whatever destabilizing effect his press conference may have had. The only players more culpable than him for England was probably Green, Barry, possibly Rooney and that's about it. Possibly Rooney? Add Heskey, Upson, Lennon, Gerrard and Lampard. I sort of guess you were gonna say that. The list of players you provided (including Rooney) can be said to have played badly because they didn't do much but they didn't cause a direct goal through sheer stupidity. For me doing something stupid (which leads to a goal) is worse than not doing anything.

Messi, you repeated the same confusion so I will repeat my argument. A handball on the line is NOT denying a goalscoring opportunity....it is denying a goal, period. It is different from the last man bringing down a player situation which is denying a goalscoring opportunity. Fair enough if you disagree with the proposal to give the goal, but don't do that by using weird conclusion based on 2 situations which are not analogous

no as you can't say for definite if the player would have finished it. unlike in this sort of situation. So what if a player hits a free kick and looks like a cert to go in, but it hits someone in the walls arm? You are clearly exaggerating. The there is no such thing as a clear free kick goal. Assuming the wall was distanced properly, nobody can estimate how the ball will travel or how the keeper would have reacted to say that it was gonna be a sure goal. o no in tha case just a penalty (assuming in the box) because the handball did not stopped a goal.

Take a breather man, nobody is suggesting any of that nonsense. For me, if it is clear heading in but for the block (as it was in this case), then a goal must be given but that is sufficient. That would properly redress the situation and restore the attacking team to its fair and original position had it not been for the block. A penalty only gives them a chance to score (admittedly a pretty good one), what was taken away from them is a goal not a chance to score. Goal and red card is double punishment especially if the offending team had to play substantial amount of time with 10 man. If it is not clearly going in, then penalty and red card.

Very insightful, thanks for outlining a reason for your opinion. Good one

I can see the point but I guess a goal should only be given if it is clear scenario which the ref/linesman can decide on. When less clear, a penalty and red card should be sufficient. Also not sure if a goal and a red card is fair, I mean if you give the goal, should you still punish the player? In this game the red card was of no consequence because it came at the last moment, but if it happened early on...then that combination of a goal + red card would seem to punish the offending team twice? I realize I just contradicted my earlier post where I asked for more serious punishment, I blame the inconsistency on my hatred for the cunt Suarez

Are you kidding me? that comical defending for Gerrmany's 1st goal and inability to lead the backline generally throughout the game makes him one of the most culpable...that's not even counting whatever destabilizing effect his press conference may have had. The only players more culpable than him for England was probably Green, Barry, possibly Rooney and that's about it.

and to think that now he is celebrating as if he is the hero. FIFA should really imposed heavier sanction on him and generally when a player stops a certain goal with his hands. Sure a penalty is given but that's not the same as 100% goal had he not stopped it illegally...hate the cunt. A red card does not seem enough in this case although overall barring that last minute incident, Uruguay probably just about deserved to go through

Yah I take your point, a semi final exit with a decent showing might have been acceptable to the critics. But my point stands, had the team not achieved what was deemed acceptable, then regardless of whatever decision Capello had taken, the critics/media would have said that he was wrong and should have done the opposite. I don't know about you, but many who are saying he should brought the younger players would have then blamed him for not going with experienced Champion League players. You can almost see the headline "Capello naive boys humiliated against experienced Brazil"....etc. I suspect that bold decisions like dropping Rooney (had it not worked out) would have subjected him to even more poisonous criticism.

Thing is... he could have gone for Crouch up front, he could have taken Adam Johnson to play on the left, he could have kept Lennon for width on the right, he could have left out an unfit Barry, he could have dropped Rooney, he could have played Dawson instead of Upson, etc etc. He's not just the innocent victim of s*** players, he's made a lot of mistakes recently. and if he tried those things and they didnt pay off (which is highly likely) (Actually not taking Johnson was wrong) he would have got lambasted There really is a bigger issue here than the manager - no doubt he could have tried some different formations, some different players BUT the final result would have been the same - getting outplayed by better teams Changing the footballing culture overnight is not going to happen BUT when technically good players are coming through (Wilshere the prime example) they should be highlighted and brought into the setup as soon as possible Absolutely, most of the comments of where Capello went 'wrong' are said with the benefit of hindsight. That's nature of football critics especially English media whenever the team lose. They just take the other side, never mind if as a result they contradict their previous opinion/writings. So many examples, when Sven experimented with a 4-5-1, the same people (who are now claiming we have to go beyond 4-4-2) bitched that we are English and we have to play 4-4-2 because that is the formation that English players were most comfortable with. The same people who are now saying that we need an English manager said that we needed a foreign manager after the McClaren debacle, you couldn't make it up. Had Capello dropped Rooney, played Crouch and Defoe and lost, the critics/media would have called for his head, how dare he drop our World Class Rooney. Had he taken Walcott & Johnson instead of the likes of SWP & Joe Cole, he would have been attacked for over depending on inexperience youth instead of experience seasoned players. The truth is, whatever decision he took, when we get eliminated, he would always be 'wrong'. The only way he could have been 'right' is had we won the World Cup which is downright delusional!

We've been through this before. If Capello is sacked, the calls for British manager would intensify. The FA won't be able to sack Capello and get another foreign manager. This would mean the likes of Redknapp getting the job. Fact is there are currently no British manager who is better than Capello not even Roy Hodgson. What the FA should do is call him in, support him but also make it clear that what happened was unacceptable. Give him a clear mandate to revamp our first team including tactics and personnel. The objective is to qualify for 2012 and do well (whatever that is). Basically he has to start from scratch but also keep his eye on the end goal of 2012. 2 years is a long time and if he is worth his salt, then he should deliver - I think he can. One of the most remarkable attributes of Capello is his willingness to learn from his mistakes, no other top manager comes close. He would have seen himself on how his reliance on an aging 'experienced' group who were not all on form backfired. I'm sure he would try something very different for 2012 if given the chance.