2014 FIFA World Cup Brasil™ - Germany win again

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

No one in the Media over here would be saying shit about Van Gaal if he hadn't been made manager of Man United.

 

Holland are in the Semi-Finals though and he deserves credit for that.

[Beren]

No one in the Media over here would be saying shit about Van Gaal if he hadn't been made manager of Man United.

 

Holland are in the Semi-Finals though and he deserves credit for that.

 

Not sure that's true. Never seen the keeper subbed for a shootout.

[Kaizero]

No one in the Media over here would be saying shit about Van Gaal if he hadn't been made manager of Man United.

 

Holland are in the Semi-Finals though and he deserves credit for that.

 

Not sure that's true. Never seen the keeper subbed for a shootout.

 

I've done it on FM a few times. I'm a genius.

[Ronaldo]

No one in the Media over here would be saying shit about Van Gaal if he hadn't been made manager of Man United.

 

Holland are in the Semi-Finals though and he deserves credit for that.

 

Not sure that's true. Never seen the keeper subbed for a shootout.

 

1996 playoff final. Kalac for Kevin Poole.

[Unbelievable]

No one in the Media over here would be saying s*** about Van Gaal if he hadn't been made manager of Man United.

 

Holland are in the Semi-Finals though and he deserves credit for that.

 

It's not just this goalkeeper sub that was inspired and proved decisive, there is also devising a tactic to tear World and European champions Spain a new one, changing formation and bringing on match winner Depay vs Australia, the Fer and Depay subs that turned the Chile game, the crucial Huntelaar sub vs Mexico. I don't think he's a genius of course, but there's no denying he has this squad performing at the very top of its ability, full of confidence and for some reason whatever weird scenarios he prepares before a game seems to happen in reality. Some of the players have also remarked on his uncanny knack of predicting events in a game and prepare the team for it on numerous occasions the past few weeks. Contrast that to plenty of managers who just rely on their players to conjure up some magic or only have one plan regardless of opposition and circumstances, and it's evident the man is on another level to most managers.

 

This coming from somebody who absolutely loathes Louis van Gaal by the way. He's a grumpy, paranoid, bipolar cunt who failed to qualify for the 2002 World Cup with an extremely talented group of players. For that I thought I could never forgive him, but to be honest he's mightily close to doing exactly that right now.

[Kanji]

LVG has done a magnificent job man, sheer fact is they are playing in the semis of the World Cup and it's not off crap opposition or magic HBA/Cabaye style moments he's set this team up brilliantly well and then utilized the best of robben and RvP finishing.

[David28]

Krul even is one of the top topics in Germany. Great

 

It's been a great time, Tim!

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Will people shrining Van Gaal give Wilmots the same credit for overcoming a US side that regularly finishes above Ticos in NA confederation and was even more negative? Especially given his team did not require penalties? Football is just a game of margins. I was talking to some people about our run in this tournament and it may have only been 1 or 2 decisions that separated them from an embarrassing, winless first round exit or an historic quarterfinal appearance. Netherlands have truly ridden their luck in the last two matches and come through very tight situations. It is hard to give the manager so much credit for this.

[Disco]

No one in the Media over here would be saying shit about Van Gaal if he hadn't been made manager of Man United.

 

Holland are in the Semi-Finals though and he deserves credit for that.

 

Not sure that's true. Never seen the keeper subbed for a shootout.

 

1996 playoff final. Kalac for Kevin Poole.

 

Leicester did it with Pegguy Arphexad a couple of times too.

[Unbelievable]

Will people shrining Van Gaal give Wilmots the same credit for overcoming a US side that regularly finishes above Ticos in NA confederation and was even more negative? Especially given his team did not require penalties? Football is just a game of margins. I was talking to some people about our run in this tournament and it may have only been 1 or 2 decisions that separated them from an embarrassing, winless first round exit or an historic quarterfinal appearance. Netherlands have truly ridden their luck in the last two matches and come through very tight situations. It is hard to give the manager so much credit for this.

 

 

Wilmots isn't even fit to lace Van Gaal's shoes man. Wasn't a couple of weeks ago people everywhere would tell me that Belgium had the much better players, were outsiders for the World Cup whereas Holland wouldn't even get out of the group stage. Belgium failed to impress against really mediocre opposition four times and than went out without a whimper in their first real test. Add to that the fact Marc Wilmots couldn't settle on who his best players were even after the tournament had started and he's been an unmitigated disaster. Belgium was less than the sum of their parts, whereas Holland are more. To compare Van Gaal to Wilmots is laughable.

[Flip]

Will people shrining Van Gaal give Wilmots the same credit for overcoming a US side that regularly finishes above Ticos in NA confederation and was even more negative? Especially given his team did not require penalties? Football is just a game of margins. I was talking to some people about our run in this tournament and it may have only been 1 or 2 decisions that separated them from an embarrassing, winless first round exit or an historic quarterfinal appearance. Netherlands have truly ridden their luck in the last two matches and come through very tight situations. It is hard to give the manager so much credit for this.

 

 

Wilmots isn't even fit to lace Van Gaal's shoes man. Wasn't a couple of weeks ago people everywhere would tell me that Belgium had the much better players, were outsiders for the World Cup whereas Holland wouldn't even get out of the group stage. Belgium failed to impress against really mediocre opposition four times and than went out without a whimper in their first real test. Add to that the fact Marc Wilmots couldn't settle on who his best players were even after the tournament had started and he's been an unmitigated disaster. Belgium was less than the sum of their parts, whereas Holland are more. To compare Van Gaal to Wilmots is laughable.

 

Wilmots will need a lot more years to even come close to being compared to van Gaal , but I don't agree that they failed to impress against four teams. They were very impressive against the US and Algeria showed they're no pushovers either.

 

I think in the end the four best teams in the WC are in the semi's, not because they've played well but because neither team has really impressed and yet are in the semi's because they have that extra quality. Whatever final we get it's going to be one of the best in recent history. It's four historically great teams (even if Holland has never won it)

[Unbelievable]

I was intrigued to see if I perhaps underrated Wilmots' pedigree and was oblivious to his many exploits as a football manager. Turns out he was interim manager for Schalke for 2 months when he played there in 2003, and was the manager for Sint Truiden for 23 games in 2004/05 (won 5, drew 5, lost 13). Following that disaster he became a real estate agent until Advocaat, then Belgium manager, asked him to become his assistant in 2009. When Leekens, next Belgium manager, quit the job in 2012, Wilmots took the job ad interim and ultimately was given the job full time. After the WC qualification he was handed a new contract until 2018.

 

How did the Belgium FA give this unproven f***er the job of leading their most talented crop of players ever to a World Cup?

[Flip]

I was intrigued to see if I perhaps underrated Wilmots' pedigree and was oblivious to his many exploits as a football manager. Turns out he was interim manager for Schalke for 2 months when he played there in 2003, and was the manager for Sint Truiden for 23 games in 2004/05 (won 5, drew 5, lost 13). Following that disaster he became a real estate agent until Advocaat, then Belgium manager, asked him to become his assistant in 2009. When Leekens, next Belgium manager, quit the job in 2012, Wilmots took the job ad interim and ultimately was given the job full time. After the WC qualification he was handed a new contract until 2018.

 

How did the Belgium FA give this unproven f***er the job of leading their most talented crop of players ever to a World Cup?

 

I like you as a poster and you know that but sometimes you post without thinking . Wilmots was given the job because he's one of the most respected players to grace the Belgian football. He has a huge respect and is the hero of many of the guys on the team as they grew up watching him. He did a fantastic job with them during the qualifiers and friendlies since he took over. His Belgium side had one of the best performances in the WC when they played the US. He only lost to Argentina due to a single goal. To take his old achievements and pedigree as football manager and condemn his achievements with the national side is ridiculous. His win percentage as a manager for Belgium is the highest ever with the national team.

 

I mean van Gaal didn't qualify Netherlands with a pretty good team to the 2002 World Cup. He also had a terrible return to Barcelona after that if I'm not mistaken, or did he resign from that? Just because a manager has failed at one job doesn't make him a bad manager,

[Unbelievable]

I was intrigued to see if I perhaps underrated Wilmots' pedigree and was oblivious to his many exploits as a football manager. Turns out he was interim manager for Schalke for 2 months when he played there in 2003, and was the manager for Sint Truiden for 23 games in 2004/05 (won 5, drew 5, lost 13). Following that disaster he became a real estate agent until Advocaat, then Belgium manager, asked him to become his assistant in 2009. When Leekens, next Belgium manager, quit the job in 2012, Wilmots took the job ad interim and ultimately was given the job full time. After the WC qualification he was handed a new contract until 2018.

 

How did the Belgium FA give this unproven f***er the job of leading their most talented crop of players ever to a World Cup?

 

I like you as a poster and you know that but sometimes you post without thinking . Wilmots was given the job because he's one of the most respected players to grace the Belgian football. He has a huge respect and is the hero of many of the guys on the team as they grew up watching him. He did a fantastic job with them during the qualifiers and friendlies since he took over. His Belgium side had one of the best performances in the WC when they played the US. He only lost to Argentina due to a single goal. To take his old achievements and pedigree as football manager and condemn his achievements with the national side is ridiculous. His win percentage as a manager for Belgium is the highest ever with the national team.

 

I mean van Gaal didn't qualify Netherlands with a pretty good team to the 2002 World Cup. He also had a terrible return to Barcelona after that if I'm not mistaken, or did he resign from that? Just because a manager has failed at one job doesn't make him a bad manager,

 

I disagree regarding Wilmots. Holland appointed Rijkaard (EC 2000) and Van Basten (WC 2008, EC 2010) in a similar situation: both highly respected (ex) players without any relevant management experience. They both failed to deliver. Argentina did it with Maradonna and it didn't work out. I can't really think of any successful NT manager without at least some experience at top club level. In my humble opinion a great football (and I'm not even sure Wilmots is that) does not a great international manager make.

[Kanji]

The way everyone has been blowing Beligum pre-cup, they should have beaten every team by 2-3 goals and destroyed the USA team on paper with a squad that was reportedly some 400M+ in value or some s*** I read. Belgium did themselves very well and had to get through Argentina, no small task for ANY country in the world. But Wilmots' team has a f*** load more talent on paper than the Dutch, who have gone on and proved themselves by winning big, winning tight, and well - again, in the semis of the World Cup. Had Belgium beat Messi and co, Wilmots would get super praise. He still deserves massive credit, and was unfortunate to have Benteke out and Lukaku not at full pelt - but the same could be said about Colombia who had their best player and striker missing for the cup.

 

LVG has played it brilliantly well, bury hatred for Manchester United for one second and just look at that team and the formations/subs he's made. Results.

[Interpolic]

The Dutch played Costa Rica in the quarter finals, you can only beat what's in front of you but them getting further than Belgium doesn't say a great deal.

 

Was disappointed with Belgium though, them and Argentina are capable of far more expansive football than they showed or have shown so far.

[themanupstairs]

The Dutch played Costa Rica in the quarter finals, you can only beat what's in front of you but them getting further than Belgium doesn't say a great deal.

 

Was disappointed with Belgium though, them and Argentina are capable of far more expansive football than they showed or have shown so far.

 

By the same token, Belgium didn't have Spain and Chile to contend with in the group.

[Interpolic]

True.  Belgium ended up finishing about par overall, despite the hype.  Would have been good if they'd managed to play better football doing it.

 

Holland were canny ace in the groups but have laboured a bit since, still performing way beyond expectations.  I thought they were average beyond 3 or 4 key players.

[Flip]

I was intrigued to see if I perhaps underrated Wilmots' pedigree and was oblivious to his many exploits as a football manager. Turns out he was interim manager for Schalke for 2 months when he played there in 2003, and was the manager for Sint Truiden for 23 games in 2004/05 (won 5, drew 5, lost 13). Following that disaster he became a real estate agent until Advocaat, then Belgium manager, asked him to become his assistant in 2009. When Leekens, next Belgium manager, quit the job in 2012, Wilmots took the job ad interim and ultimately was given the job full time. After the WC qualification he was handed a new contract until 2018.

 

How did the Belgium FA give this unproven f***er the job of leading their most talented crop of players ever to a World Cup?

 

I like you as a poster and you know that but sometimes you post without thinking . Wilmots was given the job because he's one of the most respected players to grace the Belgian football. He has a huge respect and is the hero of many of the guys on the team as they grew up watching him. He did a fantastic job with them during the qualifiers and friendlies since he took over. His Belgium side had one of the best performances in the WC when they played the US. He only lost to Argentina due to a single goal. To take his old achievements and pedigree as football manager and condemn his achievements with the national side is ridiculous. His win percentage as a manager for Belgium is the highest ever with the national team.

 

I mean van Gaal didn't qualify Netherlands with a pretty good team to the 2002 World Cup. He also had a terrible return to Barcelona after that if I'm not mistaken, or did he resign from that? Just because a manager has failed at one job doesn't make him a bad manager,

 

I disagree regarding Wilmots. Holland appointed Rijkaard (EC 2000) and Van Basten (WC 2008, EC 2010) in a similar situation: both highly respected (ex) players without any relevant management experience. They both failed to deliver. Argentina did it with Maradonna and it didn't work out. I can't really think of any successful NT manager without at least some experience at top club level. In my humble opinion a great football (and I'm not even sure Wilmots is that) does not a great international manager make.

 

You're basically saying the appointment is rubbish despite his record speaking for itself. Quarter-finals is what everyone expected and they played Argentina and lost. I didn't once say that a great football player makes a great international manager, but his stature in Belgian football has helped gain respect from players in a team that before used to be completely split into two camps. I'm not saying he's an excellent manager, I'm just saying that you're condemning his ability based on what he's done in the past and not present.

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

I was intrigued to see if I perhaps underrated Wilmots' pedigree and was oblivious to his many exploits as a football manager. Turns out he was interim manager for Schalke for 2 months when he played there in 2003, and was the manager for Sint Truiden for 23 games in 2004/05 (won 5, drew 5, lost 13). Following that disaster he became a real estate agent until Advocaat, then Belgium manager, asked him to become his assistant in 2009. When Leekens, next Belgium manager, quit the job in 2012, Wilmots took the job ad interim and ultimately was given the job full time. After the WC qualification he was handed a new contract until 2018.

 

How did the Belgium FA give this unproven f***er the job of leading their most talented crop of players ever to a World Cup?

 

I like you as a poster and you know that but sometimes you post without thinking . Wilmots was given the job because he's one of the most respected players to grace the Belgian football. He has a huge respect and is the hero of many of the guys on the team as they grew up watching him. He did a fantastic job with them during the qualifiers and friendlies since he took over. His Belgium side had one of the best performances in the WC when they played the US. He only lost to Argentina due to a single goal. To take his old achievements and pedigree as football manager and condemn his achievements with the national side is ridiculous. His win percentage as a manager for Belgium is the highest ever with the national team.

 

I mean van Gaal didn't qualify Netherlands with a pretty good team to the 2002 World Cup. He also had a terrible return to Barcelona after that if I'm not mistaken, or did he resign from that? Just because a manager has failed at one job doesn't make him a bad manager,

 

I disagree regarding Wilmots. Holland appointed Rijkaard (EC 2000) and Van Basten (WC 2008, EC 2010) in a similar situation: both highly respected (ex) players without any relevant management experience. They both failed to deliver. Argentina did it with Maradonna and it didn't work out. I can't really think of any successful NT manager without at least some experience at top club level. In my humble opinion a great football (and I'm not even sure Wilmots is that) does not a great international manager make.

 

You're basically saying the appointment is rubbish despite his record speaking for itself. Quarter-finals is what everyone expected and they played Argentina and lost. I didn't once say that a great football player makes a great international manager, but his stature in Belgian football has helped gain respect from players in a team that before used to be completely split into two camps. I'm not saying he's an excellent manager, I'm just saying that you're condemning his ability based on what he's done in the past and not present.

 

 

 

i'm with unbelievable on this one, called it before the tourament that a better manager could take belgium close to winning it...and by that i mean a van gaal or someone

 

england are proof that being great in qualifiers means fuck all

[Flip]

I was intrigued to see if I perhaps underrated Wilmots' pedigree and was oblivious to his many exploits as a football manager. Turns out he was interim manager for Schalke for 2 months when he played there in 2003, and was the manager for Sint Truiden for 23 games in 2004/05 (won 5, drew 5, lost 13). Following that disaster he became a real estate agent until Advocaat, then Belgium manager, asked him to become his assistant in 2009. When Leekens, next Belgium manager, quit the job in 2012, Wilmots took the job ad interim and ultimately was given the job full time. After the WC qualification he was handed a new contract until 2018.

 

How did the Belgium FA give this unproven f***er the job of leading their most talented crop of players ever to a World Cup?

 

I like you as a poster and you know that but sometimes you post without thinking . Wilmots was given the job because he's one of the most respected players to grace the Belgian football. He has a huge respect and is the hero of many of the guys on the team as they grew up watching him. He did a fantastic job with them during the qualifiers and friendlies since he took over. His Belgium side had one of the best performances in the WC when they played the US. He only lost to Argentina due to a single goal. To take his old achievements and pedigree as football manager and condemn his achievements with the national side is ridiculous. His win percentage as a manager for Belgium is the highest ever with the national team.

 

I mean van Gaal didn't qualify Netherlands with a pretty good team to the 2002 World Cup. He also had a terrible return to Barcelona after that if I'm not mistaken, or did he resign from that? Just because a manager has failed at one job doesn't make him a bad manager,

 

I disagree regarding Wilmots. Holland appointed Rijkaard (EC 2000) and Van Basten (WC 2008, EC 2010) in a similar situation: both highly respected (ex) players without any relevant management experience. They both failed to deliver. Argentina did it with Maradonna and it didn't work out. I can't really think of any successful NT manager without at least some experience at top club level. In my humble opinion a great football (and I'm not even sure Wilmots is that) does not a great international manager make.

 

You're basically saying the appointment is rubbish despite his record speaking for itself. Quarter-finals is what everyone expected and they played Argentina and lost. I didn't once say that a great football player makes a great international manager, but his stature in Belgian football has helped gain respect from players in a team that before used to be completely split into two camps. I'm not saying he's an excellent manager, I'm just saying that you're condemning his ability based on what he's done in the past and not present.

 

 

 

i'm with unbelievable on this one, called it before the tourament that a better manager could take belgium close to winning it...and by that i mean a van gaal or someone

 

england are proof that being great in qualifiers means f*** all

 

Belgium beat every team except Argentina, how is that bad? If they beat Argentina they could easily have gone on close to winning it. Some people don't seem to realize that tiny details can change everything. If Netherland don't score a 45th minute equalizer against Spain or get a wrongly allowed 3-1 goal against Spain they might not have gone through their group, if Brazil doesn't get help from Nishimura we might've lost every game as well. There are tiny tiny details that change games in World Cup. Wilmots had his team get through the group on 9p, 3 of them coming from behind in an opener against a team that played extremely well against Germany, another 3p against a Russian side that isn't bad at all and another 3p with 10men on the pitch for majority of the game.

 

I'm not comparing van Gaal to Wilmots historically, but van Gaal has fucked up in international football as well when he failed to qualify for the 2002 WC, so nothing says he'd be certain to do a better tournament then Wilmots with the Belgian side.

[mrmojorisin75]

I was intrigued to see if I perhaps underrated Wilmots' pedigree and was oblivious to his many exploits as a football manager. Turns out he was interim manager for Schalke for 2 months when he played there in 2003, and was the manager for Sint Truiden for 23 games in 2004/05 (won 5, drew 5, lost 13). Following that disaster he became a real estate agent until Advocaat, then Belgium manager, asked him to become his assistant in 2009. When Leekens, next Belgium manager, quit the job in 2012, Wilmots took the job ad interim and ultimately was given the job full time. After the WC qualification he was handed a new contract until 2018.

 

How did the Belgium FA give this unproven f***er the job of leading their most talented crop of players ever to a World Cup?

 

I like you as a poster and you know that but sometimes you post without thinking . Wilmots was given the job because he's one of the most respected players to grace the Belgian football. He has a huge respect and is the hero of many of the guys on the team as they grew up watching him. He did a fantastic job with them during the qualifiers and friendlies since he took over. His Belgium side had one of the best performances in the WC when they played the US. He only lost to Argentina due to a single goal. To take his old achievements and pedigree as football manager and condemn his achievements with the national side is ridiculous. His win percentage as a manager for Belgium is the highest ever with the national team.

 

I mean van Gaal didn't qualify Netherlands with a pretty good team to the 2002 World Cup. He also had a terrible return to Barcelona after that if I'm not mistaken, or did he resign from that? Just because a manager has failed at one job doesn't make him a bad manager,

 

I disagree regarding Wilmots. Holland appointed Rijkaard (EC 2000) and Van Basten (WC 2008, EC 2010) in a similar situation: both highly respected (ex) players without any relevant management experience. They both failed to deliver. Argentina did it with Maradonna and it didn't work out. I can't really think of any successful NT manager without at least some experience at top club level. In my humble opinion a great football (and I'm not even sure Wilmots is that) does not a great international manager make.

 

You're basically saying the appointment is rubbish despite his record speaking for itself. Quarter-finals is what everyone expected and they played Argentina and lost. I didn't once say that a great football player makes a great international manager, but his stature in Belgian football has helped gain respect from players in a team that before used to be completely split into two camps. I'm not saying he's an excellent manager, I'm just saying that you're condemning his ability based on what he's done in the past and not present.

 

 

 

i'm with unbelievable on this one, called it before the tourament that a better manager could take belgium close to winning it...and by that i mean a van gaal or someone

 

england are proof that being great in qualifiers means f*** all

 

Belgium beat every team except Argentina, how is that bad? If they beat Argentina they could easily have gone on close to winning it. Some people don't seem to realize that tiny details can change everything. If Netherland don't score a 45th minute equalizer against Spain or get a wrongly allowed 3-1 goal against Spain they might not have gone through their group, if Brazil doesn't get help from Nishimura we might've lost every game as well. There are tiny tiny details that change games in World Cup. Wilmots had his team get through the group on 9p, 3 of them coming from behind in an opener against a team that played extremely well against Germany, another 3p against a Russian side that isn't bad at all and another 3p with 10men on the pitch for majority of the game.

 

I'm not comparing van Gaal to Wilmots historically, but van Gaal has fucked up in international football as well when he failed to qualify for the 2002 WC, so nothing says he'd be certain to do a better tournament then Wilmots with the Belgian side.

 

well the key test of a quality manager is when you come up against someone good isn't it?  belgium looked horribly functional and one-dimensional every time i saw them and their results appear to back that up don't they?

 

argentina were very poor on the day and lost one of their 2 best players early in the game but belgium never really got near them depsite the quality of player they have....the inclusion of fellaini and playing him like a roaming striker was absolutely fucking laughable tbh

 

 

[Zero]

I really cannot give Wilmots any credit for THAT performance against Argentina.  The team is totally broken and disjointed.  No communication, no movement, no chemistry.  Fair play to say "well done to achieve the target", but it is simple: would you welcome Wilmots to be your manager? The answer is fucking straight forward isn't it?

[mrmojorisin75]

I really cannot give Wilmots any credit for THAT performance against Argentina.  The team is totally broken and disjointed.  No communication, no movement, no chemistry.  Fair play to say "well done to achieve the target", but it is simple: would you welcome Wilmots to be your manager? The answer is fucking straight forward isn't it?

 

[mrmojorisin75]

mind you, argentina weren't much better and have looked just as disjointed etc. at times throughout most of the tournament imo