Remove this ad
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,526 Site Admin

#41 [url]

Apr 3 09 4:58 PM

I think the most sensible thing to do would be to arrange all Bolivia's home matches as the first match of any double-header. That way, there will be no question of teams only having 3 days in between before having to go to La Paz. This will give them a week or so to prepare (they could even re-schedule one round of league fixtures to prepare for the game because of the special circumstances).

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#42 [url]

Apr 4 09 1:18 PM

Marco.......The fixtures didn't change since the qualifiers of 2002..

The problem is actually the humiliating score......Altitude can be one of the causes" and they're a lot !!!!" of this "historical" result....In my opinion, Media has focused too much on the team and especially Maradona....It was the case of Brazil Before The last world cup, it was really so "Hollywood" if you know what I mean....

I can see that Argentina underestimated Bolivia..And there were not a Team spirit " the team didn't manage to make an organized oppurtunity, though they Had Messi and Tevez, and that doesn't really count, because what really matters is what you give in the game...Bolivia had the guts to attack to create a lot of chances, and i think that Maradona didn't see it coming....

When i hear Messi saying that it's impossible to play in Bolivia, it's like what we say here " An excuse is worse than a guilt"....Because football isn't about Mat like pitchs and "Glamourous" attendance....Sometimes you have to win a game inside of a jungle to qualify
Bottom line.....It's a tough lesson that Argentina had to learn.....Maradona claimed the revenge

Let's wait and see

" It's a historical event....Glad that i watched all the game "

"....And the smarter ones beetween us, are those who find out about their social stupidity earlier...." Abd daim !!!!

Quote    Reply   

#43 [url]

Apr 4 09 8:43 PM

yesterday here in a tv show, a former Brazilian national team player, Mozer, said the same.

It's impossible to play in La Paz, after 10-20 minutes of game it's impossible to run.. more you run more you get tired.. He said that Brazilian objectives was to stay in defence and try a 1-0 or 0-0.. which is a good result there.

He also says that to play there you have to arrive 20 days later, in order to acclimate. As we know that's impossible.. so the trick is to arrive near the time of the match, so that the consequences are small.. when did arrive Argentina?

Another consequence is the opposite, when the players return from there. We know that runners usually make trains in high places, because it develops the number of globules in the blood.

About that, Ferguson in Man Utd said that Tevez returned like a bull.. full of strenght..

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,526 Site Admin

#44 [url]

Apr 4 09 9:06 PM

I think that if it is impossible to run after 20 minutes, then that is an unfair advantage.

I think it is much more unfair than other climate-related conditions like extreme heat, cold, humidity, rain, which can be found in most places (even in Northern Europe it gets hot sometimes). But I think that only in Bolivia and Ecuador do people try to play football at such altitudes. It is hard to find something to compare it to. I think the Bolivians should stop complaining that they cannot play at altitude, and learn how to play good football at normal altitude so they don't need any other advantage. Any team would look good if the other team was too breathless to run.

Quote    Reply   

#45 [url]

Apr 5 09 7:36 PM

Not so much about the altitude, but I have watched a few Bolivia games from these WCQ's and I always look forward to their games. In particular their willingness to shoot from any where, it means there is more action in a 10 minute spell than in European matches of which I watch most living in Europe. I always enjoy the South American Games, I watched the entire Bolivia v Argentina match and in my opinion in the 1st 20 minutes there must have been 10 or so really good efforts on goal of which in Europe maybe only 1 or 2 would happen as there is never a plan to shoot until much closer in. Which I think is great to watch as a neutral and hence in the last few years I watch alot more South American Football both club & country.

A Chelmsford City Fan

Quote    Reply   

#48 [url]

Sep 10 09 10:48 AM

So Brazil and Paraguay have confirmed their places in South Africa.

This leaves 6 teams fighting for 2.5 places.

3. Chile 16 +7 27
4. Ecuador 16 -2 23
--------------
5. Argentina 16 +1 22
---------------
6. Uruguay 16 +8 21
7. Venezuela 16 -5 21
8. Colombia 16 -4 20

Chile is almost guaranteed at least a playoff place - the only way they could finish below 5th is if Venezuela beats Paraguay and Brazil, and turns around the goal-difference... virtually impossible.


The meaningful remaining fixtures:

10/10/09 Argentina - Peru
10/10/09 Colombia - Chile
10/10/09 Ecuador - Uruguay
10/10/09 Venezuela - Paraguay

13/10/09 Paraguay - Colombia
13/10/09 Uruguay - Argentina
13/10/09 Brazil - Venezuela
13/10/09 Chile - Ecuador


Aside from Chile, I think Ecuador is in the strongest position, though I hope Uruguay can qualify.


The good news for whoever finishes 5th is that in CONCACAF, Mexico has returned to form, so the playoff will most likely be against Honduras or Costa Rica.

Quote    Reply   

#50 [url]

Sep 11 09 10:19 AM

I hope so too as Venezuela is the only "CONMEBOL" country which still did not participate to World Cup final tournament.

I aten't dead !

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#53 [url]

Sep 12 09 9:56 AM

Bets:

10/10/09 Argentina - Peru 3-1
10/10/09 Colombia - Chile 2-1
10/10/09 Ecuador - Uruguay 2-0
10/10/09 Venezuela - Paraguay 2-1 (I am paraguayan supporter,but I hope only this time they are not going to force too much)

13/10/09 Paraguay - Colombia 0-0
13/10/09 Uruguay - Argentina 2-3
13/10/09 Brazil - Venezuela 4-0 (Brazil is unbeatable)
13/10/09 Chile - Ecuador 1-0

That means, Argentina would qualify and Ecuador at the fifth place. Although I hope that Venezuela can do it somehow.

Quote    Reply   

#54 [url]

Sep 14 09 6:30 PM

Colombia won't beat Chile, nor Argentina can defeat Uruguay. They are too weak simply now. From there a significant surprise can result as World Cup without Argentina.

Quote    Reply   

#55 [url]

Oct 8 09 1:20 PM

siepacz wrote:
Colombia won't beat Chile, nor Argentina can defeat Uruguay. They are too weak simply now. From there a significant surprise can result as World Cup without Argentina.


Well, I think, that Colombia is going to burst in that match to gain the last chance for the World Cup, also Venezeula.
And the Argentine are under high pressure, so I think that they will beat Uruguay (or at least one point) with a concentrate performance.

And if Argentina finish in 5th place, they'll surely beat the Central American team.

Quote    Reply   

#57 [url]

Nov 27 09 5:13 PM

Chile could be eliminated by FIFA due some trivial dispute over a relegated team... Ireland was eliminated by a handball goal, what should FIFA do?

Good old FIFA, mountains out of molehills, and vice versa.

Quote    Reply   

#59 [url]

Nov 27 09 7:49 PM

nfm24 wrote:
Chile could be eliminated by FIFA due some trivial dispute over a relegated team... Ireland was eliminated by a handball goal, what should FIFA do?

Good old FIFA, mountains out of molehills, and vice versa.

Well, FIFA never will eliminate France as France is commercial far more attractive than Chile. It is not fair, but FIFA is not fair.

Non consistency is not new at FIFA. In 1934 they punished Romania for fielding an ineligible player (Gyula (or Iuliu) Baratky) in a qualifier against Switzerland (2-2). As Baratky played less than three years before for Hungary he was not eligible to play for Romania. FIFA changed tge match result against Switzerland in a 2-0 win for the Swiss. According to the rule at the time a player had to wait 3 years before chaging national team, Italy fielded in ithe 1934 World Cup qualifier and all its 1934 World Cup matches ineligible players (Luis Monti and Enrico Guaita) as well. Everyone knew at the time, including FIFA. But the Italians were not punished. Please can anyone tell me the logica of punishing Romania but not punishing Italy for the very same foul even concerning the very same tournament?

At least we learn one lesson which reminds me on the old Dutch saying range">misdaad loont, which means something like range">crime will be rewarded. FIFA says they are promoting fair play, but I think the promote foul play. There may be more examples of worldchampions who won the Cup by cheating, but Italy 1934 is the most absurd example, also becuase according to match reports they constantly have been supported by the refs.

So who are the real 1934 Worldchampions as it is obvious Italy is not. Is it Czechoslovakia? Austria? Spain? Strong sides that have not been beaten by Italy (I rather say an improved Italian XI) but by the referee.

Quote    Reply   

#60 [url]

Nov 27 09 10:21 PM

pieter wrote:
They cannot replace Chile by Ireland, why not Bahrain, Egypt (testmatch), Russia (away-goal rule) or 6th placed S.American team....


I didn't mean Chile should be replaced by Ireland, or anyone else (Chile should still be accepted). I mean that FIFA has its priorities wrong. It could punish Chile strongly for such a minor issue, while doing nothing about major problems like illegal goals that can be easily seen on video replays.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help