Argentina 0 - 4 Germany

But then mate we've hardly seen any 'great/spectacular' performances this time around. Germany have easily been the best. After that?
Spain? Holland? England (   )? Brazil? ( Don't mind. )
No. Atleast Argentina have been among the goals- second highest I think.

It was common knowledge since the beginning that their defense was sh*te.
And Maradona was never going to be a classy coach. As I said myself, he didn't use the players at his disposal fully, be it leaving Cambiasso out or leaving Aguero on the bench.

And if you are seeing their 2006 performances, see ALL the matches. 6-0 was only 1 match. I don't remember them being much better against Ivory Coast, Netherlands or Mexico last time around than they were now.

And when you say "look at their wins and how they happened"... well in that sense you can undermine each victory. There's always something in a match that you could say "this thing went their way and shifted the result in their favour". Doesn't work like that.
They got good results, credit where its due. ( No Mr. Maradona not you! )

EDIT: I forgot to mention Maradona's biggest mistake. Leaving Riquelme out to rot. I have been shouting at the top my lungs that this was one hell of a mistake and he'll repent it. And he did. Riquelme was just the sort of creative midfielder they missed.

But then mate we've hardly seen any 'great/spectacular' performances this time around. Germany have easily been the best. After that?
Spain? Holland? England (   )? Brazil? ( Don't mind. )
No. Atleast Argentina have been among the goals- second highest I think.

It was common knowledge since the beginning that their defense was sh*te.
And Maradona was never going to be a classy coach. As I said myself, he didn't use the players at his disposal fully, be it leaving Cambiasso out or leaving Aguero on the bench.

And if you are seeing their 2006 performances, see ALL the matches. 6-0 was only 1 match. I don't remember them being much better against Ivory Coast, Netherlands or Mexico last time around than they were now.

And when you say "look at their wins and how they happened"... well in that sense you can undermine each victory. There's always something in a match that you could say "this thing went their way and shifted the result in their favour". Doesn't work like that.
They got good results, credit where its due. ( No Mr. Maradona not you! )

Yeah, they got the results... so did Uruguay, World Cup semifinalists. Are they one of the 4 best teams in the world? Hell, no. They were lucky to be in the group of the worst "big" team (France), then lucky again to face South Korea and Ghana in the knockout stage (had a hard time against all of them, too!).

I'm not saying Argentina were great in 2006, but in terms of results, it was exactly the same of 2010. Quarter finalists, knocked out by Germany (not 4-0, but in penalties). But they showed better team work with a worse squad. And what about comparing Ivory Coast and Netherlands to South Korea and Greece?

I give no credit to Maradona cause there's nothing in this Argentine team that look like his personal work. There's no system, no real tactics, they're only there thanks to their individual talents. He's got the best player in the world and can't even make him perform like he does in club level.

Any coach in the world should be able to beat Nigeria, South Korea, Greece and Mexico with that squad. A squad which could be way better if he was a better coach, too. But still he needed the help of the referee to win 3 of these matches. It does work like that, cause if we're only talking in terms of results, then Brazil's 2002 and 1970 squads are just as good. Champions winning all their games.

They scored only 1 single goal more than "boring" Brazil, by the way.  

Argentina scored 10 goals, 2 offside and one after a foul in the Nigerian defender. There was an own goal too. Brazil scored 9, one was illegal cause Luis Fabiano used his arm.

FWIW, South Africa were the seeded team in that group being the hosts

Yeah, they got the results... so did Uruguay, World Cup semifinalists. Are they one of the 4 best teams in the world? Hell, no. They were lucky to be in the group of the worst "big" team (France), then lucky again to face South Korea and Ghana in the knockout stage (had a hard time against all of them, too!).

I'm not saying Argentina were great in 2006, but in terms of results, it was exactly the same of 2010. Quarter finalists, knocked out by Germany (not 4-0, but in penalties). But they showed better team work with a worse squad. And what about comparing Ivory Coast and Netherlands to South Korea and Greece?

I give no credit to Maradona cause there's nothing in this Argentine team that look like his personal work. There's no system, no real tactics, they're only there thanks to their individual talents. He's got the best player in the world and can't even make him perform like he does in club level.

Any coach in the world should be able to beat Nigeria, South Korea, Greece and Mexico with that squad. A squad which could be way better if he was a better coach, too. But still he needed the help of the referee to win 3 of these matches. It does work like that, cause if we're only talking in terms of results, then Brazil's 2002 and 1970 squads are just as good. Champions winning all their games.

They scored only 1 single goal more than "boring" Brazil, by the way. 

Argentina scored 10 goals, 2 offside and one after a foul in the Nigerian defender. There was an own goal too. Brazil scored 9, one was illegal cause Luis Fabiano used his arm.

I have myself said that the draw made for the fixtures confuses me, giving the likes of Uruguay an easy passage to the semis. I never said Argentina was the second best because they made it so far or whatever.
Ivory Coast were no great shakes in 2006, and Netherlands, well..before this World Cup, they were never a sort of 'force to reckon with' in the World Cup.

I, too, give no credit to Maradona. Even I agree that he should have done a lot better with his chance. So no point arguing on a topic we both agree on.
And yes mate, sadly in the end only results matter and not the performance. Consider the last World Cup. Germany played some beautiful attacking football, whereas Italy were one of the most boring nations, defending all the time. Yet it was Italy who beat Germany in the semis and went on to win the WC. So yeah sadly a win is a win, even if you play badly and grind out a result.

And don't go on accounting for each and every goal. That way you could say Germany should have scored only 1 or 2 against England had it not been for the poor English defense. Same against the Argentinians. A goal is a goal. You can't say later on that they won on cheating. Sometimes you get lucky sometimes you don't. Part and parcel of the game.

And I never said Brazil were boring [\i]. Don't take it on heart mate.

Good to see we agree about Maradona

I mentioned the goals cause being 2nd highest dont mean much in that case. A goal is a goal, but luck dont make any team great. And as I said, they scored only 1 more than Brazil (who were far from being brilliant in the competition), being 3 of them illegal and 1 own goal. Their only great team goal was the 4th vs South Korea. "It's all relative", said Einstein Football are not stats.

As a team, Argentina were crap. That's where we disagree, I think. They may have entertained a bit but that's because they have enough individual talents and didn't face any strong opposition  - the first they did, they were humilliated.

That "boring" thing wasn't directed at you though. But that's how many people refer to that Brazilian team, at the same time they praise Argentina for attacking football.

I know I'm biased but Brazil were better than Argentina, for example. We faced better teams, played better as a team (from a brilliant CB partnership to the understanding between Elano, Kaká, Robinho and Luis Fabiano) and scored better goals. We lost a game in which we had the best chances, mainly because of our temperament. Yet we didn't entertain like Argentina. I guess it's a bit harder when you play good defensive teams like Portugal and Netherlands, not Greece and Mexico.

In the end, both teams went home in the quarter finals. But Brazil were a lot more consistent and favorites to win the WC than Argentina, I have no doubt about that. And that comes from more than watching 4 easy games, considering Argentina's problems were all there to see before the WC and nothing changed in South Africa.

Good to see we agree about Maradona

I mentioned the goals cause being 2nd highest dont mean much in that case. A goal is a goal, but luck dont make any team great. And as I said, they scored only 1 more than Brazil (who were far from being brilliant in the competition), being 3 of them illegal and 1 own goal. Their only great team goal was the 4th vs South Korea. "It's all relative", said Einstein Football are not stats.

As a team, Argentina were crap. That's where we disagree, I think. They may have entertained a bit but that's because they have enough individual talents and didn't face any strong opposition  - the first they did, they were humilliated.

That "boring" thing wasn't directed at you though. But that's how many people refer to that Brazilian team, at the same time they praise Argentina for attacking football.

I know I'm biased but Brazil were better than Argentina, for example. We faced better teams, played better as a team (from a brilliant CB partnership to the understanding between Elano, Kaká, Robinho and Luis Fabiano) and scored better goals. We lost a game in which we had the best chances, mainly because of our temperament. Yet we didn't entertain like Argentina. I guess it's a bit harder when you play good defensive teams like Portugal and Netherlands, not Greece and Mexico.

In the end, both teams went home in the quarter finals. But Brazil were a lot more consistent and favorites to win the WC than Argentina, I have no doubt about that. And that comes from more than watching 4 easy games, considering Argentina's problems were all there to see before the WC and nothing changed in South Africa.

That game against South Korea, Argentina were very good. Attack-wise.
They do have individual talents, but I think as a team they weren't as bad as you make them seem to be.
You talk about your partnership up-front. Argentina's wasn't bad either.
Many of your goals were individual brilliance too- Maicon's and Robinho's for example.

As for your Netherlands game, you had a good 1st half. In the second the Dutch weren't defensive. They attacked like hell and caught you off-guard.
Portugal weren't the toughest opponent you could face either. Lets face it, that 7-0 game aside, they were a pretty below-average side.

I won't say Brazil were shaky or anything of the sorts, but they weren't just the good old Brazil side that we have been watching over the years. They were a shadow of that 'Brazil' tag. Won't go as far as saying that they were better than Argentina.

And nothing changed in South Africa? Hello! Did you see the difference between their qualifiers and their WC  matches? It was one hell of a difference, right from results to their play! They were horrific in the qualifiers.

That game against South Korea, Argentina were very good. Attack-wise.
They do have individual talents, but I think as a team they weren't as bad as you make them seem to be.
You talk about your partnership up-front. Argentina's wasn't bad either.
Many of your goals were individual brilliance too- Maicon's and Robinho's for example.

As for your Netherlands game, you had a good 1st half. In the second the Dutch weren't defensive. They attacked like hell and caught you off-guard.
Portugal weren't the toughest opponent you could face either. Lets face it, that 7-0 game aside, they were a pretty below-average side.

I won't say Brazil were shaky or anything of the sorts, but they weren't just the good old Brazil side that we have been watching over the years. They were a shadow of that 'Brazil' tag. Won't go as far as saying that they were better than Argentina.

And nothing changed in South Africa? Hello! Did you see the difference between their qualifiers and their WC  matches? It was one hell of a difference, right from results to their play! They were horrific in the qualifiers.

The Dutch weren't defensive in the 2nd half, but they didn't attack like hell either. They had 3 or 4 chances the whole game. Brazil had more than that just in the 1st half. Two of Holland's chances resulted in goals, one of them an own goal after a cross that wouldn't have found any Dutch player inside the box. The other goal was a very well taken corner kick, but nothing more. When it was 2-1, Brazil had a player sent off (stupid Felipe Melo) and had to go forward to equalize. Netherlands had a hell lot of space then. Their 3rd opportunity to score only came in a counter attack, 3 players against Julio Cesar. But by then it was 11 vs 10, with Brazil desperate to score. Netherlands deserve credit for reaching the semifinals but they were nothing special. If it wasn't for Brazil's own mistakes, I doubt much would of have changed.

As for Brazil not being "good old Brazil", it doesnt mean they are not good. Expecting Brazil to always have the likes of Tostão, Pele and Jairzinho upfront is just silly, and to judge the current squad based on previous teams is just unfair. No other country has the same past quality to be in their "shadow". It was still a very consistent team, as football isn't only attacking.

Being good attack-wise against poor defenses is pretty easy. Being a great team is a lot more than that.

I'm not a big fan of Portugal either, but they have a lot more talent than any team Argentina faced before Germany. And Portugal played quite defensively the whole competition, with Ricardo Carvalho and Bruno Alves being a solid CB partnership.

Of course Argentina were much better in the WC than the qualifiers, the sense of occasion put the team together and I did expected them to do quite well, especially considering how easy their group was. What I mean by nothing having changed in South Africa is that their problems were still the same - defense is a joke, Messi isn't the same player he is for Barça, no real tactics there.

I think it wasn't just the mistakes Diego. I do agree however that Brazil would've won if they would've just continued what they did the first half. Holland started impressive the 2nd half, but I think mostly that Brazil started really complacent the 2nd half, like they thought they had already won it. The 1st half Brazil were much hungrier than Holland, but after halftime it seemed they had lost that, and Holland gained it. I don't know what happened there. And once Holland scored their first Brazil completey panicked. In the end this game seemed to have been won with the mind, not so much the feet.

Yeah, fair enough. Holland also deserves credit for how they changed their attitude after half time. But what I meant is that they hardly had that many chances. Brazil controlled the 1st half and could have scored 2 or 3 goals. Holland controlled the 2nd but were lucky to score the 1st, and only had a 3rd chance to score when Brazil defence was totally open. I don't wanna be a bad loser so credit given where credit due. I totally agree that the game have been won with the mind. Overall I think Brazil showed better football, but a football game also involves more than that.

By the way, I've always had that doubt: what's the "correct" name of your country, Netherlands or Holland? In Brazil we say Holanda (Holland).

Yeah, I know, we were creating sh*t, and were very lucky with that first goal too. And Brazil could've and should've scored more that first half. It wasn't much of a surprise to me that you were stronger that first half. While our midfield and forwards might be somewhat even, our defense doesn't come close to yours. But I knew under the right circumstances we'd have some chance. I'm sure you'll take your revenge in Brazil in 4 years though, especially if we run into you

Netherlands would be correct, but Holland works too. This might explain a bit, from wiki:

Holland is a name in common usage given to a region in the western part of the Netherlands.

Moreover, the term Holland is frequently used to refer to the whole of the Netherlands. This usage is unofficial and while generally accepted, it has caused a number of people from the Netherlands to complain. From the 10th century to the 16th century Holland proper was a unified political region, a county ruled by the Count of Holland. By the 17th century, Holland had risen to become a maritime and economic power, dominating the other provinces of the Dutch Republic.

Netherlands are awesome!

The Dutch weren't defensive in the 2nd half, but they didn't attack like hell either. They had 3 or 4 chances the whole game. Brazil had more than that just in the 1st half. Two of Holland's chances resulted in goals, one of them an own goal after a cross that wouldn't have found any Dutch player inside the box. The other goal was a very well taken corner kick, but nothing more. When it was 2-1, Brazil had a player sent off (stupid Felipe Melo) and had to go forward to equalize. Netherlands had a hell lot of space then. Their 3rd opportunity to score only came in a counter attack, 3 players against Julio Cesar. But by then it was 11 vs 10, with Brazil desperate to score. Netherlands deserve credit for reaching the semifinals but they were nothing special. If it wasn't for Brazil's own mistakes, I doubt much would of have changed.

As for Brazil not being "good old Brazil", it doesnt mean they are not good. Expecting Brazil to always have the likes of Tostão, Pele and Jairzinho upfront is just silly, and to judge the current squad based on previous teams is just unfair. No other country has the same past quality to be in their "shadow". It was still a very consistent team, as football isn't only attacking.

Being good attack-wise against poor defenses is pretty easy. Being a great team is a lot more than that.

I'm not a big fan of Portugal either, but they have a lot more talent than any team Argentina faced before Germany. And Portugal played quite defensively the whole competition, with Ricardo Carvalho and Bruno Alves being a solid CB partnership.

Of course Argentina were much better in the WC than the qualifiers, the sense of occasion put the team together and I did expected them to do quite well, especially considering how easy their group was. What I mean by nothing having changed in South Africa is that their problems were still the same - defense is a joke, Messi isn't the same player he is for Barça, no real tactics there.

I'm sorry but that Dutch performance in the second half was very, very good. It may be down to Brazil's slight complacency as you rightly pointed out, but take nothing away from the Dutch either. Seeing Brazil's 1st half performance, I expected Holland to lose 3-0 or something.
But they picked themselves up.
And in all honesty, Brazil looked a bit shaken up after conceding the first goal. That lead to desperation and ultimately that stupid mistake from Melo.
I never did say that the present Brazil team were 'bad'.
Don't go as far as Pele and Tostao. Look at the class of Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, even Adriano. They aren't just big names. They became big names because they performed at the big level. Whereas the likes of Kaka, no matter how much I like him, failed to show up this time. Robinho showed some signs of individual brilliance, that's it. Only Elano and Fabiano were very good.

The first half belonged to Brazil. They could have easily scored more.

I think everything changed when Felipe Melo scored the own goal. Netherlands believed that they can get a result if they kept pushing on and since the score was 1-1, Brazil had to go forward as well because they lost their single goal lead. Things were much more difficult when Felipe Melo was red carded because it was 10 v 11 and Brazil had to score 2 goals to win. Can't remember whether Netherlands threatened much from open play but they did get the result they needed from a free kick which led to the equaliser and from a corner.

I agree about Argentina's run is not because of Maradonna but it's because of the players he has. If you ask me, I think Argentina hadn't face a really tough competitor throughout the competition until they met Germany, where they totally got exposed. On the other hand, England faced Germany very early and Spain came up against Portugal (I don't think Portugal are a very good team but they certainly are a "big name").

Lionel Messi, I wouldn't say he played like crap cause he did contribute assists and made his trademark runs. He only just didn't score even though he had like 15 shots on target or something. To be fair to him, all/most of the big names failed to perform, IMO.

I'm sorry but that Dutch performance in the second half was very, very good. It may be down to Brazil's slight complacency as you rightly pointed out, but take nothing away from the Dutch either. Seeing Brazil's 1st half performance, I expected Holland to lose 3-0 or something.
But they picked themselves up.
And in all honesty, Brazil looked a bit shaken up after conceding the first goal. That lead to desperation and ultimately that stupid mistake from Melo.
I never did say that the present Brazil team were 'bad'.
Don't go as far as Pele and Tostao. Look at the class of Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, even Adriano. They aren't just big names. They became big names because they performed at the big level. Whereas the likes of Kaka, no matter how much I like him, failed to show up this time. Robinho showed some signs of individual brilliance, that's it. Only Elano and Fabiano were very good.

Yes, they picked themselves up, but while Brazil controlled the 1st half and created lots of opportunities to score, Holland could hardly find their way for a goal even playing against 10 men. And they were nothing untill an own goal. Of course they deserve a lot of credit but I'm much more critic about Brazil's attitude in that game, as it was completely absurd how they lost their heads after the equalizer.

We had Ronaldinho, Ronaldo and Adriano in 2006, what happened to us then? We were crap. I'm sorry mate, but when you mention those 3 names, who were a huge failure in the last WC playing together, I can't help but keep thinking how having big names completely changes everyone's judgment. Any win against a crap team becomes amazing when it's Ronaldo, not Luis Fabiano, scoring the goals.

We had a brilliant squad in 2006, full of amazing names, but as a team, we were nothing. The first good team we played against, we went out. Just like this Argentina, if you ask me. But even back then, we werent humilliated 4-0 cause we already had two quality CBs.

Yes, they picked themselves up, but while Brazil controlled the 1st half and created lots of opportunities to score, Holland could hardly find their way for a goal even playing against 10 men. And they were nothing untill an own goal. Of course they deserve a lot of credit but I'm much more critic about Brazil's attitude in that game, as it was completely absurd how they lost their heads after the equalizer.

Something we both agree on.

We had Ronaldinho, Ronaldo and Adriano in 2006, what happened to us then? We were crap. I'm sorry mate, but when you mention those 3 names, who were a huge failure in the last WC playing together, I can't help but keep thinking how having big names completely changes everyone's judgment. Any win against a crap team becomes amazing when it's Ronaldo, not Luis Fabiano, scoring the goals.

We had a brilliant squad in 2006, full of amazing names, but as a team, we were nothing. The first good team we played against, we went out. Just like this Argentina, if you ask me. But even back then, we werent humilliated 4-0 cause we already had two quality CBs.

Not just the 2006 World Cup, look at 2002 as well. I'm sure no one can undermine Ronaldo's performance in the world cups. He was pretty decent in the last one too.
And as I said, I am not judging a team by their big names, I myself said that they became big names because they performed at the big level, not the other way round.
Ronaldo, Cafu, Rivaldo became big names because they did show up at the highest level!
As for Adriano, I am not his biggest fan, just remember that one Copa America final from a few years back when he defeated Argentina almost single-handedly. 4-1 I think it was.