Group C: FRA | PER | AUS | DEN

100 replies · 30,064 views
almost 8 years ago

it was a clear pen though? You wana win cos the ref misses something?



Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
mrsmiis
almost 8 years ago

Sad to see Peru lose, no way should they have lost that, a host of missed chances including the penalty.

Denmark average, and not even great defensively.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
coochieemrsmiis
almost 8 years ago · edited almost 8 years ago · History

Leggy wrote:

Always good to see the ozzies lose :-)

Never forgive, never forget the underarm bowling incident 

Except that was legal. 

Plus happened 36 years ago, and don't know any Aussie apart from the captain thought it was a good idea.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Global Game
almost 8 years ago

How was that not a pen for France? He was sliding in from side-back, did not even touched the ball and clipped the players foot. Another step and the France player would ld be alone in front of the goalie.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
mrsmiis
almost 8 years ago

aitkenmike wrote:

bennie99 wrote:

I view their cricket side entirely differently to their football side TBH. Happy to support them in football.

How was Denmark v Peru?

100%.  I'll support Aussie when we aren't playing in every single sport. 

Burn the heretic!

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
mrsmiis
almost 8 years ago

aitkenmike wrote:

bennie99 wrote:

I view their cricket side entirely differently to their football side TBH. Happy to support them in football.

How was Denmark v Peru?

100%.  I'll support Aussie when we aren't playing in every single sport. 

Burn the heretic!

And I hate the French for 1066. 

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Ray Hicks
almost 8 years ago

number8 wrote:

How was that not a pen for France? He was sliding in from side-back, did not even touched the ball and clipped the players foot. Another step and the France player would ld be alone in front of the goalie.

there is an angle which does show risdon got a slight touch of the ball first
Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
LeggyLG
almost 8 years ago

Definitely a pen

Denmark were dire. Was spewing they won that game, Peru were excellent without bothering Schmeichel too much

360footballnews.com

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Leggy wrote:

aitkenmike wrote:

bennie99 wrote:

I view their cricket side entirely differently to their football side TBH. Happy to support them in football.

How was Denmark v Peru?

100%.  I'll support Aussie when we aren't playing in every single sport. 

Burn the heretic!

And I hate the French for 1066. 

Never mind 1066, you guys still haven't got over the vikings plundering Lindisfarne in 793 :D

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Bullion wrote:

number8 wrote:

How was that not a pen for France? He was sliding in from side-back, did not even touched the ball and clipped the players foot. Another step and the France player would ld be alone in front of the goalie.

there is an angle which does show risdon got a slight touch of the ball first

"He was going for the ball" Those are the old rules.

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

number8 wrote:

Bullion wrote:

number8 wrote:

How was that not a pen for France? He was sliding in from side-back, did not even touched the ball and clipped the players foot. Another step and the France player would ld be alone in front of the goalie.

there is an angle which does show risdon got a slight touch of the ball first

"He was going for the ball" Those are the old rules.

Has that ever been the rules? 

I was just pointing out that Risdon got the ball first.

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Bullion wrote:

number8 wrote:

Bullion wrote:

number8 wrote:

How was that not a pen for France? He was sliding in from side-back, did not even touched the ball and clipped the players foot. Another step and the France player would ld be alone in front of the goalie.

there is an angle which does show risdon got a slight touch of the ball first

"He was going for the ball" Those are the old rules.

Has that ever been the rules? 

I was just pointing out that Risdon got the ball first.

It wasn't a decisive touch, and the ball was still in playing distance of the French player when Risdon tripped him. That's probably the reason why France got the call and the Argies didn't in their game (though to me both should've been given).

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Aussies doing Aussie things on SBS in the build up to Denmark match. This is Rudan’s sister Mariana with Archie Thompson and Lisa da vanna 

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Australia has done much better than most people thought TBH. Peru clearly has issues getting results in big matches, which is a shame because they play exciting football at their best.

bling blang blah
Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Leggy
almost 8 years ago

Aussie have really done well with the schedule drawing Peru last in this group with them already eliminated.  If they get a win they are a good chance to get through if Denmark can't hold on to France..

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Arzani must start

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Colvinator
almost 8 years ago

The French - easily the most unlikable team in the tournament. Mbappe and the other guy writhing around on the ground after being brushed by another player.

It's killing the game.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Leggy
almost 8 years ago

ForteanTimes wrote:

The French - easily the most unlikable team in the tournament. Mbappe and the other guy writhing around on the ground after being brushed by another player.

It's killing the game.

You must have missed the Brazil games.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
ForteanTimesnumber8paulm
almost 8 years ago

Sucks to see Denmark coming second, they've been lucky to get 4 points. Peru & Australia both should have beaten them.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Leggy
almost 8 years ago

Colvinator wrote:

Sucks to see Denmark coming second, they've been lucky to get 4 points. Peru & Australia both should have beaten them.

Peru played well but butchered good chances against Denmark.

In contrast Australia were just wooden and did not do enough to even deserve a draw.



Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Mainland FC wrote:

Colvinator wrote:

Sucks to see Denmark coming second, they've been lucky to get 4 points. Peru & Australia both should have beaten them.

Peru played well but butchered good chances against Denmark.

In contrast Australia were just wooden and did not do enough to even deserve a draw.

First half Australia were wooden and not good, but second half Australia were lively. I was disappointed with Rojic first match, but he was good against Denmark, then Arzani came on and nearly blew them away. He certainly wasn't wooden!

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Leggy
almost 8 years ago

What's with the aussie love in on this thread?

They're the enemy: never forget it :)

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
mrsmiis
almost 8 years ago

Can't wait to witness this dicking

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Watched Denmark vs France. 0-0 worse game I have seen for ages. France tried to attack but look they have all season.....disjointed. Denmark just parked the bus. They played for the draw. The crowd were whistling and booing in the second half as Denmark just passed the ball amongst the defenders.

Should have watched the Ozzies.

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago · edited almost 8 years ago · History

I seem to recall after the 2006 World Cup, that Australia would need 2010 and 2014 for more "learning" and to be more complete "multicultural" footballing nation.  And that by 2018, Australia would be fully "learned" and invulnerable...a world champion threatening team...The plan seemed to be coming together after beating Syria to qualify...but eventually, they have scored 2 lousy penalties in 270 minutes of football, and they lost 2-0 to Peru (should've been 3 or 4-0), just like NZ.  

Thoughts?

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Good to wake up to "Peru 2 - Neighbours 0"

  Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Sa
almost 8 years ago

I seem to recall after the 2006 World Cup, that Australia would need 2010 and 2014 for more "learning" and to be more complete "multicultural" footballing nation.  And that by 2018, Australia would be fully "learned" and invulnerable...a world champion threatening team...The plan seemed to be coming together after beating Syria to qualify...but eventually, they have scored 2 lousy penalties in 270 minutes of football, and they lost 2-0 to Peru (should've been 3 or 4-0), just like NZ.  

Thoughts?

This generation of aussie footballers is not as good as the golden one. Pretty much all there is to it really.

bling blang blah
Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
el grapadura
almost 8 years ago

They have some good player but I'm glad those cods got rolled by Peru.

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Sancho wrote:

They have some good player but I'm glad those cods got rolled by Peru.

They hardly got rolled.

57% to 43% possession

14 to 4 shots

8 corners to 3.

The major difference was they could not finish.

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
martinb
almost 8 years ago

Leggy wrote:

Sancho wrote:

They have some good player but I'm glad those cods got rolled by Peru.

They hardly got rolled.

57% to 43% possession

14 to 4 shots

8 corners to 3.

The major difference was they could not finish.

When you consede 2-0 I consider that being rolled, we know that Peru prefer playing a counter attacking game as they have done against latino teams. Australia just didn't get the memo.

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

ForteanTimes wrote:

The French - easily the most unlikable team in the tournament. Mbappe and the other guy writhing around on the ground after being brushed by another player.

It's killing the game.

and here I was thinking Portugal had that honour nailed on
You know we belong together...

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

I seem to recall after the 2006 World Cup, that Australia would need 2010 and 2014 for more "learning" and to be more complete "multicultural" footballing nation.  And that by 2018, Australia would be fully "learned" and invulnerable...a world champion threatening team...The plan seemed to be coming together after beating Syria to qualify...but eventually, they have scored 2 lousy penalties in 270 minutes of football, and they lost 2-0 to Peru (should've been 3 or 4-0), just like NZ.  

Thoughts?

They are shark.

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Sancho wrote:

Leggy wrote:

Sancho wrote:

They have some good player but I'm glad those cods got rolled by Peru.

They hardly got rolled.

57% to 43% possession

14 to 4 shots

8 corners to 3.

The major difference was they could not finish.

When you consede 2-0 I consider that being rolled, we know that Peru prefer playing a counter attacking game as they have done against latino teams. Australia just didn't get the memo.

2-0 against Peru was considered valiant and respectable just 8 months ago...

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

gentlemen/women this is what karma looks like. If you are not convinced go read some of the Aussie comments on fourfourtwo in NZ - Peru match thread.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Sa
almost 8 years ago

I've (crudely) figured out if the All Whites can beat Aussie after the Peru game

When you play at home, you have the home crowd advantage. That means theoretically, through the support of the home fans the home team should play a lot better than if they played on neutral or away grounds (Unless its the Nix in recent times). We played one home game and one away game during our qualifiers against Peru. At home we drew 0-0 when we had the home advantage, and lost 2-0 away when Peru had the home advantage. We need to find the middle ground of the scorelines as it should tell us what the score would be if it was played on neutral ground. Therefore we can say that we would've lost 1-0 on neutral ground. Australia played Peru in the World Cup and lost 2-0, the same amount we lost by when we were playing in Peru. However, Australias game against Peru was on neutral ground (Russia), so neither team had the home advantage. Peru were only able to beat us 2-0 when they had home advantage, but could beat Aussie 2-0 on neutral ground.

By recent results, I can determine that New Zealand would beat Australia in a football game


Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Lachyloolaa wrote:

I've (crudely) figured out if the All Whites can beat Aussie after the Peru game

When you play at home, you have the home crowd advantage. That means theoretically, through the support of the home fans the home team should play a lot better than if they played on neutral or away grounds (Unless its the Nix in recent times). We played one home game and one away game during our qualifiers against Peru. At home we drew 0-0 when we had the home advantage, and lost 2-0 away when Peru had the home advantage. We need to find the middle ground of the scorelines as it should tell us what the score would be if it was played on neutral ground. Therefore we can say that we would've lost 1-0 on neutral ground. Australia played Peru in the World Cup and lost 2-0, the same amount we lost by when we were playing in Peru. However, Australias game against Peru was on neutral ground (Russia), so neither team had the home advantage. Peru were only able to beat us 2-0 when they had home advantage, but could beat Aussie 2-0 on neutral ground.

By recent results, I can determine that New Zealand would beat Australia in a football game

If you had watched the game you would not be saying that.

Right now they would beat us easily.

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
aitkenmikere
almost 8 years ago

Lachyloolaa wrote:

I've (crudely) figured out if the All Whites can beat Aussie after the Peru game

When you play at home, you have the home crowd advantage. That means theoretically, through the support of the home fans the home team should play a lot better than if they played on neutral or away grounds (Unless its the Nix in recent times). We played one home game and one away game during our qualifiers against Peru. At home we drew 0-0 when we had the home advantage, and lost 2-0 away when Peru had the home advantage. We need to find the middle ground of the scorelines as it should tell us what the score would be if it was played on neutral ground. Therefore we can say that we would've lost 1-0 on neutral ground. Australia played Peru in the World Cup and lost 2-0, the same amount we lost by when we were playing in Peru. However, Australias game against Peru was on neutral ground (Russia), so neither team had the home advantage. Peru were only able to beat us 2-0 when they had home advantage, but could beat Aussie 2-0 on neutral ground.

By recent results, I can determine that New Zealand would beat Australia in a football game

Australia had more chances to score in their game against Peru than we would have created in 5 games against them. 

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
aitkenmikeLeggyre
almost 8 years ago · edited almost 8 years ago · History

Doesn't matter how many chances you create when your striker is Tommy Juric, Robbie Kruse is starting and a mediocre 18 year old is the next great hope.

Its an average Aussie squad that will be average for quite awhile unless they do what we did and pull a Winston Reid out of their ass. A full strength NZ squad could absolutely push them a long way, depending on how good Schmidt turns out to be - our best XI really isn't that much less talented.

Valley FC til I die?

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Sa
almost 8 years ago

Nelfoos wrote:

Doesn't matter how many chances you create when your striker is Tommy Juric, Robbie Kruse is starting and a mediocre 18 year old is the next great hope.

Its an average Aussie squad that will be average for quite awhile unless they do what we did and pull a Winston Reid out of their ass. A full strength NZ squad could absolutely push them a long way, depending on how good Schmidt turns out to be - our best XI really isn't that much less talented.

  Learnt heaps about finishing then since 97

  Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn

Permalink Permalink
almost 8 years ago

Nelfoos wrote:

Doesn't matter how many chances you create when your striker is Tommy Juric, Robbie Kruse is starting and a mediocre 18 year old is the next great hope.

Its an average Aussie squad that will be average for quite awhile unless they do what we did and pull a Winston Reid out of their ass. A full strength NZ squad could absolutely push them a long way, depending on how good Schmidt turns out to be - our best XI really isn't that much less talented.

I don't think that anyone here is arguing that this isn't an average Australian side, but even so, they threatened Peru a lot, and I mean a lot, more than we ever did, across two games.

And yes, we do have talented players in our first XI - our two best players are pretty solid international players. But the gap between them and our next couple of best players is pretty big, and then the gap between those and the rest is, basically, huge. Aussie have much better depth in that respect, and that helps create a reasonably cohesive, but a pretty unspectacular unit. Which, by the way, achieved about as much as could reasonably be expected in this tournament - no-one really hammered them or had an easy time with them, but they just lacked enough quality, especially up front, to really challenge good sides.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
aitkenmikeBlew.2Leggymartinb+2