Germany 7 Brazil 1

For English, European and World football topics.
Snuff
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 8:55 am
Location: New Cumnock, Ayrshire
Contact:

Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Snuff » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:21 am

Well, I feared for Brazil without Silva and Neymar, but, I never saw that one coming.

The Brailian cry was no defenders, I have seen better defending in the Ayrshire Junior League. But, fair play to the Germans: they put their boot on Brazil's throat and never let it off until the closing five minutes.

This is a major wake-up call for the Brazilians, no longer can they say: "You score five, we'll score six". Kinda sad for us football romantics.

Snuff

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by lbb » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:39 am

I don't think Brazil have been able to say that for some time.

The commentators were pushing a similar line of 'sad to see, painful, depressing' but I thought it was great. Quite why anyone should feel sorry for posers and whingers like David Luiz and Marcello is beyond me. Brazil had been lucky to get as far as they did, tbh. Their wailing pre-match over Neymar and Silva simply announced to the Germans that they were terrified of them and they took full advantage. It was as beautiful a destruction as you'll see.

As Brazil develops economically, it will be interesting to watch how this affects the development of their young players which they've previously taken for granted. Obviously, some countries, like Germany, still produce excellent players whilst being an economic powerhouse but others, like Scotland, have never adapted to the changes in lifestyle and habits that prosperity and 21st century living brings with a knock-on effect on player development. Brazil have produced crap teams in the past, mind you.

Alan McCabe
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Falkirk
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Alan McCabe » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:58 am

Croatia were worth at least a draw in the opening match of the competition being denied a perfectly good goal for a non-existent foul on Cesar.
A Mexico side which required the USA to score two late goals to deny Panama their place during qualifying made Brazil look fairly ordinary in their second group match.
While Cameroon's performance in the last Group A game was pitiful and thus allowing Brazil to win comfortably, even Fred scored!, the host's frailties were exposed by the Chileans in the Round of 16 with only the crossbar preventing an elimination.
A pulsating opening half against the impressive Colombians was probably the only time that we witnessed a decent Brazil performance even if questions remained about their defensive capabilities.
While everyone can talk of Brazil's capitulation in the semi-finals, the Germans produced the most clinical, professional and assured performance that I've witnessed in years. Yes, without two key players Brazil were struggling but they were still replaced by highly-rated stand-ins.
It's rare that I agree with Alan Hansen but I have to concur with his opinion on Luiz. It was comical at times and exposes the liability that this lad is. Marcelo was just as bad and appeared disinterested at times. All in all, probably the poorest Brazil team since the hatchet-men of 1974 when Luis Pereira almost halved a Dutch player in two.
As for the Germans, I expect their excellently drilled, well-oiled machine to go on and claim a fourth star on their badge. Pity the nations that they have to play in the forthcoming Euros!

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Scottish » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:52 am

I’d concur with almost every word lbb has written but I’ll make an exception for one of the commentators. Alan Shearer (who has IMHO impressed greatly in this tournament, his ‘Mr. Bland’ persona apparently having being lost in airport luggage) called it like it was – a great triumph for Germany. While Alan Hansen (a man experienced in these things at World Cup level) and Rio Ferdinand (a prognosticator who once opined England would win a major tournament within ten years - more than ten years ago) concentrated on defensive failings, Shearer gave credit where it was due. To listen to the other two you’d think any team would have won this match 7-1.

Alan’s (McCabe, not Hansen) summation is spot-on. In retrospect, although last sixteen or QF defeats might look worse on paper, if Brazil had been eliminated by either Chile or Colombia it wouldn’t have been the national humiliation it is today.

Alan makes a good point about Brazil 1974, a team which came within a Billy Bremner toe poke or a freak late goal v Zaire to elimination in the group stage. To my mind there has only been one outstanding Brazil side since 1970 – the class of 1982, and their defensive frailties, exposed by Paolo Ross’s hat-trick, eventually proved their undoing. I mean we actually took the lead against them (another ‘toe poke’ according to Jimmy Hill, maybe Bremner’s should have come from 25 yards) and the only clean sheet they kept in five matches was against New Zealand.

Their 1978, 1986 & 1990 teams were no great shakes either but they still seemed to start every tournament as favourites. When they won for the fourth time in 1994 they were the best of a mediocre bunch. The 1998 final was similar to last night. The only difference being that their star player (Ronaldo) was on the pitch in the Final though clearly unfit to play. He was the difference for them in 2002. That wasn’t a great team but it had what most World Cup winners need – three great players (Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Rivaldo). They weren’t that good in 2006 & 2010 either but the myth of permanent Brazilian greatness and thrilling football still persisted.

This time their failings have been plain to see. After the Croatia game I thought Neymar plus ‘kind’ refereeing would get them over the line. But one of the pleasant aspects of this World Cup has been the resolute refusal (in general and Arjen Robben excepted) of referees to be conned. The number of times Brazilians went down in the box last night vainly appealing for a penalty was shameful. In years gone by they’d have been awarded a couple.

As for the final, well, there’s no large female opera singer gargling just yet. There have been plenty of teams that were “destined” to win World Cups but didn’t. Hungary 1954, Holland 1974, Brazil 1982 are all commonly regarded as the best sides of those particular tournaments but you will search in vain to see their names on the winner’s roll. Either Argentina or Holland will make a game of it. The Dutch - another country whose reputation for flowing football can at times be a false judgment, see the 2010 final - it should be recalled, dismembered another leading light in holders Spain, almost as rapidly as the Germans did Brazil last night. And if unlike Neymar, Messi comes through unscathed, and Argentina win tonight, a great final lies in prospect. To my mind when these two teams met in 1986 (not the dire affair four years later), they produced the last truly great World Cup Final.

Either way, something historic will happen on Sunday night. The first European win on not just South American soil but anywhere in that hemisphere (and two successive European wins outside Europe compared to absolutely zero beforehand) or Argentina winning on the turf of their greatest football opponent with Lionel Messi proving himself, if there are still any doubters, one of the greatest players of all time, for surely if Argentina get through and for some reason Messi doesn’t they have no chance against the Germans.

In the week which saw the death of Alfredo Di Stefano, another Argentinian hailed at one time as the best in the world, it would be fitting to see the latest holder of the baton do what the great Di Stefano never had the opportunity to do, and lift the trophy in Rio on Sunday night.

That was my prediction before the tournament started (I got all four semi-finalists correct but already one of my final predictions has gone) and despite two stellar performances from Germany and Holland, I’m sticking to it

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Scottish » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:57 am

This World Cup has left me eager for the start of the Scottish season and in particular the match in what is now ludicrously called the Petrofac Training Cup on July 26th between Cowdenbeath and Brechin City. I look forward to seeing how Die Blaue Deutschland fare this coming season.

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by lbb » Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:38 pm

I couldn't understand Gary Lineker's demeanour after the match either. Perhaps he feared a resurgence of anti-World Cup violence as ordinary Brazilians realised they'd spent all that money and still hadn't won the damn thing. The BBC's coverage after the match was odd where they cut to a couple of 'filler' clips of every Miroslav Klose goal at the World Cup and the 1978 World Cup Final. It was as if the match had just finished 0-0 and they were struggling to think of things to say rather than having just witnessed arguably the most sensational match in the last 50 years of the World Cup. Hansen is certainly giving it up at the right time too - 'they were three levels below mediocre...45 mistakes in the build-up...sham-bolic...no intensity, no closing down'.

I agree about Brazil's actual performances in the World Cup. They certainly dominated from the 1950's to 1970 but only 1982 and 2002 come close to that level. Poor in 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1990 whilst Romario got them over the line in 1994. In 1998, Denmark nearly beat them, Norway actually did beat them and Holland should have beaten them in the semi-final. Again, Ronaldo made the difference for them. Okay, Brazil aren't going to disappear but their status as a global superpower in football terms and perennial pre-tournament favourites needs to be revisited. They, Argentina and the major European nations make up a group who will always be battling for the last eight places. That's where they are now.

I think we will see a European victory in South America as Holland will overcome Argentina. Argentina haven't impressed too much either and have made hard work of some of their games. Messi is a great but doesn't seem to fit in to the Argentina setup and certainly never seems to bring his Barcelona form in that shirt. It will be the fifth European triumph since 1990 with only two South American wins by Brazil in reply. Germany have taken Spain's possession game and added a physical force and directness to it and this will see them win - although I accept they had a couple of resounding victories over England and Argentina in 2010 and still didn't win the trophy. Europe is the centre of the game's tactical ideas and development and I think we've really seen this emphasised over the last few World Cups.

It has been an entertaining World Cup that has certainly reignited my love of the game after feeling very jaded at the end of the domestic season. The World Cup in Spain in 1982 will always be my favourite but this is probably the most I've enjoyed a World Cup since then. Lots of goals, entertaining games, very few negative teams - bloody Greece - and a couple of memorable matches that will be talked about for years to come. I wish I'd gone to Brazil now.

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Scottish » Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:20 am

lbb wrote: Holland will overcome Argentina.
I hope you are not a betting man.

With regards to entertainment, it seemed to me that it was adopting a familiar pattern - redeemed by the Germany-Brazil match. A goal every 31.76 minutes in the group stage with no group averaging less than two goals per game. The one with Costa Rica, Uruguay, Italy & England averaged exactly that number and the Holland, Chile, Spain, Australia one was the best for goals with an average of 3.67.

That was reduced in the last sixteen to a goal every 48.33 minutes and in the quarter-finals to a stultifying goal every 78 minutes. The first semi-final pushed the average for that round up to a goal every 30 minutes but take the Germany game aside and the second semi plus the quarters produced five goals in 510 minutes football - one on average every 102 minutes or less than a goal per game.

If the Dutch had won the second semi they would have gone into the final not having scored in 240 minutes. As it is, Argentina advance not having scored in the past 202 minutes played.

This is the fear factor at its worst. What can be done to avoid it I don't know. Though it's worth pointing out that the tournament you say was your favourite - Spain 1982 - had a second mini group stage before the semi-finals and the 1974 & 1978 competitions had second stages which produced finalists and 3rd/4th match teams. I don't recall any of those tournaments as particularly boring. The problem is that two of those had just sixteen finalists and the other 24. How you would fit in a second stage with 32 entrants I'm not sure. The obvious route would be group winners only to advance and I don't think that would go down too well with anyone.

Concerning Europe v South America, I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. Admittedly this tourney is taking place in South America where it is harder for European teams to win but in head to heads between UEFA & CONMEBOL teams so far the Latin Americans are well ahead with eight wins to three with two drawn (I count games which go to penalties as draws). Apart from Germany v Brazil and Holland v Chile the only other European win against a South American side was Switzerland's injury time triumph over Ecuador.

You make what was once a valid point about Messi but as of now (and I accept he was largely anonymous v Holland) only James Rodriguez & Thomas Müller have scored more goals than Messi. He has had by any standards an impressive competition, four goals in six games, direct involvement in two more and putting away the first penalty in a shoot-out with aplomb.

As I said in my earlier post, I look forward to the final. I don't have a dog in the race (though at the outset I would have said Argentina to beat Brazil in the final but that was prediction, not preference). Part of me would like the first European triumph in the American hemisphere and part of me would like to see the world's best player gain the world's greatest accolade. But as I said earlier, as long as it's more like the 1986 final than the 1990 one that'll do just fine.

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by lbb » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:03 am

It was a shocking game of football. Both sides were negative and it's inexplicable when you think of the talent available. I don't think either of them deserved to be in the final. At least Holland could point to the Spain match as a highlight but Argentina haven't turned up in any game. It will be hard to accept if they are victorious on Sunday.

Strange decision by van Gaal not to bring on Krul. Irrespective of whether Krul is actually better at saving penalties (and the Costa Rica match suggested he is), it's primarily a psychological trick, which certainly unsettled the Costa Ricans, and you need to keep it going for subsequent shootouts. By not bringing Krul on, van Gaal let the Argentinians believe they were facing the second choice keeper and this must have been at the back of Dutch and Argentinian minds during the shootout.

I know there was a drop in goals in the knockout stages but I thought there was enough entertaining games to keep it interesting. Overall, I think there has been a trend towards less negative football - Greece excepted - and most teams have tried to win. Ironically, Holland and Argentina in the last two rounds were amongst the worst culprits.

It's an interesting idea to bring in a second mini-group stage. I can see how it would encourage teams to take more risks than they would in a one-off match.

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Scottish » Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:14 pm

You could, I suppose, take the charitable view that both defences came out on top. I'd agree re Krul. A bit pointless to claim he was the difference a few days ago but not used this time. Van Gaal's mind games worked only inside his own mind. Did anyone really think RVP wouldn't start the game? And when he brought on his third sub, the will he won't he wondering about Krul vanished. His penalty selection was odd. He said Vlaar had a great game so he picked him first. The same could be said (with more justification) of Mascherano but I didn't see any rush to add his name to the five penalty takers. Van Gaal may have wanted to go in the same order as v Costa Rica and therefore needed to replace RVP. But in Huntelaar he had a ready-made replacement who had already successfully taken a spot kick (v Mexico).

The new 'Special One' was undone to a large extent by his own tactics and it was pathetic to hear him even try to claim credit for his team's defeat by insisting he had been the one who had taught Romero how to save penalties at AZ Alkmaar. Naturally this begs the question that if he knew all about how Romero faced penalties, why didn't he impart this knowledge to his players so they could beat him? I am not looking forward to this ego landing on the English game. He will make Mourinho seem modest.

I don't think either of the teams last night set out for a draw, though this has happened in other matches and I agree with you re Greece. But as long as this tactic brings success some teams will attempt it and Greece were only penalty kicks away from the quarter-finals.

Concerning second stages. In 1974 & 1978 there were two, played exactly as the first stage in two groups of four. In 1974 there were 30 goals, 2.5 per match, or one every 36 minutes. In 1978 it was even higher at 35 goals (though six of these were in the distinctly dodgy Argentina v Peru game), or 2.92 goals per match, one every 30.86 minutes.

In 1982 there was a more convoluted format of four groups of three but the same number of games (twelve) as before. The totals were absolutely identical to 1974 (perhaps worth pointing out the marvellous Italy, Brazil, Argentina group produced twelve goals while two of the others managed just eight between them).

So, second stages have worked in the past. This is, I think, mainly due to the similarity between second and first stages in that no team can be eliminated after one match. That format encourages adventure in the opening game and, for those who lost, a 'let's go for it' mentality in the second or third match.

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Scottish » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:38 pm

A quick look at tournament rankings for the home nations & the ROI. Number of finalists in brackets

1950 England 8 (13)
1954 England 6, Scotland 15 (16)
1958 Wales 6, Northern Ireland 8, England 11, Scotland 14 (16)
1962 England 8 (16)
1966 England 1 (16)
1970 England 8 (16)
1974 Scotland 9 (16)
1978 Scotland 11 (16)
1982 England 6, Northern Ireland 9, Scotland 15 (24)
1986 England 8, Scotland 19, Northern Ireland 21
1990 England 4, ROI 8, Scotland 18= (24)
1994 ROI 16 (24)
1998 England 9, Scotland 27 (32)
2002 England 6, ROI 12 (32)
2006 England 7 (32)
2010 England 13 (32)
2014 England 26 (32)

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Scottish » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:34 pm

Going back to this question of Europe v South America, since the 1960s it has been the case that wherever the tournament is held, that continent will end up on top. Europe has "won" these years (W-D-L)

1934 2-0-0
1966 6-2-4
1974 7-6-1
1982 6-1-3
1990 4-5-3
1998 6-6-3
2006 5-2-2
2010 6-3-3

The South Americans have won these:
1930 5-0-3
1938 2-1-1
1950 4-3-3
1954 3-1-2
1958 7-2-3
1962 8-2-6
1970 6-1-3
1978 8-3-2
1986 7-5-2
2002 7-2-5
2014 8-2-3 (with two to play)

One competition was "drawn"
1994 5-2-5

So, South America "won" three times in Europe in the early days of the competition but not since 1958. Europe have never "won" anywhere in the American hemisphere, the best being a tie in the USA in 1994. The two other tournaments played in North America (Mexico 1970, 1986) have been won by South America.

In 2002 & 2010 neither continent had an inbuilt advantage with South America winning in South Korea & Japan and Europe coming out on top in South Africa. Overall, Europe has never headed South America at any time, being level at 5-5 after the first two tournaments being the best.

So, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with South American football as such. For one thing their best players are much sought after by European clubs as their native continent can't keep up salary-wise. The top South American players are now familiar not just to us but to players and coaches too. The surprise element is gone as the only players we aren't aware of (Wrighty excepted, who can't see any decent player the other side of the English Channel) are the ones not good enough to win a transfer to Europe.

Another reason for not believing there's anything wrong with South American football as such is that it appears to be developing strength in depth. Chile and Colombia have been makeweights in the past but both performed strongly here and with a bit of luck either could have spared Brazil their humiliation against Germany by knocking out the hosts earlier on. I'd wager that a semi-final between Germany and either Chile or Colombia would have been a much closer affair. Whether this improvement can be maintained in European World Cups remains to be seen of course.

One last thing. I (and others) said some time ago that the more Germany progressed in Brazil the better it would be for Scotland's chances in Dortmund. I think that remains the case. Irrespective of whether Germany wins or not on Sunday and notwithstanding the fact that the Germans are the last country that would show any complacency, there's no doubt that spending a couple of months of the summer in a camp on another continent and playing seven highly competitive matches inside four weeks must take some physical toll. It's asking a lot to start the gruelling qualifying process all over again less than two months later. I still think we can sneak a point or maybe even grab a shock victory. Whatever - and here's something I never expected to ever write - I am pretty confident we won't be anywhere near as bad as Brazil!

Alan McCabe
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Falkirk
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Alan McCabe » Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:34 pm

I've never been a fan of penalty-kick deciders. I don't get the so-called excitement that the TV media attempt to whip up when matches reach the ultimate stalemate.
I've always favoured a format that allows the match to be decided by open play, even if it's an 'earned' penalty kick, rather than a spot-kick shoot-out.
I wrote to FIFA some time ago suggesting an alternative to the sort of turgid 30 minutes that such luminaries as Holland and Argentina served up last night and here it is :
If the match is drawn after 90 minutes then the standard 30 minute, 15 each-way, extra-time is played.
The referee stops the extra time every 5 minutes at which point each team must nominate one player each to be removed, viz :
90-95 mins... full complements
95-100 mins...10 a-side
100-105 mins...9-a-side
Half-time extra-time.
105-110 mins...8 a-side
110-115 mins...7 a-side
115-120 mins...6 a-side
Full time.
If the match remains deadlocked then a golden goal kicks in. I would anticipate that, like Rugby Union Sevens, the lack of players at the this point would mean a goal would be scored fairly quickly.
Revolutionary I think, but I reckon it would spice up extra-time, end penalty-kick deciders and end the possibility of negative sides stifling the entertainment.
Can FIFA try my experiment in some unknown tournament please.

Snuff
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 8:55 am
Location: New Cumnock, Ayrshire
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Snuff » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:49 pm

I thought that was a nice try from Alan McCabe. Mind you, taking players off would open-up space, make for more exciting football, and, FIFA would never buy that.

I have always favoured gold and silver goals - make the first period of extra time a "silver" period; played to a finish, if one team is ahead, that team wins.

If the teams are still level after the silver period - the golden goal kicks-in in the second period, one team scores, it is over.

If we still have a tie - the team which has committed the fewer fouls wins.

But, for this to work, we have to have teams prepared to go for broke. I feel, now, in the second period of extra time, most teams concentrate on not losing a goal, to take it to penalties. Let's reward ambition.

The blot on the 2014 World Cup for me has been the high number of "professional" fouls - players being taken-out willy-nilly.

If, as in other games, football counted-up team fouls and punished the teams which commit too-many. The question is, how many fouls is too-many fouls?
Snuff

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by Scottish » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:20 am

I think the game does open up in extra time thanks to sheer exhaustion if nothing else. I can't understand why the "golden goal" was dropped. It seemed fair to me. If thirty minutes of extra time produced no goals I agree with you that another option would be to award the tie to the side with the better disciplinary record over the 120 minutes.

There would have to be an easily understandable system of points for fouls with reds and yellows "earning" more than bog standard free kicks. At all big tournaments there are high screens at either end and the running tally could be shown. This would be visible to the players as well. That may concentrate minds during play.

Applying such a scheme in the domestic game is something else as only a few clubs have such facilities and even some of those that do don't have ones that work properly.

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Re: Germany 7 Brazil 1

Post by lbb » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:45 am

scottish wrote:The new 'Special One' was undone to a large extent by his own tactics and it was pathetic to hear him even try to claim credit for his team's defeat by insisting he had been the one who had taught Romero how to save penalties at AZ Alkmaar. Naturally this begs the question that if he knew all about how Romero faced penalties, why didn't he impart this knowledge to his players so they could beat him? I am not looking forward to this ego landing on the English game. He will make Mourinho seem modest.
Yes, he also threw a couple of his players under the bus by letting it be known there had been a couple of refusals for the first penalty kick. There was also an element of him trying to be too clever for his own good.

Would it be cruel at this point to highlight David Moyes tip for the World Cup pre-tournament? Spain
scottish wrote:So, second stages have worked in the past. This is, I think, mainly due to the similarity between second and first stages in that no team can be eliminated after one match. That format encourages adventure in the opening game and, for those who lost, a 'let's go for it' mentality in the second or third match.
I can see that it would do so.

It's interesting when you think of the old European Cup and compare it to the modern Champions League. The European Cup used to suffer from some stifling matches in the later stages culminating in a usually dreadful Final settled by a single goal. The modern Champions League has never had that problem in the later stages and the Finals are almost always enthralling affairs. There was a change in mentality for teams playing in the CL for some reason. It seemed to bring in a more adventurous style and teams willing to go for it even in the quarters and semis whilst the World Cup still seems to have this enormous weight around it.

Re 'golden goal'. I thought this was an abomination in the game. It felt an almost unnatural conclusion as if the players had suddenly been shouted up for their baths for school the next day. Football matches are time-based and it never felt right to me to change the rules of that during a game situation. Penalties exist outside a game situation and are a skill test in the absence of any conclusion during a game so they 'feel' better for me. And penalties are a skill test - you can practice the elements of taking a good penalty kick. I don't have a problem with players having to prepare for that or feel sorry for teams that lose in that manner. They've had 2 hours to win the game.

Using statistics to decide the winner is also very easily manipulated. Fouls, for example, can quite easily be won by conning the referee. Referees have enough on their plate without deciding the winner in the event of a draw.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests