Re: (Euro '04) RSS Battles!

"D-bol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > No they're not comparable if you look at it that way, but I wasn't
> asking
> > > you to compare them. I was asking you to tell me which was more
> exciting.
> >
> > in other words, you are asking me to compare them. Or how else am I to
> > interpret "tell me which was more exciting"?
>
> Right. I corrected myself in a follow up message. But since you haven't seen
> the Italy/Dutch game, you can't really make any sort of comparison anyhow.
>

Not in this particular instance, where no comparison is really possible.

> Regardless, I was picking two relatively different games, one with all out
> attack and lots of goals, and the other with superb defensive display and no
> goals. If excitment were solely based on goals, then the Germany/Saudi game
> would win hands down, but I'd venture to say that 90% of soccer fans found
> the Italy/Dutch game much more exciting than the Germany/Saudi game.

You're forgetting another factor here: One-sided-ness. If the Germany - Saudi
Arabia game was 4-4 instead of 8-0 it would have been a lot more exciting. But
you're taking two completely different games and comparing them, which is
nonsense.

> If for
> those reasons only, the game CAN be compared, with the criteria for
> comparison defined as such.
>

defined as what exactly? a close score?

> Talking about excitment, I remember both after Italy/Holland and Italy/Korea
> many posters here on RSS claiming that they were both the most exciting
> matches of the tournaments. Therefore excitment comes from more than just
> goals.
>

I've never disputed that. But you need to have something happen. If not goals,
then goal chances, or near goal chances. Otherwise you may have good football,
but IMHO you will not have excitement.


> > > In one, we had no goals, and in another 8 all scored by one team who,
> although
> > > being rather ordinary, completely schooled the other.
>
> > even if they were comparable (which they aren't)
>
> only your opinion.

no dude. Objectively. Tell me how you can compare a game between two evenly
matched world class teams that ended in a draw, and one between a world class
team and a second or third rate team that ended 8-0. You yourself have
admitted you can't compare them. Are you now retracting that? Get your story
straight at least.

>
> > they wouldn't say anything
> > about which team is more (or less) exciting. If Italy played Saudi Arabia
> it
> > might be a 8-0 blowout too.
>
> that's not the point though.

WELL THEN WHAT IS?

>
> > > >I don't think you can dispute that Italy plays defensive football.
> Maybe
> > > >you find that to be exciting, but I think most of us would rather watch
> paint
> > > try.
>
> > > So I can conclude that Italy's defensive game vs Netherlands made you go
> to
> > > sleep?
>
> > dunno, I didn't watch it.
>
> Then how can you comment on Italy's style without watching them play?

well let's see....I think they've played more than just that one game in the
last 20 years.

> Or
> more specifically what about their style is boring, and what style is
> exciting to you?
>

they play defensively, they don't take chances. there is no flair, no joy in
their game, no spirit, no real passion. It's just dull to watch. I'm not
saying it's bad. Obviously Italy has had some of the best teams in the world
(but how many of them have played with this defensive style? Hmmm...)
I just don't enjoy watching it. It might be different if I was Italian or had
some real vested interest in rooting for them, which in and of itself would
create a lot of tension and drama, and thus make the games more fun. But if
you gave me a choice of watching Italy, or watching France, Holland, Spain,
England, or even Germany, I would pick any of them in a heartbeat.