Lampard non-goal didn’t matter…are you kidding me!

England leaves the 2010 World Cup with another disappointing finish

Earlier today European soccer powers England and Germany faced off in the round of 16. Germany went on to take the match by a seemingly lopsided 4-1 score. After 32 minutes England was down 2-0 and looked defeated. However, a Matthew Upson header inside the box cut the deficit in half as England started to pour it on. They continued the pressure after the Upson goal as Lampard thought he had tied the game with a chip shot the bounced off the bottom of the crossbar, over the goal line and out. But alas a goal was not awarded by the referee. Thus at half England was still down 2-1 despite giving a poor effort for the first 30 odd minutes. England continued strong in the second half and came very close to breaking through a number of times with the best of those chances being a Frank Lampard free kick that hit the crossbar. The English push allowed numerous German counter-attacks and against the flow of play Muller scored in the 67th minute and then again 3 minutes later to make the score 4-1. Many people may be saying that the disallowed Lampard goal didn’t have any real effect on the game. They will say that the Germans were ultimately the better team and that the score was 4-1. If you’re in that boat then you are sadly mistaken.

There is no doubt that Germany was the better team for the majority of the first half as the England defence looked about as stable as a 3 legged horse. However, there is no denying that after Germany took that 2-0 lead England transformed into a completely different team. The 2-0 deficit removed the tension from the squad, gave them a sense of urgency that was lacking, and allowed them to just play the game. Being down 2-0 in soccer is such a difficult thing to comeback from. Being down 2-0 to a supposed superior team is even more difficult.

For a long time we are going to be hearing people say that Germany was the better team and that the Lampard goal didn’t even really factor into the game. The German squad would have won eventually anyways.

I don’t understand this thought process in the slightest bit.

First off, any sports fan should know that if the Lampard shot is counted it would signal a significant turning point in the game. England would have gone into the half with all the momentum on their side, where as the Germans would have been deflated like a pin to a balloon.

Also, despite losing a bit of the momentum because of the non-goal the English squad were still able to come out very strong in the second half. England was carrying the play and creating potential scoring opportunities. Yes it is true that the English did not capitalize on some of their almost chances but you have to remember this is soccer. What do you expect?

The Germans may have been the better team at the end of the day but the reason they won 4-1 was not because they were the better team. The reason they were able to blow the game open was because the England push for that all important tying goal allowed odd man counter-attacks from the German side. If the Lampard goal is counted there is no reason to believe that the Germans would have been able to have the amount of odd man rushes like they had when they were up 2-1. If the English had not been down by a goal they would not have been forced to attack in the manner that they did. The game would have been a much different game had that 2-2 goal in the 38th minute counted. As a hockey fan I see this happen all too often where a team down in the final period of a game are constantly exposed defensively as they give their all out push to salvage a good result . This situation is very similar in soccer and was very apparent today.

It should be mentioned that prior to this game, the previous 4 encounters between England and Germany resulted in extra time. This is not American football or hockey where scoring isn’t at as much of a premium. This is soccer.

This also brings to greater light the importance of video replay. I highlighted this point in an earlier post and even though controversial goals do not come about very often, the ability to have video review on hand is very crucial. I strongly believe that the key to a game is getting the calls right. I have heard it over and over that fans do not want to stop the game because it ruins the “flow” of the game. Think about that and realize that getting the call right is much more important than a few minutes of stopped time. Ruin the integrity of the game or ruin the flow? Your choice.

The Lampard non-goal was the biggest deciding factor in today’s 4-1 German victory. It is indisputable that England would have gone into the half with all the momentum, they would not have been forced to play so offensively, and thus the outcome would not have been the same

Agree? Disagree? If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, please feel free to reply in the comments section below. Or you can e-mail me at cross_can15@hotmail.com. I’m now on twitter follow me @paintstheblack and I will gladly return the favour.

Also check out howiGit’s blog, a guaranteed great read every time.

About these ads

About Chris Ross
Questions, comments, suggestions? Send yours to cross_can15@hotmail.com. Follow me on twitter @paintstheblack

68 Responses to Lampard non-goal didn’t matter…are you kidding me!

    • robred says:

      Apparently!!!!!!

      Courts have held a further 2 week gagging order on Steve Gerrard’s private life. It turns out he got his wife’s sister pregnant (not a 16 year old). The story will hit the newspaper in 14 days – the judge held the gagging order to protect FA while they decide on Capello, and the future of English footy. John Terry and the England boys all know about it and JT had an argument with Capello because Gerrard got to keep the captain’s armband. The tension in the camp was down to JT and half the team saying Gerrard was a disgrace with the other half of the squad backing him. The press conference was related to the tension and JT wanted Gerrard exposed – they hate each other.

      plus….

      Apparently also the fall out in the French squad is because one of the guys is gay and loads of the players wouldn’t train with him! Rumour mill points to Gourcuff.

  1. CedrickDelest says:

    Totally agreed with you, the lampard goal would have totally change the game for sure but it wasn’t to be, Capello 23 men squad was just not good enough for the biggest stage.

  2. Agatha Whitt-Wellington (Miss) says:

    While I think you’re being a bit generous in terms of your faith in the English players, I absolutely agree that it’s time to introduce the video replay for goals (and possibly for divers as it could function as their show reel when they decide to head to Hollywood). I’m not convinced the England team would have been able to win in the end, but this isn’t an issue about England. This is the World Cup–a team scored and it should have counted.

  3. willkay says:

    I don’t understand the use of the fourth official. I don’t understand the need for microphones/headphones for the referee, the assistants, and the fourth official. It doesn’t take much for these four to talk to each other. The next game after the England game was the Mexico/Argentina game. Argentina went ahead with a goal that was blatantly offside. Mexico were annoyed/flustered and conceded a second goal with a defensive blunder.

    I watched both games on the Pacific coast in Mexico. At the same time I was online via video with a friend on the Atlantic coast in theUSofA, and another friend in England. Now, if I have the technology to do all this, with my teacher’s salary, I am slightly disappointed that FIFA (with a slightly larger budget) can’t be as up-to-speed as me. Hell, all it takes is a fourth official sat, watching a television, going “yep/nope”. I’m not asking for every decision. Just goal line decisions.

    And yes, I’m very bitter and disappointed.

  4. Hey man, great post. It coincides nicely with my hastily prepared post here: http://worldcupdailyblog.com/2010/06/27/technology-debate-rekindled-in-wake-of-questionable-decisions/

    It’s definitely a distinct possibility that England v Germany would not have ended the same way had Lampard’s goal been given. For a start, England would not have been chasing the game at halftime. England were completely abject though and have been poor throughout the tournament.

    Potential converts to soccer in the United States have been put off somewhat by the lack of video replays and the incorrect decisions that result from that lack of them.

    FIFA, Sepp Blatter at least, contend that ‘the human element’ of the game would be ruined or that ‘the flow of games would be disrupted’. These arguments are completely flawed. The interest of fairness overrules these concerns many times over.

  5. guyphibrent says:

    I think you’re absolutely right. The (non) goal mattered every bit. In the post game, Alexi Lalas said how the Germans were the “better team,” which, in agreement to your post, wasn’t the case at all. I think it’s important to note that Thomas Müller was the Man of the Match, and if England are playing with a 2-2 game, I don’t think he gets either of those goals. Both of the goals that blew it open for Germany were just counter attacks when England had everyone pushing forward.

  6. alexristea says:

    I don’t see how video review “stops the flow of play”. Watching the Argentina-Mexico game at home on my TV, in under 30 seconds after the goal, it was proven to me that it was in fact, undeniably offside. Why can’t the 4th official just sit there with a monitor, review it quickly and tell the head ref on his headset? The protesting by both teams after the goal took much longer than the video review would have.

  7. Xyth says:

    Come on guys, we should not kid ourselves. The biggest deciding factors in today’s 4-1 German victory was England’s lack of technical skills, bad tactics and lack of team spirit. Germans had done their homework and exploited English deficiencies very well. By the time England scored we but for David James we could have been in deeper trouble.

    Yes Lampard’s goal should have been given, but after that we had enough time to equalise. Both German counter-attacks that led to goals in the second half were started after English players lacked skills to control ball when they had it in possession.

    Germans were simply better and hungrier for success today, and got what they deserved.

  8. Mike McKenna says:

    Hmm. I see your logic mate, but I think you paper over the cracks of the England side. Let’s be honest, by the time England scored, they could have been 4 down already. James made a great save at 1-0, and even before the Germans went in front they had a great chance.

    OK, it was a goal. OK, it was a mistake to disallow it, but I still think the Germans would have won even if it was given. Quite frankly, England didn’t show up today.

    And on to technology. I’m torn to be honest. Football isn’t a stop-start sport, so there’s an issue of where the game restarts, when do you go to the video etc etc.

    Imagine a shot which hasn’t crossed the line, but the goal is given. A striker could easily have put the rebound away but didn’t thanks to the goal being awarded. We then have the video ref saying no goal. Where do we restart? The ball at the strikers feet? A goal kick? A drop ball in the box? For me, it is a logistical nightmare.

    Instead, I’d suggest we follow up the “chip in the ball” idea. Put a chip in it, a sensor behind the goal line and a light. When the ball crosses the line, the light turns on. Easy.

    However, I don’t want to see a technology overload as that risks taking the best thing out of our sport: drama.

    http://mjmckenna.wordpress.com/

  9. I totally agree games are won and lost by the big decisions, whether the goal is scored in a world cup, FA cup, or even a lower division game, goals ultimatley decide the end points and points on the board decide the winners and losers. If technology can prove the right decisions in cricket and tennnis why not football.

    http://danielpthomas.wordpress.com/

  10. John Hanna says:

    Amateur night in Bloemfontein (for England and the match officials)

  11. michael taillie says:

    Chris,

    Another great article with some great points. Would love to know your thoughts about Ricardo Clark and Bradley’s decision to start him. Tweet your response at me?

    http://www.twitter.com/michaeltaillie

  12. xnoxcluex says:

    Although I supported Germany, I can see your point. I was actually really impressed with the way England bounced back from 0 – 2. You are right, after the first 30 minutes they did seem like a different team.
    I also agree that the Lampard goal was a big factor – Yes, the momentum and atmosphere of the 2nd half would have been different.
    However, I still stand by my opinion that this goal was far from the only reason that England lost. England was full-on attacking and created great chances for most of the game, and yet they couldn’t completely get past the German defense. Whereas the English defense, I think, was pretty dismal.
    And I thought the Germans had nicer passes, but I might just be biased.
    Anyways, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. Your writing is a lot more organized than mine – I just sort of babbled on in the heat of the moment. It’s always nice to see the other side’s point of view.

  13. Annie says:

    haha my dad and i were talking about this after the match
    anyone who says that the one goal was just one goal is seriously kidding themselves
    ultimately, i do think germany would’ve won
    and it’s great that the players didn’t have to exhaust themselves in order to achieve that same result

    HOWEVER, with that said
    england was making a huge comeback
    and entering the locker room at halftime with a tie is way different from being down one goal
    and the complexion of the entire match would’ve been different had that goal counted

    STILL, even with what i just said
    i don’t think lampard’s non goal decided the match
    the germans just outplayed the english plain and simple
    and the english have obviously been struggling from the start
    i could go all the way back to the group stages, and if england topped group C, they would’ve played ghana and had a great chance of advancing to the quarterfinals

    as for technology
    maybe it’s something they can address at halftime if they don’t want to ruin the flow of the game, which is something i completely understand
    honestly i enjoy watching 45 minutes of continuous soccer, and because it’s nonstop, teams can build momentum
    obviously, it’s an absolute injustice if clear goals (and even some offsides calls, as in the argentina/mexico match) are not ruled correctly

    haha sorry for blabbing on a little too enthusiastically about my thoughts, nice blog :)

  14. martin says:

    hey, nice blog too…

    I think if the England goal wasn’t ruled out things might of been different, they need goal line technology now… If they don’t use technology now then I’d be surprised.

  15. Gary Jarvis says:

    England were not good enough.

    They played with some passion against Slovenia but in every other game in this tournament there has been something lacking.

    Agreed that at 2-0 down England looked dangerous. England’s second goal was a goal that wasn’t. In such a situation be it in football or in any other thing in life you have to just move on.

    At 2-2 things may have gone in a different direction. Germany may have scored more goals than they did. Germany’s last two goals came on the counter attack. Wayne Rooney fell earning the free kick that led to the third goal for Germany. In a Premiership game he would have kept his feet. He chose to fall. Lampard took the free kick and made a very predictable shot at goal. It hit the wall and Germany won a counter attack.

    Why do I say this. Well if England had done something different on that free kick then maybe Germany might not have scored that third goal. Football is full of these what ifs. England lost. They went out with a wimper. That’s tough but it happens every day to people losing their jobs or failing to secure enough food to feed their kids.

    My thinking is that the coach needs to go. Sack Capello. Bring someone in with a closer culture connection to the English players. His disciplinary style hasn’t worked. A Bobby Robson, Terry Venables type coach is what England needs…….Stuart Pearce perhaps.

  16. Kal says:

    Couldn’t agree more, and you said it right “if the Lampard shot is counted it would signal a significant turning point in the game” that would summarize everything, you would see a completely different match, it could ended up in over time, penalties, or even another strike by Lampard..? who knows..

    Thanks for stopping by and sharing, you got a great blog too, and nicely written article.

  17. Farhad Aspy Fatakia says:

    I agree with you in the context of this one game, but we are losing sight of the prize, which is winning the final. I don’t believe that England could have gone on to win the World Cup if coming back from a 2-1 deficit with 45 minutes remaining was an insurmountable task.

    I understand your points about momentum and yes, maybe they would have gone on to win it, but you need to have a side with heart to win the World Cup and I didn’t see a lot of that after the goal was disallowed.

    We need not look further back than the confederations cup final to have seen how one comes from behind and deals with adversity like champions. Brazil came back to win 3-2 after being two goals down. There was an offside incorrectly given in that game, but they didn’t cry about it.

    The EPL means so much to some people, that I think they automatically believe that Englands squad will be just as good. The sick truth is that the EPL Winning XI would have pretty few England players on it. So that isn’t the best correlation to be making.

    Keep writing. I like that you are honest and straight forward with your logic and best of luck.

    -FF

  18. Tse Ndex says:

    Chris, this is a great blog you have. It is sad that while the IFAB want to retain the human element in the game, the alienate the humans who watch the elements of the game. The incidents like these demarket football. We usually think FIFA should do something, but it is the IFAB (International Football Association Board) which comprises 4 British Associations with a vote each and FIFA, with 4 votes. You can see more on the subject on this link: http://tsendex.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/technology-use-in-football-fifa-position/

    On the goal itself, it would have made much difference if it came after all the German goals, but it was exactly at the point the English felt they were in it. I can tell you that it was the point that turned the match away from the English and to the Germans.

  19. Tim says:

    Yes, of course things could have been very different if Lampard’s ‘goal’ had stood. England might even have won. But it would have been a case of momentum triumphing over talent.

    Germany were the better team – by a distance – for three-quarters of the game. Ozil and Schweinsteiger ran the game with intelligence, in a way that Barry, Lampard and Gerrard never did. As an England fan, it pains me to say it but there is no question the right team went through.

    That’s not to excuse a terrible officiating decision, though. But defeat may be the best thing for England now, forcing us to take a long, hard look at our shortcomings. There is something rotten in the state of the national side, and a fluky run to the later stages could arguably have done us more harm than good.

  20. j333bass says:

    At the end of the day, a better German team beat the English Eleven…but at half-time the score should have been 2-2.

    Lampard’s goal was a momentum changer in the making that disappeared as quickly as Neuer got his hands around the ball again…after it bounced inside the goal line.

    Heartbreaking. That game could have been very different if Lampard’s goal counted.

  21. It’s true that the goal did matter in terms of the legitimacy of the win, but I’m less sure that it would’ve stopped England losing. Perhaps by so great a margin it would’ve, but otherwise I’m not as certain as you are.

    I know that you’ve read this Chris, but if any of the commenters want to take a look at another viewpoint my post is at http://stokelwalker.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/england-lose-in-the-world-cup-everyones-to-blame/

  22. thomas says:

    No question it was in. Everyone in the stadium knew it.

    However, the fix doesn’t need to be as complicated and subjective as video replay. Put some kind of sensor on the ball and a matching strip along all the lines on the field. You can then systematize all the line calls, eliminating the need to ask “was the whole ball over the whole line.” Tennis has a video based version, and has for years, maybe just borrow that.

    Either fix is does nothing to interrupt the flow of play, it happens in real time and can be consulted as necessary. Anything to avoid the pathetic impotence of the conference the officials had, which probably went: “Ok, we f***ed up. Good thing this is FIFA, we don’t have to defend anything, just don’t say anything to anybody here on the pitch.”

  23. stevebramall says:

    I think this point is very valid, I dont think you can ever sum up how it feels to have a genuine goal disalowed or a non-goal allowed!
    Psychologically over this tournament we have seemed to lack the fight shown by other teams and I think pulling back to 2-2 would have ignited the fighting spirit inside our team. However the non-goal probably did as much negative as it did positive (the whole whats the point syndrome).
    I also think it was quite interesting in the game that followed where another poor decision was made and then shown inside the stadium (at which point the ref and linesman got together to have the “what have we done” conversation) and its also interesting to note that the team on the end of this missjustice is also out of the tournamnet.
    Check out my post on the whole England set up and let me know what you think
    A new comment on the post “England disapoint at the football world cup AGAIN” is waiting for your approval

    http://stevebramall.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/england-disapoint-at-the-football-world-cup-again/

  24. Craig Anderson says:

    Hi Chris

    Good blog and I see where you’re coming from. However, are you claiming that had Lampard’s goal counted, the defence would have improved dramatically? I don’t think so. John Terry and Matthew Upson were atrocious, being pulled in all sorts of directions. Glen Johnson may be a decent forward running full back. His defensive credentials though are highly questionable and there was nothing up front to suggest Wayne Rooney or Jermain Defoe could take on the mantle if Lampard’s effort had been allowed after Upson’s goal.

    It was a poor, poor piece of refereeing that perhaps changed the outcome of the game in Germany’s favour, but a contentious incident in the 1966 final, similar to Lampard, helped England win the World Cup. This time they didn’t get the decision and until TV replays are introduced, it’s just one of those things. Injustices happen all the time in football.

    England lost to a better team yesterday. You may think the scoreline was lopsided, but it could have been so much worse.

  25. lempereur says:

    True, very true. Don’t want to upset anyone but there’s a huge difference in value and results between Germany and England. Germany always makes at least the top 8, England sometimes doesn’t make the final tournaments. Still a long way to go. Chris you made my blogroll. Great job !

  26. feygooner says:

    It’s a well written article, but I disagree with you regarding the impact of the disallowed goal. It should have spurred England to play even better, instead their defence began to resemble Swiss Cheese.

    I’m with Mike McKenna here:
    “Hmm. I see your logic mate, but I think you paper over the cracks of the England side. Let’s be honest, by the time England scored, they could have been 4 down already. James made a great save at 1-0, and even before the Germans went in front they had a great chance.”

    GameOfTwoHalves Blog

    http://achalvarma.wordpress.com/

  27. SultanOfSnow says:

    It muddies the water to discuss both issues. Technology to assist referees and would England have won with better decisions.
    1) If tennis can have a machine to decide whether a ball traveling at 150kph is over the line, then FIFA can fire Sepp Blatter and get with the 21st Century. The rest of the world can see within 4 seconds whether a decision is right or not, and then we have to watch for 30 seconds whilst the players argue with the ref. But apparently it would disrupt the flow of the game to have video replays. Get me a skype connection and I will tell the ref!
    2) You are quite right about the momentum of the game. People are quick to jump on the band wagon of England were tosh…but that is based on their previous 3 games. England had finally started to play football as we know they can…as they do, week in, week out in the premiership. Without that fatal judgement, perhaps they would have won, and convincingly. The Germans didn’t seem to have a reply.
    However, if a neutral saw all the preceding games, you would much rather see Germany go through, and in the end, this is a tournament of max 7 games, and England were poor for the first 3…

  28. Rhea says:

    Agree with you a 100%. I am not saying that our defense would automatically improve or that we would definitely be in the quarter-finals but the Lampard goal, had it been given, would have been a turning point. England’s tactics in the second half would change, and we certainly would not have lost by such a massive margin. Also, I can’t help but wonder, what if the situation is reversed, how would the ‘young’ German team react?
    Great blog Chris.

    http://www.rheasport.wordpress.com

  29. England were never going to win the match, when it comes down to it. Their defense was terribly (Oh John Terry, how the Chelsea fans can believe you are the best defender in the world really is beyond shocking), and going forward they did create some chances but they were no where near good enough to have won the match.

    My issue with the match is that the second goal should have stood, not because it means England would have stayed in it, to be honest it probably would have meant they would have gone out on penalties rather than a trashing, but that’s about it. Just as the first goal for Argentina in the match against Mexico should NOT have stood, and it’s all down to bad officiating and a lack of modern technology in the game. If FIFA can not provide the biggest football (not soccer people, football was a sport before the US was ever a westernized country, soccer should not be a word used about this sport, and don’t get me started on the bloody Australians calling it that as well) tournament in the world with world class referees, then what on earth is the point of holding the tournament? Goal-line technology needs to be implemented, give the referee 10 seconds to get a comment from the fourth official before making a decision if it’s a difficult one, it’s not going to take up much time, in fact it’ll take up less time than the consequent minutes the team that feels hard done by will spend arguing with the referee.

    Not even goal-line technology, replays and any God from any religion could have helped England though, they were never going to do well playing how they have the whole tournament, personally, I’m more gutted about the exit of Mexico.

  30. Colin Henrys says:

    Hey man, thanks for checking out my blog. I agree that the gane would have been completely changed by the goal, but save for the mad minute when England scored their goal and ‘non-goal’, there was only one team in the contest. As an England supporter it was sad to see:

    http://colinhenrys.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/a-bad-day-for-football-a-nightmare-come-true-for-england/

  31. englistics says:

    There is going to be a time when the dust settles when a full appraisal will be made of this world cup. Who benefited, who was disenfranchised, how much politics and economic factors influenced outcome, who played well and who didn’t, who adapted to conditions best, who generated a team spirit and bonded, and who used technology to increase their competitve advantage.

    In respect to technology i’m not just talking about the use of oxygen tents to improve performance at altitude or those who used short range radio transmitters to spy on other teams, i’m talking about those who adopted the World Cup ball in advance. This I believe will be the major issue once everyone has agreement on the use of a hawkeye or chip technology in the ball.

    As for England. Woeful England. I think there a variety of reasons ( more here http:// e/pPrUU-eQwp.m ) they failed ranging from exhaustion brought on by long premier league campaigns (i.e. Rooney), destabilisation in club life (e.g. Gerrard, J. Cole) and personal life (e.g. A.Cole, Terry), critical injuries (Ferdinand, King, Hargreaves) an waste of opportunity (Walcott). And after all that you have to add in the premiership prima donna effect and their version of the golden handcuffs – a gentle rubbing of their goldenballs and halo’s.

    In post analysis I’m sure amonst the detritus of this campaign if we look hard enough we will find many of the answers. Polar Priorities will be a big one as will Profile and Purchasing Power. To my mind purchasing power is inversely proportional to passion in this England team, and having Beckham on the bench treating everything as a brand extension and photo opportunity (all three looks he used were so clearly rehearshed) exacerbated this position.

    I believe Beckham to be passionate and patriotic, but unfortunately he is the poster boy of cheque book football and he has been sleeping with the devil for too long to think England before brand Beckham. He must never be involved at pitch level again.

    And then the what if. What if the second England goal had gone in would Capello have tempered his game plan? Eventually, but maybe too late. He is a proud Italien who was still fired up by Beckenbauer and wanted nothing more to prove his teams play through the back to attack, not a long kicking game, even to the expense of victory. Ironically didn’t this bring Germany success?

    I think England would have been more disciplined if they had got the second goal and resisted Capello’s entreaties, they may even have found some fluidity. The truth is though nothing could have resolved the Upson and Terry pairing mistake and Germany would have won whatever changed in my opinion. The important thing is though is the fans were denied the type of game the last 16 deserved.

    More at http://englistics@wordpress.com

    For something completely different “why the USA does not get FOOTBALL” I recommend http://advertisingpathology@wordpress.com

  32. cornfarmer says:

    You make some good points and it’s true if the goal had stood we would have seen an entirely different game, the fact remains England was outclassed by Germany. When Germany was up 2-0 they seemed to drop back deeper than had when the game 0-0. Obviously they would altered their game plan and gone into more a controlled attacked instead of counterattacking during the second half.

    Thanks for the comment on my site and for a look at why England failed miserably check out:

    http://bluemoonfever.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/england-destroyed-by-those-pesky-germans/

  33. I too concur.
    The goal line technology would not interrupt the flow of the game. It takes seconds for a replay to be shown. In tennis and rugby, where, this technology is used, it heightens the tension for the brief amount of time.
    They are worried about the start/stop here but not when players get a booboo and fuss over it clasping their head when they got hit in the arm or something like that and feel the need to complain to the referee for a longer amount of time. The beautiful game has to get with the times.

  34. Karina Francesca says:

    Great stuff you got going here and I completely agree. I cannot understand how people can consider this a clear win for Germany and not take Lampard’s goal into account. That goal could have changed everything. It doesn’t take away that Germany did play better than England at certain points, obviously enough to score two goals against them. But this is soccer. Things change and from one moment to the next a team that was struggling could have turned it around. Simple things, like one goal, have the power to do that. It was a disappointing day in the World Cup for me…not one but two bad calls from the referees. Just because mathematical scores wouldn’t have added up to different results as far as winning the game goes doesn’t make the goals (or none-goals) any less valid.

  35. Tse Ndex says:

    I think the IFAB know something we don’t know. The game of football would be so better with video technology. The Germans may have won better. England may have been still in the world cup. Lampard’s non-goal can’t be ignored at all.

  36. playercj54 says:

    Its pretty much just the head of FIFA who is stopping the whole of video technology coming into play. Everyone else is pushing for its existence especially the premier league.
    As for England being the better team i’m not so sure, whilst we did have Lampard’s goal disallowed we should have kept the momentum going our way instead of just getting bogged down by fast German counters. Our defence was abismal, as soon as Upson scored he should have been taken off, as he had an awful performance apart from that goal and should never put on an England shirt again. John Terry was too isolated and outnumbered at the back with Gareth Barry and Glen Johnson constantly pushing up the field, and then being too lazy top come back. Ashley Cole and David James however, were the best players on the pitch, without them the loss could have been so much worse. And just to rub salt in the wound, Germany look like they have a lot of talent, maybe even enough to go all the way..

  37. Rite$h says:

    Indeed that goal was robbed from Lampard, but in the end the Germans had the better finishing touch, as the England team just crumbled in trying to throw men forward to search an equalizer while they did not plan anything well in that case as well. So a well deserved victory to the Germans, and why not a win against Argentina in the quarter to top up their game

  38. If the first halp would end at 2-2 the England wouldn’t be so nervous and the game sure will end with other score,maybe it will go to penelty maybe England would lose 3-2 or win with the same score.So FIFA must put technology to be more fair.

    http://sebastiankoutifaris.wordpress.com/

  39. Heather says:

    I didn’t realise the Lampard non-goal was so early in the game, and I admit that the England team may have entered the second half of the match in an entirely different mindset, thus possibly ending in a different result. I think the problem is more with how the match is refereed than the actual game and as others have said, it would not have taken much for somebody watching a screen to confirm that the ball had been in the goal.
    It’s a good article, and has persuaded me that perhaps the Lampard non-goal did make a difference. I’m still glad England are out though, and it is still just one game. It all begins again in four years time (Oh no!).

  40. David Perrey says:

    Of course the Lampard goal would have made a difference to the match and we cannot really predict how the teams would have reacted, had it been 2-2 at half-time. The comment above I liked was that if England had won from that position it would have been due to momentum rather than being the better team.

    England had their passages of play when they looked better but there were long parts of the game where they looked clueless. The movement and passing of Germany were far superior. Not to mention Ozil beating Barry in a race to the ball, even giving Barry a head start.

    I think Capello was a bit afraid of blooding some of the younger players on the fringe of the squad – Joe Hart obviously, Adam Johnson, even Michael Dawson was not given a chance due to inexperience. I hope that he will stay on and try and fix some of the things wrong in the domestic game and also bring through some of the young players. Maybe we will do a little better at Euro 2012. Show a bit more spirit at least.

  41. Merty says:

    Totally true Chris. Of course Germany would have been wobbling at that point, and who knows what could have happened. Maybe Rooney would have come out of his disguise and started scoring goals. Can’t forget Lampard hit the post on the free kick and was looking very dangerous.

    The missed call ruined the game. There were more goals in it at 2-2, so it might have been the best game of the tournament thus far.

    http://blog.ericmerten.com/2010/06/28/uncle-mo-and-the-english/

  42. Nick says:

    As an Englishman who was gutted at the result, I have to say, we deserved to lose. You simply cannot defend the way we did and expect to win a football match and that is pretty much what everyone is saying here. The goal would have made a difference but it is impossible to say how the game would have gone. The way we were defending, we always looked like conceding and Germany was much the better team on the day. I do disagree slightly about the Germans’ second goal given us a kick up the proverbial. I felt the England burst came after Upson’s goal and only really lasted until half-time. 9 minutes of good play ain’t gonna win you a game and even then, we were hardly throwing the kitchen sink at them.

    The first goal we conceded was like something from Sunday pub football. What John Terry was doing I will never know. Glenn Johnson looked like he’d never seen a football pitch before in his life and Upson was as clueless as he has been for West Ham all year. In short, defensively it was a shambles.

    It wasn’t much better at the other end either. Rooney (and I say this as a huge United fan) has had a mare at this World Cup and quite frankly has looked like he’d rather have been anywhere else. The decision to take off Defoe for Heskey baffled an entire country as did Capello’s insistence on playing Stevie G out of position. To be honest, the whole campaign was a shambles and if we had made it through, God knows how many Argentina would have put past us.

    I think it’s time for everybody here to realise that some of these players are not as good as we are led to believe and that the Premiership is not the centre of the footballing universe. The way the BBC dismissed Germany as an average side typified this arrogance. Just because the BBC has not heard of Mesut Oezil doesn’t make him an average player. He ripped Gareth Barry to shreds. It’s good to see us holding our hands up and saying we weren’t good enough because that was the case and only when you admit that can you address the issues.

    That said, the goal should have stood and FIFA really is a joke with their resistance to technology. It’s embarrassing for the sport, but it isn’t the reason England lost. The Mexico game highlighted the need for it too. We ended up with a farcical situation whereby the linesman knew he’d made a huge mistake but couldn’t do anything about it. Shambolic.

  43. dday02 says:

    Thanks for the comment on my blog Chris (hope you don’t mind me dropping mine on the end here). I’ll def throw you into my sidebar for any visitors.

    I agree with you much as everyone else here seems to. However, the problems England were too numerous. They were just too slow to keep up with the younger Germans, and neither King nor Ferdinand would have done anything about it. For a nation that certainly used to pride themselves on “hard men”, the lack of a deep lying defensive midfielder was odd. As a Yank, in the games where we were able to come back, we brought on Maurice Edu (Rangers), so he could free up our attacking players to go forward. Perhaps Huddlestone sitting in front of Lampard-Gerrard-Joe Cole-Milner and Wazza might have been better?

    Not sure if Capello is going to stay, but I’d love to see this team bled dry of the older players. Cheers!

    http://dday02.wordpress.com/

  44. mattlerman18 says:

    You are correct. Good read. I like a lot of your points. I just added you on twitter as well.

  45. bgroegs says:

    The Germans were definitely the better team, and we will never know how the no-goal would have affected the game. In my opinion the Germans would have won eventually. Their team was much better, younger, and faster than England.

  46. Coming into the halftime break 2-2 is an entirely different kettle of fish I agree. England could have played more conservatively in the second half and not stretched the line. But that still would have left them needing a goal to win. Eventually the English would have started rushing forward again opening themselves to counter attacks.

    There is no way that the English wanted to go to extra time, not in their current form. That is why I believe that all the talk of the Germans being a better team and the non-goal being a non factor has merit. Whether the score was 2-1 or 2-2, Germany was still going to play the same way and attack any English weaknesses, it was simply how England reacted to this event that would change play.

    England didn’t deserve to make it through the Group stages and it showed in their performance against the Germans.

    http://alexanderjmasson.wordpress.com/

  47. HarryCool says:

    Agree with you on many fronts but not on the fact that the result could have been as different as to be in favor of english. scoreline could have been different but germans were far superior. Also i do not like use of technology. why not when all other sports use it? exactly because of that. read more at ….http://sa2010notes.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/german-juggernaut-but/

    I like what you wrote. Especially the part about English having the momentum in their favor in 2nd half is very well written. thanks for a good read.

  48. Pingback: Lampard non-goal didn’t matter…are you kidding me! « Online Notes

  49. First off, thanks for your comment on my blog. Secondly, I agree. Coming out for the 2nd half all square would have made a huge difference to the score. The frustrating thing with this is that the score finished at 4-1. because of the large deficit in goals the lampard ‘goal’ will just be swept under the carpet and fifa will shrug it off and say we lost only because of Englands failings and it was nothing to do with the referee’s decision. Its a real shame.

    If you would like to please check out my blog at http://www.faultlessfootball.wordpress.com

  50. Bradders says:

    Hi Chris,

    Thanks for commenting on my blog (www.compulsivehooker.wordpress.com) and thought i’d return the favour. Whilst important I don’t think it would have ultimately changed the result to be honest. Germany were too good in midfield and up front and the English defence shockingly bad. Terry in particular was dreadful I thought.
    Goal line technology a must though – that is for sure.
    Cheers

    Bradders

  51. Eric Banks says:

    Superb Article,
    I thought the decision was totally unacceptable and at that level and time (we are living in 2010) it just should not of gone down. It would of totally changed the game. However, credit were credit is due, Germany (i hate to say it) played superbly and deserved to win it. That Ozil is pure class and will definitely be snapped up (bought) this summer. I reckon Argentina will win it now, but who knows Brazil and Holland both look strong. In my opinion this World Cup hasn’t been the most entertaining compared to some of the others which is disappointing and ashame, but it is the WORLD CUP and hopefully it will heat up in the later rounds.

    Check out my Blog to here the latest news, views, pics, videos, polls, jokes and opinions on the World Cup, Fabio Capello, his England Team and Football all round the globe at:

    http://dearfabio.wordpress.com/

    cause at the end of the day, everyone’s got a gripe, so why not vent to Fabio, he gets paid enough and probably needs your thoughts!

  52. nearvana says:

    Hi Chris.

    Thanks for your comment on my blog.

    While I agree that the disallowed goal was obviously important in terms of short-term momentum, I think (and it’s mentioned in the above comments) that this would just have papered over the cracks of an awful England campaign.

    Declaring that at 2-2 the Germans would have “deflated like a pin to a balloon” and that it was “indisputable” that the outcome would have been different is to ignore the evidence presented in the three previous games (and indeed the previous world cup).

    I think if we continue to make excuses and start convincing ourselves that any of this was good enough then the problems will never be fixed.

    I partly blame the media and TV analysts because they are conditioning some of us to believe that, for example, the performance against Slovenia was any good. Or blame Joe Cole for telling us that John Terry is “the best central defender in the world” when he arguably isn’t even the best defender in England’s squad (I believe that to be a fit Ledley King – if anyone can remember that far back).

    As I say in my own blog the debate about England’s tournament performance and the “goal” incident need to be kept separate. England were shocking from the start and we can’t let the Lampard “goal” blur the real issue.

    Roy Keane said it best in the wake of the rather embarrassing whining from Ireland after Thierry Henry’s dodgy goal last year:
    “France were there for the taking and Ireland didn’t do it. Same old story. I’d be more annoyed with my defenders and my goalkeeper than Thierry Henry. How can you let the ball bounce in your six-yard box? How can you let Thierry Henry get goal-side of you? If the ball goes into the six-yard box, where the hell is my goalkeeper?”

    So if we want to blame someone let us blame John Terry and Matthew Upson for their park football defending, Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard for their tournament-long non-performance and the manager for a number of puzzling selection and tactical decisions.

    Cheers buddy!

    http://luvfooty.wordpress.com

  53. Bro i think you have written very briefly every pat of the game.very good job

  54. Thanks for your response – good stuff written on your blog. I agree that the significance of the disallowed goal has been largely down-played by the English media and that in fact it could well have been a crucial strike – as you mention, a goal late in the first half always causes problems as the manager of the conceding has to change his team talk. England would’ve been on a high and the Germans slightly deflated (as they pretty much dominated the first half). People forget but the cliché ‘goals change games’ is true: England would’ve been more cautious in the second half and would not have left the back door open whilst hunting an equalizer. An absolutely terrible call by the referee and his linesman.

    Overall though, despite the above, I still think the Germans were better than us on the day – traditionally England have had real depth at centre back but we are in the doldrums now, as the game proved. John Terry lacks pace, Ledley King is always crocked and Matthew Upson has palpably not been up to it for a while. Also, I was whining about technique in my article: look at the third goal. Gareth Barry should’ve volleyed the high ball first time. Instead he took a couple of touches, the Germans whipped the ball away from him and England were exposed on the counter. Coming out tied 2-2 would certainly have given England a boost but ultimately I think Germany had too many hungry, technically gifted, clever players to lose. With the way England were playing defensively, I think we would’ve leaked a couple more either on the break or just from a standing start – we were that rancid. I totally agree on bringing in video replays – without it football is just stuck in the dark ages.

    More stuff from me on http://newsofclocknine.wordpress.com.

  55. i think your opinion is spot on… england looked down and out, and people at the time thought the upson goal may hav been a consolation… but they fired on from there, and had the goal counted, the result may have been extremely different. i think england fell asleep after the call, which is why they lost so convincingly… great article =)
    http://reddevilsnews.wordpress.com check it out =), reports every day from the world cup

  56. thenorthlower says:

    Thanks Chris for your comment.

    Your post was eloquently put and you have a valid point.

    However, as an Englishman I still believe there were weaknesses in our side that the Germans exploited brilliantly. As you correctly said, our defence had the stability of a three legged horse.

    Even with the goal disallowed, at 2-1 we weren’t dead and buried. Our team contained many experienced internationals who should not have been countered so easily.

    Arsene Wenger makes some very interesting comments in the following article –

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8776149.stm

    In particular, I agree with his views on how we played in the final 25 minutes.

  57. worldcupfifa2000 says:

    Good article

    visit worldcupfifa2000.wordpress.com

  58. Pingback: The Mufti Predicts: Chaos and Carnage! « The Dark Horses

  59. Danivon says:

    I have to say that I disagree about the effect of the goal being disallowed. While it would have brought England level, they would still have been looking for a winner to avoid the prospect of penalties. In doing so, they would probably be relying on the same tactics as before, and as they used in the second half. Even the ‘momentum’ issue is not necessarily so clear-cut – I’ve seen teams riding high going into half time come out having lost their zip.

    I think it’s actually a good thing that we didn’t lose by the odd goal and instead were comprehensively beaten, because it will hopefully force us to accept that we need to change how we approach international football. Killing off the stupid hype that arose is no bad thing. I still don’t get how a lucklustre 1-0 win over Slovenia to come second in the group behind the USA means we are going to go all the way, but for many of my compatriots it was apparently obvious. Morons.

  60. Matthias Heller says:

    Jonathon Wilson wrote an interesting piece about video replays and how they could kill the unique flow of the sport if not thought through properly. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/world-cup-2010/writers/jonathan_wilson/06/28/soccer.technology/index.html

  61. Sriram says:

    it mattered. But Germany was dominant – every run they made scared England. Germany was just faster and more positive. The mistake cost England – but they crumbled in the face of it … look at Capello using it as a crutch. Nobody told England to allow 2 more.

  62. mbt shoes says:

    Thanks for making my morning a little bit better with this great article!!

  63. Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed surfing
    around your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you
    write again very soon!

  64. Hi there, after reading this awesome piece of writing i am
    as well glad to share my familiarity here with colleagues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,079 other followers

%d bloggers like this: