Every week we saw footage of violence from Turkey, Greece, Germany and Holland but nothing was ever done about it. Admittedly we were probably the worst offenders but we were the only ones that were punished.
mate, that's not true. each year some teams get punished for their violent attitude. but the organization has to punish the
results of violence and they can be really different.
feyenoor got a punishment balanced with their actions. in the past few years inter, Roma, an galatasaray got a punishment balanced to their actions.
friday catanesi had a violent attitude, and they will get a punishment balanced to the results of their attitude (1 man death)...
..but in 1989 96 people died. i'd say there's a difference. Yesterday i saw on the tv a reportage on english hooligans and i saw something really scaring, mate.... there's a difference. and there must be a difference in the punishment too. it is quite obvious, don't u think?
When we see it happening in other countries we sometimes over react a little and demand something is done.
i can understand this kind of reaction. And i don't think is a "over" reaction. 1 man died friday. and something HAS to be done.
Before that ban, we were arguably the strongest nation in european competitions, and we're only really getting near that again now.
Perfect mate, what i'm going to write is HIGHLY off topic, but if this can be the chance to write something important, let it be.
u say "we were arguably the strongest". Well i think this is the wrongest thing u can say when u talk about sport. and this because sport is not about arguing. sport is about fact! FACT.
the most beautiful thing in sport is that it is simple. a football match will always get a result (in real life this happens rarely). Now u can face this result or not; it's up to u. But the results ALWAYS HAS TO TELL WHO WAS THE BEST IN THAT COMPETITION. Because if u don't accept the result, if u say "yes they won, but we were better! they didn't really deserve it", well when u talk like this the COMPETITION HAS NO MEANING. Sport has no meaning.
u're saying that before '89 england was the best. But do u remember which players argentina had between '80 and '90? well, i remember them. I remember burruchaga, caniggia, kempes, maradona, passerella ruggeri, valdano....
i remember germany, i remember matthaus, klinsmann, kholer, rummenigge, voeller.
mate those were the strongest teams those days. and it is not arguably, coz the results says it. they played the final of mexico '86. and if u are a sportman, u have to accept the result and honor the winner. by saying the england was "arguably" the best, u humiliate those who really won something those years. and u humiliate yourself (coz u admit that u can't face a result).
those years england wasnt' even right behind argentina and germany. behind them there was France and an impressive belgium. that's what the result says. we play in a competition to discover who is the best, so what's the point in playing if then u say "we were arguably the best"?
There was a big hype around england football team last summer, but i really didn't understand why. did u really thought england was better than the others. How can u compare 2 different top players?
I mean, u can compare me to Lampard. Lampard is for sure better than me( :roll: ). But how can u compare Lampard to Totti? They're both world class player. it's not possible to "argue" about who is the best.
let's try to "compare" pirlo and gerrard. i'd say now gerrard is playing better than pirlo. but 6 months ago pirlo was playing better (actually he was really on another level).
Then what? do u think pirlo became a worst player, or gerrard improved? It is not about that. We're talking about top players so u can't say who is
absolutely the best . but u can see them playing better or worst according to their mood, to their motivations.
u can compare a ferrari to an alfa romeo. "arguably" a ferrari will be faster. But u can't compare a ferrari to a lamborghini. they're both top performances cars, maybe a ferrari is better in a curvish circuit while a lamborghini may be better on a straight circuit.
as u can see in theese cases details, circumstances, may be decisive.
do u wanna know wich national played the best soccer in the last wc? imo it wasn't italy, neither france or england; they were argentina and germany.
but u won't ever hear me say that argentina and germany deserved the title more than us or france. because that would mean denying the result. that would mean humiliating italy achievements and france achievements.
germany and argentina showed the most beautiful football. but footbal is not about playing "joga bonito". football is not about being "arguably" the best. football is about win or loose, and that's all. it's simple (and that's why it is so beautiful).
germany, agentina, france, italy, brazil, holland, portugal..... they're all top teams. u can't compare them. they had a competition, and (as always) details were decisive.
in football details are mood, conditioning, and, most important WILL.
italy won cause our players will was impressive. do u wanna know why cannavaro was better than terry (just to make an example)?
because cannavaro had to show that he still was the best in his role. because he had to show to every club in the world that he still was a "good buy" (real madrid?). terry hadn't this will cause his future was "safer". the same can be said for pirlo, gattuso, zambrotta, oddo, and all the other guys.
if u wanna know my opinion, without Moggi's scandal, we wouldn't have won the wc.
our players where hungry. they were more hungry than the others and that's all.........DETAILS, that's the only difference when u talk about top players.
and that's the reason why brazil won more wc than everybody else. not because the always had the strongest team, but because they're always hungry.
the difference between a winner and a loser most of the times is not quality........ is WILL, is BEING HUNGRY
: 
