And someone talked about luck...
Claudio Mantelli
Can we say the same about France? They attacked with their heart, but
honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
to recover ?!?!?!
Claudio Mantelli
Remove SPAMMERSF*CK from my email address to reply
Rhubarb
"Claudio Mantelli" <claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:395fa3a...@news.tin.it...
> Italy at least deserved its luck against Holland.
> Can we say the same about France? They attacked with their heart, but
> honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
>
> And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
> to recover ?!?!?!
Italian time wasting. France shoved Catennaccio up Italian butts and twisted
it.
David Tiemroth
(Claudio Mantelli) wrote:
>Italy at least deserved its luck against Holland.
>Can we say the same about France? They attacked with their heart, but
>honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
>
>And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
>to recover ?!?!?!
30 seconds for each substitution, 6 substitutions in the second half,
that's 3 minutes right there. One minute added for stops in play
sounds about right.
David, who, for the first time in Euro2000, was so bored with a game
he watched it by his computer.
English Burger Lords managed to take any American fast food virtues (the
speed with which your food was delivered, for example) and carefully remove
them; your food arrived after half an hour, at room temperature, and it was
only because of the strip of warm lettuce between them that you could
distinguish the burger from the bun. The Burger Lord pathfinder salesmen
had been shot 25 minutes after setting foot in France.
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
Azzurro
> Italian time wasting. France shoved Catennaccio up Italian butts and twisted
> it.
...you know you have really shown your ignorance with these comments, as many
saw that Italy outplayed France in this game, with a total game of football, everyone attacking
and everyone defending. Your ass is just so, tight, or are English (one in the same) that
you could not even realize this. Italians had by far the best scoring opportunities, if Del Piero
wasn't such a big moment choke artist, it would have been an absolute blowout.
Time wasting, now that is rich. Anyways, tourney's over, France has won, Italians can be
proud of the way they played in the final, and your English have once again shown that they
are arrogant, and shit.
Robert the 'erbert
wrote:
Bye, bye. Shame. :))
sidd
"Frank Eisenman" <fe5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was only very sorry for Toldo. Great keeper.
>
Who made the critical mistake letting France equalize !
Del Piero I was not surprised to see screw up, since
IMO he is overrated. Totti is >>> Del Piero.
Toldo, otoh, seems to be evrybodys darling, which
makes it more satisfying for me when he screws up.
Totti and Nesta and some others didnt deserve to lose.
> > And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
> > to recover ?!?!?!
>
> Yes, let's roll on the conspiracy theories!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cold...@my-deja.com
Italy just played for the 1-0 leading, as always, and France
had the heart, the play and a lil' bit o' luck.
What a coaching from Lemerre ! Wiltord (substitute) scored the
94th-goal, then Pires (substitute) centers to Trezeguet (substitute)
for the golden goal...
Chapeau, Monsieur Lemerre !
Olivier
In article <z0P75.4449$BS1....@brie.direct.ca>,
Aqua Di Gio
--
Rhubarb wrote in message <8jodhi$ur6$1...@ayers.ftech.net>...
>
>"Claudio Mantelli" <claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it> wrote in message
>news:395fa3a...@news.tin.it...
>> Italy at least deserved its luck against Holland.
>> Can we say the same about France? They attacked with their heart, but
>> honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
>>
>> And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
>> to recover ?!?!?!
>
>Italian time wasting. France shoved Catennaccio up Italian butts and
twisted
>it.
Blah blah blah.
The better team didn't win today. And at least Italy showed up, stuck it to
France, played the better soccer, and no one can dispute that. All you
green envious ones can fuck yourselves. Im proud of my team, they did well,
and should be champs!
Aqua Di Gio
Robert the 'erbert wrote in message ...
>In article <z0P75.4449$BS1....@brie.direct.ca>, fo...@azzurri.com
(Azzurro)
>wrote:
>
>> Rhubarb <rh...@noway.jose> wrote in message
>> > news:8jodhi$ur6$1...@ayers.ftech.net...
>>
>> > Italian time wasting. France shoved Catennaccio up Italian butts and
twisted
>> > it.
>>
>> ...you know you have really shown your ignorance with these comments, as
many
>> saw that Italy outplayed France in this game, with a total game of
football,
>> everyone attacking
>> and everyone defending. Your ass is just so, tight, or are English (one
in
>> the same) that
>> you could not even realize this. Italians had by far the best scoring
>> opportunities, if Del Piero
>> wasn't such a big moment choke artist, it would have been an absolute
blowout.
>> Time wasting, now that is rich. Anyways, tourney's over, France has won,
>> Italians can be
>> proud of the way they played in the final, and your English have once
again
>> shown that they
>> are arrogant, and shit.
>
>Bye, bye. Shame. :))
At least we made it there. What did you do? Pitiful attempt against Portugal
and Romania. I would be very worried if I were an English fan...absolutely
NOTHING to build on.
Cannavaro - 26
Nesta - 24
Fiore, Ambrosini, and Zambrotta all young.
Maldini will be around for the next WC as well as Inzaghi, Vieri, Del Piero
(but should he really?!?) Montella, etc!
Italy can only get better, while England...well lets say I hope they at
least make the WC.
Aqua Di Gio
Frank Eisenman wrote in message <8joee8$dr6$0...@dosa.alt.net>...
>
>Claudio Mantelli <claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it> wrote in:
> 395fa3a...@news.tin.it...
>> Italy at least deserved its luck against Holland.
>
>Don't think so at all.
>
>> Can we say the same about France? They attacked with their heart, but
>> honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
>
>Common, ok you're biased as an Italian but I think even you cannot
>deny that the French were the better team and well, Del Piero sucked
>big time.
>I was only very sorry for Toldo. Great keeper.
>
>
>> And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
>> to recover ?!?!?!
>
>Yes, let's roll on the conspiracy theories!
hardly, its a fact, even the commentators wondered why so much time. There
was no injuries, and should have been 2 minutes MAX. However that is
inconsequential as Del Piero sucked eggs and should have buried France both
times.
Im proud of the Italian team, they deserved to win, heartbreaking loss, and
Congrats to France.
Robert the 'erbert
wrote:
>
>
> --
> Rhubarb wrote in message <8jodhi$ur6$1...@ayers.ftech.net>...
> >
> >"Claudio Mantelli" <claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it> wrote in message
> >news:395fa3a...@news.tin.it...
> >> Italy at least deserved its luck against Holland.
> >> Can we say the same about France? They attacked with their heart, but
> >> honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
> >>
> >> And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
> >> to recover ?!?!?!
> >
> >Italian time wasting. France shoved Catennaccio up Italian butts and
> twisted
> >it.
>
>
> Blah blah blah.
>
> The better team didn't win today. And at least Italy showed up, stuck it to
> France, played the better soccer, and no one can dispute that. All you
> green envious ones can fuck yourselves. Im proud of my team, they did well,
> and should be champs!
Italy didn't play better football.
Robert the 'erbert
wrote:
> >Bye, bye. Shame. :))
>
> At least we made it there. What did you do? Pitiful attempt against Portugal
> and Romania. I would be very worried if I were an English fan...absolutely
> NOTHING to build on.
>
> Cannavaro - 26
> Nesta - 24
> Fiore, Ambrosini, and Zambrotta all young.
> Maldini will be around for the next WC as well as Inzaghi, Vieri, Del Piero
> (but should he really?!?) Montella, etc!
>
> Italy can only get better, while England...well lets say I hope they at
> least make the WC.
Nesta to Pires and through Carranvaro's legs and....
Shame.
There is a God after all.
Anders Floor
>Frank Eisenman wrote:
>hardly, its a fact, even the commentators wondered why so much time. There
>was no injuries, and should have been 2 minutes MAX.
You obviously don't know the rules. Just the 6 substitutes * 30
seconds = 3 minutes already.
Anders
Azzurro
> Shame.
>
> There is a God after all.
...and He's obviously not English, it show's in your wit, and your awful football squad!
By the way get used to Italians playing in the big matches as the Under21 program has
been the best for the past 5 years. English? Weak?
Say what you will about the loss, your bias just proves your ignorance.
Azzurro
> Italy didn't play better football.
...still confused aren't you. France was outplayed for 93 minutes, unfortunately it wasn't
94, even more unfortunate was the fact that Del Piero froze up like ice (brutal).
Question: Where was Henri? Half-chances. Zidane? No chances.
It was obvious, when France scored with 30 seconds left, the Italians were deflated.
Frank Eisenman
Claudio Mantelli <claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it> wrote in:
395fa3a...@news.tin.it...
> Italy at least deserved its luck against Holland.
Don't think so at all.
> Can we say the same about France? They attacked with their heart, but
> honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
Common, ok you're biased as an Italian but I think even you cannot
deny that the French were the better team and well, Del Piero sucked
big time.
I was only very sorry for Toldo. Great keeper.
> And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
> to recover ?!?!?!
Yes, let's roll on the conspiracy theories!
Benny
> From : Azzurro <fo...@azzurri.com>
>...you know you have really shown your ignorance with these comments,
>as many saw that Italy outplayed France in this game, with a total
>game of football, everyone attacking and everyone defending. Your ass
>is just so, tight, or are English
He's not English, we have more class. The English commentators thought
Italy deserved to win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge than to let
him keep her. Sacha Guitry
Jarkko J Kuisma
: And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
Toldo was injured ( 2 nd half? / time: NN hours 07 minutes) Game began
again (time: NN hours 10 minutes)
Jarkko J Kuisma
: : honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
: : And just a question to Mr. Fr
^^^^^^^^^ ^
My mistake
: again (time: NN hours 10 minutes)
martin...@my-deja.com
>
Seen some bleeding noses lately ???
Martin
> Claudio Mantelli
>
> Remove SPAMMERSF*CK from my email address to reply
>
ezu...@mindless.com
> And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
> to recover ?!?!?!
Geezes...doesn´t anyone know the rules of the game they claim to be
following?
There were SIX substitutions during the second half. The official rules
(remember those?) says that 30 seconds is to be added for EACH
substitution. The math is simple: substitutions constituted for THREE
minutes of added time *alone* in the second half (that´s 30 seconds * 6
substitutions). Add Toldo´s nose bleeding, minor injuries and the various
time wasting (hence Totti´s yellow card) and you have *at least* four
minutes.
Now, the Yugoslavians had reason to be angry after their match against
Spain as there was seven (!) minutes of added time, although only five
minutes were announced by the fourth official. Italy KNEW how much time
was left of the game.
No excuses. At least not when it comes to the ref. Blame it on Italy´s
premature gestures of victory and the following lapse(s) of
concentration. Arrogance doesn´t pay. ;)
> Claudio Mantelli
/Řivind/
Robert the 'erbert
wrote:
> Robert the 'erbert <robbie@leave_it_out.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > Italy didn't play better football.
>
> ...still confused aren't you. France was outplayed for 93 minutes,
> unfortunately it wasn't
What you confuse is Italy playing well for playing better.
France were the superior team and Italy were a one trick pony which was found
out.
Robert the 'erbert
wrote:
> Robert the 'erbert <robbie@leave_it_out.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > Shame.
> >
> > There is a God after all.
>
> ...and He's obviously not English, it show's in your wit, and your awful
> football squad!
> By the way get used to Italians playing in the big matches as the Under21
> program has
> been the best for the past 5 years. English? Weak?
>
> Say what you will about the loss, your bias just proves your ignorance.
We understand why you don't want to talk about that crushing loss last night and
you will have no argument from me about the status of the Englsih national squad
but understandably we clearly do.
You lost boy and we're very happy and there is nothing you can do about that.
No Name
>Italy at least deserved its luck against Holland.
>Can we say the same about France? They attacked with their heart, but
>honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
>
>to recover ?!?!?!
6 susbstitutions: 30 seconds each (and that allowing for the Italians
that of course didi not run out of the pitch).
Lets say Italians delayed the game only 5 times for 5 seconds each.
And lets say there were only two injured players that took 15 seconds
each to recover.
I think I am missing 5 seconds.
Effective time would stop the whining (fact: every game sees an average of
50% of effective playing, the rest the ball is stopped for one reason or
another).
Claudio Mantelli
>The best team won.
The luckiest.
>Italy just played for the 1-0 leading, as always
That's what lead del Piero twice in front of Barthez...
>and France
>had the heart, the play and a lil' bit o' luck.
Just a little. that little that made Spain failing a penalty at 90th,
Trezeguet finding Abel Xavier's hand on 115th and Wiltord scoring at
94th...
>What a coaching from Lemerre ! Wiltord (substitute) scored the
>94th-goal, then Pires (substitute) centers to Trezeguet (substitute)
>for the golden goal...
I wonder how a coach can bench Wiltord that has been the more
consistent striker for France in this champs...
Claudio Mantelli
(Robert the 'erbert) wrote:
>Italy didn't play better football.
Hint. Italy played in white this time.
Claudio Mantelli
(Robert the 'erbert) wrote:
>There is a God after all.
Well, he was the only One that could halp the french yesterday...
Claudio Mantelli
Tiemroth) wrote:
>>And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
>>to recover ?!?!?!
>
>30 seconds for each substitution, 6 substitutions in the second half,
>that's 3 minutes right there. One minute added for stops in play
>sounds about right.
Would sound if there were, though there were not: no injuries and a
game flowing with a high rhytm.
we all agree on the 3 minutes, but the 4th ?!
Claudio Mantelli
>Italian time wasting. France shoved Catennaccio up Italian butts and twisted
>it.
Sure, a lot of catenaccio yesterday...
Do you say "catenaccio" every time you think of Italy...I don't know,
while eating a pizza...?
Claudio Mantelli
Floor) wrote:
>You obviously don't know the rules. Just the 6 substitutes * 30
>seconds = 3 minutes already.
That's what I wrote.
Where does the 4th minute come from ?!
Claudio Mantelli
<fe5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Claudio Mantelli <claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it> wrote in:
> 395fa3a...@news.tin.it...
>> Italy at least deserved its luck against Holland.
>
>Don't think so at all.
Italy played a master defence. France didn't play anything master
yesterday.
>> Can we say the same about France? They attacked with their heart, but
>> honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
>
>Common, ok you're biased as an Italian but I think even you cannot
>deny that the French were the better team and well, Del Piero sucked
>big time.
>I was only very sorry for Toldo. Great keeper.
I think nobody can deny that Italy dominated yesterday. Del Piero
sucked, that's true.
>> And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
>> to recover ?!?!?!
>
>Yes, let's roll on the conspiracy theories!
No conspiracy theory. Just a wonder: 6 subsitutions = 3 minutes.
Where does the other minute come from? No waste of time or injuries...
Claudio Mantelli
<anderst@_NO_UCE_OR_SPAM_algonet.se> wrote:
>Sweden should have been in the final! We outplayed Italy totally. We should
>have won 7-3 against them! :)
Maybe you forget to mention Italy was already first in the group and
lineud up the reserves...
ezu...@mindless.com
claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:57:00 GMT, in...@jengadesign.xxnlxx (Anders
> Floor) wrote:
>
> >You obviously don't know the rules. Just the 6 substitutes * 30
> >seconds = 3 minutes already.
>
> That's what I wrote.
> Where does the 4th minute come from ?!
You just won´t give up, will you. Look: How long do you think the
incident with Toldo took (he was bleeding from the nose, the game was
halted)? Others have measured the delay to about two or three minutes.
Are you seriously of the opinion that Frisk should NOT have added extra
time for Toldo´s injury? If so, please explain why he should have ignored
the incident. Refs are supposed to add injury time (that´s why the brits
have given it this name: "Injury time").
If not, get with it: you lost because you thought you´d won.
> Claudio Mantelli
/Øivind/
No Name
>Rhubarb <rh...@noway.jose> wrote in message news:8jodhi$ur6$1...@ayers.ftech.net...
>
>> it.
>
>saw that Italy outplayed France in this game, with a total game of football, everyone attacking
>you could not even realize this. Italians had by far the best scoring opportunities,
But that, as we have been reminded here by Italian supporters, is not
the point of the game. You can be better and still loose. Welcome to the club.
> if Del Piero
>wasn't such a big moment choke artist, it would have been an absolute blowout.
>Time wasting, now that is rich. Anyways, tourney's over, France has won, Italians can be
>proud of the way they played in the final, and your English have once again shown that they
>are arrogant, and shit.
Of which Italians, after been so clearly outplayed in the semifinal, didi not
show any ..... arrogance I mean.
It would have been so refreshing to read an Italian fan say "we were lucky,
we got out of the hook, thank god for that", what did we read? :
"Italy is the greatest
team since Calcio was played with human heads as balls".
So lets not talk about arroganace, because that is what describe most
posters here
anyway.
>
>
No Name
>
>
>--
>Rhubarb wrote in message <8jodhi$ur6$1...@ayers.ftech.net>...
>>
>>news:395fa3a...@news.tin.it...
>>> Italy at least deserved its luck against Holland.
>>> honestly the best side lost, on the very last action.
>>>
>>> to recover ?!?!?!
>>
>twisted
>>it.
>
>
>
>The better team didn't win today. And at least Italy showed up, stuck it to
>France, played the better soccer, and no one can dispute that. All you
>green envious ones can fuck yourselves. Im proud of my team, they did well,
>and should be champs!
>
You Dutch supporter, when are you going to get over it! Holland didi not
deserve to win even if they played better football... er .. sorry, I
think I got into the wrong thread.
Apologies.
No Name
>Robert the 'erbert <robbie@leave_it_out.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
>Question: Where was Henri? Half-chances. Zidane? No chances.
>It was obvious, when France scored with 30 seconds left, the Italians were deflated.
>
>
France dominated the first half after Italy tried shyly to attack for
15 minutes.
Second half Italy attacked again, scored and from that moment they betted in
the one goal lead and in counterattacks. It almost worked. Almost.
With due respect, Italy didi not play total football, maybe they played
better football than the French yesterday, but it was not total football.
Per Samuelsson
Claudio Mantelli wrote in message <39603163...@news.tin.it>...
>On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:57:00 GMT, in...@jengadesign.xxnlxx (Anders
>Floor) wrote:
>
>>You obviously don't know the rules. Just the 6 substitutes * 30
>>seconds = 3 minutes already.
>
>That's what I wrote.
>Where does the 4th minute come from ?!
My goodness Claudio. You are a sore loser, aren't you? How can you even
doubt that there should be one extra minute of overtime, especially as Totti
was booked for time wasting? I've heard all sorts of lame excuses, but this
one takes the prize.
And besides I doubt any other than the Italians thought they were superior
to the French anyway. Great game though, with both teams playing attractive
football!
I nearly forgave Italy for their ultra destructive semi-final performance.
Totti's brilliant when he tries to stand up and play football instead of
rolling around on the grass. He should do that more often!
ezu...@mindless.com
claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
> Where does the other minute come from? No waste of time or injuries...
I´m still not tired of repeating this so I´ll do it again: Toldo. Toldo.
Toldo was injured. He was bleeding from the nose, remember? In the second
half. Surely you haven´t forgot about this already? The game was halted
for about two minutes. Should he NOT have added injury time because of
this, yes, injury?
Time wasting? I guess Totti was booked for time wasting for no reason,
then. No, wait a minute: he DID in fact waste time. So there you have YET
another argument for adding more time.
ezu...@mindless.com
claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:51:57 GMT, cold...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >The best team won.
>
> The luckiest.
Wow. That´s rich coming from someone who escaped two penalties and a
couple of shots that hit the bar/post against the Netherlands.
You´re starting to look like a pathetic loser now. France won because
they played for 94 minutes. Italy played for 93 minutes. Luck´s got very
little to do with this. They won it fair and square.
And as far as I know: unless dirty tactics have been involved (Yugo,
anyone?), a game is still won fairly and squarely by the team who scores
the most goals. France scored two, Italy one. It´s simple, really.
...and the best teams usually have luck on their side.
/Řivind/
ezu...@mindless.com
claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:10:33 GMT, le...@vip.cybercity.dk (David
> Tiemroth) wrote:
> Would sound if there were, though there were not: no injuries and a
> game flowing with a high rhytm.
> we all agree on the 3 minutes, but the 4th ?!
My final word on this (in case you don´t read my other two posts that
basically say the same thing): Toldo. Toldo was injured. He was bleeding
from the nose and the game was halted for at least two minutes. Should
Frish have ignored this? Of course not.
Please post a reply where you acknowledge that Toldo was injured. And
that all injuries (that aren´t fake) are eligible when adding "injury
time".
Thank you.
> Claudio Mantelli
/Øivind/
Robert the 'erbert
(Claudio Mantelli) wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:57 +0100 (BST), robbie@leave_it_out.co.uk
> (Robert the 'erbert) wrote:
>
> >Italy didn't play better football.
>
> Hint. Italy played in white this time.
Hint: Italians talking about their national side are to be disregarded.
Anders Thelemyr
> The luckiest.
Maybe so, but Italy was lucky to even be IN the final.
--
@
Anders Thelemyr
>>Italy didn't play better football.
> Hint. Italy played in white this time.
Claudio: Don't confuse
"Italy played better than usually in this game"
with
"Italy was the better team in this game"
--
@
Anders Thelemyr
> Maybe you forget to mention Italy was already
>first in the group and lineud up the reserves...
Maybe YOU can inform me what this has got to do
with my statement? Or didn't we meet Italy? Was
it San Marino? Maybe we have a case here? Can we
complain to UEFA? Maybe we can disqualify Italy
for not having played the game?
--
@
Anders Thelemyr
> My final word on this (in case you don´t read my other two posts that
> basically say the same thing): Toldo. Toldo was injured. He was bleeding
> from the nose and the game was halted for at least two minutes. Should
> Frish have ignored this? Of course not.
> Please post a reply where you acknowledge that Toldo was injured. And
> that all injuries (that aren´t fake) are eligible when adding "injury
> time".
Unfortunately the usually reasonable (AFAIK) Claudio seems to suffer
from deep shock. He'll get over it eventually.
--
@
mark...@my-deja.com
> ...and He's obviously not English, it show's in your wit, and your
awful football squad!
> By the way get used to Italians playing in the big matches as the
Under21 program has
> been the best for the past 5 years. English? Weak?
>
> Say what you will about the loss, your bias just proves your
ignorance.
>
good all night and they deserved to win. My only down side to Italy is
that with so many good players Fiore, Del Piero, Totti they could play
with a little more confidence and play more attacking (they've got the
ability). BTw, Englands youngster are not that bad actually (well
compared to the dross at senior level).
scar...@hotmail.com
"Aqua Di Gio" <aq...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Blah blah blah.
>
> The better team didn't win today. And at least Italy showed up, stuck
it to
> France, played the better soccer, and no one can dispute that. All
you
> green envious ones can fuck yourselves. Im proud of my team, they did
well,
> and should be champs!
>
>
Please little kid, control yourself. You have been ignorant and
arrogant when Italy was winning and now also when they are loosing.
You should be proud of Italy, they did perform much better than
expected but they are not and should not be champs. A team winning two
major titles in two years are the champs. End of discussion
Shussbar
>to recover ?!?!?!
6 sub x 30 s = 3 minutes, plus time for Toldo injury, plus time for Italians
wasting times, = easily 4 minutes
Shussbar
>saw that Italy outplayed France in this game, with a total game of football,
>everyone attacking
>and everyone defending.
I dont think we watch the same game!
It was kind of very balanced , didn t see Italy outplayed FRANCE at all.
Just irritating to see Italian substitutes having high fives, congratulating
each other 4 minutes before the end and BANG, Wiltord seats them !
Anders Floor
>Would sound if there were, though there were not: no injuries and a
>game flowing with a high rhytm.
>we all agree on the 3 minutes, but the 4th ?!
What's the difference? Italy could have scored a second goal in that
extra minute as well.
Anders
Shussbar
>
>The luckiest.
When FRANCE win like that it s luck, if it was ITALY, it would have been class,
maestria and tutti quanti.
>>Italy just played for the 1-0 leading, as always
>
>That's what lead del Piero twice in front of Barthez...
And poorly failed!
>Just a little. that little that made Spain failing a penalty at 90th,
Well, undeserved penalty.
What about Holland PKs missed? It s Italy class and maestria?
Please, do admit that a game is a combiantion of goals, missed and sucess, and
luck. Add everything and you got the winner.
I think the game was fair, and it was a very nice football game for a final.
Shussbar
>he watched it by his computer.
I am sorry if you were bored.!
But it s not spectacle given by DK that is going to give you fun and envy to
watch football.
I think the final was decent considering that a final is rarely high level.
Teams played well, sure ITALY stayed back after their goal, but it s
understandible and it s their way to play, and it actually almost worked.
FRANCE never gave up, and the last wave broke the rock!
Then extra time , it s suspens and russian roulette!
Thanks Italy, thanks FRANCE for the good final
Mark Powell
>
>94, even more unfortunate was the fact that Del Piero froze up like ice (brutal).
>Question: Where was Henri? Half-chances. Zidane? No chances.
I seem to remember Henry making two runs past the final Italian
defenders. Their only response on both occasions was to bring him
down. The second could've easily been a red card. I think the game
was quite evenly balanced, with Italy having the edge. France lost
their shape and stopped passing after the goal. They started playing
like the England team i.e. poorly. Forget about passing, just hoof
the ball up the pitch and hope something happens. The goal in the
final seconds was shear poetry. I find it hard to feel sorry for
the Italians who play some of the most negative football around
(although they didn't do too much of it last night). We have to
endure them every year in the Champions League. They cheat. We
endure their cheating. Simple as.
--
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - Clifford Whitworth Building
A.I.S., University of Salford, Salford, Manchester, UK.
Tel: +44 161 295 5936 Fax: +44 161 295 5888 www.pgp.com for PGP key
M.S.P...@salfrd.ac.uk (spell salford correctly to reply to me)
Doan Nguyen
>
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:57 +0100 (BST), robbie@leave_it_out.co.uk
> (Robert the 'erbert) wrote:
>
>
> Well, he was the only One that could halp the french yesterday...
Thought Del Piero and Toldo played quite well for the French.
Doan
David Tiemroth
>>David, who, for the first time in Euro2000, was so bored with a game
>>he watched it by his computer.
>
>I am sorry if you were bored.!
So was I, believe me.
>But it s not spectacle given by DK that is going to give you fun and envy to
>watch football.
Err... this is going to sound like a real smart arse reply, but it
isn't: Could you repeat that? I didn't understand a word of that.
>I think the final was decent considering that a final is rarely high level.
Why is that? The two best teams in the tournament (by definition)
meeting should be a good to great match. Instead we've come to accept
boredom and mediocrity in finals. Why?
David.
------------------------------------------------------------------
English Burger Lords managed to take any American fast food virtues (the
speed with which your food was delivered, for example) and carefully remove
them; your food arrived after half an hour, at room temperature, and it was
only because of the strip of warm lettuce between them that you could
distinguish the burger from the bun. The Burger Lord pathfinder salesmen
had been shot 25 minutes after setting foot in France.
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Eisenman
<ezu...@mindless.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 8jpulj$c9m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39603163...@news.tin.it>,
> claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:57:00 GMT, in...@jengadesign.xxnlxx (Anders
> > Floor) wrote:
> >
> > >You obviously don't know the rules. Just the 6 substitutes * 30
> > >seconds = 3 minutes already.
> >
> > That's what I wrote.
> > Where does the 4th minute come from ?!
>
> incident with Toldo took (he was bleeding from the nose, the game was
> halted)? Others have measured the delay to about two or three minutes.
>
> Are you seriously of the opinion that Frisk should NOT have added extra
> time for Toldo´s injury? If so, please explain why he should have ignored
> the incident. Refs are supposed to add injury time (that´s why the brits
> have given it this name: "Injury time").
Though I think the 4 minutes were ok (3 minutes for the subs and
1 minute for time wasting by Totti etc.) I feel obliged to
remind you that Toldo nose was damaged by Trézéguet in
extra-time not in normal time. Trézéguet followed up a
deflected Robert Pires' shot. I think it was 3 or 4 minutes
in extra-time.
Frank Eisenman
<ezu...@mindless.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 8jpur0$chb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <396030a9...@news.tin.it>,
> claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
>
> > Where does the other minute come from? No waste of time or injuries...
>
> I´m still not tired of repeating this so I´ll do it again: Toldo. Toldo.
> Toldo was injured. He was bleeding from the nose, remember? In the second
> half. Surely you haven´t forgot about this already? The game was halted
> for about two minutes. Should he NOT have added injury time because of
> this, yes, injury?
No, because you got it wrong again. Though I also think the 4 minutes
Frank Eisenman
<ezu...@mindless.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 8jpv9g$cm8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3960317b...@news.tin.it>,
> claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:10:33 GMT, le...@vip.cybercity.dk (David
>
> > Would sound if there were, though there were not: no injuries and a
> > game flowing with a high rhytm.
> > we all agree on the 3 minutes, but the 4th ?!
>
> basically say the same thing): Toldo. Toldo was injured. He was bleeding
> from the nose and the game was halted for at least two minutes. Should
> Frish have ignored this? Of course not.
>
> Please post a reply where you acknowledge that Toldo was injured. And
> that all injuries (that aren´t fake) are eligible when adding "injury
> time".
Yes, but you still talk about a incident which happend in extra-time!
So I repeat:
Though I think the 4 minutes were ok (3 minutes for the subs and
1 minute for time wasting by Totti etc.) I feel obliged to
remind you that Toldos nose was damaged by Trézéguet in
extra-time - not in normal time! Trézéguet followed up a
Thomas Wolfram
Shussbar <crys...@aol.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
20000703092619...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Yes but Toldos injury was in extra time.
IH8CRAP
>No, because you got it wrong again. Though I also think the 4
>minutes were ok (3 minutes for the subs and 1 minute for time
>wasting by Totti etc.) I feel obliged to remind you that Toldo
>nose was damaged by Trézéguet in extra-time not in normal time.
>Trézéguet followed up a deflected Robert Pires' shot. I think it
>was 3 or 4 minutes in extra-time.
Yes, roughly 4 minutes were added on in stoppage time after the
second half. Toldo's injury in extra time should have no bearing
on what happens in stoppage time after regulation time in the
second half has expired. Some people are acting like the referee
knows what will happen in the future, and apply the appropriate
time added on to the present...the referee isn't psychic or
travels in a time machine to my knowledge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
IH8CRAP
some bait and seeing who bites on the line. There can be no other
explanation, unless you want to throw absent mindedness, but
since the game was completed less than 24 hours ago, I don't
think that excuse holds water.
No Name
Is not that team that ended last in the latest Youth WC without scoring
a single goal?
No Name
>On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:10:33 GMT, le...@vip.cybercity.dk (David
>Tiemroth) wrote:
>
>>>to recover ?!?!?!
>>
>>30 seconds for each substitution, 6 substitutions in the second half,
>>that's 3 minutes right there. One minute added for stops in play
>>sounds about right.
>
>Would sound if there were, though there were not: no injuries and a
>game flowing with a high rhytm.
>we all agree on the 3 minutes, but the 4th ?!
>
Flowing? Italy fans have a funny sense of what a flowing game is.
As I said before: lets assume for the sake of argument that Italy
did only 5 attempts, of 5 seconds each, to waste time. That is
25 seconds more. And lets assume there were 2 injured players
(they were more but, who cares) each spending 15 seconds floored
(sure 15 seconds!) that is 30 secs more.
So that is 55 seconds more, add 5 seconds for whatever else you fancy,
and you have your 4 minutes. And I am talking here about very
optimistic estimates (Ther was Toldo injury, and there was the Italians
hiding the ball every time there was a foul in favor of France).
So actually 4 minutes is just enough.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Claudio Mantelli
>
>Remove SPAMMERSF*CK from my email address to reply
Benny
> From : martin...@my-deja.com
>> And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
>> to recover ?!?!?!
>
Pay attention, that was in the first period of extra time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge than to let
him keep her. Sacha Guitry
ezu...@mindless.com
"Frank Eisenman" <fe5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Though I think the 4 minutes were ok (3 minutes for the subs and
> 1 minute for time wasting by Totti etc.) I feel obliged to
> remind you that Toldo nose was damaged by Trézéguet in
> extra-time not in normal time. Trézéguet followed up a
> deflected Robert Pires' shot. I think it was 3 or 4 minutes
> in extra-time.
It doesn´t matter *when* it happened as long as it happened in the 2nd
half. The ref has every right (and every obligation) to add even more
time if an injury occurs within extra time. It´s only logical.
Besides, Italy knew there were four minutes of added time. So they knew
what they were up against. Except they weren´t up for it, so to speak.
/Øivind/
Azzurro
> We understand why you don't want to talk about that crushing loss last night and
> you will have no argument from me about the status of the Englsih national squad
> but understandably we clearly do.
>
> You lost boy and we're very happy and there is nothing you can do about that.
...no I guess, we are somewhat even, I had my laugh when England crashed out in the
group stage (pathetic) and you had your big laugh when Italy gave the French the championship.
(unbelievable).
Looking forward to 2002, maybe more laughs.
Benny
>Is not that team that ended last in the latest Youth WC without scoring
>a single goal?
Yes with players from the English first division and without players
like Owen, Barry, Woodgate etc, etc. Also the U21 Championship don't
mean a damn thing, how many times have France won it recently?
Aqua Di Gio
--
Aqua
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Rui’s Conspiracy theories:
From: Rui Neves <nev...@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Date: Friday, June 16, 2000 10:22 AM
“I happen to love Italian soccer.”
followed by:
“If you like I can list all of the cheating, bribery and other
’questionable’ ethics in Italian football.”
“Or did you have special seminars on diving, cheating and other "fair play"
technique before the start of Euro 2000? “
“Yes, and your lucky that UEFA protects your ass. Otherwise Italy 1
Turkey 1.”
“At least, we don't cheat half as much as you do.”
-----------
Sidd's love for the Azzurri:
From: sidd <sid...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: Kick some butt, England!
"Romania will knock Italy out. My prediction."
"Italy can easily be beaten by Romania..."
> Easily???
"Yes."
> Are you sure, sidd?
"Yes."
> What are you relying on?
"Toldo."
"He makes terrible mistakes"
>And to be fair to you Sidd, you did say this:
But honestly, Italy can win if they play their perfect
professional game,
>but followed up with this:
which I somehow doubt. They havent
been good against Turkey and Sweden.
sidd wrote in message <8joh0n$dti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8joee8$dr6$0...@dosa.alt.net>,
> "Frank Eisenman" <fe5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I was only very sorry for Toldo. Great keeper.
>>
>
>Who made the critical mistake letting France equalize !
>Del Piero I was not surprised to see screw up, since
>IMO he is overrated. Totti is >>> Del Piero.
>Toldo, otoh, seems to be evrybodys darling, which
>makes it more satisfying for me when he screws up.
>
>Totti and Nesta and some others didnt deserve to lose.
>
>> > And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
>> > to recover ?!?!?!
>>
>> Yes, let's roll on the conspiracy theories!
Aqua Di Gio
cold...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8joh29$dtp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>The best team won.
>Italy just played for the 1-0 leading, as always,
You are an idiot, truly. If Italy played for the 1-0 win they wouldn't have
brought in TWO strikers after that goal. One was Del Piero for Fiore, and
then Montella for Delvecchio. If they wanted to sit on that lead they could
have brought in Ambrosini for Fiore, and DiLivio for Delvecchio and closed
off that right side for good! Instead, Zoff wanting to go for goal brought
in TWO strikers and it would have paid off had Del Piero buried his
chances - TWO of them!
>and France
>had the heart, the play and a lil' bit o' luck.
And time.
>What a coaching from Lemerre ! Wiltord (substitute) scored the
>94th-goal, then Pires (substitute) centers to Trezeguet (substitute)
>for the golden goal...
They obviously had more stamina. Both teams were dead tired. Italy was the
better team, and like we said before the better team doesn't always win!
>Chapeau, Monsieur Lemerre !
>
>Olivier
>
>In article <z0P75.4449$BS1....@brie.direct.ca>,
> "Azzurro" <fo...@azzurri.com> wrote:
>> Rhubarb <rh...@noway.jose> wrote in message
>news:8jodhi$ur6$1...@ayers.ftech.net...
>>
>> > Italian time wasting. France shoved Catennaccio up Italian butts and
>twisted
>> > it.
>>
>> ...you know you have really shown your ignorance with these comments,
>as many
>> saw that Italy outplayed France in this game, with a total game of
>football, everyone attacking
>> and everyone defending. Your ass is just so, tight, or are English
>(one in the same) that
>> you could not even realize this. Italians had by far the best scoring
>opportunities, if Del Piero
>> wasn't such a big moment choke artist, it would have been an absolute
>blowout.
>> Time wasting, now that is rich. Anyways, tourney's over, France has
>won, Italians can be
>> proud of the way they played in the final, and your English have once
>again shown that they
>> are arrogant, and shit.
Aqua Di Gio
ezu...@mindless.com wrote in message <8jpv4h$ck5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <39602f75...@news.tin.it>,
> claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:51:57 GMT, cold...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >The best team won.
>>
>> The luckiest.
>
>Wow. That´s rich coming from someone who escaped two penalties and a
>couple of shots that hit the bar/post against the Netherlands.
>
I don't ever think that he didn't admit that Italy weren't lucky on those
plays. Of course they were, and rightfully so in admitting that France had a
bit of luck in
the equalizer. Thats that!
>You´re starting to look like a pathetic loser now.
Why? France won, and they played well to stay in the match, however everyone
knows it should have been over well before France had the equalizer. That is
a fact. Vieri, oh Vieri...where was he? Of course its all 20/20 hindsight
now, however Del Piero choked BIG time and it came back to haunt the
Azzurri. At the end of the match both Albertini and Canavarro were crying
because each were solid throughout the whole match and against the Dutch,
but both made small errors that led to each France goal. It is not their
fault. They fought will balls of steel throughout the match and in the
semi's. I lay the blame solely on choker supreme, the "Dutch" Italian -
Alessandro Del Piero who couldn't bury a ball today if he had NO goalie and
no Defender hounding him!
He sucked royally. And I think Zoff proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that
he deserved to be on the bench and only brought on late in the second half
when Italy is leading 2 or 3 - 0. That is all!
Now I really really miss the best striker inthe world - Vieri
>France won because
>they played for 94 minutes. Italy played for 93 minutes.
Oh listen to that bunch of bullshit. Italy played the whole match, they
didn't give up in the last 30 seconds, it was a defensive error due to
fatigue...thats it. Italy had a more grueling match against the Dutch than
France had against Portugal, and no matter what - that IS going t take its
toll on a player.
>And as far as I know: unless dirty tactics have been involved (Yugo,
>anyone?), a game is still won fairly and squarely by the team who scores
>the most goals. France scored two, Italy one. It´s simple, really.
Of course it is. And it really simply should have been 2 or 3-0 for Italy.
Had Del Piero had any sense of the net he would have buried both chances and
France would never have been able to catch up. It is that simple.
>...and the best teams usually have luck on their side.
To be Lucky you have to be Good. Ive been saying that all the while. The two
best teams met in the finals, the best one, on that night, lost!
Congrats to France for sticking in it!
We want a re-match in 2002! I hope we face them in the finals again!!
Aqua Di Gio
Anders Thelemyr wrote in message
<396086AB...@NO-----SPAM------algonet.se>...
>Claudio Mantelli wrote:
>
>> The luckiest.
>
>Maybe so, but Italy was lucky to even be IN the final.
Oh ya that's right, according to you Sweden should have beaten them 7-3 or
something ridiculous like that.
Italy deserved their win over Holland. Italy's only luck in that game was
Kluiverts missed penalty. The other one Toldo saved, and in the PK Toldo was
absolutely
brilliant.
Italy, in fact was the unlucky team that game getting a red card and two PK
chances against them. The ref must have gone back to his officials and said
"What the fuck do you want from me? I gave them card after card, a red card,
and two PK's, and Holland still couldn't win...fuck em, they deserve to
lose!"
Italy played will balls of steel. I would REALLY like to see how well Sweden
would have done against Holland being down one player.
You have nothing to brag about, so keep your mouth shut!
Aqua Di Gio
>
>>The better team didn't win today. And at least Italy showed up, stuck it
to
>>France, played the better soccer, and no one can dispute that. All you
>>green envious ones can fuck yourselves. Im proud of my team, they did
well,
>>and should be champs!
>
>have won 7-3 against them! :)
Bwahahahahahahahahahah cough cough, bwahahaha...You HAVE earned a spot on
my sig!
Aqua Di Gio
scar...@hotmail.com wrote in message <8jq2rv$f5h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <dyP75.4465$BS1....@brie.direct.ca>,
> "Aqua Di Gio" <aq...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> Blah blah blah.
>>
>> The better team didn't win today. And at least Italy showed up, stuck
>it to
>> France, played the better soccer, and no one can dispute that. All
>you
>> green envious ones can fuck yourselves. Im proud of my team, they did
>well,
>> and should be champs!
>>
>>
>
>arrogant when Italy was winning and now also when they are loosing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Aqua Di Gio <aq...@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Date: Sunday, July 02, 2000 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Albertini on suicide watch!!!!
>He is upset because his poor clearance attempt led to the France Goal.
>However France was penetrating that left side late in the second and were
>bound to score. Cannavaro and Nesta both made mistakes, and all in all the
>game should have
>been over with Del Piero's missed opportunities. Good to France for
sticking
>in there and never giving up. Worth Champions.
>
>See you in 2002!
>You should be proud of Italy, they did perform much better than
>expected but they are not and should not be champs.
Thats your opinion,and you are granted to have it. However based on last
nights performance Italy was the worth champion. That doesn't say France
isn't. They won it fair and square. Some people contest the ref shouldn't
have added 4 mintues. You haven't heard me say that, because I know that it
should have been
over long before that with Del Piero's missed opportunities. Those will
haunt me until 2002 when Italy will have to try to amend for those mistakes
by winning the World Cup. Lets hope for an Italy/France final, it was
exciting and excellently played by both teams. There were some hard tackles,
elbows, falls, kicks to the head, etc, but the game was great!
>A team winning two
>major titles in two years are the champs. End of discussion
I never said otherwise.
have a nice day.
Aqua Di Gio
>> >Italian time wasting. France shoved Catennaccio up Italian butts and
>> twisted
>> >it.
>>
>>
>> Blah blah blah.
>>
>> The better team didn't win today. And at least Italy showed up, stuck it
to
>> France, played the better soccer, and no one can dispute that. All you
>> green envious ones can fuck yourselves. Im proud of my team, they did
well,
>> and should be champs!
>
>Italy didn't play better football.
Then you didn't watch them play.
Aqua Di Gio
>In article <0jR75.4546$BS1....@brie.direct.ca>, fo...@azzurri.com
(Azzurro)
>wrote:
>>
>> unfortunately it wasn't
>
>
>France were the superior team and Italy were a one trick pony which was
found
>out.
Hardly. It was proof that all you have to do to beat France is shut down
Zidane. Italy did that until the winner. Even the equalizer was somewhat
lucky as Toldo was screened and narrowly missed that one.
Italy had a few other tricks that were performed by someone not qualified
(Del Piero), hence they didn't work out as intended.
Aqua Di Gio
--
No Name wrote in message <8jps65$9gg$8...@news.ml.com>...
>On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:44:31 -0700, Azzurro said:
>>Robert the 'erbert <robbie@leave_it_out.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>> Italy didn't play better football.
>>
>>...still confused aren't you. France was outplayed for 93 minutes,
unfortunately it wasn't
>>94, even more unfortunate was the fact that Del Piero froze up like ice
(brutal).
>>Question: Where was Henri? Half-chances. Zidane? No chances.
>>It was obvious, when France scored with 30 seconds left, the Italians were
deflated.
>>
>>
>
>France dominated the first half after Italy tried shyly to attack for
>15 minutes.
>
>Second half Italy attacked again, scored and from that moment they betted
in
>the one goal lead and in counterattacks. It almost worked. Almost.
>
>With due respect, Italy didi not play total football, maybe they played
>better football than the French yesterday, but it was not total football.
Bwahahaha. What is total football? Having 2 defenders, 6 midfielders and 2
strikers?
Aqua Di Gio
claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it
>(Claudio Mantelli) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:57 +0100 (BST), robbie@leave_it_out.co.uk
>> (Robert the 'erbert) wrote:
>>
>>
>
>Hint: Italians talking about their national side are to be disregarded.
Hint: Jealous idiots like you are to be laughed at.
Aqua Di Gio
Anders Thelemyr wrote in message
>Claudio Mantelli wrote:
>
>>>Italy didn't play better football.
>
>> Hint. Italy played in white this time.
>
>"Italy played better than usually in this game"
>with
>"Italy was the better team in this game"
Sven, when are you going to understand that you don't finish 3rd in 90, 2nd
in 94, 5th in 98, and again 2nd in 2000 without being good? Get over it
Sven. Sweden are not in the same class. They didn't make last WC, they
sucked in this Euro's and will be VERY hard pressed to sneak into the next
WC. So you will be forced to downplay other teams successes, especially the
ones who laugh at you most!
Italy was the better team in this game, period. Detractors and critics alike
have already admitted this. Columnists and TV announcers, who know a little
more about the game than believing possession = better team, have admitted
it. The only few that haven't are obviously confused.
Aqua Di Gio
Anders Floor wrote in message <3964c861....@news.ams.chello.nl>...
>Aqua Di Gio wrote:
>>Frank Eisenman wrote:
>
>>hardly, its a fact, even the commentators wondered why so much time. There
>>was no injuries, and should have been 2 minutes MAX.
>
>You obviously don't know the rules. Just the 6 substitutes * 30
>seconds = 3 minutes already.
Wasn't Trezeguet substituted in the extra time? Hmmm...
>Anders
Aqua Di Gio
>In article <39603163...@news.tin.it>,
> claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:57:00 GMT, in...@jengadesign.xxnlxx (Anders
>> Floor) wrote:
>>
>> >seconds = 3 minutes already.
>>
>> Where does the 4th minute come from ?!
>
>You just won´t give up, will you. Look: How long do you think the
>halted)?
Idiot:
That happened in the sudden death half, not in the 2nd half.
>Others have measured the delay to about two or three minutes.
Hardly.
>Are you seriously of the opinion that Frisk should NOT have added extra
>time for Toldo´s injury?
No he shouldn't have, considering Toldo's injury occured after the 2nd half
was already over, and injury time already done with!
> If so, please explain why he should have ignored
>the incident.
It never occured yet. Whats your excuse now?
> Refs are supposed to add injury time (that´s why the brits
>have given it this name: "Injury time").
Precisely. Which is why no extra injury time should have been added since
there was NO OTHER INJURY!
>If not, get with it: you lost because you thought you´d won.
We lost because Del Piero sucks.
Aqua Di Gio
--
ezu...@mindless.com wrote in message <8jqjh0$s2b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8jqcgq$q47$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Frank Eisenman" <fe5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Though I think the 4 minutes were ok (3 minutes for the subs and
>> 1 minute for time wasting by Totti etc.) I feel obliged to
>> remind you that Toldo nose was damaged by Trézéguet in
>> extra-time not in normal time. Trézéguet followed up a
>> deflected Robert Pires' shot. I think it was 3 or 4 minutes
>> in extra-time.
>
>It doesn´t matter *when* it happened as long as it happened in the 2nd
>half.
How stupid are you? He already told you it happened in the extra-time, not
the injury time! It didn't happen in the second half. Do your homework you
fucking idiot, or else each Italy bash you spew willmake you look more and
more the idiot you are.
Aqua Di Gio
Robert the 'erbert wrote in message ...
>In article <9AP75.4466$BS1....@brie.direct.ca>, aq...@home.com (Aqua Di
Gio)
>wrote:
>
>> >Bye, bye. Shame. :))
>>
>> At least we made it there. What did you do? Pitiful attempt against
Portugal
>> and Romania. I would be very worried if I were an English
fan...absolutely
>> NOTHING to build on.
>>
>> Cannavaro - 26
>> Nesta - 24
>> Fiore, Ambrosini, and Zambrotta all young.
>> Maldini will be around for the next WC as well as Inzaghi, Vieri, Del
Piero
>> (but should he really?!?) Montella, etc!
>>
>> Italy can only get better, while England...well lets say I hope they at
>> least make the WC.
>
>Nesta to Pires and through Carranvaro's legs and....
You really don't know what you are talking about do you? It was Maldini's
legs.
Boo hoo. Italy still rocks, and you still have to be envious of our
achievements, since England hasn't won anything since they were gifted the
WC in 1966, on a non existant goal.
How was that Portugal loss anyhow?
Aqua Di Gio
SerbiavsEngland thread.
Robert the 'erbert wrote in message ...
>In article <DdR75.4529$BS1....@brie.direct.ca>, fo...@azzurri.com
(Azzurro)
>wrote:
>
>> Robert the 'erbert <robbie@leave_it_out.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> > Shame.
>> >
>> > There is a God after all.
>>
>> ...and He's obviously not English, it show's in your wit, and your awful
>> football squad!
>> By the way get used to Italians playing in the big matches as the Under21
>> program has
>> been the best for the past 5 years. English? Weak?
>>
>> Say what you will about the loss, your bias just proves your ignorance.
>
Aqua Di Gio
>In article <396030a9...@news.tin.it>,
> claudio.mantelli.SPAMMERSF*C...@tin.it wrote:
>
>> Where does the other minute come from? No waste of time or injuries...
>
>I惴 still not tired of repeating this so I惻l do it again: Toldo. Toldo.
>Toldo was injured. He was bleeding from the nose, remember? In the second
>half.
And once again you prove to be a laughing stock, an ignoramus, a complete
fool. Toldo's injury came AFTER the equalizer, AFTER the 2nd half with
Injury time was over, and in the EXTRA-TIME...the golden goal halves...
>Surely you haven愒 forgot about this already?
Evidentally you have forgotten that, amongst other things...like where you
left your brain before yesterday's game!
>The game was halted
>for about two minutes. Should he NOT have added injury time because of
>this, yes, injury?
No.
Claudio Mantelli
>Wow. That´s rich coming from someone who escaped two penalties and a
>couple of shots that hit the bar/post against the Netherlands.
Italy was lucky against Holland, but also made an almost perfect
defence.
France didn't deserve its luck yesterday.
And you seem to forget France already had its luck too, when Spain
failed a penalty at 90th and Portugal offered one at 115th.
>You´re starting to look like a pathetic loser now. France won because
>they played for 94 minutes. Italy played for 93 minutes. Luck´s got very
>little to do with this. They won it fair and square.
I didn't see the italians stopping playing. Both the teams played 94
minutes. This doesn't mean the one can't be lucky.
>And as far as I know: unless dirty tactics have been involved (Yugo,
>anyone?), a game is still won fairly and squarely by the team who scores
>the most goals. France scored two, Italy one. It´s simple, really.
Plain simple, though this doesn't affect the obvious statement that
luck may be importnat. and indeed it was yesterda night.
>...and the best teams usually have luck on their side.
Oh, now that it's France you come out with these words of wisdom.
When Italy beated Holland you thought differently...
Claudio Mantelli
<and...@NO-----SPAM------algonet.se> wrote:
>Maybe so, but Italy was lucky to even be IN the final.
Maybe so, but also France can thank Raul and Abel Xavier, so they had
been lucky too.
Claudio Mantelli
>It would have been so refreshing to read an Italian fan say "we were lucky,
>we got out of the hook, thank god for that", what did we read? :
>"Italy is the greatest
>team since Calcio was played with human heads as balls".
>So lets not talk about arroganace, because that is what describe most
>posters here
>anyway.
No, it's a completely different thing: Italians were happy not
arrogant, but then they have been attacked on this ng by a group of
posters offending Italy and they reacted.
I didn't come here to say "we won, we're great", I came here to reply
to people that claimed that Italy was the ugliest team so far and won
just by luck.
Claudio Mantelli
>France dominated the first half after Italy tried shyly to attack for
>15 minutes.
?!?!?!?!
Frnace had a good start of the beginnig of the second half and a good
reaction at the end of the match.
But the first half was italian for sure.
>Second half Italy attacked again, scored and from that moment they betted in
>the one goal lead and in counterattacks. It almost worked. Almost.
Italy went on on the same way. You may say that in the final minutes
they defended more, but that's pretty clear facing a team with 6
forwards...
>With due respect, Italy didi not play total football, maybe they played
>better football than the French yesterday, but it was not total football.
On that I absolutely agree. we didn't and we never had the intention
to do it. Italian game is mainly based on vertical passes ripping the
defence, not on ball domination.
Claudio Mantelli
(Robert the 'erbert) wrote:
>What you confuse is Italy playing well for playing better.
>France were the superior team and Italy were a one trick pony which was found
>out.
Italy may have played well or not, one thing is sure: they played
better than France yesterday.
Claudio Mantelli
(Robert the 'erbert) wrote:
>> Hint. Italy played in white this time.
>
>Hint: Italians talking about their national side are to be disregarded.
Ask some neutrals if you want to disregard my point of view.
I post my opinion as when I said Inzaghi dived against Turkey. I'm a
fan, not blind.
Claudio Mantelli
<and...@NO-----SPAM------algonet.se> wrote:
>Claudio: Don't confuse
>"Italy played better than usually in this game"
>with
>"Italy was the better team in this game"
Of course these are different statements. But I don't mean to say they
played better than usually. Maybe they did.
I just said Italy played better than France yesterday. If that's not
enough, I'll add Totti played better than Zidane.
(btw, please notice how "ultra-defensive" Zoff put Dl Piero in to
"defend" the 1-0 and how no man to man marking was afforded for
Zidane)
Claudio Mantelli
>> That's what I wrote.
>> Where does the 4th minute come from ?!
>
>You just won´t give up, will you. Look: How long do you think the
>incident with Toldo took (he was bleeding from the nose, the game was
>halted)? Others have measured the delay to about two or three minutes.
>Are you seriously of the opinion that Frisk should NOT have added extra
>time for Toldo´s injury? If so, please explain why he should have ignored
>the incident. Refs are supposed to add injury time (that´s why the brits
>have given it this name: "Injury time").
>If not, get with it: you lost because you thought you´d won.
What a pity IT WAS DURING EXTRA TIME !!
(4th-6th minute of first extra time)
Is that enough as an explanation ?!?!?!?!?!?!
Claudio Mantelli
wrote:
>>That's what I wrote.
>>Where does the 4th minute come from ?!
>
>My goodness Claudio. You are a sore loser, aren't you? How can you even
>doubt that there should be one extra minute of overtime, especially as Totti
>was booked for time wasting?
How long did he waiste? A couple of seconds?
I doubt there was an extra minute since the game had a high rhythm and
no injuries.
If you add a minute to that game, you have to add 10 to normal games.
>I've heard all sorts of lame excuses, but this
>one takes the prize.
It's not en excuse, it's a complain, but I never said we lost because
we were cheated.
>And besides I doubt any other than the Italians thought they were superior
>to the French anyway. Great game though, with both teams playing attractive
>football!
Most of the neutrals I've heard agrees that Italy played better.
>I nearly forgave Italy for their ultra destructive semi-final performance.
I told you in 11 it would have been different...
>Totti's brilliant when he tries to stand up and play football instead of
>rolling around on the grass. He should do that more often!
On that I agree.
Claudio Mantelli
<and...@NO-----SPAM------algonet.se> wrote:
>Claudio Mantelli wrote:
>
>> Maybe you forget to mention Italy was already
>>first in the group and lineud up the reserves...
>
>Maybe YOU can inform me what this has got to do
>with my statement?
Of course, if oyu can't get it...
>Or didn't we meet Italy? Was
>it San Marino?
Not, it was Italy B, playing with the concentration required to a
match that meant nothing.
>Maybe we have a case here? Can we
>complain to UEFA? Maybe we can disqualify Italy
>for not having played the game?
If you want to pretend you played Italy in normal condition, you can,
that's not my problem.
Claudio Mantelli
<and...@NO-----SPAM------algonet.se> wrote:
>> Please post a reply where you acknowledge that Toldo was injured. And
>> that all injuries (that aren´t fake) are eligible when adding "injury
>> time".
>
>Unfortunately the usually reasonable (AFAIK) Claudio seems to suffer
>from deep shock. He'll get over it eventually.
But not as shocked to forget that Toldo was injured in extra time.
Maybe both of you were a bit shocked...? ;)
Claudio Mantelli
>6 susbstitutions: 30 seconds each (and that allowing for the Italians
>that of course didi not run out of the pitch).
On that we agree.
>Lets say Italians delayed the game only 5 times for 5 seconds each.
>And lets say there were only two injured players that took 15 seconds
>each to recover.
>I think I am missing 5 seconds.
>Effective time would stop the whining (fact: every game sees an average of
>50% of effective playing, the rest the ball is stopped for one reason or
>another).
Yes, but there is not effective time till now.
If extra time was counted as you do, it would be effective time
indeed, and we'd add about 15 minutes per half.
Claudio Mantelli
>> Where does the other minute come from? No waste of time or injuries...
>
>I惴 still not tired of repeating this so I惻l do it again: Toldo. Toldo.
>Toldo was injured. He was bleeding from the nose, remember? In the second
>half. Surely you haven愒 forgot about this already? The game was halted
>for about two minutes. Should he NOT have added injury time because of
>this, yes, injury?
TOLDO GOT INJURED IN EXTRA TIME.
Your mistake is ridicule enough to post it just once!!!!
Claudio Mantelli
>> Would sound if there were, though there were not: no injuries and a
>> game flowing with a high rhytm.
>> we all agree on the 3 minutes, but the 4th ?!
>
>My final word on this (in case you don´t read my other two posts that
>basically say the same thing): Toldo. Toldo was injured. He was bleeding
>from the nose and the game was halted for at least two minutes. Should
>Frish have ignored this? Of course not.
That's the third post in which I let you know that Toldo got injured
in EXTRA TIME.
I think it's enough !!
>Please post a reply where you acknowledge that Toldo was injured. And
>that all injuries (that aren´t fake) are eligible when adding "injury
>time".
Please acknowledge your mistake! It's enough ridicule to post it just
once, but 3 is too much!!
Claudio Mantelli
>> And just a question to Mr. Frisk...How the hell there were 4 minutes
>> to recover ?!?!?!
>
>Geezes...doesn´t anyone know the rules of the game they claim to be
>following?
>There were SIX substitutions during the second half. The official rules
>(remember those?) says that 30 seconds is to be added for EACH
>substitution. The math is simple: substitutions constituted for THREE
>minutes of added time *alone* in the second half (that´s 30 seconds * 6
>substitutions).
On that we all agree.
>Add Toldo´s nose bleeding, minor injuries and the various
>time wasting (hence Totti´s yellow card) and you have *at least* four
>minutes.
Not knowing the rules would be forgivable, but watching a match and
not realizing if a fact happens in regular times or in extra times...
>Now, the Yugoslavians had reason to be angry after their match against
>Spain as there was seven (!) minutes of added time, although only five
>minutes were announced by the fourth official. Italy KNEW how much time
>was left of the game.
I didn't say we lost 'cause cheated by the ref, simply I think 4
minutes were too much.
Maybe you'd agree if you could remember that Toldo's accident happened
LATER.
>No excuses. At least not when it comes to the ref. Blame it on Italy´s
>premature gestures of victory and the following lapse(s) of
>concentration. Arrogance doesn´t pay. ;)
What arrogance? Premature gestures is something that everybody does,
you can't blame them for that.
Claudio Mantelli
>Seen some bleeding noses lately ???
Yes, LATER!!! In EXTRA TIME!!!!!!