[Snozzcumber]

Originally Posted by EyeQuotient

The world's impression of England isn't the point. It is about us being able to say we lost to the eventual winners.

You are throwing in the subjective concept of luck. You cannot routinely apply luck as being applicable when a smaller team draws with or defeats a bigger one, otherwise the team finishing top would always be able to put any defeat down to pure misfortune.

England were lucky to draw with Italy, but the fact is, they did.

The world's impression is the point, if it's about us being able to say something. And I'm not 'routinely applying luck as applicable'. That's exactly why I said:

If a weaker team draws against a stronger team, largely through luck, then that does not reflect well on them. If they perform well and manage to wring out a draw, that's a different story.

Sometimes a weaker team performs well enough to deserve a draw on the day. Sometimes a weaker team is completely dominated, and the stronger team just fails to take its chances. England's quarter-final with Italy resembled the latter.

[criterion]

I have thoroughly enjoyed Euro 2012. I hope the final can live up to the hype and be a great closing to an overall brilliant tournament.

[EyeQuotient]

But you say that as if everyone would scrutinise every possible instance where a lesser team managed a draw to establish what part luck played.

We can simply say we took the eventual winners to a penalty shoot out, should Italy win. It doesn't mean we are suddenly making a phenomenal claim to being the "real champions", or something similar.

I am stunned that you don't think holding Italy to a draw does not reflect well on England given the German side slated by most to thrash us had we got through were turned over by that same Italian side. Presumably Italy were just lucky because Germany didn't turn up?

Whether luck, underperformance or overachievement played its part, the results are what people will look at.

Its you who has brought "the world's impression" into it, noone else.

[Snozzcumber]

Originally Posted by EyeQuotient

But you say that as if everyone would scrutinise every possible instance where a lesser team managed a draw to establish what part luck played.

Er, yeah. That's pretty much what happens after every single game. Pundits, commentators, and the average fan talk about whether they think a team was lucky or not. Obviously there's no objective measurement for luck, but you can see it when it happens. And generally speaking, people (you included) seem to be saying that England were lucky not to get beaten in regular time.

We can simply say we took the eventual winners to a penalty shoot out, should Italy win. It doesn't mean we are suddenly making a phenomenal claim to being the "real champions", or something similar.

I am stunned that you don't think holding Italy to a draw does not reflect well on England given the German side slated by most to thrash us had we got through were turned over by that same Italian side. Presumably Italy were just lucky because Germany didn't turn up?

Whether luck, underperformance or overachievement played its part, the results are what people will look at.

No, people also look at how well teams actually perform. It's not either-or. The results and how well players are actually doing on the pitch are analysed. And no, Italy were not lucky against Germany and Germany weren't unlucky to lose. Italy simply performed better on the day.

Its you who has brought "the world's impression" into it, noone else.

Sorry, but what exactly is supposed to be the distinction between 'reflecting' and 'impression'? In every day speech, if someone says 'it reflects well' on someone that they've won a match, or given to charity or done well in their exams, they're saying something positive about the impression of the person achieving these things. It means the same thing.

This is being made way more complicated than it needs to be. England were lucky not to lose in normal and extra time against Italy. And England will be the same quality they are now, regardless of who picks up the trophy.

[StrmChaserSteve]

Italy had so many chances in that quarter final, they could have won that 4 - 0

John Terry was in hero mode just to keep it 0 - 0 at full time

England had that good spell when they were really on top for 10 minutes in the first half... they just could not sustain it

Germany were not looking forward to Italy, because of a poor past record with them

i think tonight it will be drawn at full time, and it'll be penalties

yep, Mr Alan Green will have to be burning that midnight oil once again

[KezM]

Originally Posted by StrmChaserSteve

Italy had so many chances in that quarter final, they could have won that 4 - 0

John Terry was in hero mode just to keep it 0 - 0 at full time

Is actually being able to finish of the chances you set up not part of the skill required anymore then? I always remember Andre Agassi in tennis used to call bing able to finish of the point "execution".

[Snozzcumber]

Originally Posted by KezM

Is actually being able to finish of the chances you set up not part of the skill required anymore then? I always remember Andre Agassi in tennis used to call bing able to finish of the point "execution".

Definitely is. But Italy were also unlucky. For example, early on, De Rossi smashed a screamer at goal that was only stopped by the woodwork.

Italy's inconsistency in front of goal when they've had good chances may be what trips them up today. Balotelli had some awesome opportunities against Spain in the group match that might have allowed them to win, and Prandelli was going batshit insane at the number of chances they blew against Germany when their opponents threw lots of players forward in the last 15 minutes.

[EyeQuotient]

Originally Posted by Snozzcumber

Er, yeah. That's pretty much what happens after every single game. Pundits, commentators, and the average fan talk about whether they think a team was lucky or not. Obviously there's no objective measurement for luck, but you can see it when it happens. And generally speaking, people (you included) seem to be saying that England were lucky not to get beaten in regular time.

No, people also look at how well teams actually perform. It's not either-or. The results and how well players are actually doing on the pitch are analysed. And no, Italy were not lucky against Germany and Germany weren't unlucky to lose. Italy simply performed better on the day.

Sorry, but what exactly is supposed to be the distinction between 'reflecting' and 'impression'? In every day speech, if someone says 'it reflects well' on someone that they've won a match, or given to charity or done well in their exams, they're saying something positive about the impression of the person achieving these things. It means the same thing.

This is being made way more complicated than it needs to be. England were lucky not to lose in normal and extra time against Italy. And England will be the same quality they are now, regardless of who picks up the trophy.

The point I am arguing was that you claimed if Italy win it fails to reflect well on England. It does. Taking the eventual winners to a penalty shootout would read as an achievement, particularly having won 2 group matches and drawn the other.

If Italy had been beaten 4-0 by Germany then Spain won the final, I would argue it paints England's achievements in a different light.

A horse finishing fifth in a race may be dismissed as utter crap but if the four who finish in front of it each go on to win their next race you look at it again. That is what is meant by "franking the form". Looking at other subsequent results completely allow England's performance to be assessed in a form of context.

[Snozzcumber]

Originally Posted by EyeQuotient

The point I am arguing was that you claimed if Italy win it fails to reflect well on England. It does. Taking the eventual winners to a penalty shootout would read as an achievement, particularly having won 2 group matches and drawn the other.

If Italy had been beaten 4-0 by Germany then Spain won the final, I would argue it paints England's achievements in a different light.

I'm afraid all that is just bald assertion. You can argue it however you wish, but I've already explained why I think England's quality (and the perception of their quality) is unaltered, regardless of who wins today.

Anyone who would read an Italy victory today as an achievement for England because they luckily managed to hold them to 0-0 despite being dominated, is frankly part of England's current problems.

A horse finishing fifth in a race may be dismissed as utter crap but if the four who finish in front of it each go on to win their next race you look at it again. That is what is meant by "franking the form". Looking at other subsequent results completely allow England's performance to be assessed in a form of context.

Football doesn't work like that. In horse races, you have more than two horses competing at the same time, so making inferences about one vs the rest of the field is easier. It's further complicated by the fact that in football, you have 11 players in a side at any given time - each player performing at different levels, with different mentalities and personalities affecting those around them. In football, goals are, of course, the main stat you want to look at, but other aspects of performance in a match also help to to establish who is the better side.

Ultimately, given that England's draw against Italy before penalties was not due to a performance that deserved a draw, and England were fortunate to survive to that point (as you yourself have said), saying the result of the final has some bearing on how we should perceive England is even less credible. I don't think anything more needs to be said.

[frost]

Originally Posted by Snozzcumber

Definitely is. But Italy were also unlucky. For example, early on, De Rossi smashed a screamer at goal that was only stopped by the woodwork.

Which means he missed, as the woodwork is the edge of the goal, not a barrier that stops the ball going in. If you start going down that route, then every team is unlucky because the shots they had went wide of the mark instead of going in.

[Snozzcumber]

Originally Posted by frost

Which means he missed, as the woodwork is the edge of the goal, not a barrier that stops the ball going in. If you start going down that route, then every team is unlucky because the shots they had went wide of the mark instead of going in.

When people talk about luck, obviously there's no exact, precise, numerical definition of how close to the goal it needs to be to count as luck. It's just something people see and know it when they see it.

With a shot from that kind of range, if you fail to score because it's an inch too far to the left, then most people will count it as unlucky.

In the same way, Ronaldo hitting the posts loads of times in the tournament was unlucky - players like Samaras skying their shots all over the place was just plain poor.

[EyeQuotient]

Originally Posted by Snozzcumber

When people talk about luck, obviously there's no exact, precise, numerical definition of how close to the goal it needs to be to count as luck. It's just something people see and know it when they see it.

With a shot from that kind of range, if you fail to score because it's an inch too far to the left, then most people will count it as unlucky.

Yes. Luck is subjective, like most of the points you are making.

The facts are the results themselves, not the manner in which they came about, or are perceived to have come about.

You more or less said earlier England's draw was down to luck. Almost as if it was implausible that at times have been down to good defending, obviously.

[frost]

Originally Posted by Snozzcumber

With a shot from that kind of range, if you fail to score because it's an inch too far to the left, then most people will count it as unlucky.

Most people should count it as lucky if you actually score from that distance with that kind of shot. The point is, shooting and missing, which is what hitting the woodwork is, isnt being unlucky. And if you are using an example of that as an example of Italy being unlucky in a game, then really, every team can call themselves unlucky all the time.

To further the point, not putting away the chances you had in a game is not you being unlucky either. It's easy to say, as was above, "Italy could have won 4-0" against England. Point is, they faile dto put chances away, that's not them being unlucky.

In the same way, Ronaldo hitting the posts loads of times in the tournament was unlucky - players like Samaras skying their shots all over the place was just plain poor.

I like Ronaldo, but him hitting the post a lot of the time was not him being unlucky, it was him not being sharp enough.

[EyeQuotient]

Originally Posted by Snozzcumber

I'm afraid all that is just bald assertion. You can argue it however you wish, but I've already explained why I think England's quality (and the perception of their quality) is unaltered, regardless of who wins today.

Anyone who would read an Italy victory today as an achievement for England because they luckily managed to hold them to 0-0 despite being dominated, is frankly part of England's current problems.

You keep missing the point, noone is saying "achievement, break out the champagne", the point is that whether lucky or not, and it wasn't totally down to luck, we held a team who would potentially be eventual winners to a goalless draw after 2 hours. You tell me where the "bald assertion" is in that?

I am sure randoms posting on England's predicament in this forum is a key contributor to why we are struggling.

Originally Posted by Snozzcumber

Football doesn't work like that. In horse races, you have more than two horses competing at the same time, so making inferences about one vs the rest of the field is easier.

Ultimately, given that England's draw against Italy before penalties was not due to a performance that deserved a draw, and England were fortunate to survive to that point (as you yourself have said), saying the result of the final has some bearing on how we should perceive England is even less credible. I don't think anything more needs to be said.

So what you are claiming is that we are not allowed to look at 16 teams in an overall tournament to compare relative performances then?

If we didn't deserve a draw then that is your opinion and irrelevant to what actually happened.

Worth mentioning if De Rossi hits the post its no more of a goal than a shot hitting the corner flag.

[Snozzcumber]

Originally Posted by EyeQuotient

Yes. Luck is subjective, like most of the points you are making.

The facts are the results themselves, not the manner in which they came about, or are perceived to have come about.

You more or less said earlier England's draw was down to luck. Almost as if it was implausible that at times have been down to good defending, obviously.

YOU also said England were lucky. And you're damn right I'm saying the same - England were lucky not to lose that match given Italy's domination in virtually every area of the pitch. There are other facts you've ignored. Like the number of passes England completed vs Italy, the number of times they gave the ball away unnecessarily (Ashley Young, especially, I'm looking at you!), the number of chances created by each time, the regions of the pitch the game was played in, etc.

[Snozzcumber]

Originally Posted by frost

The point is, shooting and missing, which is what hitting the woodwork is, isnt being unlucky.

Yes, it is. If you really think players are so precise from long range, that missing by an inch cannot be described as unlucky, I don't know what else to tell you.

[EyeQuotient]

I did say we were lucky. It would be churlish to say anything other than England were lucky, given Italy had lots of possession and chances.

Its completely bizarre that we cannot review Italy's performance in their next two games to reflect on England's standing, but ball possession stats and the position of the ball in that single game are by contrast relevant.

[Snozzcumber]

Originally Posted by EyeQuotient

You keep missing the point, noone is saying "achievement, break out the champagne", the point is that whether lucky or not, and it wasn't totally down to luck, we held a team who would potentially be eventual winners to a goalless draw after 2 hours. You tell me where the "bald assertion" is in that?

I am sure randoms posting on England's predicament in this forum is a key contributor to why we are struggling.

The bald assertion is in what you were saying in your last post. In this one, I just think it's tragic that anyone can think it's ANY kind of achievement for England if Italy manage to win today. And while you alone have no effect on England's predicament, this type of mentality is part of England's problem.

So what you are claiming is that we are not allowed to look at 16 teams in an overall tournament to compare relative performances then?

If we didn't deserve a draw then that is your opinion and irrelevant to what actually happened.

Worth mentioning if De Rossi hits the post its no more of a goal than a shot hitting the corner flag.

Of course people are going to compare results - but I'm also saying actual performances on the pitch matter, something you clearly want to deny if you think De Rossi being unlucky by hitting the post is meaningless. England's draw against Italy was not down to strong English play - it was all down to Italian domination and their failure to take their chances.

[Tiggywink]

Originally Posted by ZicoZ

If passion was enough surely Ireland , Scotland and Wales would be football super- powers ?

er, right, plus a bit of skill...

[SSReporters]

4-6-0 again with Torres on the bench. MirrorFootball reporting Torres was livid.

This game will be all sorts of shit I fear.

[Paul Chuckle]

Teams:

SPAIN
1 Casillas(GK) (C)
3 Piqué
15 Sergio Ramos
17 Arbeloa
18 Jordi Alba
6 Iniesta
8 Xavi Hernández
10 Fàbregas
14 Xabi Alonso
16 Busquets
21 Silva

ITALY
1 Buffon(GK) (C)
3 Chiellini
7 Abate
15 Barzagli
19 Bonucci
8 Marchisio
16 De Rossi
18 Montolivo
21 Pirlo
9 Balotelli
10 Cassano

[JMTD]

Abate returns from his suspension, only change for Italy. Spain go with the exact same lineup from the group game with Italy.

[Big Boy Barry]

Someone at the BBC must have seen Iron Man recently.

[Tiggywink]

Come on Squadra Azzura - oh no, Keowne again..

[Coen]

Well I've backed Italy to win this 2-1!