Should season ticket holders be more qualified than non-season ticket holders to discuss football?

Who knows? I haven't questioned anyone's knowledge of football in this thread anyway (I wouldn't be so presumptuous)

Well (to me at least) Germany's performance was clearly overhyped given that the Dutch played on one leg and looked like they were trying not to humiliate Brazil. Yet, Brazil never even managed to score once. This Brazilian team has to be the worst semi-finalist I have ever seen (much worse than South Korea in 2002)!

At least we should have a clearer idea of just how good Germany are tomorrow night (or not). They're playing a well organised team, with a good midfield and a very strong defence.

I wouldn't disagree with your assessment of Brazil in the semis. Ten goals conceded and one goal scored in their last 180 minutes of play in the tournament is shockingly bad.

I think its fair to claim that if you have watched every World Cup game since 1982, it is surprising that you could be so naive as to believe that 4 Dutch shots on target from 2 to Brazil remotely reflects that game.

The Colombians should have been ready for that, its their fault if they weren't.

That is nothing more than just using your strengths to get the better of an opponent. Rodriguez and the Colombian coaching staff ought to have expected a rough ride. I doubt Scolari would have told his team to just let Colombia stroke the ball round unopposed.

Italy and even to a degree Brazil themselves have resorted to cynical tactics to win World Cups, its nothing new. You should know that if you've watched every World Cup game since 1982.

The Netherlands "didn't" dominate tonight's match though, did they? It was actually a very open game but the Dutch clinically put away two of their chances from open play and netted their penalty.

It wouldn't be right to say that the Dutch overran the Brazilians tonight or were rampant, just that they took their chances when they arose, meaning one side didn't defend well and the other were quite clinical in their finishing (and that Brazil themselves were useless in front of goal).

I thought myself the Colombians were tactically naive to get sucked into a war of attrition with the Brazilians (but then again they got no protection from the referee, who may well have been a homer).

They did dominate. This while they were having an afternoon stroll in the park.

Yes, they looked comfortable because they had a two goal cushion after 17 minutes. That still doesn't equate to dominating a game though.....for me a team who dominates is one who presses hard and has their opponent on the ropes for most of the match, forcing them into a rearguard action and to defend (a bit like Belgium vs the USA). NL had only 42% possession and forced only one corner during the 90 minutes, that's hardly a team running riot.

Simply bizarre analysis.

It's not bizarre at all. Brazil had 58% possession which tells us they tried to take the game to the Netherlands throughout the 90 minutes. The difference between the two sides was the Netherlands' clinical finishing, the poor Brazilian defence for the three goals and the fact that Brazil themselves were useless in front of goal (7 shots off target and only 2 on target).

I'd add in too that NL have conceded a solitary goal in their last four matches and have kept three clean sheets in succession so perhaps tonight was always going to be a tall order for Brazil.

It doesn't say that at all. There are many reasons why a team may get 58% possession. To use that statistic conclude it shows Brazil were taking the game to the Dutch is both bizarre and ridiculous.

A more accurate appraisal of the game is that the Dutch got two early goals and were happy to (a) sit off the Brazillians, conceding possession, and (b) attack as they saw fit, using energy for attacking movement and simply using numbers defensively to make it difficult for Brazil to play through them and break quickly when possession was secured.

There was an instance where they countered with 5 on 4 and Van Persie was unable to take a long ball from Vlaar as the defender had read it first. That was a good example of conceding easy possession to Brazil, pinching possession and exploiting the numbers with pace and intelligent passing down the left.

That is why your analysis by comparison is bizarre.

You cant take stats form those games, and judge them as you have. They make Brazil sound reasonable, and everyone who saw the games knows that isn't the case.

Both opponents took it easy against them, and still beat them easily.

Brazil were a disorganised shambles, and no stats will improve that.

Brazil managed more shots on target against than Germany.
And they lost 1-7.

That is why he/she is talking nonsense.

By their standards, they were a shambles certainly but I wouldn't agree that they were run ragged in both games and had to resort to desperate last ditch defending in the manner a team at the foot of the EPL would when visiting Old Trafford in Fergie's heyday (apart from that ten minute spell in the semi where they completely fell apart). In fact the stats from last night were very similar to Spain's defeat to NL : 58% possession to the Spanish and the shots / corners ratio was identical to last night as well.

Their problem was that despite all their possession and build up play in both games, they were at fault for many of the goals conceded and they were useless in front of goal themselves without Neymar. It looks as if the pressure of the tournament got to them and they just couldn't cope.

Yes, but anyone reading the descriptions of how the semi and third placed play off went in this thread would be under the impression that Brazil were completely overrun in both matches, spending most of the game entrenched in their own half trying desperately to ward off wave after wave of German and Dutch attacks. That's not what happened at all : as I mentioned above, the stats from the Spain-NL game were virtually identical to last night's one.

Were Spain in the second half of that match any better or worse than Brazil last night?

But your own description is that Brazil having 58% of the possession means they were on the front foot for large patches of the game. They didn't force it, Holland sat off and allowed it with their two goal cushion. It is amazing that you cannot understand this.

You are obsessed by shots on target and possession percentages to almost the point of perversion.

As for Spain, the whole point is that the Dutch produced a 45 minutes to rival anything seen here alongside France's second half against the Swiss and the German first half against the Brazilians. There is no knowing how form would transfer from one match to another and the Dutch played quite differently tactically to their game against Spain where they had to force the issue and then saw Spain fall to bits, whereas yesterday they led comfortably and strolled through the game.

I don't personally care whether or not Brazil or Spain were better versus the Dutch, it is a completely pointless and in many respects an impossible comparison. They were two totally different types of performance that cannot be quantified through the simplicity of numbers.

I give up now because as other posters have said you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the game and are no longer worth the bother. Infact it seems almost like you are on some sort of wind up.

Of course Brazil weren't on the front foot. They were trailing within two minutes and 2-0 down within 17 minutes giving the Netherlands a very comfortable cushion. This meant that Brazil for the second match in succession were chasing a game from very early in the first half which made them increasingly error prone.

I would argue though that the early goals in both matches changed the complexion of the games. In every other match, Brazil were at least level at half time. Maybe they were living by the seat of their pants in the other games though.

You say "there is no knowing how form would transfer from one match to another" but isn't that the whole point of ratings and rankings and the topic under discussion? The FIFA world rankings try to put a quantifiable figure on the standard of every single team and yes they come up with a mathematical equation that says that Performance A by one team was better than Performance B by another team, using a direct form line (horse racing uses a very similar rating system). Clearly the performance level of every team rises and drops from game to game, but the ranking system tries to come up with an average for each team based on a number of games.

Their opponents didn't have to run them ragged to destroy them, because they were so bad, they made it easy for the opposition to claim control, and take it easy.

Teams that have to defend, in an organised manner, against a class act forcing them back is a very different thing to this.

They had no defence, and recklessly went forward when they could, without much of a plan, and their opponents were able to soak up their attempts, and break free at will. Both sides showed them a bit of mercy, because the scores could have been far worse.

There is no case for the defence of this team. They were rubbish. Their reputation, luck, and enthusiasm got them through the early stages, but as soon as they were found out by a real team, they were done.

I would actually agree with everything you say. For a Brazil side, they were appalling, easily the worst Brazilian team ever by some distance.

But that still doesn't mean that Germany weren't extremely impressive in beating them. I get the impression the Germans could have taken the scoreline up to 10-0 or 11-0 if they had really gone for it, rather than taking their foot off the pedal for the last 30 minutes or so.