Official Football Thread
- Thread starter national acrobat
- Start date
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Yes! One prediction went my way. The second most important one, that is. Frankly, at this point it does not matter much to me who wins. But, if given a choice I'd hope for a Russia vs Germany final; though Spain vs Germany would also be a pretty good match to watch.
Congrats to the Spaniards for breaking their curse.
Congrats to the Spaniards for breaking their curse.
Kauha-Apina
Invader
Italy's Di Natale is going to get beaten up, I think. He was an asshole in the extra time and the spain-fans got irritaded of his acts. And he also fucked up the penalty shot and that cost them the game.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Well. Maybe there is something to this talk about karma after all. Di Natale rolled off the pitch after a tackle but decided to roll himself back on the pitch in order to make the play stop. Nice to see him miss the penalty. Especially since I hoped for Spain to win the match. (Not that I have much against Italy - many worse Italy-bashers than me around - just nice to see Spain beat them for a change).
I guess Germany must be considered big favourites for their semi against Turkey. The Turks have three men out with suspensions and several more with injuries. It's so bad they are considering using their 3rd goalkeeper as an outfield player ...
Spain vs Russia is going to be a totally different story methinks. The 4-1 win for Spain in the first group match was flattering for them - the Russians could easily have scored 3 as well with a little luck (or with Arshavin playing). I wouldn't be surprised if the match ends up looking like Holland-Russia did.
I guess Germany must be considered big favourites for their semi against Turkey. The Turks have three men out with suspensions and several more with injuries. It's so bad they are considering using their 3rd goalkeeper as an outfield player ...
Spain vs Russia is going to be a totally different story methinks. The 4-1 win for Spain in the first group match was flattering for them - the Russians could easily have scored 3 as well with a little luck (or with Arshavin playing). I wouldn't be surprised if the match ends up looking like Holland-Russia did.
Forostar said:
That song always puzzles me. Technically, the Dutch sing that they're German, loyal to Spain and related to France. I know the song is actually about Willem of Nassau, but isn't he supposed to be portrayed as the perfect Dutch or something?
I remember talking to a Dutch a few years ago about Patriotic songs, and he said, paraphrased to the best of my memory:
"One thing you can say about Dutch songs is that they're not patriotic. Take our national anthem for example- it's not even about Holland!"
Of course, don't take me too seriously
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Perhaps these ties to different European countries is what the Dutch consider their pride? That they are, in a way, the hub of Europe? Where is Forostar when we need him?
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Quite some immigrants and their descendants don't get these lyrics (some of them even want a new anthem) and the average Dutch doesn't understand much of it either.... German, Spain, what the hell? Myself, I am not even sure how it all originated.
I just checked the Dutch wiki-site about it and found the following info, which might be interesting.
Like many anthems, Het Wilhelmus originated in the nation's struggle to achieve independence, so that’s why it sounds patriotic.
In WWII the sixth stanza was also very popular:
A shield and my reliance,
O God, Thou ever wert.
I'll trust unto Thy guidance.
O leave me not ungirt.
That I may stay a pious
Servant of Thine for aye
And drive the plagues that try us
And tyranny away.
I really like these English translations, meant to fit the melody, the rhyme and the acrostic.
Nowadays we are indeed not that patriotic compared to previous centuries, though this is slowly changing, due to impact of populists.
Contentwise, the Wilhelmus could be seen as sung by Willem van Oranje, dealing with a struggle. One hand he tries to be loyal to the Spanish King, on the other hand he is above all loyal to the Dutch people. It’s unknown where the lyrics come from, originally. There are different theories. One of them is that it was originally written in German, by refugees from the Low Countries, who tried to win German Fürsten for the Dutch sake.
Check here the English page if interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Het_Wilhelmus
From that I just copied:
"Duytsch"
There is an ongoing confusion and dispute as to what the author meant with "Duytschen bloedt" in the text, as the contemporary Dutch word "Duits" (being the modernised form of "Duytsch/Duijtsch") means "German".
Both could be correct as William of Nassau was born in Dillenburg in the county of Nassau in Germany and that it referred to William's German (rather than Dutch) descent. Others claim that it referred to the Dutch in the sense that he felt one of them rather than belonging to them ethnically. Yet another explanation is that "Duytsch" was at the time a variation of Dietsch meaning Dutch.
"Duits" is often replaced by "Diets", a cognate of "Duits", "Dutch", "Deutsch" and "Deitsch" but meaning "Dutch" rather than German. This is done mostly, or even exclusively, due to anti-German sentiment. This resentment of Germans has been present in the Low Countries since the 16th century, but today’s resentment of Germans mostly comes from the Dutch experiences in the Second World War. Hence many Dutch people after the war sung that William was of "Dutch" blood, rather than of German blood as they did not like the notion of their Father of the Fatherland being of the same heritage as the people they hated so much during the 5 year occupation. Although the exact meaning is still, and will probably remain, unclear the official version of the Dutch national anthem uses "Duits".
Cause
The last two lines of the first stanza indicate that the leader of the Dutch civil war against Spanish Empire of which they were part, had no specific quarrel with Philip II of Spain, but rather with his emissaries in the Low Countries, like Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba. This may have been because at the time (late 16th century) it was uncommon to publicly doubt the Divine Right of Kings. It strikes the modern Dutch ear as an obsolete formula. For some of the resistance fighters of the day, the stanza may have resonated with irony or knowing sarcasm.
"Netherlands" and "Dutch"
The anthem refers to the "Dutch" and "the Netherlands" a couple of times. It should be noted that these words ought to be seen in context. With "Dutch people" the author meant which would today be described as "all people who speak Dutch". In William's time this included the Dutch-speakers of present-day Northern France and Belgium as well. In more or less the same way, "Netherlands" referred to the "Low Countries".
I just checked the Dutch wiki-site about it and found the following info, which might be interesting.
Like many anthems, Het Wilhelmus originated in the nation's struggle to achieve independence, so that’s why it sounds patriotic.
In WWII the sixth stanza was also very popular:
A shield and my reliance,
O God, Thou ever wert.
I'll trust unto Thy guidance.
O leave me not ungirt.
That I may stay a pious
Servant of Thine for aye
And drive the plagues that try us
And tyranny away.
I really like these English translations, meant to fit the melody, the rhyme and the acrostic.
Nowadays we are indeed not that patriotic compared to previous centuries, though this is slowly changing, due to impact of populists.
Contentwise, the Wilhelmus could be seen as sung by Willem van Oranje, dealing with a struggle. One hand he tries to be loyal to the Spanish King, on the other hand he is above all loyal to the Dutch people. It’s unknown where the lyrics come from, originally. There are different theories. One of them is that it was originally written in German, by refugees from the Low Countries, who tried to win German Fürsten for the Dutch sake.
Check here the English page if interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Het_Wilhelmus
From that I just copied:
"Duytsch"
There is an ongoing confusion and dispute as to what the author meant with "Duytschen bloedt" in the text, as the contemporary Dutch word "Duits" (being the modernised form of "Duytsch/Duijtsch") means "German".
Both could be correct as William of Nassau was born in Dillenburg in the county of Nassau in Germany and that it referred to William's German (rather than Dutch) descent. Others claim that it referred to the Dutch in the sense that he felt one of them rather than belonging to them ethnically. Yet another explanation is that "Duytsch" was at the time a variation of Dietsch meaning Dutch.
"Duits" is often replaced by "Diets", a cognate of "Duits", "Dutch", "Deutsch" and "Deitsch" but meaning "Dutch" rather than German. This is done mostly, or even exclusively, due to anti-German sentiment. This resentment of Germans has been present in the Low Countries since the 16th century, but today’s resentment of Germans mostly comes from the Dutch experiences in the Second World War. Hence many Dutch people after the war sung that William was of "Dutch" blood, rather than of German blood as they did not like the notion of their Father of the Fatherland being of the same heritage as the people they hated so much during the 5 year occupation. Although the exact meaning is still, and will probably remain, unclear the official version of the Dutch national anthem uses "Duits".
Cause
The last two lines of the first stanza indicate that the leader of the Dutch civil war against Spanish Empire of which they were part, had no specific quarrel with Philip II of Spain, but rather with his emissaries in the Low Countries, like Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba. This may have been because at the time (late 16th century) it was uncommon to publicly doubt the Divine Right of Kings. It strikes the modern Dutch ear as an obsolete formula. For some of the resistance fighters of the day, the stanza may have resonated with irony or knowing sarcasm.
"Netherlands" and "Dutch"
The anthem refers to the "Dutch" and "the Netherlands" a couple of times. It should be noted that these words ought to be seen in context. With "Dutch people" the author meant which would today be described as "all people who speak Dutch". In William's time this included the Dutch-speakers of present-day Northern France and Belgium as well. In more or less the same way, "Netherlands" referred to the "Low Countries".
What an incredible football weekend. Amazing play by the Russians, as well as a very strong game for the Germans, lots of luck for the Turks and hard work for the Spaniards. I'm really excited about the semifinal between Spain and Russia simply because they've already played against each other in the group stage and we all know how that turned out. So it'll be a matter of how much the Russians want revenge and how strong the passing game of the Spaniards really is.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
From our "old predictions", did I have the most semi-finalists correct (2)? (I had Russia & Germany in the semi-finals). EW, Albie and Genghis: did you also predict semis?
More important is the final (Nush and Nat are still in that race, I'm out)
and the championship winner (Nush still has a chance, Albie and me are out).
(if done):
@Genghis, Albie and EW: which final did you predict?
@Natalie, Genghis and EW: which winner did you predict?
More important is the final (Nush and Nat are still in that race, I'm out)
and the championship winner (Nush still has a chance, Albie and me are out).
(if done):
@Genghis, Albie and EW: which final did you predict?
@Natalie, Genghis and EW: which winner did you predict?
national acrobat
Ancient Mariner
Maybe I'm just not thinking clearly, but I see a gross inconsistency with this matter. When Panucci was lying injured off-pitch against Holland, he was considered 'in play' as he hadn't left the field with the referee's permission. Therefore, when Di Natale goes down injured off the pitch, he hasn't left the field with the referee's permission so is thus considered 'in play', and so the ref should stop the game for him to receive treatment. Again, maybe I'm confused but please point out any flaws in my argument.Eddies Wingman said:
national acrobat
Ancient Mariner
So you agree that Di Natale didn't do anything wrong?Forostar said:
PS For the record, I still maintain that in the Italy-Holland match the officials did make a mistake (thinking van Nist was played on by someone else) but were reprived by the revealing of that rule. [but I don't want to start another argument about it
]
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
national acrobat said:
The dude from yesterday?
Uhh, perhaps I'm confused but: no, I don't agree, I mean: The player did do something wrong. He rolled back, attempting to stop the play. Therefore he was not injured. Maybe I remember it wrong, but the play was stopped wasn't it?
Sorry in case I'm miscommunicating.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Well, if Di Natale was lying outside the field, the ref wouldn't need to stop play in order for him to get treatment. If he was in the field, the ref would need to stop play. Of course, one can say that since he didn't have the ref's permission to leave the pitch he was still to be considered "active".
I didn't comment on the referee at all when it comes to yesterday's match. Only on what the player did. It is usual that when a player is injured and rolls out of the pitch, the ref allows play to continue, simply because any treatment of the player will not interfere with play. It is obvious that Di Natale rolls himself back onto the pitch in order to make play stop. If his main concern was getting treatment for his "injury", he should've stayed where he was.
And regarding the tips for semi-finals it seems like I've missed big time. The only semi-final team I got right was Germany. Read reply #1328. Out of the 8 teams I predicted for the quarterfinals back then, 3 _(Czech Republic, France and Sweden) went out on the final matchday of their respective groups.
- My tip for the final was Germany vs Holland (that was before the group stage was finished).
- After Italy beat France, I predicted an Italian win against Spain. Didn't happen.
- I held Sweden as favourites against Russia and was surprised.
But ever since the group stage was finished, I have said Germany will win the final. Now with the Turkish injury problems it seems quite likely that they'll at least get there without problems.
So it seems all my predictions except German success are going right down the toilet
P. S.: No, the ref is not supposed to stop the game unless it looks like there is a serious injury - one which requires immediate action. So in this case he should've let play go on anyway. But Di Natale's intention was clear.
I didn't comment on the referee at all when it comes to yesterday's match. Only on what the player did. It is usual that when a player is injured and rolls out of the pitch, the ref allows play to continue, simply because any treatment of the player will not interfere with play. It is obvious that Di Natale rolls himself back onto the pitch in order to make play stop. If his main concern was getting treatment for his "injury", he should've stayed where he was.
And regarding the tips for semi-finals it seems like I've missed big time. The only semi-final team I got right was Germany. Read reply #1328. Out of the 8 teams I predicted for the quarterfinals back then, 3 _(Czech Republic, France and Sweden) went out on the final matchday of their respective groups.
- My tip for the final was Germany vs Holland (that was before the group stage was finished).
- After Italy beat France, I predicted an Italian win against Spain. Didn't happen.
- I held Sweden as favourites against Russia and was surprised.
But ever since the group stage was finished, I have said Germany will win the final. Now with the Turkish injury problems it seems quite likely that they'll at least get there without problems.
So it seems all my predictions except German success are going right down the toilet
P. S.: No, the ref is not supposed to stop the game unless it looks like there is a serious injury - one which requires immediate action. So in this case he should've let play go on anyway. But Di Natale's intention was clear.