By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Gnizmo on 30 June 2010
pizzahut451 said:

there is no definition... just because some team is better on paper doesnt mean its more stronger... Italy is 100000X times better than Ghana ON PAPER but that doesnt mean Ghana didnt played better on this WC... just like goup G was the strongest group in the world cup...ON THE PAPER

 

It's a FACT now -  Group D was the strongest group in the cup!!!!!!

You could put Brazil, Germany, North Korea, and Cameroon in a group together and easily end up with 2 of those teams in the finals. That wouldn't make it a group of death though, as the other 2 teams still wouldn't have been serious contenders. Trying to retroactively label a group because of how the top 2 teams perform is non-sense.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 30 June 2010
pastro243 said:
pizzahut451 said:

there is no definition... just because some team is better on paper doesnt mean its more stronger... Italy is 100000X times better than Ghana ON PAPER but that doesnt mean Ghana didnt played better on this WC... just like goup G was the strongest group in the world cup...ON THE PAPER

 

It's a FACT now -  Group D was the strongest group in the cup!!!!!!

I think you have to consider the rivals they faced, USA isnt good and England wasnt playing well, I think group D had the advantage they were against one of the weakest groups.

Portugal lost against Spain which is considered one of the best teams right now in a match in which the only goal was offside, I think Portugal would have beaten USA or England too, but I cant be certain.


so England is not a strong team anymore? They are much more stronger than lots of  (if not all) other 2nd placed group teams and USA performed incredibly well this WC...



pizzahut451 on 30 June 2010
Gnizmo said:
pizzahut451 said:

there is no definition... just because some team is better on paper doesnt mean its more stronger... Italy is 100000X times better than Ghana ON PAPER but that doesnt mean Ghana didnt played better on this WC... just like goup G was the strongest group in the world cup...ON THE PAPER

 

It's a FACT now -  Group D was the strongest group in the cup!!!!!!

You could put Brazil, Germany, North Korea, and Cameroon in a group together and easily end up with 2 of those teams in the finals. That wouldn't make it a group of death though, as the other 2 teams still wouldn't have been serious contenders. Trying to retroactively label a group because of how the top 2 teams perform is non-sense.


and labeling a group because the teams are strong on paper is right? paper doesnt mean anything, i wipe my ass with it. its the performance on the cup what counts, and group D teams performed quite well



weaveworld on 30 June 2010

The term 'group of death' is used for groups where potential 'finalists' may get eliminated. This is determined by expectations that are based mostly on previous tournaments. Also this term is used prior to the tournament and not after.

If by any chance someone needs to adress a group like that AFTER the group is finished (which is in my mind utter nonsense, just like this whole discussion) i guess it would be fair to say that the ONLY groups that are allowed that name are groups F and A.



Gnizmo on 30 June 2010
pizzahut451 said:


and labeling a group because the teams are strong on paper is right? paper doesnt mean anything, i wipe my ass with it. its the performance on the cup what counts, and group D teams performed quite well

Thats how the group of death is done. You can disagree with it, but thats the convention. Put France, Italy, Brazil, and Argentina in a group and it would have been labeled the group of death because so many teams are ones you expect to qualify. No group really had more than 2 teams you would think could easily clinch a spot, and thus there is no group of death.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
Tuganuno on 30 June 2010
pizzahut451 said:
lestatdark said:
pizzahut451 said:

there is no definition... just because some team is better on paper doesnt mean its more stronger... Italy is 100000X times better than Ghana ON PAPER but that doesnt mean Ghana didnt played better on this WC... just like goup G was the strongest group in the world cup...ON THE PAPER

 

It's a FACT now -  Group D was the strongest group in the cup!!!!!!


You can't do that definition like that, because it stills on paper too. You don't know how Ghana would do when put up against Italy, Brazil or Portugal. Just because they got through doesn't make them a stronger team. In order to define if they are indeed a stronger team you would have to pit them against all the other stronger teams, and that's virtually impossible. 

Anyhow, if you think that Ghana is stronger than Portugal, Italy, England and so on, then I don't see why our debate should go further, unless it will inevitably end with me laughing out loud. 

English, protugese and italians are on the airport and Ghana players are on training right now...why is that?


Erm... because they didn't face Brasil, Ivory Cast or Spain during their road to the 1/4 finals? Not saying they are a bad team, but cmon, that doesn't make much sense.



pastro243 on 30 June 2010
pizzahut451 said:
pastro243 said:
pizzahut451 said:

there is no definition... just because some team is better on paper doesnt mean its more stronger... Italy is 100000X times better than Ghana ON PAPER but that doesnt mean Ghana didnt played better on this WC... just like goup G was the strongest group in the world cup...ON THE PAPER

 

It's a FACT now -  Group D was the strongest group in the cup!!!!!!

I think you have to consider the rivals they faced, USA isnt good and England wasnt playing well, I think group D had the advantage they were against one of the weakest groups.

Portugal lost against Spain which is considered one of the best teams right now in a match in which the only goal was offside, I think Portugal would have beaten USA or England too, but I cant be certain.


so England is not a strong team anymore? They are much more stronger than lots of  (if not all) other 2nd placed group teams and USA performed incredibly well this WC...

No, in their matches they showed they werent strong, and Usa didnt perform extremely well, just 1 win against Algeria.



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068

NJ5 on 01 July 2010

So now we're redefining the offside rule AND the "group of death" meme.

This thread's great.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

ithis on 01 July 2010
pastro243 said:

I think you have to consider the rivals they faced, USA isnt good and England wasnt playing well, I think group D had the advantage they were against one of the weakest groups.

Portugal lost against Spain which is considered one of the best teams right now in a match in which the only goal was offside, I think Portugal would have beaten USA or England too, but I cant be certain.


That was far from offside, (I can bet you on this, then we can watch the replay and the still image and then I take your money), but what it was was awful defending. Portugal sucked, especially in the second half, and not because Spain was great or anything. They had no fire, pissed me off.



salaminizer on 01 July 2010

LOL it was offside, but it was almost impossible to notice it, unlike Argentina's goal for example. but I also blame it on poor defending, you can see Simão walking near the area and when he realizes Villa will get the ball he tries to run but it's too late.



the words above were backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!