Postduifje 0 Posted June 6, 2002 Cameroon v Saudi Arabia 1-0 Cameroon a bit dissapointing, and Saudi Arabia suprisingly good! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JAP 2 Posted June 6, 2002 OMG this is the year all the favorites are gonna get a beating France a man down and not able to score untill now All of you even think Belgium isn t even going to be World Champion this year It s all upside down the WC 2002 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
habdoel 0 Posted June 6, 2002 ...and the Belgium takes the first world cup after the final against...Korea? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hilandor 1 Posted June 6, 2002 france 0 Uaraguy 0 france can qualify if they get a 2 goal margin win next game Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Postduifje 0 Posted June 6, 2002 Indeed. Though it was a 0-0, it was a very interesting game. Though a shame for Uruguay they didn't use the benefits of an extra man, kicked France out of the tournament and increase there own chances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted June 6, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JAP @ June 06 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 05 2002,20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but refering Japanese as 'jap' is just a sick behavior.<span id='postcolor'> And here i thought eating glue was  Plz explain to me why shortening a name - in my opinion like saying Brits - is "SICK"  Or are you in charge of bitching on the - in your opinion - posts that are "moraly" wrong ?<span id='postcolor'> no ...eating glue is what RalphWiggum is all about. the reason why 'Jap' (used in context of referring Japanese) is derogatory was becuase it was the word used to refer Japanese in hostile manner. like referring africans with 'n*****'. shortening name is not a sick behavior, but there are certain words that convey negative connotation. and jap is one of them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted June 6, 2002 i agree with Jap- ,i meant to post that in another thread where 'Jap' was referred to as racist- but it got locked- Jap is not a rascist expression unless used in a derogatory way if you said "$%^%ing Japs Go Home!" or something that would indeed be stupid and racist, but just saying 'the Japs drew 1-1 in their last World cup game' or whatever has no rascist tones to it. its simply a shortening of the name. Brit Scot Aussie others are slightly more dubious but not neccessarily derogatory Yank Cannuck Pommie Gringo the horrible Hun ok .....not the last one, that is terribly offensive well anyway hope that clears it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JAP 2 Posted June 6, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 06 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JAP @ June 06 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 05 2002,20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but refering Japanese as 'jap' is just a sick behavior.<span id='postcolor'> And here i thought eating glue was  Plz explain to me why shortening a name - in my opinion like saying Brits - is "SICK"  Or are you in charge of bitching on the - in your opinion - posts that are "moraly" wrong ?<span id='postcolor'> no ...eating glue is what RalphWiggum  is all about. the reason why 'Jap' (used in context of referring Japanese) is derogatory was becuase it was the word used to refer Japanese in hostile manner. like referring africans with 'n*****'. shortening name is not a sick behavior, but there are certain words that convey negative connotation. and jap is one of them.<span id='postcolor'> Ok Ralphwiggum, Now i understand. Can you mail me a list which ones i can and cant use Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted June 6, 2002 Denmark is gonna win for sure!!! Where are they on the list ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted June 6, 2002 looks like Ireland are now at least as likely to get through as England (please will people stop voting for Argentina it will Jinx fridays match for sure) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JAP 2 Posted June 6, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 06 2002,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">looks like Ireland are now at least as likely to get through as England (please will people stop voting for Argentina it will Jinx fridays match for sure)<span id='postcolor'> ooops my fault I think i voted last on them. Since Belgium is not in the list Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted June 6, 2002 France now has to shoot 2 goals more than denmark in the upcoming match. so if they play 3-1 they are through, if not,.....well they are out: allez a la maison les Bleus! Since Cameron player 1-0, it is pretty sure that Germany will advance as leader of its group (and not because I am a patrotic optimist or something). Ireland will be second! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joltan 0 Posted June 6, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ June 05 2002,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">E.g Camerun against Saudi-Arabia 0 - 0 draw (yeah right!!. WHATever you say, YOu will be wrong too!!! Â <span id='postcolor'> The sheiks fought bravely, but the lions ate them for lunch (more like breakfeast, at least to me... )... Now, if only Ireland would loose their next game... ...not that I'd even think that would be possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2002 Sweden-Nigeria 1-1, half time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2002 Sweden-Nigeria 2-1. Actually Nigeria deserved to win. The Swedish team played like drunken hippos. No defence organization at all, and the technical skill of the Nigerians was much higher. They just had bad luck. Anyway I'm happy with the result Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hilandor 1 Posted June 7, 2002 yeah good game nigeria had lots of chances they should have taken. It all looks good for england being put out tho come on the argies Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2002 I am hoping that Argentina beats England. Not because I like Argentina better, but because it will be easier on Sweden if Argentina has qualified when we play against them. But it looks pretty gloomy for Sweden, if our players don't get their shit togeather. They were lucky today, but that might have been enough against Nigeria, but it sure as hell won't be enough against Argentina Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pukko 0 Posted June 7, 2002 <span style='font-size:37pt;line-height:100%'>Vi ska till VM i ĺr!</span> <span style='font-size:22pt;line-height:100%'>Och vi har nĺgot där att göra!!</span> Underbart! Booom, boom, shwapp, shwapp!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pukko 0 Posted June 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 07 2002,10:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sweden-Nigeria 2-1. Actually Nigeria deserved to win. The Swedish team played like drunken hippos. No defence organization at all, and the technical skill of the Nigerians was much higher. They just had bad luck. Anyway I'm happy with the result <span id='postcolor'> Naah, I dont know really. It really could have been a draw instead, but dont think any team were much better than the other; both had lot of luck (ok maybe more visible for the Swedes). But it was not a bad match of Sweden, even if it of course could be better; the question is - will it be? EDIT: The Nigerians might be better individually (or at least in man-to-man), but Swedens team spirit and defence saving the midfield is not bad; since we lost the ball all the tim at midfield, the defence had no easy job against those dribblers! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hilandor 1 Posted June 7, 2002 indeed a win is a win wether it be 3 goals 1 goal last minute clincher sweden looked very comfortable on the ball and the nigerians had their chances but failed to take them, i must say though it is good to watch these african countries do so well in this world cup some of the best games ive seen has an african or asian team in it and some of the best individual football playing has been done with such players from these teams. This is truley a " world " cup. it is really open to anyone at the moment Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2002 Are you kidding me? They tore through our defences like it was butter. The fact that they failed to materialize their chances is not relevant. The type of defence game play won't have any chance against the Argentinians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viriato 0 Posted June 7, 2002 SPAIN 2 PARAGUAY 1 Spain id leading his group unquestioned Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
habdoel 0 Posted June 7, 2002 The Spanisch coach has funny smelly output under his arms Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted June 7, 2002 COME ON ENGLANDCOMEONENGLANDCOMEONENGLANDCOMEONENGLANDCOMEONENGLANDCOMEONENGLANDCOMEONENGLANDCOMEO NENGLANDCOMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND!COMEONENGLAND! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
second_draw 0 Posted June 7, 2002 Although spain won 3-1 (and scored all of the goals ), paraguay deserved to win. 1 on 1, paraguay were unstopable and they were better in passing and etc. but the chances didn't equate to goals. I'm going for argentina, not just because of the money on them, but they are a better side than england Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
