New Zealand All Whites make World Cup

[Frozen Horse]

I understand that New Zealand were well organised and disciplined in their approach, trying to hit teams on the break. They even secured three good results against stronger opponents on paper. They even took early leads against Slovakia and Italy before sitting deep to absorb pressure. Against Paraguay, they adopted a similar strategy, defending in numbers for a 0-0 draw.

For the price of a ticket, neutral fans might have hoped for a more open game, and although going undefeated for a team like NZ is impressive, I would rather have seen them gamble against Paraguay and give themselves a better opportunity to go through to the next round than bore the pants off neutrals.

They're there to compete, not entertain. I'm sure lots of neutrals would like to see other teams go out and entertain, but they prioritise results instead. For the record, NZ had to chase the game Vs Slovakia and got the equaliser late on.

In a tournament in which Spain ground out their first WC win with 4 consecutive 1-0 wins, I think it's very harsh to criticise a nation with NZ's limited footballing resources for not setting out to entertain.

 

[Norman_Conquest]

They're there to compete, not entertain. I'm sure lots of neutrals would like to see other teams go out and entertain, but they prioritise results instead. For the record, NZ had to chase the game Vs Slovakia and got the equaliser late on.

In a tournament in which Spain ground out their first WC win with 4 consecutive 1-0 wins, I think it's very harsh to criticise a nation with NZ's limited footballing resources for not setting out to entertain.

Maybe I’m being unfair to New Zealand, but I don’t see why going through the tournament undefeated is so highly praised. I doubt many supporters will even remember it, I had forgotten until I saw the post.

When North Korea came here in 1966, they gave it their all and are still fondly remembered, even by those who never saw them play. I believe they got beat by Russia in their opening game, played a draw and beat Italy to progress.


"The Game of Their Lives" (2002) was made about North Korea’s 1966 World Cup team.

The film tells the remarkable story of the North Korean squad that shocked the world by defeating Italy and reaching the quarterfinals. It includes interviews with surviving players and footage from their historic run. The documentary also explores how the team was received both internationally and back home in North Korea.


P.S. Regarding them being there 'to compete, not entertain,' I think you've been watching the Boro too long. Laughing emoji.

 

[TeaCider]

Iran and Argentina qualified yesterday.

So far we've got:

USSR
Canada
Mexico
Japan
New Zealand
Iran
Argentina

 

[Cardiffdaffs]

Maybe I’m being unfair to New Zealand, but I don’t see why going through the tournament undefeated is so highly praised. I doubt many supporters will even remember it, I had forgotten until I saw the post.

When North Korea came here in 1966, they gave it their all and are still fondly remembered, even by those who never saw them play. I believe they got beat by Russia in their opening game, played a draw and beat Italy to progress.


"The Game of Their Lives" (2002) was made about North Korea’s 1966 World Cup team.

The film tells the remarkable story of the North Korean squad that shocked the world by defeating Italy and reaching the quarterfinals. It includes interviews with surviving players and footage from their historic run. The documentary also explores how the team was received both internationally and back home in North Korea.


P.S. Regarding them being there 'to compete, not entertain,' I think you've been watching the Boro too long. Laughing emoji.

Its a staple football quiz question. You'd be surprised how often it gets brought up particularly as NZ are the only team to go through the World Cup tournament as the only unbeaten team and not win it. England also went through 1982 unbeaten but so did Italy who won it.

 

[Zoophonic]

Its a staple football quiz question. You'd be surprised how often it gets brought up particularly as NZ are the only team to go through the World Cup tournament as the only unbeaten team and not win it. England also went through 1982 unbeaten but so did Italy who won it.

Agree its a good football quiz question and its obviiously surprisingly obscure so no wonder not many people get it right.

That said they are not the only side to go through a WC Tournament as the only unbeaten team and not win it.

In 1978 Brazil went out unbeaten. Argentina had lost to Italy in the group stages.

 

[Frozen Horse]

P.S. Regarding them being there 'to compete, not entertain,' I think you've been watching the Boro too long. Laughing emoji.

This may be true. But I've always been very cynical about those who say things like "I don't mind losing, as long as it's entertaining".

I accept you can lose a match and go home entertained, and feel ok about it. But it's very rare.
It never happens for more than 1 match in a row.
It never happens if you're playing a team you think you should be beating.

All teams are there to try and win, not to entertain neutrals. For me, a lot of entertainment in football as a neutral comes from the contest: I like to see the likes of Italy struggle to breakdown the likes of New Zealand. If it finishes 6-3 but Italy are never less than 2 goals in front after the first 10 minutes, that's not much of a contest.

I'll not criticise New Zealand for not being thrill a minute when nations with huge resources like Spain, England and France were all dull at that tournament, even if Spain ground out their first title with their series of 1-0 victories.

Cameroon in 1990 are very fondly remembered, but they achieved their miracle not by playing flamboyant attacking football, but by being extremely physical and, sometimes, downright dirty. You're remembered for what you achieve, not how you do it.

 

[Zoophonic]

This may be true. But I've always been very cynical about those who say things like "I don't mind losing, as long as it's entertaining".

I accept you can lose a match and go home entertained, and feel ok about it. But it's very rare.
It never happens for more than 1 match in a row.
It never happens if you're playing a team you think you should be beating.

All teams are there to try and win, not to entertain neutrals. For me, a lot of entertainment in football as a neutral comes from the contest: I like to see the likes of Italy struggle to breakdown the likes of New Zealand. If it finishes 6-3 but Italy are never less than 2 goals in front after the first 10 minutes, that's not much of a contest.

I'll not criticise New Zealand for not being thrill a minute when nations with huge resources like Spain, England and France were all dull at that tournament, even if Spain ground out their first title with their series of 1-0 victories.

Cameroon in 1990 are very fondly remembered, but they achieved their miracle not by playing flamboyant attacking football, but by being extremely physical and, sometimes, downright dirty. You're remembered for what you achieve, not how you do it.

I watched a rerun of the Cameroon v Argentina game on the FIFA Channel yesterday and whilst it is best remembered for the assault on Canega and two red cards Cameroon were for large parts of that game the better side - as they were in the QF against England- and played some flowing football.

 

[Norman_Conquest]

.

I watched a rerun of the Cameroon v Argentina game on the FIFA Channel yesterday and whilst it is best remembered for the assault on Canega and two red cards Cameroon were for large parts of that game the better side - as they were in the QF against England- and played some flowing football.

I was going to put something similar regarding Cameroon.

This may be true. But I've always been very cynical about those who say things like "I don't mind losing, as long as it's entertaining".

I accept you can lose a match and go home entertained, and feel ok about it. But it's very rare.
It never happens for more than 1 match in a row.
It never happens if you're playing a team you think you should be beating.

All teams are there to try and win, not to entertain neutrals. For me, a lot of entertainment in football as a neutral comes from the contest: I like to see the likes of Italy struggle to breakdown the likes of New Zealand. If it finishes 6-3 but Italy are never less than 2 goals in front after the first 10 minutes, that's not much of a contest.

I'll not criticise New Zealand for not being thrill a minute when nations with huge resources like Spain, England and France were all dull at that tournament, even if Spain ground out their first title with their series of 1-0 victories.

Cameroon in 1990 are very fondly remembered, but they achieved their miracle not by playing flamboyant attacking football, but by being extremely physical and, sometimes, downright dirty. You're remembered for what you achieve, not how you do it.

NZ and some on here are making out that going undefeated is something that will live long in the memory of fans. I'm sorry to disappoint, but it won't, and that is why it is an obscure quiz question. Putting in performances like Cameroon or North Korea will.

 

[Liamo]

Iran and Argentina qualified yesterday.

So far we've got:

USSR
Canada
Mexico
Japan
New Zealand
Iran
Argentina

USSR? That doesn't even exist any more.

 

[TeaCider]

USSR? That doesn't even exist any more.

It's making a comeback under Comrade Trump.

 

[Frozen Horse]

NZ and some on here are making out that going undefeated is something that will live long in the memory of fans. I'm sorry to disappoint, but it won't, and that is why it is an obscure quiz question. Putting in performances like Cameroon or North Korea will.

If it doesn't live in your memory, fair enough, but I knew it straight away; one of the few things I remember that WC for. Others were quick enough to point it out too.
Is it the equivalent of a minnow reaching the quarter final? No. Is it a notable achievement? For a nation that, at the time, I believe had 1 professional club, it was remarkable.

I also think far stonger teams than NZ are inclined to keep it tight and try to nick one. Look at England's group at the last Euros: 7 goals in 6 matches.

I watched a rerun of the Cameroon v Argentina game on the FIFA Channel yesterday and whilst it is best remembered for the assault on Canega and two red cards Cameroon were for large parts of that game the better side - as they were in the QF against England- and played some flowing football.

OK, I'll agree they played some good stuff, but that's not inconsistent with their being dirty. You play good football with the ball; you're dirty when the opposition has it: see Wenger's Arsenal as a prime example. I've read interviews with England players about that match saying Cameroon were the roughest side they'd ever played. That could, of course, be the excuses of a supposed superior side made to work harder than expected for the win, but along side the Argentina performance, I have to think they had a point.

At the end of the day, what NZ bring to the next tournament will be determined during the tournament. If they get thrashed in every match, they've brought little beyond representation of Oceania. So long as they're competitive, they've justified their being there.

 

[Zoophonic]

If it doesn't live in your memory, fair enough, but I knew it straight away; one of the few things I remember that WC for. Others were quick enough to point it out too.
Is it the equivalent of a minnow reaching the quarter final? No. Is it a notable achievement? For a nation that, at the time, I believe had 1 professional club, it was remarkable.

I also think far stonger teams than NZ are inclined to keep it tight and try to nick one. Look at England's group at the last Euros: 7 goals in 6 matches.



OK, I'll agree they played some good stuff, but that's not inconsistent with their being dirty. You play good football with the ball; you're dirty when the opposition has it: see Wenger's Arsenal as a prime example. I've read interviews with England players about that match saying Cameroon were the roughest side they'd ever played. That could, of course, be the excuses of a supposed superior side made to work harder than expected for the win, but along side the Argentina performance, I have to think they had a point.

Argentina are the last team to call foul in usages of the dark arts of football frankly.