Sport Today

>Claudio, can we please drop the lame excuses... Italians should
>be every bit as used to extreme heat most Brazilians (I know, I
>spent a summer in Italy and I can tell you that it's hotter on
>average than Sao Paulo or Parana in the summer).  
>This 5 degree statistic is bullshit because averages include
>winters -- which rarely approach freezing in Brazil.  In
>fact, the hottest place I've ever been is the US southeast
>during the summer (where I'm sure the average temperatures
>are also lower because of colder winters)

>> Yes and in L'Aquila it's colder. We can't pick all the cities.
>> As an average, stats say that Brasil is about 5 degree warmer than
>> Italy.

>Not exactly a big difference, don't you think?

>> And not considering that in Mezzogiorno there are 3-4 Serie A
>> teams, none of which big enough for great players.

>A good number of top Italian players comes from Mezzogiorno. The same
>cannot be said about Brazil's North-Northeast (only 3 in the WC 94
>squad)

>> Of course. Baggio was perfectly fit as the rest of the team that ran
>> for 90 minutes pressing all over the pitch.

>It is Italy's problem if Italy had only one world class attacker.

>> A big difference if you consider it includes all year, while in summer
>> football isn't played in Italy, and the winters are much colder.

>In summer football isn't played in Brazil.

>You have a lame excuse, Claudio.
>Your excuse is as lame as the Italian National team.

>> >It is Italy's problem if Italy had only one world class attacker.

>> "as the rest of the team". Can you read?

>Too bad for you that Italy did not have another world class forward to
>substitute for Baggio if the overrated *** got injured or tired.

>Live with that! You can always brag about WC82, think about the
>Englishmen who have not won anything since 1966!!!!

> >> A big difference if you consider it includes all year, while in
summer
> >> football isn't played in Italy, and the winters are much colder.

> >In summer football isn't played in Brazil.

> But of course the difference between summer and winters is not that
> evident as in Europe.
> In milan the difference from summer to winter can easily be higher
> than 40 degrees.
> Can you get it?

> My point is that: (1) Italy SHOULD HAVE more depth if they were to win a
> WC; (2) Italians must be adapted to warm conditions because Italy has a
> severe summer by ANY STANDARDS.

> Are you suggesting if Italy spent more time practicing penalty
> kicks they could have beat Brazil for their 4th World
> Cup...maybe, or maybe not, but it would be cruel to make players
> play until there is a Golden Goal, but they do that in the NHL
> Stanley Cup playoffs, but they have unlimited substitutions. If
> they change the substitution rule after the first 30 minutes of
> overtime and there is no winner to unlimited substitutions for
> the rest of the game, then I'm in favor of playing until there is
> a winner.

>> My point is that: (1) Italy SHOULD HAVE more depth if they were to win a
>> WC; (2) Italians must be adapted to warm conditions because Italy has a
>> severe summer by ANY STANDARDS.

>As a neutral in this, let me point out that Italy was within a penalty
>shoot-out of winning their 4th World Cup. Surely Italy's alleged lack
>of depth (???) or problems with the weather wasn't a factor in those 2
>missed penalties. Ciao,

>Are you suggesting if Italy spent more time practicing penalty
>kicks they could have beat Brazil for their 4th World
>Cup...maybe, or maybe not, but it would be cruel to make players
>play until there is a Golden Goal, but they do that in the NHL
>Stanley Cup playoffs, but they have unlimited substitutions. If
>they change the substitution rule after the first 30 minutes of
>overtime and there is no winner to unlimited substitutions for
>the rest of the game, then I'm in favor of playing until there is
>a winner.

>>bordon claims Brasilian superiority and tends to forget that a couple
>>of penalties could have made Italy win 4 WC and Brasil stick to 3.
>>Congrats to Brasil, but I can't accept a penalty or two completely
>>change the history of football.

>Counting golds is one thing. Others are to count WC points and number of
>WC's played. Brazil would still have been the best ever in my eyes, even if
>Italy had won. (It would have been closer, but still...)

> Well, number of WC played can't be counted. One thing is qualifying in
> UEFA, another thing is qualifying in Conmebol. All Brasil and
> Argentina have to do is reaching at least the 5th place in a league of
> 10 which includes 2-3 weak teams.

>> Well, number of WC played can't be counted. One thing is qualifying in
>> UEFA, another thing is qualifying in Conmebol. All Brasil and
>> Argentina have to do is reaching at least the 5th place in a league of
>> 10 which includes 2-3 weak teams.

>Are you seriously suggesting that Brazil would have a lot of trouble
>qualifying out of UEFA?  Not ***y likely.  Germany has historically
>had pretty easy time of it, and Brazil would have at least as easy
>of a time doing it.

>>Brasil is a great football power, though serious stats could be more
>>easily made if WC was a league.

>Where would all those draws take Italy?

> >Are you seriously suggesting that Brazil would have a lot of trouble
> >qualifying out of UEFA?  Not ***y likely.  Germany has historically
> >had pretty easy time of it, and Brazil would have at least as easy
> >of a time doing it.
> I didn't say it would have a lot of trouble. I just said it wouldn't
> be that easy as in Conmebol.

> If Brasil was in a group of 5 with Italy, England, Germany or France
> (which indeed could happen), it wouldn't be granted to get the first
> place. Not 16 times straight for sure.