Which do you think was the most unlucky loss for Der Mannschaft

[nachi88]

Post your opinions as well as reasons.

[Nebeltier]

Actually I haven't seen all those matches (the '70 semi was a true classic - I saw that one, and the '92 final too), but I reckon any loss to England is an unnecessary one. So my vote goes for the England match. We haven't lost that many to England in the last 40 years, but the '66 final and that loss on the Olimpia stadion were heavy blows and not that necessary (I remember Voeller's dad having a heart attack on that 5-1 loss!...not that necessary!)

[nachi88]

Actually I haven't seen all those matches (the '70 semi was a true classic - I saw that one, and the '92 final too), but I reckon any loss to England is an unnecessary one. So my vote goes for the England match. We haven't lost that many to England in the last 40 years, but the '66 final and that loss on the Olimpia stadion were heavy blows and not that necessary (I remember Voeller's dad having a heart attack on that 5-1 loss!...not that necessary!)

I thought so too, and to add to all the frustration, the score was 2-2, and match went into extra time, and the first goal of the english didnt cross the line, but was given by the linesman anyway. Its one thing to lose to a better team, and then accept it ( like in wc02) and quite another to lose to a weaker/equal team by such methods.

[Nebeltier]

I thought so too, and to add to all the frustration, the score was 2-2, and match went into extra time, and the first goal of the english didnt cross the line, but was given by the linesman anyway. Its one thing to lose to a better team, and then accept it ( like in wc02) and quite another to lose to a weaker/equal team by such methods.


Yeah, I reckon that was one of the most controversial calls in world football, the Geoff Hurst goal. Name it pure coincidence, but I remember Germany being outdone by more than a few outrageous decisions...the two fictive penalties they conceded in two Euro finals (with Belgium in '80 and with Czech Rep. in '92) weren't just pure human errors. And those penalties were "awarded" in crunch time also (with the czechs in the 70th minute or so, with the score still level). I think the German national team was utterly hunted in the 70's and in the 80's, as they were either winners, either losing finalists those days. I think it's 7 WC finals (only matched by Brazil) and 5 EC finals (a record by now), and still counting (!).

As for the 2002 final...I don't know what do you make of this, but I think Germany played their best match of the tournament and were at least equals (as they played better than the "Selecao" in the first half). Only if that Neuville shot hadn't rattled the bar, (and instead gone in), I think they could have won the day. I thought Schneider played brilliant that day and if you had had Ballack in the ecuation, I think it would have been a different kettle of fish.

[arminius]

i also voted for '66 v england, the fact that we were level 2-2 in extra time before that rip off goal despite playing AWAY tells me we were probably a better team overall.......in the 70 classic v italy we basically played through extra time a man down, with beckenbauer's arm in a sling and playing totally non effective(we used up all the subs so couldn't replace him), if not for that i think we probably would have won and would have given brazil a lot better match in the final than italy did.....i'd say we really threw away euro92, credit to denmark but that's a trophy we should have won, we were minus both matthaeus and voeller, both crucial losses but i still feel coming in as world cup champs that we should have had enough quality to see them off.....the '82 final v italy we were totally drained and deflated from the epic semi final win on penalties over france plus rumminigge was'nt fully fit, though i give credit to italy in this one,they defeated all the superpowers along the way, beating brazil,argentina and germany so i don't really dispute this title, interesting though is italy started the tornament absolute crap with 3 draws in the group stage against peru,poland and cameroon and just barely qualified for the 2nd round.

[arminius]

Yeah, I reckon that was one of the most controversial call in world football, the Geoff Hurst goal. Name it pure coincidence, but I remember Germany being outdone by more than a few outrageous decisions...the two fictive penalties they conceded in two Euro finals (with Belgium in '80 and with Czech Rep. in '92) weren't just pure human errors. And those penalties were "awarded" in crunch time also (with the czechs in the 70th minute or so, with the score still level). I think the German national team was utterly hunted in the 70's and in the 80's, as they were either winners, either losing finalists those days. I think it's 7 WC finals (only matched by Brazil) and 5 EC finals (a record by now), and still counting (!).

As for the 2002 final...I don't know what do you make of this, but I think Germany played their best match of the tournament and were at least equals (as they played better than the "Selecao" in the first half). Only if that Neuville shot hadn't rattled the bar, (and instead gone in), I think they could have won the day. I thought Schneider played brilliant that day and if you had had Ballack in the ecuation, I think it would have been a different kettle of fish.
Your 100% right about the penalties v belgium and the czech republic i just thank god we were still good enough to win despite this, also would have been interesting to have seen ballack v brazil, here's an interesting fact that never seems to get much of a mention, in the 1962 final brazil's star player garrincha was supposed to miss the match due to being carded in earlier matches in the tornament, incredibly FIFA overturned this decision and cleared him to play saying 'it's not in the best interest of football to have the star players missing from the final', i personally wonder why this did'nt apply then to ballack in 2002 or even laurent blanc in 1998 when both were playing brazil in the final.....seems to me FIFA loves brazil just a tad to much.

[nachi88]

Your 100% right about the penalties v belgium and the czech republic i just thank god we were still good enough to win despite this, also would have been interesting to have seen ballack v brazil, here's an interesting fact that never seems to get much of a mention, in the 1962 final brazil's star player garrincha was supposed to miss the match due to being carded in earlier matches in the tornament, incredibly FIFA overturned this decision and cleared him to play saying 'it's not in the best interest of football to have the star players missing from the final', i personally wonder why this did'nt apply then to ballack in 2002 or even laurent blanc in 1998 when both were playing brazil in the final.....seems to me FIFA loves brazil just a tad to much.

I didnt know about the garrincha incident...FIFA shouldnt show such bias. Ballacks replacemenet for the wc02 finals was hammann. He wasnt all that effective, and the first goal, in which Rivaldo's powerful shot rebouned of Kahn, he shouldnt have let Rivaldo take the shot. ( some claim him to slightly pushed).With Ballack around, things would have definately been more close. The 92 loss against Denmark... well, i'll have to give it over to the Danes for that one. Agreed that Voller didnt play, but the save Schmeichel pulled off from Hassler was amazing. Also , we were a victorious WC side, and the Danes got a lucky entry due to problems in the Balkan, so I guess we had underestimated them.

[Lance Knight]

lol i havent seen any of those matches, most were b4 i was born,lol

[621380]

i also voted for '66 v england, the fact that we were level 2-2 in extra time before that rip off goal despite playing AWAY tells me we were probably a better team overall.......in the 70 classic v italy we basically played through extra time a man down, with beckenbauer's arm in a sling and playing totally non effective(we used up all the subs so couldn't replace him), if not for that i think we probably would have won and would have given brazil a lot better match in the final than italy did.....i'd say we really threw away euro92, credit to denmark but that's a trophy we should have won, we were minus both matthaeus and voeller, both crucial losses but i still feel coming in as world cup champs that we should have had enough quality to see them off.....the '82 final v italy we were totally drained and deflated from the epic semi final win on penalties over france plus rumminigge was'nt fully fit, though i give credit to italy in this one,they defeated all the superpowers along the way, beating brazil,argentina and germany so i don't really dispute this title, interesting though is italy started the tornament absolute crap with 3 draws in the group stage against peru,poland and cameroon and just barely qualified for the 2nd round.

the 1970 loss against italy was the unluckyst worldcup game ever.....team germany has dominated italy in the second half completly...and they did it 25 minutes with a injured beckenbauer...in this game the ball was saved twice on the italien goalline,team germany hit the post twice,some great saves from the italien keeper, plus the referee gave no penalty calls in minmum 2 actions,fouls against seeler and beckenbauer plus some other weired referee calls.. ..the extratime was 50:50 where the germans was a bit more exhaused ..germany was coming from a 120 minutes extratime heathriller against england and italy has beaten mexiko 4:1 before in only 90 minutes...

the teams england and germany was relative equal strong with a small advantage of the hosts...the 2 last goals was questionable so england won a bit lucky at the end...

but the 1970 loss was much more unlucky in my opinion..a point was too that team germany was forced to play with a injured player 55 minutes..this was a very unlucky situation too...

[AstonVillafan3]

Sry Nachi but your uber biased about 02.. With Ballack it would still be a loss 2-1

1966 England Team was really strong they were better than Germany the entire match and the technology they had the time definantly looked like the ball crossed line so it wasn't biased. You have alot of bias against alot of other nations that beat germany man need to tone it down.

[nachi88]

Sry Nachi but your uber biased about 02.. With Ballack it would still be a loss 2-1

1966 England Team was really strong they were better than Germany the entire match and the technology they had the time definantly looked like the ball crossed line so it wasn't biased. You have alot of bias against alot of other nations that beat germany man need to tone it down.

the wc02 is not in the choices....

and my 'bias' is not against nations or peoples, but football teams...

as for the 1966 cup, recent technological advances, and a research done by ENGLISH STUDENTS revealed the ball had indeed not crossed the line.

I admire that spirit of objectivity and fair play in the English :thumbsup:

[PrAvI HrVaT]

lol i havent seen any of those matches, most were b4 i was born,lol
same but from what ive heard, the italy match.

[soccerates]

Nothing was unlucky about 1982...I'd have to say "other" because I think that even though 1966 'might' have had a controversial goal, from what I saw the English were the better team, ditto for 1992.

[soccerates]

the 1970 loss against italy was the unluckyst worldcup game ever.....team germany has dominated italy in the second half completly...

Untrue.

[soccerates]

Nachi, I'm curious...not an attack, but in our earlier debate you made claim that German's generally accept defeats graciously and without excuse making or saying that they are unlucky. I do recall this pretty well. Are you now saying that the losses above were just due to bad luck? Or in general are you saying it was bad luck simply because they lost, in your perspective?

Inquiriting minds wanna know ;)

[nachi88]

Nachi, I'm curious...not an attack, but in our earlier debate you made claim that German's generally accept defeats graciously and without excuse making or saying that they are unlucky. I do recall this pretty well. Are you now saying that the losses above were just due to bad luck? Or in general are you saying it was bad luck simply because they lost, in your perspective?

Inquiriting minds wanna know ;)

We have accepted the defeat, we want to discuss which was most avoidable or a luck based defeat. This is type of discussion we do over coffee, in a relaxed manner, and thats why I said gracious in loss.

I dont want to put anyone down, but compare this with the millions of tears shed by the players of Italy in wc94, the ref blaming tactics of wc 02 and scandanavian blaming of euro04. By gracious here, we dont blame others for our bad results. We dont cry, we dont blame, we accept the result at its face value.

[soccerates]

eidted- inflamatory message

There was nothing imflammatory about my message and I'm getting sick and tired of you abusing your moderator powers like this. If you want to make mention of something that is untrue, I have the right to respond without you trying to limit freedom of speech here. I used no insults or derogatory language. Quit abusing your powers Nachi.

[soccerates]

We have accepted the defeat, we want to discuss which was most avoidable or a luck based defeat. This is type of discussion we do over coffee, in a relaxed manner, and thats why I said gracious in loss.

I think you're being overly gracious in your proclamation that Germans take losses with 'grace'. There was the Azzurri/Mannshaft thread in which several German posters complained about Italy's win in 1970 saying the ref was against them. That doesn't sound gracious at all Nachi. There was the Pfiefe incident as well. So spare us this "humble" nonesense. We all know that fans from everywhere can and most usually are biased, and Germans are no different.



I dont want to put anyone down, but compare this with the millions of tears shed by the players of Italy in wc94,

Millions of tears is an exageration, and prefacing your comments by claiming you don't want to put anyone down...right before you actually do, doesn't diminish the obvious intent of your message.

So what that Italians cried about the loss. It shows that they play with passion. What kind of problem do you have with playing with emotion anyhow?



the ref blaming tactics of wc 02

Excuse me? That's highly ironic of you considering your support of Poge and others who blamed refs for 1934, or even you and your cohorts blaiming refs in 1970. Please, spare me the "holier than thou" nonsense. The refs and linesmen officially appologized for their mistakes vs Croatia, as did Fifa...nothing to blame there, and quite obvious if you ask me, given that they themselves admitted mistakes. Thankfully that didn't cost us entrance in the second round. And if Germany or anyone else was denied 4 out of 5 goals (called back offsides) which were clearly not, I'm sure you'd be pissed off about it too. POinting out the obvious is not 'blaming'.



and scandanavian blaming of euro04. By gracious here, we dont blame others for our bad results. We dont cry, we dont blame, we accept the result at its face value.

You're speaking for everyone, which is a gross over generalization. I can cite many examples that are contrary to your naive belief here. Spare me....and....

I've already warned you before about editting my comments which are in response to your apparent 'off-topic' postings. This is NOT a function of your moderation as there was nothing imflamatory about my response, no more or less than what can be considered inflammatory in yours. I'm contacting admin to see that you stop abusing your powers.