The probable difference makers: Lucas Podolsky of Germany and Francesco Totti of Italy.
In the other game, France has earned an honorable nomination with wrinkles after knocking out Spain and Brazil. But this is as far as they could have possibly advanced in their wildest dreams. It's time they make way for the Portuguese to their first ever trip to the finals.
Portugal has played with more passion and sense of urgency than anyone else but didn't win many friends with their home cooked tackles, flops and attitude.
Perhaps it's not fair to single them out because every team has been guilty of shameless play-acting with France and Italy, being the biggest beneficiaries in the pre-quarter finals.
It's only fitting that Portugal gets a taste of the finals and finally the championship in what could become a memorable swan song for none other than the great Luis Figo.
The probable difference makers: Thierry Henry of France and Deco of Portugal
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Matthew T. Sussman
Found this on a message board at Fark, regarding those first two SOG in the Germany/Italy overtime:
0. POST The
1. LEHMANN Jens
3. FRIEDRICH Arne
5. KEHL Sebastian
7. SCHWEINSTEIGER Bastian
11. KLOSE Miroslav
13. BALLACK Michael (C)
16. LAHM Philipp
17. MERTESACKER Per
20. PODOLSKI Lukas
21. METZELDER Christoph
22. ODONKOR David
2 - Christopher Rose
Wow! If the France v Portugal game is as good as last night's meeting between Germany and Italy it's going to be an awesome match. Can't wait.
This is still the best World Cup ever despite England's usual incompetence.
I predict a France v Italy final and the result of that is too close to call with confidence. It may come down to who has the greatest desire and willpower. I hope Italy do it, if only 'cos they're slightly less arrogant than the French!
3 - Douglas Mays
Probably the best match of the tournament so far. Brilliant winning goal by Italy. The timing of it (final minutes of the 2nd overtime) makes great drama. The winning shot was so skilled in it's threading of the defense--the only place it could go. If the shot was a yard off anywhere in it's flight it would have been stopped. The winning shot was precision all the way.
4 - Q Bit
I cannot agree more with you guys. Grosso's curler was amazing. Lehmann was all over the far post and still it managed to get past him.
Portugal wins today :-)
5 - Matthew T. Sussman
Chris, I can't think of anyone more self-loathing toward their team. First Elton John, now you.
Take a page out of the Chicago Cubs book -- the lovable losers always come out and cheer for the Cubbies no matter if they're in first or last place. Do you guys have the phrase "WAIT 'TIL NEXT YEAR?" Or maybe in this case it's "WAIT 'TIL FOUR YEARS."
6 - Christopher Rose
Matthew, say what? I simply pointed out the England football team's incompetence. It's right there in the match stats and results for anyone to see. Since when did the truth become self-loathing? Are you drunk or on drugs?
7 - Matthew T. Sussman
Both, but that's irrelevant.
So are you refuting the posit that Englishmen hate their own soccer/football team any year they don't win the World Cup? Because that's what I'm hearing.
No team needs to be brilliant all the time to win a championship. Look at our football: New England Patriots (pro), Ohio State Buckeyes (college). Look at the Miami Heat in basketball. All like to win ugly.
I haven't been thorougly impressed with Portugal, but they got here by winning, no matter how unspectacular the play has been.
8 - Q Bit
....Englishmen hate their own soccer/football team any year they don't win the World Cup? Because that's what I'm hearing.
Suss, you are right. It has always been like that. But this year the expectations were higher than ever (also in Euro 04). English fans truly believed that the so called "golden generation" would deliver and this was indeed their best chance in the last 40 years.
They blew it.
The reason people love Brazil/Argentina because they mix winning with brilliance as opposed to the Europeans.
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
I'm starting to see that there's no place for a boring winner in the world of soccer.
10 - Christopher Rose
Matthew: Like most good sports, football was invented in Britain. In many British cities, the football team is deeply embedded into the local community in a truly profound way.
Even the larger clubs, like my own beloved Manchester United, are much more profoundly symbolic of particular cultures and communities than I understand to be the case with American sports.
Once you get that feeling and how that ties into national identity and all that stuff, you may well understand the general feeling of "forty years of hurt". It's absolutely not that we hate the team and if that's your only perception, you might want to stick to curling ;-)
As the match against Ecuador showed at times, England are capable of playing confident attacking football, even when playing 4-5-1, but the inability of the now ex-manager to successfully resolve his midfield selection dilemmas, particularly exacerbated due to his over-developed sense of loyalty to playing Beckham, Gerrard and Lampard and his over-cautious choice of Owen Hargreaves over Michael Carrick ultimately lead to our demise. That and we were crap!
His replacement, second or third choice Steve McLaren has yet to show his hand but a sceptical nation isn't expecting much by way of radical change.
Everybody loves passionate, attacking football, even experienced pros who will quite happily chunder on about accepting an ugly win over a thrilling defeat. One of the many reasons Manchester United have been so loved (and hated) over many years is that they have always believed in positive football, usually preferring to win (or lose) 4-3 rather than 1-0 like some clubs.
11 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Hate" is a strong word. Self loathing is more like it.
Our Man U. is the NY Yankees, so we can relate.
But I think I know you don't think baseballs a real sport, but then again I'm not sold on a sport being manly when it has the highest fake-injury to real-injury in the world.
12 - zingzing
football, like many other sports, wasn't invented in england. it developed out of a olmec (mesoamerica) sport (where you can see precedent for several other sports) which has evolved over time. it was played (in differing forms) by chinese, greeks and romans, the french and (other) aboriginal peoples. only some 2,000 years later does it appear in england, and it was only in the 19th century that the game began to appear in something close to its present day form. (this may be what you are saying about england creating football.) in the 1860's, there was an attempt made to reconcile all the different forms of english football (it mattered which school you attended), and it seems that this involved rugby as much as it did association football.
13 - Christopher Rose
Naah, it's just extreme disappointment. We had the players but not the game and that hurts.
And of course baseball is a real sport. I just find it rather bitty in its play, a thing it has in common with basketball and gridiron. You see the same thing in Rugby League, where the team has to hand over possession after six tackles. The constant artificial breaks in the play are what makes it a lesser game than Rugby Union - and it hurts to say that cos I was brought up on league.
I don't understand your last sentence so I think I'll just leave the subject of manliness to you! I'm off to watch the second half of France v Portugal and for once supporting les frogs! Only for this match though, then it'll be Italy that I'll be backing.