Search Menu

Netherlands 3-0 Italy: O Cannavaro Where Art Thou?

Share

Netherlands 3-0 Italy. The Azzurri’s adventure at Euro 2008 could not have started worse. 3 goals like the 3 words which can be used to describe today’s match: offside, counter-attack, and defense (or lack thereof).

Why offside? The pivotal point of the match (Italy’s poor performance aside) was without question the controversial non-call on Ruud van Nistelrooy’s opening offside goal. Why counter-attack? The Dutch were absolutely lethal at scoring, right after their opponents had failed to do so: two out of the three goals were on a counter. Why defense? The goals conceded by Buffon today (offside excepted) can in large part be blamed on the Azzurri defense, a defense which at its first test without iconic leader Fabio Cannavaro, completely fell apart under the Oranje pressure.

At the end of the day, today’s crushing 3-0 defeat hangs like a big sword of Damocles directly over Roberto Donadoni’s head. The next match vs. Romania will be “do or die” for Italy. And yes, it’s only match 2 of the tournament.
.

sneijder celeb italy 1 Netherlands 3 0 Italy: O Cannavaro Where Art Thou?

euro2008 netherlands 3 1 italy Netherlands 3 0 Italy: O Cannavaro Where Art Thou?

Tactically, there were two big question marks in Donadoni’s match eve: who to pick for his midfield and who to pick for the defense. Regarding the former, the Don stayed faithful to his pro-AC Milan convictions and decided to opt for Massimo Ambrosini (over Giallorossi Alberto Aquilani/Daniele De Rossi). Ambro had been on fire during training lately and with the added contribution of Gennaro Gattuso and Andrea Pirlo, would form a defensive dam in the center designed to contain the creativity & verve of the Oranje’s playmaking trio (Van der Vaart, Sneijder, and Kuyt). Regarding the defense, the blow inflicted by Fabio Cannavaro’s injury still wasn’t fully digested, but common sense seemed to point out towards Andrea Barzagli‘s and Marco Materazzi‘s confirmation (hoping that Matrix would strike a line through his mediocre 2007-08 campaign with Inter, and return to his WC2006 goal-scoring form).

At least that was the plan.

di natale through holland 1 Netherlands 3 0 Italy: O Cannavaro Where Art Thou?Things started off rather well for the Azzurri, who only took 3 minutes into the game to send a clear message to van der Sar & colleagues: we’re out here, we’re hungry. Antonio Di Natale got rid of his marker on the right wing and was in a good position to provide danger, but his cross towards Luca Toni was too deep and ran harmlessly across goal. 10 minutes later, LucaBomber put his 1m94 to work and got his noggin to a Rino Gattuso cross. Wide. If only Toni had seen Di Natale’s run in the middle, completely unmarked…

That, essentially was the last bit of evidence that Italy was “alive” in the first half. The ensuing half-hour until the break was all to the benefit of Marco Van Basten’s men, able at exploiting a greater ball possession and the speed & technique of their wing players. In minute 18, a through ball by Kuyt for Van Nistelrooy found the Real Madrid man in the clear, but the presence of Buffon destabilized the Dutch striker just enough to send him to the side and mistime his cross. Had he tumbled to the ground (Buffon had a slight touch rushing out), the Dutch would have had serious claims to a penalty. 5 minute later, RVN was into the heart of the action again, as he narrowly missed connecting with a Wesley Sneijder free-kick (Materazzi was key in deflecting the ball just enough). Italy were under pressure.

rvn goal italy 1 Netherlands 3 0 Italy: O Cannavaro Where Art Thou?Too much pressure. In minute 26, the goal: free-kick from the left to the far post, Buffon punched the ball (falling over Panucci in the process) and the ball arrived to Van Bronckhorst. The ex-Barcelona wing-back went for the half-volley, and found Ruud Van Nistelrooy comfortably placed at the second post to deflect the ball in. The only problem? RVN was a good 2-3 yards offside and no, Panucci wasn’t keeping him on (not by lying motionless a good 6 yards out of the field). Regardless, 1-0 Netherlands.

5 minute later, another turning point of the match: a corner-kick by Pirlo found a deflection in the box, and was saved off the line by Van Bronckhorst. The Dutch defender was having quite a day today: assist provider, goal saver and (as we will see later), also goalscorer. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. First, the counter: Holland in possession and out to the opposite side, Van Bronckhorst (him again) provided a long cross towards Kuyt (left to right), and the Liverpool striker’s re-directed header turned into a great assist for Wesley Sneijder (completely forgotten by the center-back pair). The birthday boy (turning 24 today) offered himself the perfect gift, and got his foot on the Oranje’s second goal of the game. 2-0 Netherlands, the Azzurri’s morale in tatters. 2-0 could even have become 3-0 before the half ended, had Gigi Buffon’s miraculous foot save on RVN (through on goal once again, forgotten by Materazzi) not kept today’s Azzurri semi-hopes alive.

sneijder goal italy 1 Netherlands 3 0 Italy: O Cannavaro Where Art Thou?Outplayed and outscored (albeit with some rather bad luck on the first goal), some drastic changes were necessary at the break for the Azzurri to turn this one around. Instead, Roberto Donadoni confirmed his 11-man line and operated the first substitution only 9 minutes into the half. A rather lost Marco Materazzi left his place to Fabio Grosso, thus shifting Zambrotta to the right side and moving Christian Panucci to the center. A change which brought back some stability in the Azzurri back-line, if only for a short while. However what was really lacking in the Azzurri today (unbelievable as it may seem) was some fighting spirit, an inherent desire to say “we will not stand by this scoreline”. Zambrotta’s blast wide in the 53rd (after a lovely dribble on Kuyt) and Toni’s weak effort in the 60th were signs some new life had to be injected into the Azzurri attack.

Trying to find just that, Donadoni inserted Alessandro Del Piero (on for Di Natale) and then later Antonio Cassano (on for Camoranesi). The Juve captain immediately got into the match, dribbling, shooting, obtaining fouls. His good effort in minute 66 was saved by Van der Sar, then Cassano gave his contribution by looping a perfect ball for Luca Toni just five minutes later, setting up the Bayern giant completely in the clear. Incredibly, LucaBomber failed the impossible and made a mess of his shot (over and wide). It seemed as though Italy were “back in it”, if not by the scoreline at least mentally. Edwin van der Sar had to summon his best goalkeeping talents to keep a Fabio Grosso 6-yard finish and a 25m Andrea Pirlo free-kick out of his goal.

The previous 10 minutes were only a glimpse though, because the Dutch midfield was just having a field day on the other end, cutting through the Azzurri defense like butter. Stemming from Pirlo’s parried free-kick, the Dutch counter-attack proved once again lethal for Gigi Buffon: the Italian nº1 did what he could on Kuyt’s mid-range effort, but on the ensuing cross Giovanni van Bronckhorst was left all alone (again) by the back-line, and comfortably added insult to injury to the defence’s nightmarish night. 3-0 Netherlands, that’s a wrap folks!

For Live Match Commentary of Netherlands vs. Italy, see here.

For my post-match commentary (what went wrong, who is to blame, and what Italy can do to improve the situation) see my Netherlands 3-0 Italy: The Aftermath post.

azzurri dejection netherlands2 1 Netherlands 3 0 Italy: O Cannavaro Where Art Thou?

.

netherlands fa65x65 Netherlands 3 0 Italy: O Cannavaro Where Art Thou?

NETHERLANDS-ITALY
3-0
[Match Highlights]

Italy FIGC logo(65x65) Netherlands 3 0 Italy: O Cannavaro Where Art Thou?

GOALSCORERS: 26′ Van Nistelrooy (N), 31′ Sneijder (N), 79′ van Bronckhorst (N)
NETHERLANDS (4-2-3-1): Van der Sar — Ooijer, Boulahrouz (77′ Heitinga), Mathijsen, van Bronckhorst — de Jong, Engelaar — Kuyt (91′ Afellay), van der Vaart, Sneijder — van Nistelrooy (70′ van Persie). (bench: Timmer, Stekelemburg, de Zeeuw, Robben, Melchiot, Bouma, de Cler, Huntelaar, Vennegoor). Coach: Marco van Basten
ITALY (4-3-3): Buffon — Panucci, Barzagli, Materazzi (54′ Grosso), Zambrotta — Gattuso, Pirlo, Ambrosini — Camoranesi (75′ Cassano), Toni, Di Natale (64′ Del Piero) (bench: De Sanctis, Amelia, Chiellini, Gamberini, De Rossi, Perrotta, Aquilani, Quagliarella, Borriello). Coach: Roberto Donadoni.

VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS:

Netherlands 3 – 0 Italy Euro 2008 – MyVideo 

 

Marco Pantanella features on the Editing team of Soccerlens
and is the Author & Chief Editor of the mCalcio blog
.
.

Comments (40)

  1. In my view, there was nothing controversial about the first goal. It brought up an unusual issue – i.e. what happens regarding offsides when a player crosses the touchline – but it wasn’t controversial.

    Watch the replay. Buffon effectively takes out his own player who falls and is two meters across the touchline; within a few seconds, a shot is fired and RVN taps it in. It was right not to call offsides. It wasn’t as if the Italian player had been off the pitch for a minute or more. It was a few seconds. And it wasn’t as if a malicious play by the opposing side caused it; his own goalkeeper did.

    Interpreting or rewriting the rule in a way that would have disallowed the first goal could call into question a host of goals. The last defender could simply cross the touchline on a corner-kick or set play, rendering the other team offside.

    Of course, the real saving grace was Holland’s complete and utter domination.

    P.S. Since when did Holland have a defense?

  2. I watched the game from start to end and no idea what happened to the Italian team. Where they too cocky? One thing is that they were mashed by the Netherlands and now they are going to have a hard time qualifying because 3 goals against can make the difference in such complicated group, having France and Romania on a clean sheet.

    - Footballer

    http://www.footballerworld.com

  3. Many football fans not familiar with the intricacies of the offside rule will claim that RVN was offside on the first goal. Clearly, however, this was not the case. RVN was in an offside position but defender Panucci was deemed by the linesman to have played Van Nistelrooy onside even though the stopper was off the pitch and down on the touchline with what seemed like an injury. Even the president of the Italian referee association, Cesare Gussoni, thinks that Ruud Van Nistelrooy’s opening was legitimate: “The linesman applied UEFA’s ruling 100 per cent,” he said.

  4. Corey & Vic, I disagree.

    Here’s what Gussoni said:

    Il guardalinee ha applicato al 100% la norma prevista dall’articolo 11 del regolamento Uefa, valutando la posizione di Panucci come quella del giocatore che teneva in gioco van Nistelrooy”. Lo dice Cesare Gussoni, presidente dell’Associazione italiana arbitri, a proposito del primo gol olandese all’Italia, contestato dagli azzurri che reclamavano per il fuorigioco del centravanti. ”Il senso della regola e’ evitare che un giocatore si approfitti della sua uscita dal campo per mettere in fuorigioco un avversario”, spiega Gussoni.

    In pratica il guardalinee non poteva stabilire se Panucci, uscendo dal campo, avesse o meno l’intenzione di far diventare off-side la posizione di van Nistelrooy. (Agr)

    The last sentence translates to: “(…) in other words the linesman was unable to determine whether Panucci’s intentions were to purposely step off the field, in order to put Van Nistelrooy offside.”

    If he was “unable to determine” that, he should have given the benefit of the doubt to the defense (as referees are instructed to do in these cases)!! Panucci got run over by Buffon! How on Earth was he intentionally stepping off the field to put RVN offside??? Makes no sense.

    At the moment of GvB’s shot, Panucci is clearly off the field and not participating in play anymore. As such, he should not have been taken into consideration for the offside rule.

    And no Corey, interpreting the rule in the above way does not call into question a lot of goals, because Panucci did not exit the field voluntarily or maliciously in trying to put an opposing player offside.

  5. trust football to throw you a curveball.

    the linesman made a gut call, got it wrong. unfortunately it’s the type of decision that can only be decided for sure AFTER the event since it relied on the linesman’s interpretation of the seriousness of Panucci’s injury.

    However, Marco’s point is valid – Panucci was not participating in play and therefore shouldn’t have been a factor. Who knows, Italy could have come back if that goal hadn’t been given.

    Still, my team for the Euros was comprehensively beaten. Nothing can dull the sadness. Oh well..

  6. I was very disappointed, but I trust our team.

    That’s what I think will happen in the group:
    Now
    Netherlands 3 France 1 Romania 1 Italy 0
    Then
    Netherlands 4 Italy 3 France 2 Romania 1
    Italy 6 Romania 4 Netherlands 4 France 2

    We will see!

  7. thanx to van der sar for the superb performance… holland will go through to the second round with italy tho…france played pretty bad…

    http://euro2008crazy.blogspot.com

  8. Official rules state, that a defender never can withdraw from the game, therefore he is always in the game (participating) – hence there was no way this was an offside situation. It was a regulatory goal.
    I very much enjoyed the game – hope many like this follow in this championship!

  9. @Alex
    So a guy who has been undergoing treatment by the physio behind the goal line can technically play a normally offside guy onside ?

  10. I can’t believe a serious football website as soccerlens.com is still having a discussion on the first goal. Like every sport, football has it’s own regulations. And in the case of the first goal, there was absolutely no reason to disallow or to cancel. Only players who leave the pitch after exclusive permission from the referee, do not take part of the game. In this case, it was Buffon who injured Panucci and therefore the linesman made a very good decision. Please mr. Pantanella, if you write match reports, stick to the facts and take regulations serious, eventhough it means a loss for Italy.

  11. Dutch striker Ruud van Nistelrooy’s opening goal in the win over Italy was legitimate, says Premier League referees’ chief Keith Hackett.

    Van Nistelrooy looked yards offside when he prodded home from close range.

    But it appears he was played onside by defender Christian Panucci, who was lying off the pitch.

    “The fact is the assistant was correct; the defender who slid off the field is still regarded as active,” Hackett told BBC Sport.

    “Christian Panucci went off through contact with his own goalkeeper (Gianluigi) Buffon. He is still considered part of the game.”

  12. In section 11.11 (Defender legally off field of play) of FIFA’s “advice to referees,” it clearly states that “A defender who leaves the field during the course of play and does not immediately return MUST STILL BE CONSIDERED in determining where the second to last defender is for the purpose of judging which attackers are in an offside position. Such a defender is considered to be on the touch line or goal line closest to his off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee’s permission (and who thus requires the referee’s permission to return) is not included in determining offside position.”

  13. A defender! never can withdraw from the game. In this case the referee didn’t whistle, so the game was still running and Panucci was brougth down by his own goalkeeper.
    This is why Pannuci was stil participating the game even though he was situated behind the touchline!

    Otherwise a goalkeeper can intentionally push or throw his own defender behind the touchline, put a player offset, and then he can claim it was an accident.

    In this case Panucci wasn’t undergoing a treatment. So only when the referee had whistled for a foul or a serious injury, and Panucci was brought behind the touchline, only then he was not participating anymore. In all other cases, like thise one, Panucci WAS participating.

    To put al this to a conclusion: Ruud van Nistelrooy was NOT, hear me, NOT offside!

    Everybody have to admit: Italy has been defeated by The Netherlands

  14. The Dutch were simply the better team and they´ll probably beat both France and Romania. I´m afraid Italy won´t recover from this match and won´t even reach the quarter finals.

  15. Italy needs to beat Romania by 2 goals or more. Hopefully the Dutch hold on to this form going into the game against France. If Holland play like this again I can’t see Domenech and his crew offering much better resistance than what the Italians did.

    Lets face it Holland played a great game at an optimal level. The Italians turned up with a shocking game plan. They’ve still got one of the best squads at this tournament. The question is what has Roberto Donadoni learnt and does he have the know-how to benefit from his mistakes.

    http://joemaica.wordpress.com

  16. i am dutch and i admit that the 1st goal was offside. the rule says that the defender off the pitch (panucci) is only considered active if he is standing up, not lying injured as panucci was.

  17. arjen and marco, you’re both wrong. please read the other people’s comments.

  18. @arjen

    Sorry, you’r wrong, it was not.. Like told above.

    “that a defender never can withdraw from the game, therefore he is always in the game (participating)”
    I thought it was offside to… but check the rules and (lucky for us), you can’t say anymore that this was an offside situation.. he was lying overthere for a few seconds, not minutes… I must commit that this goal changed everything… Italy can play better, we played superb, and that combination was fatal for italy I think… hope this wasnt a one time thing from holland and we keep up the good work… this match gave hope 2 holland!!

  19. I think the first goal is important and we can see the linesman(2nd refree) is truly blind. The game change and we can see the italian need attack and holland just make the counter attack. Finally I hope, the Italian Mafia kill the linesman…………….

  20. para fifa, you’re really dumb. learn to read the rules.

  21. I think the group will work something like this:

    Italy 2-0 Romania
    Holland 1-1 France

    Italy 1-0 France
    Holland 3-2 Romania

    1. Holland 7 pts
    2. Italy 6 pts
    3. France 2 pts
    4. Romania 1 pt

  22. Some people are bad losers. Ruud van Nistelrooy was not offside, that’s a fact. But without the consideration of that and just looking at a overall view, Holland was the stronger, dominate and better team.

    Against my expectations, the Netherlands played very well. After yesterday’s match i give them a realy big chance. With this strength and strategy they can defeat France and Romania also.

    I am curious about the coming results

  23. @Fußball
    This is not being about sore losers. We are having a healthy discussion about the topic because such a particular sequence of events doesn’t take place regularly and it is always interesting to know the ways a rule can be interpreted by different people.

  24. UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night’s UEFA EURO 2008â„¢ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding it.
    Not offside
    UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands’ goals in their 3-0 win. “I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team,” he said. “I think there’s a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it’s understandable because this was an unusual situation. The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law.”

    Still involved
    The starting point, said Mr Taylor, is the Laws of the Game — Law 11 — which deal with offside, whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents’ goalline than both the ball and the second-last opponent. “There need to be two defenders involved,” the UEFA General Secretary said. “If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents’ goal than the second-last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.

    Rare incident
    “This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law among referees that is not generally known by the wider football public,” he continued. “Incidents like this are very unusual — although I’m informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law — the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn’t realise that this was the correct application of the law.”

    Law applied
    Mr Taylor concluded: “So let’s be clear — the referees’ team applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world — that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly.”

  25. of course UEFA are going to back the goal. They can’t have controversy in their tournament by admitting that a ref got the call wrong but we can’t do anything about it, etc etc.

    To be honest, everything happened so quickly that it would have been quite an ask for the ref to give offside.

  26. @giovanni chinnici.
    Not really realistic, holland beats the crap outta italy, then italy will beat romania and france, while holland loses to romania and draws to france.
    Great logic.

  27. ahmed, a player (injured/outofbounds) is always part of the game unless the referee decides he’s not.

  28. It wasn’t offside, really. There was a player laying on the ground next to the goal of italy. There is no rule that when you are laying down you’re not active. The only way when a player isn’t concidered to take not part of the game is when a refferee gives him permission to, and the player just went down and the goal came before the ball was out and there could be something like a docter or something. That is why the goal was not offside. How hard is this to understand?

    And you say its a counter like it’s a bad thing, it was a beatifull counter, a 33 year old player who still has the energie to first saves the ball from going over the line, and then runs forward so quickly that he got lots off space and enough time to give a great pass, wich will lead to a goal. If van bronckhorst start at the goal line and crossed the field fast enough to participate at the counter, why cant the players of italy run back to defense before van bronckhorst?

  29. I find that the first really does not mater much in this game. The dutch out played the Italians for the majority of the game. The basic principle in any sport is to out-play,out-chance,and out-score your opponent.The dutch excelled at this in all facets of the game.The dutch were the better team plain and simple.

  30. @ fuzzy

    i was talking about para FIFA.. read his comment

  31. guillermo wrote:
    UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night’s UEFA EURO 2008â„¢ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding it.

    Guillermo, Mr. Taylor can back up his reffing staff as much as he wants, the linesman still got the decision wrong in my opinion. Now, everyone here can shout “only stupid people can’t change their mind”, but I’m not the only one who thinks so. As Ahmed said, UEFA have every interest at ruling out any potential controversies and given the choice, will always rule on the side of the officiating staff.

    For the sake of indulging you, let’s go over Mr. Taylor’s quote again:

    Mr Taylor concluded: “So let’s be clear — the referees’ team applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world — that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly.”

    Point nº1: we all agree a player cannot intentionally leave the field in order to put an opponent offside. That would be too easy.

    Point nº2: it was not Panucci’s momentum that had taken him off the pitch, it was Buffon crashing all over him and leaving Panucci injured. Thus, the player was not in control of his actions, did not intentionally leave the field (be it by his run, or his “momentum” carrying him over the line) and could not have promptly re-inserted himself in play on account of lying motionless on the ground.

    Now, what I can (and will) agree on, is that the linesman interpreted Panucci’s actions a different way. In his mind, he was unable to determine whether Panucci had intentionally left the field to circumvent the offside rule, and applied the rule in its simplest terms. However, whether the linesman applied the rule in good faith or not, is irrelevant. He still made a mistake.

    I’ll give you one more thing to consider: would everyone have been so quick to side with the validity of RVN’s goal, had Panucci been lying on the ground, bleeding profusely, and knocked out of his senses?

    John said:
    I find that the first really does not mater much in this game. The dutch out played the Italians for the majority of the game. The basic principle in any sport is to out-play,out-chance,and out-score your opponent.The dutch excelled at this in all facets of the game.The dutch were the better team plain and simple.

    And no one (certainly not me) is denying that. Neither am I making excuses that the entirety of Holland’s victory was based on controversy. The Dutch fully deserved their win and to put it simply, Italy played like sh**. However we can praise Marco Van Basten’s team all we want, questions about the validity of the first goal still remain.

  32. Just a by the by, a fair few people have commented on goal difference being important in such a tight group. The first criteria for teams level on points is head-to-head, so the fact they got battered shouldn’t matter.

  33. The 1st goal incident happened this season before. Arsenal vs Liverpool in the 1st leg of their CL 1/4 final. That eejit Bendtner got in the way of the ball which was goalbound. A Pool player was behind the goal and Bendtner the twat was called offside, which he was. Van Nistlerooy did the same.

    Italy deserved to lose. Cannavaro has been useless since after the World Cup. The squad need to make a proper effort. It’s easy to not play so defensively. They made Italian football look like a joke….I’m guessing much to the delight of many EPL and La Liga fan pricks on this site. Oh I can’t wait for Mourihno to start with us, sort out the cunts fucking up Serie A.

  34. Everytime I hear someone praise Cannavaro as anything more than a good player I make a mental note to avoid listening to them ever again.

    What has Cannavaro done before and after the World Cup? Not much. He was good at Parma, rubbish at Inter Milan [apparently he had an agreement to play badly so his value would go down so as to be bough for a low fee by Juventus], good at Juve and semi decent at Real but apart from the World Cup has he ever been this amazing player that so many people seem to talk about? Can you compare Cannavaro to someone like Rio Ferdinand or Alesssandro Nesta? The answer is no.

    If I were Donadoni I’d buy 2 houses, give one to Nesta and a smaller one to Totti in exchange for their return.

    Why was the midfield Milanista? Even as a Laziale I say that the midfield should have been Giallozozza, Perrotta, De Rossi and Aquilani are much better than Ambrosini and Gattuso, as for Pirlo I’m not sure. I’ve never particularly liked Pirlo but he can’t be that bad.

    Gone are the Maldini, Nesta, Cannavaro, Zambrotta days, welcome to the Grosso, Materazzi, Barzagli, Zambrotta days.

    E ZAZZA ZAZZA ZAZZA ZAZZAMBROTTA,
    E PEPPE PEPPE PEPPE PEPPERROTTA,
    E CACCA CACCA CACCA CANNAVARO,
    ALé ALé ALé, ALé ALé ITALIA.

  35. I think that if a dutch player had pushed Panucci outside the pitch then it would have been offside, but considering that Buffon pushed him I think, a malincuore, that the goal should have been valid.

  36. @Fußball
    Explanation accepted :-)

  37. I’m sorry Marco.

    But I can’t understand why you think there still has to be discussion about the first Dutch goal. Making a decision whether a player has left the pitch voluntary or not, can only be judged by cameras. Thus, as long as FIFA does not supporter cameras as refereeing material (let’s hope they will not) we will have to rely on judgement by linesmen.
    So I hope we will end this discussion, because the goal was valid according to football-regulations and according the referee and linesmen….. Arriverdeci

  38. it doesn’t matter if a player leaves the field intentional or not. it matters if the referee sees it and gives “permission” to be out of the play. even an injured player who leaves the field unintentionally is still in the play unless the referee acknowledges he’s out of the play. which didnt happen!

  39. @marco
    it doesn’t matter if he’s injured or not.It was not a dutch player who injured him, it was his own keeper. So its the fault of buffon, but do you think that holland needed to got the goal canceled because buffon bounced into a player of his own team and that player keeped laying down while he also just could stand up and participate in the game again?

  40. What does Italy’s 3-0 loss means? I’ve done a bit of research into past Euro tournies to see if there’s any historical precedence.

    joemaica.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/3-0-and-then-what-happens/