What happened?

June 28, 2014 • 3:12 pm

I saw no goals today, but saw three men, all from the Washington Nationals, cross home plate at Wrigley Field in a sorry defeat for the Chicago Cubs (3-0). It was good to be back in the second oldest (base)ballpark in the U.S. (only Fenway, I believe, is older), but I missed the Brazil/Chile game, which I gather was won on penalty kicks. And I saw only the last 20 minutes of Colombia/Uruguay, when all the goals had been scored by Colombia.

So someone tell me what happened.

23 thoughts on “What happened?

  1. Brazil vs Chile was 1-1 and went to extra time (Brazil scored from a corner that was poorly defended, whilst Chile’s equaliser also came from a defensive mistake. Chile almost won the game at the end of extra time with a shot that hit the crossbar. Desperately unlucky. Brazil went through on penalties 3-2 after the 5th Chilean taker hit the inside of the post. Very harsh on Chile who hounded Brazil the whole match and had overall the better chances.

    You must see the two Colombian goals, the first a brilliant individual effort, taking a ball down and turn on his chest before unleashing a volley that went in off the bar. The second goal was a great team effort. Colombia won the game fairly comfortably and unless Brazil improve they may well lose to Colombia.

      1. It’s pretty hard to think of a better, though RVP’s effort against Spain still is my goal of the tournament so far.

    1. “The kind of goal you want to just pour all over your strawberries” according to our announcer.

      1. Yes, quite impressive. Best of the tournament I believe.

        Re. Brazil v. Chile, does anyone think Hulk got a bad call? Not that it matters. I haven’t read all the posts, so someone might have mentioned this already. Sorry in advance if so.

  2. 51 fouls in the Brazil-Chile match and 4 yellows. I was hoping Neymar would miss his pk after wasting time with silly dance moves, but alas, – Aranguiz, on the other hand, knows how to take a pk.

    1. Wasn’t there a time when a player was not allowed to stop during his run up for a a free kick? Or have I imagined that?

      1. They are srill, AFAIK, not allowed to come to a full stop. But as long as the player keeps moving forward, that’s OK – even erratically, as Neymar does.

        I thought Neymar ‘s penalty was poor goalkeeping. He did the exact same thing against Croatia and shot the exact same spot – fairly close to the keeper’s right hand side. Did the goalkeeper not watch that match?! Why did he dive early to his left?

  3. To be honest, the only thing that I noticed was that (as at a number of games), the Brazil-Chile game had severe lighting contrasts across the pitch from the stadium’s shadow, which must make life difficult, regardless of if they’re playing spherical or prolate-ellipsoid ball games.
    Oh, one of the goalies almost got his face kicked off by – who’re the ones in yellow strips, Brazil? I guess the ref thought he was playing the ball not the player though, as he got yellow-carded, not red-carded. Still looked scary.
    Good burger at that bar though – overhanging and rough, like the mountainside above. Filled a well-earned hole.

  4. Of course Brazil won. My prediction at the start of the WEIT needs Brazil to be in the final game.

  5. I would rather not see a match won on PK’s – let them go as long as it takes, a la the NHL playoffs. However, I also have to admit that the PK’s were tremendously exciting, with some incredible goalie stops.

    1. Deciding the result with a shoot-out is unsatisfactory, but the only alternative that FIFA have been able to devise is the infamous ‘Golden Goal’ experiment, which was abandoned.

      Personally, I’d like to see 30 minutes of extra time, and then 15 minutes each way until someone scores.

      If 120 minutes of skill and tactics can’t divide the two sides, then let mental and physical fatigue decide.

      1. The Golden Goal was not an alternative to penalties though, it was a different rule for extra time (sudden death). After 30 min of GG extra time without goals (à la today) you’d still have penalties.

  6. I missed start of the match but.. at 1-1 Hulk scored what seemed like a marvelous goal for Brazil, but the linesman flagged and the referee disallowed the goal. Hulk (this sound like a Marvel cartoon) had had brought the ball under control using his upper arm.
    Certainly an exciting game.

  7. What do hot dogs @ Wrigley (the ones you get from the guy who walks around with them) come with? Anything more than just a splort of mustard? (After all, it is Chicago.)

    And re. the mustard, whose?

    1. Wrigley field had a few years with cheap dogs, but like Comiskey and Soldier Field, they’re back with Vienna and have been for two or three years.
      I’m not sure what the walking vendors provide, but the stations all serve the ntraditional dog with mustard, onion, relish, tomato wedges, dill spear, peppers, celery salt on a poppy seed bun.

  8. As nobody else has yet done so, I have no choice but to enter this box:


    Also, the numbers might not actually be all that heavy:


    What I think I find most fascinating about the standings so far is that tiny little impoverished nations like Costa Rica and Uruguay can achieve at least statistical parity with, if not clear dominance over, such global powerhouses as England and Italy — and especially considering how passionate the English and Italians are about football. I bet there’s some interesting socioeconomic research to be done to figure that out.

    I mean, consider: by any other measure you might wish to propose, either England or Italy wouldn’t even notice Costa Rica or Uruguay. Hell, there’re probably even suburbs of London or Rome that would give either entire Central American country a run for the money on most measures.

    But, apparently, not football….


    1. I think it’s similar to the success of boxers from impoverished backgrounds. Football is a way out; real skills can be developed with the most basic of training facilities ie a ball and a piece of fairly flat ground.
      Much breast-beating is occurring in England (and I imagine Italy) about the failure to progress to the knock-out stages. One popular hypothesis is that the very success of their domestic leagues, attracting the best players in the world, means that home-grown talent is excluded from the top teams.

Leave a Reply