i wanted portugal to win, but i have to admit that germany played better....however, germany played way better than they did against italy...was it because ballack was not in the game?
2006-07-08 12:08:53 · 9 answers · asked by Lola P 6 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
im giving credit where credit is deserved but im not at all happy that germany won....just keep in mind that they won bronze...
and winning bronze is really just losing gold.
2006-07-08 12:12:46 · update #1
That's actually quite true. Ballack is actually very overrated. It is possible for one player to split up a teams spirit.
2006-07-08 12:14:57 · answer #1 · answered by farhad01582 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think Germany appeared to play better because they went out to have fun in front of the home crowd - win or loose, while Portugal was glum and seemed to be lost on the pitch. Figo should have started he's a much better captain than Pauleta and might have motivated the team better thereby making Germany not look quite so good without Ballack.
2006-07-08 14:52:17 · answer #2 · answered by mmesfan38 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be unfair to say that because Ballack was missing, the Germans played better. It would be akin to saying, yesterday, I had toast for breakfast, but I had a lousy day, but today I had waffles for breakfast and had a great day; therefore, it was the waffles that gave me a good day. Obviously, that wouldn't be your logic; you can't make a connection between two unrelated itmes.
Today, in addition to playing a weaker team than missing Luis Figo, Schweinsteiger really stepped up, creating all three goals for Germany. So yes, although Germany did played better today than on Tuesday, it was not necessarily because of Ballack's presence on the bench.
2006-07-08 12:21:26 · answer #3 · answered by ASDFG 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they would have played just as good if not better had Ballack been in the game. I think the difference today was that they were playing for team and country. They did a great job! And yes, bronze is not as good as gold but it sure beats fourth which is what - aluminum!
2006-07-08 12:16:51 · answer #4 · answered by Sonie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, you can't compare the Germany-Italy semifinal to a third place World Cup match. Ballack was brilliant in midfield in that semi-final match. Second, Portugal is no Italy when it comes to defense. The Germans played against arguably the best defensive unit in the history of World Cup.
2006-07-08 12:28:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They played well today, but I saw some serious blunders. One German defender almost scored an own goal, Kahn was quite helpess with that one. Luckily it narrowly missed. Ballack would've certainly picked up the team's morale, but I'm not sure if they'd be any better.
2006-07-08 12:49:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i do not imagine that is the undeniable actuality that they are extra acceptable without him, even if the undeniable actuality that hi can play in simple terms nice without him. An answeree become accurate about the seem on his face. it style of sounds like "wow, they truly do not favor me" type of seem. i imagine he's a sturdy participant, yet i like Germany's face p.c.. transferring and that i imagine Ballack would have slowed them down slightly. i imagine that is the full.
2016-10-14 06:25:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well Yes. They played very very very well. It made a big difference when ballack was therem since he kept missing shots and performing good tackles. But hey! we won without him,,, so YAY!
2006-07-08 12:11:36 · answer #8 · answered by Miss LaStrange 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yea baby....they did play way better than having Ballack in the field
2006-07-08 18:17:34 · answer #9 · answered by Waxxxx 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋