Why Didn't Lionel Messi Win Every FIFA World Cup Award?

I have been in serious doubt for the last couple of days. Why did FIFA gift (only) the Golden Ball award to Lionel Messi? It was great they gave Messi the Golden Ball only because he is Messi but why didn't they give him the rest of the personal awards and of course, the World Cup? If we make a brief analysis of the situation Messi should have won everything.

Golden Boot

Messi scored four goals in the 2014 FIFA World Cup competition. This achievement is only by two goals worse than James Rodríguez result (James is the top scorer with his six goals). If we count the penalty Messi scored in the shoot-outs with the Netherlands then Messi has even five goals. How could FIFA be so mean and petty-minded to not award Messi the Golden Boot? If they hadn't been able to think of anything more suitable, they could have simply solved it by just "splitting the baby" and naming James Rodriguez the top scorer while awarding the Golden Boot to Lionel Messi. It is just that easy.

Golden Glove

Now, this is the award I do not understand at all. Manuel Neuer got the Golden Glove award for best goalkeeper. How could this happen when Neuer allowed four goals in his net during the competition? Lionel Messi, personally, didn't allow even a single goal for Argentina. How could FIFA be so unfair not awarding Messi the Golden Glove when the stats are so eloquent?

Best Young Player

Paul Pogba got the Best Young Player award. It's quite unfair again. France didn't even qualify for the semi-final so Pogba didn't play enough time to get the award. On the other hand, Lionel Messi made decent promenades in the maximum possible seven games. So, he played a lot, he is much younger than his main rival Cristiano Ronaldo and he is the Best. Obviously, Messi fits all the three words of this title - best, young, player. Go figure it out.

World Cup

And... the World Cup. I really did not understand why the World Cup left for Germany. There were so many areas which Argentina had advantage in. First, Argentina borders Brazil so the World Cup would not have to travel so far. Second, Argentina starts with an "A" while Germany starts with a letter far behind in the English alphabet. Third, Argentina hasn't won a FIFA World Cup competition longer than Germany. I can go on and go on. It's obvious that the World Cup should have been awarded to Argentina. Finally, if the aforementioned is not enough, Germany is a generous nation. Just recall how many billions of dollars they have gifted Greece in the recent years. If FIFA had kindly asked Germany, the German team would most probably agree to transfer the trophy to Argentina and Lionel Messi. Now, we can deservedly blame FIFA again that because of their short-seeing and poor communication skills Argentina failed to get the World Cup from Germany.

But we should admit we could not blame FIFA for everything. It appeared there were other bad people too. According to Wikipedia, the Castrol Index evaluating player performances through statistical data finished with the following starting eleven (with Toni Kroos being the overall leader): Manuel Neuer, Marcos Rojo, Mats Hummels, Thiago Silva, Stefan de Vrij, Oscar, Toni Kroos, Philip Lahm, James Rodríguez, Arjen Robben, Thomas Müller. Yes, Lionel Messi is not even one of these eleven. What an injustice!

If you want to read a funny comparison between football and other sports click here.

Brazil's Football Team: Impudence + Incompetence + Naivety = Tears

It was really a big surprise for everyone when Germany defeated Brazil with the amazing score of 7:1 in yesterday's football game of 2014 FIFA World Cup semifinals. It should have been even a greater shock for the people of Brazil hoping the Seleção would finally win a World title at home. But even if we consider the score a surprise, the defeat itself was nothing unexpected. Let's do the math...

Impudence

First, Brazil received a big gift from the referee in their opening game against Croatia. It was obvious for everybody there had not been a penalty when Fred simulated during the game. But later Fred and more importantly Luiz Felipe Scolari claimed the opposite. It was really impudent to support this statement when everybody had seen the situation and even some Brazilian officials admitted it was a wrong decision (if nothing more) by the referee. Sometimes, it is just better to stay silent instead of tempting fate.

Furthermore, Brazil won Group A based on goal differential. It was in favor of Brazil by 2 goals. But if we take the non-existing penalty for Brazil in the game vs. Croatia and the two unfairly disallowed goals for Mexico in their game vs. Cameroon this would be enough to place Mexico at the top of the group. Which means Brazil should have played their first game of the knockout stage against the Netherlands instead of Chile. And there were at least a couple of other disputable situations judged in favor of Brazil and in harm of Mexico that could have even further inflated the goal differential in favor of Mexico's team. And it was not clear in the first place whether Brazil would even win over Croatia (thus getting 3 points for the win) if it were not for that penalty which changed the course of the game.

So, having in mind all the presents Brazil has received from the referees it is even more impudent to claim that FIFA is not interested and would not allow Brazil to win a sixth world title. Surprisingly, this is what Brazil's manager Luiz Felipe Scolari and his assistants are reported to have said.

Incompetence

Now, after the disastrous game with Germany, I suppose there wouldn't be anybody claiming Brazil had played in a competent manner. But there were even earlier events pointing out at this issue. For a few examples, we can mention the childish goal the Selecao allowed in the game with Chile or the inclusion of Fred in the team. The only real reason to include Fred in the team would be to expect him to simulate for a penalty or to score an offside goal. If we ignore these "virtues" of his, Fred's presence is comparable to Diego Costa's inclusion in the Spanish football team (an inexplicable decision by Spain's manager Vicente del Bosque, another "great" specialist who probably has to retire).

Naivety

"Until now everything had gone very well." said Brazil goalkeeper Julio Cesar after the defeat by Germany. Well, what exactly had gone so well? Receiving a penalty for a starter versus Croatia? Drawing with Mexico? Winning against Cameroon (arguably the weakest team at 2014 FIFA World Cup)? Almost defeated by Chile and saved by a crossbar at the end? Winning over Colombia with just one goal more?

It seems Brazil footballers and the whole country have been quite delusional recently. Brazil didn't show anything in this competition to convince anybody (except for themselves and their die-hard fans) that the team deserved to win the World Cup. If we look at the scores and the demonstrated skills the "humble" team of Costa Rica deserved to win the Cup twice more. Brazil showed nothing impressive in football terms. You cannot win a tournament just with inflated self-confidence and referees' "mistakes". You cannot expect Germany to gift you the World Cup just because you are the host of the tournament either. And being that naive brings you tears.

Tears

We saw tears yesterday but we had seen tears in the eyes of Brazil's players long before the semi-final game. Yes, I am talking about the game with Chile. How often do you see footballers cry before penalty shoot-outs? Usually, you can see the defeated side crying after the shoot-outs. Did anybody see the Netherlands players cry before the penalty shoot-outs vs. Costa Rica? The painful truth is, Brazil's team was simply not ready for this tournament and they should have known it. Acknowledging it would not save million people in Brazil from tears after the disgraceful defeat from Germany but if the degree of impudence and naivety had not been so high the level of disappointment would most probably be much lower.

Football Vs. Basketball, Tennis, Gymnastics and Politics

While 2014 FIFA World Cup is going on in Brazil bringing plenty of positive and negative emotions around the Globe, let's have some fun comparing football (soccer) with other popular sports.

Football and tennis

In games so different as football and tennis, we can consider a similarity their origins. England (non-continental Europe) is widely regarded as the place where the modern versions of these sports have come from. The main difference though, besides "small" distinctions like number of players, size of the ball, rules, etc., is that apart of the many famous football and tennis players coming from continental Europe, the rest of the most remarkable footballers come from South America while the rest of the most notable tennis players come from North America. The United Kingdom despite giving these two wonderful sports to the modern world is rarely in the spotlights as a winner.

Football and basketball

The similarity between football and basketball is that in both sports the objective is to score points with balls, which are almost the same in circumference (the basketball is usually slightly bigger). The dramatic difference lies in sizes and numbers. The hoop of the basket in basketball is just 18 inches (46 cm) in diameter, yet the number of points scored by just one of the teams often exceeds 100. The rectangular goal in football is 7.32 m (8 yd) long and 2.44 m (8 ft) high (which means it encompasses an area a hundred times bigger than the area available for shooting in basketball) but you can very rarely see 10 goals scored by both of the teams combined. Actually, seeing more than two goals in a football game is often considered profusion.

Football and (artistic, rhythmic, etc.) gymnastics

Now, one can wonder what could be the similarity between football and gymnastics. Well, hold your breath... in both sports the winner is decided by referees / judges. What is the difference then... In football, if you compete for the World Cup, referees can screw you up just once each four years. In gymnastics, if you want the World Championship title, judges have the option to do it every year. Which one is better though is beyond my humble imagination.

Football and politics

And finally, let's compare football with another popular competition, politics. One of the famous "facts" about both is everyone is an expert on football and politics. Another similarity is the presence of behind-the-scenes manipulation in both games. What differs them is the manipulation in politics often succeeds in making people to believe they are the ones choosing the "champion" while the manipulators in football have not been able to convince anybody about anything yet.

A Few Jokes with Unexpected Endings

I do really enjoy that kind of not so standard funny stories although I'm aware not everybody likes them. Anyway, have fun with the ones below.

Three wanna-be heroes decided to fight with an almighty dragon in a cave. The first man went into the cave armed with the latest generation of weaponry. He began throwing powerful bombs at the monster while shooting with the most modern machine gun. The dragon looked at the guy apathetically, hit him with its big tail and instantly killed him. Then the second guy, a mighty wizard, went into the cave swinging his magic sword and casting omnipotent spells. The dragon looked briefly at him, hit him with its tail and slew the wizard with ease. The time for the last hero to face the monster came. He entered the cavern with a plain club, saw the bored dragon and raised the club ready to fight. The dragon yawned for a moment, then knocked the simple man down with its tail wiping him out in a tick.

This is a different version of the previous story (making a better sense after reading the first one):

Three wanna-be heroes decided to fight with an almighty dragon in a cave. The first man went into the cave armed with the latest generation of weaponry. He began throwing powerful bombs at the dragon and killed it.

A cow was clambering up a tree. An ant saw the cow and asked in astonishment, "Why are you climbing that tree?"

The cow looked down and replied, "I want to treat myself to a couple of apples."

"But this is an oak," even more surprised, the ant said.

"Don't worry," the cow retorted with annoyance, "I'm bringing a few along."

A dolphin met a cow swimming in the ocean.

The dolphin asked, "Where are you off to?"

"I'm heading for the North Pole," the cow replied.

The dolphin looked around and said, "But you are moving south!"

"Well, it doesn't matter," the cow mumbled, "I'm going to sink in a second anyway."

An advertisement in a newspaper: 27-year-old, handsome, tall, well-built, of friendly temper and with good sense of humor, financially stable man wants to buy a farm wagon.

Naked Snow White was lying on a boulder in the forest. A dwarf saw her and told her, "Snow White, as I'm looking at you lying there, I'm tempted to come and do something bad with you."

Snow White seductively said, "Okay, that's what I'm waiting for."

Upon hearing it, the dwarf did not hesitate anymore. He went to Snow White and broke her leg.

An engineer and a software developer were flying in a plane. The engineer was sleeping but the software developer was wondering what to do. Finally he poked the engineer with his elbow and said, "Do you want to play Questions and Answers? We are going to ask questions and whoever is unable to answer will give 5 dollars to the other." The engineer opened his eyes and yawned for a second after which he continued to sleep.

To talk the engineer more easily into his idea, the software developer suggested, "Okay then, if you cannot answer, you will give me 5 dollars. If I can't answer though, I will give you 50 bucks."

The engineer reluctantly agreed and the software developer asked, "What is the distance between the Earth and the Moon?"

The engineer silently gave him 5 bucks. The software developer took them and said, "Now, it's your turn."

The engineer asked, "Who climbs a mountain on three legs but goes down on four?"

The software engineer was shocked. He opened his laptop, searched the Internet, used his mobile, sent emails to his friends but he was not able to find the answer. Finally, he took out 50 dollars and handed them to the engineer with the words, "Okay, I'm paying. Now, tell me the answer!"

The engineer silently handed him 5 bucks, closed his eyes and continued with his sleep.

What Is Wrong with Manchester United Manager Sir Alex Ferguson?

Photo by Austin Osuide

I am not so much into football, especially in the recent 15 years, but I can write a football related piece if something gets my attention similarly to this article. I've been stumbling across numerous articles discussing Dimitar Berbatov's future in Manchester United for more than a year. They've been contradictory, confusing and often ridiculous. What is more preposterous though is that often Sir Alex Ferguson has contributed to the "chaos" surrounding Berbatov himself.

Today I read another couple of ridiculous statements claimed to be said by Alex Ferguson in regard to Dimitar Berbatov: "The boy has a future, but if he wants to leave it is a different matter." and "I am easy about it if he stays. I would be happy with that." These wouldn't be so shocking if they were said about a young 21-year-old player who had played 25 games with the team since the last summer. But this is not the case.

To say "The boy has a future" about a 31-year-old footballer is not appropriate if nothing more. But it is far more startling when it is said about a player who has been in your team for years and you have used him in about 5 matches for a whole season. What future does Dimitar have in Manchester United? He's not 21 years old. His contract with the team expires in a year. And obviously the manager does not need him. The statement about Berbatov's future is even funnier combined with another of Sir Alex Ferguson's quotes "He (Berbatov) had Rooney, Welbeck and Hernandez in front of him, and they are all young men." Maybe Ferguson expects that Berbatov will age in an opposite direction and next year he'll become 3 years younger...

But this is not all. "I would be happy if he stays" Alex Ferguson said. What could make him happy if Berbatov stays? I don't think there is any happiness in having a £30.75 million record deal footballer on your bench. I don't think there is happiness in losing another £10-15 millions for a year by keeping Dimitar in the team. The only "happy" thing coming to my mind is a move like that will show Manchester United is extremely wealthy club. Why's that?

If Sir Alex Ferguson keeps Dimitar Berbatov in his team this will apparently costs him a lot of money. The club will lose about £5-10 millions if they do not sell him this summer because next year Manchester United won't get anything since the contract of Berbatov will expire. At the same time the club should pay Dimitar his huge salary and it will be about another £5 millions. If Ferguson uses Berbatov in 5 games during the next season this will result in a cost of a player per match equal to about £2-3 millions - probably another record, for the most expensive player per game.

Of course, there is a theoretical possibility that Sir Alex Ferguson gives Dimitar Berbatov a lot of playing time during the first half of the next season, Dimitar shows some awesome football and his price goes higher during the winter. But this is just imagination. We are talking about reality here and in this reality, statements like the ones Ferguson makes are hard to be understood. I know there is always politics and nice talking. But in the case with Berbatov a lot of money are involved and the saga with him continues quite too long already. Talking like this is just annoying and laughable if not ludicrous. So what is wrong with Sir Alex?

Is There Any Sport Involving More Stupidity than Football (Soccer)?

This article is written on the occasion of the recent football (soccer) match between England and Ukraine from the group stage of Euro 2012. We won't discuss here whether Ukraine should have won or not and which team was better. We won't discuss so much the problematic goal in this game as well. In brief, there was a goal for Ukraine that was not allowed because the referees were not good enough to see the ball passing the goal line. It was a critical mistake resulting from the imperfections of the human body. Some people claim there has been an offside before the goal. Well, even if we agree with this, it does not revoke the goal. An overlooked offside could only show that the human referees are even more imperfect. UEFA refereeing chief Pierluigi Collina said that 95.7% of the close decisions made by the referees on Euro 2012 were correct and according to him this is a huge result. In fact, 95.7% could be a good percentage in many other cases but when it refers to judgements affecting somebody else it is rather weak.

I think it is out of the question that human referees must be aided by technologies. It's 21st century after all. This has been admitted even by Sepp Blatter (FIFA president) who has previously claimed that a referee's judgement must be seen as final and that mistakes are part of the game (in regard to players undeservedly receiving red cards). But... This change will probably take time. Because changes in football happen quite slow. What time is needed for is actually debatable cause such a technology has already been a necessity for decades. It is mainly related to the unwillingness of the football administration (incl. the president of the UEFA Michel Platini) to introduce changes despite the glaring need for them. Of course, the lack of unanimity among the football society does not help either (e.g., the English players and fans are not mad at all after their match with Ukraine in contrast to their attitude two years ago during 2010's World Championship in South Africa when they were the injured side).

Football (soccer) specifics

Unlike other games, in football only a few points (goals) are scored during a match. Overlooking one of them could be (and had been a lot of times) crucial for the outcome of a game. Note, that the so-called Hawk-Eye system is used in sports like tennis where one "wrong" point is actually not so critical (although always unpleasant). Furthermore, similar to the cycle of the Olympic games, football's World and European Championships are rare (once per 4 years). There are only a few big competitions in the carrier of a footballer and sometimes it could be even one (especially if the player is from a country that is not a constant major force in the sport). So imagine what should be the frustration a football player gets after he is dishonestly eliminated from one of the most important events in his not so long carrier. It's a mockery with his continued efforts to achieve something.

Stupidity surrounding football

And now comes the main issue? How is it possible the most popular sport in the world to be surrounded by such a degree of stupidity? And I'm not talking only about the contemporary footballers, which are often accused of being quite unintelligent. I'm not talking about the fans who often do stupid things. I'm mostly wondering why all involved in this sport do nothing about the situation with the human referees injuring their interests and endeavours. Yes, it is true there a lot of conservative people in FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) and UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), probably there are even some idiots. But this is not a reason to suffer for so many years. If all football players, managers, trainers, club owners, etc. decide to boycott FIFA and UEFA the problem will be solved in less than a week. UEFA and FIFA are nothing without the men producing the billions of dollars in this sport. Football has become an enormous money making machine. And it is even more inexplicable why the guys that actually make the money do not take any action against the spoilt system.

Making referee decisions in football more accurate is easy. We are not talking about rhythmic gymnastics, for example, where any estimation is inevitably subjective. Introducing some electronic devices will not be so expensive and it will lead to considerably lower amount of wrong referee calls. It is clear that such electronic systems won't be equally necessary in all football competitions. Yes, it is always nasty to be harmed by a referee and lose a game unfairly but if there are not Hawk Eye devices or similar installed for the games in 5th division it will be comprehensible. It's true that if you've lost a game you cannot blame only the referees. Yet, it is a shame that such absurd mistakes happen at football competitions of the highest level.

A revolution in the international football affairs could be achieved in no time. People won't blame a revolution like this because apparently decades have not been enough for achieving better judgement in evolutionary way. The question is why nobody really cares about it. Is it because the best players in the world make huge amounts of money anyway and they are not so concerned about (dishonestly) losing a match or there is more to it?

Top-Posting vs. Bottom-Posting

If you've been using the Web for quite some time, you've probably come across discussions concerning top-posting style. In brief, top-posting is to write your message above the original text when responding to an email, forum or newsgroup post. In addition, bottom posters support the idea that you should not include the whole message you're answering to in your response rather than just some relevant parts of it.

If you've already read something on the topic, it has most probably been some flaming of top-posting approach. It's called bad, annoying, evil and whatnot. While I'm not a devoted follower to top-posting or bottom-posting style, I find the attempts of bottom-posting intercessors to convict the rest of the world in some kind of crime to be pretty much ridiculous.

You will rarely see a top-posting user to defend his style passionately. While bottom-posting followers are quite fanatic, the top-posting users are just users. Now, someone may say that being "just a user" is the root of the problem itself. Let's say Microsoft has made top-posting a default preference in its applications and "users" just followed it. But in fact, I don't see any problem, let alone an evil one. For me, it doesn't matter which posting style is used as far as the response (and the whole correspondence/thread) is easily understandable. I don't think a particular notation could be universal painkiller. I would say that each of the both approaches might have a good usage.

Now, bottom posting devotees apparently think it's very cool to support that posting style. It's something like being a UNIX user instead of a Windows user. But in reality, their arguments are very weak and often out of context. They say:

- In natural conversations you don't reply to something you haven't heard yet. Well, it's true but obviously online communication is not a standard conversation. It's even not a real-time conversation.

- A book is read from top to bottom. This is fine too as far as we are talking about books. Obviously, emails and forums are not books. The main reason to read a book from top to bottom is because you're usually reading it for the first time. Once you've read a book, you may go directly to any of its pages and read it without re-reading everything from the beginning.

- When answering a message, you should remove all unnecessary parts of it and quote only the relevant parts. It’s a little bit strange. It practically means that when you answer a message you should decide which parts of the original one your recipient would like to read. And this is quite annoying because I might want to read also the rest of the context but I'm already devoid of this option by bottom-posters.

- Top-posting makes it harder for bottom-posters to include just relevant parts of the message, while bottom-posting is not a problem for top-posters. Well, this can't be serious. What about if a top-poster wants to read the whole previous message instead of just a part of it?

There are many other "cool" reasons that a bottom-poster could provide but we are not going to cover them all.

What's my opinion? I think it largely depends... If you're posting on some message board that has established rules about top or bottom-posting then it's naturally to follow them. If there are not such rules and we talk about forums, it's more appropriate to use bottom-posting. Why? Because, usually, when somebody arrives to a forum thread for a first time, the whole content will be new for him, so it will be easier to read everything from top to bottom, just like a book.

Well, when emails are concerned, I think top-posting is better. Emailing is far different from forum posting. First, when we talk about email messages, in most cases, all of the recipients have already read the previous ones. Even if they've forgotten the content of a previous mail, it's not a problem to read it again when every message is included below. Second, if somebody is added to the recipients in the middle of a correspondence what will happen if only parts of the original messages are included? In fact bottom-posters usually include only parts of the last message. This means that a new recipient will be completely unable to follow the whole previous correspondence. Third, including only portions of the last message is also very inconvenient if you want to have everything archived. In the case of bottom-posting, you should keep all of the previous messages. In the case of top-posting, you could keep only one. Indeed, it will be a very long email but also it will be far easier for you to find it and use it at some future point of time.

So, instead of being some fanatic follower of a particular posting style, it's better to decide each case depending on the circumstances. Such approach will help much more for easier and pleasant communication than just being a die-hard fan of anything.

Find other articles in our Review Maze.