Talk:Argentina–England football rivalry/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Argentina–England football rivalry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Not verified tags
Just to explain why I added the various not verified tags. Whole sections of the article contained content that whilst it is no doubt correct, was added without any sources at all. That might be ok, but on top of that other edits were made adding to these, again without any sources. The tags aren't because I believe all the information to be incorrect, just that it would help the article if reliable sources could be found and added for those sections, which has now happened and this is (in my opinion) to the benefit of the article. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dont agree with Kevin's deletion of the 1980 game fact. Its was a goal against England directly linked with the Goal of the Century Jor70 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its only link with the "GotC" (which is not the subject of this article anyway) is that it was scored by the same player against the same team. Unless you can verify that every time Maradona had a chance to score, against any English goalkeeper, he attempted to bring the ball around him, it is totally irrelevant. It is a gross generalisation to say that just because a player was given advice on how to beat Ray Clemence that this is relevant to the best method of beating Peter Shilton: if such an assumption is made purely on the basis of their nationality, it is almost tantamount to racism. Kevin McE 07:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Kevin came on, had you seen the 1980 goal ? Is the same of 1986 just instead of dribbling the GK, Diego shoot in front of him and miss. Its was a key factor that he remember this during the Goal of the Century ! Jor70 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the one that wasn't a goal ;@) There were some similarities, although it was by no means the only attempt on goal in history that went "turn, run insider a defender, shoot" in the history of the game: there were considerable differences as well. Can you really verify that out of all of the discussions about opportunities of scoring that Maradona had had in the intervening 6 years, this one was pressing on his consciousness as he made his way through the England defence? And even if it did, what bearing did it have on the rivalry between the teams. Kevin McE 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I already add two references, Diego always said that in that moment he remember what his brother told him Jor70 12:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the one that wasn't a goal ;@) There were some similarities, although it was by no means the only attempt on goal in history that went "turn, run insider a defender, shoot" in the history of the game: there were considerable differences as well. Can you really verify that out of all of the discussions about opportunities of scoring that Maradona had had in the intervening 6 years, this one was pressing on his consciousness as he made his way through the England defence? And even if it did, what bearing did it have on the rivalry between the teams. Kevin McE 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
All very interesting I must say.
A couple of things: 1. Ramon Barrota (the Uruguayan referee) who took charge of the Arg-Eng game in 1977 at La Boca is the only man to have refereed in two World Cup Finals (1974 and 1978) - see my entry on wikipedia.
2. It is true that there was a comment that Maradona had made in relation to his miss against England in 1980 to his brother and whereas I understand that in the heat of battle he wouldn't have been thinking of his brother there is considerable evidence that that match in Mexico took on significance for him way beyond a football game. In anyevent you can see his move against England at Wembley in 1980 on you tube and I would encourage anyone to see it; it's magical. And a good point of comparison with what he does in 1986.
I think, in addition to this, that the purpose of the 'Rivalry' page should be to do, should it not, with the non-football significance of the rivalry. And just as a point of interest I would suggest the conversation that he had with his brother - having been a matter of record - should, at least be included as a tangent.
3. It is interesting what Tangerine is saying about racism; there's also a need here (perhaps) to address both sides of the coin and not just accept things from an English perspective. In 1966 it is a point of reference that England's manager decried the Argentinians but there's also record that England were a tough side in those days. Jackie Charlton's booking - of course - in that game lead DIRECTLY to the advent of the yellow and red cards [see my entry on Ken Aston on wikipedia]. So by putting in Onega's comment and that remark about Stiles against France I was trying to address both sides of the argument; of course Argentina disrupted with a series of fouls during the game but when you see the game you'll realise that England, like the Dutch in 1978, gave as good as they got.
4. On the point about the referees; the fall out from Ramsey's comment was pronounced but - and I struggle to lay my hands on the record of it - there was also doubts regarding the manner in which both remaining South American sides were eliminated that day having three men sent off in fiesty matches by German and English referees (see my entries to Jack Finney and Herr Kreitlein). Brazil had already been eliminated - bemoaning the inadequacies of George McCabe (see my entry). So there - as well as the comment of Ramsey - was the added doubts and suspicion regarding the way the tournament seemed to be conspired against the South Americans. Remember Rous was FIFA President, Aston in charge of the Referees at the time. That may have resulted in the manner in which the English were 'welcomed' in Mexico four years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve bloomer (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just a quick response on the third point. It was Kevin McE and not me who mentioned racism. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- And that very qualified suggestion was in response to the gross generalisation implicit in the idea that the way to beat Shilton must be the same as the way to beat Clemence, imply because they were both English. I in no way wish to level an accusation of racism at any editor here. Kevin McE 19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify that I didn't take it as such, I just took it in the context within which you were saying it, andno-one appears to have taken it as any sort of accusation so no worries! I only mentioned it to clarify it wasn't me who said it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do I therefore need to clarify that I didn't take it that you didn't take it that I didn't.... Kevin McE 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe so - you should indeed clarify that you didn't take it that I didn't take it that little did she know that I nkew that she knew...... Or something like that anyway.... ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do I therefore need to clarify that I didn't take it that you didn't take it that I didn't.... Kevin McE 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify that I didn't take it as such, I just took it in the context within which you were saying it, andno-one appears to have taken it as any sort of accusation so no worries! I only mentioned it to clarify it wasn't me who said it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- And that very qualified suggestion was in response to the gross generalisation implicit in the idea that the way to beat Shilton must be the same as the way to beat Clemence, imply because they were both English. I in no way wish to level an accusation of racism at any editor here. Kevin McE 19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
world cup 1962
inglaterra 3-argentina 1 no esta!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.226.129.196 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Other Home Nations
What is the relevance of this section? The article is about the rivalry between two teams, not a record of matches between them, and even less a record of matches between countries that happen to have a political affiliation to one or other of them. Are we going to list England's results against Bolivia, Chile and Uruguay too? Kevin McE (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fully agreed, the title is Argentina and England football rivalry not Argentina and England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales rivalry. I would strongly suggest that the section needs to be removed as irrelevant to this article. Adding the match results from Argentina vs England matches is, in my opinion, a good idea but the Home Nations section is a step too far.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Table of results
- Scores and results list Argentina's goal tally first.
This is how the football table should look like because it should be tidy.
- Scores and results list Argentina's goal tally first.
Not like this.
- If you wish to make a proposal, that's great, but don't present your opinion or preference as unquestionable fact. The proposal is interesting, BUT:
- Why should England victories and drawn matches have the same colour coding?
- The position of the results column seems odd to me, and I think it would to many readers. If it were after the venue or competition details, and had the name of the team at the top of the column it would be much clearer for most readers.
- An abandoned match is not a draw. A draw is a result. Abandonment means that there was no result.
- That presentation of dates has no place in the MoS.
- I would think that this is overuse of flags. I'd prefer the nation included, as in the city, in giving the location.
- With tweaks, I think this table might have merit: as it stands, I don't think it has been shown to be an improvement. Kevin McE (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Duarcain (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)I have trouble with the "results" as you're counting the 2-2 draw as an Argentina win. When will people realise that Penalty shoot-outs are separate from the actual game. Shoot-outs are just a way of separating equals, as there is no contingency for a replay. You will note that penalties scored in a shoot-out do not count towards the players goals scored record. Prior to shoot-outs they tossed a coin! FIFA class games that go to shoot-outs as DRAWS!Duarcain (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
References
- ^ Abandoned after 36 minutes with score at 0-0
Mercury and Maradona photo
The photo might have become of ironic interest some years after it was taken, but at the time of the photo, the rivalry was far from "live": the controversial 1966 game was long past, the 1980 match had had no particular edge, and the issues that now characterize the rivalry lay in an unknown future. So what we are left with is not a commentary on the rivalry, but a posed publicity shot, presumably intended to promote a rock band's tour in Argentina. Had the photo been taken some years later, as a statement of these people wishing to put the rivalry behind them, it might be relevant, but as it stands, I don't see it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's exactly what the image represents; the article starts on 1966, yet for several years it wasn't much of a rivalry, an the image is a good example of that. perhaps is not clear from the attached text? Because that's exactly what I was trying to express. Besides,it is a really cool picture, for several reason. Mariano(t/c) 11:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your perception of "coolness" is not grounds for inclusion. The photo's purpose is promotion, primarily of a rock band's tour, to a lesser extent of a footballer, but at most it says that the rivalry was negligible at the time it was taken. The text (far too lengthy for a caption) does indeed make clear that it is from a time before the bitterness in these fixtures, but it does not illustrate the facts that make the subject matter of the article notable. Kevin McE (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't illustrate the rivalry itself? The fact that the rivalry was not such at a certain point in history is as important as the fact that the rivalry was very much alive in some other point. And it clearly highlightsthe importance of the war on the development of the football rivalry. How is that not important to the article? I trully fail to see your point. Mariano(t/c) 12:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- "The fact that the rivalry was not such at a certain point in history is as important as the fact that the rivalry was very much alive in some other point." If that were true, we would have articles like Bolivia and Wales football rivalry: it is the existence, not the absence, of rivalry that makes an article of value. How can a photograph of some musicians and a footballer prove the importance of a war in the relationship between nations? What did Freddie Mercury say about the Falklands War before it happened? Almost certainly nothing. " Because it doesn't illustrate the rivalry itself?" Precisely! The article is about the footballing rivalry: the photo adds nothing. Kevin McE (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
14-05-1953 - Buenos Aires - Argentina 3 - 1 England - Friendly
Add a Match missing in the list of meetings (RSSSF: See matches number 260) and (FIFA: Friendly) --190.138.14.109 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- As explained in the text, that match was not a full international, indeed, Argentina's opposition were not even called England, but an FA XI. Kevin McE (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- FIFA and RSSSF considered valid as this game can be seen in the links posted above. --190.138.14.109 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think I had previously checked the FIFA record of each team's results, and it was missing. Now it is there, so I agree, FIFA are the arbiters of whether a match is a full A international. Article edited accordingly. Kevin McE (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Merged info
Do other users of the page agree with me that the addition of minutiae of detail about the matches (referees, scorers, attendances) in a format that takes up a lot of space adds nothing to the subject matter of this article, viz the rivalry between the teams. It seems anomalous at best that the AfD discussion of another article can impose its decision on this page without any reference to the discussion page here, and I would not consider that decision binding. Kevin McE (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Six months on, nobody has argued to the contrary, so deleting match details: Wiki is not an almanac. Kevin McE (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Lead
Argentina matchs against Uruguay cannot be compared from ones against Brazil (a country stop event) or England. We already discuss this 2 years ago when I posted several references. Do not know who change the lead now. Uruguay matches are often descibre as clasico rioplatense but are on the same level of those with Paraguay or even Chile --Jor70 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Argentine players at English clubs
I have no idea what this very long sentence is trying to say. Can someone please either improve it (with references for the claims) or delete it. Bjmullan (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- A number of Argentine footballers, some of them high-profile stars, have played and still play for English clubs, among them Osvaldo Ardiles and Ricardo Villa, who joined Tottenham Hotspur and Alberto Tarantini who joined Birmingham City when players from outside the British Isles were rare in English football, and many others since the advent of the Premier League and the increase in the number of foreign players. Bjmullan (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)