World Cup Finalists by the Numbers
31 – Number of tackles by Italy defender Gennaro Gattusso, the most of any remaining player in the tournament.
12— World Cup appearances for France
1 – Number of goals conceded by Italy after 6 World Cup games (an own goal against USA).
23 – Number of saves by Italy keeper Gianluigi Buffon
530—Minutes played by Patrick Vieira
6 – Number of World Cup finals Italy has now reached.
3 – Number of World Cup championships Italy has won.
1— Number of World Cup championships France has won.
24 – Number of years since Italy’s last World Cup title.
1 – Number of players on Italy who were not born when they last won the World Cup. (Daniele De Rossi).
15—Times Thierry Henry has been called offsides, as of July 2nd.
10 – Number of Italian clubs Marcello Lippi coached before taking over the reigns of the Azzurri.
5—Number of World Cup games France went without scoring a goal after the 1998 final.
15—Consecutive matches in which France scored a goal from 1978-1986.
100 – Number of caps Italy captain Fabio Cannavaro will have earned after Sunday’s final.
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments
Displaying the most recent 25 comments from a total of 44 comments.
Read the rest of the comments
By Denis | July 6th, 2006 at 7:17 am 
Hi Irishdownunder,
I am living in the US, and I am not even French, I am from Belgium, and traveled as much as I could, I am here for now,
The Austalian team showed up with an incredible team strenght, and to my eyes, what a delightfull surprise, as I use to know this country excelent for other sports, but football, (Soccer here).
There is nothing that the Australian team should be shamed about, they delivered genuines and competitive games, with an impressive team,
@ that Level of competition, it’s such a close call for all,
The smart asses are the ones who manage to get these players in good shape and team spirit @ the right time & rythn, there is a lot of gambling there.
Sorry to dissagree, but (OK for Canada) the US is making a lot of moves toward soccer, 4 years from now, I don’t want to bet they will bring the World cup, but for sure, they’re growing!
Posted from 
United States
By Irishdownunder | July 6th, 2006 at 7:45 am Denis -
I agree that Australia played well. In fact qualifying by knocking out Uruguay was excellent. There team performance reminded me a lot of the Irelands first trip to the World Cup where the played beyond there ranking except Australia played nicer football.
(The bet was directed at the bully blogger Mike.)
PS. Belgium may not have the best football team but it has great beer!
Posted from 
Australia
By Irishdownunder | July 6th, 2006 at 7:52 am Mike - Another thing, as you described the Grosso / Neil “foul” you would know under the rules that is an indirect free kick. God you talk sh*t
Posted from Australia
By Denis | July 6th, 2006 at 8:13 am Hi there, Irishdownunder,
Beside the beers, ( I am soooo proud of where I am coming from for that! By the way Ireland knows how to make the great stuff to!), there is the fries (what’s called here here “the french fries”) due to confusion in WW1 from who cames these great fried potatoes stuff came from.
And whatever people think, “if” as you say, these had traveled or spoked with the ones who did, they’ll know that Belgium had (and are back to) great sport teams.
Beside tennis, today there is nothing that seems to emerge, but it used to be a great soccer land, cicling was not the worst that Belgium had to offer, and basketball still building up over there (From what I know)
Of course Belgium never won the “Baseball World League”.
As none of the Non US did!
I am facinated by all sports (Except cricket), however, I haven’t sen any other kind that is as open and widespread as footbal (Soccer here), I simply hope that the “Team Spirit” cause will prevail.
Posted from United States
By Irishdownunder | July 6th, 2006 at 8:18 am But “when are these indirect free-kicks awarded?” I hear you ask.
It is when, in the opinion of the ref, a player does the following:
1) Impedes the progression of an opponent (obstruction)
2) Plays in a dangerous manner
3) Prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
Or when a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area:
1) Holds on to the ball for more than six seconds
2) Handles a backpass
3) Handles the ball after receiving it from a team-mate direct from a throw-in
4) Touches the ball again with his hands, before it is touched by another player, after releasing it from his possession.
Cat cut your tongue Mike? You brought it up!
Posted from Australia
By futbol | July 6th, 2006 at 8:22 am I don’t think we are going to see a PK shootouts this final game. Italy does not want PK shootouts when they are in upperhand. I think this is going to be the same strategy ITA used against GER which is they will attack in DEFINED periods of time.
Posted from United States
By Denis | July 6th, 2006 at 8:27 am Futbol,
I guess you’re right on that one!
Both team will do so!
That’s what they will try to do,
Not so sure they will close the game that easy!
Posted from United States
By Irishdownunder | July 6th, 2006 at 8:31 am Denis -
I like you am not a great fan of cricket but I did watch the las ASHES series between Australia & England. Strangly enough I wanted England to win because the Australian team needed to be put back in their box having become too cocky. It was really good with both teams playing good attacking cricket.Some of the best things about cricket is the “sledging”. Try this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledging_(cricket)
Most team sports have something worth watching especially at international level (beats warfare any day)
Posted from Australia
By Irishdownunder | July 6th, 2006 at 8:39 am futbol-
You are exactly right about the Italy game plan. They certainly have perfected it.
I think France initially will look for a quick goal within the first 15min and close up shop in the midfield. If unsucessfull they will just maintain control of the midfield and look for an opening.
Neither team will want the game to go beyond 90min. Lets hope for a good even game with lots of quality goals.
Posted from Australia
By futbol | July 6th, 2006 at 8:42 am It’s funny that I watched Grosso’s goal at least 3 times already. It’s truly spectacular. It’s curved across in between 7 GER players and just about 2 - 5 inches away from Lehman’s reach. It’s perfect
Posted from United States
By Irishdownunder | July 6th, 2006 at 9:00 am Great goal to watch even if it was more ass than class. It got to be up there for goal of the World Cup.
Posted from Australia
By futbol | July 6th, 2006 at 9:11 am I feel sad that ARG was out. Otherwise ARG - ITA could be awesome as up to this point, I’m sure the 2 best teams in this tournament is ARG and ITA.
Posted from United States
By Freddy | July 6th, 2006 at 9:42 am Hey, I think most people in Asia wants Italy to win this one. I think they deserve it.
C’mon, Thierry Henry also faked a few dives and the French players are not all too clean either if you are thinking of complaining about the Italians.
Anyway, may the best team wins!!! Show us some great soccer. Enough with penalties and unsportsmanship!!
Posted from 
France
By Freddy | July 6th, 2006 at 9:49 am Oh,, and btw, I dunno why my flag below was showing that I am from France. Anyway, I am not. I am from Malaysia!
Viva Malaysia! M’sia Boleh!!!
Posted from France
By Miad | July 6th, 2006 at 9:50 am 5—Number of World Cup games France went without scoring a goal after the 1998 final.
————
Is this really accurate? If I remember, France playing against South Korea this year was their 5th match in a world cup since 1998, and they did score in that game!
Posted from Australia
By Jason | July 6th, 2006 at 1:47 pm hey mike, its only the minority that are still complaining i think. so don’t go saying that “the aussies” are still complaining. italy deserve to be in the finals. nonetheless, allez les bleus!
Posted from Australia
By jaclyn | July 6th, 2006 at 3:10 pm i might be biased, but i think italy is the better team. even if france gets some shots on goal, its going to be tough to get anything past buffon. barthez is a mess though, and we all know hes going to screw up atleast once. lets hope that italy can capitalize on that oppurtunity (unlike portugal).
FORZA ITALIA
Posted from United States
By Sam | July 6th, 2006 at 3:56 pm Irishdownunder:
You said:
“But “when are these indirect free-kicks awarded?” I hear you ask.
It is when, in the opinion of the ref, a player does the following:
…
Cat cut your tongue Mike? You brought it up!”
Since Mike’s not responding, I’m happy to:
“A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless (…):
* trips or attempts to trip an opponent”
Note you don’t have to intentionally trip him (that was taken out of the wording some years ago), you just have to trip him by making a careless play.
And really, why are we still discussing this? Get over it, stop whining. Australia played well, but anyone that hopes to win on penalties (making only 12 shots to Italy’s 17, even playing a man up) gets what they get. Neither this blog’s in-house referee nor most of the neutral British/US papers had any problem with the call. You should try getting your opinions from somewhere other than the Aussie newspapers and blog comments.
Are you ever going to be able to put this issue to rest?
Posted from United States
By IDU | July 7th, 2006 at 3:19 am Que?
Posted from Australia
By Irishdownunder | July 7th, 2006 at 4:00 am Sam,
I didn’t raise the issue but I love responding to dumb-ass comments. If you read my first post you would realise that I made comment on the standard of this World Cup. I’m Irish so don’t try an infer bias on my part. By the way, what papers have you being reading?
Learn the rules before you comment! That was only a penalty because the referee made a mistake. Everyone who follows football understands that this is part of the game. I guess what has pissed the Aussies off is the fact that the Italians won’t even acknowledge the fact that it was never a penalty. I’d equate to being dumped by your first love - God love’m the few Aussies who are still upset just want closure.
Posted from Australia
By Sam | July 7th, 2006 at 4:01 pm “Everyone who follows football understands that this is part of the game.”
You say this, but you don’t back it up with anything. Did you even look at the rule I posted? To re-word: If a player gets tripped because you made a careless play, then the other team gets a direct free kick. Is that really so difficult to understand?
As this blog’s ref said, “by no means was it reckless or dangerous, but it was certainly a foul nonetheless as his body took the attacking Italian out of the play.”
Posted from United States
By Sam | July 7th, 2006 at 4:20 pm Also, Irish, I’d advise you to brush up on your terminology before you get into a debate about the rules of football. You say
“Another thing, as you described the Grosso / Neil “foul” you would know under the rules that is an indirect free kick. God you talk sh*t”
You seem a little confused. An offence punishable by an indirect free kick is called a “foul.” Indirect free kicks are covered under Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct. Fouls are covered in the first sections of the law, which includes the section you quoted (worded differently — are you using an out-of-date rule book?). Misconduct is generally placed under the banner “unsporting behaviour.”
If you believe the offence deserved an indirect free kick, then you must accept it was a foul. Telling people they talk “sh*t” when it’s you who doesn’t understand football terminology doesn’t help me see you as someone who understands how the game works.
Posted from United States
By jayt | July 7th, 2006 at 6:16 pm this might sound stupid.. but i still dont get the difference between an indirect and direct free kick … anyone want to explain? ive read the official rules but either i missed it or im just an idiot.
blame it on my being from the states and not getting rai (the italian channel).
Posted from United States
By Sam | July 7th, 2006 at 6:44 pm Hmmm… actually, you seem to be saying that “if it’s a foul, then it should be an indirect free kick.” If that’s what you meant, that’s obviously incorrect as well, as direct free kicks are also considered “fouls”, under Law 12.
Sorry for the tripple post…
Posted from United States
By Sam | July 7th, 2006 at 6:51 pm jayt,
Basically, major offences, such as fouls that trip up an opponent are punishable by a “direct free kick”, which means that the person kicking the ball is allowed to aim straight at the goal and try and score if he wants. If the foul was in the penalty area, a direct free kick is actually taken as a penalty.
More minor offences, such as obstructing an opponent, are punishable by an “indirect free kick”, in which the kicker cannot try to score but pass the ball to one of his team mates.
Hope that helps.
Posted from United States
Comments are closed
