23 Jun 04
i dont go it was a setup either because
1. denmark giving the game meant they lose first place in the group and thus draw the winners of the other group (the czechs).
2. at that stage italy were going out anyway
3. all reports i have read and from what i saw of the game it did not look like they were playing for 2-2.
daniel
23 Jun 04
Originally posted by pidermanI watched both the games and I say:Italy deserved to be kicked out of the tourny.
That's the brilliancy of it. It doesn't look that way. But Sørensen probably could have grabbed the ball, but he let it slip, allowing Jonson to score. Someone has given very carfeful instructions. It was a rig nonetheless.
They played awfully with Denmark(Buffon saved the draw) and with Bulgary.
In Sweden-Denmark there wasn't combine,for sure:they played(fighted)a great match,I wished Italy played like them!
Yes,Sorensen could have grabbed the ball,but yesteday rained during all the match and the ball was very slippery:everyone who played soccer knows how hard it is to catch the ball when it rains.
Sweden and Denmark deserved to pass 1st round showing us a good and spectacular soccer.
24 Jun 04
Originally posted by swanseafanThe fact that the bookmakers are not willing to participate in a 2-2 bet or are changing the odds on the bet is no argument for the game being fixed.
There is no way anyone will convince me that there was not a "fix" on in the Denmark v Sweden game. It was always giong to end 2-2, and all the bookmakers knew it. I was unable to put a bet on the correct score for ages, and when they finally opened the book again the odds were 9/2 for 2-2. They are normally at least 12/1. The English commentators who a ...[text shortened]... run the game should have come up with a better format where this sort of thing could not happen.
Apart from doing the probability assesment of the game (seting the odds) bookmakers also apply the far simpler concept of risk management - this means that they do not wish to participate in a bet that a very large porportion of the gamblers choose to play- and if they choose to participate they will do it at reduced odds.
Why is that - simply because having a large proportion of the money tied to a single outcome increases the volatility of the monetary result dramaticaly.
A very large porportion of the gamblers choose to play 2-2 due to the large media and public focus on this particular result.
Apart from the above I think that every body who has actualy seen the match would agree that none of the teams spend the 90 minutes with anything other than playing for victory.