Everyone always seem to forget that the world cup was only won because of a linesmans mistake. Nevertheless i think its great to keep bringing up 1966, after all what has there been to remember since then?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes fraid so. In fact I still consider the 1966 world cup to be a dead heat between England and Germany. If anything you could argue the rematch took place in 1970 when Germany won 3-2.
Thats NOT a very clever way way of looking at it! The 4th goal was scored BECAUSE of the 3rd goal! Germany had had to sacrafice all their defenders into attack to save the game. Had the 3rd goal not been scored Germany's defence would have been present and the back door would have been firmly shut. Without the 3rd goal, there was no 4th! Lets face it, in reality England have never really won the world cup.
i did read it england scored the 3rd goal and then germany went allout attack so if england did not score the 4th goal they would still have won simple mate.
You really arent getting it. The 3rd "goal" was a goal that NEVER was. It can be only be counted from an "official result" point of view. From a TRUE point of view it WASNT a goal. So the 3rd goal wasnt there, and if the 3rd goal wasnt there, the 4th wouldnt have been scored. Simple! It was a 2-2 draw. That was the FAIR result. A crooked Russian linesman won the world cup for england.
so was the 3rd goal the one which did not cross the line even if i was not given who is to say they would not have scored the other goal that they scored to win 3.2.
for gods sake c'mon. and the argument goes on...... whos to say that germany wouldnt have scored to make it 3-2 to them!?! The fact is England scored a 3rd goal that never was and those circumstances DIRECTLY contributed to the 4th because Germany had no defence. What part of that dont you understand??? The fact is England stole the world cup with a linesmans help. fact.
you never saw the game the same as i did not so how do you know the germany defence were exsposed at the back because they went all out attack.the fact is if we're dealing with facts is if you take away the 3rd goal the fact is the match would have ended 3 2
you are thinking about the score of the game in the way that a child would. 4 minus 1 = 3. Yes very good, but thats not how adults look at the game of football. Circumstances and timing of events is EVERYTHING during a game. Germanys defence was no more exposed than Englands! BOTH teams conceded TWO goals in normal time did they not? You cant seem to get it into your head that Germany were on all out attack BECAUSE of the 3rd goal (that never was).
i understand what your saying but you can't sit and say for sure that england would not have scored there 4th goal.plus just because it was 2 each when the defences were not exsposede doesnopt mean germany would have scorerd i have seen the 4th goal the defence could have got hurst.the thing i hate about england winning the cup is the fact that most of the team got knighted when most did nogt deserve it sir bobby deserved his for his ablity and service to football did hurst deserve his no way.
The team were good getting as far as they did, and they did have good players. Yes who is to say England wouldnt have scored a goal with or without having scored that dodgy 3rd, BUT you can apply the same logic to Germany. From a sporting point of view I think its a dead heat and I cant see anyone changing my mind. What I find crazy is that more people dont see that.
i suppose you have a point football is full of what ifs ect in 99 would united have won the european cup had ole not come on who knows would they have won it before the wistle went who knows has he played from the start.
No I dont think thats relevant. there was nothing illegitimate about Man Utd's euro cup win. There was nothing wrong with the goals they scored and the substitutions they made were all legal. There is a vast difference to England's 1966 "win". England's 3rd was a "goal" that never was. The reality is that but for incompetant refereeing it was a 2-2 draw and EITHER side could have won it during ET had that goal not been wrongfully awarded. We'll never know which team it would have been.
Remember the Watford v Reading game where a goal was awarded when in fact it should have been a goal kick?!?! The ref awarded the goal, do you count that as a goal? No of course not, it was a mistake and no more a goal than England's "third".
omg michael owen wtf was there another michael owen???... man so creepy and weird
gun4kwlnecc 2 years ago
you fucking retard. this game wasnt in 1966.,,, seriously i cant believe how thick you actualy are.
mufcbarlow900 2 years ago
than the person who put this vid on yt must change the date again (correction) XD
and another thing im fat.... :O
gun4kwlnecc 2 years ago
wt did he said michael owen on 0:17
gun4kwlnecc 2 years ago
????? what??? are you stupid???? fuckin retard
mufcbarlow900 2 years ago
we'll miss you motty. only martin tyler and clive tyldesley woth bothering with now...
therealDC 3 years ago
John Motson - gratest football commentator ever
suppinkja 4 years ago
Haha Motty is a legend, but a little bit David Brent
russ1980russ 4 years ago
Everyone always seem to forget that the world cup was only won because of a linesmans mistake. Nevertheless i think its great to keep bringing up 1966, after all what has there been to remember since then?
ProfRogers 4 years ago
linesmans mistake ?? you dummy
porsche917 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes fraid so. In fact I still consider the 1966 world cup to be a dead heat between England and Germany. If anything you could argue the rematch took place in 1970 when Germany won 3-2.
ProfRogers 4 years ago
even if the goal was not given they would still have been a goal head so they would still have won.
thetoon99 3 years ago
Thats NOT a very clever way way of looking at it! The 4th goal was scored BECAUSE of the 3rd goal! Germany had had to sacrafice all their defenders into attack to save the game. Had the 3rd goal not been scored Germany's defence would have been present and the back door would have been firmly shut. Without the 3rd goal, there was no 4th! Lets face it, in reality England have never really won the world cup.
ProfRogers 3 years ago
but the fact is the 3rd goal was still scored so if the 4th goal was not allowed england would still have won fact.
thetoon99 3 years ago
your not really thinking about things logically toon I suggest you re-read everything below, I dont like repeating myself.
ProfRogers 3 years ago
i did read it england scored the 3rd goal and then germany went allout attack so if england did not score the 4th goal they would still have won simple mate.
thetoon99 3 years ago
You really arent getting it. The 3rd "goal" was a goal that NEVER was. It can be only be counted from an "official result" point of view. From a TRUE point of view it WASNT a goal. So the 3rd goal wasnt there, and if the 3rd goal wasnt there, the 4th wouldnt have been scored. Simple! It was a 2-2 draw. That was the FAIR result. A crooked Russian linesman won the world cup for england.
ProfRogers 3 years ago
so was the 3rd goal the one which did not cross the line even if i was not given who is to say they would not have scored the other goal that they scored to win 3.2.
thetoon99 3 years ago
for gods sake c'mon. and the argument goes on...... whos to say that germany wouldnt have scored to make it 3-2 to them!?! The fact is England scored a 3rd goal that never was and those circumstances DIRECTLY contributed to the 4th because Germany had no defence. What part of that dont you understand??? The fact is England stole the world cup with a linesmans help. fact.
ProfRogers 3 years ago
you never saw the game the same as i did not so how do you know the germany defence were exsposed at the back because they went all out attack.the fact is if we're dealing with facts is if you take away the 3rd goal the fact is the match would have ended 3 2
thetoon99 3 years ago
you are thinking about the score of the game in the way that a child would. 4 minus 1 = 3. Yes very good, but thats not how adults look at the game of football. Circumstances and timing of events is EVERYTHING during a game. Germanys defence was no more exposed than Englands! BOTH teams conceded TWO goals in normal time did they not? You cant seem to get it into your head that Germany were on all out attack BECAUSE of the 3rd goal (that never was).
ProfRogers 3 years ago
i understand what your saying but you can't sit and say for sure that england would not have scored there 4th goal.plus just because it was 2 each when the defences were not exsposede doesnopt mean germany would have scorerd i have seen the 4th goal the defence could have got hurst.the thing i hate about england winning the cup is the fact that most of the team got knighted when most did nogt deserve it sir bobby deserved his for his ablity and service to football did hurst deserve his no way.
thetoon99 3 years ago
The team were good getting as far as they did, and they did have good players. Yes who is to say England wouldnt have scored a goal with or without having scored that dodgy 3rd, BUT you can apply the same logic to Germany. From a sporting point of view I think its a dead heat and I cant see anyone changing my mind. What I find crazy is that more people dont see that.
ProfRogers 3 years ago
i suppose you have a point football is full of what ifs ect in 99 would united have won the european cup had ole not come on who knows would they have won it before the wistle went who knows has he played from the start.
thetoon99 3 years ago
No I dont think thats relevant. there was nothing illegitimate about Man Utd's euro cup win. There was nothing wrong with the goals they scored and the substitutions they made were all legal. There is a vast difference to England's 1966 "win". England's 3rd was a "goal" that never was. The reality is that but for incompetant refereeing it was a 2-2 draw and EITHER side could have won it during ET had that goal not been wrongfully awarded. We'll never know which team it would have been.
ProfRogers 3 years ago
but the fact is england did score the 3rd goal so if they did not get a 4th they would still have won.
thetoon99 3 years ago
Remember the Watford v Reading game where a goal was awarded when in fact it should have been a goal kick?!?! The ref awarded the goal, do you count that as a goal? No of course not, it was a mistake and no more a goal than England's "third".
ProfRogers 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
j motson the most annoying voice and full of cliches ever...fucking hell
cymrucymreig 4 years ago
john motson is great..
harare 4 years ago 6
Sir bobby Charlton. 1966. More like he's commentating the 1966 World Cup Final then a World Cup 2002 preperation game
MGS2010 4 years ago
Haha Motty is MINT.
jamesdin2 4 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Motty ur a twat..
Joeyb007 5 years ago