When does a game become a great game?

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Lots of talk, understandably, about yesterday's final. "A classic!", "Best final ever!", "Thank you for blowing a 2 goal lead when in full control!", I hear them say. But for 80 minutes it was kind of humdrum and I don't remember much happening in the 1st period of extra time. The second period was dramatic to the point of crazy and then a penalty shootout. And you can't really knock 6 goals in a game.

One of my favourite ever games was France v West Germany in 1982. I remember being engrossed but in normal time it was only 1-1 before a mad extra time and West German fightback and another penalty shootout (rarer in those days). Although, of course, there was the attempted murder as well.

So is a great game a collection of moments or an end to end hammer and tongs battle? When does a game become a great game? I'm suggesting 3-2 with another incident, for instance, a red card. (However, if a team is 3 up and the opposition score 2 late consolations then that doesn't really count).

[the other bob wilson]

It’s all in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but for me, the precise moment yesterday turned into a great game was when France’s second goal went in. Francehad been so passive that I thought their penalty would just be a consolation goal.

I agree that extra time seemed to be petering out and a shoot out looked inevitable, si I wasn’t too bothered when the dinner I’d been cooking could not be left in the oven any more. I went to the kitchen thinking I was not going to miss much and put the radio on - I couldn’t believe what I was hearing in those last few minutes - I’ve still not seen them, but the radio commentary made it clear that something extraordinary was going on.

[North Cardiff Blue]

It’s all in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but for me, the precise moment yesterday turned into a great game was when France’s second goal went in. Francehad been so passive that I thought their penalty would just be a consolation goal.

I agree that extra time seemed to be petering out and a shoot out looked inevitable, si I wasn’t too bothered when the dinner I’d been cooking could not be left in the oven any more. I went to the kitchen thinking I was not going to miss much and put the radio on - I couldn’t believe what I was hearing in those last few minutes - I’ve still not seen them, but the radio commentary made it clear that something extraordinary was going on.

Brilliant game yesterday, loved it, it was a great game because there were six goals and penalties, and it was played out under high pressure by the two best teams in the World, with two of the best players in the World. You can't get better than that.

[alan_corneli]

From about 70 minutes on.

[tforturton]

It was a very good game, but for half an hour between Argentina's second, and France's first Goa, very little happened. And as good as the rest of the game was, I don't like to see major tournaments settled on a penalty shoot-out. Sort of makes the previous 120 minutes a bit pointless. After all that, it comes down to one kick? That's not right.

[Cleve van Leef]

Sad to say the best ever final was 1966 England v West Germany closely followed by 1970 Brazil v Italy

[Ninja]

It really wasn't a great game at all until France got right back into it with their second.
It had it's moments, but certainly wasn't a classic.
Even after that, a lot of extra time was just cagey, although it certainly seemed to lively up a bit in the second half of extra time.

Can't describe it as a classic, seen better league games many a time to be fair.
It was an exciting finale, but not a classic game overall for me.

[Cleve van Leef]

They are trying to justify playing the Tournament in Qatar. All the hype from FIFA is OTT.

[bobh]

Sad to say the best ever final was 1966 England v West Germany closely followed by 1970 Brazil v Italy

You've got that the wrong way round, NFQAT

[Swiss Peter]

They are trying to justify playing the Tournament in Qatar. All the hype from FIFA is OTT.

I disagree. Think holding it in Qatar stunk from day 1, and I still believe that, but it's been a long time since I've enjoyed a tournament as much as this one, and I'm not really one to be taken in by hype - especially from people like Infantino and his mob.

Last night? Yes, long dull periods, but I loved the drama of it in the end. Best final I can remember.

[Cleve van Leef]

You've got that the wrong way round, NFQAT

Personal opinion. 1966 was far more exciting, 1970 was a sublime Brazilian side in a one-sided game

[The Bloop]

It was a good game for 80 minutes because one team was fully in control, whilst the other looked (surprisingly) that the occasion has got to them.
As soon as Mbappe put his first penalty away and hurriedly retrieved the ball it was game on. From then it was toe to toe stuff which turned it into a classic.

[fugsyphil]

I would put the 82 and possibly even 86 ahead of this one which only got stsrted around 80odd minutes.

I'm too young for 66 + 70

[Bobby Dandruff]

Lots of talk, understandably, about yesterday's final. "A classic!", "Best final ever!", "Thank you for blowing a 2 goal lead when in full control!", I hear them say. But for 80 minutes it was kind of humdrum and I don't remember much happening in the 1st period of extra time. The second period was dramatic to the point of crazy and then a penalty shootout. And you can't really knock 6 goals in a game.

One of my favourite ever games was France v West Germany in 1982. I remember being engrossed but in normal time it was only 1-1 before a mad extra time and West German fightback and another penalty shootout (rarer in those days). Although, of course, there was the attempted murder as well.

So is a great game a collection of moments or an end to end hammer and tongs battle? When does a game become a great game? I'm suggesting 3-2 with another incident, for instance, a red card. (However, if a team is 3 up and the opposition score 2 late consolations then that doesn't really count).

You are right. The first 80 minutes were awful and actually boring as France were so poor.

The rest was excellent though.

So not a great game, but a very exciting and dramatic conclusion.

[splott parker]

FIFA and Qatar are trying to claim the adulation when that should be accorded to the teams who made it a great tournament. Once the teams were over the white line it didn’t matter which country they were in. Qatar, themselves, if anything were worse than us, so, football wise they’ve got frig all to pat themselves on the back for.

[Dave Blue]

FIFA and Qatar are trying to claim the adulation when that should be accorded to the teams who made it a great tournament. Once the teams were over the white line it didn’t matter which country they were in. Qatar, themselves, if anything were worse than us, so, football wise they’ve got frig all to pat themselves on the back for.

Considering we congratulated ourselves for years when hosting the cup final, I’d say they have some reason to pat themselves on the back.

[blue matt]

The whole game was good for me, the 1st 80 mins was a very good performance by Argentina, they completely controlled the game, was that due to France being poor or them being very good ? ? I dont know ? ? of course it could be a bit of both

then it all went mental and just got better and better, the best World Cup and best final I have ever seen

[bobh]

Personal opinion. 1966 was far more exciting, 1970 was a sublime Brazilian side in a one-sided game

I'd say 66 was only an "exciting" game if you supported one of the sides.
We had some "exciting" games when we played in the basement division, but I wouldn't call them great games.

[lardy]

I'd like the people who think this wasn't a classic match to give some examples of games that were.

Context is everything. This wasn't an ordinary league game that somehow caught fire. It's the world cup final, and the two best players in the world, with all that pressure on them to perform, scored five of the six goals between them.

The final 45 minutes of the game were as exciting and end-to-end of any game I've seen, and the world cup itself was at stake. There was a period in the second half where the game looked like it was heading to a mundane finish, but the first half was still good even though Argentina were so in control and France were so bad. I don't think any game has 90 minutes of pure excitement.

But if people really want to take a game like that and conclude 'meh' then fine, I guess. Each to their own.

[North Cardiff Blue]

Sad to say the best ever final was 1966 England v West Germany closely followed by 1970 Brazil v Italy

It never crossed the line though so 66 was a silly game with a massive mistake from the Referee.

[Harry Bosch]

Lots of talk, understandably, about yesterday's final. "A classic!", "Best final ever!", "Thank you for blowing a 2 goal lead when in full control!", I hear them say. But for 80 minutes it was kind of humdrum and I don't remember much happening in the 1st period of extra time. The second period was dramatic to the point of crazy and then a penalty shootout. And you can't really knock 6 goals in a game.

One of my favourite ever games was France v West Germany in 1982. I remember being engrossed but in normal time it was only 1-1 before a mad extra time and West German fightback and another penalty shootout (rarer in those days). Although, of course, there was the attempted murder as well.

So is a great game a collection of moments or an end to end hammer and tongs battle? When does a game become a great game? I'm suggesting 3-2 with another incident, for instance, a red card. (However, if a team is 3 up and the opposition score 2 late consolations then that doesn't really count).

On Sunday I found myself thinking that I’d just watched the best game of football I’d ever seen on TV, with the exception of Wales V Belgium in Euro 2016. It had been a pretty dull affair through the first half, although Di Maria’s goal was a fantastic sweeping move of one touch football. But then came the first French penalty and then the match just exploded into life with Mbappe’s superbly taken second goal. After that it was just incredible. For the last decade or so, I’ve watched less and less live British football on TV despite having Sky Sports. The matches are on but rarely hold my attention unless I’m watching a City match, and even then it’s rarely enjoyable. But that World Cup final had pretty much everything. For me a great game is simply one that gets the blood pumping in a neutral. It does not need to be end to end attacking, or even 90 minutes of incredible atmosphere like City v Leeds in 2002. It does has to have a blend of the unexpected and several moments of pure quality and that in itself can be a great game. But add in the chance that possibly the greatest player of all time will win the World Cup with his country and cement his legacy, extra time and penalties and a real Jeckyll and Hyde performance from one of football’s heavyweights and you have a classic.