Talk:Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives[edit]

Merge suggestion[edit]

It seems slightly odd that we should have two articles on goals from one match (Hand of God goal and Goal of the Century). Why not create a single article for the game under the title Argentina v England (1986)? It would provide a more detailed overview of the goals in the context of each other, and of the Falklands War. Both articles are smallish and fairly poorly referenced at the moment - one nice merged article on the game could be really good. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you might be right about the Hand of God goal, the Goal of the century is not about a single goal that was scored during this match; it was a contest held by FIFA, won by one of the goals of this match.
I think it should have it's own article, as other matches (and players) will definitelly point to its content. Mariano(t/c) 09:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that did occur to me, but I wonder how the notable the contest is? It was an internet poll, admmitedly with an award given at the end of it, but still nothing more. Very few pages link to Goal of the Century and I reckon that most if not all of these refer to the Maradonna goal. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I reckon that only two articles link to Goal of the Century which don't refer to the Maradonna goal. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That line of thought would take the goal's section to Maradona's article, not here. How many articles refer to the Goal of the century that don't make reference to this match? Mariano(t/c) 08:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the goal of the century was part of the match. I (think) the redirect could be altered to Argentina v England (1986)#Second Half, where goal of the century is fairly prominent, if that is an improvement. As for the Maradona article - there is not a 'goals' section to redirect to. Pretty Green (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batista[edit]

Batista was not DF, Argentina formation was : pumpido - cucciufo,brown,ruggeri - giusti, enrique, batista, olarticoecha - maradona,burru - valdano (3-4-2-1) --Jor70 (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - are you saying that this [1] is an accurate descritpion of positions then? --Pretty Green (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sourced! ;-) Yes, that's better --Jor70 (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is now inevitably brought up for discussion whenever England play Argentina, or when Maradona is associated with British football[edit]

The term 'British' is chosen very deliberately in this sentence and is justified, I think, for the following reasons:

  • The term states 'whenever England play Argentina, or when Maradona is associated with British football' - specifically, then, differentiating between the England team/English football and the UK as a whole
  • The point being made is that Maradona doesn't even have to be playing England for this stuff to be mentioned [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] all discuss the Hand of God in relation to the recent Scotland v Argentina game: the Times and the Sun even discuss it in relation to Scotland - "I'm going to a country where they adore me because of the goal against the English", to quote Maradona in The Sun.
  • And Scottish media discuss it as well : Daily Record, Edinburgh News, The Herald
  • Essentially, then, the sentence emphasises the wider impact throughout the UK that this goal has had. Sure, it's not as big a thing in Scotland as in England - why would it be - but to say it is ignored is wrong. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only because the British media is dominated by the English and the English still whine incessantly about it 23 years after the event. As far as the Scots are concerned, we a) don't give a stuff and b) can't believe you still whine about it. It would be more accurate to state the English dominated media rakes it up whenever Maradonna is mentioned, while the Scots and Welsh look on in bemusement and a touch of Schadenfreude. It only matters in England and that sentence doesn't reflect that. Justin talk 10:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the comments from the Scottish newspapers? And my argument that the goal is so notorious in England that he doesn't even have to be involved with England for the goal to raise? Please discuss my arguments rather than dismissing them as 'NPOV'. If you can persuade me otherwise, then that is fine, but at the moment the comment is reasonable. I'm not trying to suggest that the English view = British view, far from it Pretty Green (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A thought - if the sentence were changed to one the following:
  • The goal is now inevitably brought up for discussion in British (note - see refs above from Daily Record, The Herald etc) media whenever England play Argentina, or when Maradona is associated with British football
  • The goal is now inevitably brought up for discussion in England whenever the England national team play Argentina, or when Maradona is associated with British football --Pretty Green (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, then, the sentence emphasises the wider impact throughout the UK that this goal has had. To quote your own words, except that it has had no impact whatsoever in Scotland or Scottish football. It was raked up by the English dominated media and it is only brought up because British media is dominated by England. This doesn't reflect any impact on football but a media dominated by English interests. This only matters to the English and to be blunt we don't care. To quote one of your references:

Maradona, now the Argentine team's national coach, was welcomed by Scots fans at Glasgow Airport in November when he arrived with his squad to play Scotland at Hampden.

Suggestion: The goal is frequently mentioned in the British media due its domination by English interests whenever England play Argentina, or when Maradona is associated with British football. However, it has had no impact on the other national teams within the UK, indeed Maradona received a rapturous welcome when Argentina played Scotland in an International Challenge game in November 2008. Justin talk 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I could argue there that we are introducing presumptions in that sentence- the dominance the English of British media. I've no doubt this is true, but where is the evidence that this dominance then causes the extended Maradona coverage? In essence, we're speculating about something reasonable, but not verifiable (that English dominance of the media results in references to the HoG goal when Scotland play Argentina). I would argue too, that my use of Scottish-only media somewhat disproves your point about zero impact in Scotland - or are you claiming that the Record is English dominated? I'm not saying its as important - again, why should it be - but it would be untrue to say it has no impact, even if the only impact is Schadenfreude and as another sore point to draw upon in England/Scotland banter (say, equivalent to the "Scotland never progressing past the first round of a World Cup" fact is in England?) Again, I suggest "The goal is now inevitably brought up for discussion in England whenever the England national team play Argentina, or when Maradona is associated with British football". It makes clear that it is brought up in England but points out that it doesn't even need Eng v Arg to happen for the media to go on about it. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two Scottish articles discuss the furore in England and reflect that the Scots don't give a stuff about it, even to the point of the enthusiastic welcome Maradona got in Scotland. So they don't reflect your point but do in fact re-inforce the point I'm making. I'd accept the sentence provided that something is added to reflect it doesn't impact on the other home teams. Justin talk 13:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But surely the enthusiastic welcome is, in part, related to Maradona's two goals (the first, unfair, the second, humiliating) against England? From the Daily Record: "He [Maradona] has acknowledged that Scots and Argentinians are united by the famous Hand of God incident when he scored against England Later in the same match, he scored one of the best goals the World Cup has ever seen to knock the Auld Enemy out of Mexico 86." --Pretty Green (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps because Maradona is acknowledged as one the world's greatest footballers just about everywhere else in the world, that just might go someway toward explaining it! Every tried thinking about how other people might perceive it? Justin talk 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else allowed in? I personally dislike the word inevitable: I'd like to think that it is possible that there might be a journalist somewhere in the UK of high enough standard to avoid the temptation to fall back on such tired old anecdotes, and able to consider such a prestigious career other than in the light of one split second decision. Apart from that, maybe a completely fresh sentence is the way to find compromise. Something like "Many elements of the British press refer to the incident even when discussing other elements of Maradona's career or matches of the Argentine team." might be a way forward; it allows readers to infer the innocence of the charge of some of the press, refers to can account for positive or negative recollections of the event (although so can the current phrasing, which rather undermines Justin's point), and is less specific as to the triggers of such raking over of old coals. Kevin McE (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Course you're allowed in! And you make some good points. Change British for English and you could be there. Thanks, a fresh perspective helps sometimes. Justin talk 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really asking permission :) I don't think the need to replace British by English is at all proven. The articles from the Herald/Evening News/Herald that have been cited prove that it would be true to say "Many elements of the Scottish press refer to the incident even when discussing other elements of Maradona's career or matches of the Argentine team."

I just wish that the English fans were consistent enough about their hatred of goals scored with the hand to admit that if it weren't for Dennis Wise punching the ball past a Turkish goalie in Izmir, they wouldn't have qualified for Euro 1992. Kevin McE (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROTLMAO, got to admit you've got a point there! Seriously the only point I've tried to make is that is doesn't affect Scottish football its an English hangup. We wouldn't mention it all were it not for the fact that the English whine about it. ;o) Justin talk 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's also annoying, quite frankly Justin, for you to presume that my intentions behind the sentence are to suggest that it's important to everyone because its important to England. Of course Maradona is welcomed to Scotland because he's one of the world's greatest players - I said "in part, related to Maradona's two goals" precisely for that readon. I feel as if you're not reading my arguments - you're presuming I'm making certain arguments for certain reasons when I'm not. All the sentence is intended to do is to indicate that any association of Maradona with the British game - and I take the recent Sco v Arg match and the references provided above as validating the word British - brings reference to the HoG goal and this match in general. No claims at all are being made about the goal's importance to the Scots, other than as a funny incident that hurt a rival team - something remembered but not with excessive importance. Which I think is something we agree on, with the very fact you say that We wouldn't mention it all were it not for the fact that the English whine about it indicating that it is mentioned.
As for Kevin's suggestion - yup, I think you're probably correct on 'inevitably' and I think your sentence follows a decent structure, though perhaps it could be simplified - "The goal is brought up regularly in the British media whenever Maradona and his career are being discussed"? I'm too young to remember that Wise goal you refer to, but I'm sure most of our fans would quietly admit that certain goals in our history (ahem) may not have technically been goals ;). Pretty Green (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

Kevin, no problem with your edit. Justin talk 20:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a good compromise. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It gets brought up with overtones that don't relate more than marginally to football either. Someone commented in a UK newspaper that Maradona "comes out of a culture where a man who sticks to fair play and accepts defeat rather than cheat his way to victory is not seen as a real man". Strausszek (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag[edit]

Match is only of relevance to English football, its irrelevant to Scottish football. Its only raised in Scotland as the English still whine about it. Justin talk 10:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reverted to your version without the Tag whilst we discuss this, though I don't think an NPOV tag is warranted for an article with one disputed sentence. Though its a small point I am rather hurt that you chose to use such tags rather than engaging in a discussion. My intention is not to create a divisive article. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, happy to talk about it. Ever thought of just how annoying it is for people to assume British = English, or for the media to forget that the world doesn't revolve around England. Truly the Scots do not give a stuff about a game between England and Argentina. The tag was only added because of your insistence that misrepresented it as an issue for British football. Britain is not just England. Justin talk 11:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, check my arguments above - that was never my intention. I was aware of this danger when writing it, but I felt that the points above justified this sentence. I'm not some ignorant English moron. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on a more guideline-view point, wouldn't Template:POV-statement be more appropriate? It was not the article as a whole that was being objected to, but one sentence. Pretty Green (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Academic as the tag has been removed. And where did I say you were an ignorant English moron? You wouldn't be the first Englishman to do it subcounciously. If you were aware of the danger, once it was construed that the way the correct response would have been to explain rather than simply revert. Justin talk 13:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but your comments have given that impression; I apologise if that was not your intention. As for the revert, my general approach in such situations is - rv back once with a brief explanation; then if a revert occurs gain, rv back with a longer explanation on talk and then let the situation come to discussion, which I don't think is unreasonable. --Pretty Green (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Article[edit]

Would it not be more customary for the "v" to be replaced with "vs." in the name of the article, because "v" tends to indicate some kind of legal proceeding. --82.13.233.26 (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, v. is just more typical of British usage and vs. is more typical of American usage, e.g. Kramer vs. Kramer. Salopian (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Diego's Goal[edit]

Giving the fact we havent any more the hand of God goal article I think would be interesting to add some of its history as what his brother told him after the 1980 goal . many references: he recalled a similar move in England, some years before, when he finished that way and his brother had told him that he should have Gambeteado the goalkeeper as well. --Jor70 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion on the old Hand of God page, and there was little support there for suggesting any meaningful link. Kevin McE (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cant find the referred discussion [7] [8] . There are plenty of references about this event and I think is notable enough to merit a small mention --Jor70 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heard on the BBC[edit]

Just heard this on BBC World News after the 2-2 goal missed by the referees in the England-Germany game, June 2010. Two English sports journalists:

Man 1: "....but we need guys like Maradona to keep the mystique of the game alive. He is truly a hero in my book, he can do no wrong, and if he did that dramatic hand-of-God goal, that's a mythic moment! Where would we be without Maradona?"

Man 2 (smiling): There's a few of us who would have preferred never to have heard of the hand of God.

D Strausszek (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maradona's quote[edit]

The link to the Maradona's quote is this

http://www.rediff.com/sports/football/2002/may/30mara.htm

I don't know how to put links...;) Bye

 Done Kevin McE (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the Maradona page[edit]

See the Talk page of the article on Maradona. It is noted that a photo apparently showing Maradona touching the ball seems to be a Photoshopped fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram....[edit]

....refers to a player called "Hodges". His name is actually Steve Hodge (no "s") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the diagram also appears to suggest the game was played by two teams of bandy legged starfish. So Steve Hodge may prefer to be excluded. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram also shows Hodge in the middle. I'm pretty sure he played on the left. He says he was on the left in his book and also it says so on transfermarkt though the fifa website seems to show him in middle. The diagram also has Hoddle in defensive midfield which is surely wrong. Firestar47 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maradona Compliment[edit]

The article has Maradona's compliment towards England (how they are noble and don't knock down/tackle him like other countries) twice, very near each other -- once in the "Aftermath," and once in "The goal of the century." I'm going to edit out the comment in the "Aftermath" section to avoid redundancy, if that's okay with you all. Adamh4 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 items to discuss[edit]

  1. Why is this part of project Mexico if this match has nothing to do in Mexico?
  2. I vote this article for deletion.

--PeacefulJarl379 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your first point, the match was played in Mexico. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hand of God goal no longer handball?[edit]

Hi there. Looking at the article, the article now seems to imply that the controversial goal being a handball is now heavily disputed, with no undisputed evidence for it being a handball. As far as I was aware, the consensus that it was a handball was pretty strong, but apparently not any more. This new version seems to originate with these edits by User:Boeing720, but I figured that rather than change it back to the other version myself, I'd look for other opinions here. 86.150.88.32 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Handball is a very popular Olympic indoor sport, at the continent. Which in a majority of Eurpean countries is the number one indoor sport instead of basket (or icehockey).

And yes - it was at a question from some English journalist, that Maradona missinterpreted (and for sure was not aware of how newspapers as the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror bend answers as it pleases them. A very good example from the time when Sven-Göran Eriksson became England manager. One of the tabloids stated something like "How can we survie a manager who speakes a language that uses "Nu tror jag vi skall dra oss åt sidan lite grand" for a simple "Hello" !!! But Sven was not listening to the journalist and talked instead to Tord Grip and in English said "Now I think we should draw us aside a little". I.o.w. British tabloids mainly writes pure rubbish, unlike Guardian, Telegraph and perhaps Times) "Perhaps God gave me a helping hand" is not an acknowledgement of any accusation, in the Catholical Latin America. I've ofcouce seen the goal a number of times, including at VHS frame-by-frame (an like I stated during the 1986 World Cup , all goals were shown in slow motion from all sides , and at Azteca stadium these cameras were located "in the air", connected to steel wires of some kind. Please not that I have always been a great admirer of especially English (and Scottish) football-culture. In Euro's and World Cups I generally hope that England finally will win again, after Sweden and Denmark are out, if they participated at all. However during this quaterfinal, Diego Armando Maradona, scored the most amazing football goal ever in history. And the English defenders were doing their work, actually indeed very spelendid, since Argentine with Maradona at his peak only managed to score twice. I think all fotball supporters of the world should focus at the second goal insted of discredit the best footballer in history as a cheater. I can say that live neither the Swedish SVT or Danish DR commentator noticed any touch on the ball with any of his hands. The Swedish stated during the replay "it's offside eeeh, or is it ?" (but he was onside, not ?). Unfortunately even if an English victory this summer would make me very glad indeed, I doubt the English team. There are simply too few English players in Premier League. On the other hand, Brazil is not quite what it has been. A year ago I would have guessed that Germany would win, but the way Bayern Munich finished CL makes me doubtful about them aswell. Surelly Spain cannot win yet another tournament. And I don't believe in Italy, France, Holland and Argenine either. So perhaps England vs Russia in the final ? Boeing720 (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLAIM[edit]

Per our policy on a neutral point of view in articles, it is necessary to avoid unnecessarily editorializing or casting doubt on statements in the article. To that end, we avoid loaded words such as "claim" in favor of neutral wordings using "say" and "state". 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?[edit]

The text in the 'Argentina kit change' section seems to be very close to the wording used in the original source? JezGrove (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC) JezGrove (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argentina_v_England_(1986_FIFA_World_Cup)&oldid=1205370882"