No it wasnt and doesnt matter anyway as Atletico did not defend that game well enough to see out result.
Uruguay did and Portugal had no answers how to break through.
Portugal were not a 'balanced side' in a single game this WC.
They saw out game like Atletico have done and won on countless ocassions.
No they succeeded as scored twice so conceding once was enough to go through.
Uruguay were better side and defended well and Portugal did not have enough ideas to break them down.
So if they did see out the result and Ramos didn't have that chance at the last moment, they would've been "undoubtedly the better side" and "playing the game exactly as they wanted it to go" eh?
Confirmation bias, nothing else. Defending a lead well doesn't consist of allowing that many close cut chances and deliveries into the box through. Everywhere from twitter to the commentators was openly saying how Portugal were building momentum and forcing brilliant last ditch defending. While the likes of Godin, Laxalt, etc. came up huge it isn't anywhere near 'safe' to have to rely on that level of last man defense and the rest of the team was struggling hard to contain Portugal offensively.
IMHO second retirement at this age would be a much bigger shadow over his career than not having won a WC with this awful Argentina NT. He simply can’t surrender now!
Lets agree that we don't agree and just carry on with our lives. We have totally different look on the game.
Your dealing in what ifs.
Uruguay were better side and defended well as they needed to.
Portugal were not a good side in this tournament.
Agree to whatever you want but Portugal were not even close to unlucky or the better side in that game.
What ifs in cases like this normalize things to the mean. Cavani's goal was brilliant, and obviously a very low probability event. And last ditch defending at the level required today is rarely ever that clean and successful. The fact that in one case a late goal was conceded while in the other case it was not is a matter of circumstance. That alone does not make the difference between a side that "played the game exactly how they wanted to" and one that was being beaten down to the end and "didn't defend well enough to win".
Would you say that Chelsea against Barca in 2012 "were quite clearly the better side" and "played the game out exactly as they wanted it to go"? No, they were fucking lucky.
What ifs in cases like this normalize things to the mean. Cavani's goal was brilliant, and obviously a very low probability event. And last ditch defending at the level required today is rarely ever that clean and successful. The fact that in one case a late goal was conceded by the defensive team while in the other case it was not is a matter of circumstance. That alone does not make the difference between a side that "played the game exactly how they wanted to" and one that was being beaten down to the end and "didn't defend well enough to win".
Would you say that Chelsea against Barca in 2012 "were quite clearly the better side" and "played the game out exactly as they wanted it to go"? No, they were fucking lucky.
He won’t. Said he wouldn’t until he wins something for Argentina. So alternatively, we could see him playing for them a really, really, long time...
Portugal dominated and it was matter of luck if Uruguay can hold for 90 minutes of constant pressure. This is a strategy that heavily relies on the luck.
If someone showed you the statistics, without the final result, you would say that the team which had better numbers probably won. And anyone with clear pair of eyes can see that Portugal has dominated the game.
Silly comparison, Barca had a neverending stream of clear cut chances in that game, Portugal had....one(besides the goal)?