So your rationale is that it was a low-scoring draw, and New Zealand scored first? I can see how one can play the 'it would've been more upsetting if...' game all day, but it doesn't take away from the facts of this case. What's your reason for backing Italy in general? I also wonder if you thought Italy didn't dive and fake being hurt just a little too much. We were forced to substitute Fallon (my favourite player) because we couldn't risk him, the faking Italians, and that dodgy Guatemalan referee in combination. The shirt tug that gave Italy their penalty (and, according to you, prevented an upset) was ridiculous. He shouldn't have held him at all, I concede, but he had let go well before he made that dive. I don't mean to say it's something peculiar to the Italians, by any means. The video is just for lols.
Their goalkeeper was their best player that game, everybody else was plain. Ranks are good and all but that does not determine the winner, sometimes the lesser team can win a game and/or the championship. For example: the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series with the least amount of wins in the regular season ever for a World Champion - 83 if memory serves me correct. I could see a draw be feasible but I was expecting Italy to win. I was sad that they tied but I disagree that it was a huge upset. It takes a lot more than a tie of 1-1 to have me call it a huge upset. If Italy was leading 3-0 and New Zealand came back to draw the game then I would call that a huge upset. But a 1-1 draw, that's nothing.
Given the magnitude of the skill and rank differential, it would've still been an upset if it was 2-1 to Italy. Seventy-three places ahead, man, did you ever expect a draw? I mean, we qualified for the tournament by defeating Bahrain 1-0. Bahrain. It doesn't matter that it's not the same team that won the World Cup last time; what's more unusual and 'upsetting' is that New Zealand usually plays against the likes of the Solomon Islands in football matches. And here we are, footing it with some of the best in Europe. Several NZ players you watched that aren't even professional footballers. Yes, it was a draw. And an ugly game. But given the circumstances, I don't think you can reasonably dismiss that result so readily. EDIT: you must have been somewhat impressed by the Kiwi keeper, surely? He pulled of some remarkable saves, in particular, this one. Italy had 23 shots, not one connected. That speaks for itself.
Because it is a draw. It is an unfavourable outcome for Italy but they didn't lose the match nor did they win. They should've won, but they are still in the hunt. If they had lost that game then they would have been in trouble. Look at all the great upset in World Cup history none of them are draws, though there are probably a few that a team should've won. It would be silly to say, "Did you see that huge upset in the New Zealand vs. Italy match?" "Nah, what was the score?" "1-1" "... (a tie is a huge upset???)"
"They still got a point and are still have the possibility of advancing; if they don't advance then their group stage play will be viewed as horrendous but if they get out then it will be largely forgotten. " That's a good point, but why can't a draw be seen as an 'upset', when virtually every realistic assessment of the prospects was in Italy's favour?
