World Cup 2018

tijuana taxi said:
I remember Germany losing to Algeria in the first match of the 82 World Cup
That was the year they played (passed the ball to each other for 90 mins) the shameful draw with Austria when they both needed a point
Its not inconceivable that Mexico and Sweden could go into the last match also both needing a point, wouldn't that be poetic justice
Click to expand...
Meanwhile it's quite possible that England could play Belgium in 10 days time with both teams knowing that the winner would probably face Brazil or Germany in the quarter finals, whereas the loser would get a much easier ride towards the semi finals.... That would be interesting.
 
StewartR said:
Meanwhile it's quite possible that England could play Belgium in 10 days time with both teams knowing that the winner would probably face Brazil or Germany in the quarter finals, whereas the loser would get a much easier ride towards the semi finals.... That would be interesting.
Click to expand...
Indeed, haven't beaten Tunisia or Panama yet though, not overly confident about tonights game, can see it being a draw
Might also both need a point, couldn't see either team denying the other given our close links as countries and players
 
tijuana taxi said:
Indeed, haven't beaten Tunisia or Panama yet though, not overly confident about tonights game, can see it being a draw
Might also both need a point, couldn't see either team denying the other given our close links as countries and players
Click to expand...

Really? Ok, we have messed up in the past (Algeria) and as we have seen with Brazil and Germany, there are very few easy games, but these are two games we should win, and reasonably comfortably at that.
 
Great first half. Hard to play against a team who has one of their own countrymen as a referee. What’s the point of VAR.
 
Now where have I seen this before, oh yes every major competition since 1970 apart from brief respites in 90 and 96.
 
Great win. Played very well first half, best I have seen for a while from us bar the finishing. Cheated for the penalty and should have had 2 for wrestling on Kane. Subdued second half, understandable when the ref was being paid by the Tunisian FA. Did keep going and justified with Kane’s goal. On this occasion the cheats didn’t prosper.

Just as we scored I got 16/1 on us to win the tournament!
 
cambsno said:
Great win. Played very well first half, best I have seen for a while from us bar the finishing. Cheated for the penalty and should have had 2 for wrestling on Kane. Subdued second half, understandable when the ref was being paid by the Tunisian FA. Did keep going and justified with Kane’s goal. On this occasion the cheats didn’t prosper.

Just as we scored I got 16/1 on us to win the tournament!
Click to expand...

Bookies don't get it that wrong, still full credit for your optimism, but not your financial acumen
 
I can only assume the VAR popped out to make a cup of tea when those corners went over, 2 more blatant penalties you will never see. Good win in the end though. Need to win a lot more comfortably against Panama on Sunday, want to go into the Belgium game with as much confidence as possible.
 
How did their penalty get a var review but Kane's two fouls didn't? The first one was allegedly under review? Someone needs to explain this.
England should have had two penalties, would have ruined their confidence and we would have gone in to score more.
 
Apart from 20 minutes in the first half that was a very poor performance. The passing was really bad, we missed too many chances and there was no natural flow to our game.
On the plus side, Kane did what Kane does best - twice, thank goodness.
I would say that the referee should be sent home immediately after missing two obvious England penalty appeals - why was the VAR not used?
 
andy700 said:
why was the VAR not used?
Click to expand...

That's just it, it's supposed to be in constant use. They're supposed to reveiw everything and let the ref know if there's something he needs to give a 2nd look, failed massively tonight.
 
andy700 said:
Apart from 20 minutes in the first half that was a very poor performance. The passing was really bad, we missed too many chances and there was no natural flow to our game.
On the plus side, Kane did what Kane does best - twice, thank goodness.
I would say that the referee should be sent home immediately after missing two obvious England penalty appeals - why was the VAR not used?
Click to expand...

I thought the first half overall was very good. Hard to play against a corrupt ref!
 
chrism_scotland said:
VAR has been dire so far generally - not sure why its been so bad.
Winning ugly though is something England generally struggle with, as a Scot I'm actually a little more nervous about how you will do this year...
Click to expand...

Don't worry, soon be home after the group stage, didn't see anything there that makes me think we could beat any of the fancied teams.
 
cambsno said:
Germany at 9/1 is good value!

Anyway, we didn’t set the world alight in 66 after first game!!
Click to expand...

We didn't set the world alight in most of the other games either, hardly won in style.

Jesus christ that was fifty two years ago, no bearing on this competition, did that performance really make you think we could win the world cup?
 
tijuana taxi said:
We didn't set the world alight in most of the other games either, hardly won in style.

Jesus christ that was fifty two years ago, no bearing on this competition, did that performance really make you think we could win the world cup?
Click to expand...

Yes. Did better than Germany and Brazil did. France were far from convincing, or Argentina. We pressed, we created chances, we dug in and ground out a victory. We played positively in the first half and managed to win a difficult game. Had VAR worked as it was supposed to we would have won 3-1 or even more. A young side with promise. Kane got off to a great start, vital for a striker. Maguire was excellent, many others had a good game like trippier and young. Only negative was sterling who needs to be dropped for next game.

Will we win it? It’s a tough ask and probably not, but I also don’t see why we can’t.
 
cambsno said:
Will we win it? It’s a tough ask and probably not, but I also don’t see why we can’t.
Click to expand...
Can I have some of what you're having?

I agree with your assessment of some of the positives. Our play in the first 20 minutes was the best football I've seen so far in the tournament. (Though having said that, I didn't see the Belgium game.) Our midfield all had decent games. Alli and Lingard made some great, incisive runs, exactly what was asked of them. Henderson made some great passes when he remembered that he is allowed to play forwards. Young and Trippier combined well and delivered some good balls. We bossed them at set pieces. And if VR had worked we'd have had two stone cold penalties.

But on the other hand: Our finishing was woeful. Our defence was an accident waiting to happen and a better team than Tunisia could have punished their carelessness. Sterling contributed nothing. Kane contributed very little apart from the two goals. (Yeah, OK, if he contributed nothing apart from two goals every time we'd be happy, but you know what I mean.) With the exception of that great opening spell, I wasn't convinced that we've managed to shrug off the stage fright that so often affects us in tournaments.

Overall, I'm not sure what to think. Tunisia were poor and we beat them, and it could so easily have been 4-1 or something like that, but it wasn't. We do need to play better, because the likes of Germany, Brazil and Spain are going to play better than they did in their opening matches. But at least we won, and we avoided the banana skin. Roll on Panama.
 
It was a good start and hopefully England will kick on. Can’t see us winning it mind, but I think if they work on what they’re trying to do well do OK.

Still need to move the ball quicker back to front but overall I’m quite happy/relieved to get that one out the way considering the Tunisian tactics at times.
 
StewartR said:
Can I have some of what you're having?

I agree with your assessment of some of the positives. Our play in the first 20 minutes was the best football I've seen so far in the tournament. (Though having said that, I didn't see the Belgium game.) Our midfield all had decent games. Alli and Lingard made some great, incisive runs, exactly what was asked of them. Henderson made some great passes when he remembered that he is allowed to play forwards. Young and Trippier combined well and delivered some good balls. We bossed them at set pieces. And if VR had worked we'd have had two stone cold penalties.

But on the other hand: Our finishing was woeful. Our defence was an accident waiting to happen and a better team than Tunisia could have punished their carelessness. Sterling contributed nothing. Kane contributed very little apart from the two goals. (Yeah, OK, if he contributed nothing apart from two goals every time we'd be happy, but you know what I mean.) With the exception of that great opening spell, I wasn't convinced that we've managed to shrug off the stage fright that so often affects us in tournaments.

Overall, I'm not sure what to think. Tunisia were poor and we beat them, and it could so easily have been 4-1 or something like that, but it wasn't. We do need to play better, because the likes of Germany, Brazil and Spain are going to play better than they did in their opening matches. But at least we won, and we avoided the banana skin. Roll on Panama.
Click to expand...

Spain were superb for a spell when they got back in front, probing relentlessly looking for that incisive defence splitting pass.
Definitely agree about the defence, never looks secure and not tested yet, Belgium for instance you feel could rip it apart.

We are very much second string and quarter final is best case scenario, just the way it is and seen far too many false dawns.
In all the years I have watched football since 1966 I can't recall having beaten one of the top teams of the time in the knock out section of a competition?
Nothing I have seen leads me to think this year will be any different, hope i'm wrong, but can't see it somehow
 
cambsno said:
Germany at 9/1 is good value!

Anyway, we didn’t set the world alight in 66 after first game!!
Click to expand...

In 1966 we didn't have Tunisia and Panama in our group - France, Mexico, Uruguay. We then beat Argentina and Portugal (top scorer in 1966 Eusabio 9 goals), before being a bit fortunate in the final. The 1966 squad was packed with great players, and despite being called Ramsey's "wingless wonders" they attacked with speed and purpose.
I was hopeful before last night, given the young, skillful players we have in the squad, but England worry me, particularly in the last third of the pitch, where a default pass back to the keeper without looking seems to be all to easy a choice.
I think the other commentator last night was Martin Keown, who rightly stated that England needed to get away from the negative passing (easy to get a 90% average passing back and side to side) and get the ball forward a lot quicker.
I also think that we need Vardy playing from the start next game, along with Kane or Welbeck - he is a natural striker who doesn't often fluff his lines as so many did last night.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCvPPGY8aUY
 
andy700 said:
I also think that we need Vardy playing from the start next game, along with Kane or Welbeck - he is a natural striker who doesn't often fluff his lines as so many did last night.
Click to expand...
I have some sympathy, but Panama will be playing with a packed defence and that's not the ideal Vardy situation. On the other hand, as you say, he's a great finisher. I guess it's a toss-up as to who plays instead of Sterling, and Southgate will no doubt be considering what they bring to the team in various tactical situations, in addition to their finishing ability.
 
StewartR said:
I have some sympathy, but Panama will be playing with a packed defence and that's not the ideal Vardy situation. On the other hand, as you say, he's a great finisher. I guess it's a toss-up as to who plays instead of Sterling, and Southgate will no doubt be considering what they bring to the team in various tactical situations, in addition to their finishing ability.
Click to expand...

Don’t think panama is the right game for vardy as you say. Plus it messes a bit with the formation which I thinks works well. I would rather see rashford ahead of sterling
 
cambsno said:
Don’t think panama is the right game for vardy as you say. Plus it messes a bit with the formation which I thinks works well. I would rather see rashford ahead of sterling
Click to expand...


Sadly, I think that both Sterling and Rashford looked a bit like headless chickens last night, trying to run through players. I am also wondering if Rashford had a mental block last night, because he seemed unable to cross the ball (or even finish an excellent chance in front of goal) with his right foot.
Kane and Vardy are the Premier League's top English scorers, and I would hate to see another wasted England player thrown on the rubbish heap simply because they were brought on as late subs or not feature at the start.
I thought that Ruben Loftus Cheek was a good substitution last night, he had a lot of energy. I also thought that Trippier had a good first World Cup game, and seemed to be looking to go forward quickly.
Why do England's defenders/midfielders pass behind their own players (when engaging in this sideways/backward passing) in their last third of the pitch, leaving them with their backs to the opposition? This simply forces the defence back, closer to the keeper, who then has to rely on the big boot upfield.
 
andy700 said:
Sadly, I think that both Sterling and Rashford looked a bit like headless chickens last night, trying to run through players. I am also wondering if Rashford had a mental block last night, because he seemed unable to cross the ball (or even finish an excellent chance in front of goal) with his right foot.
Kane and Vardy are the Premier League's top English scorers, and I would hate to see another wasted England player thrown on the rubbish heap simply because they were brought on as late subs or not feature at the start.
I thought that Ruben Loftus Cheek was a good substitution last night, he had a lot of energy. I also thought that Trippier had a good first World Cup game, and seemed to be looking to go forward quickly.
Why do England's defenders/midfielders pass behind their own players (when engaging in this sideways/backward passing) in their last third of the pitch, leaving them with their backs to the opposition? This simply forces the defence back, closer to the keeper, who then has to rely on the big boot upfield.
Click to expand...

Sterling I did think was especially poor, which was suprising as he has had a great season. Rashford was excellent in the last England match and would like to see him given a chance. It would have been interesting to see how he would have fared had he started yesterday and played in a good 1st half performance. All attacking players get tackled & missed chances. The bonus for me was that we were creating a number of very good chances.

I like Vardy a lot, and he is a good striker but I think the system we play, 3331 (or a 352 depending on how you view it) is not best suited to him, especially against a team with the bus parked. Playing him and Kane may be a better bet v Belgium who will attack us. Yes, Trippier looked very good, also impressed with Henderson.
 
Another goal from Ronaldo in what was a rather dull game, Portugal did very little and Morocco huffed and puffed to no avail.

They won Euro16 in a very similar fashion, doubt it will work like that again though
 
Having watched the Spain v Iran game last night, I have come to the conclusion that some national teams - Iran, Germany, England etc - are not playing the same way as they play in their top national leagues. For instance, Iran last night put up a virtual brick wall, and relied on the few counter attack chances, until Spain scored, and then Iran played a style of football which was more indicative of what happens in their top domestic league. No Premier League team plays the same way as the England team, with all this stupid back and sideways passing, it is well known for being fast, direct football. This is what the players are used to and what they do best.
 
andy700 said:
No Premier League team plays the same way as the England team, with all this stupid back and sideways passing, it is well known for being fast, direct football. This is what the players are used to and what they do best.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think you're talking out of an orifice usually reserved for other kinds of emissions. I guess you haven't watched Manchester City recently? They've clocked up record numbers of passes - over 900 against Chelsea - and they haven't all been forwards passes. (They only won 1-0.) Or did you know that, in 2017, 6 Premier League teams were in the top 20 in Europe in terms of the highest number of passes per game? Here's a link, but I've extracted the data for you. The big numbers are the average numbers of passes per game.

01 Bayern Munich ....... 719.7
02 Napoli .............. 667.5
03 Paris St Germain .... 653.8
04 Barcelona ........... 619.3
05 Nice ................ 608.9
06 Manchester City ..... 590.0
07 Liverpool ........... 484.5
08 Dortmund ............ 583.7
09 Arsenal ............. 564.1
10 Las Palmas .......... 559.8
11 Manchester Utd ...... 555.1
12 Fiorentina .......... 540.7
13 Juventus ............ 538.9
14 Chelsea ............. 535.5
15 Real Madrid ......... 528.8
16 Lyon ................ 522.7
17 Monchengladbach ..... 522.3
18 Tottenham ........... 520.0
19 Hoffenheim .......... 512.2
20 Sevilla ............. 507.6

Who'd have thought, eh? There are 6 English teams in that table, but only 4 from Spain, 4 from Germany, 3 from Italy and 3 from France. And those 6 teams have contributed 17 of the 20 outfield players in England's World Cup squad. The notion that the top English teams play direct route-one kick-and-rush football is simply outdated.
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
Having watched the Spain v Iran game last night, I have come to the conclusion that some national teams - Iran, Germany, England etc - are not playing the same way as they play in their top national leagues. For instance, Iran last night put up a virtual brick wall, and relied on the few counter attack chances, until Spain scored, and then Iran played a style of football which was more indicative of what happens in their top domestic league. No Premier League team plays the same way as the England team, with all this stupid back and sideways passing, it is well known for being fast, direct football. This is what the players are used to and what they do best.
Click to expand...

Now I was impressed with the Iranian defending but sick of their cheating and diving, the keeper being the worst. Bet FIFA will do nothing about it!
 
andy700 said:
Having watched the Spain v Iran game last night, I have come to the conclusion that some national teams - Iran, Germany, England etc - are not playing the same way as they play in their top national leagues. For instance, Iran last night put up a virtual brick wall, and relied on the few counter attack chances, until Spain scored, and then Iran played a style of football which was more indicative of what happens in their top domestic league. No Premier League team plays the same way as the England team, with all this stupid back and sideways passing, it is well known for being fast, direct football. This is what the players are used to and what they do best.
Click to expand...

But then you would moan about us losing possession!! The Spanish do a lot of sideways and backwards passing, they have done ok in the last 10 years or so!
 
I didn't say anything about kick and rush football, I specifically said about the sideways/backward passing which is 100% negative, and also risky if and when England come up against better teams.
 
cambsno said:
Now I was impressed with the Iranian defending but sick of their cheating and diving, the keeper being the worst. Bet FIFA will do nothing about it!
Click to expand...


We know full well what Diego Costa is like, and he was getting frustrated. It doesn't change the fact that he DID stamp on the Iranian keeper's foot deliberately. Yes, the keeper did over react.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...tepping-goalkeepers-foot-Spains-win-Iran.html

As for being "sick of their cheating and diving, I didn't see that much compared to other games. The Tunisians were far worse against England, and as for Pepe from Portugal.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/worl...ortugal-clash-with-morocco-at-world-cup-2018/
 
andy700 said:
I didn't say anything about kick and rush football, I specifically said about the sideways/backward passing which is 100% negative, and also risky if and when England come up against better teams.
Click to expand...

Its not 100% negative, if there is nothing on why lose possession by passing forward or being tackled? Go back and start again, the opposition cant score if they don't have the ball!
 
How many times do you see a team have an overwhelming possession percentage, but they are losing heavily
The answer is an awful lot, possession is only worthwhile if its got a creative purpose

I remember watching Bayern v Real in the Champions League a couple of years ago
Bayern had something like 70% of the ball, but were 0-4 down, means nothing if its just passing across the pitch in ones own half.

So far the overall standard has been very average, often is though in the group stages, bring on the knockout competition.

Going to be fascinating if Sweden can draw with Germany, perfectly feasible they could
How ironic if Mexico and Sweden only needed a point each in their final match, anyone remember Austria v Germany in 82?
 
OK folks, I know why England did not get two penalties against Tunisia, it is because FIFA have introduced a highly complicated system with four or five operators sitting in a control room, surrounded by cameras (32 I think), and they can tell the ref if he/she has made a mistake in relation to - goals, penalty decisions, red cards or mistaken identity. It should be quick given the technology at their disposal, however, some numbnuts decided to add in another factor.

The VAR operators can only ADVISE the ref, so the ref is the one who will decide whether or not to listen to them - AAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!!

What could possibly go wrong in a sport so tainted with corruption?

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/...-how-does-it-work-russia-decisions-explained/
 
Iran had a goal disallowed for offside even though the lino didn't flag, was the correct decision though

In the earlier game Ronaldo was denied what looked a clear penalty when they didn't even appear to review the incident
He did his own drawing a screen bit, but think that was more of a joke than anything

Not impressed, its removing all the spontaneity from the game, most teams came out even from good and bad calls by the end of the season
Hate all this assist counting crap too, it really is soccer now or very nearly anyway
 
Well that seems to be Argentina out, typically i got them in the works sweep stake.
They don't deserve anything else though tbh, really poor performace tonight and the first game wasn't much better (Iceland played a great tatical game)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top