Football (World Cup 26)

[xxialac]

11 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

It’s amazing how differently 2 people can see things. I think Spains performances have been significantly better than England and Argentina and I think overall their opposition has been significantly stronger.

 

I feel Argentina and England performances have been erratic and they could have lost (barring possibly Argentina v Cape Verde) every game. I think Spain have lacked a cutting edge, but have been far more in control of some tricky games.

EXACTLY.

Yes, they play too much tippy-tappy but no way have they been worse than England.

 

And they've had harder opposition. Portugal, Austria (who they thrashed) and Belgium and vs Mexico, Congo and Norway.

 

And Spain have done all this with their star player underperforming too. Surely Yamal will finally turn up for the semis and that will make them much stronger.  

 

Norway were really not very good last night. Both sides had little cutting edge.

[xxialac]

5 minutes ago, Ben7amin_ said:

Also disclaimer - i have 0 respect for Fifa rankings when a tournament is on - its played on the pitch we dont need to look at where teams are ranked.  

It's curious how you have low respect for the rankings at the exact moment the last four teams in the competition are ranked #1, #2, #3, #4 by Fifa (and before it started)!

[steviewevie]

Seems obvious to me that England are better than all of them.

[Ben7amin_]

5 minutes ago, xxialac said:

It's curious how you have low respect for the rankings at the exact moment the last four teams in the competition are ranked #1, #2, #3, #4 by Fifa (and before it started)!

 

and Norway beat Brazil...   Cabo Verde drew with Spain  use the football on the pitch to judge the teams not on paper 

Edited July 12 by Ben7amin_

[pink_triangle]

19 minutes ago, lost said:

I tend to find Spain's tiki taka style is like the team is lethargic. They can pass the ball around for ages with nothing happening and then they always seem to find that incisive pass to split the defence even if its late in the game.

 

I find them a little more exciting to watch with Nico Williams but he's not getting much play time ( I think due to injury)

Spain definitely are not exciting to watch, however the style is bloody effective. It’s hard work running around chasing the ball for long periods of time. Opposition teams also can’t score if they don’t have the ball. 
 

The under 19s yesterday played exactly the same way and went through the tournament without conceding. I think it’s just ingrained in their football culture now.

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, Ben7amin_ said:

 

and Norway beat Brazil...   Cabo Verde drew with Spain  use the football on the pitch to judge the teams not on paper 

There’s no doubt that Spain have had the hardest knockout. Portugal are a level above anyone England or Argentina played even playing with 10 men all tournament. However that’s the luck of the draw.  The team who ends up

wimning the thing won’t care if they had the best draw or the most luck, that’s the randomness of knockout football.

[pink_triangle]

27 minutes ago, Ben7amin_ said:

Il double down with another potentially controversial statement then.......

 

I think Norway are a much better side than Belgium

 

Also disclaimer - i have 0 respect for Fifa rankings when a tournament is on - its played on the pitch we dont need to look at where teams are ranked.  

To me the rankings are irrelevant. You get teams like Mexico banking ranking points through relatively easy matches based on geography. To me the thing that matters is the quality of the squad and In particularly the depth. The team with the best squad has generally always won this World Cup.

 

Norway may be better than Belgium, I would put them at the same level and definitely not much better. I would consider both borderline last 8/last 16 level. 

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

There’s no doubt that Spain have had the hardest knockout. Portugal are a level above anyone England or Argentina played even playing with 10 men all tournament. However that’s the luck of the draw.  The team who ends up

wimning the thing won’t care if they had the best draw or the most luck, that’s the randomness of knockout football.

I would argue beating Mexico at the Azteca is up there, especially a lot of it with 10 men.

Edited July 12 by steviewevie

[xxialac]

20 minutes ago, Ben7amin_ said:

 

and Norway beat Brazil...   Cabo Verde drew with Spain  use the football on the pitch to judge the teams not on paper 

No. You're missing my point entirely.

 

On the one hand you say you don't believe in Fifa's ranking system.

 

And I'm pointing out that it can't be that bad as it literally predicted every single one of the four semi finalists. 

[Ben7amin_]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

 

 

On the one hand you say you don't believe in Fifa's ranking system.

 

 

I didnt say they were like Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy -   

 

I do beleive they exist lol 

[xxialac]

England played well against Croatia and also against Mexico, although even then they still could have lost that game.

But did England play well against Ghana? Panama? Congo? Norway?

 

They are a good side but not a great side - too many underperforming areas.

 

They have done just enough not to go out but it's hard to make a case that they have been better than Spain in this tournament.

[pink_triangle]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

No. You're missing my point entirely.

 

On the one hand you say you don't believe in Fifa's ranking system.

 

And I'm pointing out that it can't be that bad as it literally predicted every single one of the four semi finalists. 

It’s hard to say it predicted the semi finalists. As it gave the semi finalist an inbuilt advantage to make that happen. For example Portugal went into the tournament ranked 5th. I think if Portugal had been 4th they likely would be in the semis now.

[pink_triangle]

23 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I would argue beating Mexico at the Azteca is up there, especially a lot of it with 10 men.

Possibly but I think it’s hard to know how hard it is for top sides to win at the Azteca is, as Mexico have built up a record of not playing top teams at the Azteca. I actually think it’s not to their advantage as I think while it helps them in terms of qualification, they lack the experience when they go into knockouts in world cups.

[pink_triangle]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

England played well against Croatia and also against Mexico, although even then they still could have lost that game.

But did England play well against Ghana? Panama? Congo? Norway?

 

They are a good side but not a great side - too many underperforming areas.

 

They have done just enough not to go out but it's hard to make a case that they have been better than Spain in this tournament.

That’s probably an issue in a league format, but you may get away with it in a knockout tournament.

[xxialac]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

It’s hard to say it predicted the semi finalists. As it gave the semi finalist an inbuilt advantage to make that happen. For example Portugal went into the tournament ranked 5th. I think if Portugal had been 4th they likely would be in the semis now.

That's a fair point and I shouldn't have said predicted. 

 

Nonetheless it suggests their ranking calculation system has some genuine validity for sides 1-4 to all make the semi finals.

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

It’s hard to say it predicted the semi finalists. As it gave the semi finalist an inbuilt advantage to make that happen. For example Portugal went into the tournament ranked 5th. I think if Portugal had been 4th they likely would be in the semis now.

Predicted isn't necessarily the word I'd use, but attempted to make it so is more the correct term.

 

Admittedly there were bear traps for everyone along the way - Germany and Brazil's underperformance robbed us of some potentially decent games, while Japan and the Netherlands had it really sh*t that their draw guaranteed Brazil or Morocco as an opponent waiting for them. Plus with the exception of France, who I think have an assurance about them, all of them still nearly blew it against teams in their pathways - Spain needed 2 last minute winners, Argentina's games knockout games have all been insane and England made hard work of all their knockout ties. But you know. Can only beat what's in front of you.

[steviewevie]

Anyway...in theory should be two great semi finals, which will likely mean they end up being dull as f**k.

[steviewevie]

Yeah f**k off

[charlierc]

Gianni Infantino hints at expansion to 64-team World Cup before 2030 event | World Cup | The Guardian

 

He's lost confidence in the 48 team idea already huh.

[charlierc]

Is it wrong I'm struggling to tell if the ball hit the camera cable in the lead up to the first England goal last night? Or at least if any strike had that big of an impact on the flight of the ball?

[steviewevie]

58 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Gianni Infantino hints at expansion to 64-team World Cup before 2030 event | World Cup | The Guardian

 

He's lost confidence in the 48 team idea already huh.

Bigger, better...not against it actually. Just top two get through from group of four.

[Superscally]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Bigger, better...not against it actually. Just top two get through from group of four.

Agreed. 

[Superscally]

In fact get rid of qualifying for all but like the lowest 60 ranked teams and let's go for a 128 team WC

[steviewevie]

f**k it, just have all the counties in it

[xxialac]

35 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

f**k it, just have all the counties in it

Yeah and extend it further from 5 weeks to 52 weeks, such that there is never a day in life without a World Cup game on.