The actual I am watching the World Cup thread. No, non World Cup watchers please. Spoilers.

kingstongraham

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

I do admire players who can wait for the keeper to move and put it in the other side but for the majority they'd do better hitting it hard.

It was weird, the Japanese players didn't seem to wait for the keeper to move it was just like they had picked a side and hoped the keeper went the other way!

Exactly - they were just up against a better keeper and didn't take good enough penalties. If they had waited, they would probably have scored more.

DeVlaeminck

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Its not virtue signalling if you actually go through with the protest. I very much enjoy the world cup but I'd rather we get kicked out of it than back down like that yes. However do you really think that was a realistic threat ?

Stevo_666

MattFalle

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Its not virtue signalling if you actually go through with the protest. I very much enjoy the world cup but I'd rather we get kicked out of it than back down like that yes. However do you really think that was a realistic threat ?

the FA is never, ever, ever going to do anything controversial or risk anything - its far too weak and just interested in money, money, pandering to the whims of multimilliondire incredibly spoilt man-children and money.

pathetic organisation.

rick_chasey

MattFalle said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Its not virtue signalling if you actually go through with the protest. I very much enjoy the world cup but I'd rather we get kicked out of it than back down like that yes. However do you really think that was a realistic threat ?

the FA is never, ever, ever going to do anything controversial or risk anything - its far too weak and just interested in money, money, pandering to the whims of multimilliondire incredibly spoilt man-children and money.

pathetic organisation.

Lol this post is just virtue signalling is it not?

Where does cultural sensitivity stop and outrage at their cultural norms start?

Pross

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Surely the virtue signalling was all the teams that said they were going to wear the armband than dropped it at the first hint there might be consequences? It feels like the very definition of virtue signalling.

First.Aspect

.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Surely the virtue signalling was all the teams that said they were going to where the armband than dropped it at the first hint there might be consequences? It feels like the very definition of virtue signalling.

Yup. But the faux outrage now can still be tiresome.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Its not virtue signalling if you actually go through with the protest. I very much enjoy the world cup but I'd rather we get kicked out of it than back down like that yes. However do you really think that was a realistic threat ?

the FA is never, ever, ever going to do anything controversial or risk anything - its far too weak and just interested in money, money, pandering to the whims of multimilliondire incredibly spoilt man-children and money.

pathetic organisation.

Lol this post is just virtue signalling is it not?

Where does cultural sensitivity stop and outrage at their cultural norms start?

no.

its calling out a historically pathetic organisation for yet again backing down on a stated aim.

at least you could pretend you've followed football for longer than a month Rick and do what you nomlly do - Google and cut & paste from from some dinner party favourable source whilst claimkng its from your own mind following reading some fuckingdull book.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Surely the virtue signalling was all the teams that said they were going to where the armband than dropped it at the first hint there might be consequences? It feels like the very definition of virtue signalling.

We all know about Rosa Parks and the bus boycott but what I had not realisd was that this resulted in many people walking 3-4 hours to a manual job.

Seems our guys did not get the part about self-sacrifice when it came to standing up and being counted

MattFalle

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Surely the virtue signalling was all the teams that said they were going to where the armband than dropped it at the first hint there might be consequences? It feels like the very definition of virtue signalling.

We all know about Rosa Parks and the bus boycott but what I had not realisd was that this resulted in many people walking 3-4 hours to a manual job.

Seems our guys did not get the part about self-sacrifice when it came to standing up and being counted

but but but but but what sbout the money?

WILL NO ONE THINK ABOUT THE NEW RANGE ROVER/BENTLEY/SHITTATTOO?

MattFalle

We're just waiting for the F.A. to confirm that they will be funding security on player's houses now...

rick_chasey

I do think the whole virtue signalling is a red herring.

I mean, everything is a signal and symbolic in some way. Football is inherently trivial, that's part of the appeal.

I don't think football is a vehicle for political change in any meaningful way and any international tournaments have a level of political challenges associated with them, as countries want to run their societies in different ways.

I am sympathetic to the argument that they're footballers, not spokespeople or politicians, so why is it incumbent on them to have to do anything? It is not their fault.

Anyway, most of the furore seems to be about representing their own domestic minorities who luckily do have rights, and not much thought is going on the impact on the minorities in Qatar who get a rough time.

Was a piece I read explaining that most gays in Qatar are worried about the reprisals after the cup is over in retaliation for all the fuss that the West European teams made.

rick_chasey

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Its not virtue signalling if you actually go through with the protest. I very much enjoy the world cup but I'd rather we get kicked out of it than back down like that yes. However do you really think that was a realistic threat ?

the FA is never, ever, ever going to do anything controversial or risk anything - its far too weak and just interested in money, money, pandering to the whims of multimilliondire incredibly spoilt man-children and money.

pathetic organisation.

Lol this post is just virtue signalling is it not?

Where does cultural sensitivity stop and outrage at their cultural norms start?

no.

its calling out a historically pathetic organisation for yet again backing down on a stated aim.

at least you could pretend you've followed football for longer than a month Rick and do what you nomlly do - Google and cut & paste from from some dinner party favourable source whilst claimkng its from your own mind following reading some fuckingdull book.

I can recommend reading things and using that understanding to inform you own.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

DeVlaeminck said:

First.Aspect said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

I guess it comes down to the old conundrum of whether supporters want a team that plays to their strengths and wins or tries to play entertaining football and loses. Obviously most want entertaining, winning football but that isn't often viable.

with the players we have the logical thing was always to set up like City/Arsenal. Back four protected by two holding midfield players at least one of who can step out and play the ball. Then a centre forward with two fast forwards either side who also track back and the last guy linking them with the sitting two.

This plays to our strengths, is entertaining and a ssytem that is not reinventing the wheel

Yes except England don't give the FBs anything like the same freedom.

First.Aspect said:

Did you hear what FIFA did to the six national teams who were proposing to wear it? The basically sent a delegation to each and threatened them politely with unlimited sanctions. So it wasn't just a potential yellow card for Harry, it was potential expulsion from the tournament.

As.time goes on I suspect we will learn more and more rumours about FIFA being the Qatari's messengers. And there is clearly a tug of war going on about fans wearing anything that might be considered to be a rainbow.

Yes - and I really doubt they'd have carried that threat through but if they had so be it I thought some things more important than football.

Oh stop virtue signalling. You are trying to argue that wearing a rainbow armband whilst kicking a ball around would make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Its not virtue signalling if you actually go through with the protest. I very much enjoy the world cup but I'd rather we get kicked out of it than back down like that yes. However do you really think that was a realistic threat ?

the FA is never, ever, ever going to do anything controversial or risk anything - its far too weak and just interested in money, money, pandering to the whims of multimilliondire incredibly spoilt man-children and money.

pathetic organisation.

Lol this post is just virtue signalling is it not?

Where does cultural sensitivity stop and outrage at their cultural norms start?

no.

its calling out a historically pathetic organisation for yet again backing down on a stated aim.

at least you could pretend you've followed football for longer than a month Rick and do what you nomlly do - Google and cut & paste from from some dinner party favourable source whilst claimkng its from your own mind following reading some fuckingdull book.

I can recommend reading things and using that understanding to inform you own.

you what?

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

I do think the whole virtue signalling is a red herring.

I mean, everything is a signal and symbolic in some way. Football is inherently trivial, that's part of the appeal.

I don't think football is a vehicle for political change in any meaningful way and any international tournaments have a level of political challenges associated with them, as countries want to run their societies in different ways.

I am sympathetic to the argument that they're footballers, not spokespeople or politicians, so why is it incumbent on them to have to do anything? It is not their fault.

Anyway, most of the furore seems to be about representing their own domestic minorities who luckily do have rights, and not much thought is going on the impact on the minorities in Qatar who get a rough time.

Was a piece I read explaining that most gays in Qatar are worried about the reprisals after the cup is over in retaliation for all the fuss that the West European teams made.

Sorry - you don't think football - and in turn, sport - is a vehicle for political change?

seriously? like seriously seriously?

rick_chasey

Like I said I can recommend reading.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

I do think the whole virtue signalling is a red herring.

I mean, everything is a signal and symbolic in some way. Football is inherently trivial, that's part of the appeal.

I don't think football is a vehicle for political change in any meaningful way and any international tournaments have a level of political challenges associated with them, as countries want to run their societies in different ways.

I am sympathetic to the argument that they're footballers, not spokespeople or politicians, so why is it incumbent on them to have to do anything? It is not their fault.

Anyway, most of the furore seems to be about representing their own domestic minorities who luckily do have rights, and not much thought is going on the impact on the minorities in Qatar who get a rough time.

Was a piece I read explaining that most gays in Qatar are worried about the reprisals after the cup is over in retaliation for all the fuss that the West European teams made.

I'd have sympathy for that point of view if they hadn't been so keen to want to make the point before FIFA warned them there would be consequences. They seemed very keen to make their Tik Toks and talk about things before that point. If you want to be seen to make a stand then you have to follow through, if not then when you get asked the question you need to say something like "I'm just a footballer, others have taken the decision the tournament has to be held here so I'm here". I've found the whole thing ironic given the number of professional footballers who have felt able to come out as gay in the countries that were making such a deal about the issue.

MattFalle

more bolloxby Rick.

They are happy to be described as heroes, legends

They are to be on the front page of papers, social media, tv feted as SAVIOURS OF INGERLAND

They are happy to be paid millions of pounds a year

They are happy to accept titles, gongs, etc for kicking a foitball around

They are happy to go around drinking, fighting andshagging and get away with it and get preferential treatment

In my neck of the woods privilege comes with responsibility - this lot are responsible to speak up on the biggest stage.

If you don't have the cojones to speak up but still expect the privilege then jog right on

This lot are totally spineless.

MattFalle

Things that shpuld never happen according to Rick

laurentian

MattFalle said:

Things that shpuld never happen according to Rick

England have been doing the first one before every match

rick_chasey

They’re footballers. Not politicians.

It’s not a privilege. They’ve earned it.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

They’re footballers. Not politicians.

It’s not a privilege. They’ve earned it.

you are totally, utterly missing the point.

Everyone has a right and requirement to stand up for what is right.

This lot failed.

Its a total and utter privilege what they get away with. If you or me tried it we'd be in prison or repeatedly beaten up.

Privilege - you say you're good at reading. Look it up.

MattFalle

Rick - these people weren't politicians. They were teachers, shopworkers, factory workers, athletes, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers.

You got a problem with them protesting? Or do these people fit your agenda?

rick_chasey

I’m not against protest. I’m suggesting it shouldn’t be expected for footballers to have to protest.

Happy to praise those that do but I don’t think it’s fair to give them criticism for playing in a World Cup in Qatar and adhering to the rules of the cup and of the host nation.

Not least as someone like Kane for example has actually done quite a lot for LGBTQ+ in the UK which is where he’s from.


What do you expect the protest to achieve?

And as for my point about local gays being worried about post-cup reprisals for western protests - no interest?

MattFalle

Nope, can't see any politicians here....

TheBigBean

Isn't this the football thread not the political one?

rick_chasey

yeah soz.

I fancy Morocco for an upset but not Switzerland.

MattFalle

ABE

MattFalle

but preferably Brazil/France final.

MattFalle

but essentially anyone but ingerland