World Cup 2018

11920212325

Posts

  • DinyullDinyull Posts: 3,168
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.

    That's probably because you've seen more of him. Maradona, for example, was ridiculous.

    Equally, someone like Puskas from before I was born can't be compared with someone like Messi - they are both great, but playing a very different game.

    Comparing eras is always tricky, but I think the the standard is better now, not least because they are all much fitter. And Messi really is quite good.

    Messi is superb. But so was Maradona. He did it back when defenders could pass back to the keeper too.

    And kick lumps out of you.

    Google the Butcher of Bilbao.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,424
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.
    If you mainly watch international football, you'd be quite perplexed by that statement....

    Gilbert, GVA, Cancellera and Tomeke are just guys that wore the yellow jersey in the tour, right?

    They're not GOATs 'cos they can't do the big sh!t (figuratively) in the biggest bike race.

    When you talk greatest ever with cycling, you start with the list of the riders who have won 5 Tours and work from there.

    Or you care about the classics and start with the riders that have won the most monuments. In both cases that starts with the same rider, but there is rapid divergence afterwards.

    Also, note that I do not consider the world cup to be the pinnacle of the sport. Far from it.


    this 100%
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,424
    FocusZing wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    Federer has won Wimbledon 8 times, it didn't stop him getting knocked out. If Croatia lost they would be saying he's too old.

    Hindsight claptrap.

    In fairness all comments made after the match are with hindsight

    You don't think Croatia's experience was a factor then?

    The England players play at the highest level day in day out. What about Argentina, Germany, Brazil. What did they have too much experience?

    no they don't - it is very pertinent that their experience in the latter stages of the Champs League was very limited. Most of them don't even have experience of playing in championship deciding matches.
  • timothywtimothyw Posts: 2,415
    Dinyull wrote:
    He's played in the last 2 Copa America Finals and last World Cup Final too.
    Scored in the penalty shootout of the first one, missed in the shootout of the second, didn't score in the WC final, lost all three games.

    Scored once in four games this world cup, missed a penalty.

    It just isn't good enough for someone you are claiming is better than, say, Pele. Three times a world cup winner.

    I'm intrigued to hear what BigBean and Surrey Commuter think the pinnacle of the sport is if not the WC finals?
  • DinyullDinyull Posts: 3,168
    timothyw wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    He's played in the last 2 Copa America Finals and last World Cup Final too.
    Scored in the penalty shootout of the first one, missed in the shootout of the second, didn't score in the WC final, lost all three games.

    Scored once in four games this world cup, missed a penalty.

    It just isn't good enough for someone you are claiming is better than, say, Pele. Three times a world cup winner.

    I'm intrigued to hear what BigBean and Surrey Commuter think the pinnacle of the sport is if not the WC finals?

    Ahem, I haven't claimed him to be better than anyone.

    I'm just pointing out the lazy assumption of him not doing it for his country is complete and utter b*llocks.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,424
    timothyw wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    He's played in the last 2 Copa America Finals and last World Cup Final too.
    Scored in the penalty shootout of the first one, missed in the shootout of the second, didn't score in the WC final, lost all three games.

    Scored once in four games this world cup, missed a penalty.

    It just isn't good enough for someone you are claiming is better than, say, Pele. Three times a world cup winner.

    I'm intrigued to hear what BigBean and Surrey Commuter think the pinnacle of the sport is if not the WC finals?

    latter stages of the CL is far superior.

    If England had played in the Premier League last year where do you think they would have come;
    a) Champions
    b) top 4
    c) also rans with Chelsea/Arsenal
    d) Mid table mediocrity - Everton/Burnley
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,251
    timothyw wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    He's played in the last 2 Copa America Finals and last World Cup Final too.
    Scored in the penalty shootout of the first one, missed in the shootout of the second, didn't score in the WC final, lost all three games.

    Scored once in four games this world cup, missed a penalty.

    It just isn't good enough for someone you are claiming is better than, say, Pele. Three times a world cup winner.

    I'm intrigued to hear what BigBean and Surrey Commuter think the pinnacle of the sport is if not the WC finals?

    latter stages of the CL is far superior.

    If England had played in the Premier League last year where do you think they would have come;
    a) Champions
    b) top 4
    c) also rans with Chelsea/Arsenal
    d) Mid table mediocrity - Everton/Burnley

    I think if England played as a team for a whole season then they would be a lot better. Maybe 5th last year, so option c. That said I think the complete absence of a midfield might be found out, so could be lower than that.

    If they played to the same standard as the world cup then a relegation battle finishing around 15th - Brighton level.

    I would like England to play warm up matches against Championship teams. It's probably not allowed, but I think the results would surprise some people, and it would be good for the team to play against organised opposition.

    To improve things I would scrap international breaks during the season and have all qualifiers one summer and the tournament the following summer. That would also mean that national teams would be a bit more responsible with injuries.

    It feels odd agreeing with you. Must be a Friday.
  • timothywtimothyw Posts: 2,415
    Problem is, there's no one right way of deciding which football club is the best, is there?

    Are Real Madrid the best team in Europe or the third best club in Spain?

    Are Liverpool the second best team in Europe, or the fourth best in England?

    You could argue that the great Spain team of 2008-2012 could have cleaned up most any competition it entered. I think as it stands a lot of people would expect similar from the current French team (or at least a competitive entry near the best).

    England aren't a great example as we have obvious deficiencies painfully exposed by the Croatians, and we can't buy in a decent midfielder to fix it....

    I basically agree that you're likely to see better football towards the end of a CL, but it still doesn't interest me in the way that a world cup does.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,424
    TheBigBean wrote:
    timothyw wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    He's played in the last 2 Copa America Finals and last World Cup Final too.
    Scored in the penalty shootout of the first one, missed in the shootout of the second, didn't score in the WC final, lost all three games.

    Scored once in four games this world cup, missed a penalty.

    It just isn't good enough for someone you are claiming is better than, say, Pele. Three times a world cup winner.

    I'm intrigued to hear what BigBean and Surrey Commuter think the pinnacle of the sport is if not the WC finals?

    latter stages of the CL is far superior.

    If England had played in the Premier League last year where do you think they would have come;
    a) Champions
    b) top 4
    c) also rans with Chelsea/Arsenal
    d) Mid table mediocrity - Everton/Burnley

    I think if England played as a team for a whole season then they would be a lot better. Maybe 5th last year, so option c. That said I think the complete absence of a midfield might be found out, so could be lower than that.

    If they played to the same standard as the world cup then a relegation battle finishing around 15th - Brighton level.

    I would like England to play warm up matches against Championship teams. It's probably not allowed, but I think the results would surprise some people, and it would be good for the team to play against organised opposition.

    To improve things I would scrap international breaks during the season and have all qualifiers one summer and the tournament the following summer. That would also mean that national teams would be a bit more responsible with injuries.

    It feels odd agreeing with you. Must be a Friday.

    only taken us a couple of years to find football as some common ground
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,424
    timothyw wrote:
    Problem is, there's no one right way of deciding which football club is the best, is there?

    Are Real Madrid the best team in Europe or the third best club in Spain?

    Are Liverpool the second best team in Europe, or the fourth best in England?

    You could argue that the great Spain team of 2008-2012 could have cleaned up most any competition it entered. I think as it stands a lot of people would expect similar from the current French team (or at least a competitive entry near the best).

    England aren't a great example as we have obvious deficiencies painfully exposed by the Croatians, and we can't buy in a decent midfielder to fix it....

    I basically agree that you're likely to see better football towards the end of a CL, but it still doesn't interest me in the way that a world cup does.

    there is too much dross in the WC. I used to much prefer the Euros to the WC but that was when it only had 8 teams
  • timothywtimothyw Posts: 2,415
    16 team Euros was just about right IMO.
    32 team WC would be better if they didn't have some many shite teams from weak confederations. 48 team world cup will be horrific.

    Still, you do get the odd underdog stepping up, which is part of the magic for me.
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 13,543
    timothyw wrote:
    16 team Euros was just about right IMO.
    32 team WC would be better if they didn't have some many shite teams from weak confederations. 48 team world cup will be horrific.

    Still, you do get the odd underdog stepping up, which is part of the magic for me.

    32 teams for me gets the balance right between quality and representation.
    "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?"
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    Gonna be odd watching the final on 18 Dec.
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    timothyw wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    He's played in the last 2 Copa America Finals and last World Cup Final too.
    Scored in the penalty shootout of the first one, missed in the shootout of the second, didn't score in the WC final, lost all three games.

    Scored once in four games this world cup, missed a penalty.

    It just isn't good enough for someone you are claiming is better than, say, Pele. Three times a world cup winner.

    I'm intrigued to hear what BigBean and Surrey Commuter think the pinnacle of the sport is if not the WC finals?

    latter stages of the CL is far superior.

    If England had played in the Premier League last year where do you think they would have come;
    a) Champions
    b) top 4
    c) also rans with Chelsea/Arsenal
    d) Mid table mediocrity - Everton/Burnley

    As a Chelsea fan of too many decades and therefore used to overpaid players providing massive disappointment, England would head a heady option "d"

    England played two decent teams, lost two games.

    Bit rubbish really.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 5,256
    [


    latter stages of the CL is far superior.

    If England had played in the Premier League last year where do you think they would have come;
    a) Champions
    b) top 4
    c) also rans with Chelsea/Arsenal
    d) Mid table mediocrity - Everton/Burnley

    I reckon top 4 would be a reasonable target for that squad.
    Holbrook Sports FC Women - sign for us
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    [


    latter stages of the CL is far superior.

    If England had played in the Premier League last year where do you think they would have come;
    a) Champions
    b) top 4
    c) also rans with Chelsea/Arsenal
    d) Mid table mediocrity - Everton/Burnley

    I reckon top 4 would be a reasonable target for that squad.

    I think the 'B' team they put out against Belgium suggested a slight lack of depth, which could hurt over a long season no?

    I think they'd be one of those teams the big boys 'should' beat, but that occasionally can throw a surprise.

    The slightly suspect defending and inability to score from open play do not suggest a top 4 Premier league side to me...
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    And today it's England v Belgium.
  • morstarmorstar Posts: 2,240
    Robert88 wrote:
    And today it's England v Belgium.

    Odd to play the same team twice at one world cup with little to play for in either game.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,279
    I've only just realised that the Losers' Final is on now. Whatevs. Sun is shining...
  • verylonglegsverylonglegs Posts: 3,400
    I don't know why FIFA persist with the 3rd place play-off, a nothing game.
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,635
    England got a chance to show their reliable inconsistency though.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,424
    mfin wrote:
    England got a chance to show their reliable inconsistency though.

    Typo?

    We are reliably consistent in losing to any good team we play.
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    I don't know why FIFA persist with the 3rd place play-off, a nothing game.
    1

    Absolutely. Meaningless.
  • milemuncher1milemuncher1 Posts: 1,472
    It shows how sh1yte England actually were.
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    we must admit that we missed it - anyonefancy dropping a 5 line match review on here?
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,424
    we must admit that we missed it - anyonefancy dropping a 5 line match review on here?

    A coach as limited as Martinez figured out that if you pin back our wing backs we have no other means of moving the ball up the field than a hopeful punt. That and using zonal marking dried up our supply of penalties. We were then picked off by a superior team*

    * I have not seen the game so may be entirely wrong
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 5,256
    Belgium were by far the better team in first half and should have been more than 1 ahead. Second half England had a fair bit of possession and could have equalised but Belgium looked dangerous on the break and got a second fairly late on.
    Holbrook Sports FC Women - sign for us
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    we must admit that we missed it - anyonefancy dropping a 5 line match review on here?

    England
    lose
    without
    penalty
    shoot-out.

    (everything else is subjective)
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,815
    I don't know why FIFA persist with the 3rd place play-off, a nothing game.
    Money.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • joe2008joe2008 Posts: 1,919
    pblakeney wrote:
    I don't know why FIFA persist with the 3rd place play-off, a nothing game.
    Money.

    This.

    67,000 attendance. Ticket price for non-Russians between £127 and £255.
Sign In or Register to comment.