World Cup 2018

11920212224

Posts

  • verylonglegsverylonglegs Posts: 3,400
    joe2008 wrote:
    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.

    I did think about the money angle but in FIFA terms the revenue for that single game is peanuts, it's not like they really need it.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,453
    Good to see Hoddle insisting on calling the veteran Croatia forward Man Duke Itch

    Is it really possible that he has never heard of the bloke before?
  • crispybug2crispybug2 Posts: 2,997
    My mate living in Paris on Facebook...

    “Holy shite, the foundations just shifted!”
  • LucanLucan Posts: 336
    I just drove 50 miles in Northern France. Now I know what it will be like after the Apocalypse!
    Summer: Kuota Kebel
    Winter: GT Series3
  • sungodsungod Posts: 11,759
    le football est rentré à la maison
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • milemuncher1milemuncher1 Posts: 1,472
    I’ll take that, given my French heritage, and Surname. Vive la France.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,304
    orraloon wrote:
    You know this 'it's coming home' vibe that has regained currency? What's coming home? Wasn't Jules Rimet French? Jest sayin' like.
    Cough. :wink:
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,403
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Anyway, come on France...do us a favour and take the JCTs (Jammy Croatian T***s) down a peg :)
    Well done France.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    Really wanted Croatia to win that, so at least we could say that England only lost by a goal to the eventual champions. Oh well, football never ceases to disappoint me.
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    finchy wrote:
    Really wanted Croatia to win that, so at least we could say that England only lost by a goal to the eventual champions. Oh well, football never ceases to disappoint me.


    now thats really grabbing at straws.......
    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.
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    finchy wrote:
    Really wanted Croatia to win that, so at least we could say that England only lost by a goal to the eventual champions. Oh well, football never ceases to disappoint me.

    If you read the comments beneath some reports you will be encouraged to know that Croatia were in fact the moral victors and by far the better players and France only won because they cheated, biased ref and so on. Their defeat means they will receive a mere $28m dollars in prize money instead of the $38m the French players share (minus income tax, no doubt).

    Do not be disappointed: both teams will return home to a heroes welcome and their richly deserved multi-million pound salaries.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,856 Lives Here
    Robert88 wrote:
    finchy wrote:
    Really wanted Croatia to win that, so at least we could say that England only lost by a goal to the eventual champions. Oh well, football never ceases to disappoint me.

    If you read the comments beneath some reports you will be encouraged to know that Croatia were in fact the moral victors and by far the better players and France only won because they cheated, biased ref and so on. Their defeat means they will receive a mere $28m dollars in prize money instead of the $38m the French players share (minus income tax, no doubt).

    Do not be disappointed: both teams will return home to a heroes welcome and their richly deserved multi-million pound salaries.

    Aw, are you begrudging people being paid a lot for having world class skill in the world’s most popular sport?

    Diddums.
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    Robert88 wrote:
    finchy wrote:
    Really wanted Croatia to win that, so at least we could say that England only lost by a goal to the eventual champions. Oh well, football never ceases to disappoint me.

    If you read the comments beneath some reports you will be encouraged to know that Croatia were in fact the moral victors and by far the better players and France only won because they cheated, biased ref and so on. Their defeat means they will receive a mere $28m dollars in prize money instead of the $38m the French players share (minus income tax, no doubt).

    Do not be disappointed: both teams will return home to a heroes welcome and their richly deserved multi-million pound salaries.

    Aw, are you begrudging people being paid a lot for having world class skill in the world’s most popular sport?

    Diddums.

    Ha Ha! I knew I'd catch someone :lol: Very quick bite Rick.
  • dinyulldinyull Posts: 2,961
    Was funny seeing them mention just how young the French squad was.

    Isn't this England squad going to compete for years at the top?
  • laurentianlaurentian Posts: 1,662
    The tournament has been excellent fomr start to finish but, by way of a post mortem on one aspect of the World Cup, what are the feelings on VAR?
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • TashmanTashman Posts: 2,693
    laurentian wrote:
    The tournament has been excellent fomr start to finish but, by way of a post mortem on one aspect of the World Cup, what are the feelings on VAR?
    Ultimately can be a good thing. Having the World cup used as the trail for it for many of the officials though seemed a curious thing. Still delivered contentious decisions and the definition of "clear and obvious error" might need some work
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,268
    laurentian wrote:
    The tournament has been excellent fomr start to finish but, by way of a post mortem on one aspect of the World Cup, what are the feelings on VAR?

    Take a panel of VAR refs, sit them in a room and show them hundreds and hundreds of controversial incidents from past games. Then don't use VAR until all the refs come to the same conclusion on every incident which may involve some changes to the laws of the game.

    So many of its failings would have been address if they had done that.
  • timothywtimothyw Posts: 2,421
    The main problem is that you show something in slow motion and actions start to look deliberate, when they aren't.

    Penalty yesterday would be a prime example - watch it in real time and is seems impossible that he could have deliberately handballed - run it in slow motion and it looks like he is trying to do it.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/33/9250

    Then combine that with the fact that the ref only gets called over to review a penalty decision if the VAR team thinks there is a clear and obvious foul, it becomes pretty hard for the ref to then overrule them and not give it.

    Hopefully once VAR has been in use for a while they'll get the hang of it - most of the time it did improve the standard of refereeing.
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,895
    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.

    If you ignore extra time, England played 7, won 3, drew 2 and lost 2. So 11 points in 7 games translates to 59/60 over 38 games. That would have placed them 7th last year.

    I know that doesn't mean a lot in reality, are any teams in the premier league as bad as Panama or Tunisia and there are plenty better than Belgium and Croatia.

    So a more fair comparison might be where they'd have finished in the championship - using the same logic about 8th or 9th.
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • mrfpbmrfpb Posts: 3,926
    At the next World Cup can we have a round played on cobbles?
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,845
    mrfpb wrote:
    At the next World Cup can we have a round played on cobbles?
    And tell them that play does not stop for fouls or injuries.
    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.
  • timothyw wrote:
    The main problem is that you show something in slow motion and actions start to look deliberate, when they aren't.

    Penalty yesterday would be a prime example - watch it in real time and is seems impossible that he could have deliberately handballed - run it in slow motion and it looks like he is trying to do it.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/33/9250

    Then combine that with the fact that the ref only gets called over to review a penalty decision if the VAR team thinks there is a clear and obvious foul, it becomes pretty hard for the ref to then overrule them and not give it.

    Hopefully once VAR has been in use for a while they'll get the hang of it - most of the time it did improve the standard of refereeing.

    The VAR decision yesterday was the perfect reason why it is needed. The referee missed the handball and VAR corrected that decision.

    It was a clear penalty because the defender knew late that he was in the wrong position for the flight of the ball so intentionally raised his leg and lowered his arm to get something in the way to stop/deflect the ball.
    Fair-weather commuter
    Canyon Ultimate CF 8.0 in Black - WOW :)
    Giant Defy 2 - FCN 4(summer) / 5(winter) - Great bike
    Hybrid - FCN 8 - Relegated to the pub bike
  • dinyulldinyull Posts: 2,961
    Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    I feel an analogy with a 2nd referendum would fit nicely here.
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    dinyull wrote:
    Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    I feel an analogy with a 2nd referendum would fit nicely here.

    Well go on then, let's have it.
  • milemuncher1milemuncher1 Posts: 1,472
    England were actually dier. If they’d had a hard group, they wouldn’t have made it out. Same old England, different day.
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,895
    England were actually dier. If they’d had a hard group, they wouldn’t have made it out. Same old England, different day.

    That is very harsh, England did as expected against who they played, no more no less. They made the most of a favourable draw and some "bigger" teams going out early.

    Which teams at a similar level to England did better?
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    Indeed, they played to the level required with a bit of luck thrown in.

    And never forget, that they won on penalties at last.
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,304
    England were actually dier
    Nah, Dier only played a minor part.
  • milemuncher1milemuncher1 Posts: 1,472
    Chris Bass wrote:
    England were actually dier. If they’d had a hard group, they wouldn’t have made it out. Same old England, different day.

    That is very harsh, England did as expected against who they played, no more no less. They made the most of a favourable draw and some "bigger" teams going out early.

    Which teams at a similar level to England did better?

    Belgium. They belted us twice.
  • joe2008joe2008 Posts: 1,919
    Chris Bass wrote:
    England were actually dier. If they’d had a hard group, they wouldn’t have made it out. Same old England, different day.

    That is very harsh, England did as expected against who they played, no more no less. They made the most of a favourable draw and some "bigger" teams going out early.

    Which teams at a similar level to England did better?

    Belgium. They belted us twice.

    No, Belgium have two world class midfielders, we haven't.
Sign In or Register to comment.