Author Topic: World cup 2018  (Read 60288 times)

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #525 on: 15 July, 2018, 01:29:42 pm »
We got ourselves into that side of the draw by losing tactically.
It is simpler than it looks.

Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #526 on: 15 July, 2018, 01:35:44 pm »
Or, as the 3rd place play-off suggests, by just losing!  It was a good effort, though.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #527 on: 15 July, 2018, 06:19:55 pm »
Mandzukic wins the prize for cheekiest goal of the tournament!  :thumbsup:
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Feanor

  • It's mostly downhill from here.
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #528 on: 15 July, 2018, 07:48:47 pm »
From our Seekrit Hideout here en Provence, we could hear the cheers go up across the valley. And even a patriotic cockerel gave it a go.

Samuel D

Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #529 on: 15 July, 2018, 08:31:48 pm »
Here in Paris, it looks like I won’t be getting much sleep tonight. They’re still at the yelling wildly and tooting their car-horn stage and it’s already 21h30.

That lesson again in numbers (DuncanM’s doubt notwithstanding!): 34% possession, 7 shots, 6 on target, 4 goals, 1 World Cup.

Basil

  • Um....err......oh bugger!
  • Help me!
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #530 on: 15 July, 2018, 08:44:01 pm »
Mrs B informed me that 'Pussy Cat Riot' invaded the pitch.  ;D
I corrected her.  They're actually called 'Pussy Riot.  Rather  different.
Admission.  I'm actually not that fussed about cake.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #531 on: 15 July, 2018, 09:00:03 pm »
That lesson again in numbers (DuncanM’s doubt notwithstanding!): 34% possession, 7 shots, 6 on target, 4 goals, 1 World Cup.
Yeah, Croatia had twice the possession, twice the shots but half the goals. It was a bit like Russia-Spain but far, far better!
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #532 on: 15 July, 2018, 09:04:12 pm »
Est-ce que le foot revient chez lui?

Pas aujourd'hui! Mon equipe s'appelle Chateau Nouveau Uni, (la plupart est francaise!)

Sorry, Cudz, obviously I missed your intention - years of associating the phrase totally with drunken English things.  The correct answer is now "absolument"!

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #533 on: 15 July, 2018, 09:06:54 pm »
I thought your Chateau Nouveau Uni was rather amusing.  ;D

(I'd been reading about how England might be the home of football but France is the home of FIFA and the World Cup. Obviously all the other countries are mere johnny come lately imposters, especially those Germans!)
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #534 on: 15 July, 2018, 09:12:06 pm »
I thought your Chateau Nouveau Uni was rather amusing.  ;D

(I'd been reading about how England might be the home of football but France is the home of FIFA and the World Cup. Obviously all the other countries are mere johnny come lately imposters, especially those Germans!)

Ha!  You wouldn't if you watched them!


T42

  • Apprentice geezer
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #535 on: 16 July, 2018, 07:43:22 am »
Funny thing: every time I watch a football match, France win the World Cup. That's twice it's happened now.
I've dusted off all those old bottles and set them up straight

T42

  • Apprentice geezer
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #536 on: 16 July, 2018, 10:36:26 am »
I've dusted off all those old bottles and set them up straight

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #537 on: 21 July, 2018, 02:27:23 pm »
Now that the groups have been drawn, what do you think?

I stuck a fiver on England. Probably foolish - stranger things probably haven't happened - but you never know......

It may not be foolish, it depends entirely on what the bet is.  Beating Tunisia isn't entirely beyond the realms of fantasy.  Winning the competition is.

They actually have a fairly benign group and, assuming they get out of the group, will avoid the big teams in the first knockout game.  After that it's just a couple of games from holding the cup aloft.  Simple as that*.

*Except we looked typically mediocre and uninspiring in our recent friendlies.


Assuming you got 16/1 odds or thereabouts that feels about right.  Not impossible just unlikely (especially when Spain, Brazil and Germany are 4/1 or 5/1.  Think I'd rather have my money there).

I'd like to refer you to my overall assessment of England.  I think I got it about right.

We were mediocre.

We beat poor teams and got beaten by good teams.  That perfectly sums up "mediocre".

Our "promising young players" were mediocre whilst the even younger French youngsters won it.

Never again will the stars line up like that for an England triumph.  No Holland and almost all the major teams looked poor.

France totally deserved it, they drew once and won the rest. 

We have some incredibly overrated players, like Raheem Sterling and Jordan Henderson. 
I think the euphoria about getting to the Semi-finals needs to be tempered by looking at how we got there, who we beat to get there, and how close to not beating some quite average teams we were.

We can play "on the floor" in areas that don't matter but we revert to type, with long-balls to short players, when the going gets tough.

Harry Kane is a quality player, true World class in my eyes.  Jordan Pickford did himself no harm at all, he looked commanding and capable, amazing given his age.  From there I'd say Maguire looked promising but then I start to struggle.  Stones possibly.

I was disappointed that Southgate stuck with Sterling and never gave Rashford a full game.

Overall the history books will show we were the 4th best team at the Tournament, Gareth will probably get an MBE, Raheem Sterling will probably get an extra few million quid a year but I was quite shocked at how typically England it got when things started to go against us.  We still don't have good enough technique with the ball.

Ah well... you never know.  We are very successful at youth level in tournaments now.  If (and it's a huge IF) they get game-time with Premiership clubs* then the future is bright.

*This is at the root of the issue.  Our promising youth don't play enough at the cutting edge in the premiership.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #538 on: 21 July, 2018, 02:30:43 pm »


 :P

Allez Les Gauls!

(You know, if I think of The French being represented by those two, I feel much more pleased for them. As opposed to someone like Zidane ... )
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #539 on: 21 July, 2018, 02:43:13 pm »


 :P

Allez Les Gauls!

(You know, if I think of The French being represented by those two, I feel much more pleased for them. As opposed to someone like Zidane ... )

Zidane, one of the greatest players ever to play the game, Zidane, you mean that Zidane?
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #540 on: 21 July, 2018, 02:45:58 pm »
Oh I've little against Zidane - I just think Obelix is a much more likeable fellow!


(I do hope you realise I wasn't comparing footballing abilities. Rowing was more Obelix' sport. )
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #541 on: 21 July, 2018, 08:38:05 pm »
We were mediocre.

We beat poor teams and got beaten by good teams.  That perfectly sums up "mediocre".

Our "promising young players" were mediocre whilst the even younger French youngsters won it.

Never again will the stars line up like that for an England triumph.  No Holland and almost all the major teams looked poor.

France totally deserved it, they drew once and won the rest. 

We have some incredibly overrated players, like Raheem Sterling and Jordan Henderson. 
I think the euphoria about getting to the Semi-finals needs to be tempered by looking at how we got there, who we beat to get there, and how close to not beating some quite average teams we were.

We can play "on the floor" in areas that don't matter but we revert to type, with long-balls to short players, when the going gets tough.

Harry Kane is a quality player, true World class in my eyes.  Jordan Pickford did himself no harm at all, he looked commanding and capable, amazing given his age.  From there I'd say Maguire looked promising but then I start to struggle.  Stones possibly.

I was disappointed that Southgate stuck with Sterling and never gave Rashford a full game.

Overall the history books will show we were the 4th best team at the Tournament, Gareth will probably get an MBE, Raheem Sterling will probably get an extra few million quid a year but I was quite shocked at how typically England it got when things started to go against us.  We still don't have good enough technique with the ball.

Ah well... you never know.  We are very successful at youth level in tournaments now.  If (and it's a huge IF) they get game-time with Premiership clubs* then the future is bright.

*This is at the root of the issue.  Our promising youth don't play enough at the cutting edge in the premiership.

It's interesting that 2 people can watch the same thing and come away thinking totally different things. :)
While he has demonstrated over the last few years he's an incredible striker, I thought Kane was really poor. He's not played well since he came back from the injury earlier this season.
Sterling was one of the few players who could actually transition the ball from the back into the final third. Whenever he went off, England resorted to route 1, because there was no-one to lay through. Rashford is a good footballer, and if you can get him the ball in the final third he makes things happen, but he doesn't do the same things that Sterling does.
Henderson is the best all-round holding midfielder England had available. He has his limits (he's not particularly quick, he is certainly no Kante), but his passing is an order of magnitude better than Dier.

Where we agree is about about the chances youth players get, though let's face it, if Mbappe was at a premiership club then he would play. Young attackers with pace get to play.  It's the other positions (or players without pace) that rarely get a chance.

Samuel D

Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #542 on: 21 July, 2018, 11:40:52 pm »
Kane was weak in this World Cup. I haven’t watched Premiership football for years, so the gap between hype and observed performance in that player was especially dissonant to me.

A simple question: why has pace become so important to footballers of every position? Next it’ll be goalkeepers!

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #543 on: 22 July, 2018, 01:40:10 pm »


Oh how jolly if the final had been them against these two:

Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #544 on: 22 July, 2018, 06:40:11 pm »
It's interesting that 2 people can watch the same thing and come away thinking totally different things. :)
While he has demonstrated over the last few years he's an incredible striker, I thought Kane was really poor. He's not played well since he came back from the injury earlier this season.
Sterling was one of the few players who could actually transition the ball from the back into the final third. Whenever he went off, England resorted to route 1, because there was no-one to lay through. Rashford is a good footballer, and if you can get him the ball in the final third he makes things happen, but he doesn't do the same things that Sterling does.
Henderson is the best all-round holding midfielder England had available. He has his limits (he's not particularly quick, he is certainly no Kante), but his passing is an order of magnitude better than Dier.

Where we agree is about about the chances youth players get, though let's face it, if Mbappe was at a premiership club then he would play. Young attackers with pace get to play.  It's the other positions (or players without pace) that rarely get a chance.

I thought Kane was our best holding midfielder and passer of the ball, shame he's a centre forward.  He won the golden boot so it's hard to criticise his scoring ability.  He missed a couple of chances I'd have wagered my house on though.  I'd play Kane all day long.

Sterling's problem isn't moving the ball forward at pace, it's his decision-making once he gets to the 18 yard box.  Theo Walcott had the same problem. 
I remember Teddy Sheringham had almost no pace but his decision-making and vision made up for it.

Football is an easy game...until you get to the opposition penalty area.  What Rashford gets you is a high probability of the ball coming in across the 6 yard area (Kane/Lingard territory).

I'm not saying Henderson isn't the best we've got in that position, I'm just saying he's average at best, probably worse than a retired Carrick.

The stats on England's attempts on goal from open play make poor reading given the pace throughout the team.  Only 5 teams had fewer shots on target per game than England.


There's actually a fundamental issue with the World Cup though.  It stopped being the pinnacle of football at least a decade ago.
When Brazilians used to play in Brazil and Italians used to play in Italy..and so on,  then the national sides were incredibly strong and there was no better football played anywhere. 

The Pinnacle of football is now the Champions League, where the top teams have a true World-class player in almost every position.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

T42

  • Apprentice geezer
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #545 on: 23 July, 2018, 03:56:47 pm »
Deserves a mention:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44915730

Quote
"I am German when we win, but I am an immigrant when we lose," [Mesut] Ozil said.

I had to wonder how France's non-white players (i.e. most of them) would be treated if France had lost. Probably no better.
I've dusted off all those old bottles and set them up straight

citoyen

  • Occasionally rides a bike
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #546 on: 23 July, 2018, 05:29:52 pm »
Sterling's problem isn't moving the ball forward at pace, it's his decision-making once he gets to the 18 yard box.

23 goals and 17 assists for City last season suggests very much otherwise. I mean, those numbers tell their own story, don't they?

He's far from perfect, still often makes the wrong decisions, but his improvement over the last couple of seasons under Guardiola is clear for anyone to see - anyone who isn't blinkered by the kind of irrational prejudice Sterling seems to attract - and he was obviously England's most creative outfield player at the World Cup. I suspect the lack of end product for England is largely down to the quality of the other players around him. In particular, Lingard's running off the ball is terrible (which is probably Mourinho's fault).

That works two ways though - I'm sure that playing alongside the likes of De Bruyne, Willian, Silva et al makes Sterling look better than he actually is, something that has affected his own opinion of himself and now he looks like putting his future at City in jeopardy because of his ego. The big wally.

Maybe he'll get snapped up by Real as a replacement for Ronaldo. (Joke)

Rashford is a hugely promising young player and will get his much-deserved chance for England sooner rather than later, but currently I see no reason to move him ahead of Sterling in the pecking order - certainly not his scoring record (13 goals and 9 assists for United last season puts him well behind Sterling in that regard).

England certainly don't have any options of the calibre of Sheringham to call on at the moment, unfortunately.
"The future's all yours, you lousy bicycles."

Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #547 on: 23 July, 2018, 08:38:23 pm »
Generally, I agree with you about Sterling, D.  However, even allowing for Lee's subconscious but nevertheless evident bias in favour of anything Manchester United and against anything that has trodden in Liverpool, does your comparison between Sterling and Rashford do justice to Rashford?  I wonder if the goals per minute on the pitch were compared, whether Rashford would trail.  I don't know, just wonder.

citoyen

  • Occasionally rides a bike
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #548 on: 23 July, 2018, 09:51:57 pm »
does your comparison between Sterling and Rashford do justice to Rashford?  I wonder if the goals per minute on the pitch were compared, whether Rashford would trail.  I don't know, just wonder.

It's a fair question. I assumed they were roughly similar but that's a pure guess. So I checked...

Sterling - 3568 minutes played, 155 minutes per goal

Rashford - 2676 minutes played, 205 minutes per goal

I definitely would like to see Rashford get his chance for England. Biased or not, even Man United fans wouldn't rave about him if he weren't that good.

I guess a lot will also come down to the systems their teams play. Maybe Rashford would score a lot more if he weren't playing under Mourinho. ;)

(And yes, I am painfully aware that Liverpool scored 16 more goals than United but still finished six points behind them in the league last season. Scoring goals is clearly not everything, but it's a pretty key stat when choosing who should be playing up front for England.)
"The future's all yours, you lousy bicycles."

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: World cup 2018
« Reply #549 on: 23 July, 2018, 11:16:50 pm »
It's a fair question. I assumed they were roughly similar but that's a pure guess. So I checked...

Sterling - 3568 minutes played, 155 minutes per goal

Rashford - 2676 minutes played, 205 minutes per goal

I definitely would like to see Rashford get his chance for England. Biased or not, even Man United fans wouldn't rave about him if he weren't that good.

I guess a lot will also come down to the systems their teams play. Maybe Rashford would score a lot more if he weren't playing under Mourinho. ;)

(And yes, I am painfully aware that Liverpool scored 16 more goals than United but still finished six points behind them in the league last season. Scoring goals is clearly not everything, but it's a pretty key stat when choosing who should be playing up front for England.)

His Man City affiliations don't affect my judgement because I'm going off his England performances.  I'd probably score 10 if I played in that City team. 

Since we got on to stats....
Unfortunately his England stats are - 2906 minutes played, 2 goals = 1453 minutes per goal vs Rashford's 350 mins per goal (3 England goals) and Emile Heskey's 485 in 3401 minutes (7 England Goals)

Sterling's 2 goals in 44 Caps is a dreadful stat for someone touted as the new Michael Owen (154 minutes per goal.  89 caps, 40 goals). 
He compares badly to Emile Heskey (who was derided for his lack of England goals).
He compares badly to another "headless chicken" Theo Walcott (8 goals in 47 Caps)

He's got time to improve, and I think he needs to improve,  his positional sense, his vision, his awareness of others, his ruthlessness in front of goal, quickly.

He's overrated at the moment though.  I would say that, at 23 years of age, if he was going to be truly World class, then he'd be showing true World class by now.

We're desperately short of a "Paul Scholes" in front of Henderson.  Kane and Sterling would fill their boots.
Maybe that will turn out to be Lingard or Deli Alli.  Alli is harder to knock off the ball than Lingard.

Maybe there will be an increase in confidence after this.  Confidence alone is worth a goal or two.



Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.