World Cup 2018 Russia


(scherpschutter) #121

I think Brazil had the best players, even in the game against Belgium they had more of the game, created more chances and had more shots on goal. But they won’t be world champions again until they learn how to defend and not give away too many space defensively, especially on the flanks. Belgium could’ve easily scored two more goals if they had used the open space better. And yes, Neymar should learn what good sportmanship is, he made more enemies than friends during this tournament


#122

France will be the ones to put a stop to England’s lucky streak.


(The Man With a Name) #123

Have some faith, Dean!


(Asa) #124

I’m not sure how true it is but I read somewhere that Neymar had spent a total of FOURTEEN minutes rolling about on the ground during this World Cup, and that was before the Belgium game.


#125

At least Zidane won’t be there to headbutt anyone I suppose.


(Stanton) #126

Against Mexico, what he did there, crying like his leg was broken, that was absolutely ridiculous.


(El Topo) #127

Sweden made more than was expected from them a lot more, throwing away Italy and Germany, in the same competition even if in different stages of it, is not for every team.
Russia was playing home and had some luck against Spain,but they had a great heart, and knew their limitations but used that in their favour, giving the control and iniciative of the game to the stronger teams and then counter them.

England has a very good chance of reaching the final, player by player I give a small edge to England, even if they don’t have a Rakitic or specially a Modric players that can make a difference in na equalized game, but English players are faster, they can put a lot of speed in the game.
Anyway Croatia players are like soldiers in a Battle, and are going to give everything on the pitch, English players must have to same mentality if they wan’t to win the game.

Belgian against France, I think France will win, Belgian defense doesn’t convince me, the had some amount of luck with Brasil, France will be more organized in their defense and won’t give so much space as Brazil, and Mbappe or Griezmann are a lot faster than Kompany and pairs.

In the end the only good thing that came out of our defeat with Uruguay was that we didn’t loose it to France


(Phil H) #128

I must admit this tournament is restoring my lost love of international football. And not just because England are doing well. It seems to me the teams with greater heart and togetherness are succeeding all round and the prima donnas and cheats are failing to get results. I think we can partially thank VAR for this. It has certainly sorted out some of the wrestling at set plays anyway.

In terms of England, we really didn’t have great expectations of this young team and it has been really refreshing to have a team that is over-performing rather than under-performing. That hasn’t happened in a major tournament for us for a very long time. In fact the last I believe was in '66. In that year we didn’t have the best players either. We just had the most effective team. The Russians had the best linesmen obviously.


(titoli) #129

Allthough on the surface the country is seemingly in ecstasy over this success, there is a shadow over it that many in Croatia feel.

So, significant number of Croats will be rooting for England on Wednesday.


(The Man With a Name) #130

I see no point in cheering for another country when your own are playing.


(scherpschutter) #131

I don’t mix sports with politics and hate it when politicians use sports to promote their political agenda. Several politicians have done that in the past, and they were not among the kind of politicians I like


(titoli) #132

Problem is when it reaches the point when you no longer can ignore it.

It is complex. Have you read the arcticle? :slight_smile:

But I think that there were other examples when part of the country did not feel that the national team is their own. Spain? Belgium? Bosnia and Herzegovina? Different reasons than Croatian example, but it is not that uncommon.


(scherpschutter) #133

I live in Belgium, a country where communities (and political parties) hate each other, so ignoring it is virtually impossible, but what I meant to say is that I, personally, try to avoid to mix these things as much as posiible. When i watch a football game, I don’t think of politics and i’m not worried about the political implications of the result of the game, I just want my team to win. And, as said, i hate it when politicians use sports to promote their agenda.


(Stanton) #134

If someone likes another team more, or generally loves another country more than his own, why not?


(scherpschutter) #135

This tournament I cheer for England, because I like this young team a lot, and for Belgium, because I live in belgium and part of my family is flemish. If the final will be Belgium - England, I’m in trouble …


(El Topo) #136

Like I have several English friends I also cheer for England, but as long as France doesn’t win I’m OK.


(Stanton) #137

Really? Who was better?

With Charlton, Moore and Banks they had 3 world-class players in their lines and some more who played pretty strong (Cohen, Hurst, Ball, Peters, Hunt, Stiles)


#138

I barely like football but I am praying Belgium knock them out tonight.


(Phil H) #139

Charlton was well known and respected in 66 but Moore was still very young and unproven at the top level. This was the tournament that introduced him as a world class player I think. Lev Yashin was probably the highest rated keeper at the time, not Banks.

The other players you mentioned did all play very well but were not considered world class players at the time. Hurst in particular was a controversial inclusion, only making the team initially because our best striker Jimmy Greaves was injured. Most people thought Greaves should play instead of him once he was back but Ramsey kept him in. In hindsight of course these all seem like great players but at the time they were unproven.

Brazil and Pele were still the ones expected to shine and Portugal’s Eusebio was probably the most feared striker in the world at the time.


(scherpschutter) #140

Maybe all true, but I still think England had the best team of the tournament, with Germany a good second.
Eusebio was the best and most feared striker at the moment, true, but England deservedly beat portugal in the semis. And I think Yashin was over his peak in '66. He was 37 and no longer the black spider he used to be. Banks was clearly the best goal keeper of the tournament and was Bobby Moore still a greenhorn at the time? He was 25 and England’s captain, He had at least proven himself to Alf Ramsey. Players usually establish themselves as superstars on a World Cup. Bobby Moore and Franz Beckenbauer were both in their mid twenties and top class players, but it took a World Cup for the world to realize it. Even Cruijff needed the world Cup to become a superstar: he had won three European Cups with Ajax, but only after '74 the whole world knew his name