MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Mr. Nielsen on June 11, 2018, 07:08:10 PM
-
Thursday, June 14
Russia vs. Saudi Arabia (in Moscow), 10 a.m. on FOX
Friday, June 15
Egypt vs. Uruguay (in Yekaterinburg), 7 a.m. on FS1
Morocco vs. Iran (in Saint Petersburg), 10 a.m. on FOX
Portugal vs. Spain (in Sochi), 1 p.m. on FOX
Saturday, June 16
France vs. Australia (in Kazan), 5 a.m. on FS1
Argentina vs. Iceland (in Moscow), 9 a.m. on FOX
Peru vs. Denmark (in Saransk), 11am on FS1
Croatia vs. Nigeria (in Kaliningrad), 2 p.m. on FS1
Sunday, June 17
Costa Rica vs. Serbia (in Samara), 7 a.m. on FOX
Germany vs. Mexico (in Moscow), 10 a.m. on FS1
Brazil vs. Switzerland (in Rostov-on-Don), 1 p.m. on FS1
Monday, June 18
Sweden vs. South Korea (in Nizhny Novgorod), 7 a.m. on FS1
Belgium vs. Panama (in Sochi), 10 a.m. on FS1
Tunisia vs. England (in Volgograd), 1 p.m. on FS1
Tuesday, June 19
Colombia vs. Japan (in Saransk), 7 a.m. on FS1
Poland vs. Senegal (in Moscow), 10 a.m. on FOX
Russia vs. Egypt (in Saint Petersburg), 1 p.m. on FOX
Wednesday, June 20
Portugal vs. Morocco (in Moscow), 7a.m. on FS1
Uruguay vs. Saudi Arabia (in Rostov-on-Don), 10 a.m. on FOX
Iran vs. Spain (in Kazan), 1p.m. on FOX
Thursday, June 21
France vs. Peru (in Yekaterinburg), 7 a.m. on FS1
Denmark vs. Australia (in Samara), 10 a.m. on FOX
Argentina vs. Croatia (in Nizhny Novgorod), 1 p.m. on FOX
Friday, June 22
Brazil vs. Costa Rica (in Saint Petersburg), 7 a.m. on FS1
Nigeria vs. Iceland (in Volgograd), 10 a.m. on FOX
Serbia vs. Switzerland (in Kaliningrad), 1p.m. on FOX
Saturday, June 23
Belgium vs. Tunisia (in Moscow), 7 a.m. on FOX
Germany vs. Sweden (in Sochi), 10 a.m. on FOX
South Korea vs. Mexico (in Rostov-on-Don), 1 p.m. on FOX
Sunday, June 24
England vs. Panama (in Nizhny Novgorod), 7 a.m. on FS1
Japan vs. Senegal (in Yekaterinburg), 10 a.m. on FOX
Poland vs. Colombia (in Kazan), 1 p.m. on FOX
Monday, June 25
Saudi Arabia vs. Egypt (in Volgograd), 9 a.m. on FS1
Uruguay vs. Russia (in Samara), 9 a.m. on FOX
Iran vs. Portugal (in Saransk), 1 p.m. on FOX
Spain vs. Morocco (in Kaliningrad), 1 p.m. on FS1
Tuesday, June 26
Australia vs. Peru (in Sochi), 9 a.m. on FS1
Denmark vs. France (in Moscow), 9 a.m. on FOX
Iceland vs. Croatia (in Rostov-on-Don), 1 p.m. on FS1
Nigeria vs Argentina (in Saint Petersburg), 1 p.m. on FOX
Wednesday, June 27
South Korea vs. Germany (in Kazan), 9 a.m. on FS1
Mexico vs. Sweden (in Yekaterinburg), 9 a.m. on FOX
Switzerland vs. Costa Rica (in Nizhny Novgorod), 1 p.m. on FS1
Serbia vs. Brazil (in St. Petersburg), 1 p.m. on FOX
Thursday, June 28
Japan vs. Poland (in Volgograd), 9 a.m. on FS1
Senegal vs. Colombia (in Samara), 9 a.m. on FOX
England vs. Belgium (in Kaliningrad), 1 p.m. on FOX
Panama vs. Tunisia (in Saransk), 1 p.m. on FS1
-
Saturday, June 30
Round of 16 in Kazan 9 a.m. on FOX
Round of 16 in Sochi 1 p.m. on FOX
Sunday, July 1
Round of 16 in Moscow 9 a.m. on FOX
Round of 16 in Nizhny Novgorod:, 1 p.m. on FOX
Monday, July 2
Round of 16 in Samara 9 a.m. on FS1
Round of 16 in Rostov-on-Don 1 p.m. on FOX
Tuesday, July 3
Round of 16 in Saint Petersburg, 9 a.m. on FS1
Round of 16 in Rostov-on-Don, 1 p.m. on FOX
Friday, July 6
Quarterfinal in Nizhny Novgorod, 9 a.m. on FS1
Quarterfinal in Moscow 1 p.m. on FS1
Saturday, July 7
Quarterfinal in Samara 9 a.m. on FOX
Quarterfinal in Kazan 1 p.m. on FOX
Tuesday, July 10
Semifinal in Saint Petersburg, 1 p.m. on FOX
Wednesday, July 11
Semifinal in Moscow 1 p.m. on FOX
Saturday, July 14
Third-place match in Saint Petersburg 9 a.m. on FOX
Sunday, July 15
Final in Moscow , 10 a.m. on FOX
-
Cheers.
Just put a couple of bets on today. Put $20 on Belgium, for really good value for them at 15-1.
Took a punt on Croatia with $5 at 30-1. Really like their team, especially that midfield.
Don't think either of them win, but thought they were good value bets. No such thing as sure bets on football, Germany for years ago was about as close as you get.
-
Say what you want about ESPN but they always did a fantastic job with the World Cup / Euros. Hopefully Fox doesn't screw this up.
-
The onsite studio coverage should be excellent. I'm a big fan of Rob Stone and company. FOX/FS1 has a tough sell without the US.
Big weekend on FOX/FS1 with the World Cup and the US Open.
-
Heading to Moscow tomorrow for the opener on Thursday. Expecting security chaos. Warnings to ticket-holders are to arrive minimum 4 hours in advance of the match! Everyone must be seated before Putin arrives!
-
Cheering for Poland since we aren't there. Like their odds to get out of the group, but think at best the quarterfinals are realistic. Expect either Brazil or Germany to be waiting if Poland gets that far.
-
Cheering for Poland since we aren't there. Like their odds to get out of the group, but think at best the quarterfinals are realistic. Expect either Brazil or Germany to be waiting if Poland gets that far.
Looks like we're gonna be rivals over the next few weeks. Vamos Colombia.
Funny thing about this Colombia team, you wouldn't necessarily think so but their midfield is their biggest weakness this time around.
Their back four are sneaky good. Like really good.
-
Cheers.
Just put a couple of bets on today. Put $20 on Belgium, for really good value for them at 15-1.
Took a punt on Croatia with $5 at 30-1. Really like their team, especially that midfield.
Don't think either of them win, but thought they were good value bets. No such thing as sure bets on football, Germany for years ago was about as close as you get.
I think that's a solid bet on Belgium, although I would keep an eye on the Hazard injury. It's not supposed to be serious, but this close to kick-off it's worth watching. I think Poland is a really good dark horse team. They're in one of the easier groups, and if they win their group they'll be around just in time to watch England implode again. Once you get into the knock-out stage, anything can happen really, and as long as you have the best striker in the world, you have a chance.
-
I think that's a solid bet on Belgium, although I would keep an eye on the Hazard injury. It's not supposed to be serious, but this close to kick-off it's worth watching. I think Poland is a really good dark horse team. They're in one of the easier groups, and if they win their group they'll be around just in time to watch England implode again. Once you get into the knock-out stage, anything can happen really, and as long as you have the best striker in the world, you have a chance.
England & Harry Kane should be fine then, aina?
-
England & Harry Kane should be fine then, aina?
Until there's a shootout. England hasn't won a knockout stage game in a major tournament in over a decade. Also for all of Kane's scoring ability, the trophy cabinet looks a little empty.
-
England & Harry Kane should be fine then, aina?
LOL Kane is a fine player. Robert Lewandowski is on a completely different stratosphere.
-
Wat time does da US play hey?
-
Wat time does da US play hey?
i herd they play italy in the opening game eeyner?
-
Wat time does da US play hey?
2022
-
The onsite studio coverage should be excellent. I'm a big fan of Rob Stone and company. FOX/FS1 has a tough sell without the US.
Big weekend on FOX/FS1 with the World Cup and the US Open.
Stone is good. The rest? Not so much.
Fox made a big mistake not sending a full crew to call games. It's just not the same from the studio.
-
Fox made a big mistake not sending a full crew to call games. It's just not the same from the studio.
Amateur hour.
-
I will say, I enjoyed Lalas and Fiore during the Copa America broadcast.
By no means are they Gary Lineker, Ian Wright, and Alan Shearer but it wasn't awful.
-
Stone is good. The rest? Not so much.
Fox made a big mistake not sending a full crew to call games. It's just not the same from the studio.
Ya, I think we are talking two different things.
In what your saying, I agree it might not be a good thing in having 6 of the 8 boardcast teams not in Russia. I also think it will work out better than most think or want to believe.
As for the live studio set at Russia in Rob Stone, Kate Abdo, Fernando Fiore & Ian Joy to just list some, should be excellent.
-
I will say, I enjoyed Lalas and Fiore during the Copa America broadcast.
I couldn't believe how much coverage I did see of Copa America on FS1. Fiore is like the soccer version of Lee Corso. :)
-
I couldn't believe how much coverage I did see of Copa America on FS1. Fiore is like the soccer version of Lee Corso. :)
I think this is a good comparison and I'm not a fan of either of them. I would rather have more former players/coaches that have been around the block more, and been successful too. Corso was 41-68 in a decade at I4, and while Fiore has been covering World Cups since the 90s, he neither played nor coached. I would think they could find somebody with more experience in the game rather than someone who is obviously just playing a character (although I also understand that the more casual fan will tune in to watch someone like Fiore/Corso).
-
I think it's good to have both.
-
Never a big fan of Fernando Fiore and his schtick and I can't stand Alexi Lalas. I'm glad I can watch the Spanish broadcast. Telemundo has the rights to the World Cup so I'll be listening to Andres Cantor and his famous goooooooooooool call.
Hopefully my beloved Tri will be able to find the back of the net, they've really struggled to score lately.
-
Never a big fan of Fernando Fiore and his schtick and I can't stand Alexi Lalas. I'm glad I can watch the Spanish broadcast. Telemundo has the rights to the World Cup so I'll be listening to Andres Cantor and his famous goooooooooooool call.
Hopefully my beloved Tri will be able to find the back of the net, they've really struggled to score lately.
NBC's studio crew is 100 times better than Fox's.
-
Wat time does da US play hey?
The US just got one of its biggest wins in history, while Spain is now set up to underperform. Bold move by a newly elected Spanish Football President.
-
NBC's studio crew is 100 times better than Fox's.
Yep. Rebecca Lowe is the gold standard for hosts. And Martino proves that you can have an American voice on analysis, provided that person isn't a total buffoon like Lalas.
Fox's soccer coverage is terrible. With the US not in it, I'll barely watch.
-
I had to look these people up. Rebecca Lowe is very easy on the eyes. :D
-
I had to look these people up. Rebecca Lowe is very easy on the eyes. :D
super hot English accent too.
-
Yep. Rebecca Lowe is the gold standard for hosts. And Martino proves that you can have an American voice on analysis, provided that person isn't a total buffoon like Lalas.
Fox's soccer coverage is terrible. With the US not in it, I'll barely watch.
That ultimately is my biggest problem with the way Fox approaches this. Get some personalities who act weird and say outlandish things versus providing solid analysis.
I think the WC should get good ratings regardless of US participation. I mean, I'll watch it on the weekends and on the mornings of my upcoming day's off. Fox shouldn't blow this.
-
I'm a big fan of the NBC crew as well. All the commentators and analysts have either played at the highest level, been doing commentary almost exclusively for soccer for decades or are Rebecca Lowe. They also have people that are just playing characters and doing satirical analysis, but they keep them completely separated from the other "real" analysts and just put them on their own show that they advertise as a comedy/satirical show (Men in Blazers). Both types of shows have their appeal, but it's best to keep them separate.
-
United States, Mexico and Canada wins 2026 World Cup vote. Fox Sports is the English-speaking rightsholder for the 2026 World Cup. Telemundo has the Spanish-speaking rights. Both will be printing money.
-
Fox's soccer coverage is terrible. With the US not in it, I'll barely watch.
[/quote
Stuart Holden is very good. Both in the studio and paired with John Strong.
-
Yep. Rebecca Lowe is the gold standard for hosts. And Martino proves that you can have an American voice on analysis, provided that person isn't a total buffoon like Lalas.
Fox's soccer coverage is terrible. With the US not in it, I'll barely watch.
All about Gabby Logan y'all.
-
Quote of halftime, "They have no idea how to play."
Nearly spit out my coffee.
-
I guess it’s nice of the schedulers to get the worst game out of the way early.
-
I guess it’s nice of the schedulers to get the worst game out of the way early.
Hosts always get a cupcake in the first game. And SA is the cakiest of the cupcakes.
-
Hosts always get a cupcake in the first game. And SA is the cakiest of the cupcakes.
They’re both bad, just to different degrees. This is like watching UWM vs a SWAC team.
-
Hosts always get a cupcake in the first game. And SA is the cakiest of the cupcakes.
While Croatia, Mexico, Belgium, Poland, and Switzerland aren't world class, I wouldn't consider them cupcakes. FIFA never goes out of their way to embarrass a host, but they can't make the scheduling too obviously in favor of them.
-
Have to think Russia advances now. A draw with Egypt would almost certainly see them through.
-
Russia was the lowest ranked Euro team in the field.
KSA was the 3rd highest ranked Asian team.
Russia will definately advance. Putin and FIFA? Fix is in to at least the round of 8.
-
Russia was the lowest ranked Euro team in the field.
KSA was the 3rd highest ranked Asian team.
Russia will definately advance. Putin and FIFA? Fix is in to at least the round of 8.
"3rd highest ranked Asian team" is like being the third best Big Ten team. It may sound impressive but isn't very meaningful.
-
The +5 goal differential has the potential to be a big boost, but I expect both Uruguay and Egypt to beat KSA as well so it will really come down to those three battling for two spots, and I think Russia will just miss out.
Also anyone that uses FIFA rankings as a barometer really hasn't paid attention to world soccer the last 5 years or so. Switzerland is not the 6th best team in the world, and the 9th best team didn't even qualify. Not exactly a model of consistency.
-
"3rd highest ranked Asian team" is like being the third best Big Ten team. It may sound impressive but isn't very meaningful.
Right. I was pointing out the disparity between Euro and Asian talent. (and paraphrasing something I saw on twitta.)
-
The +5 goal differential has the potential to be a big boost, but I expect both Uruguay and Egypt to beat KSA as well so it will really come down to those three battling for two spots, and I think Russia will just miss out.
As much as I love Salah as an LFC supporter, its really a two man team with him and Elneny. And given its Russia and Salah is nursing a knock, I can see them getting away with manhandling him. I figure all 3 teams beat KSA, Uruguay beats Egypt and Russia, and Russia and Egypt tie, Russia through on differential. Happy to be wrong and see The Pharoahs make some history.
-
Thursday, June 14
Russia vs. Saudi Arabia (in Moscow), 10 a.m. on FOX
Friday, June 15
Egypt vs. Uruguay (in Yekaterinburg), 7 a.m. on FS1
Morocco vs. Iran (in Saint Petersburg), 10 a.m. on FOX
Portugal vs. Spain (in Sochi), 1 p.m. on FOX
Saturday, June 16
France vs. Australia (in Kazan), 5 a.m. on FS1
Argentina vs. Iceland (in Moscow), 9 a.m. on FOX
Peru vs. Denmark (in Saransk), 11am on FS1
Croatia vs. Nigeria (in Kaliningrad), 2 p.m. on FS1
Sunday, June 17
Costa Rica vs. Serbia (in Samara), 7 a.m. on FOX
Germany vs. Mexico (in Moscow), 10 a.m. on FS1
Brazil vs. Switzerland (in Rostov-on-Don), 1 p.m. on FS1
Monday, June 18
Sweden vs. South Korea (in Nizhny Novgorod), 7 a.m. on FS1
Belgium vs. Panama (in Sochi), 10 a.m. on FS1
Tunisia vs. England (in Volgograd), 1 p.m. on FS1
Tuesday, June 19
Colombia vs. Japan (in Saransk), 7 a.m. on FS1
Poland vs. Senegal (in Moscow), 10 a.m. on FOX
Russia vs. Egypt (in Saint Petersburg), 1 p.m. on FOX
Wednesday, June 20
Portugal vs. Morocco (in Moscow), 7a.m. on FS1
Uruguay vs. Saudi Arabia (in Rostov-on-Don), 10 a.m. on FOX
Iran vs. Spain (in Kazan), 1p.m. on FOX
Thursday, June 21
France vs. Peru (in Yekaterinburg), 7 a.m. on FS1
Denmark vs. Australia (in Samara), 10 a.m. on FOX
Argentina vs. Croatia (in Nizhny Novgorod), 1 p.m. on FOX
Friday, June 22
Brazil vs. Costa Rica (in Saint Petersburg), 7 a.m. on FS1
Nigeria vs. Iceland (in Volgograd), 10 a.m. on FOX
Serbia vs. Switzerland (in Kaliningrad), 1p.m. on FOX
Saturday, June 23
Belgium vs. Tunisia (in Moscow), 7 a.m. on FOX
Germany vs. Sweden (in Sochi), 10 a.m. on FOX
South Korea vs. Mexico (in Rostov-on-Don), 1 p.m. on FOX
Sunday, June 24
England vs. Panama (in Nizhny Novgorod), 7 a.m. on FS1
Japan vs. Senegal (in Yekaterinburg), 10 a.m. on FOX
Poland vs. Colombia (in Kazan), 1 p.m. on FOX
Monday, June 25
Saudi Arabia vs. Egypt (in Volgograd), 9 a.m. on FS1
Uruguay vs. Russia (in Samara), 9 a.m. on FOX
Iran vs. Portugal (in Saransk), 1 p.m. on FOX
Spain vs. Morocco (in Kaliningrad), 1 p.m. on FS1
Tuesday, June 26
Australia vs. Peru (in Sochi), 9 a.m. on FS1
Denmark vs. France (in Moscow), 9 a.m. on FOX
Iceland vs. Croatia (in Rostov-on-Don), 1 p.m. on FS1
Nigeria vs Argentina (in Saint Petersburg), 1 p.m. on FOX
Wednesday, June 27
South Korea vs. Germany (in Kazan), 9 a.m. on FS1
Mexico vs. Sweden (in Yekaterinburg), 9 a.m. on FOX
Switzerland vs. Costa Rica (in Nizhny Novgorod), 1 p.m. on FS1
Serbia vs. Brazil (in St. Petersburg), 1 p.m. on FOX
Thursday, June 28
Japan vs. Poland (in Volgograd), 9 a.m. on FS1
Senegal vs. Colombia (in Samara), 9 a.m. on FOX
England vs. Belgium (in Kaliningrad), 1 p.m. on FOX
Panama vs. Tunisia (in Saransk), 1 p.m. on FS1
I have been referencing this schedule a lot in the last few days, but just a reminder these times are CST, almost woke up @ 5am on Sat instead to watch Les Bleus
-
Most here I would guess are in the central time zone, so I listed everything that way. Glad the list helps!
-
Most here I would guess are in the central time zone, so I listed everything that way. Glad the list helps!
OH it's super helpful, it would've been my fault fo show. Appreciate the simplicity, I actually cut and pasted and put it into the notes section on my phone.
Thanks! 👍
-
Moscow was rocking last night!
The stadium was modern and well organized, security wasn't overbearing, crowds were crowds, but generally orderly, Peruvians were very noisy, etc!
The match was great for Russia. Of course they had to win. Of course the draw was fixed so they get to play the worst possible team, on the last day of Ramadan, having not eaten during daylight hours in a month, and probably Putin traded the king a dollar on the oil price for each goal Russia scored, but Russia won nonetheless.
The atmosphere in the stadium was unbelievable. Russia might be the only country more patriotic than USA and the chants of Ross-I-Ya were deafening. The mexican wave, not unexpectedly, was vigorously and repeatedly started by the south end but died each time it reached the Saudi supporters in the North end.
Atmosphere after the match in Tverskaya district and on the walking street Kuznetskiy Most was incredible, until the wee hours, as if Russia had won the entire tournament.
For Russia, this was their tournament, they got their win. They did their job. Now if they can get one draw, they'll be through on goal difference.
-
... on the last day of Ramadan, having not eaten during daylight hours in a month...
Did not know this. I wonder if they’ve been training at night? Can imams give dispensations?
Brilliant scheduling by Russia/FIFA
-
Cavani goes down less than 3 minutes into the game. Uruguay hasn't taken any time to find their form...
-
Did not know this. I wonder if they’ve been training at night? Can imams give dispensations?
Brilliant scheduling by Russia/FIFA
https://www.sbnation.com/2018/6/4/17426094/2018-world-cup-tunisias-goalie-faking-injury-ramadan-fast (https://www.sbnation.com/2018/6/4/17426094/2018-world-cup-tunisias-goalie-faking-injury-ramadan-fast)
-
Did not know this. I wonder if they’ve been training at night? Can imams give dispensations?
Brilliant scheduling by Russia/FIFA
They were given dispensation to eat.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/13/fast-friends-world-cup-squads-dealt-with-ramadan
https://www.thenational.ae/sport/football/ramadan-2018-saudi-arabia-s-football-players-to-fast-intermittently-during-world-cup-preparation-1.731527
But that can be worse than fasting.
And, during qualifying, despite the dispensation, only 4 players on Saudi team chose to eat.
-
Did not know this. I wonder if they’ve been training at night? Can imams give dispensations?
Brilliant scheduling by Russia/FIFA
It was done by random draw. Russia could have faced one of 8 teams from Pot 4.
-
It was done by random draw. Russia could have faced one of 8 teams from Pot 4.
You view FIFA in a much more favorable light than I do, they're sketchy as crap. Smart, but sketchy.
-
You view FIFA in a much more favorable light than I do, they're sketchy as crap. Smart, but sketchy.
They're sketchy. But I really doubt they drew SA into a match with Russia knowing it was during Ramadan.
-
Nothing important happens in Russia without some input from Putin. In this case, his input would have been that "we need to win the first match".
I would imagine nothing was left to chance. Certainly not the draw, nor the opponent, nor the foreign ruler who would be sitting in the box with him.
-
Holy crap, Uruguay.
-
That's a damn shame. Started parking the bus and Uruguay had chance, after chance, after chance.
After the crap Suarez pulled against Ghana I have never wanted to see Uruguay win anything.
-
That's a damn shame. Started parking the bus and Uruguay had chance, after chance, after chance.
After the crap Suarez pulled against Ghana I have never wanted to see Uruguay win anything.
Interesting perspective. I actually have no problem with what he pulled against Ghana, it was the right play, and it was up to Ghana to convert, either from the penalty or the man advantage, even though it was short lived. I take much more exception to him biting Chiellini, especially as that was his third biting incident.
-
God I hate Suarez.
You'll appreciate this one though Sultan. Thought the referee was outstanding in this match.
-
Interesting perspective. I actually have no problem with what he pulled against Ghana, it was the right play, and it was up to Ghana to convert, either from the penalty or the man advantage, even though it was short lived. I take much more exception to hit biting Chiellini, especially as that was his third biting incident.
It wasn't so much the handball, as much as I'd like to say I wouldn't do that I have no clue, it's the way he celebrated in the tunnel after as though he scored a game winning goal.
-
It wasn't so much the handball, as much as I'd like to say I wouldn't do that I have no clue, it's the way he celebrated in the tunnel after as though he scored a game winning goal.
That's more understandable, I just know that a lot of people see intentional handball to prevent a goal and assume he's a dirty player. While he is a dirty player, it's not because of that. Tactically speaking it was %100 the right play.
-
God I hate Suarez.
You'll appreciate this one though Sultan. Thought the referee was outstanding in this match.
LOL. Unfortunately I wasn't able to see the game this morning. Saturday and Sunday morning though...
-
Anyone got a favorite World Cup Ball. If you go vintage I much prefer the Tango over the more famous Telstar. For modern balls, the Fevernova just edges out the Teamgeist as my favorite, while the Jabulani is by far the worst, even though the Brazuca was bad too. Unsure how I feel about the Telstar 18.
-
I'm in Helsinki right now and I'm seeing obvious soccer fans I assume are enroute to Russia (St. Petersburg, guessing) to watch a match. There was a whole horde of people with Morocco soccer jerseys and a bus in front of my hotel and they got off wearing soccer jerseys and started doing a loud soccer chant.
-
Mr. Messi, it is now your turn.
-
First ever VAR penalty given in a World Cup and they got it right. Only quarrel with it is that it should come right away, the ref played on for a full 30-45 seconds before signaling for VAR.
-
I am a sucker for a good underdog story. Go, Iceland.
-
Ice, Ice, baby. Word to your mother.
-
OK, I will admit that it doesn't seem like not having announcers actually at the games is much of a problem. The production value is pretty high, so if I didn't know it ahead of time, it really wouldn't be noticeable. (I'm looking at you BeIn Sport.)
Their studio show sucks though.
-
I guess we couldn't make it with two positive statements. Heck, it's babysteps.
As I thought not having some of the crews in Russia was not going to be an issue.
Rob Stone has been outstanding, like always. Need more Ian Wright.
-
I guess I just wish that studio shows would stop insulting our intelligence and approach the sport as if people have a brain.
-
I guess I just wish that studio shows would stop insulting our intelligence and approach the sport as if people have a brain.
Yup, that's been my biggest issue. If the US isn't in the World Cup, your audience is most likely going to be people who st least follow the sport.
-
wow - go mexico.
-
Alright, officially opting out of these Fox broadcasts after that one announcer was convinced that Sweden drew a foul in the box. That wasn't even close to being a penalty.
-
Alright, officially opting out of these Fox broadcasts after that one announcer was convinced that Sweden drew a foul in the box. That wasn't even close to being a penalty.
Defender was late. Didn't get the ball. And it's in the box. Clear as day and VAR got it right.
-
Defender was late. Didn't get the ball. And it's in the box. Clear as day and VAR got it right.
I think Chitown was talking about the first half incident where the Korean defender clearly got the ball.
-
I think Chitown was talking about the first half incident where the Korean defender clearly got the ball.
This makes sense of my mistake. I watch Telemundo so I avoid the Cobi Jones show. Wasn't even discussed as a possible penal on that feed.
-
Never forget Roy Hodgson had Kane taking corners. Best game for Hazza in and England shirt. Maguire was tremendous as well.
-
Big numbers for FS1 over the weekend:
Brazil-Switzerland: 4.301 million viewers including streaming.
Mexico-Germany: 4.254 million viewers including streaming.
-
Big numbers for FS1 over the weekend:
Brazil-Switzerland: 4.301 million viewers including streaming.
Mexico-Germany: 4.254 million viewers including streaming.
Good. Maybe they'll actually invest something for 2022 to improve their awful coverage
-
I largely agree with this article.
http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/fox-world-cup-coverage-trend-not-thinking-highly-of-viewers.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-
I got half-way and had to give up for now. Another terrible piece by AA and their lack of history.
-
Really been looking forward to this Argentina and Croatia match. IMO, the most overrated team in the world vs. the most underrated team in the world.
-
Really been looking forward to this Argentina and Croatia match. IMO, the most overrated team in the world vs. the most underrated team in the world.
+1000000
-
This has been a pretty terrible WC so far in my opinion. After the late winners in the first few matches, the Portugal/Spain barnburner, its been a lot of cynical, aesthetically awful soccer. You have Portugal and France scoring early goals and parking the bus against overmatched opponents, "minnows" fighting but unable to produce any moments of magic or quality, and a lot of good teams sleepwalking.
Hope the knockout rounds improve, but its been a snooze so far for the most part. Every good team looks like they are coached by Mourinho.
-
I got half-way and had to give up for now. Another terrible piece by AA and there lack of history.
*their
And I figured you'd disapprove. But they are 100% right.
-
This has been a pretty terrible WC so far in my opinion. After the late winners in the first few matches, the Portugal/Spain barnburner, its been a lot of cynical, aesthetically awful soccer. You have Portugal and France scoring early goals and parking the bus against overmatched opponents, "minnows" fighting but unable to produce any moments of magic or quality, and a lot of good teams sleepwalking.
Hope the knockout rounds improve, but its been a snooze so far for the most part. Every good team looks like they are coached by Mourinho.
That's just the way that these international tournaments are going. Everybody plays more defensively, nobody wants to be the next Andres Escobar (the own goal part, not being killed for it), throw in more and more demanding domestic seasons and you have more tired players and subsequently less entertaining soccer. Top managers can also make more money at clubs rather than with national teams. It's only going to get worse when it expands to 48 teams.
-
I got half-way and had to give up for now. Another terrible piece by AA and there lack of history.
Could have set my watch to this.
-
And I figured you'd disapprove. But they are 100% right.
They are not right or wrong. It's just their (AA) opinion.
Just to use one example because I don't care to go into detail on the link as a whole. I had the Sirius XM feed of FOX on when Strong said, Iceland beats Argentina 1-1. I thought that line was outstanding! Brought a smile to my face. I understood what it meant. I even knew the back story in where the line even came from. That was outstanding announcing by Strong!
-
Could have set my watch to this.
Oh ya. I'm no fan of the site Awful Announcing.
-
Do they really think that challenge from Croatia should have been a red? Yellow fine, but I thought it was a bit of a nothing play with a whole lot of acting from the Argentine player.
-
Oooo boy, that's embarrassing.
-
Oooo boy, that's embarrassing.
Caballero joining the Loris Karius, Rob Green big game blunder support group.
-
This has been a pretty terrible WC so far in my opinion. After the late winners in the first few matches, the Portugal/Spain barnburner, its been a lot of cynical, aesthetically awful soccer. You have Portugal and France scoring early goals and parking the bus against overmatched opponents, "minnows" fighting but unable to produce any moments of magic or quality, and a lot of good teams sleepwalking.
Hope the knockout rounds improve, but its been a snooze so far for the most part. Every good team looks like they are coached by Mourinho.
Welcome to the world of group play in a major tournament. Nothing new...
-
Despite picking up all 3 points, Brazil did not look especially good today. A lot of the traditional heavy hitters have looked pretty disappointing thus far (Brazil, France despite taking 6 points from 2 games, Germany, Spain, Argentina). The two teams that I have been most impressed by are Belgium,(although they've only played Panama) and Croatia, we could have a new winner this year which I think would be good for the game.
-
It didn't help that Costa Rica was allowed to foul consistently. The fact that they received only one yellow was pretty damning.
-
True, but if you look at their lack of creativity in the final 3rd, not only today, but also against the Swiss, they haven't lived up to the hype of being one of the pre-tournament favorites. All that matters right now is getting out of the group, which they should be able to do, but if their play doesn't improve, they may not go too far after that.
-
It didn't help that Costa Rica was allowed to foul consistently. The fact that they received only one yellow was pretty damning.
Wait, so you're saying the officiating affected the outcome of a game?!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/8Ik6ZxaxJJS7K/giphy.gif)
-
So far, Belgium looks like the best team
-
And 10 million Swedish hearts break
-
Panama seems to running a little bit hot tonight.
-
Panama seems to running a little bit hot tonight.
Not sure why, they've been diving all over the pitch to start this match. England under Southgate have looked like no other England team I have ever seen. There isn't even a ton of talent in this side.
-
My mistake, I thought I turned on an England match, not bloody 1970s Brazil.
-
Probably the least deserving hat trick in WC history. 2 penalties and a massive unintentional deflection. They all count though.
-
Panama. The team that was better than the US.
-
Panama. The team that was better than the US.
Mexico, the team that can beat Germany and dominate South Korea, but can't get a draw at home against Panama. World Cup qualifying and the World Cup are two very different things.
-
That game made me happy. Seeing Falcao score was so heartwarming.
-
Through Day 7 of the World Cup:
57% of US viewers have only watched FOX/FS1
35% have only watched TEL
8% have watched both
-
GER-SWE posts the best overnight rating for a non-US group stage match in at least 20 years, 4.2 rating and 11 share. 5.64 million viewers on FOX.
-
The last five minutes in these two games have gotten nutty.
-
Neither Spain nor Portugal looked very good today. I'd definitely take Uruguay over Portugal at this point and Spain Russia could be a toss up as neither looked very good, I might give the slight edge to Spain because of the Russian suspensions, but that whole section of the bracket could be very weird. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Croatia in the semi's at this point.
-
Anyone else see this?
https://sports.yahoo.com/fifa-knew-russian-soccer-doping-nothing-new-investigation-finds-025558754.html
So, among all the other corruption, FIFA turns a blind eye to russian doping and to murder/slavery in Qatar. Good.
-
Anyone else see this?
https://sports.yahoo.com/fifa-knew-russian-soccer-doping-nothing-new-investigation-finds-025558754.html
So, among all the other corruption, FIFA turns a blind eye to russian doping and to murder/slavery in Qatar. Good.
FIFA is terrible. Like the IOC, just appalling organizations. And yet I love the World Cup and Olympics.
-
Neither Spain nor Portugal looked very good today. I'd definitely take Uruguay over Portugal at this point and Spain Russia could be a toss up as neither looked very good, I might give the slight edge to Spain because of the Russian suspensions, but that whole section of the bracket could be very weird. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Croatia in the semi's at this point.
Not to pat myself on the back too much buuuut...
Just put a couple of bets on today. Put $20 on Belgium, for really good value for them at 15-1.
Took a punt on Croatia with $5 at 30-1. Really like their team, especially that midfield.
Don't think either of them win, but thought they were good value bets. No such thing as sure bets on football, Germany for years ago was about as close as you get.
Still a long way to go but at least they both made the knock out stages.
-
And that'll do it for group C. Neither France nor Denmark seemed too interested in going for a winner, and I can't blame them. With Australia's inability to score from open play, Peru had that one locked up from the 50th minute. If Argentina can get it together and finish second in their group, France v Argentina will likely be one of the must see round of 16 matches.
-
If Argentina can get it together and finish second in their group, France v Argentina will likely be one of the must see round of 16 matches.
Two teams that have shown basically nothing? Agree to disagree. Argentina has been horrible and I think France could run over them if they play with any sort of life. But France would be on the outside looking in if they weren't in a cakewalk group. They've played insanely cautious and conservative, which is pathetic given their talent and the style of play they normally represent. I think they are probably top-4 most talented in the Cup, and have a good manager, but I haven't seen more than a fleeting flash of it, even understanding the strategy of group play. That certainly hasn't held back Belgium.
-
Two teams that have shown basically nothing? Agree to disagree. Argentina has been horrible and I think France could run over them if they play with any sort of life. But France would be on the outside looking in if they weren't in a cakewalk group. They've played insanely cautious and conservative, which is pathetic given their talent and the style of play they normally represent. I think they are probably top-4 most talented in the Cup, and have a good manager, but I haven't seen more than a fleeting flash of it, even understanding the strategy of group play. That certainly hasn't held back Belgium.
All true, but it's because of all that talent that they can turn it on at any point. They both have world class potential so the match-up has world class potential. Throw in that other potential round of 16 games are not likely to be all that great. Mexico v Switzerland, Belgium or England v Japan or Senegal, Denmark v Croatia. No bad match-ups per say, but none have the potential that France v Argentina has. The only other potential match-up that could top it is Germany v Brazil. You can bet that a whole bunch of story lines from 4 years ago will be brought up, but then again, neither of those teams are playing great either so its really a toss up. People tune in and buy tickets based on star power, and those two match-ups have by far the most of it.
-
All true, but it's because of all that talent that they can turn it on at any point. They both have world class potential so the match-up has world class potential. Throw in that other potential round of 16 games are not likely to be all that great. Mexico v Switzerland, Belgium or England v Japan or Senegal, Denmark v Croatia. No bad match-ups per say, but none have the potential that France v Argentina has. The only other potential match-up that could top it is Germany v Brazil. You can bet that a whole bunch of story lines from 4 years ago will be brought up, but then again, neither of those teams are playing great either so its really a toss up. People tune in and buy tickets based on star power, and those two match-ups have by far the most of it.
You really think Senegal is going to beat Colombia? Wouldn't be surprised to see a 4-1 result for Colombia since they have their lineup straightened out. Colombia vs. England/Belgium will be fun.
-
You really think Senegal is going to beat Colombia? Wouldn't be surprised to see a 4-1 result for Colombia since they have their lineup straightened out. Colombia vs. England/Belgium will be fun.
Senegal knows that a draw will be enough to see them through. That's a big boost both in game plan and mentality. I think the Columbia Poland result was more because Poland were shockingly bad rather than Columbia being that good. Columbia could win yes, but right now Senegal is playing very organized attacking soccer right now, if they can score 2 for the third straight game, they should be able to get the job done.
-
Senegal knows that a draw will be enough to see them through. That's a big boost both in game plan and mentality. I think the Columbia Poland result was more because Poland were shockingly bad rather than Columbia being that good. Columbia could win yes, but right now Senegal is playing very organized attacking soccer right now, if they can score 2 for the third straight game, they should be able to get the job done.
I dunno, Colombia far and away have the best back four of anyone in the group. There's a reason Arias, Sanchez, and Mina are on some of the best teams in Europe, plus Ospina is a nice piece as well.
Really think that Japan game was a wakeup call and as you said, Senegal already played their two easier opponents. Nobody in group H has the talent to match Colombia and it's really, really difficult to park the bus for 90 minutes.
I will say where Colombia can run into problems in on set pieces. The thought of Quintero having to defend a corner against Senegal is terrifying.
-
I dunno, Colombia far and away have the best back four of anyone in the group. There's a reason Arias, Sanchez, and Mina are on some of the best teams in Europe, plus Ospina is a nice piece as well.
Really think that Japan game was a wakeup call and as you said, Senegal already played their two easier opponents. Nobody in group H has the talent to match Colombia and it's really, really difficult to park the bus for 90 minutes.
I will say where Colombia can run into problems in on set pieces. The thought of Quintero having to defend a corner against Senegal is terrifying.
Agree that on paper Columbia has more talent, I guess Senegal has just impressed me (by far the best team in CAF). I also don't think Senegal will try to park the bus. They'll have less possession no doubt, but playing long balls can work when you have someone as fast and as skilled as Sadio Mane.
Also Sanchez is very skilled, but Mina has only made 6 appearances for Barca, and while PSV are a good club for developing talent they are not one of the best in Europe.
-
Maradona looks drugged up as per usual.
-
I dunno, Colombia far and away have the best back four of anyone in the group. There's a reason Arias, Sanchez, and Mina are on some of the best teams in Europe, plus Ospina is a nice piece as well.
Really think that Japan game was a wakeup call and as you said, Senegal already played their two easier opponents. Nobody in group H has the talent to match Colombia and it's really, really difficult to park the bus for 90 minutes.
I will say where Colombia can run into problems in on set pieces. The thought of Quintero having to defend a corner against Senegal is terrifying.
Senegal's weakness is their midfield, which is where Colombia could really take advantage and boss them around.
-
Senegal's weakness is their midfield, which is where Colombia could really take advantage and boss them around.
The funny thing is coming into the World Cup I thought Colombia's midfield may have ended up being a weakness.
Cuadrado is getting up there in years and you never know which Quintero you're going to get. But Quintero has been tremendous thus far and apparently James plays defense now. Don't know where that came from.
-
The Germans are going home after finishing bottom of their group. Those South Korean players are now national heroes in Mexico, who looked absolutely awful today.
Joachim Low just got added to the list of potential new managers for the US although I hope they stay away.
-
Germany finished third...but yeah.
-
Germany finished third...but yeah.
Both Germany and South Korea finished with 3 points, but Korea's goal difference was even while the Germans finished -2, Germany finished 4th.
Strangely enough, Mexico finished with a worse goal difference than Korea. That's how bad they were today.
-
Germany finished third...but yeah.
#FakeNews
The tiebreaker puts them behind South Korea. (Although 3rd place tiebreakers are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.)
-
Yep. My bad. Thought they had 4 points.
-
Those dang Mexicans, always sneaking through on someone else's hard work. US team 4 years ago, South Koreans this year.
-
Those dang Mexicans, always sneaking through on someone else's hard work. US team 4 years ago, South Koreans this year.
What makes helping them out 4 years ago even worse, is that they had the chance to return the favor in October '17, but they lost to Honduras, which coupled with our loss to T+T knocked us out.
-
Really hope Colombia can somehow win their group. That side of the bracket is shameful.
-
Really hope Colombia can somehow win their group. That side of the bracket is shameful.
Makes you wonder if England or Belgium would prefer finishing as runners up. Either would be arguably favored in their first game then would have to play Sweden or Switzerland.
-
Makes you wonder if England or Belgium would prefer finishing as runners up. Either would be arguably favored in their first game then would have to play Sweden or Switzerland.
I wouldn't overlook Sweden, they've collected quite a few scalps to get this far. Finished ahead of the Dutch in qualifying, to knock them out. Then drew Italy in a two legged playoff, which they won. Yes they lost to Germany, but they played very well in that game and they just won the group. Not as much talent as other major contenders, but they may be the most organized team at the tournament.
-
All-in-all, CONCACAF has not shown much this time around.
-
All-in-all, CONCACAF has not shown much this time around.
Only going to be two or three non European or South American teams in the final 16. Ten will be from Europe alone.
-
Caught a massive, massive break.
-
Mina needs to go somewhere where he will get playing time. He's been brilliant these past two games.
Also, can we talk about Valderrama wearing his own jersey?
-
Japan deserves to get their asses handed to them next match for that crap. Play the damn game.
-
Good call on Columbia being able to get the job done Chitown. Senegal will feel disappointed, after blowing the lead against Japan twice, they get eliminated by fair play, that's a tough way to go home. Worst performance by CAF in a long time, possibly ever.
-
Good call on Columbia being able to get the job done Chitown. Senegal will feel disappointed, after blowing the lead against Japan twice, they get eliminated by fair play, that's a tough way to go home. Worst performance by CAF in a long time, possibly ever.
If we're being completely honest Senegal probably played a little better through the entire match and deserved a goal.
That being said, I'm certainly not going to complain. Vamos Colombia.
-
Japan deserves to get their asses handed to them next match for that crap. Play the damn game.
Both Belgium and England have more than enough talent to service your request. Scoreline might not reflect it, but I would expect either to go through comfortably.
-
If we're being completely honest Senegal probably played a little better through the entire match and deserved a goal.
That being said, I'm certainly not going to complain. Vamos Colombia.
Agreed. Their finishing let them down, and a few unlucky breaks. Mane slipping on a dangerous free kick position, one or two mini bounces that took the ball off a waiting foot in front of goal, and of course the dastardly VAR. Fairly unlucky for one of the more entertaining teams of the WC. Their pace on the wings was great.
Japan deserves to get their asses handed to them next match for that crap. Play the damn game.
Their manager being completely honest and transparent about it after the match made it even worse. Telling his sub to "take no risks, avoid anything that could be a card". I get playing out a draw, but Ive never seen more standing over the ball in a match. Shameful. Unfortunate cause I normally enjoy their play and they have my second favorite kit in the tourney, after Nigeria.
-
Their manager being completely honest and transparent about it after the match made it even worse. Telling his sub to "take no risks, avoid anything that could be a card". I get playing out a draw, but Ive never seen more standing over the ball in a match. Shameful. Unfortunate cause I normally enjoy their play and they have my second favorite kit in the tourney, after Nigeria.
I can't blame a program for understanding the rules and abiding by them to advance.
The fault here lies with discipline being used as a tie-breaker. It is a FIFA issue, not a Japan issue.
-
I can't blame a program for understanding the rules and abiding by them to advance.
The fault here lies with discipline being used as a tie-breaker. It is a FIFA issue, not a Japan issue.
But is that better than drawing lots?
-
Uruguay over France
Brazil over Belgium*
Spain over Croatia*
England over Sweden
Brazil over Uruguay
Spain over England
Brazil over Spain
*Two games where I’m really tempted to take the upset
-
I can't blame a program for understanding the rules and abiding by them to advance.
The fault here lies with discipline being used as a tie-breaker. It is a FIFA issue, not a Japan issue.
I'm fine with the Fair Play points being a 6th or 7th tiebreaker. It's not idea, but that's why it's a ways down the list. My issue is Japan putting their trust in Colombia's defense rather than themselves. If Senegal scores in the last 15 minutes, Japan is out. If that game was already over, I would still hate the tactic but accept it. This was gross.
-
But is that better than drawing lots?
No. The same tackle in two games could be handled with a card or without a card. In this case we are punishing a team with elimination based on subjective interpretation. With drawing lots, that is not the case.
I'm fine with the Fair Play points being a 6th or 7th tiebreaker. It's not idea, but that's why it's a ways down the list. My issue is Japan putting their trust in Colombia's defense rather than themselves. If Senegal scores in the last 15 minutes, Japan is out. If that game was already over, I would still hate the tactic but accept it. This was gross.
This is odd. You accept it as a valid tactic to advance. Yet since it didn't happen in the manner you prefer, it is seen as unseemly.
-
Uruguay over France
Brazil over Belgium*
Spain over Croatia*
England over Sweden
Brazil over Uruguay
Spain over England
Brazil over Spain
*Two games where I’m really tempted to take the upset
Considering the way play has gone taking Brasil and Spain to advance would be considered selecting the upset. Belgium and Croatia have been the two most impressive countries in this tournament.
-
No. The same tackle in two games could be handled with a card or without a card. In this case we are punishing a team with elimination based on subjective interpretation. With drawing lots, that is not the case.
I completely disagree. Games are in part determined by subjectivity all the time. It’s odd but I don’t see better options.
-
I completely disagree. Games are in part determined by subjectivity all the time. It’s odd but I don’t see better options.
I heard an interesting option. Head to head penalty kicks.
Sure, there would be some logistics to figure out but at least this settles it on the field, as opposed to yellow cards or drawing lots.
-
You could have penalty kicks after all draws. They would only come into play when it comes down to the head-to-head tiebreak.
-
Uruguay over France
Brazil over Belgium*
Spain over Croatia*
England over Sweden
Brazil over Uruguay
Spain over England
Brazil over Spain
*Two games where I’m really tempted to take the upset
You must not do well in March Madness pools. The two teams you wavered on in the quarters were your two finalists?
-
You must not do well in March Madness pools. The two teams you wavered on in the quarters were your two finalists?
Because the quarterfinals opponents are arguably better than the semifinalists. It’s all about the match ups.
-
Considering the way play has gone taking Brasil and Spain to advance would be considered selecting the upset. Belgium and Croatia have been the two most impressive countries in this tournament.
Agree about Belgium and Croatia, although I'll add Uruguay to the list of impressive teams thus far. Only team with three clean sheets, Both Suarez and Cavani are finding their form, and although he won't win it because of the position he plays, Godin has been the most impressive player at the World Cup IMO.
As for predictions, this is as open as I can remember in a long time and I think that's a good thing. As noted, Belgium, Croatia and Uruguay are at the top of their form. Its hard to look past teams with as much raw talent as Brazil, Spain, France, even England. If you have someone as good as Messi or Ronaldo, you always have a shot. I don't think all 16 remaining teams have a shot at winning it all, but there are only 3, or 4 teams that it would surprise me if they made the semi's.
Also, anyone that watches Sweden, that is exactly how I want the US to play. Extremely hard working, extremely focused, extremely organized. They're not going to give anything away cheap. You may beat them, but you know that they're going to fight for 90 minutes and you're going to have to earn everything you get.
-
I'm fine with the Fair Play points being a 6th or 7th tiebreaker. It's not idea, but that's why it's a ways down the list. My issue is Japan putting their trust in Colombia's defense rather than themselves. If Senegal scores in the last 15 minutes, Japan is out. If that game was already over, I would still hate the tactic but accept it. This was gross.
Agree with this. It's such a rare occurrence that there is no need to adjust the rule (at least until expansion and 3 team groups). I didn't like what Japan did, but I understand it. No matter how bad they lose to Belgium, their tournament will be considered a success, if they hadn't made it out of the group, it would be considered a failure. Now if some of the bigger names started doing this, I would address it then, but a lot of countries would rather go home early than play that style.
-
This is odd. You accept it as a valid tactic to advance. Yet since it didn't happen in the manner you prefer, it is seen as unseemly.
Valid tactic. Annoying tactic. What puts it over the top for me is the added element of Japan doing this when their fortunes were still up in the air. If Colombia/Senegal was over, and Japan knew a 1-0 loss puts them through, that would be one thing. Doing it when one Senegalese shot hundreds of miles away could end Japan's tournament was something else to me.
-
I completely disagree. Games are in part determined by subjectivity all the time. It’s odd but I don’t see better options.
There are other options. As Twellman suggested, why not goals from open play as a measurement? Why not result against the group winner as a measurement? Under the current system if you have the misfortune of having that clown Turpin officiate your match you're assured of heading home since he books every other tackle.
Valid tactic. Annoying tactic. What puts it over the top for me is the added element of Japan doing this when their fortunes were still up in the air. If Colombia/Senegal was over, and Japan knew a 1-0 loss puts them through, that would be one thing. Doing it when one Senegalese shot hundreds of miles away could end Japan's tournament was something else to me.
No argument from me that it was risky and for that I could understand criticism of Japan. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it shameless or gross that this was the path Japan decided to follow. Many ways to skin a cat.
-
There are other options. As Twellman suggested, why not goals from open play as a measurement? Why not result against the group winner as a measurement? Under the current system if you have the misfortune of having that clown Turpin officiate your match you're assured of heading home since he books every other tackle.
No argument from me that it was risky and for that I could understand criticism of Japan. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it shameless or gross that this was the path Japan decided to follow. Many ways to skin a cat.
I'd be all for goals from open play. With VAR teams are game planning differently. Significantly less diving, which is good, but some teams are playing to get a penalty, rather than a goal from open play. Any contact in the box, you go down, because VAR will confirm that there was contact, and you'll get the penalty. I also don't agree with some of the handballs that have been given in the box, but that's less a VAR problem, and more a problem that can be solved by tweaking the rules regarding handballs. All this culminates in the most penalties in a World Cup ever.
-
Belgium and Croatia have been the two most impressive countries in this tournament.
I agree, Belgium especially. Hard to take much from Belgium/England when neither were very motivated, but the Belgians have looked dangerous consistently going forward and have a strong defense. I also like that they got the win they didn't need and go into the "harder" side of the draw.
I'm not sure it's really harder, though. Brazil was kind of meh the whole group stage. Sweden looked the better team, and I'd certainly rate the Swiss over Mexico right now. And by the time you get to the semis, there should be no easy draws.
Be interested to see what Argentina does. They may not deserve to be here, but still have Messi. It would be hilarious if they ended up in the semis with a shot to win it.
-
I'd be all for goals from open play. With VAR teams are game planning differently. Significantly less diving, which is good, but some teams are playing to get a penalty, rather than a goal from open play. Any contact in the box, you go down, because VAR will confirm that there was contact, and you'll get the penalty. I also don't agree with some of the handballs that have been given in the box, but that's less a VAR problem, and more a problem that can be solved by tweaking the rules regarding handballs. All this culminates in the most penalties in a World Cup ever.
How would open play be defined? Strictly penalties? What about direct free kicks? Corners? Penalty saves that are put in on a rebound? Or the more elaborate set pieces like some of England's efforts this tournament?
I agree that the discipline system is at best questionable and VAR has changed everything. It definitely needs a fix before 2022.
-
How would open play be defined? Strictly penalties? What about direct free kicks? Corners? Penalty saves that are put in on a rebound? Or the more elaborate set pieces like some of England's efforts this tournament?
I agree that the discipline system is at best questionable and VAR has changed everything. It definitely needs a fix before 2022.
I would say everything that is not directly from the penalty spot would be classified as open play. Direct kicks, set pieces, even penalty saves put in on a rebound. I would say that Costa Rica goal, which was technically classified as an own goal, should be classified as from the penalty spot. Its tough to fault the keeper for that.
-
Saturday, June 30
France vs. Argentina (in Kazan), 9 a.m. on FOX
Uruguay vs. Portugal (in Sochi), 1 p.m. on FOX
Sunday, July 1
Spain vs. Russia (in Moscow), 9 a.m. on FOX
Croatia vs. Denmark (in Nizhny Novgorod), 1 p.m. on FOX
Monday, July 2
Brazil vs. Mexico (in Samara), 9 a.m. on FOX
Belgium vs. Japan (in Rostov-on-Don), 1 p.m. on FOX
Tuesday, July 3
Sweden vs. Switzerland (in Saint Petersburg), 9 a.m. on FS1
Colombia vs. England (in Moscow), 1 p.m. on FOX
-
Two teams that have shown basically nothing? Agree to disagree. Argentina has been horrible and I think France could run over them if they play with any sort of life. But France would be on the outside looking in if they weren't in a cakewalk group. They've played insanely cautious and conservative, which is pathetic given their talent and the style of play they normally represent. I think they are probably top-4 most talented in the Cup, and have a good manager, but I haven't seen more than a fleeting flash of it, even understanding the strategy of group play. That certainly hasn't held back Belgium.
Not exactly a master class in defending, but in terms of pure entertainment value, that game will be tough to top.
-
That was great. Russia had no business going through but Spain sure didn't do themselves any favors.
Denmark showed that you can't win the World Cup on the back of just two players.
-
Spain had 1,000+ completed passes and only an own goal to show for it. Firing your coach right before the tournament is pretty stupid.
-
I hate games being decided by "Penalty Kicks". Win the game on the field.
-
I'll give Mexico credit, they're consistent. Seven straight exits at the round of 16.
-
The best half of the World Cup this year. Belgium with last minute winner.
-
Fallaini and Chadli. Of all the players...
-
The best half of the World Cup this year. Belgium with last minute winner.
100% agree. Also love the fact that there hasn't been a bad knockout game yet.
-
That was incredible. Come from 2-0 down to win in regulation, in the 4th of 4 minutes of added time. Unreal. What a game. Moment was reminiscent of Donovan vs Algeria.
-
How interesting that just enough mysterious extra time was added so Belgium could score.
I'm neither a soccer fan -- a friend visiting from out of town had the game on and he called me in to see a replay of the winning goal -- nor a conspiracy theorist.
But if I were, I might have fun with this one.
-
How interesting that just enough mysterious extra time was added so Belgium could score.
I'm neither a soccer fan -- a friend visiting from out of town had the game on and he called me in to see a replay of the winning goal -- nor a conspiracy theorist.
But if I were, I might have fun with this one.
General rule is 30 seconds added for each goal, and stoppage time for the second half is never less than 3 minutes. No conspiracy here.
-
Other note, Neymar and Brazil confirmed today why he is my least favorite athlete of any sport on my least favorite team in the entire world.
I don't care how good he is, what he does is ridiculously obnoxious. Card him every single time he cries with a fake injury or keep him off the pitch for the length of time he's rolling on the ground.
Enough is enough.
And no, it's not just a part of the game. There were no issues in the Japan Belgium game.
-
General rule is 30 seconds added for each goal, and stoppage time for the second half is never less than 3 minutes. No conspiracy here.
As a guy who knows little about soccer, I will defer to your obviously superior knowledge.
-
Furthermore, Japan has two good chances to score toward the end as well.
-
100% agree. Also love the fact that there hasn't been a bad knockout game yet.
Id argue the Spain/Russia and Croatia/Denmark games were pretty awful. Take out the drama of a shootout and it was a lot of bad soccer. Croatia and Denmark seemed to forget how to play after a great start and Spain was HORRIBLE, passive, and toothless. And De Gea has not been good.
Furthermore, Japan has two good chances to score toward the end as well.
Both keepers really turned it on. Japan's GK was fantastic in the second half, despite giving up the goals.
Other note, Neymar and Brazil confirmed today why he is my least favorite athlete of any sport on my least favorite team in the entire world.
I don't care how good he is, what he does is ridiculously obnoxious. Card him every single time he cries with a fake injury or keep him off the pitch for the length of time he's rolling on the ground.
Then your issue is with the officials. If players stopped receiving benefits from diving or embellishment, it would stop. I'm not defending Neymar, but I also saw a stat that he's been on the receiving end of the most challenges by the opposition in the WC but a decent margin. He's so talented and quick that teams only shot is to be physical with him. That being said, he does take it to another level. But my god is he incredibly skilled.
-
Id argue the Spain/Russia and Croatia/Denmark games were pretty awful. Take out the drama of a shootout and it was a lot of bad soccer. Croatia and Denmark seemed to forget how to play after a great start and Spain was HORRIBLE, passive, and toothless. And De Gea has not been good.
You must have a pretty high bar, because I thought both games were great. Would you judge a basketball or football game based on the first 3 quarters? If not, why are you treating soccer differently? If a game goes to a shootout, it almost always doesn't even matter what happened the rest of the game because shootouts, whether in soccer or hockey, are one of, if not the, most exciting things in sports IMO (the soccer hockey hybrid that the MLS used in the 90s was the best). Were the Sunday games as good as the 7 goal thriller that was Argentina France? No. Were they as good as the 5 goal second half Monday? No. But they were still great games.
If you were expecting a 7 goal game from Spain Russia, then you have not seen Spain play in the last decade. Croatia Denmark had one of the best extra times in recent memory. Very open, both teams going for it. Honestly my biggest complaint about the Sunday games, was the shockingly high number of really poor penalties. Koke and Iago never even should have been taking spot kicks for Spain, and the missed penalties in Croatia Denmark were also just bad penalties. Watch the shootout in the Croatia Denmark game, at this level, every single player should be converting penalties at at least a 90% clip. The second Danish shot (the first converted penalty) is exactly what everyone should be able to do.
Of the penalties that he faced, De Gea really only had a chance to save one. Other than his Rob Green esq goal conceded against Portugal, his tournament was fine, Russia had all of 1 shot on target in the 120 minutes, and it was the penalty, you can't make saves if the other team doesn't shoot.
-
You must have a pretty high bar, because I thought both games were great. Would you judge a basketball or football game based on the first 3 quarters? If not, why are you treating soccer differently? If a game goes to a shootout, it almost always doesn't even matter what happened the rest of the game because shootouts, whether in soccer or hockey, are one of, if not the, most exciting things in sports IMO (the soccer hockey hybrid that the MLS used in the 90s was the best). Were the Sunday games as good as the 7 goal thriller that was Argentina France? No. Were they as good as the 5 goal second half Monday? No. But they were still great games.
If 2 Big Ten teams played grinding, stalling basketball and went to overtime tied 31-31, but overtime was back and forth with each team hitting a big shot, id still say it was a crap game. The majority of the game was terrible. When teams play for a shootout, I don't care how fun the shootout is, its cynical soccer and isn't pleasant viewing.
If you were expecting a 7 goal game from Spain Russia, then you have not seen Spain play in the last decade. Croatia Denmark had one of the best extra times in recent memory. Very open, both teams going for it. Honestly my biggest complaint about the Sunday games, was the shockingly high number of really poor penalties. Koke and Iago never even should have been taking spot kicks for Spain, and the missed penalties in Croatia Denmark were also just bad penalties. Watch the shootout in the Croatia Denmark game, at this level, every single player should be converting penalties at at least a 90% clip. The second Danish shot (the first converted penalty) is exactly what everyone should be able to do.
Come on man, there is a big difference between expecting Spain to be in a firefight and the bulls*** we saw for 110 of the minutes of that match. No pressure, no attacking. They completed 1000 passes with non of them being dangerous. This is one of the top teams in the World, with an embarrassment of riches from a talent perspective, who played like a minnow hoping to get to a coin flip in PKs. No creativity in attack, no change in strategy.
The Croatia/Denmark match was different. Extra time was quite good and the penalties were high drama, but that game started so brightly, and both teams have some exciting attacking talent, so the fumbly last 75 min or so of the 90 were disappointing. I hear your point about an ending, but soccer has almost double the game time of an NBA game, and there is no shot clock or play clock to force play, so passive, complacent playing out of a game feels even more egregious. For me, a TERRIBLE game ending in penalties is not a great game just because penalties are fine. You are entitled to think differently.
Of the penalties that he faced, De Gea really only had a chance to save one. Other than his Rob Green esq goal conceded against Portugal, his tournament was fine, Russia had all of 1 shot on target in the 120 minutes, and it was the penalty, you can't make saves if the other team doesn't shoot.
De Gea had the worst GK stats in the WC in 50 years. Penalties aside, he really did nothing of note, and gave up a couple of goals you might expect a top 3 GK, which is how he's been thought of for some time, to stop. He didn't have to do much in the Russia match, but he wasn't good against Morocco or Portugal. Trust me, I'm not the only one with this opinion, criticism of him is wide ranging.
-
I think penalty kicks are a boring way to end a game. I know why they are necessary, but it is so unlike the rest of the game that I find it dull.
Oh and Spain firing their coach for accepting another job after he was going to be out of contract was dumb.
-
If 2 Big Ten teams played grinding, stalling basketball and went to overtime tied 31-31, but overtime was back and forth with each team hitting a big shot, id still say it was a crap game. The majority of the game was terrible. When teams play for a shootout, I don't care how fun the shootout is, its cynical soccer and isn't pleasant viewing.
You must absolutely hate baseball. The majority of those games, nothing is happening. Yes they're higher scoring, but they're also usually twice as long.
Come on man, there is a big difference between expecting Spain to be in a firefight and the bulls*** we saw for 110 of the minutes of that match. No pressure, no attacking. They completed 1000 passes with non of them being dangerous. This is one of the top teams in the World, with an embarrassment of riches from a talent perspective, who played like a minnow hoping to get to a coin flip in PKs. No creativity in attack, no change in strategy.
The Croatia/Denmark match was different. Extra time was quite good and the penalties were high drama, but that game started so brightly, and both teams have some exciting attacking talent, so the fumbly last 75 min or so of the 90 were disappointing. I hear your point about an ending, but soccer has almost double the game time of an NBA game, and there is no shot clock or play clock to force play, so passive, complacent playing out of a game feels even more egregious. For me, a TERRIBLE game ending in penalties is not a great game just because penalties are fine. You are entitled to think differently.
You must have also hated the 2010 World Cup, because in that tournament, Spain set the record for highest average possession by a champion, highest passes per game by a champion, and fewest goals per game for a champion. They scored all of 8 goals in 7 games. That's just the way that Spain has played for over a decade now. You may not like the style, but anyone who has watched them play knew exactly how it was going to go. The only way you would have been dissapointed is if you were expecting a high scoring affair. You can also make the argument that anytime the host is playing in the knockout stages, it will either be a good game or a blow out, just based on the environment.
De Gea had the worst GK stats in the WC in 50 years. Penalties aside, he really did nothing of note, and gave up a couple of goals you might expect a top 3 GK, which is how he's been thought of for some time, to stop. He didn't have to do much in the Russia match, but he wasn't good against Morocco or Portugal. Trust me, I'm not the only one with this opinion, criticism of him is wide ranging.
First I find this hard to believe. Source?
Second, Spain conceded 6 goals in their 4 games. Not great number, but 2 of them were penalties, which brings it down to 4 goals in 4 games which is above average. De Gea had no chance at either of the goals against Morocco, the first being a terrible mistake by his defenders, and the second being a header into the top corner off a set piece. He kept a clean sheet against Iran, not exactly impressive but a clean sheet is a clean sheet. He had his terrible mistake against Portugal, then couldn't stop a penalty, or a world class shot by Ronaldo. By no means am I saying that he looked world class, but he had one terrible mistake, and a pretty average rest of the tournament. That's not worthy of the criticism that he's receiving IMO.
-
I thought the 2010 World Cup Final was boring. Yeah Spain may play that way, but like Badger basketball, I’m not going to pretend to enjoy it.
-
I thought the 2010 World Cup Final was boring. Yeah Spain may play that way, but like Badger basketball, I’m not going to pretend to enjoy it.
It really depends on how you look at it. You can say that in 2 hours of play there was exactly one goal, and that's a fair point. You can also look at the record number of yellow cards (double the previous record), the one on one save between Casillas and Robben, the flying judo kick by De Jong (which amazingly wasn't a straight red), the sending off in extra time, and say that it was a good game. Not the most exciting I've ever seen certainly, but it did have its moments.
-
You must absolutely hate baseball. The majority of those games, nothing is happening. Yes they're higher scoring, but they're also usually twice as long.
Yes, by and large I find baseball to be boring. However, most of baseball is not purposefully boring, its just a function of the start and stop nature of the sport. I dont find soccer boring. I find it thrilling. The build up, the clever runs and movement off the ball, the changes in pace and tempo. Its fantastic. When most of those moments are taken away, it sucks. I don't like watching many Mourinho coached squads either as a result. If he doesn't have a clear talent advantage, they sit.
You must have also hated the 2010 World Cup, because in that tournament, Spain set the record for highest average possession by a champion, highest passes per game by a champion, and fewest goals per game for a champion. They scored all of 8 goals in 7 games. That's just the way that Spain has played for over a decade now. You may not like the style, but anyone who has watched them play knew exactly how it was going to go. The only way you would have been dissapointed is if you were expecting a high scoring affair. You can also make the argument that anytime the host is playing in the knockout stages, it will either be a good game or a blow out, just based on the environment.
Yea, it wasn't great. It was the UVA of soccer. Made even worse by the fact that they have so much talent as I said. If you loved the Spain/Russia game, more power to you. But don't come at me like I dont understand or appreciate soccer cause I found it to be boring and the Spanish attack to be banal. If they won 1-0, ok. But they were tied, as a better team in a hostile environment, and still made no effort to truly win it in regular time. Thats just lame.
First I find this hard to believe. Source?
Second, Spain conceded 6 goals in their 4 games. Not great number, but 2 of them were penalties, which brings it down to 4 goals in 4 games which is above average. De Gea had no chance at either of the goals against Morocco, the first being a terrible mistake by his defenders, and the second being a header into the top corner off a set piece. He kept a clean sheet against Iran, not exactly impressive but a clean sheet is a clean sheet. He had his terrible mistake against Portugal, then couldn't stop a penalty, or a world class shot by Ronaldo. By no means am I saying that he looked world class, but he had one terrible mistake, and a pretty average rest of the tournament. That's not worthy of the criticism that he's receiving IMO.
https://talksport.com/football/393680/manchester-united-david-de-gea-world-cup-2018/
He recorded a single save the entire tournament. He didn't face as many as some, but he had the huge gaffe against Portugal. Morocco's first goal was a save you could expect a keeper to make. Watch it again, the Morroccan forward didn't do much even with it being a 1v1. Spain as a whole played poorly, but De Gea wasn't good. Didn't have a single moment of magic. Again, he's receiving criticism cause he's viewed as one of the top keepers in the world, for good reason. And his performance didn't reflect that (shrug).
-
Yea, it wasn't great. It was the UVA of soccer. Made even worse by the fact that they have so much talent as I said. If you loved the Spain/Russia game, more power to you. But don't come at me like I dont understand or appreciate soccer cause I found it to be boring and the Spanish attack to be banal. If they won 1-0, ok. But they were tied, as a better team in a hostile environment, and still made no effort to truly win it in regular time. Thats just lame.
My post was not intended to be an attack, if it was perceived that way I apologize. I do disagree that they didn't go for it. Iniestas shot in the 85 min could have very well gone in. It was a good save by Akinfeev considering the traffic. Rodrigos turn and run in the 109 min was another moment that almost created a winner. Spain can't really create chances quickly so I think the number of opportunities created was about indicative of Spains style.
https://talksport.com/football/393680/manchester-united-david-de-gea-world-cup-2018/
He recorded a single save the entire tournament. He didn't face as many as some, but he had the huge gaffe against Portugal. Morocco's first goal was a save you could expect a keeper to make. Watch it again, the Morroccan forward didn't do much even with it being a 1v1. Spain as a whole played poorly, but De Gea wasn't good. Didn't have a single moment of magic. Again, he's receiving criticism cause he's viewed as one of the top keepers in the world, for good reason. And his performance didn't reflect that (shrug).
Looking only at save percentage is pretty misleading. For example in the 2014 World Cup game against Belgium, Tim Howard allowed two goals and had 15 saves, for a save percentage of 88. While that is an above average number, it is not at all representative of the record setting and world class performance that he displayed in that game. Native European papers are also notoriously critical of their own countries players, often making claims that are a bit extreme (see Raheem Sterling). "De Gea's World Cup has been a disaster", he didn't look like a top 3 keeper in the world, but calling it a disaster is a bit of a stretch.
-
My post was not intended to be an attack, if it was perceived that way I apologize. I do disagree that they didn't go for it. Iniestas shot in the 85 min could have very well gone in. It was a good save by Akinfeev considering the traffic. Rodrigos turn and run in the 109 min was another moment that almost created a winner. Spain can't really create chances quickly so I think the number of opportunities created was about indicative of Spains style.
No worries, all good man. I think they can create chances, they just tactically chose not to. Look at their attacking players, they all play in systems at Real or Man City or Barca where they score in flurries. I think the choice of strikers was interesting, regardless of last Premier League campaign, Id rather plug in the proven success at the international level of a Morata or Pedro as opposed to Aspas or Rodrigo. They put a lot of pressure on Costa to perform.
And no, they didn't sit on it like Japan, but Russia had 1 attempt on goal in the second half, ONE! And Spain had almost 80% possession. I don't care if they have the slowest build up in history, with that possession, that talent in the midfield, and a team that was BEGGING you to attack them with their passive defensive tactics, I would expected more. Great save on the Iniesta shot, but other than that, Akinfeev was largely untroubled for the majority of the second half. All perception I guess, but Ive seen Spain turn on the pressure and intensity and I didn't see it there.
As for De Gea, I agree "disaster" is a bit harsh and excessive, but when your team isn't scoring goals, I think its fair for a critic to expect your keeper to stop shots he had in front of him/got his body on which was the difference between 9 points and 5 in the group stage, and maybe makes him a more confident keeper in the penalties. Akinfeev was FEELING it heading into that, De Gea not so much.
-
No worries, all good man. I think they can create chances, they just tactically chose not to. Look at their attacking players, they all play in systems at Real or Man City or Barca where they score in flurries. I think the choice of strikers was interesting, regardless of last Premier League campaign, Id rather plug in the proven success at the international level of a Morata or Pedro as opposed to Aspas or Rodrigo. They put a lot of pressure on Costa to perform.
And no, they didn't sit on it like Japan, but Russia had 1 attempt on goal in the second half, ONE! And Spain had almost 80% possession. I don't care if they have the slowest build up in history, with that possession, that talent in the midfield, and a team that was BEGGING you to attack them with their passive defensive tactics, I would expected more. Great save on the Iniesta shot, but other than that, Akinfeev was largely untroubled for the majority of the second half. All perception I guess, but Ive seen Spain turn on the pressure and intensity and I didn't see it there.
As for De Gea, I agree "disaster" is a bit harsh and excessive, but when your team isn't scoring goals, I think its fair for a critic to expect your keeper to stop shots he had in front of him/got his body on which was the difference between 9 points and 5 in the group stage, and maybe makes him a more confident keeper in the penalties. Akinfeev was FEELING it heading into that, De Gea not so much.
I also think you also have to give Russia some credit. They were very organized, and at most times has 10 men behind the ball. Regardless of attacking talent that's going to be difficult to break down.
Agree 100% about the substitution patterns that left Iago as the only striker going into the shootout. Bringing on Iniesta was the right move, but I would have taken off Asensio instead. I can understand not wanting two 30+ year old running your midfield, but as you point out there wan't much defensive work to be done. Again, no problem with bringing Iago on (given the options available), but I would have kept Costa on as well. With the ease that Iniesta, Pique, and Ramos finished their PKs, the argument of experience being the deciding factor holds up. You give me a 5 of Iniesta, Costa, David Silva, Ramos, and Pique, and they go 5 for 5 more times than not. If Russia converts all 5 too, then I would have gone with Isco before either Koke or Iago. He was probably the best Spanish player throughout the game. Spain had more talent, but the management decisions did not do them any favors.
-
Very chippy game between England and Colombia. It is my impression that Colombia is generally the instigator. But good lord, there is a lot of whining out there.
-
Disgrace of a game. Ref lost control very early and it's been a disaster ever since. Hopefully the winner gets wrecked by Sweden.
-
At least England's fully going for it. Taking off Walker to put on Rashford. You know they don't want penalties, especially given their history.
-
Went into the game agnostic. May have to root against Colombia in perpetuity after this game.
-
England scores five times on penalties, four from Tottenham players.
#coys
-
Damn.
England deserved it. Doesn't sting any less though.
Really weird game, never seen England or Colombia ever act like that before. They certainly brought out the worst in each other.
-
Went into the game agnostic. May have to root against Colombia in perpetuity after this game.
Lol please.
England, Maguire and Henderson weren't exactly saints.
-
Lol please.
England, Maguire and Henderson weren't exactly saints.
They weren’t. Colombia was much worse though.
-
England scores five times on penalties, four from Tottenham players.
#coys
+1. Good day for Spurs players. Sanchez played a great game too for Columbia.
LFC was the only bottler today. 8-)
-
Lol please.
England, Maguire and Henderson weren't exactly saints.
Didn't claim they were.
-
If there's one thing to take solace in, is that the Colombia back 4 will be around for a long time.
Mina proved a lot of people wrong this World Cup. Probably the last go around for Cuadrado and Falcao.
-
Y'all are sleeping on France.
That run by Mbappe was electric.
-
Y'all are sleeping on France.
That run by Mbappe was electric.
👀👀👀
-
As for De Gea, I agree "disaster" is a bit harsh and excessive, but when your team isn't scoring goals, I think its fair for a critic to expect your keeper to stop shots he had in front of him/got his body on which was the difference between 9 points and 5 in the group stage, and maybe makes him a more confident keeper in the penalties. Akinfeev was FEELING it heading into that, De Gea not so much.
De Gea isn't looking so bad right now. At least his gaffe was in the group stage when his team has 2 more full games to make up for it. The Rob Green, Loris Karius, David De Gea support group gains another member.
All in all, it hasn't been a great tournament for keepers in general. Some nice saves, but nothing as world class as you'd come to expect from some.
-
Y'all are sleeping on France.
That run by Mbappe was electric.
Mbappe has world class potential no doubt, but he also disappears at times. He's only 19, so he has plenty of time to get there, but he is not yet in the Ronaldo, Messi class. I would only put him as the third best attacking option at his current club.
-
Remember when everyone was fawning over Origi in 2014? Let’s see if Mbappe takes the next step that Origi never did.
-
Remember when everyone was fawning over Origi in 2014? Let’s see if Mbappe takes the next step that Origi never did.
In defense of Divock, he's still only 23. He needs to leave Liverpool because he's fallen out of favor under Klopp, but he still has more than enough time to revitalize his career. He'll never be the superstar some dubbed him as, but just look at Balotelli as evidence that you can still have a productive career after flaming out in the premier league.
-
In defense of Divock, he's still only 23. He needs to leave Liverpool because he's fallen out of favor under Klopp, but he still has more than enough time to revitalize his career. He'll never be the superstar some dubbed him as, but just look at Balotelli as evidence that you can still have a productive career after flaming out in the premier league.
Right. In France. Regardless I’m just saying that looking at how players perform in the World Cup isn’t necessarily indicative of how they are going to perform at the club level.
-
Right. In France. Regardless I’m just saying that looking at how players perform in the World Cup isn’t necessarily indicative of how they are going to perform at the club level.
33 goals in 2 years is impressive in almost any league, but I agree with your underlying point that form for country does not necessarily represent form for club. I think Renato Sanches is a better example than Divock (although they're both still young), going from breaking international records previously held by Ronaldo, then not being able to get into the starting 11 of a team that got relegated from the Premier League in less than 2 years.
-
That Uruguay/France match felt really dull. Lloris came up huge, but other than the one great chance he didn't seem to be overly tested. Hope the rest of the quarters are more entertaining.
-
Kevin De Bruyne might be the most dangerous person in the world leading a counter attack. His ability to both shoot with pace and accuracy, along with ability to play a perfect through or square ball is second to none IMO. He isn't the fastest player in the world (although he would blow all of us away), but man he's got the best right foot I've seen in a very long time.
-
Kevin De Bruyne might be the most dangerous person in the world leading a counter attack. His ability to both shoot with pace and accuracy, along with ability to play a perfect through or square ball is second to none IMO. He isn't the fastest player in the world (although he would blow all of us away), but man he's got the best right foot I've seen in a very long time.
The real losers here are Chelsea.
-
Neymar, man, talk about representing the best and worst about soccer all in one person.
-
Right. In France. Regardless I’m just saying that looking at how players perform in the World Cup isn’t necessarily indicative of how they are going to perform at the club level.
I think the other interesting difference is Mbappe is proven at a club level before any national team success. 15 goals with Monaco, and then another 13 for PSG after making the move. Origi only had a handful in a few years as a striker with Lille. His whole reputation was built on great pace and one massive game winner in the 2014 WC. He never fit great with Liverpool, and didn't score goals in bunches on loan.
-
Neymar, man, talk about representing the best and worst about soccer all in one person.
Absolute disgrace
-
I will say that the stupidest rule of the WC is that yellow's don't get wiped until after the quarterfinals. If you make a professional foul in your first group stage game, you then have to go the next 4 games without getting another yellow to avoid suspension. It hasn't been a big problem this WC yet (Croatia has a lot of players sitting on one yellow), but it does cause some of the worlds best to unfairly miss games.
-
I will say that the stupidest rule of the WC is that yellow's don't get wiped until after the quarterfinals. If you make a professional foul in your first group stage game, you then have to go the next 4 games without getting another yellow to avoid suspension. It hasn't been a big problem this WC yet (Croatia has a lot of players sitting on one yellow), but it does cause some of the worlds best to unfairly miss games.
Agree, they need to adjust it I just don't know how. I think the two yellow card rule is dumb in general and would like to scrap it completely but that'll never happen.
-
Agree, they need to adjust it I just don't know how. I think the two yellow card rule is dumb in general and would like to scrap it completely but that'll never happen.
They'll get a chance when they re-work it for expansion, along with quite a few other rules, tiebreakers for examples. I just have very little confidence that they'll get it right.
-
I think they should wipe single cards after the group and after the semis. Or increase it to 2 yellows in consecutive matches or 3 in non-consecutive matches.
-
Coming home status: It's
-
The amount of bad penalties in this WC is truly shocking.
-
Coming home status: It's
Ok, I obviously missed something because I've been seeing this all day and don't know the context.
-
Ok, I obviously missed something because I've been seeing this all day and don't know the context.
Back in the day England would put out a song for every new tournament they were in. When Euros were in England in 1996, the song they put out was called Three Lions, better known as Football's coming home. Timing happened to be perfect since they missed out qualifying for the World Cup in 94.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJqimlFcJsM
That one happened to stick and they even did an updated version for the 1998 World Cup. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsrGajtU8tw&t=138s)
Since then, they haven't put out many official World Cup songs, and if they did they were terrible so "football's coming home" has kinda been the England rally cry in every major tournament since 1996.
Now this year, it's pretty much just become a meme since they're actually doing well and have a legitimate shot to win it.
-
Ok, I obviously missed something because I've been seeing this all day and don't know the context.
It goes back to this 1996 song by the Lightning Seeds: https://youtu.be/RJqimlFcJsM
England has had a nice tournament and winning the World Cup would mean more to their fans than anyone. That said, if they get by Croatia, I think France or Belgium batter them.
Football might make it up the walk, might even knock on the door, but she ain't coming home.
-
To elaborate, football was invented in England, so in 1966 when England both hosted and subsequently won the World Cup, it was dubbed "football coming home." The song was written in 1996 when England hosted the European Championship.
It references many pieces of English football lore centered on 1966. Geoff Hurst, Bobby Charlton, and Nobby Styles dancing with the Jules Rimet trophy.
England lost in the semifinals in 1996 to Germany on penalties, a manner in which they are all too familiar with losing to a team that beats them regularly. So football never quite made it home.
Could this be the year football comes home? Maybe. But I think the other side of the draw is a bit tougher and as soon as England lost to Belgium, I felt the World Cup went through Belgium.
-
Three Lions just topped the British charts today 22 years after originally becoming number one.
Wonder if this is the biggest gap between number one appearances.
-
Three Lions just topped the British charts today 22 years after originally becoming number one.
Wonder if this is the biggest gap between number one appearances.
Hard to beat The Loco-Motion that went top 5 in 1962, 1974 and 1988. Only the 2nd song to go #1 by two different bands (coincidentally written by the same 2 that wrote Loco-Motion).
-
Hard to beat The Loco-Motion that went top 5 in 1962, 1974 and 1988. Only the 2nd song to go #1 by two different bands (coincidentally written by the same 2 that wrote Loco-Motion).
That was by three different bands though. This is the same song, same band. It would be like the original Macarena going to number one right now.
-
Cheers.
Just put a couple of bets on today. Put $20 on Belgium, for really good value for them at 15-1.
Took a punt on Croatia with $5 at 30-1. Really like their team, especially that midfield.
Don't think either of them win, but thought they were good value bets. No such thing as sure bets on football, Germany for years ago was about as close as you get.
So, are you going to hedge or let it ride?
-
It's been a crazy turnaround for Croatia. After losing to Turkey, in qualifying, they had to go to Ukraine in what was essentially a play-off game. After winning that 1-0, they still only finished second in their group (behind Iceland and their Viking clap) and because of that, they had to win a two legged playoff against Greece, king of the underdog role (see Euro 2004). That was just to make it to Russia, and everyone knows about the run they've been on since. Crazy to think that they almost didn't even make it, just goes to show the unpredictability of soccer.
-
If I were guessing right now, I'd say Belgium over Croatia in the final. That probably means England will topple France. Belgium has played the most attractive style to me and are better at getting organized on the break than anyone else. I think their game with France should be a really fun affair and I'd put my money on whoever wins that to lift the Cup.
On the other side, I think Croatia's combination of size and attacking skill will be a bit too much for England. They've played big, unskilled teams and won. They've played small, skilled teams and won. They haven't played anyone that offers both. Croatia has the size to challenge their setpieces and the midfield to go at England in the final third.
Either way, I think Chitown will be winning some money.
Off topic on England...the one other song I think is worth listening to is the other 1998 song, "Vindaloo" by Fat Les. It's just the right mix of how bizarre English football fans are. The video is just odd and amusing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3NpGVJB_o
-
If I were guessing right now, I'd say Belgium over Croatia in the final. That probably means England will topple France. Belgium has played the most attractive style to me and are better at getting organized on the break than anyone else. I think their game with France should be a really fun affair and I'd put my money on whoever wins that to lift the Cup.
On the other side, I think Croatia's combination of size and attacking skill will be a bit too much for England. They've played big, unskilled teams and won. They've played small, skilled teams and won. They haven't played anyone that offers both. Croatia has the size to challenge their setpieces and the midfield to go at England in the final third.
Either way, I think Chitown will be winning some money.
Off topic on England...the one other song I think is worth listening to is the other 1998 song, "Vindaloo" by Fat Les. It's just the right mix of how bizarre English football fans are. The video is just odd and amusing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3NpGVJB_o
If they had meet a week ago, I'd probably take Croatia, but coming off two straight 120 minute games is extremely difficult, especially the way everyone seemed to be cramping up and getting hurt in extra time. I think there's a very real chance that they just run out of gas. England didn't have nearly as demanding of a game against Sweden so I'd give them the slight edge. Agree that whoever wins will likely lose to Belgium or France though.
-
If they had meet a week ago, I'd probably take Croatia, but coming off two straight 120 minute games is extremely difficult, especially the way everyone seemed to be cramping up and getting hurt in extra time. I think there's a very real chance that they just run out of gas. England didn't have nearly as demanding of a game against Sweden so I'd give them the slight edge. Agree that whoever wins will likely lose to Belgium or France though.
That's a very good point. Though I'm not sure anything would be more amusing than to see England go out on penalties to a team that just played back to back penalty shootouts.
-
So, are you going to hedge or let it ride?
Letting it ride. Only in for $25, if it was more I'd consider hedging.
Wonder what a bet on a Croatia/Belgium final woulda got me.
-
Not that France didn't earn it, but that last 20 minutes was really poorly reffed. Belgium should've had 3-4 more free kicks from good positions and the time wasting was bad long before the ref finally booked Mbappe.
From the point when the incorrect Hazard call on the edge of the box at around the 75 minute mark, the ref just lost all control. Felt like he was suddenly drunk.
On the whole, France was the better team. Belgium had some stretches but couldn't string enough together. Deserved win, but what should've been a fun final 20 minutes was just poor because the ref lost his mind.
-
One of the more boring games of the knockout stage thus far. This World Cup had been fantastic, hope it doesn't end with a whimper.
-
One of the more boring games of the knockout stage thus far. This World Cup had been fantastic, hope it doesn't end with a whimper.
Did you miss the multiple amazing saves by both goalies in this game?
-
Did you miss the multiple amazing saves by both goalies in this game?
Lloris had a couple jaw droppers. Amazing performance
-
What a pass by Mbappe...too bad Giroud didn't finish
-
What a pass by Mbappe...too bad Giroud didn't finish
rough tournament for Giroud...0-10 shots on goal.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/8xyv4r/croatian_firefighters_before_rakitic_penalty/
Cool video. Thanks to all the firefighters out there!
-
rough tournament for Giroud...0-10 shots on goal.
He hasn't scored but Griezmann and, most importantly, Mbappe are nowhere near their level of performance in this tournament without Giroud on the field.
-
Breaking News!!!
CROATIA IS WEARING THE CHECKERBOARDS ON SUNDAY!!!!
-
Breaking News!!!
CROATIA IS WEARING THE CHECKERBOARDS ON SUNDAY!!!!
+10000, it is a proven fact those are the best uniforms of any sports team. Proven fact because it is my opinion.
-
Pretty good summary of Fox’s coverage, although with an unnecessary jab at Mr. Fellaini: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jul/13/fox-sports-world-cup-coverage-soccer-criticism
-
Pretty good summary of Fox’s coverage, although with an unnecessary jab at Mr. Fellaini: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jul/13/fox-sports-world-cup-coverage-soccer-criticism
Wait people actually watch the pre/post game crap and care enough to write articles on it? It is much more enjoyable to watch the game for the game. Turn it on when it starts, get snacks at halftime, and turn it off when it is over. That is for any stations coverage, not just Fox.
-
Wait people actually watch the pre/post game crap and care enough to write articles on it? It is much more enjoyable to watch the game for the game. Turn it on when it starts, get snacks at halftime, and turn it off when it is over. That is for any stations coverage, not just Fox.
You've clearly never seen Rebecca Lowe then.
In all seriousness though. NBCs halftime and post-game analysis has always been very good. Fox, not so much.
-
Wait people actually watch the pre/post game crap and care enough to write articles on it? It is much more enjoyable to watch the game for the game. Turn it on when it starts, get snacks at halftime, and turn it off when it is over. That is for any stations coverage, not just Fox.
Pre- and post-game bullsh1ttery is a distinctly American phenomenon. When I’ve been abroad watching televised games in England and France, there’s an emphasis on real analysis and less on manufactured narratives and hot takes.
-
You've clearly never seen Rebecca Lowe then.
In all seriousness though. NBCs halftime and post-game analysis has always been very good. Fox, not so much.
Ehh, I guess for me, I really do not care what some random people have to say about what I just watched. I can decipher that for myself.
-
You've clearly never seen Rebecca Lowe then.
In all seriousness though. NBCs halftime and post-game analysis has always been very good. Fox, not so much.
Lets not disrespect Kate Abdo either 8-) She's actually been quite good. I love Stu Holden, he's excellent paired with John Strong, but the rest has been poor. I like Rob Stone historically, but he's been bland, and the rest of the crew hasn't done much of note.
-
Doesn't really apply to you guys but it really made me appreciate the likes of Gary Lineker, Ian Wright, Gabby Logan and hell, even Paul Merson.
-
Yeaaaaa, sure was a penalty.
-
Anarchists on the field!!!!!!
-
Y'all are sleeping on France.
That run by Mbappe was electric.
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷
-
Fun World Cup, certainly the best in my lifetime.
France and England are going to be going at it for years to come.
-
Hand ball? Big call in that game. I do not pretend to understand soccer that well. Seems many commentators don't like the call.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44841143
-
Hand ball? Big call in that game. I do not pretend to understand soccer that well. Seems many commentators don't like the call.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44841143
Jealous Englishmen.
-
Hand ball? Big call in that game. I do not pretend to understand soccer that well. Seems many commentators don't like the call.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44841143
Some commentators are idiots. His hand was extended in an unnecessary manner and interfered with the path of the ball. I don't think it was intentional, but it was certainly awkward and substantial enough to warrant a penalty.
I think if the English want to whine, they have a better case with the Griezmann foul. I don't even think that was a dive, he just seemed to lose his footing. He was always going down, his feet came right out from under him. Should've been a play on.
-
Hand ball? Big call in that game. I do not pretend to understand soccer that well. Seems many commentators don't like the call.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44841143
You appear to be a big fan of appealing to authority.
-
Headline on JSO this morning:
"Hundreds watch the World Cup final in Shorewood"
Now that's headline that appeals to both sides of the great soccer debate.
-
Fun World Cup, certainly the best in my lifetime.
France and England are going to be going at it for years to come.
+1, really shows some perspective on exactly how far away the US is from being a serious contender on the biggest stage.
Honestly I think the graphic showing Mbappe's salary at 19 compared to KD, Lebron, and Bryce Harper, could be a huge advantage for the US. If the kids that just have the gene combination to be a freak athlete realize that there is just as much money in soccer, we could start to produce some real talents at the international level.
-
Honestly I think the graphic showing Mbappe's salary at 19 compared to KD, Lebron, and Bryce Harper, could be a huge advantage for the US. If the kids that just have the gene combination to be a freak athlete realize that there is just as much money in soccer, we could start to produce some real talents at the international level.
Athleticism has never been the problem for the USMNT. Technical ability and tactical understanding is where we lack. The infrastructure and development environment is what is so woefully behind.
-
Fun World Cup, certainly the best in my lifetime.
France and England are going to be going at it for years to come.
I didn't see anything in England to suggest they are soon to be a legitimate force in international soccer. I'd be curious for the reasoning behind your opinion.
-
Athleticism has never been the problem for the USMNT. Technical ability and tactical understanding is where we lack. The infrastructure and development environment is what is so woefully behind.
You're half right. The college vs no college dilemma that many prospects face in this country is one that really doesn't have a good solution, but our development up to the age of about 16 is on par with most of the rest of the world powers, even though the net should really be cast further to attract more prosepects, pay to play is stupid. The problems arise because players can't move to European clubs until they turn 18 because of work visas.
It's no coincidence that our best prospects have dual citizenship, so they can go to Europe before they turn 18. Pulisic has a Croatian passport, Lichaj has a Polish one, Novakovich has a British one, Antonee Robinson has a British one, Tim Weah has a Liberian one.
As for my original point, there are a lot of things that can't be taught that players either have or don't have. Mbpappe isn't that much better technically than some of our 19 year old, but he has the speed that so few prospects have. Same with Deandre Yedlin for the US. Pure athleticism also can't be overlooked. I went to the same High School as Wesley, who by comparison to us is a freak athlete, and he is still the all time goal scorer in school history.
-
Athleticism has never been the problem for the USMNT. Technical ability and tactical understanding is where we lack. The infrastructure and development environment is what is so woefully behind.
+100.
The "all the US needs are extraordinary athletes" argument has always been ill-informed.
-
I didn't see anything in England to suggest they are soon to be a legitimate force in international soccer. I'd be curious for the reasoning behind your opinion.
Youngest average age, recent success at the U19, and U21 World Cups suggests that the prospects will keep coming, increased funding into academies. I wouldn't peg them as the favorites for 2022, but the future is definitely bright for the Three Lions.
-
+100.
The "all the US needs are extraordinary athletes" argument has always been ill-informed.
Coaching and development need to improve, but if someone with the pure athleticism that a Ezekiel Elliott, or Todd Gurley both have decided at a young age that they wanted to play soccer instead of football, and put in the same work that they did to become world class football players, they would both be playing professionally somewhere. The fact that Pogba, or Mbappe couldn't have chosen American Football, or Baseball, or Hockey, or to some extent basketball, helps attract more prospects.
-
I didn't see anything in England to suggest they are soon to be a legitimate force in international soccer. I'd be curious for the reasoning behind your opinion.
Yea, as DJOver kinda said they're really young. Kane is only 24, Alli 22.
The oldest people they have in their side are Ashley Young and Kyle Walker, and Ryan Sessegnon is probably already as good as him at 17, and Michael Keane will be a very good center back soon.
That doesn't even account for guys like Grealish, RLC, Alexander-Arnold, Rashford, etc.
-
Yea, as DJOver kinda said they're really young. Kane is only 24, Alli 22.
The oldest people they have in their side are Ashley Young and Kyle Walker, and Ryan Sessegnon is probably already as good as him at 17, and Michael Keane will be a very good center back soon.
That doesn't even account for guys like Grealish, RLC, Alexander-Arnold, Rashford, etc.
I was kinda surprised that he didn't get more game time. He really impressed me.
Phil Foden and Jadon Sancho are also considered to be two of the best teenagers in the world, and they're both at very good academies.
-
Yea, as DJOver kinda said they're really young. Kane is only 24, Alli 22.
The oldest people they have in their side are Ashley Young and Kyle Walker, and Ryan Sessegnon is probably already as good as him at 17, and Michael Keane will be a very good center back soon.
That doesn't even account for guys like Grealish, RLC, Alexander-Arnold, Rashford, etc.
We'll see. England hypes their youth players more than anyone else by far. If every advertised "next big thing" from England materialized, you could shut down the World Cup. For every Kane that comes good, there are a dozen Jack Rodwell, Andy Carroll, Nathaniel Chalobah types that never come good.
England beat up on two weak teams in group play before skating through a relatively easy path to the semifinals (apologies to Colombia, but on the whole I'm sure you agree they weren't as good as 2014 and were still a whisker away from ousting England).
They get a big boost from the "It's Coming Home" marketing gimmick, but I thought they were a clear step behind teams like Belgium and France. Had they managed to win their group, they at most make the quarterfinals.
-
We'll see. England hypes their youth players more than anyone else by far. If every advertised "next big thing" from England materialized, you could shut down the World Cup. For every Kane that comes good, there are a dozen Jack Rodwell, Andy Carroll, Nathaniel Chalobah types that never come good.
England beat up on two weak teams in group play before skating through a relatively easy path to the semifinals (apologies to Colombia, but on the whole I'm sure you agree they weren't as good as 2014 and were still a whisker away from ousting England).
They get a big boost from the "It's Coming Home" marketing gimmick, but I thought they were a clear step behind teams like Belgium and France. Had they managed to win their group, they at most make the quarterfinals.
Talent wise, Colombia was way better but there wasn't that unity or motivation 4 years ago.
I don't know, I think Southgate is a game changer. He changed the culture for "the impossible job" in a year. Would have been interesting to see what Southgate could have done with Scholes and Beckham.
-
I didn't see anything in England to suggest they are soon to be a legitimate force in international soccer. I'd be curious for the reasoning behind your opinion.
Really? Didn't see anything?
I understand they caught some breaks to get to the semis, but they were for all intents the youngest team in the tournament (along with France and Nigeria) and most of their best players are under 25 and largely will remain in their prime for the next full WC cycle.
Obviously there are no guarantees and things could go downhill, but to suggest there is literally nothing to suggest that squad won't be really good for a while is silly.
-
We'll see. England hypes their youth players more than anyone else by far. If every advertised "next big thing" from England materialized, you could shut down the World Cup. For every Kane that comes good, there are a dozen Jack Rodwell, Andy Carroll, Nathaniel Chalobah types that never come good.
England beat up on two weak teams in group play before skating through a relatively easy path to the semifinals (apologies to Colombia, but on the whole I'm sure you agree they weren't as good as 2014 and were still a whisker away from ousting England).
They get a big boost from the "It's Coming Home" marketing gimmick, but I thought they were a clear step behind teams like Belgium and France. Had they managed to win their group, they at most make the quarterfinals.
France will be good for a while, but looking at a team like Belgium, their golden generation will likely only have Euro 2020 before they're too old. Alderweireld, Kompany, Vertonghen, Witsel, Chadli, Mertens, Dembele are all either 30+ now, or will be by 2020. They'll still have Courtois, Hazard, De Bruyne, and Lukaku, which is a core that most would kill for, but quality depth will be an issue.
England have Pickford, Dier, Stones, Maguire, Trippier, Jones, Alexander-Arnold, Lingard, Sterling, Alli, Loftus-Cheek, Kane, and Rashford, will all still be in their 20s for Euro 2020, and most will still be in their 20s for Qatar 2022. England also won the U-17 World Cup in 2017, and the U-20 World Cup in 2017 so the big name prospects have pulled their weight against the prospects from other traditional powerhouses.
-
Headline on JSO this morning:
"Hundreds watch the World Cup final in Shorewood"
Now that's headline that appeals to both sides of the great soccer debate.
There were thousands at Nomad Nacional in Walker's Point. I'd guess between 2-3K. They have an outdoor patio and 5/6 rooms/bars and every single one was packed wall to wall.
-
Talent wise, Colombia was way better but there wasn't that unity or motivation 4 years ago.
I don't know, I think Southgate is a game changer. He changed the culture for "the impossible job" in a year. Would have been interesting to see what Southgate could have done with Scholes and Beckham.
But did he actually "change the culture"? Perhaps expectations were so low that positive results in and of themselves would be considered momentous? And being in a group with the worst team in the Cup and the fourth worst team in the Cup helped. So too did Colombia missing their creative lynchpin.
England are not a creative program. They had the second fewest shots on target in the tournament. They were overly reliant on set pieces. And their leading scorer feasted from the penalty spot and disappeared in the three biggest consequences games they played.
They came unglued in the 65th minute against Croatia and, as rightly pointed out by the Croatians, reverted completely to long ball strategy which is the very definition of English footballing culture. Clearly Southgate couldn't change their mindset when it mattered most.
-
Really? Didn't see anything?
I understand they caught some breaks to get to the semis, but they were for all intents the youngest team in the tournament (along with France and Nigeria) and most of their best players are under 25 and largely will remain in their prime for the next full WC cycle.
Obviously there are no guarantees and things could go downhill, but to suggest there is literally nothing to suggest that squad won't be really good for a while is silly.
England was maybe the seventh or eighth best team or so at this tournament. They were fortunate to play on the weaker side of the bracket and fortunate some of the stronger sides crashed in the groups (specifically Germany).
I don't know...I've been watching England a long time. Every few years, we hear about all these great EPL players that will take the world by storm. Then Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard, Owen, Rio, Hart, etc go to play internationally and they are exposed for the average players they are. Generation after generation, we hear how this will be the one to bring it home, then when they play real competition, they fold. This year, they played three legit games. Belgium twice and Croatia. They lost all three. They nearly lost to Colombia with James on the bench.
Maybe this team will be different, but there's a reason Football hasn't come home since 1966, and it's because England is pretty freaking average. The only reason they get the hype they do is because the EPL is the best marketed league in the world and requirements for teams carrying domestic players overinflates their value. Sure, they produce the occasional legitimate world class player like Beckham, but they are a long way from nations like France, Germany, Brazil, Spain, and the Netherlands that routinely produce world class players.
-
England have Pickford, Dier, Stones, Maguire, Trippier, Jones, Alexander-Arnold, Lingard, Sterling, Alli, Loftus-Cheek, Kane, and Rashford, will all still be in their 20s for Euro 2020, and most will still be in their 20s for Qatar 2022. England also won the U-17 World Cup in 2017, and the U-20 World Cup in 2017 so the big name prospects have pulled their weight against the prospects from other traditional powerhouses.
You've mentioned this accomplishment twice now as if it guarantees future success.
Serbia won the Youth World Cup in 2015. How did they fare in Euro 2016? How did they fare in Russia 2018?
How many players from France's 2013 win were in the squad yesterday? How many players from the Brasil squad who lost in 2015 were in Russia?
Youth level to senior level is a total crapshoot.
-
You've mentioned this accomplishment twice now as if it guarantees future success.
Serbia won the Youth World Cup in 2015. How did they fare in Euro 2016? How did they fare in Russia 2018?
How many players from France's 2013 win were in the squad yesterday? How many players from the Brasil squad who lost in 2015 were in Russia?
Youth level to senior level is a total crapshoot.
Bolded is just not true.
Youth to 1st team is not an exact science, but it does mean that the youth players from England were better than the youth players from Spain, Brazil, US, Japan, Chile, Iraq, Mexico, South Korea, Argentina, Guinea, Costa Rica, Italy, and Venezuela. Some outliers in there, but quite a few heavy hitters that aren't as good as England's youth teams. If the US had done as well as England in those tournaments I would be a lot more optimistic about our future.
Also I fail to see where I guaranteed success. I said the future was bright due to the success at this years World Cup, the youth of this years team, and the product coming through the academy. I'm not sure what else you can look at when attempting to gauge future success.
-
England was maybe the seventh or eighth best team or so at this tournament. They were fortunate to play on the weaker side of the bracket and fortunate some of the stronger sides crashed in the groups (specifically Germany).
I don't know...I've been watching England a long time. Every few years, we hear about all these great EPL players that will take the world by storm. Then Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard, Owen, Rio, Hart, etc go to play internationally and they are exposed for the average players they are. Generation after generation, we hear how this will be the one to bring it home, then when they play real competition, they fold. This year, they played three legit games. Belgium twice and Croatia. They lost all three. They nearly lost to Colombia with James on the bench.
Maybe this team will be different, but there's a reason Football hasn't come home since 1966, and it's because England is pretty freaking average. The only reason they get the hype they do is because the EPL is the best marketed league in the world and requirements for teams carrying domestic players overinflates their value. Sure, they produce the occasional legitimate world class player like Beckham, but they are a long way from nations like France, Germany, Brazil, Spain, and the Netherlands that routinely produce world class players.
Seventh or eighth seems a bit harsh. Though I'd have to see the 6-7 teams you thought were better before I judge. And if you plan on listing Spain or Germany, please don't waste your time.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
What English teams have done in the past is wholly irrelevant. The Cubs, Eagles, Astros, Capitals and Red Sox, all flopped every year when it mattered ... until they didn't.
In fact, that was a huge theme of this World Cup for Southgate ... that the current squad is not bound by past squads' disappointments.
Again, nobody here is guaranteeing anything. But if you look at the youth and talent on England's roster and say there is literally no reason to believe they're going to be very good for the next cycle, you're not being fair.
-
Seventh or eighth seems a bit harsh. Though I'd have to see the 6-7 teams you thought were better before I judge. And if you plan on listing Spain or Germany, please don't waste your time.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
What English teams have done in the past is wholly irrelevant. The Cubs, Eagles, Astros, Capitals and Red Sox, all flopped every year when it mattered ... until they didn't.
In fact, that was a huge theme of this World Cup for Southgate ... that the current squad is not bound by past squads' disappointments.
Again, nobody here is guaranteeing anything. But if you look at the youth and talent on England's roster and say there is literally no reason to believe they're going to be very good for the next cycle, you're not being fair.
France, Croatia, Belgium, Brazil, Uruguay, and Spain are the easy ones. Germany and Russia are worth consideration. You say to ignore Germany and Spain, but do either fail to qualify from England's two-team group? Do you not think either make the quarters?
As far as Russia, I'm about as unconvinced by their group stage as England (two unimpressive wins, one loss against a clearly superior opponent) but they had a better win in elimination play than anyone England played (Spain) and lost to the same team, albeit giving them a slightly tougher test (penalties as opposed to extra time).
When it comes to England, what I think is relevant is the constant overrating of their squad. EPL money being spent on players that do not make the grade internationally. When you look at the path this team took, why would that inspire more future confidence than other England squads that failed to meet overblown expectations?
Honestly, the first loss to Belgium convinced me they were overrated. There was so much fear of Brazil talk, and England played that game like they wanted to be on the softer side of the bracket. Maybe I'm putting too much into a lackadaisical effort, but if you believe you're good enough to win, you play that way every time out. They didn't, and left me unconvinced. Maybe I'm reading too much into decades of England and one result, but I think this is just a combination of marketing and too many people listening to Baddiel and Skinner on Spotify.
-
France, Croatia, Belgium, Brazil, Uruguay, and Spain are the easy ones. Germany and Russia are worth consideration. You say to ignore Germany and Spain, but do either fail to qualify from England's two-team group? Do you not think either make the quarters?
I think that's list is solid, but looking forward to 2022 I think the majority of those teams will be taking a step back between now and 2022, while England is in a situation to take a step forward.
Croatia: Rakitic 30, Modric 32, Perisic 29, Mandzukic 32. Kovacic could be world class by 2022, but the others will be gone or in serious decline.
Belgium: As I pointed out earlier they'll have a solid core but replacing Vertonghen 31, Kompany 32, and Alderweireld 29 will be no small task. If they can't develop a couple of center back, it could be a step back.
Brazil: Similar situation to Belgium. They'll always be great going forward but they'll lose Miranda 33, Marcelo 30, Filipe Luis 32, and Thiago Silva 33. Marquinhos will be solid, but they'll be a lot of inexperienced players in the back line.
Uruguay: Godin 32, Suarez 31, Cavani 31. Big step back for them. Might not even make it with the rigors that is CONMEBOL.
Spain: Ramos 32, Pique 31, Iniesta 34, David Silva 32. They've got some good prospects in their low 20s, so they'll still be good but those 4 are truly world class that will be difficult to replace.
Until all the Russians go pass a drug test, I will assume that this was the exception rather than the norm.
France will still be great, and I expect Germany to compete as well, but there were a lot of last time rounds this World Cup.
I wouldn't disagree that England was not as good as the 4th place finish this year suggests, but they'll be keeping so many players that were important to this years run that it's hard to see how the team is worse in four years. Even if they don't finish as well, the overall talent on the squad should be raised in 2022.
-
Uruguay? Please. It's Cavani, Suarez and nobody else. You saw how bad they were when Cavani was injured. Same four years ago when Suarez was suspended.
I also think Brazil has been coasting off of reputation over the past decade instead of results. Never had the feeling Brazil was going to win this time around and if you look at their latest Copa results they were nowhere near winning.
-
Top ten markets for the entire 2018 World Cup on FOX/FS1:
Ratings
Washington - 3.8
San Francisco - 3.3
Miami - 3.2
Austin - 3.2
San Diego - 3.1
New York - 3.1
Providence - 2.9
Los Angeles - 2.9
West Palm - 2.8
Tulsa - 2.7
-
Top growth markets for the 2018 World Cup Final:
Dallas: +31%
Milwaukee: +22%
Providence: +20%
Minneapolis: +15%
Tampa: +13%
St. Louis: +13%
Austin: +12%
Detroit: +5%
Denver: +4%
Chicago: +3%
-
France, Croatia, Belgium, Brazil, Uruguay, and Spain are the easy ones. Germany and Russia are worth consideration. You say to ignore Germany and Spain, but do either fail to qualify from England's two-team group? Do you not think either make the quarters?
Spain was trash. They had arguably the easiest path to the quarters out of the final 16 and embarrassed themselves vs Russia. Not just the fact they lost, but the way they played bad, uninspired soccer.
Germany also was trash. If not for a miracle last-second goal vs Sweden, they'd have gone winless in the tourney, having scored just one goal.
Don't get me wrong ... both squads had more overall talent than England, but neither was the sum of its parts. And they were not close to being better teams than England in this tournament.
When you look at the path this team took, why would that inspire more future confidence than other England squads that failed to meet overblown expectations?
I think you're being a bit unfair here. First, they can't control who they play in the group stage. They did what they were supposed to do. They dominated both lesser opponents (don't let the final score vs Tunisia fool you) and you need to throw out the Belgium game, because neither team wanted to win. Your criticism of England for its performance in that game while not holding Belgium to the same standard is odd. Belgium won, but they were no more interested in a win than England.
-
DJOver, I'm talking about 2018, not 2022. That statement specifically referenced why I thought England was maybe the 7th or 8th best team in Russia.
Chitown, I think your Uruguay assessment may be biased. If James is fit and plays in the Round of 16, my guess is England gets eliminated there and we aren't even having this discussion, if that helps any ;)
Pakuni, honestly, I feel there was a lot of parity. A few really good teams that mostly ended up meeting in the quarters on the same side of the bracket. The only time England looked truly impressive against a quality opponent was Sweden. Spain, Japan, and Russia all had as or more impressive outings. The bracket really shook out well for England and they were able to slip by a depleted Colombia and an overachieving Sweden to get to a semifinal. They did what an England fan would hope for given the draw, but I think the final results are an overachievement based both on talent and team quality.
-
That's fair, I'd probably put them about the same, maybe a little higher.
I think my optimism for England in 2022 is similar to that of our optimism for MU next year. A lot of the teams around them are losing significant pieces, while they return most of their starting 11 and nearly all of their scoring, and will be one of the more experienced teams come next cycle. It certainly has it's similarities and we seem to have fairly high expectations for MU next year, so I think it's fair to have similar expectations for England in 2022.
-
I use to think watching soccer was like watching grass grow, but over time what I appreciate most about the game is that there is no dead time; the ball is pretty much always in play unlike the NFL. With all the commercial timeouts and time in between plays the game has to me become boring. The only other thing I do not like about soccer is that there is no sense of when the clock has run out.
-
Bolded is just not true.
Youth to 1st team is not an exact science, but it does mean that the youth players from England were better than the youth players from Spain, Brazil, US, Japan, Chile, Iraq, Mexico, South Korea, Argentina, Guinea, Costa Rica, Italy, and Venezuela. Some outliers in there, but quite a few heavy hitters that aren't as good as England's youth teams. If the US had done as well as England in those tournaments I would be a lot more optimistic about our future.
Also I fail to see where I guaranteed success. I said the future was bright due to the success at this years World Cup, the youth of this years team, and the product coming through the academy. I'm not sure what else you can look at when attempting to gauge future success.
What is your definition of "crapshoot"? What is your definition of "not an exact science"?
You conveniently ignored my questions regarding three other countries that had recent success in the Youth Cup:
What of Serbia's win in 2015 and the how those players made an impact at senior level?
What of France's win in 2013 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?
What of Brasil's runner-up in 2015 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?
-
This talk of England having a bright future is eerily similar to all the talk surrounding The Netherlands having a bright future after their display in Brasil 2014.
-
What is your definition of "crapshoot"? What is your definition of "not an exact science"?
You conveniently ignored my questions regarding three other countries that had recent success in the Youth Cup:
What of Serbia's win in 2015 and the how those players made an impact at senior level?
What of France's win in 2013 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?
What of Brasil's runner-up in 2015 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?
Brazil.
Unless you are going to call Serbia either Србија or Srbija of course....
-
What is your definition of "crapshoot"? What is your definition of "not an exact science"?
Crapshoot would be a completely random draw. If the U-whatevers were truly a crapshoot then you would see more random countries doing well. Its no coincidence that for both the U-20 and U-17 WCs the semi finals included 3 soccer "superpowers". Its not an exact science because you need players to continue to develop. It's the same with any sport really, just because a prospect is doing well at AAA ball or the G league does not mean that it will translate to the next level.
What of Serbia's win in 2015 and the how those players made an impact at senior level?
As noted, you need players to continue to develop. Of the players on that team, only 2 or 3 are at good academies. Genk has a great academy, Milinkovic-Savic transfer value reflects that.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/sergej-milinkovic-savic/profil/spieler/266302
Had they not conceded in the 90 min against Switzerland, they would have finished second in their group and moved on to the knockout stage.
What of France's win in 2013 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?
You do know that that 2013 team produced the game winning goal scorers for both the semi finals and the finals at this World Cup right? Any youth team that produces the likes of Pogba, Umtiti, Zouma, Digne, Lemina, and Thauvin would be universally considered great. I think just about any country in the world would take youth production like that.
What of Brasil's runner-up in 2015 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?
You do know how hard it is to make the national team for one of the best countries in the world right. Just because players like Joao Pedro and Lucao can't displace Thiago Silva and Marcelo at this World Cup does not mean that they're busts. Brazil had a lot of players in their 30s that won't be around for the next cycle. I think you'll see a lot of those open spots going to players from that 2015 U-20 squad.
Once again, having good youth teams is not a guarantee of future 1st team success. But having success at the youth level is certainly cause for optimism, which is what my original point about England was. You need your prospects to be at good academies and be in a position where they can get consistent 1st team minutes. You can be the best prospect in the world, but if you're sitting on the bench you're not going to get better. Quite a few of England's U-20 players have already made their senior debuts. If Lewis Cook, Dominic Solanke, Kyle Walker-Peters, Dominic Calvert-Lewin, Jadon Sancho and Phil Foden can continue to work their way into regular minutes for their respective clubs, then there's no reason to believe that they can't continue to develop into future Three Lions players.
-
This talk of England having a bright future is eerily similar to all the talk surrounding The Netherlands having a bright future after their display in Brasil 2014.
Not, it isn't.
The average age of the starting lineup for that Netherlands squad was two years older than this England team and, more importantly, most of its top players in that tournament (Van Persie, Robben, Sneijder, de Jong) were 29 or older.
On the other hand, most of England's top players in this tournament (Kane, Pickford, Sterling, Lingard, Maguire, etc.) are 25 or younger.
The circumstances are not at all alike.
Again, nobody is guaranteeing anything for England here, but the efforts here to downplay the squad's upside - based apparently on past teams for England and now the Netherlands - miss the mark.
-
Not, it isn't.
The average age of the starting lineup for that Netherlands squad was two years older than this England team and, more importantly, most of its top players in that tournament (Van Persie, Robben, Sneijder, de Jong) were 29 or older.
On the other hand, most of England's top players in this tournament (Kane, Pickford, SterlingTrippier, Lingard, Maguire, etc.) are 25 or younger.
The circumstances are not at all alike.
Again, nobody is guaranteeing anything for England here, but the efforts here to downplay the squad's upside - based apparently on past teams for England and now the Netherlands - miss the mark.
FIFY
-
FIFY
Be nice to Sterling, he gets enough crap from the British media as is. After their win over Colombia, one of the papers headlines was Sterling still fails to score in England's win, or something like that.
-
Be nice to Sterling, he gets enough crap from the British media as is. After their win over Colombia, one of the papers headlines was Sterling still fails to score in England's win, or something like that.
My intent was not to insult Raheem, but to point out that he was not at the level of the others. I think Sterling had a decent WC, did a lot of work to create space for Kane, but Kane scored, Trippier scored, Lingard scored, Maguire scored, and Pickford was one of the best keepers in the tournament.
Some of the abuse that he receives from the English media is absolutely ridiculous.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44285455
-
Crapshoot would be a completely random draw. If the U-whatevers were truly a crapshoot then you would see more random countries doing well. Its no coincidence that for both the U-20 and U-17 WCs the semi finals included 3 soccer "superpowers". Its not an exact science because you need players to continue to develop. It's the same with any sport really, just because a prospect is doing well at AAA ball or the G league does not mean that it will translate to the next level.
As noted, you need players to continue to develop. Of the players on that team, only 2 or 3 are at good academies. Genk has a great academy, Milinkovic-Savic transfer value reflects that.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/sergej-milinkovic-savic/profil/spieler/266302
Had they not conceded in the 90 min against Switzerland, they would have finished second in their group and moved on to the knockout stage.
You do know that that 2013 team produced the game winning goal scorers for both the semi finals and the finals at this World Cup right? Any youth team that produces the likes of Pogba, Umtiti, Zouma, Digne, Lemina, and Thauvin would be universally considered great. I think just about any country in the world would take youth production like that.
You do know how hard it is to make the national team for one of the best countries in the world right. Just because players like Joao Pedro and Lucao can't displace Thiago Silva and Marcelo at this World Cup does not mean that they're busts. Brazil had a lot of players in their 30s that won't be around for the next cycle. I think you'll see a lot of those open spots going to players from that 2015 U-20 squad.
Once again, having good youth teams is not a guarantee of future 1st team success. But having success at the youth level is certainly cause for optimism, which is what my original point about England was. You need your prospects to be at good academies and be in a position where they can get consistent 1st team minutes. You can be the best prospect in the world, but if you're sitting on the bench you're not going to get better. Quite a few of England's U-20 players have already made their senior debuts. If Lewis Cook, Dominic Solanke, Kyle Walker-Peters, Dominic Calvert-Lewin, Jadon Sancho and Phil Foden can continue to work their way into regular minutes for their respective clubs, then there's no reason to believe that they can't continue to develop into future Three Lions players.
As you answer eloquently, youth players all coming good at the senior level to continue the upward trajectory of their career is a crapshoot. You blame academies for their failure. You blame established players for their failure. I imagine you would blame coaching mis-opportunity for their failure. Yet you never mention these obstacles for a team that you would desperately want to succeed because you are blinded by optimism not to accept that these obstacles are likely to claim England as a victim just like it has with virtually every other nation that has done well in the Youth Cup.
-
As you answer eloquently, youth players all coming good at the senior level to continue the upward trajectory of their career is a crapshoot (False). You blame academies for their failure(False). You blame established players for their failure(False). I imagine you would blame coaching mis-opportunity for their failure(Putting words in my mouth). Yet you never mention these obstacles for a team that you would desperately want to succeed because you are blinded by optimism not to accept that these obstacles are likely to claim England as a victim just like it has with virtually every other nation that has done well in the Youth Cup(False).
Question for you. What would you look at in an attempt to gauge how successful a team will be in the future?
My original point, which you seem not to get, is that there is reason for optimism for English fans.
I wouldn't peg them as the favorites for 2022, but the future is definitely bright for the Three Lions
I made that claim based on their success in Russia, the number of players from the current squad that will still be in their prime in 2022, and the success of the youth teams. Notice how the success of the youth teams is only part of the reasoning.
What else can you analyze to attempt to determine how well a team will be in 4 years?
-
Not, it isn't.
The average age of the starting lineup for that Netherlands squad was two years older than this England team and, more importantly, most of its top players in that tournament (Van Persie, Robben, Sneijder, de Jong) were 29 or older.
On the other hand, most of England's top players in this tournament (Kane, Pickford, Sterling, Lingard, Maguire, etc.) are 25 or younger.
The circumstances are not at all alike.
Again, nobody is guaranteeing anything for England here, but the efforts here to downplay the squad's upside - based apparently on past teams for England and now the Netherlands - miss the mark.
It sure is an apt comparison. Both had a young up-and-coming goalkeeper; both had solid core of defenders; both had midfielders entering the prime of their career; both had dynamic talents up front; both had tantalizing youth in the creative ranks that would be projected to step right in to the next iteration of the squad; both advanced far further in the tournament then any expected.
-
Number of players 30+ on the Netherlands 2014 squad: 7
Number of players 30+ on England's 2018 squad: 3
Number of players 30+ in match day squad in 2014 semi final: 4
Number of players 30+ in match day squad in 2018 semi final: 1
Replacing Robben, Van Persie, Sneijder, and Huntelaar, is a much taller task than replacing Ashley Young.
-
Question for you. What would you look at in an attempt to gauge how successful a team will be in the future?
My original point, which you seem not to get, is that there is reason for optimism for English fans.
I wouldn't peg them as the favorites for 2022, but the future is definitely bright for the Three Lions
I made that claim based on their success in Russia, the number of players from the current squad that will still be in their prime in 2022, and the success of the youth teams. Notice how the success of the youth teams is only part of the reasoning.
What else can you analyze to attempt to determine how well a team will be in 4 years?
Firstly, I didn't engage you in a discussion over your optimism for England so bringing up your original point and putting it in bold is irrelevant. I asked that question of ChitownForRent and he answered.
I engaged you in a discussion over your continued drumbeat that because a nation won the Youth Cup then that nation will be very good in the near future. The results of that metric are mixed. A crapshoot, if you will.
Secondly, the overarching point being made by me is that predicting linear success for a country when it comes to international tournaments is a fool's errand. It simply doesn't work that way. Far too many variables in the discussion make it more like throwing darts at cork than informed analysis even if all you harp on is youth.
Germany won the World Cup in 2014. Half of their squad in 2018 were making World Cup debuts and Goetze, who scored the winner in 2014, wasn't in the squad.
France was in the final of Euro 2016 and eight of the 14 players who featured weren't on their World Cup winning squad. In two years, France dramatically reshaped their entire program and that was coming off an appearance in a major final.
So much is going to happen in the next three and 3/4 years for every country regarding their players that youth alone is not a tonic for the uncertainty of where the program will, or won't, succeed whether it be qualifying or the competition itself.
-
I engaged you in a discussion over your continued drumbeat that because a nation won the Youth Cup then that nation will be very good in the near future. The results of that metric are mixed. A crapshoot, if you will.
Didn't say this. It was part of my reason for optimism, you were the first one to use the words "guarantee success". The three teams you brought up having youth success all made the world cup. Two of them made the knockout stages, and one was close to making the knockout stages. Not exactly the crapshoot you suggest.
As for the rest of your post, you are just finding reasons to avoid answering my question.
-
Another factor is history. It's easy to say what England did in the 1980s, 90s, and 2000s isn't relevant, but there are systemic reasons countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Germany have decade after decade success. Many of the same reasons are why England come up short.
Maybe this generation will be different, but after just one deep run that came through relatively pedestrian (for a WC semifinal) opposition isn't enough to convince me just yet.
-
One more thing about England that I haven't seen mentioned (promise I'm not trying to beat a dead horse).
They were missing arguably their three most creative midfielders/wingers in Ox, Lallana, and Barkley.
Now, Lallana probably won't make it to 2022, but Ox and Barkley are already proven and are just 24.
-
One more thing about England that I haven't seen mentioned (promise I'm not trying to beat a dead horse).
They were missing arguably their three most creative midfielders/wingers in Ox, Lallana, and Barkley.
Now, Lallana probably won't make it to 2022, but Ox and Barkley are already proven and are just 24.
Barkley is proven? If England is relying on him as a core piece of their future, then cynicism is merited. He shows all the signs of peaking in his early 20s. He started like a house on fire at Everton, but even beyond injuries, he's tapered off. He was good not great in 16-17. And 17-18, he was petulant at best, and ineffective. He's been a persona non grata at Chelsea. Maybe he makes a better impression on Sarri, but I don't see him breaking into a crowded and talented midfield as is.
Fairly, he is only 24, but to label him some bright star that England can build their future on is rash. As a Red, I hope Ox can rehab fairly quickly from that gnarly injury.
-
Didn't say this. It was part of my reason for optimism, you were the first one to use the words "guarantee success". The three teams you brought up having youth success all made the world cup. Two of them made the knockout stages, and one was close to making the knockout stages. Not exactly the crapshoot you suggest.
As for the rest of your post, you are just finding reasons to avoid answering my question.
What you dismiss WAS my answer to your question. You want definitive variables to determine future success of a faraway tournament. That is naive and someone who has experience watching multiple international tournaments over the course of a generation will tell you exactly that.
I'll reiterate the point that so many events (mostly negative) are going to happen in every single player's career that your units of their future success will be rendered irrelevant and a distant memory by the time Qatar 2022 starts in November of that year.
Every watcher approaches the sport from a different angle. You've illuminated your perspective enough to leave no doubt what you consider important.