Denmark and france were both disgraceful, and should apologize to their fans. Hope they both get trounced and eliminated in the next round.
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
It's funny that the VAR is supposed to improve refereeing, but imo it has actually had as much negative as positive impact this World Cup. I have the feeling referees generally allow more because they know they have back up and can avoid taking responsability, yet VAR just sits there and does nothing about almost criminal-like tackles.
We've had 2 red cards so far, right? That's just ridiculous.
We've had 2 red cards so far, right? That's just ridiculous.
Re: Re:
Hard to believe that one. Never been eliminated in group play before.
OTOH I have a bunch of po'd peeps in my office today. Sweden 3, Mexico 0. Not happy campers.
Merckx index said:
Hard to believe that one. Never been eliminated in group play before.
OTOH I have a bunch of po'd peeps in my office today. Sweden 3, Mexico 0. Not happy campers.
Heh, and here I thought we were stupid for not qualifying against Sweden. Now they beat Italy and Mexico. They did lose to Germany but qualified while Germany was last of their group. Sjeesh.
Even average teams can accomplish a lot of they are a team
Even average teams can accomplish a lot of they are a team
Re: Re:
I did not have a chance to watch the game but can't call myself unhappy.Merckx index said:
Good day! I was disappointed yesterday since all the big teams seemed to be doing well and overcoming difficulty (Portugal, Spain, Argentina) but this has made it a lot better. I was watching it next to a bunch of Germans too which made it fun.
Nine W. Euro teams qualified for the tournament, and Germany was the only one that didn’t make the KO round.
England-Belgium should be interesting. Both are in the KO round, but each would be better off finishing second so that they avoid Brazil, and the rest of that half of the bracket. How do you lose a game without making it obvious? Playing the reserves is a start, particularly since you want to rest the starters, anyway, and make sure they don't get any yellow let alone red cards. In fact, if that game ends in a draw, first vs. second could be determined by cards, so you definitely want reserves to be the ones getting them.
There was at least one well-known time when teams were motivated to lose in American pro sports. It happened in major league baseball in 1981, when a strike shortened the season. Since the full season couldn’t be played, it was decided to have a first half and a second half, with the winners of each half in each division playing each other in the postseason. However, if one team won both halves, the second team was determined by a better record in one half. It turned out that it could be better for a team to lose purposely to a team that had won the first half so that team could win both halves, if it enhanced that other team's chances of being the second team. One manager even publicly stated he would order his team to lose in that situation, though under great public pressure, he later recanted.
Then in the NFL in 1976, I think it was, the Raiders played the Bengals, who had a two game lead over the Steelers in their division. The Bengals had lost to the Steelers earlier that season, and were expected to lose to them again when they met them again, so they needed to win all their other games to win the division. There was talk that the Raiders might throw the game, so the Bengals would win their division over the Steelers, so the Raiders, who had lost to the Steelers twice in a row in the championship game, wouldn’t have to play them again in the postseason. But the Raiders beat the Bengals handily, who as expected lost to the Steelers later and thus lost the division. So the Raiders then did play the Steelers, but beat them for the championship.
Anyway, Brazil is in much the same position as Villanova was in this year's NCAA tournament going into the regionals. It was arguably the best of the remaining sixteen teams, but it didn't have the best chances of winning it all, because it had tougher projected competition. Likewise, Brazil has to play in the tougher half of the bracket. Villanova overcame that competition, and won it all.
England-Belgium should be interesting. Both are in the KO round, but each would be better off finishing second so that they avoid Brazil, and the rest of that half of the bracket. How do you lose a game without making it obvious? Playing the reserves is a start, particularly since you want to rest the starters, anyway, and make sure they don't get any yellow let alone red cards. In fact, if that game ends in a draw, first vs. second could be determined by cards, so you definitely want reserves to be the ones getting them.
There was at least one well-known time when teams were motivated to lose in American pro sports. It happened in major league baseball in 1981, when a strike shortened the season. Since the full season couldn’t be played, it was decided to have a first half and a second half, with the winners of each half in each division playing each other in the postseason. However, if one team won both halves, the second team was determined by a better record in one half. It turned out that it could be better for a team to lose purposely to a team that had won the first half so that team could win both halves, if it enhanced that other team's chances of being the second team. One manager even publicly stated he would order his team to lose in that situation, though under great public pressure, he later recanted.
Then in the NFL in 1976, I think it was, the Raiders played the Bengals, who had a two game lead over the Steelers in their division. The Bengals had lost to the Steelers earlier that season, and were expected to lose to them again when they met them again, so they needed to win all their other games to win the division. There was talk that the Raiders might throw the game, so the Bengals would win their division over the Steelers, so the Raiders, who had lost to the Steelers twice in a row in the championship game, wouldn’t have to play them again in the postseason. But the Raiders beat the Bengals handily, who as expected lost to the Steelers later and thus lost the division. So the Raiders then did play the Steelers, but beat them for the championship.
Anyway, Brazil is in much the same position as Villanova was in this year's NCAA tournament going into the regionals. It was arguably the best of the remaining sixteen teams, but it didn't have the best chances of winning it all, because it had tougher projected competition. Likewise, Brazil has to play in the tougher half of the bracket. Villanova overcame that competition, and won it all.
On French TV, at the '82 World Cup, I heard, for the first time that "there are no small teams". It takes a very good team to make it to the big dance. That year, Germany and Austria gave us the most disgraceful display and Algeria (who had beaten Germany) was eliminated...the reason why final games are simultaneous today. And same World Cup, semi-final, Schumacher...'nuf said: I have had a beef with Germany ever since. Insult added to injury in '86. Today was a great day for me. Sorry my German friends 
. Humble pie.
I disagree with the France-Denmark "hope they get wiped out" post. Denmark wanted to avoid counters, hoping that a set piece could get them the win, and if not a tie is good. France clearly modified the line-up to bring players into the rotation (in case of yellow or red cards, subs can be crucial IF they know how to play with the starters), and having Madanda vs. Lloris, Deschamps got the athletic goalie vs. the tallest team in the competition.
Deschamps won the Champion's league, the '98 WC as the captain and a field general. Although I'm wary of what seem to be experiments with all the changes from game to game, maybe he's much smarter than everyone: adjust, change your line-up depending on the opponent's strengths and weaknesses. In '98, Jacquet had built a team without Cantona, looking at roles, leading foot, Deschamps may be pushing this one level further. The problem is,or could become: scoring. The forwards are under performing.
Brazil? Sexy pick as always, beating Serbia was no small feat. The Yugos are great players, Serbians, Croatians, heck, Bosnians: imagine what a Yougoslavia team would look like. I believe in Croatia: this generation is every bit as good as the '98 one that had France in the ropes in the semi-final.
Messi is LeBron. The Cavaliers/Gauchos won't win the World Cup. One man show won't do it.
Hats off to the Asian teams: they put up a great fight. Who was best? Tae-Kwon-Do or Karate? The debate continues, but they can all kick the ball .
England? I'm on the fence, but talk about scoring, they score. Belgium plays a great brand of football: I wish them the best. This Brazilian team, I'm afraid, is what Netserk would call "really good but way overrated". Can they step up a notch, not be nonchalant, be disciplined and not be exposed on set pieces?
Mexico? Cold shower today, but I root for them to do well. I wonder how that big defeat will impact what was a huge amount of confidence before the face-off with the Vikings. Sweden took no prisoners, all stereotypes are in effect, it's a team that may be taken lightly: too basic, et caetera...stereotype historically applied to Germany. And in the end, the Germans win...well, not this time. But Sweden has great momentum and the goodies.
Great Mundial.
. Humble pie.I disagree with the France-Denmark "hope they get wiped out" post. Denmark wanted to avoid counters, hoping that a set piece could get them the win, and if not a tie is good. France clearly modified the line-up to bring players into the rotation (in case of yellow or red cards, subs can be crucial IF they know how to play with the starters), and having Madanda vs. Lloris, Deschamps got the athletic goalie vs. the tallest team in the competition.
Deschamps won the Champion's league, the '98 WC as the captain and a field general. Although I'm wary of what seem to be experiments with all the changes from game to game, maybe he's much smarter than everyone: adjust, change your line-up depending on the opponent's strengths and weaknesses. In '98, Jacquet had built a team without Cantona, looking at roles, leading foot, Deschamps may be pushing this one level further. The problem is,or could become: scoring. The forwards are under performing.
Brazil? Sexy pick as always, beating Serbia was no small feat. The Yugos are great players, Serbians, Croatians, heck, Bosnians: imagine what a Yougoslavia team would look like. I believe in Croatia: this generation is every bit as good as the '98 one that had France in the ropes in the semi-final.
Messi is LeBron. The Cavaliers/Gauchos won't win the World Cup. One man show won't do it.
Hats off to the Asian teams: they put up a great fight. Who was best? Tae-Kwon-Do or Karate? The debate continues, but they can all kick the ball
.England? I'm on the fence, but talk about scoring, they score. Belgium plays a great brand of football: I wish them the best. This Brazilian team, I'm afraid, is what Netserk would call "really good but way overrated". Can they step up a notch, not be nonchalant, be disciplined and not be exposed on set pieces?
Mexico? Cold shower today, but I root for them to do well. I wonder how that big defeat will impact what was a huge amount of confidence before the face-off with the Vikings. Sweden took no prisoners, all stereotypes are in effect, it's a team that may be taken lightly: too basic, et caetera...stereotype historically applied to Germany. And in the end, the Germans win...well, not this time. But Sweden has great momentum and the goodies.
Great Mundial.
This is the best Swedish team I've seen in a long time. Switzerland next. Without both Lichtsteiner and Schär, I think we have a pretty good chance of winning against them.
I love football. Again.
I love football. Again.
Merckx index said:
Belgium should only settle for a WC win with this generation. Sooner or later you'll meet a top team, so losing against Brazil in quarters or against Spain in semis hardly matters.
Actually I'd prefer them to go full on against Brazil and finally get a real test of where they stand as a team. If you lose, so be it. If you win, confidence goes through the roof and you *know* there's nobody to be afraid of.
I remember that game and the upset people on the stands. I remember my uncle telling me, "That game was fixed at a table last night". I was upset to watch the display of soccer on that game as well.Tonton said:On French TV, at the '82 World Cup, I heard, for the first time that "there are no small teams". It takes a very good team to make it to the big dance. That year, Germany and Austria gave us the most disgraceful display and Algeria (who had beaten Germany) was eliminated...the reason why final games are simultaneous today. And same World Cup, semi-final, Schumacher...'nuf said: I have had a beef with Germany ever since. Insult added to injury in '86. Today was a great day for me. Sorry my German friends
I disagree with the France-Denmark "hope they get wiped out" post. Denmark wanted to avoid counters, hoping that a set piece could get them the win, and if not a tie is good. France clearly modified the line-up to bring players into the rotation (in case of yellow or red cards, subs can be crucial IF they know how to play with the starters), and having Madanda vs. Lloris, Deschamps got the athletic goalie vs. the tallest team in the competition.
Deschamps won the Champion's league, the '98 WC as the captain and a field general. Although I'm wary of what seem to be experiments with all the changes from game to game, maybe he's much smarter than everyone: adjust, change your line-up depending on the opponent's strengths and weaknesses. In '98, Jacquet had built a team without Cantona, looking at roles, leading foot, Deschamps may be pushing this one level further. The problem is,or could become: scoring. The forwards are under performing.
Brazil? Sexy pick as always, beating Serbia was no small feat. The Yugos are great players, Serbians, Croatians, heck, Bosnians: imagine what a Yougoslavia team would look like. I believe in Croatia: this generation is every bit as good as the '98 one that had France in the ropes in the semi-final.
Messi is LeBron. The Cavaliers/Gauchos won't win the World Cup. One man show won't do it.
Hats off to the Asian teams: they put up a great fight. Who was best? Tae-Kwon-Do or Karate? The debate continues, but they can all kick the ball
England? I'm on the fence, but talk about scoring, they score. Belgium plays a great brand of football: I wish them the best. This Brazilian team, I'm afraid, is what Netserk would call "really good but way overrated". Can they step up a notch, not be nonchalant, be disciplined and not be exposed on set pieces?
Mexico? Cold shower today, but I root for them to do well. I wonder how that big defeat will impact what was a huge amount of confidence before the face-off with the Vikings. Sweden took no prisoners, all stereotypes are in effect, it's a team that may be taken lightly: too basic, et caetera...stereotype historically applied to Germany. And in the end, the Germans win...well, not this time. But Sweden has great momentum and the goodies.
Great Mundial.
Both England and Belgium will field B-teams. Could still be a good game though, because these players will want to show themselves. England should normally win.
Re:
But none of them will want to win it because of Brazil, waiting in 1/4. This match is reaaaly interesting!Jagartrott said:
Re: Re:
But none of them knows how to defend. If this ends 0-0 I will cheer Sky at Le Tour - that's how confident I am there will be goals.Bot. Sky_Bot said:
Re: Re:
So I hope it will be 0-0 :razz: . So far Belgium managed to receive 2 yellow cards..Jagartrott said:
OK, this is not going so well. If this is Southgate's idea of "we always play to win", then I definitely don't want to see the alternative.
Re: Re:
And additionally you'll change your avatar into Christopher Froome red/yellow/pink yersey photo.. just till the end of TdF.. :razz:Jagartrott said:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
World Championships 2024: Men's Road Race (September 29)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 28K
-
Women’s RR - World Championships 2024 (September 28)- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 324
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 10K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 21K
-
World Championships 2024 - Men’s TT, September 22- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 424
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram