The 2018 World Cup Superthread

StringerBell

Hitchens wrote: »

Yeah, he also missed the Croatian first goal incident where the scorer almost decapitated Kyle Walker with a high boot.

Forgetting that decapitation hyperbole

Walker wouldn't be the tallest and he is leaning forward (his head lower then usual)almost diving to head the ball.

No way a ref is going to be disallow that goal anyway tbf.

Sure look even if you want to take an ultra pro England look on it it balances out the penalty that should have been given against Maguire.

yourdeadwright

StringerBell wrote: »

Hitchens wrote: »

Yeah, he also missed the Croatian first goal incident where the scorer almost decapitated Kyle Walker with a high boot.

Forgetting that decapitation hyperbole

Walker wouldn't be the tallest and he is leaning forward (his head lower then usual)almost diving to head the ball.

No way a ref is going to be disallow that goal anyway tbf.

Sure look even if you want to take an ultra pro England look on it it balances out the penalty that should have been given against Maguire.

That's what I keep going back to how wasn't it given with VAR it was clear as day

ERG89

Deleted User wrote:

And some midfield players with intelligence.

Save some brains for others too

https://twitter.com/Cruyffootball/status/1017347119219429376?s=19

Paully D

I can’t understand all the praise for England getting to the semi-final.

The draw opened up in a historically kind way and they’ve blown an unbelievable chance (probably the best one they will ever get in most of our lifetimes) of making a World Cup final. 1-0 up and they blew it.

Regardless of how long it has been since they’ve done it previously, it’s failure plain and simple for a nation like England not to be making the final with that kind draw IMO.

I highly doubt you’d see countries with that cut throat pure winners mentality like Germany, Spain, Brazil et al being praised to the hilt for reaching the semi-final.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

I was very surprised England got so far. The players are mostly strong fast but not technic gifted. They play a style like in their PL, but a 5th - 6th placed team.

The best player was the goal keeper. Without winning many dead balls, Kane became nothing, and Rashford, Lindard, Dele and others like them are ponies with one trick. No player has imagination, or creation. The defenders are mostly ordinary.

They are young and will get better, but they need a coach with technical mind. And some midfield players with intelligence.

I disagree completely, because what England really need to do is stop trying to be something they are not. They have spent 20 years trying to be a Spain, worrying about possession and passing and how to be more technical when really they should have focused first on their strengths and built a team around what they had, not what they wanted. They wasted 20 years and a host of great players ****ing around with European styles and ignoring their own.

Is it really a coincidence that England had their most successful tournament in years with a manager who finally decided to stop picking great white hopes like Wilshire and instead went with a team that he thought would actually function? No they didn't win it in the end, but at least they looked like they could compete.

bucketybuck

Paully D wrote: »

I can’t understand all the praise for England getting to the semi-final.

The draw opened up in a historically kind way and they’ve blown an unbelievable chance (probably the best one they will ever get in most of our lifetimes) of making a World Cup final. 1-0 up and they blew it.

Regardless of how long it has been since they’ve done it previously, it’s failure plain and simple for a nation like England not to be making the final with that kind draw IMO.

I really don't get why people say they blew it? They didn't, they simply lost to a good team in a semi final.

Just because it was their best opportunity in years doesn't mean it was a done deal, because if they play Croatia 5 times they might win 5 of them at best.

"Blowing it" would be losing from 2-0 up and ten minutes to go, or leading against a Russia or Iceland and then losing. Croatia are a good team, England didn't blow anything, they simply lost a game.

TheCitizen

Drumpot wrote: »

If England got the luck of the draw what did Croatia get ? Surely "the luck of the draw" comments apply to Croatia aswell !?

Denmark - Russia and a supposedly awful England . . They scraped past all three, not exactly the sign of a team that should be able to put it up to a supposedly imposing French team. I imagine had England qualified the same way Croatia did there would be plenty of "Look how lucky they were" comments.

You see I can concede fair points or when I have made mistakes but I can also challenge quite double sided bias. What people have done here when this bias is highlighted is turn that challenge around with hyperbolic "Why cant people not like England" which is nothing to do with their comments being challenged. In truth they just don't have any decent defence of their comments, just ignore whats being said and grandstand about how their right to hate England is being infringed upon to rally the "thanks" group . .

France looked average in their group games. Fumbled through it with the help of VAR. Were impressive in their response to a very poor Argentina, but were losing at one stage in the second half. They needed a 19 year old to bail them out. Then against Uruguay they scored from a set piece and a goalkeeping error and Uruguay were missing their hero (Cavani) from the game before which was a nice piece of luck. Against Belgium they scored from another set piece and sat back and defended well and remained very organised.

There has been nothing remarkable about France other then they have done what they have needed to do to get to the final. They wouldn't be the first team to do it but the quality of players that they have would have me feeling like they have been under performing. Only for Belgium having a really poor manager they might of been properly exposed.

And how were Croatia that much better then England ? I don't get how anybody watched that game and could come to that conclusion. The game went very much like the Columbia game. England looking relatively comfortable and playing most the football, they concede a goal and fall to pieces for 15 minutes but regain their composure. The difference was Croatia had that bit of extra class to get back into the game and grab a goal and hold out. Better team won, but not the vastly better team, the team that had that bit more experience when it mattered.

Here is the thing though. If England are as poor as some people are saying then Croatia had "the easy draw" and should be the ones who have "no chance" against France. Croatia have needed extra time in every game against relatively average teams according to those who think England were a poor team. . You can only judge a team fairly on performances and results in this tournament, not the fifa stats or popularity of some players. In the cold light of day Croatia haven't been the romantic awesome superior team to England that some are building them up to be and if they applied the same "standards" that they have been applying to England, there wouldn't be an awful lot of excitement for the final. .

England had a less experienced team, really struggled (Columbia + Croatia) to regain composure when conceding goals and relied a lot on set pieces (as France have done since round 16). But they generally tried to play progressive, non defensive football, worked to their strengths and have done as well as could reasonably expected of a team of their quality. Their own media, that loves to hammer them, are actually praising them which is a remarkable success on its own. I've seen some people trying to twist that as arrogance when its absolutely no different to Ireland celebrating a team that didnt win a game in 1990. Its a nation that had very low expectations, has mostly never seen its team win and is proud of how well their team conducted themselves. This really grates with some people who want to just twist everything English into something bad . .

LOL. Croatia won all their group games. Beat Argentina 3-0. Won their knockout games - prior to putting out England (deservedly) - via penalties but dominated both games.

England? They beat a pub team from Panama and Tunisia (WOW). They then were the best side v Colombia for long spells but when Colombia equalised they were on the ropes. They beat Sweden, that was their best performance. England lucked out big time with the luck of the draw. They punched their weight to be fair to them but it's highly unlikely they'll get such a lucky run of it with the draw again.

It would've been a travesty if that mediocre England side made it to the Final. Thanks to Croatia they didn't.

You can stop fishing for 'Thanks' now;)

The Golden Miller

bucketybuck wrote: »

I disagree completely, because what England really need to do is stop trying to be something they are not. They have spent 20 years trying to be a Spain, worrying about possession and passing and how to be more technical when really they should have focused first on their strengths and built a team around what they had, not what they wanted. They wasted 20 years and a host of great players ****ing around with European styles and ignoring their own.

Is it really a coincidence that England had their most successful tournament in years with a manager who finally decided to stop picking great white hopes like Wilshire and instead went with a team that he thought would actually function? No they didn't win it in the end, but at least they looked like they could compete.

They spent 20 years trying to be like Spain? Are you high? If they had spent 20 years trying to be a more proficient technical team, aligned with some physical traits (quite like Bayern under Heynckes when they won the treble), they may actually be serious contenders in major tournaments. Instead, they spent the guts of 20 years playing a rigid 4-4-2 system and using box to box workhorses through the middle (Gerrard and Lampard how are ye!). Playing to the strengths of a countries footballing culture isn't a bad thing, but it has to be amalgamated with a certain base level of technical ability, it's the way footballs gone, and England are miles behind in this regard. It will be unlikely they'll get the luck of the draw next time round

Adamocovic

I don't think we can really discuss the "luck of the draw" too much. Also it's hard to determine how good any of the teams are really in relation to previous years due to the unpredictability of this World Cup.

Germany had a good group, but were still expected to progress. Spain got drawn with Russia, but despite the chaos with Spain and Russia being the hosts, most still had them going through. Argentina heavily tipped by some but got thumped by Croatia.

Croatia themselves have gotten to the final by playing Denmark, Russia and England. Hardly can say it's that much more difficult than England's route. The Not something I would have expected. Belgium versus England will be interesting, it should hopefully be a different game to last time but don't you know they will probably rest players again.

It's been such a bizarre WC. Even, despite that French teams quality I don't feel confident saying they are the best in the World, same with Croatia, but after Sunday one of them will have that crown, because they have been the best in an odd tournament.

bucketybuck

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Are you high?

Not high enough to entertain your ****e, no.

ebbsy

Have to laugh at the delight in certain quarters over here to England going out.

Last time I looked we were a bit rubbish ourselves.

StringerBell

ebbsy wrote: »

Have to laugh at the delight in certain quarters over here to England going out.

Last time I looked we were a bit rubbish ourselves.

That's right, you can only enjoy a rivals plight if you are indeed top of the world.

The Golden Miller

bucketybuck wrote: »

Not high enough to entertain your ****e, no.

Ye, insisting on playing Lampard and Gerrard for about 10 years really strikes me as trying to do it the "Spain way". Sh!te indeed! Or maybe it was when they brought Hargreaves and Heskey back into the set up, was that when they were going for the tiki-taka set-up? Ye they should really pack the old technical football in, they really gave it a good go, particularly implementing it from grassroots level, and of course having a certain base level of technical football has been proven not to work in any team ever!

Drumpot

TheCitizen wrote: »

LOL. Croatia won all their group games. Beat Argentina 3-0. Won their knockout games - prior to putting out England (deservedly) - via penalties but dominated both games.

England? They beat a pub team from Panama and Tunisia (WOW). They then were the best side v Colombia for long spells but when Colombia equalised they were on the ropes. They beat Sweden, that was their best performance. England lucked out big time with the luck of the draw. They punched their weight to be fair to them but it's highly unlikely they'll get such a lucky run of it with the draw again.

It would've been a travesty if that mediocre England side made it to the Final. Thanks to Croatia they didn't.

If England are mediocre , Croatia still needed extratime to beat Them and penos to beat very poor to average Denmark and Russia on penos... So by your logic Croatia made very hard work of scraping past “mediocrity” the whole way to the final...

StringerBell

Croatia have been pretty leggy playing the same team most of the time and have no proper goalscorer. There isn't much depth outside the first 11 is their biggest problem.

Russia were no pushovers in this tournament, Denmark solid defensively too to be fair. I have said the lack of a real goalscorer could see Croatia lose a close one despite their midfield talent and solidity defensively but they have made it through regardless.

With a bit of a rest before the final I'm hoping they can show themselves and make a good game of it anyway, France have been dull and a team putting it up to them properly is needed to bring out the bet of them

England set pieces there way to the semi, nobody would claim Croatia have had a tough path to the final either though I'd imagine. They just took their chance and proved their superiority

Loafing Oaf

StringerBell wrote: »

France have been dull and a team putting it up to them properly is needed to bring out the bet of them

Yeah you'd kind of feel football has been cheated if France win the World Cup playing the way they have, but that's kind of what they did in 98...

Adamocovic

The French are very very confident about the weekend. It's a bit bewildering, as their side have been good but haven't been at a level where I would expect them to blow somebody out of the water.

All the talk about the English fans and media disrespecting the Croatians but for the most part I thought they were tentatively optimistic about beating them.

French on the other-hand have been ridiculously optimistic. I want them to win but I've been asking people what they think the score will be. Most common answer seems to be 3-0 or 3-1 to France. Madness.

They keep going on about the Croats being tired, which may be true, but they will be so fired up to be in a World Cup and have a quality midfield. I want/need France to win but would love a tense affair leading to penalties.

StringerBell

I think France are going to be very confident of keeping a clean sheet and trusting that one if the individuals up front will get a goal v Croatia.

Tbf to them it's not a bad team to be playing in a work cup finak, two schools of thought either knackered from all their minutes played or battle hardened from them

I expect France to win but I hope Croatia make a good game of it and I'd be delighted to see them win too

lawred2

Adamocovic wrote: »

The French are very very confident about the weekend. It's a bit bewildering, as their side have been good but haven't been at a level where I would expect them to blow somebody out of the water.

All the talk about the English fans and media disrespecting the Croatians but for the most part I thought they were tentatively optimistic about beating them.

French on the other-hand have been ridiculously optimistic. I want them to win but I've been asking people what they think the score will be. Most common answer seems to be 3-0 or 3-1 to France. Madness.

They keep going on about the Croats being tired, which may be true, but they will be so fired up to be in a World Cup and have a quality midfield. I want/need France to win but would love a tense affair leading to penalties.

France have been comfortable in pretty much every game... Fear for France is the same as it was 2 years ago in the Euros - they play in an almost languid torpor state - never really seeming to reach what should be their potential.. Can they be caught on the hop again with another flat performance?

Either way I think they'll be fresher and too strong in midfield for Croatia.

Hope I'm wrong

ERG89

Adamocovic wrote:

The French are very very confident about the weekend. It's a bit bewildering, as their side have been good but haven't been at a level where I would expect them to blow somebody out of the water.

Despite the 15 changes from the last Euro's squad. I don't think they have improved that much in those 2 years. Deschamps will be blamed if they lose but Griezmann has been disappointing & the midfield has lacked that spark of creativity despite their rigid organisation I think it's up to the players to bring that.
Giroud up top is good for defending set pieces but hasn't even had a shot on target all tournament which is appalling as a no.9

Gbear

England are fairly mediocre from a technical standpoint but being drilled, having a coherent plan and athleticism are all important elements of the game and England were top class at those.

Most top teams have a coherent system, but Germany and Spain; countries that can field 3 teams better than England's, didn't really have that and were no good, despite all their talent.

France are another matter because they can match England in intensity and physicality, but are far more ruthless in both boxes.

France probably won't blitz Croatia, but they'll stifle them, and then wait for a chance to pounce, and they have some of the most potent weapons on the counter in the tournament.
I thought Griezmann's performance was really underrated in the Belgium game. He was finding himself 4 on 1 at times in midfield and I don't think he was ever caught in possession. He always found an outlet. He was having to sacrifice a lot of his attacking game but it was all for the betterment of the team.

Croatia won't have the same kind of heft in midfield as Belgium, or England would have, so he'll be free to play further up the pitch, as will Pogba. One of Kante or Matuidi would be a handful. Both together is cruel and unusual punishment.

Even if the teams were meating on even terms with the same amount of exertion and rest, I'd have France in a tight but comfortable game. As it is, I think Croatia will stick with it for 60 but France will get to 2 or 3-0 and see the game out.

greendom

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yeah you'd kind of feel football has been cheated if France win the World Cup playing the way they have, but that's kind of what they did in 98...

They've been really efficient, doing what they had to do. The only time they really played a more expansive game was when they went behind against Argentina. Aside from that, they've gone in front, sat back and asked the opposition to show what they had. Each time the answer was not enough to worry the French defence.

If Croatia take an early lead on Sunday I think it could be a classic, but if France score first they again will have enough to stifle the croats and it will prove to be a disappointing match.

loyatemu

I don't think England necessarily blew it - they were beaten by a technically better Croatian side who despite all the extra football they'd played still seemed to have a lot in the tank (I'll have whatever they're having). England were well organised, played to their strengths and showed decent mental resolve, all indicating progress from previous failures.

On the negative side, Southgate must take some blame for not having any plan B - I still think they should have taken Shelvey and with them so reliant on set pieces (and with VAR making set pieces so important) they should have taken a more traditional centre forward (Carroll maybe?). Shelvey and Carroll instead of Dier and Welbeck would have given them more options off the bench.

Their lack of any effective midfield was really exposed too, maybe they should have brought Carrick along for a last hurrah.

StringerBell

loyatemu wrote: »

I don't think England necessarily blew it - they were beaten by a technically better Croatian side who despite all the extra football they'd played still seemed to have a lot in the tank (I'll have whatever they're having).

Any chance we can stop these thinly veiled accusations of doping? Croatia lacked zip and looked extremely leggy all the way through that game playing in short bursts. This was commented on repeatedly, they looked like a tired team. They looked like a tired team against Russia too.

They seemed to be running on fumes quite contrary to having a lot in the tank, they managed to get the job done but they should have been dead and buried at half time.

LuckyLloyd

In the final analysis, England bottled it. Kane missing a sitter in the first half to go two up that might have broken Croatia - Stones suffering a fatal lack of concentration at the most crucial moment to condemn them to defeat.

Croatia played in spurts and displayed quality and killer instinct when it mattered most.

As a whole, England are a mistake from Tunisia at a last ditch corner; an injury to Columbia's best player and a peno shootout win away from doom and gloom. They had a fabled run to the semi final; faced a team they matched up well against and crumbled at the pinch point.

If they want to build their future around Southgate and Kane they will suffer quite the reality check in 2020.

gimli2112

Agreed I don't see how this is being painted as the dawn of something wonderful for England. They had a chance to go all the way. I don't think they blew it necessarily but were very much in control at 1/2 time, fell apart for a while when they conceded but the semi could have gone either way.


I'm afraid they have plenty more years of hurt ahead of them.

Drumpot

StringerBell wrote: »

I think France are going to be very confident of keeping a clean sheet and trusting that one if the individuals up front will get a goal v Croatia.

Tbf to them it's not a bad team to be playing in a work cup finak, two schools of thought either knackered from all their minutes played or battle hardened from them

I expect France to win but I hope Croatia make a good game of it and I'd be delighted to see them win too

Yeh I see France as a team that's gotten stronger in an organised sense as the tournament has progressed. They have had a bit of luck along the way, but I think most teams get that on the way to success.

Anything but impressive in their Group Stages, they needed VAR to bail them out in two games where a team of their quality shouldn't need that kind of assistance.

Looked explosive at times against a very poor Argentina team and they looked more organised and defencively sound against a Uruguay missing Cavani.

Always looked in control despite only beating Belgium 1-0. But it must be said that their 3 goals in the Quarters and Semi's were set pieces and a howler from a keeper. If you are looking at a weakness, its for all their talent, but for the Argentina game they haven't been a powerhouse going forward.

France have more room for improvement, have a great mixture of youth and experience and have yet to see the best of some of their forwards who could be matchwinners on their own. Croatia have been relying a lot on Perisic/Modric and don't really have much more that can be expected of them. There is nothing obvious that sticks out and even the most optimistc Croatia fan has to concede that they are up against it.

If France show up and keep composed I don't see any scenario where Croatia win.

Iused2likebusts

Some very slight improvements from england this tournament but nothing major. They had a fairly simple gameplan loads of energy in the team , and with the threat of pace keeping some teams pinned back. They were very exposed to being counter attacked but didn't come up against a team that had the pace to do that. France, Belgium and Brazil would have really punished them. They also were always going to struggle against a team like Croatia that can keep possession. For southgate the positives are he didn't get influenced by the media and did his own thing. I think putting walker in the back 3 was his best decision it gave them some much needed pace at the back and allowed him to also pick trippier. I haven't seen anything to suggest they are equipped to compete in future tournaments. They really struggled to create chances in open play and every attack usually ended up with a cross there was no imagination in attack. The only impressive result and performance was the Sweden game a game they would have struggled in at previous tournaments. They dispatched of a fairly limited team easily enough in that game.

StringerBell

Drogba was talking about England's world cup today, which I found odd as he very obviously didn't watch any of their games.

Or perhaps he misunderstood the question if you would like to give him the benefit of the doubt

He was asked who their standout player was after speaking about who impressed him in the tournament, which one in particular?

Harry Kane.

Iused2likebusts

StringerBell wrote: »

Drogba was talking about England's world cup today, which I found odd as he very obviously didn't watch any of their games.

Or perhaps he misunderstood the question if you would like to give him the benefit of the doubt

He was asked who their standout player was after speaking about who impressed him in the tournament, which one in particular?

Harry Kane.

That's madness. Apart from the Tunisia game he did nothing of note in the tournament. He is England's best player but he had a poor tournament even though he will end up with the golden boot. His penalty taking was also top class.

StringerBell

Trippier was probably their stand out player I thought, Harry Kane had a very poor world cup I think which is exasperated by the fact he is going to win the golden boot

The Golden Miller

Why are people complaining about Harry Kane having a poor World Cup and then praise Ronaldo as one of the best in the world? Kanes a striker who padded his stats in this world cup and was lethargic in open play, ye? Ronaldo has made a career of if

StringerBell

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Why are people complaining about Harry Kane having a poor World Cup and then praise Ronaldo as one of the best in the world? Kanes a striker who padded his stats in this world cup and was lethargic in open play, ye? Ronaldo has made a career of if

Because some people don't have to view everything through a vitriolic hatred of Ronaldo?

I suppose maybe some people are able to critique one players performance without feeling the need to have to compare that to every single other player (or let's be honest here just the one who keeps you up at night)

Kane had a poor world cup, what that has to do with another player from another country **** knows

The Talking Bread

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Why are people complaining about Harry Kane having a poor World Cup and then praise Ronaldo as one of the best in the world? Kanes a striker who padded his stats in this world cup and was lethargic in open play, ye? Ronaldo has made a career of if

Scratches head.

Stephen15

Apparently Nike are already producing France jerseys with two stars above the crest.

gimli2112

Stephen15 wrote: »

Apparently Nike are already producing France jerseys with two stars above the crest.

a few England fans have tattoos they regret too

GT_TDI_150

Kane was poor ... Because the england midfield and wide men are poor he had to come deep way to often for a touch of the ball... And as an opposition team .... Thats where ya want kane, not nipping in the box for a tap in

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Sprinter Sacre wrote: »

That Russian lad Salenko in 94 although that's nearly quarter of a century ago now

I'm reading about it for the first time. I can't believe how bad this Golden Boot winner was.

The Golden Miller

StringerBell wrote: »

Because some people don't have to view everything through a vitriolic hatred of Ronaldo?

I suppose maybe some people are able to critique one players performance without feeling the need to have to compare that to every single other player (or let's be honest here just the one who keeps you up at night)

Kane had a poor world cup, what that has to do with another player from another country **** knows

It's holding players to different standards, I'm sure you're quite aware of the point I'm making, so enough of the obtuse nonsense. We look back on this tournament under the "stat" light we view Ronaldo under, and we can say Kane scored 6 goals in 6 matches, and "led" his weak team to the world cup semi-finals, while ignore absolutely lethargic 90 minute performances. To stay consistent, certain people should be calling for Kane to win player of the tournament, best stats and all!

eagle eye

All this about Kane having a poor World Cup. Somebody pointed out how he was playing deep a lot and helping create instead of being the man on the end of the moves which is very true. He had a good World Cup imo, not spectacular by any means but not poor either.

As for the final, the midfield battle will be key.

One of the best players in this World Cup has been Griezman, he has been playing deeper and has made so many key passes.
On the other side Modric has been one of the best players in the tournament and they have a man who is clutch in big games too. That man is Mandzukic and he will be a handful for the French defense in the final.
You'd have to fancy the French on what we've seen to this point, they seen to have grown as the tournament has progressed but this Croatian team has a lot of quality and they've shown great desire too. I think it'll be a great final and it'll be very close too.

J. Marston

Had completely forgot about Kalinic.

God, imagine how he feels now?

Shanotheslayer

Agree with TGM here lads. You'd be sucking Ronaldo's balls if he did it and forget everything else.

Like I said when Portugal drew with Spain. Ronaldos performance won't mean that much considering it didn't come to anything long term

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Like I said when Portugal drew with Spain. Ronaldos performance won't mean that much considering it didn't come to anything long term

One could argue that, depending on who loses, Mbappe or Modric will fall into that category on Sunday evening.

The Talking Bread

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Agree with TGM here lads. You'd be sucking Ronaldo's balls if he did it and forget everything else.

Like I said when Portugal drew with Spain. Ronaldos performance won't mean that much considering it didn't come to anything long term

What do you think people think it meant. ......... and why are they wrong. Your point makes no sense. He had a poor WC after that game but people were legitimately justified in lauding his performance (and no, it wasn't just the fact he scored a hat trick even) against Spain,

An Ciarraioch

It is legitimate to claim though that both Kane and Lukaku have been "flat-track bullies" in this tournament, frontloading their Golden Boot claims against dire group opponents, and rather fading once the knockouts began. That said, it hasn't been a vintage WC for forwards, with all the standout performances coming in midfield (Kante, Modric, Hazard among others).

The Talking Bread

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It is legitimate to claim though that both Kane and Lukaku have been "flat-track bullies" in this tournament, frontloading their Golden Boot claims against dire group opponents, and rather fading once the knockouts began. That said, it hasn't been a vintage WC for forwards, with all the standout performances coming in midfield (Kante, Modric, Hazard among others).

Lukaku was one of the best players on the pitch against Brazil. (You know the pre tournament favourites? ) He had, like every Belgian apart from Hazard early on, a poor game against France but otherwise he deserves far more than the cliché "flat track bully" tag.

The Golden Miller

Deleted User wrote: »

One could argue that, depending on who loses, Mbappe or Modric will fall into that category on Sunday evening.

Well no, they've been instrumental in how their team play, and how far they've come, neither of which Ronaldo or Kane could do. His point was in relation to mine, judging two strikers under a different light.

Kane's a striker, an outlet who rely's on others to provide. Why is more expected of him, if it's not expected of Ronaldo? You say Ronaldo done nothing over 90 minutes and only got a tap in and your sneered at with "only a goal" replies. Ronaldo's woeful performances are always ignored in favour of reeling off stats with little context. This is all well and good if we accept both are "just goal scorers". But if one is "one of the two best players ever", these pathetic 90 minute performances from Ronaldo aren't good enough, more SHOULD be expected. But no, only more is expected from Kane.

The Golden Miller

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Well no, they've been instrumental in how their team play, and how far they've come, neither of which Ronaldo or Kane could do. His point was in relation to mine, judging two strikers under a different light.

Kane's a striker, an outlet who rely's on others to provide. Why is more expected of him, if it's not expected of Ronaldo? You say Ronaldo done nothing over 90 minutes and only got a tap in and your sneered at with "only a goal" replies. Ronaldo's woeful performances are always ignored in favour of reeling off stats with little context. This is all well and good if we accept both are "just goal scorers". But if one is "one of the two best players ever", these pathetic 90 minute performances from Ronaldo aren't good enough, more SHOULD be expected. But no, only more is expected from Kane.

What's the obsession with Ronaldo? I don't get it

The Golden Miller

RoboKlopp wrote: »

What's the obsession with Ronaldo? I don't get it

It's the hypocrisy of measuring players under a different criteria. Not that hard to get really. Why is more expected from Kane over 90 minutes other than stat padding? Kane got 6 goals in 6 games, a ratio of a goal per game. The lad should be getting player of the tournament aswell as the golden boot, no? He "done it" for his country, "led" this weak team to a world cup semi-final! The "stat's" are there

The Talking Bread

OK you are right Miller. Because there is not a hope in hell you will ever concede a "debate" when it comes to Ronaldo.

Let's see if 33 year old Kane is still achieving what Ronaldo is achieving in a few years time.

Let's see his trophy cabinet, his personal achievements and records, his ability to transform his game when age takes tole......oh, wait..... sure when Ronaldo was Kanes age he was an utterly different player.