The 2018 World Cup Superthread

TheRiverman

Gizmo55 wrote: »

Thought Dunphy made some great points there, Sadlier without a fu*king clue how to follow it up so changed it back. Terrible pundit, always was.

Mourinho has nothing to do with The World Cup and shouldn't have been mentioned in such detail by Dunphy and then Collins asking a question about Jose on his return to Chelsea.Nothing to do with the World Cup,Sadlier was right to bring it back on track.

gormdubhgorm

Did anyone hear Ger Canning commentating on the Saudi Arabia v Uruguay game?

Canning: "The Saudi Arabia players have thier Christian names on thier jerseys"

Few seconds pause

Canning: "Or thier first names"

gormdubhgorm

Oat23 wrote: »

What a fail that attempt at Ryan Guy's throw in was.

Yeah. The Iranian fella who kissed the ball, blessed himself, prayed, did a tumble thing with the ball to get loft, stopped halfway through. Then started again and just threw the ball like a normal throw in.

Funniest thing in the WC so far.

Edit: it was thier last chance of the game as well with about 30 seconds left, and it killed about 20 seconds

Drumpot

TheRiverman wrote: »

Mourinho has nothing to do with The World Cup and shouldn't have been mentioned in such detail by Dunphy and then Collins asking a question about Jose on his return to Chelsea.Nothing to do with the World Cup,Sadlier was right to bring it back on track.

I cant watch RTÉ where I am but Sadler is an extremely insightful and articulate pundit. Don’t always agree with him but I think he’s really good.

gormdubhgorm

xtal191 wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised if Iran beat Portugal

Yeah keep the number 7 quiet and they could sneak it.

rob316

Well that was 3 dire games today. Hope for better tomorrow

LuckyLloyd

rob316 wrote: »

Well that was 3 dire games today. Hope for better tomorrow

The third game was electric!!

osarusan

I never understand this instinctive reaction against defensive football in situations where it is completely sensible.

Iran, or anybody else, should look at the resources at their disposal and come up with the plan they think is most likely to get a result against a particular opposition. If 11 men behind the ball represents their best chance of a result, then that is what they should do.

Nothing else matters. They shouldn't give even a shadow of a f**k what any neutrals think.

The Talking Bread

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The third game was electric!!

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic but I really enjoyed the second half of that Spain, Iran game. Definitely couldn't call it boring defensive football

MD1990

The 2nd half of Spain & Iran was good.

Iran played well they will give Portugal a very good game could beat them.

murpho999

Drumpot wrote: »

They hit the post (Lingard), cleared off the line (Lingard) , multiple saves from Gk , sterling chance was offside but a sign of how successful their attack’s were. Then they are denied 2 penos on a VAR system that’s saved spain tonight and France against Australia.

Tell me why Australia , Morocco, Iran and Saudi Arabia all deserve more respect the Tunisia? Like I said Murp, convenient double standards when rating England versus everybody else.

I’m not saying England will won anything, I’m saying they have been as impressive as most top teams thus far. If anything Spain and Portugal hav been massively disappointing because they had such an epic game under their belt they had no excuses for not blowing away such poor opposition.

You just keep banging the same drum.

I think it's fair to say up to today that no top team has really impressed. Top teams for me are Spain, Germany, Portugal, France, Brazil Argentina.

I would rate England below those teams based on past performances in major championships.

I do believe that the top teams will get better as the tournament progresses and they meet teams that play less defensive. Like we witnessed with Spain v Portugal.

England will struggle against a top side in the later rounds.

You go on about VAR and two penalties but forget that Kyle Walker should have been sent off for his foul.

A half hour against Tunisia with a couple of chances was cancelled out for me by what they did for the rest of the match. I thought they were very poor in the second half.

Also, I note you saw you can't watch RTE which makes me wonder are you only watching English stations which may also explain your rigid viewpoint.

Drumpot

murpho999 wrote: »

I think it's fair to say up to today that no top team has really impressed. Top teams for me are Spain, Germany, Portugal, France, Brazil Argentina.

I would rate England below those teams based on past performances in major championships.

I do believe that the top teams will get better as the tournament progresses and they meet teams that play less defensive. Like we witnessed with Spain v Portugal.

England will struggle against a top side in the later rounds.

You go on about VAR and two penalties but forget that Kyle Walker should have been sent off for his foul.

A half hour against Tunisia with a couple of chances was cancelled out for me by what they did for the rest of the match. I thought they were very poor in the second half.

We were talking about the game, not who will Win the tournament. I’ve never said England will Win this tournament and neither did the BBC lads to be fair to them . They just got over excited with a win that surprised them. No different to every country in the world when their team plays better then they expected!

I think the manner of the win really surprised them. England on another day could of thumped Tunisia. They were positive , attacking and closed down Tunisia like no other team has been doing in the tournament. Considering the low key build up and general lack of knowledge on what this English team is capable of, I think there was genuine surprise at how good they looked at times and that they persevered for the win.

Morocco , Iran, Saudi Arabia and Australia have all shown that teams like Tunisia can be tough. I’m not sure why anybody would confidently discount Tunisia for no obvious reason other then they were in England’s group.

And while England were very poor in the second half they still got the goal They needed to get the win. That’s a positive in my book.

Drumpot

osarusan wrote: »

I never understand this instinctive reaction against defensive football in situations where it is completely sensible.

Iran, or anybody else, should look at the resources at their disposal and come up with the plan they think is most likely to get a result against a particular opposition. If 11 men behind the ball represents their best chance of a result, then that is what they should do.

Nothing else matters. They shouldn't give even a shadow of a f**k what any neutrals think.

I actually agree with the sentiments but why is Iceland (or N.Ireland) allowed to be thrown at Martin O Neil when Ireland play defensive football but these other nations get a free pass? I’m not convinced Ireland has a vast array of talent that should be outplaying the best Asia and Africa has to offer So why is it ok for Irish pundits and fans to expect us to be more expansive?

Stephen15

What I don't get is why England are always top seeds when it comes to qualifying when their performance in recent major tournaments has been dismal at best. If they were second seeds in qualifying they could be in for fright in the playoffs.

Drumpot

Stephen15 wrote: »

What I don't get is why England are always top seeds when it comes to qualifying when their performance in recent major tournaments has been dismal at best. If they were second seeds in qualifying they could be in for fright in the playoffs.

Like Switzerland, they have done well in qualifications. Being a top seed in qualifying generally guarantees you no more then one or two tricky away ties and multiple opportunities to amend a blip.

England are prob a 2nd seed team in reality but they are good enough when not up against a top team. For all the slagging they are prob better then 50% favorites against all but a handful of teams in Europe.

Imagine if they could galvanise themselves like Iceland?!! This is what might actually happen this tournament because there is none of the usual baggage , YET.

Stephen15

Drumpot wrote: »

Like Switzerland, they have done well in qualifications. Being a top seed in qualifying generally guarantees you no more then one or two tricky away ties and multiple opportunities to amend a blip.

England are prob a 2nd seed team in reality but they are good enough when not up against a top euro team. For all the slagging they are prob better then 50% favorites against all but a handful of teams in Europe.

Imagine if they could galvanise themselves like Iceland?!! This is what might actually happen this tournament because there is none of the usual baggage , YET.

What I don't get is that Italy who generally in qualification and generally do better than England in major tournaments were second seeds and failed to qualify for the WC. I would say if put Engalnd as second seeds a similar outcome would happen as they would face quality opposition for once. The last England faced quality opposition in qualifying they failed to qualify for Euro 2008

Drumpot

Stephen15 wrote: »

What I don't get is that Italy who generally in qualification and generally do better than England in major tournaments were second seeds and failed to qualify for the WC. I would say if put Engalnd as second seeds a similar outcome would happen as they would face quality opposition for once. The last England faced quality opposition in qualifying they failed to qualify for Euro 2008

Yeh I don’t get the rankings either.

I just looked and the Swiss and poles are ahead of Spain!!! Technically England would be a 2nd seed in an 8 group draw right now as they are ranked 9th in Europe !!

ThunbergsAreGo

murpho999 wrote: »

You go on about VAR and two penalties but forget that Kyle Walker should have been sent off for his foul.

Really? Cannot agree with this at all

Adamocovic

murpho999 wrote: »

You just keep banging the same drum.

I think it's fair to say up to today that no top team has really impressed. Top teams for me are Spain, Germany, Portugal, France, Brazil Argentina.

I would rate England below those teams based on past performances in major championships.

I do believe that the top teams will get better as the tournament progresses and they meet teams that play less defensive. Like we witnessed with Spain v Portugal.

England will struggle against a top side in the later rounds.

You go on about VAR and two penalties but forget that Kyle Walker should have been sent off for his foul.

A half hour against Tunisia with a couple of chances was cancelled out for me by what they did for the rest of the match. I thought they were very poor in the second half.

Also, I note you saw you can't watch RTE which makes me wonder are you only watching English stations which may also explain your rigid viewpoint.

Having different views is nothing new in football.

But that highlighted point I find quite ridiculous. As if it is so hard to imagine someone viewing the game differently to you that it surely cannot be their own point of view, rather a product of watching the National Broadcaster for that team.

He's explained in his eyes why his viewpoint is so different to yours. You don't need to try do some Columbo work to try and find the "real" explanation, just because you don't agree.

osarusan

Drumpot wrote: »

I actually agree with the sentiments but why is Iceland (or N.Ireland) allowed to be thrown at Martin O Neil when Ireland play defensive football but these other nations get a free pass? I’m not convinced Ireland has a vast array of talent that should be outplaying the best Asia and Africa has to offer So why is it ok for Irish pundits and fans to expect us to be more expansive?

I have no issue with Ireland playing cautious, defensive football when it's the best option. Playing somebody like Germany or Spain, that's exactly what we should do.


My issue is when we play like that against a weak team, when a more positive approach represents a better option (in my opinion obviously). Georgia away is an example of us being overly cautious against a weak team, and dropping points as a result (points that Serbia, Wales, and Austria all picked up).

murpho999

Adamocovic wrote: »

Having different views is nothing new in football.

But that highlighted point I find quite ridiculous. As if it is so hard to imagine someone viewing the game differently to you that it surely cannot be their own point of view, rather a product of watching the National Broadcaster for that team.

He's explained in his eyes why his viewpoint is so different to yours. You don't need to try do some Columbo work to try and find the "real" explanation, just because you don't agree.

I don't think it is ridiculous.

You don't think the media have influence over people?
Do you not think an English persons view over their national football team would be different to how people here view them?

Take 2006 for example and the England golden generation were hyped by English media to win the WC and I think English fans believed it.

Then after games there was a completely different analysis whereby the BBC praised the team and offered zero criticism, whilst RTE found faults and were eventually proven correct.

murpho999

naughtb4 wrote: »

Really? Cannot agree with this at all

Hitting a guy full in the face and stopping an attacker from getting to the ball to score?

Mokuba

murpho999 wrote: »

Hitting a guy full in the face and stopping an attacker from getting to the ball to score?

Are you on a wind up?

Adamocovic

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't think it is ridiculous.

You don't think the media have influence over people?
Do you not think an English persons view over their national football team would be different to how people here view them?

Take 2006 for example and the England golden generation were hyped by English media to win the WC and I think English fans believed it.

Then after games there was a completely different analysis whereby the BBC praised the team and offered zero criticism, whilst RTE found faults and were eventually proven correct.

Yes the media can have an influence but you seem to be using it as the reason for Drumpots views, despite him justifying why he has them. I can't agree with that logic. If his opinions aren't that of his own, just a product of the media so be it. Let's run with it.

I can determine from this that actually your opinions of the England performance are just manufactured straight from the media too. No one has an individual thought in this place.

Do you not think an Irish person would view the English national team differently to other nations? Isn't your opinion just going along with the common trend of social media to rip into the team each tournament for being "bottlers"? Same old England!

And of course World Cup 2006. That so called "golden generation" containing average players like Gerrard, Ferdinand, Terry, Neville, Beckham, Lampard, Rooney, Carragher, Ashley Cole and so on. Not like any of us supported any of them at club level and rank them highly. They sure were shown to be ****e when Portugal of all teams knocked them out in the penalties during the Quarter-Finals.

Adamocovic

Anyway after yesterday's, somewhat surprising 1-0 wins around the board I need a bit of luck today! Got all the results right, like most but scores were way off.

Dropped down in the work world cup predictor rankings after the Japan/Senegal/Russia craic. Just realised I need goals galore today!

In total my predictions have totalled 13 goals today...what was I thinking!

murpho999

Adamocovic wrote: »

Yes the media can have an influence but you seem to be using it as the reason for Drumpots views, despite him justifying why he has them. I can't agree with that logic. If his opinions aren't that of his own, just a product of the media so be it. Let's run with it.

I can determine from this that actually your opinions of the England performance are just manufactured straight from the media too. No one has an individual thought in this place.

Do you not think an Irish person would view the English national team differently to other nations? Isn't your opinion just going along with the common trend of social media to rip into the team each tournament for being "bottlers"? Same old England!

And of course World Cup 2006. That so called "golden generation" containing average players like Gerrard, Ferdinand, Terry, Neville, Beckham, Lampard, Rooney, Carragher, Ashley Cole and so on. Not like any of us supported any of them at club level and rank them highly. They sure were shown to be ****e when Portugal of all teams knocked them out in the penalties during the Quarter-Finals.

My opinion is based on what I have seen.

And I was not impressed with England for most of the game on Monday and saw defensive frailties that I know will be torn apart by better teams than Tunisia.

My opinion on past England teams is also evidence based. That "Golden Generation" team failed at WC 2002, Euro 2004, WC 2006, Euro 2008 (Didn't qualify) & WC 2010.
It's nothing to do with supporting top players at their English clubs but it's how they did not gel as an international team.

The narrative that Drumpot is showing here is very much in line with BBC's analysis of the game (best football played in the tournament etc) and is very different to what was being said here by posters on Monday night that he dismisses as anti-English bias which is not the case.

ERG89

Croatia vs Argentina this evening. It is definitely the tie of match day two. If Croatia beat them(which is plausible considering how they defended like flustered chickens against Iceland) it's likely curtains for Argentina.

Adamocovic

murpho999 wrote: »

My opinion is based on what I have seen.

And I was not impressed with England for most of the game on Monday and saw defensive frailties that I know will be torn apart by better teams than Tunisia.

My opinion on past England teams is also evidence based. That "Golden Generation" team failed at WC 2002, Euro 2004, WC 2006, Euro 2008 (Didn't qualify) & WC 2010.
It's nothing to do with supporting top players at their English clubs but it's how they did not gel as an international team.

The narrative that Drumpot is showing here is very much in line with BBC's analysis of the game (best football played in the tournament etc) and is very different to what was being said here by posters on Monday night that he dismisses as anti-English bias which is not the case.

I thought we were getting somewhere until the last paragraph, I guess it's media it is so.

So despite your opinion lining up with exactly the Irish opinion, RTE, and social media, with some extremely similar lines like the "they do not gel as an international team" it's your own opinion based on what you've seen.

But with Drumpot's opinion, from what he sees, lining up with the BBC analysis of the game and not that of the overall social media reaction it's a product of their broadcasting, not his own opinion?

Personally I completely get his opinion. It was the first game against a team that are trickier to break down than people are letting on. Was far from a master-class but showed some good signs. But then again, maybe my opinions are just that of the French Broadcasting team as they don't line-up with the overall opinion of an Irish forum, who probably got their opinions from RTE.

ThunbergsAreGo

murpho999 wrote: »

My opinion is based on what I have seen.

And I was not impressed with England for most of the game on Monday and saw defensive frailties that I know will be torn apart by better teams than Tunisia.

My opinion on past England teams is also evidence based. That "Golden Generation" team failed at WC 2002, Euro 2004, WC 2006, Euro 2008 (Didn't qualify) & WC 2010.
It's nothing to do with supporting top players at their English clubs but it's how they did not gel as an international team.

The narrative that Drumpot is showing here is very much in line with BBC's analysis of the game (best football played in the tournament etc) and is very different to what was being said here by posters on Monday night that he dismisses as anti-English bias which is not the case.

I think you might be right with defensive frailties, but with their pace up front it could be argued playing the better teams will suit them

Their recent friendly results seem to be in line with this

murpho999

Adamocovic wrote: »

I thought we were getting somewhere until the last paragraph, I guess it's media it is so.

So despite your opinion lining up with exactly the Irish opinion, RTE, and social media, with some extremely similar lines like the "they do not gel as an international team" it's your own opinion based on what you've seen.

But with Drumpot's opinion, from what he sees, lining up with the BBC analysis of the game and not that of the overall social media reaction it's a product of their broadcasting, not his own opinion?

Personally I completely get his opinion. It was the first game against a team that are trickier to break down than people are letting on. Was far from a master-class but showed some good signs. But then again, maybe my opinions are just that of the French Broadcasting team as they don't line-up with the overall opinion of an Irish forum, who probably got their opinions from RTE.

What's wrong with saying they did not gel as international team, when they clearly didn't as evidenced by their failures. Gerrard and Lampard being a perfect example of not gelling.

My opinions are based on the football I saw not the media.

I think RTE were quite complimentary about England on Monday whilst pointing out some faults. So I don't see how you can say I'm just following the RTE line.

Difference is that BBC did not point out any negatives about Monday and I find that bizarre.

murpho999

naughtb4 wrote: »

I think you might be right with defensive frailties, but with their pace up front it could be argued playing the better teams will suit them

Their recent friendly results seem to be in line with this

Yes, they could do better against more expansive teams but I think their defence will be majorly exposed by a good attacking force.

I would never use friendlies as a form guide though.

Adamocovic

murpho999 wrote: »

What's wrong with saying they did not gel as international team, when they clearly didn't as evidenced by their failures. Gerrard and Lampard being a perfect example of not gelling.

My opinions are based on the football I saw not the media.

I think RTE were quite complimentary about England on Monday whilst pointing out some faults. So I don't see how you can say I'm just following the RTE line.

Difference is that BBC did not point out any negatives about Monday and I find that bizarre.

Nothing wrong with saying they didn't gel. It's the most used argument about that England squad, about individual talent compared to team chemistry. Picking players based off their talent and not the role they provide to the team. So on. So on.

I just fail to see how you can determine your opinions are based on what you see but those of Drumpot are based on what the BBC have said.

Didn't really watch much of the BBC coverage, saw some snippets. But going to the BBC, where the panel is presumably all ex internationals, looking for neutral opinions, I don't think so. Doesn't mean anyone who watches will fail to see the concerns or negativity. It's the same at times for Ireland in sport, and France too. But sometimes I do enjoy watching analysis of people actually excited about the game rather than a breakdown of it.

This article sums it up nicely regarding the BBC English coverage.

To be fair, BBC pundit bashing plays well to the gallery but the greatest asset of their panel, plus host Gary Lineker, on these nights is how unashamedly they care, speech quickening with giddiness when England look promising.

Yes, they all leapt to their feet after the last minute winner. You want neutrality on the BBC when England play? Good luck. They might as well as host wearing their three lions.

ThunbergsAreGo

murpho999 wrote: »

Yes, they could do better against more expansive teams but I think their defence will be majorly exposed by a good attacking force.

I would never use friendlies as a form guide though.

There isnt really much else to use in international football though

Every team so far has had frailties so far

cj maxx

Really looking forward to Argentina v Croatia. Should be a cracker

eagle eye

Yeah, hard to gauge how it will go. Croatia should be on top in midfield and Mandzukic always seems to turn up in important games.
Clearly Argentina have a fantastic front four so imo it's anyone's guess how it will end up.

Adamocovic

My work prediction I picked 3-2 for some reason. Hopefully it turns out to be a highscoring entertaining game after what we got yesterday.

GavRedKing

If France and Denmark both win today, Group C is already wrapped up with both teams then facing each other in game 3 to see who comes top.

I reckon both will get over the line too, TBH.

Adamocovic

GavRedKing wrote: »

If France and Denmark both win today, Group C is already wrapped up with both teams then facing each other in game 3 to see who comes top.

I reckon both will get over the line too, TBH.

I have Denmark down to win but think it will be a very close affair.

Drumpot

Adamocovic wrote: »

My work prediction I picked 3-2 for some reason. Hopefully it turns out to be a highscoring entertaining game after what we got yesterday.

I think I went for 2-1 Croatia. Argentina are such a funny beast, they are actually similar to Belgium in the last few tournaments. Extremely talented side that doesn’t gel and under performs.

If this game isn’t on BBC I will have to watch it on French tv. TFI’s half time analysis is 14.5 minutes of adverts and then 30 Seconds at the camera on lizerazu and his co commentator at the ground. It’s mad!!!

murpho999

Drumpot wrote: »

I think I went for 2-1 Croatia. Argentina are such a funny beast, they are actually similar to Belgium in the last few tournaments. Extremely talented side that doesn’t gel and under performs.

If this game isn’t on BBC I will have to watch it on French tv. TFI’s half time analysis is 14.5 minutes of adverts and then 30 Seconds at the camera on lizerazu and his co commentator at the ground. It’s mad!!!

The game is on BBC this evening.

Adamocovic

murpho999 wrote: »

The game is on BBC this evening.

Shame. Love the TFI halftime reports.

elefant

Drumpot wrote: »

Argentina are such a funny beast, they are actually similar to Belgium in the last few tournaments. Extremely talented side that doesn’t gel and under performs.

That's a bit hard on Argentina, considering they should have won the last world cup (if it wasn't for Higuain's miss, and Neuer escaping a sending off and conceding a penalty), and lost the previous 2 Copa America finals on penalty shoot outs (and more Higuain wastefulness).

That's not a bad show for a side that under performs in big tournaments. You could even say they're the most consistent international side of this century (Spain excluded). I'm not writing them off.

Drumpot

elefant wrote: »

That's a bit hard on Argentina, considering they should have won the last world cup (if it wasn't for Higuain's miss, and Neuer escaping a sending off and conceding a penalty), and lost the previous 2 Copa America finals on penalty shoot outs.

That's not a bad show for a side that under performs in big tournaments. You could even say they're the most consistent international side of this century (Spain excluded). I'm not writing them off.

They have one of the greatest players of all time and a strong squad most tournaments. Losing 3 finals doesn’t feel like a great defence but to be honest I didn’t see any of the copa stuff. I used to watch it when I i was younger, is it a good standard of football?

elefant

Drumpot wrote: »

They have one of the greatest players of all time and a strong squad most tournaments. Losing 3 finals doesn’t feel like a great defence but to be honest I didn’t see any of the copa stuff. I used to watch it when I i was younger, is it a good standard of football?

It's their version of the European Championships, it has all the South American and Central American teams in it. I doubt many other teams apart from Spain have reached 3 major finals in a row in living memory.

gimli2112

Who has the WC tv rights? I can only find the Den v Aus game on RTE. Is no other channel showing it or is it on BBC digital or something?
This working from home thing is great.

NoviGlitzko

Eriksen has seen Ronaldo's one man team, and he has raised it.

How Soon Is Now

gimli2112 wrote: »

Who has the WC tv rights? I can only find the Den v Aus game on RTE. Is no other channel showing it or is it on BBC digital or something?
This working from home thing is great.

Should be on itv?

Drumpot

elefant wrote: »

It's their version of the European Championships, it has all the South American and Central American teams in it. I doubt many other teams apart from Spain have reached 3 major finals in a row in living memory.

One out of the last 6 World Cup finalists have been South American. I would wonder how strong the Copa tournament is in comparison to the European counterpart.

If we extend that and look at semis to final-

2014 - 2 euro and 2 SA - 1 each in final
2010 - 3 euro and 1 SA - 2 euros i final
2006 - 4 euro - 2 euro in final

So in last 3 tournaments there have been an average of one SA team in the semis and 3 European with only one SA finalist during that time and no SA winner since Brazil in 2002.

I will add that I don’t watch them much so these are just statistics that don’t tell the whole story. I’m surprised myself at how poor SA teams have been doing in the WC, especially as one of them was on home soil!!

gimli2112

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Should be on itv?

Cheers and I've just realised ITV is no longer on the Virgin Media package. It's not a problem just thought it weird only RTE were carrying it.

How Soon Is Now

gimli2112 wrote: »

Cheers and I've just realised ITV is no longer on the Virgin Media package. It's not a problem just thought it weird only RTE were carrying it.

Ya I had to watch it on Rte meself cause the iptv is being fixed.