The World Cup Thread

bsman said:
Anybody else think that FIFA have their finger on the scale (vis-a-vis wanting ARG in the final)? I've been hearing grumblings about the prevalence of "VARgentina"...
Click to expand...
Egypt shat the bed eventually but that disallowed goal was BS, would the ref have blown for it in that position if they hadn't gone on and scored? I doubt it.
 
shoeless said:
USA didn't show up last night and got their butts thoroughly kicked by Belgium. Congrats Belgium and good luck against Spain. They will be a tough team to beat.
Click to expand...
Just coming back to this because I see a lot of similar comments on Morocco not "showing up" against France last night.

That's what being outclassed by a better team does :shrug: It has nothing to do with lack of spirit or will to win. If your opponent just absolutely shuts you down and is earlier at every ball, it might look like the players are being lacklustre or just walking back, but they're simply being confronted with a higher tempo, better ball handling and better positioning. This is what a team-wide difference in skill in football looks like.
 
ColourofFire said:
Just coming back to this because I see a lot of similar comments on Morocco not "showing up" against France last night.

That's what being outclassed by a better team does :shrug: It has nothing to do with lack of spirit or will to win. If your opponent just absolutely shuts you down and is earlier at every ball, it might look like the players are being lacklustre or just walking back, but they're simply being confronted with a higher tempo, better ball handling and better positioning. This is what a team-wide difference in skill in football looks like.
Click to expand...
Sure, but part of the equation is also whether or not a team plays up to their potential or at least plays as well as they have previously demonstrated that they are able. When I said, "the USA didn't show up", I wasn't trying to make an excuse for their loss...as if to say they should have won otherwise. Rather, it was disappointing to see them lose, at least in part, because they did not play as well as they were capable.

Athletes and teams have ups and downs. This is obvious in any sport where a best-of-seven series is played to determine a champion. The same two teams, same players, compete in each game. A team may get crushed in one game and come back to destroy their opponent in the next. Can a conclusion that one teams is categorically better than the other be made from either of those games? In any single elimination tournament, it all comes down to which team can maintain a consistently high level of play.

I did not watch the game yesterday, so cannot comment on Morrocco's performance. However, in the USA v Belgium game, Belgium was clearly the better team in that contest. They did everything that you stated...shut the USA down, higher tempo, better ball handling, etc. The USA looked shellshocked in the first half and made many mistakes, had bad passes and missed opportunities. They made adjustments and played a much better second half, but it was too little too late. No doubt Belgium played better that day and deserved to win that game. OTOH, if Belgium played like they did in the first half against Senegal, the result may have been different...ups and downs.

All that being said, it is pretty clear that the European teams overall are better teams and play at a higher level. That is evident by who is left in the quarterfinals. Still, it would have been nice to see the USA get a little further...or at least lose in a game where they played their best. I'm sure the Morocco fans feel the same way.
 
Last edited:
shoeless said:
Sure, but part of the equation is also whether or not a team plays up to their potential or at least plays as well as they have previously demonstrated that they are able. When I said, "the USA didn't show up", I wasn't trying to make an excuse for their loss...as if to say they should have won otherwise. Rather, it was disappointing to see them lose, at least in part, because they did not play as well as they were capable.

Athletes and teams have ups and downs. This is obvious in any sport where a best-of-seven series is played to determine a champion. The same two teams, same players, compete in each game. A team may get crushed in one game and come back to destroy their opponent in the next. Can a conclusion that one teams is categorically better than the other be made from either of those games? In any single elimination tournament, it all comes down to which team can maintain a consistently high level of play.

I did not watch the game yesterday, so cannot comment on Morrocco's performance. However, in the USA v Belgium game, Belgium was clearly the better team in that contest. They did everything that you stated...shut the USA down, higher tempo, better ball handling, etc. The USA looked shellshocked in the first half and made many mistakes, had bad passes and missed opportunities. They made adjustments and played a much better second half, but it was too little too late. No doubt Belgium played better that day and deserved to win that game. OTOH, if Belgium played like they did in the first half against Senegal, the result may have been different...ups and downs.

All that being said, it is pretty clear that the European teams overall are better teams and play at a higher level. That is evident by who is left in the quarterfinals. Still, it would have been nice to see the USA get a little further...or at least lose in a game where they played their best. I'm sure the Morocco fans feel the same way.
Click to expand...
I think the USA played up to their potential. It just didn't look as spectacular because their opponent was at least equal at every position, and plays a lot higher pressure than the playstyle that the USA team is comfortable with requires. All the opponents the US did well against are the kind of teams that are quite happy to sit back and let the opponent take the initiative. Which works really well for players like Dest and Pulisic. I've seen Dest a lot as a player of PSV, he's great when he gets space and doesn't have to do a lot of actual defending. But he's extremely vulnerable when he's under pressure and can't rely on his runs. Defensively he's just unreliable as hell. I'm not gonna say the USA only won against teams like Bosnia and Paraguay because they suck or anything, but they do totally play into the strengths of the US players. Belgium does not, and that makes the US look a lot worse than they actually played. A lot of the mistakes were forced by closing down anything that's not a risky pass, leaving the only option a weaker player, baiting into passing a marked player etc. And the second half looking better also has to do with Belgium already being up 2 goals.

It's also not helped by the US being dominant in their own competition, which makes it incredibly hard to deal with playing against teams that just grab you by the balls and give you no space and time to do anything.
 
Last edited:
I feel so bad for that substitute goalkeeper.

France - Spain should be an absolute cracker. I'm kind of rooting for France for a change. They're so complete and there's a lovely energy and joy about their team. Spain is damn good, but they just feel a bit boring and characterless. Somehow just very good, but not exciting at all.
 
ColourofFire said:
Spain is damn good, but they just feel a bit boring and characterless. Somehow just very good, but not exciting at all.
Click to expand...

Spain have been like that for 20 years. Hard to love no matter how good they are. They play like the great Barca team of 20 years ago but without a Ronaldinho or Messi to add the magic. Yamal should be that guy but he's not quite sparked as much as expected.

Spain vs France should be the final. It should be a cracker but has got 0-0 and them cancelling each other out written all over it. Maybe with it being the semi they'll be a bit more relaxed and we'll get a better game.
 
pmc100 said:
Spain have been like that for 20 years. Hard to love no matter how good they are. They play like the great Barca team of 20 years ago but without a Ronaldinho or Messi to add the magic. Yamal should be that guy but he's not quite sparked as much as expected.

Spain vs France should be the final. It should be a cracker but has got 0-0 and them cancelling each other out written all over it. Maybe with it being the semi they'll be a bit more relaxed and we'll get a better game.
Click to expand...
When they had people like Torres, Xavi, Puyol, Ramos, Villa and Iniesta they at least had some character. The team now are all just these kind of bland perfect son-in-law borelords. Williams and Lamal are the only ones that display some character and personality.
 
ColourofFire said:
I feel so bad for that substitute goalkeeper.

France - Spain should be an absolute cracker. I'm kind of rooting for France for a change. They're so complete and there's a lovely energy and joy about their team. Spain is damn good, but they just feel a bit boring and characterless. Somehow just very good, but not exciting at all.
Click to expand...
Being a backup keeper is a tough job. The worst is when they have to come in after a scuffle in the box to defend a penalty kick, cold off of the bench.
 
Norway-England should be a really interesting one. And a lot more even than the English think it will be.
Myself, I'm thrilled we've even made it to the quarter finals. But this England team is very beatable, to be honest. If our forwards are on it, it could be very fun.

That said, either team will probably lose to Argentina in the semi final - and France will win the whole thing. The French team is probably the most complete team I can remember seeing. They're just too good at pretty much everything.
 
pmc100 said:
Also, HAALAND SMASH!! :bigg:
Click to expand...
I loved his dad in Land of the Lost.

1783806413487.png
 
A question for those of you who watch a lot of international soccer/football regarding network coverage. I've noticed with the World Cup, Fox is using the same coverage format that they do for NFL football. That is, the panel usually consists of a woman that acts as the host to keep things on track, and a couple of former players or coaches to give their insights and opinions. Is that common for international coverage, or has Fox applied their template to it?
 
shoeless said:
A question for those of you who watch a lot of international soccer/football regarding network coverage. I've noticed with the World Cup, Fox is using the same coverage format that they do for NFL football. That is, the panel usually consists of a woman that acts as the host to keep things on track, and a couple of former players or coaches to give their insights and opinions. Is that common for international coverage, or has Fox applied their template to it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's pretty common. Usually some presenter, and a bunch of former players, sometimes a coach.

This WC they also had some (former)players with double nationality/roots from nations playing that day to give some more context about the football culture etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top