Football 18/19

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, mjsell said:

I mean I predicted 2nd in the group and out to Colombia pre-tournament so now the only way is up on my predictions. 

I see it as a 60/40 in England’s favour match, whoever wins the match will be marginal favourites in the quarters as well.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, mjsell said:

I heard a kiwi guy in my office yesterday discussing how England have been one of the best teams of tournament. It was the first time I'd ever heard a non English person talking about an England world cup team like that before. 

Kiwis know jack shit about football though so hey ho

I think it’s difficult to make any assessment about England or Belgium when neither has had a proper game. Don’t know if that’s an advantage or disadvantage moving into the knockout.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, Gucci Piggy said:

Also I was saying a couple of nights ago that, for me, the ideal outcome of tonight would be to play our reserves and hope to end up finishing second (I know that we weren't gonna actively try to lose or whatever, and it isn't what the players would want, but as a fan hoping for us to progress as far as possible it's what I saw as ideal). That way we'd get the easier bracket and not have the confidence hit of losing a game (because none of our actual players will have been playing).

Colombia ending up top of their group ruined that a little bit (how good would we be feeling now if Japan had got the win and topped their group?), but I'm still happy enough with it. Colombia are a good side but they're very definitely beatable. They were totally outplayed in the first half against Senegal today.

The thing is all the other teams in that quarter/half will feel the same. Spain probably think they have won the lottery.

[mjsell]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Although my argument would be that Brazil are more beatable in the quarters than the final.

Getting to a semi final would be considered an acheivement for England, anything further than that shouldnt be under consideration (some argue that anything further than R16 shouldnt be) - Avoiding Brazil in the quarters gives our chances of achieving a semi final appearance a boost.

Your point about brazil being easier to beat in the quarters is irrelevent unless your expectation is to win the whole thing.

[Gucci Piggy]

18 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The thing is all the other teams in that quarter/half will feel the same. Spain probably think they have won the lottery.

Oh of course, I don't deny that, but I'd still rather be in the easier half.

[TheGayTent]

2 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

This “easy” side of the draw means we still have to beat Colombia, Spain and Brazil to win the thing.

Nope. No likely there 

[kaosmark2]

33 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Yep. He is hugely influential for his country. Cuadrado and Falcao can't be underestimated either.

I noticed a lot of rolling around from their lads in their second group game. Going down easily. Playing for fouls etc. We'll need to play smart to have a chance of getting through. I think with a full strength team, we should be capable of holding our own. 

A day off from football tomorrow and then back at it on Saturday. I expect at least one huge upset tbh! Looking forward to it.

Quintero is quality as well. 4 very classy attacking players and a couple of solid CBs. Ospina's probably as good a keeper as Pickford as well (which says more about my opinion of Pickford than anything).

Going to be really weird not watching football tomorrow.

[pink_triangle]

45 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Getting to a semi final would be considered an acheivement for England, anything further than that shouldnt be under consideration (some argue that anything further than R16 shouldnt be) - Avoiding Brazil in the quarters gives our chances of achieving a semi final appearance a boost.

Your point about brazil being easier to beat in the quarters is irrelevent unless your expectation is to win the whole thing.

I think half the teams left in the tournament will feel they can win the whole thing. History says they can’t, but an outsider is bound to win one day.

I think judging success/failure on what round you reach is a little (although I agree it’s how it will be spun) simplistic, it is hugely dependent on the draw. I wouldn’t say Germany had a hugely successful World Cup finishing second in 2002.

[mjsell]

12 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think half the teams left in the tournament will feel they can win the whole thing. History says they can’t, but an outsider is bound to win one day.

I think judging success/failure on what round you reach is a little (although I agree it’s how it will be spun) simplistic, it is hugely dependent on the draw. I wouldn’t say Germany had a hugely successful World Cup finishing second in 2002.

Are you saying performaces are more important than results when judging success?

If England play terribly for the remainder of the tournament but make a semi final or final I couldnt care less - that's an acheivement in my books.

When Portugal won the Euros they were nowhere near the best side - but they won it. When Greece won it in 2004 are you saying it wasnt a success because they played defensively and got a substantial amount of luck?

I get that some teams will have easier routes and some have to go through more difficult teams to get to the same stage. But if it results in a final or a win then its a success no matter what in my books. World cup is about the end result.

Edited June 28, 2018 by mjsell

[pink_triangle]

51 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Are you saying performaces are more important than results when judging success?

If England play terribly for the remainder of the tournament but make a semi final or final I couldnt care less - that's an acheivement in my books.

When Portugal won the Euros they were nowhere near the best side - but they won it. When Greece won it in 2004 are you saying it wasnt a success because they played defensively and got a substantial amount of luck?

I get that some teams will have easier routes and some have to go through more difficult teams to get to the same stage. But if it results in a final or a win then its a success no matter what in my books. World cup is about the end result.

 I think if you end up winning a trophy then performances are irrelevant. My argument is that I don’t think that a team who gets further in a competition has necessarily been more successful than one who went out a round earlier. I don’t think Germany had a more successful World Cup than England in 2002, I just think they had the luck to avoid the best team for 2 rounds longer. If Germany had played Brazil 2 rounds earlier and lost, I would have rated their tournament similar to how it eventually played out.

All this talk about judging success as getting to a certain round is simplistic. You can win your group and then find yourself in round 2 knocked out by the top team who finished second as they played their reserves in the last group stage. You can alternatively have the draw open up and play a load of lower ranked teams. I think you judge thr tournament as a whole to get context.

Edited June 28, 2018 by pink_triangle

[mjsell]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

 I think if you end up winning a trophy then performances are irrelevant. 

Why does it only become irrelevant if you win the whole thing?

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

 All this talk about judging success as getting to a certain round is simplistic. You can win your group and then find yourself in round 2 knocked out by the top team who finished second as they played their reserves in the last group stage. You can alternatively have the draw open up and play a load of lower ranked teams. I think you judge thr tournament as a whole to get context.

I guess we just have differing definitions of success. I keep luck and results more separate than you do. I like to see success in a more binary sense in terms of overall result. 

I would say Germany were more successful than England in 2002 despite having a lower performance level and being luckier.

I guess for me its the same way as when a team wins the league that I don't necessarily believe were the best throughout the season - perhaps because of lucky decisions or mistakes. At the end of the season no matter who wins the league I still see them as the most successful.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, jyoung said:

TAA's delivery has been awful all game which is disappointing as I thought that was one of his strengths.

yeah, me too. He was just about perfect with every delivery in the friendly he played. It was 50% or less last night.

I didn't think he did badly overall tho, and seemed to cover his defensive duties well.

11 hours ago, mjsell said:

Yep the only ones that really had a chance were Rashford, Rose and Delph. All of those have actually played their way out of contention for me. 

(Rose has been a bit better going forward than Young but has looked sloppy defensively)

Rose is the only player i'd promote after last night. I thought he brought much more down the left than Young does.

He was at fault for the goal, tho it might also be pointed out that the 'proper' left back had gone missing (was it still Cahill at the time? I think so) - so I'm not holding that against him too much.

[zahidf]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yeah, me too. He was just about perfect with every delivery in the friendly he played. It was 50% or less last night.

I didn't think he did badly overall tho, and seemed to cover his defensive duties well.

Rose is the only player i'd promote after last night. I thought he brought much more down the left than Young does.

He was at fault for the goal, tho it might also be pointed out that the 'proper' left back had gone missing (was it still Cahill at the time? I think so) - so I'm not holding that against him too much.

yeah Cahill. Saying that, cahill did do that goal line clearance at the 9th minute. 

Rose was almost kneeling for that goal: that is pretty rubbish on his part. I think thatll be it for his world cup barring injuries

i dont think rashford did anything to show he should play in the next game over Sterling. 

Ditto dier: henderson should be first choice for however long!

[pink_triangle]

5 hours ago, mjsell said:

Why does it only become irrelevant if you win the whole thing?

I think if you win the whole thing you have won (via the game or penalties) every knockout game. The runner up on occasions gives the winner a less difficult match than the team who the winner beat in the second round.  In some cases this is just the luck of the draw in avoiding the eventual winner for a while

In theory yesterday England could have had a route to the semi final of Japan and then Sweden. I wouldn't automatically say that a team. In a parallel universe they could have ended up (with a completely different draw) beating a big team in the second round and losing to one in the quarters. I wouldn't automatically assume the former is more successful than the latter.

5 hours ago, mjsell said:

 

I guess for me its the same way as when a team wins the league that I don't necessarily believe were the best throughout the season - perhaps because of lucky decisions or mistakes. At the end of the season no matter who wins the league I still see them as the most successful. 

 

The league is slightly different though in terms of how everyone plays everyone.  It reduces the influence of luck, although doesn't eliminate it completely.  You cant get an easy draw in terms of winning the league.

[pink_triangle]

My view of the second half of the draw is while Spain are more likely to get to the final than any of the other 7 teams, I still see them with a below 50% chance of getting to the final. Therefore there is a big change that one of England, Columbia, Croatia or Russia will end up in the world cup final. 

[Ted Dansons Wig]

8 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

 I think if you end up winning a trophy then performances are irrelevant. My argument is that I don’t think that a team who gets further in a competition has necessarily been more successful than one who went out a round earlier. I don’t think Germany had a more successful World Cup than England in 2002, I just think they had the luck to avoid the best team for 2 rounds longer. If Germany had played Brazil 2 rounds earlier and lost, I would have rated their tournament similar to how it eventually played out.

All this talk about judging success as getting to a certain round is simplistic. You can win your group and then find yourself in round 2 knocked out by the top team who finished second as they played their reserves in the last group stage. You can alternatively have the draw open up and play a load of lower ranked teams. I think you judge thr tournament as a whole to get context.

1990 we were shite to varying degrees all the way through and were lucky against most teams (particularly Belgium and Cameroon) but we had a good draw and found ourselves in the semis. Yet this is remembered as the best world cup we've had since 1966. 

Grab whatever advantage you can and stay in there as long as you can. Thats what defines the tournament for England. We get to the semis - they come home stars.

[jyoung]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

My view of the second half of the draw is while Spain are more likely to get to the final than any of the other 7 teams, I still see them with a below 50% chance of getting to the final. Therefore there is a big change that one of England, Columbia, Croatia or Russia will end up in the world cup final. 

Yep. Exactly. We've seen that anything can happen and Spain, like many of the top sides, have not showed a cutting edge. Time will tell!

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

 yeah Cahill. Saying that, cahill did do that goal line clearance at the 9th minute. 

Cahill was our best player for me. I know there wasn't much to pick from but thought both himself and Loftus Cheek did a decent job. Definitely aware that nobody was particularly 'good enough' though, so it is lucky we didn't need to be.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yeah, me too. He was just about perfect with every delivery in the friendly he played. It was 50% or less last night.

I didn't think he did badly overall tho, and seemed to cover his defensive duties well.

Yeah he did alight for a 19 year old on only his second cap, playing in a World Cup game. Trippier had been our best player in the first two matches so big shoes to fill.

[TheGayTent]

34 minutes ago, Ted Dansons Wig said:

1990 we were shite to varying degrees all the way through and were lucky against most teams (particularly Belgium and Cameroon) but we had a good draw and found ourselves in the semis. Yet this is remembered as the best world cup we've had since 1966. 

Grab whatever advantage you can and stay in there as long as you can. Thats what defines the tournament for England. We get to the semis - they come home stars.

The difference in those days was that ‘we’ liked the team. It’s also why there’s been a lot of positivity around this team - there’s few, if any, divisive and unlikeable characters.  Unlike most of the major tournaments between 90 and now. 

We played better in 86 than 90, but a side that is penalty kicks away from a World Cup final is always going to be remembered highly when the team has only once gone further. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by TheGayTent

[Hugh Jass]

Surely success has to be measured against expectation?

Brazil/France/Germany/Spain have all turned up expecting to win the tournament, anything less than the final will be seen as failure (Germany by any measure have had a disastrous tournament). Conversely a poll in Japan showed 90% of people did not expect them to get out the group, whatever happens from here on they will consider this tournament successful.

In England's case the consensus per-tournament was that reaching the Quarters would be a decent return based on the squad and draw. Now considering how the tournament has progressed you could argue that expectations have shifted and there's no longer that middle "decent" ground. Reaching the semi or beyond would be considered great, not getting that far would be considered a disappointment.

[jyoung]

In other news, it looks like Russia's Golovin is moving from CSKA to Chelsea.

[ThomThomDrum]

9 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I don’t think Germany had a more successful World Cup than England in 2002, I just think they had the luck to avoid the best team for 2 rounds longer.

Germany had a more "successful" group stage finishing top of theirs thus in theory giving them the easier path forward. England however came second in their group and so had to play the big boys earlier. In that context I would say Germany had a more successful WC to England "4 shure". 

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, zahidf said:

i dont think rashford did anything to show he should play in the next game over Sterling. 

nor do I - tho he wasn't worse than Sterling's been all the same.

 

2 hours ago, zahidf said:

Ditto dier: henderson should be first choice for however long!

Dier was ... erm .... dire.

[ThomThomDrum]

I thought there was too many changes in the English set up to properly judge if someone deserved the call up for the next game or not, irrespective if they had performed or not.

I felt it would have been wise for Southgate to play the first 11 minus the few positions he felt there was some genuine competition and questions to be addressed/answered. 

But like Martinez he chose to conserve and protect the first 11 and there is very little wrong with doing that. 

[zahidf]

 

[TheGayTent]

38 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I thought there was too many changes in the English set up to properly judge if someone deserved the call up for the next game or not, irrespective if they had performed or not.

I felt it would have been wise for Southgate to play the first 11 minus the few positions he felt there was some genuine competition and questions to be addressed/answered. 

But like Martinez he chose to conserve and protect the first 11 and there is very little wrong with doing that. 

Most sensible post of the week