Really glad to see Henderson and the rest of the fakers out of the World Cup . Not all of the team are as unsportsmanlike but enough to make me sick. As far as the draw goes these teams beat the best to get where they are. I know people that lost money betting Germany and even Argentina . I expect nothing but a good game this Sunday . If not I'll check out the official tennis thread.
trollism wrote:
El Keniano wrote:
We're good at what we do, thanks. But it's been wonderful to watch you lot fall back to earth with a thud.
I'm not English champ, but thanks for playing.
What is it you do, win by cheating and evade the authorities? Good for Kenya.
I tell you what, I'm disappointed with the World Juniors though, although the age cheating is impressive, I'm not sure you're the best anymore.
No. We don't beat you because we're doping, but go ahead and use that excuse if it makes you feel better. It's just that Brits are naturally rubbish at running.
I thought it was cool that they kept singing our national anthem today just to mock trumppy. Kidding I know it's god save the queen
I usually don't go for girls from England but I have a crush on Kate Abdo. Not kidding.
El Keniano wrote:
Trying to contain myself but I'm ECSTATIC! Never been happier to see a team lose, what with all that tiresome "It's coming home" stuff they've been the've been foisting on the entire world? Torture!
Croatia (population 4.2 million) were technically superior in every way and thoroughly deserved to get to the final. England (not even a real country) had the kind of draw that they would've chosen themselves if given a chance to fix it. They got to the final beating such giants as Panama, Tunisia and Sweden but crumbled on the two occasions they met good teams in the Belgians and the Croats.
Change the song lyrics to "52 years of hurt" (and counting), disband England and start playing as the UK because you'll need the likes of Gareth Bale to have a realistic chance against any half decent team. As for the irritating haters on this site who've been trying to annoy me by accusing me of being a secret Brit, here's what I really feel: Tediously boring England should enjoy the meaningless third place playoff, otherwise, good riddance!
Hey, what is wrong with you guys. Why does everything have to be combative and nationality vs nationality?
Croatia won a tough game, and they deserve credit, but England were all over them in the first half. However, they scored first, and got comfortable, and played deep after that. They didn't keep their foot on the gas pedal, and couldn't get back in the game. There was nothing overrated about England's run. It was a good run, but playing not to lose derailed their journey, and that blame should be placed on the coach.
Come on, bro, lets show some good sportsmanship here from on a nationality level. I'm not a big France fan, and I hate the way they played football against Belgium, but their run has been pretty impressive.
Zizouuu wrote:
Scorpion_runner wrote:
fock'em bad sportsmanship and they play ugly football.
BS. Have you really watched France this tournament? They've been playing relatively clean and they've been dominant. They move the ball really well. There have been a good number of heel flick passes for flashiness.
Belgium had much harsher challenges than France yesterday. Croatia, was basically doing the same thing as France with the time wasting. The guy was injured and came off. Rakitic was trying to start a fight with Ali.
France fully deserve to win this. They haven't needed goals in stoppage time or extra time or penalties. Strong team.
I'm talking against Belgium. They were afraid to go toe-toe. Pogba played deep near the box to help keep the middle compact. They parked the bus. There is no ifs or ands about it, and they showed bad sportsmanship towards the end of that game. Look at the stats. They don't lie. Belgium dominated possession, and France wasn't even trying to put shots on goal. They scored on a set piece. They were just looking to counter off over intercepted balls, get a goal, and then just play in their half of the pitch.
vivalarepublica wrote:
Well, I didn't make all the right picks, but I have to goce myself credit for the pick of Croatia in the final:
https://imgur.com/gallery/tuJIYhH
I think a round of applause is appropriate:
"At recent world cups the team in the early rounds (pool play) that has impressed me and I have then called as favourites end up getting knocked out only to win next time, Spain in 2006, Germany 2010, France 2014, so by my warped logic France will win.
I'll support Belgium for some reason.
Watch out for England, just kidding." ?
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8854296The date 8th June
fdf wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
I only caught the OT but Croatia was clearly a cut above England there.
How is a tiny country with an unstable recent history so much better at soccer than England?
Because their players are Croatians, they didn't fill their team with African mercenaries like England did.
These players are proud to play for their country.
Yet, a country such as Poland, which has 10 times the population of Croatia, keep getting trashed at the WC every time they make it, despite being much more nationalistic.
Croatia is in because they have a great team...
One of the announcers during the national anthems said "they (the Croatian team) have legs that belong in the Tour de France..."
It was intended as a compliment to the team's apparent fitness and the distance their midfielders covered during the match.
Should we be asking harder questions of this team's fitness regimen? Are there substantial claims against them being 'Paneagua?'
To be clear, we have reason to doubt the host nation is clean, and the sport is not well monitored. The question would be if Croatia might be above and beyond the standard practice.
El Keniano wrote:
trollism wrote:
I'm not English champ, but thanks for playing.
What is it you do, win by cheating and evade the authorities? Good for Kenya.
I tell you what, I'm disappointed with the World Juniors though, although the age cheating is impressive, I'm not sure you're the best anymore.
No. We don't beat you because we're doping, but go ahead and use that excuse if it makes you feel better. It's just that Brits are naturally rubbish at running.
Why would they need to be good at running, when they are already good at soccer, the most lucrative sport out of all.
But they are.
Besides, the strongest running WR is still held by Paula Radcliffe, a British.
Scorpion_runner wrote:
El Keniano wrote:
Trying to contain myself but I'm ECSTATIC! Never been happier to see a team lose, what with all that tiresome "It's coming home" stuff they've been the've been foisting on the entire world? Torture!
Croatia (population 4.2 million) were technically superior in every way and thoroughly deserved to get to the final. England (not even a real country) had the kind of draw that they would've chosen themselves if given a chance to fix it. They got to the final beating such giants as Panama, Tunisia and Sweden but crumbled on the two occasions they met good teams in the Belgians and the Croats.
Change the song lyrics to "52 years of hurt" (and counting), disband England and start playing as the UK because you'll need the likes of Gareth Bale to have a realistic chance against any half decent team. As for the irritating haters on this site who've been trying to annoy me by accusing me of being a secret Brit, here's what I really feel: Tediously boring England should enjoy the meaningless third place playoff, otherwise, good riddance!
Hey, what is wrong with you guys. Why does everything have to be combative and nationality vs nationality?
Croatia won a tough game, and they deserve credit, but England were all over them in the first half. However, they scored first, and got comfortable, and played deep after that. They didn't keep their foot on the gas pedal, and couldn't get back in the game. There was nothing overrated about England's run. It was a good run, but playing not to lose derailed their journey, and that blame should be placed on the coach.
Come on, bro, lets show some good sportsmanship here from on a nationality level. I'm not a big France fan, and I hate the way they played football against Belgium, but their run has been pretty impressive.
Unfortunately it's a big ask for El Keniano.
Agreed that Croatia played a great game and deserved the win. England's midfield was rubbish and their complacency when they're ahead was unbearable.
headrolls wrote:
trollism wrote:
Are you suggesting being black makes you an 'African mercenary'?
RIP American sport.
I didn't realize blacks had English genetic heritage. Tell me more.
A lot of black people have European ancestry showing up in their DNA especially (for obvious reasons) the paternal line (Y chromosome test).
The Scot wrote:
headrolls wrote:
I didn't realize blacks had English genetic heritage. Tell me more.
A lot of black people have European ancestry showing up in their DNA especially (for obvious reasons) the paternal line (Y chromosome test).
Don't try to reason with him. The guy's IQ is lower than freshly mowed grass.
The Scot wrote:
headrolls wrote:
I didn't realize blacks had English genetic heritage. Tell me more.
A lot of black people have European ancestry showing up in their DNA especially (for obvious reasons) the paternal line (Y chromosome test).
True, a lot of the colonists mated with blacks back in the day. Don't think that's what this guy was trying to imply though.
Zizouuu wrote:
If you have the means, go to France for the final. If they win, the squares of the big cities will be full of people going crazy. Nothing like it.
I'll be in Paris.
I love Modric, but I'll be rooting for France.
return to index wrote:
Zizouuu wrote:
If you have the means, go to France for the final. If they win, the squares of the big cities will be full of people going crazy. Nothing like it.
I'll be in Paris.
I love Modric, but I'll be rooting for France.
Some of the French cities are extremely dangerous. Visit at your own risk.
dudewheresmycar wrote:
One of the announcers during the national anthems said "they (the Croatian team) have legs that belong in the Tour de France..."
It was intended as a compliment to the team's apparent fitness and the distance their midfielders covered during the match.
Should we be asking harder questions of this team's fitness regimen? Are there substantial claims against them being 'Paneagua?'
To be clear, we have reason to doubt the host nation is clean, and the sport is not well monitored. The question would be if Croatia might be above and beyond the standard practice.
I just assume that soccer is rife with doping and from there. It's entirely possible that Croatia is on some kind of sauce. All I care is that I'm entertained.
However, England had a greater distance traveled in the game by 3 miles, for what that stat is worth. The top overachieving team, Russia, absolutely dominated that statistic throughout the tourney. In the early part of the game, I thought England was going too hard and would not be able to keep up that pace. I think Croatia may have conserved their energy better than England. They slowed down the pace when holding possession, going more side to side than up and down, which can be a sort of active rest. In the 2nd half and extra time, Croatia did a better job of timing their runs to create opportunities. Perhaps this was an product of wasting less energy in the first part of the game.
And Croatia's goals were both poacher-type goals that didn't exactly come from a lightening counter attack. Peresic and Mandzukic both reacted well, got in position, and finished to score their goals. It's not like they were launching wave after wave of counter attacks. I think Croatia won the small battles better than England and a lot of that has to do with more technically skilled players at certain positions.
Finally, one of England's weak points had to be their difficulty with creating scoring opportunities in the run on play against a quality team. Against Belgium, Colombia, and Croatia, they looked flat on the attack. Outside of set plays, the midfield seemed to have trouble creating opportunities and getting the ball to Harry Kane. That was completely obvious against Croatia, whose midfield put on a clinic.
Next time somebody will tell that teams such as France, England or Belgium are "filled with african mercenaries", show them this picture (it lists the number of player born overseas for each country in the WC) :
These teams have, in fact, have the least number of players born abroad. These countries don't need to import anything, they just have to look in their suburbs. Football in Europe is NOT an upper or even middle class sport. Most of the time, you don't have to "PAY for PLAY".
In fact, you could even tell that most african teams are filled with mercenaries. Look at Morrocco, their whole team was born either in France or the Netherlands. You have to remember that most of these players decide to play for the country of their parents simply because they weren't good enough to make the team in the European country of their birth . It is for most of them, a DEFAULT choice.
(yes, there is also a financial aspect, as in Football, nationalty somewhat defines your marketability, wages and transfer prices, English players are notoriously overpriced in the market).
In 2014, Algeria made it to 1/8 (for the 1st time) with a team where players were all almost born in France.
There are 1 million Algerians in France, and 50 millions in Algeria. How did they ended up with a team filled with player coming exclusively from the (much) smaller pool ?
It is very easy : better infrastructure, better coaching, better nutrition, better talent detection, better anything you want
When, I spoke about the financial aspect, I meant that it is much more financial rwarding to play for an European than an african country, so that is why some people speaks about mercenaries
counter example wrote:
Next time somebody will tell that teams such as France, England or Belgium are "filled with african mercenaries", show them this picture (it lists the number of player born overseas for each country in the WC) :
https://i.redditmedia.com/BYzZpCW8DtsYao8DYYiY_47pE3TXKrrqXRZGfB1VMms.jpg?fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&arh=2&w=960&s=91c8dfb7c175d03340e71d725b8def0aThese teams have, in fact, have the least number of players born abroad. These countries don't need to import anything, they just have to look in their suburbs. Football in Europe is NOT an upper or even middle class sport. Most of the time, you don't have to "PAY for PLAY".
In fact, you could even tell that most african teams are filled with mercenaries. Look at Morrocco, their whole team was born either in France or the Netherlands. You have to remember that most of these players decide to play for the country of their parents simply because they weren't good enough to make the team in the European country of their birth . It is for most of them, a DEFAULT choice.
(yes, there is also a financial aspect, as in Football, nationalty somewhat defines your marketability, wages and transfer prices, English players are notoriously overpriced in the market).
In 2014, Algeria made it to 1/8 (for the 1st time) with a team where players were all almost born in France.
There are 1 million Algerians in France, and 50 millions in Algeria. How did they ended up with a team filled with player coming exclusively from the (much) smaller pool ?
It is very easy : better infrastructure, better coaching, better nutrition, better talent detection, better anything you want
Let's not confuse the "African mercenaries" argument with anything logical and well substantiated. The people that make this argument just don't like black people playing for traditionally white countries. They don't seem to have any concern with Frenchman composing a significant share of the rosters of African teams or the diaspora from the Balkan countries. As if race, nationality, ethnicity have ever been cut and dry issues.
Teams like Iceland have made it very obvious: with the right development and support system, a country can create a successful football culture. We can also see in track and field how athletes from Africa can flourish with the resources of the Gulf countries, but would flounder if they had to rely on their native athletics federations.
vivalarepublica wrote:
Finally, one of England's weak points had to be their difficulty with creating scoring opportunities in the run on play against a quality team. Against Belgium, Colombia, and Croatia, they looked flat on the attack. Outside of set plays, the midfield seemed to have trouble creating opportunities and getting the ball to Harry Kane. That was completely obvious against Croatia, whose midfield put on a clinic.
Southgate did not help England in the second half. He was essentially playing 1 ok central midfielder (Henderson) against 2 of the best central midfielders in the world (Modric & Rakitic).
Dele Ali and Lingard were hopeless and should have been taken off. Couldn't get on the ball, and couldn't stop Croatia from keeping the ball. Neither of them are central midfielders and that is obvious to anyone who has watched them.
Bringing on Dier and possibly Delph would have helped England make the midfield battle more even. Instead, Southgate continued with England's 3-3-2-2 which was badly exposed in central midfield.
It was bizarre to see the only sub he made was Rashford for Sterling in regular time. Rashford barely touched the ball and Southgate just stood there and watched England's midfield get completely dominated.
