counter example wrote:
El Keniano wrote:
The problem with France is that even children of immigrants born in France have a problem identifying with France over their parents' home countries. Zinedine Zidane famously refused to play in a friendly for France against Algeria.
That is simply untrue, there has been only one France vs Algeria game, it was in 2001, and Zidane was on the field. Please, stop spreading falsehoods
Zidane was NOT on the field.
https://www.11v11.com/matches/france-v-algeria-06-october-2001-270609/El Keniano wrote:
counter example wrote:
That is simply untrue, there has been only one France vs Algeria game, it was in 2001, and Zidane was on the field. Please, stop spreading falsehoods
Zidane was NOT on the field.
george oscar bluth wrote:
https://www.11v11.com/matches/france-v-algeria-06-october-2001-270609/El Keniano wrote:
Zidane was NOT on the field.
Lol.
El Keniano wrote:
counter example wrote:
That is simply untrue, there has been only one France vs Algeria game, it was in 2001, and Zidane was on the field. Please, stop spreading falsehoods
Zidane was NOT on the field.
I was just coming back to apologise and admit that I was wrong and Zidane was on the field on the day the Algerians rioted. But I distinctly remember him saying he would never do it again.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/apr/04/sport.featuresEl Keniano wrote:
I was just coming back to apologise and admit that I was wrong and Zidane was on the field on the day the Algerians rioted. But I distinctly remember him saying he would never do it again.
Of course he would never do it again. They didn't play again. How could he be on the field for a match that wasn't contested?
El Keniano wrote:
El Keniano wrote:
Zidane was NOT on the field.
I was just coming back to apologise and admit that I was wrong and Zidane was on the field on the day the Algerians rioted. But I distinctly remember him saying he would never do it again.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/apr/04/sport.features
Thank you for admitting being wrong.
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
Morocco has Moroccans in their team, it doesn't matter if they were born abroad, they still identify (a word leftists love!) as Moroccan.
The players in the French team are African mercenaries and not French, because they don't identify as French, often barely speak the French language and hate the French culture, they are just in it for the money.
post nups wrote:
Having a national team comprised of a bunch of guys born in your country isn't "bringing in mercenaries". You can try to spin it however you like, but it isn't.
QFE
post nups wrote:
post nups wrote:
Having a national team comprised of a bunch of guys born in your country isn't "bringing in mercenaries". You can try to spin it however you like, but it isn't.
QFE
If you keep quoting yourself enough maybe you'll actually believe it.
Reality is real wrote:
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.
I would like to get back on track rather than egg on the casual racists.
England's midfield simply did not have the quality to match up with the best teams in this tournament and it was going to show at some point. Guys like Dele Alli, Henderson, Lingard, and an over-the-hill Ashley Young simply do not have the skill to compete with Modric, Rakitic, and Perisic. Even if England went to their bench or used a different line-up, I dont think they matched up well. They struggled to create chances from midfield against the better teams through the whole tournament.
But I do think that Southgate did a lot to get the most out of the talent that he had. He set a good tone after years of lackluster England results and I think England can be considered a favorite for Euro 2020. They do need to figure out that midfield situation so they can get more goals from the run of play rather than relying on set pieces and lobbing the ball to Harry Kane.
vivalarepublica wrote:
Reality is real wrote:
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.
I would like to get back on track rather than egg on the casual racists.
England's midfield simply did not have the quality to match up with the best teams in this tournament and it was going to show at some point. Guys like Dele Alli, Henderson, Lingard, and an over-the-hill Ashley Young simply do not have the skill to compete with Modric, Rakitic, and Perisic. Even if England went to their bench or used a different line-up, I dont think they matched up well. They struggled to create chances from midfield against the better teams through the whole tournament.
But I do think that Southgate did a lot to get the most out of the talent that he had. He set a good tone after years of lackluster England results and I think England can be considered a favorite for Euro 2020. They do need to figure out that midfield situation so they can get more goals from the run of play rather than relying on set pieces and lobbing the ball to Harry Kane.
Definitely agree that England struggled to create chances in open play. The problem with playing Ali and Lingard is they are not central midfielders. They are basically second strikers. Both play in very advanced positions for their clubs. This left England with virtually 4 forwards on the pitch and only Henderson in the midfield. Against weak opposition like Panama and Tunisia this was ok, and Sweden were a long ball team who bypassed the midfield. But against Croatia it was bizarre (especially in the second half) to see England essentially playing with 1 central midfielder. Henderson was trying to do the work of 3 players, and Ali/Lingard were essentially passengers. England couldn't keep the ball in midfield, and when they did have the ball Ali and Lingard gave it away. Southgate should have seen this and brought on Dier/Delph or RLC. At 1-0 up, England needed to overload the midfield and get tight to Modric and Rakitic. Instead, Southgate just let Croatia have free reign of the midfield for 75 minutes.
Croatia's midfield is better than England's, but in the second half yesterday England literally *didn't have* a midfield. A wide open 3-3-2-2 was not the way to go with a 1-0 lead against a team with a strong midfield.
Say what you will about parking the bus. France have looked in control even when they haven't had most of the possession in the game.
The last three WC Final matches, 2006, 2010, 2014, have basically been decided with the help of some luck, although the better team probably won in each of these. I hope that France wins with authority. Don't let it get into extra time or penalties, because Croatia are in ET/Pen God mode.
Reality is real wrote:
The 3rd place game usually has a lot of goals. Hard to say how seriously the teams take it, but there are always goals in this game, especially compared to the final.
I believe in the last ten 3rd place games, there has been 3+ goals scored in all of them.
The winner of the golden boot (Kane is leading) is often a factor in these games too.
Cool, thanks. I'll probably try to make time to watch.
trollism wrote:
Big Rigs in Nice wrote:
Nah, I’d feel safer in Iraq.
Given you've never been to France or Iraq, how are you qualified to decide where you'd feel safer?
Never been to the sun or the Marianas Trench either, but I can surmise that both are dangerous.
another point of counterpoint wrote:
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
Well, it is a fact that half or more of the players playing on the French team who were born in France are not indeed French. Why is it such a problem for some to understand that? The Morocco team was not filled with French or Dutch. They were filled with Moroccans who were born in France or Holland. The Senegal team does not have Frenchman playing on their team, they have Senegalese playing on their team that were born in France. You can go on down the list. Rakitic is a Croatian who was born in Switzerland and is playing for Croatia. Milos Veljkovic is a Serbian who was born in Switzerland who is playing for - you guessed it..Serbia! Makes sense doesn't it? You have Xherdan Shaqiri. He was born in Kosovo and is a Kosovo Albanian. He is however not playing for Kosovo nor Albania, but he is playing for Switzerland. He is still Albanian. Do you see how this works?
I know that you're trolling, but do you know that almost all of the white players aren't French by your definition? Griezmann (Alsatian/German and Portuguese), Lloris (Catalan), Giroud (Italian and French), Hernandez (Spanish), Thauvin (Not sure about him, but one of his names is Mariano, which is not French). So nobody on the French team is French by your definition.
France is at the center of Europe. It's very common for people to have mixed backgrounds because of this. The French nation is relatively new and made up of regions that could have been their own countries with their own languages (Brittany, Occitania, Savoie, Pays Basque, Nice, Corsica).
In the past, people in Europe could go wherever they wanted. For example, Greeks and Italians settled in the South of France and Corsica. So the idea that people are pure X is kind of false. It just happens that they eventually adopted French last names eventually. It's been said that at the beginning of the 1900s (or for sure the 1800s) most French didn't speak French as a first language. Wrap your head around that.
By your logic, only Native Americans (aboriginals) would be the only Americans. And most of American sports teams would basically have no Americans.
Big Rigs in Nice wrote:
trollism wrote:
Given you've never been to France or Iraq, how are you qualified to decide where you'd feel safer?
Never been to the sun or the Marianas Trench either, but I can surmise that both are dangerous.
Another troll. The murder rate in the US is higher than in France. Texas has double the murders of France despite having less than half the population. The US is more dangerous compared to Europe or a lot of East Asian countries.
If you'd feel safer in Iraq, then you should go there. I went to Nice a month after the attack and it was fine. By the way, the US and Bush basically created this Isis mess by invading Iraq. No Iraq invasion, no Isis. Do you remember that France opposed it? Do you remember Americans dumping wine and calling French Fries 'Freedom Fries'? A couple trillion dollars that could have been spent intriguing the country, instead ending up in the hands of defense contractors and war criminal mercenaries (Blackwater and Erik Prince). Plus crimes like the Haditha Massacre ( US Marines raping a girl and killing her and her family. 24 people: "Among the dead were men, women, children and elderly people, who were shot multiple times at close range while unarmed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre) and Abu Ghraib (inspired Isis to make death videos with victims in Orange jumpsuits).
Where is the thanks to France for fighting in Afghanistan? Instead, Russian asset Trump is saying that Nato hasn't been paying it's fair share. Just to have sound bytes for his base.
*improving the country rather than intriguing
Bus driveur wrote:
another point of counterpoint wrote:
Well, it is a fact that half or more of the players playing on the French team who were born in France are not indeed French. Why is it such a problem for some to understand that? The Morocco team was not filled with French or Dutch. They were filled with Moroccans who were born in France or Holland. The Senegal team does not have Frenchman playing on their team, they have Senegalese playing on their team that were born in France. You can go on down the list. Rakitic is a Croatian who was born in Switzerland and is playing for Croatia. Milos Veljkovic is a Serbian who was born in Switzerland who is playing for - you guessed it..Serbia! Makes sense doesn't it? You have Xherdan Shaqiri. He was born in Kosovo and is a Kosovo Albanian. He is however not playing for Kosovo nor Albania, but he is playing for Switzerland. He is still Albanian. Do you see how this works?
I know that you're trolling, but do you know that almost all of the white players aren't French by your definition? Griezmann (Alsatian/German and Portuguese), Lloris (Catalan), Giroud (Italian and French), Hernandez (Spanish), Thauvin (Not sure about him, but one of his names is Mariano, which is not French). So nobody on the French team is French by your definition.
France is at the center of Europe. It's very common for people to have mixed backgrounds because of this. The French nation is relatively new and made up of regions that could have been their own countries with their own languages (Brittany, Occitania, Savoie, Pays Basque, Nice, Corsica).
In the past, people in Europe could go wherever they wanted. For example, Greeks and Italians settled in the South of France and Corsica. So the idea that people are pure X is kind of false. It just happens that they eventually adopted French last names eventually. It's been said that at the beginning of the 1900s (or for sure the 1800s) most French didn't speak French as a first language. Wrap your head around that.
By your logic, only Native Americans (aboriginals) would be the only Americans. And most of American sports teams would basically have no Americans.
I think you're trying too hard to look smart but you're failing at it. I don't think it was mentioned anywhere that the white players in France where all French either, am I wrong? Like you said, France is at the center of Europe and some of those bordering tribal lands intermixed with others, and some had their own languages, and it was a group of distinct states that formed France, and in the end it becomes a simple matter to deduce that those groups of folks that settled there and took hold of the land are THE collective French. Not someone that came from Papua New guinea 20 years ago, not someone from Siberia...it was those collective tribes now known as the French that are....the French!! Try wrapping your head around that.
Don't obfuscate crap with some native American parallel. It doesn't compare.
Hey, I need you guys to get the fock out of my thread with your partial and irreverent commentary about race, culture and nationality. If you want to have a discussion about the history and origin of a particular ethnicity/culture, then create a specific thread about it. This is a World Cup soccer thread, with a focus on the games of the World Cup and the players of the World Cup.
People live on earth, and all land is attached to earth, and soccer is played on earth. Everything else is irrelevant.
Can this nationalist garbage go elsewhere? Like a Coevett thread? Let's talk about football. Or soccer, for the Yanks.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
