Subway Surfers wrote:
Scorpion_runner wrote:
This tournament is wide open, but Belgium looks good, and I still like England.
Brasil is Brasil.
WE shall see.
Did England deliberately lose?
Yes. They didn't go for the win, and were not really pressing or attacking. There were a couple of chances here and there, but nothing threatening. Belgium's 2nd unit wanted the win, which was evident in the celebration after they scored. Belgium could have scored 3 goals, but they weren't clinical enough.
Hell , Fellani looked like a top 5 midfielder in that game.
Belgium just looks really seasoned. They came into the 2014 WC as a very young ,talented side, lacking experience, so they failed because of it . Hazard was 23. Lukaku was 21, and the team was just very young. But now, after going through that, plus dealing with euro 2016 as a young team, they are mature and bright in their abilities. England and France still lack experience to me, because both teams have quite a few young players : Stones, Kane, Sterling, Loftus Cheek, Rashford, Dele Alli for England.
I think players become mature for a World Cup title run around the ages of 25-27. However, the problem with that is, that is the same reason why it is so difficult to repeat as champions. Those players who win it at the aforementioned age become
old during the 4 year duration until the next World Cup. They go into the next world cup at the age of 30/31, and the next generation of players are too young, so the cycle starts all over again, and the team has to wait until those young players become seasoned.
It's damn near impossible to repeat as champions.