Originally posted by Insane Titan
so you think a couple of players is the same as the full Colombian team who fell over every time they was touched.Like I said your bitterness shines through every time 馃槀
Nope, and I never said that either.
I know you really want an argument about this, but making shit up isn't the way to go about it.
Originally posted by -Pr-馃槀 so saying England trying to beat Colombia at diving means what exactly? Other than they started going down to easy.
Nope, and I never said that either.I know you really want an argument about this, but making shit up isn't the way to go about it.
No argument to be had, your bitterness comes through everytime you talk about England. It has done for years with back handed compliments etc.
Originally posted by Insane Titan
馃槀 so saying England trying to beat Colombia at diving means what exactly? Other than they started going down to easy.No argument to be had, your bitterness comes through everytime you talk about England. It has done for years with back handed compliments etc.
Literally that, that they shouldn't have sunk to the Colombian level. Nothing more.
Dude, don't lie. If you have to make shit up just to feel like you have an argument when you double down, then so be it, but don't expect me to play along.
Originally posted by samhain
Only Brazil were far and away the better team in the last 16. Every other team pretty much scraped through.
I was impressed with Uruguay too, and Belgium at times.
Originally posted by -Pr-sinking to their lvl would diving everytime they got touched or niggling at every opportunity and completing to the ref with every secession
Literally that, that they shouldn't have sunk to the Colombian level. Nothing more.Dude, don't lie. If you have to make shit up just to feel like you have an argument when you double down, then so be it, but don't expect me to play along.
I was impressed with Uruguay too, and Belgium at times.
The only person lying is you as per normal. But please make up what excuse you want to cover your tracks.
Originally posted by samhain
Only Brazil were far and away the better team in the last 16. Every other team pretty much scraped through.
i think france presented a very strong game. argentina came together but it simply wasnt enough. auruguai was a strong team as well. however, both teams relied on strong defence and burst attacks. no midfield control. will be interesting to see the 2 teams playing. brazil vs belgium will be a very strong game as well.
Originally posted by samhain
Only Brazil were far and away the better team in the last 16. Every other team pretty much scraped through.
I guess every team showed that they can be 'got at' to a certain extent might be a better way of saying it. Everyone except Brazil will have given their next opponents something to look at and possibly exploit.
Originally posted by Dareangel
i think france presented a very strong game. argentina came together but it simply wasnt enough. auruguai was a strong team as well. however, both teams relied on strong defence and burst attacks. no midfield control. will be interesting to see the 2 teams playing. brazil vs belgium will be a very strong game as well.
France played well don't get me wrong, I'd make them 2nd favourites, but it's worth remembering they conceded 3 to a poor Argentina team, without Mbappe's 2 goals they would have went out. Don't usually make those kinds of points, after all, if Mbappe didn't play then someone else would have and who knows how many they would have scored or how they would have influenced the game.
Originally posted by samhain
France played well don't get me wrong, I'd make them 2nd favourites, but it's worth remembering they conceded 3 to a poor Argentina team, without Mbappe's 2 goals they would have went out. Don't usually make those kinds of points, after all, if Mbappe didn't play then someone else would have and who knows how many they would have scored or how they would have influenced the game.
argentina scored 3 goals because as i pointed out, they came together and played well. i admit argentina played poorly in almost all its games. but in this one, they were not at their best, but good. however, they looked poorly because they didnt have the athletism to deal with the younger french players who ran too fast for them, which allowed france to initiate succesful burst attacks. saying that without Mbape france would lose doesnt mean much, because the fact he IS playing. its like saying back in the day that the brazilian team wouldnt be so good without ronaldo and ronaldinho playing. yes and? but they are playing and so is Mbape.
But i have to say, we should wait until we treat Mbape like a star. he did so well because he faced a team that couldnt outrun him, or at least catch up with him. however, uruguai are at better shape. today we will see how Mbape can play when the other team also has athletic players that can catch up with him.
Belgium v France tomorrow. Belgium were frankly awesome against Brazil, and if they play that well against France, I could see them going through. France have done well to get where they are, but I think they're relying a bit too much on Mbappe and a couple of others, and they've suffered with a lacklustre Pogba in midfield.
I honestly can see England beating Croatia. Colombia were not great against them, but England made them pay for it as they should have. Same with Sweden. I expect Croatia to be a tougher foe, but if England can remain as dangerous at dead balls and crosses as they have so far, they can do it. I still think Henderson is a massive liability and playing Sterling as forward is a mistake, but it hasn't cost them dearly yet.
This world cup has been crazy, I don't see it happening but if Belgium and Croatia are in the final it'll be the first time since 1934 that two teams have been in the final for the first time. Right now I think France are favourites, but I've said Argentina/Brazil/Spain would win it so who knows. Just hope England don't win it now.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I still think Henderson is a massive liability and playing Sterling as forward is a mistake, but it hasn't cost them dearly yet.
Henderson was immense against Sweden, completely ran the show but people will go on about him missing a penalty against Columbia which goes back to what I said earlier about him only getting noticed when he screws up.
Agree on Sterling though, all he's done so far is display incredible pace and poor finishing, I'd give Rashford a go. Then again Sterling does make defenders nervy when he's on the ball. It's almost worth it for that alone.
Originally posted by samhain
Henderson was immense against Sweden, completely ran the show but people will go on about him missing a penalty against Columbia which goes back to what I said earlier about him only getting noticed when he screws up.Agree on Sterling though, all he's done so far is display incredible pace and poor finishing, I'd give Rashford a go. Then again Sterling does make defenders nervy when he's on the ball. It's almost worth it for that alone.
Him not having a big game isn't the same as being immense, imo. I think he's really going to struggle once they come up against a really good midfield.
I'd play him as a winger tbh. Or some sort of attacking midfielder.
Originally posted by samhain
Kind of glad Belgium went out TBH, their players appear to be getting a bit arrogant. To be expected probably when you have a squad with that much talent, just don't think 'Bobby' Martinez deserves to win a World Cup, not yet at any rate.
More arrogant than the French?
Why doesn't Martinez deserve it?
Hell of a time for Belgium's inconsistency to hit them, though.
Undoubtedly he has bad games, but he is capable of playing well against tough opposition too.
He actually came through the Sunderland ranks as an attacking right winger but has slowly migrated into the role he plays now.
You just assume the French are going to be arrogant.
Don't think he's done enough to merit getting the job in the first place.
Yeah, but they're definitely a growing force in world football just seems that right now they're not quite sure what kind of team they want to be.
Originally posted by samhain
Undoubtedly he has bad games, but he is capable of playing well against tough opposition too.He actually came through the Sunderland ranks as an attacking right winger but has slowly migrated into the role he plays now.
You just assume the French are going to be arrogant.
Don't think he's done enough to merit getting the job in the first place.
Yeah, but they're definitely a growing force in world football just seems that right now they're not quite sure what kind of team they want to be.
Disagree about Henderson, but fair enough.
There's a precedent with France, though. They've come to a few tournaments with the camp full of so many egos that they end up going home early or just underperforming. Why do you say Belgium are arrogant?
You can say he didn't merit it, but he did get his team to the semi-finals of the world cup. That's not exactly a small achievement. Same with Southgate.
You think 1 FA Cup win 5 years ago in the same season he got Wigan relegated and 1 good season with Everton in his first season when they still had defensive discipline from the Moyes era until he obliterated it is enough to warrant an international job on the scale of Belgium? That's like giving Redknapp the Italy job or something. Also, Southgate didn't get the job due to his friendship with England's top striker, unlike Martinez, he got it because of the work he did with the international youth teams and his appointment still raised a lot of eyebrows.
Lot's of not so good teams have made the semis, Turkey, South Korea, Bulgaria, Sweden, Poland and now England, lol.
I guess the arrogance thing is just I vibe I get from players like Lukaku and De Bruyne, they don't look like they're enjoying it as much as they could be. When I said I was glad they went out though, it was mostly due to the fact that if England make the final, I'd rather they lost out to France than Belgium.