• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The FIFA Football World Cup 2018

ruby sparks

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Any footie fans out there?

Ok, first up, obviously, Southgate should have picked both Andy Carroll (instead of Welbeck) and Joe Hart (instead of Pope), for different reasons, super-sub emergency goal-getting capacities and off-pitch experience provision respectively (because neither Hart nor Pope would get on the pitch during a game in any case).

But, churlishness aside, I think it's an interesting selection.

Oh, I'm talking about the England team as if it was the only team in the tournament. Whoops.

There are other players on other teams to watch out for. For example, Lanzini (Argentina), Hernandez (Mexico), Kouyate (Senegal) and Joao Mario (Portugal), to name but a few.
 
I'm really interested in Russia's group. Uruguay with Cavini and Suarez and then Egypt with the best striker on the planet right now, Salah. Russia could be in trouble. Should be an interesting World Cup. No Netherlands or Italy... and of course... no US. Time to cheer for the underdogs.
 
If you want to cheer for the underdogs, Australia are a good choice. We have France, Denmark and Peru in our group, so it seems unlikely that we will feature in the round of 16. Our entire strategy appears to depend upon the almost geriatric (in footballing terms) Tim Cahill, who can still poach goals with real flair from set pieces, but who the younger players can run rings around in general play.

Our real problem is that football is a distant third or fourth choice for athletically gifted young Aussies, behind Rugby League, Australian Rules, and (probably) Rugby Union. It's a game played by Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters, as the late, great, Johnny Warren (a man I am proud to say I once bought a beer for) noted.

Those few Australians who care about Association Football and have the talent to play at the top level, end up spread across the planet, and as such don't really have a unified and shared style of play, making our national team not so much a team as a gathering of talented individuals.

Australian sports fans are a fickle bunch; They mostly won't even notice that the World Cup is happening unless we do well. And then they won't understand why we didn't win.
 
I am football fan (and a fan of the West Ham Hammers). Lanzini is fun to watch when he is on, so I am hoping he does well for Argentina. I think Croatia is underrated, but they are in a very tough group with Argentina, Iceland (another surprising team) and the unpredictable Nigeria.

In the WC, I always root for the underdogs, including the Aussies.

I'd like to see Uruguay, Poland and Belgium advance.
 
I wish I could rise above indifference for this tournament. Since there is no USA in it, I doubt I will watch many games.
 
At least the matches are on at civilized times for watching from the Australian East Coast - our three group matches kick off at 8pm (v France), 10pm (v Denamrk) and midnight (v Peru), so that's a pleasant change from having to get up in the early hours of the morning, or having the matches on during the work day, which is what usually happens here. The France match at 8pm on Saturday is just about as good as it gets from a timing perspective for watching football on TV.

I wish they would put the FA Cup final back to its original afternoon (London time) kick off, which was early enough to stay up drinking beer to watch. The evening kick off puts it at about 4am my time - too late to stay up all night to watch, and too early to drag yourself out of bed for. Of course the advertisers and sponsors know they will get a lot more eyeballs if its at a time that suits the Americas; There simply aren't enough Aussies (even if we all cared about soccer) for us to be taken into account.
 
whollygoats said:
So...Who pays how much to win?
Click to expand...

Well, it's FIFA, so the exact number and direction of bribes, kickbacks and unlawful payments tends to vary quite a lot over time. The one thing we can be sure of is that if you want to win, it is going to cost you - but that no matter how much you pay, you can't be sure that your opponent's bribes might not be more effective (either because they are larger, or better targeted, or both).
 
Uruguay and Costa Rica for me. Though other underdogs like Iceland will do as well.
bilby said:
At least the matches are on at civilized times for watching from the Australian East Coast - our three group matches kick off at 8pm (v France), 10pm (v Denamrk) and midnight (v Peru), so that's a pleasant change from having to get up in the early hours of the morning, or having the matches on during the work day, which is what usually happens here. The France match at 8pm on Saturday is just about as good as it gets from a timing perspective for watching football on TV.

I wish they would put the FA Cup final back to its original afternoon (London time) kick off, which was early enough to stay up drinking beer to watch. The evening kick off puts it at about 4am my time - too late to stay up all night to watch, and too early to drag yourself out of bed for. Of course the advertisers and sponsors know they will get a lot more eyeballs if its at a time that suits the Americas; There simply aren't enough Aussies (even if we all cared about soccer) for us to be taken into account.
Click to expand...
'02 World Cup was torture! Luckily it was also America's best World Cup performance, scoring early in their 2 to 4 AM kickoff starts. I remember their win over Mexico, and it was still way too early to go to work.
 
Interestingly, this time around, there is less expectation on England than usual. Expectations are generally realistic. Get out of group (probably). Possibly win next match and so at least might get to quarter-finals (hopefully) and that would be a good result even if they lose. Etc.

Southgate has been brave and gone for a young, inexperienced team (not that he had a lot of choice, arguably). So, they have a chance to step up to the mark and make amends for recent failures at big tournaments. Whether they will or not is another matter.
 
ruby sparks said:
Interestingly, this time around, there is less expectation on England than usual. Expectations are generally realistic. Get out of group (probably). Possibly win next match and so at least might get to quarter-finals (hopefully) and that would be a good result even if they lose. Etc.

Southgate has been brave and gone for a young, inexperienced team (not that he had a lot of choice, arguably). So, they have a chance to step up to the mark and make amends for recent failures at big tournaments. Whether they will or not is another matter.
Click to expand...

I think the tabloid press are at the root of England's woes. The pressure on every player not to fuck up is enormous and crushing, and the false dichotomy that they either win, or are total failures, makes it practically impossible for them psychologically. Someone is going to make an awful blunder, and when they do, they know that the press will be calling for their public execution. I guess it's not quite as bad as what happened to Andrés Escobar, but in Escobar's case, his (actual) killing was a shock. For the England team their figurative crucifixion for an error is a certainty than must prey on their minds going into the competition.

If you are correct (and I get the same impression) that the expectations are lower this time around, then perhaps that's a good thing for England's prospects. Perhaps the worst thing that happened to England's football team was winning the 1966 World Cup - ever since, there has been a completely unrealistic expectation that they should win every four years. Perhaps the memories of that past glory are finally being allowed to fade.
 
bilby said:
ruby sparks said:
Interestingly, this time around, there is less expectation on England than usual. Expectations are generally realistic. Get out of group (probably). Possibly win next match and so at least might get to quarter-finals (hopefully) and that would be a good result even if they lose. Etc.

Southgate has been brave and gone for a young, inexperienced team (not that he had a lot of choice, arguably). So, they have a chance to step up to the mark and make amends for recent failures at big tournaments. Whether they will or not is another matter.
Click to expand...

I think the tabloid press are at the root of England's woes. The pressure on every player not to fuck up is enormous and crushing, and the false dichotomy that they either win, or are total failures, makes it practically impossible for them psychologically. Someone is going to make an awful blunder, and when they do, they know that the press will be calling for their public execution. I guess it's not quite as bad as what happened to Andrés Escobar, but in Escobar's case, his (actual) killing was a shock. For the England team their figurative crucifixion for an error is a certainty than must prey on their minds going into the competition.

If you are correct (and I get the same impression) that the expectations are lower this time around, then perhaps that's a good thing for England's prospects. Perhaps the worst thing that happened to England's football team was winning the 1966 World Cup - ever since, there has been a completely unrealistic expectation that they should win every four years. Perhaps the memories of that past glory are finally being allowed to fade.
Click to expand...

See: Toronto Maple Leafs

Players don't even want to play there the pressure is so high
 
rousseau said:
bilby said:
ruby sparks said:
Interestingly, this time around, there is less expectation on England than usual. Expectations are generally realistic. Get out of group (probably). Possibly win next match and so at least might get to quarter-finals (hopefully) and that would be a good result even if they lose. Etc.

Southgate has been brave and gone for a young, inexperienced team (not that he had a lot of choice, arguably). So, they have a chance to step up to the mark and make amends for recent failures at big tournaments. Whether they will or not is another matter.
Click to expand...

I think the tabloid press are at the root of England's woes. The pressure on every player not to fuck up is enormous and crushing, and the false dichotomy that they either win, or are total failures, makes it practically impossible for them psychologically. Someone is going to make an awful blunder, and when they do, they know that the press will be calling for their public execution. I guess it's not quite as bad as what happened to Andrés Escobar, but in Escobar's case, his (actual) killing was a shock. For the England team their figurative crucifixion for an error is a certainty than must prey on their minds going into the competition.

If you are correct (and I get the same impression) that the expectations are lower this time around, then perhaps that's a good thing for England's prospects. Perhaps the worst thing that happened to England's football team was winning the 1966 World Cup - ever since, there has been a completely unrealistic expectation that they should win every four years. Perhaps the memories of that past glory are finally being allowed to fade.
Click to expand...

See: Toronto Maple Leafs

Players don't even want to play there the pressure is so high
Click to expand...
Toronto?! Try Montreal. The city that chased a two-time Conn Smythe Winner away.
 
bilby said:
I think the tabloid press are at the root of England's woes. The pressure on every player not to fuck up is enormous and crushing, and the false dichotomy that they either win, or are total failures, makes it practically impossible for them psychologically. Someone is going to make an awful blunder, and when they do, they know that the press will be calling for their public execution. I guess it's not quite as bad as what happened to Andrés Escobar, but in Escobar's case, his (actual) killing was a shock. For the England team their figurative crucifixion for an error is a certainty than must prey on their minds going into the competition.

If you are correct (and I get the same impression) that the expectations are lower this time around, then perhaps that's a good thing for England's prospects. Perhaps the worst thing that happened to England's football team was winning the 1966 World Cup - ever since, there has been a completely unrealistic expectation that they should win every four years. Perhaps the memories of that past glory are finally being allowed to fade.
Click to expand...

Yes to all of that.
 
My predictions.

I think it is odd. Groups A, C, D, E, F, and H all are a bit of a toss up, but once you put the top two teams in the brackets, it doesn't seem to matter, as two juggernauts, Brazil and Germany steamroller their way towards the final. I can't see Brazil not winning it this year, with all the pressure from their absolute collapse at home against Germany. Of course, a lot will come down to Suarez and if he can help lift Uruguay past Brazil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom