The FIFA Football World Cup 2018

[bilby]

And so ends another typical performance from Australia; Looked OK for a while, but finished bottom of their group.

See you all in Qatar for our next slightly disappointing attempt...

 

[Elixir]

And so ends another typical performance from Australia; Looked OK for a while, but finished bottom of their group.

See you all in Qatar for our next slightly disappointing attempt...

Unless they refuse to give Trump another half billion $, in which case Qatar will be blockaded.

 

[bilby]

And so ends another typical performance from Australia; Looked OK for a while, but finished bottom of their group.

See you all in Qatar for our next slightly disappointing attempt...

Unless they refuse to give Trump another half billion $, in which case Qatar will be blockaded.

You give Trump far to much credit for geographical eptitude.

I feel slightly sorry for the people of Quebec for what is about to happen to them, but it's partly their own fault for not speaking English.

 

[Elixir]

And so ends another typical performance from Australia; Looked OK for a while, but finished bottom of their group.

See you all in Qatar for our next slightly disappointing attempt...

Unless they refuse to give Trump another half billion $, in which case Qatar will be blockaded.

You give Trump far to much credit for geographical eptitude.

I feel slightly sorry for the people of Quebec for what is about to happen to them, but it's partly their own fault for not speaking English.

Hey, it worked once - you don't think he'll try it again?

 

[angelo]

Australia scored two goals in this tournament, both penalty shots. Otherwise in all games they didn't even look like scoring a goal! We didn't deserve to be there! Their best game was against Denmark, which many think Cahil should've played at least in the second half.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Argentina dodged disappointment today. I wonder if this will be a sufficient wake up call for the team, otherwise I don't think they will make it pass the group of 16.

From what I read, Game Two should have been the wake up call, but Argentina looked rather mediocre in Game Three. Let's not forget, Argentina barely qualified over Chile (2 pts) and Paraguay (4 pts). That is an 18 game qualification route, so beating out Paraguay by 4 pts is pretty bad. And Argentina's main issue was scoring... just 19 goals in 18 games. So it'll hard for this to be a wake up call because they've been asleep for a year plus. Clearly the phone cord was ripped out of the wall and the cell phone battery is dead.

 

[rousseau]

Some analysis I've read has suggested that Argentina just isn't a very good team. They probably have higher expectations than they deserve given Messi is on the pitch, but no matter how good the guy is it's a team sport.

I haven't been able to watch as much of the cup this go around as in 14'.. just weird match times. But did catch the Mexico, Germany, and a bit of the England game on the weekend. As always I've been wanting to watch Brazil play so hopefully they escape the preliminaries and one of their matches lands on a weekend.

 

[angelo]

Here in Western Australia most of the matches I've been interested in have been played at a decent time like a 9 and 10 pm start for the Aussie matches at least.

 

[blastula]

Mexico should send Korea a very good and big bottle of tequila.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mexico should send Korea a very good and big bottle of tequila.

What?!

Mexico lost to Sweden 3-0 and Germany lost to South Korea 2-0?! AND Sweden took the group?!?1?

That is a trio of WTF results.

So now we wait for Group E results which could see Brazil finish 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. And I think Serbia can beat them, as they could have at least tied the Swiss.

So Group A, Russia and Uruguay. That makes sense, a Salah out of form and being used as a political pawn by the Egyptian Football Federation really fucked their chances up.
Group B, Spain and Portugal. This made sense, though Spain falling out due to the coach being fired right before the World Cup wouldn't have been a shocker.
Group C, France and Denmark isn't unreasonable. Peru could have done better without shaking the world to its core.
Group D, Croatia and Argentina is about right.
Group E, We'll find out if Brazil doesn't make it. That would be incredible.
Group F, Not only did Germany not make it, they finished in last! The Swedes were picked by approximately 20 people globally in their pools and that was a mistaken click.
Group G, England, Belgium... as though.
Group H, Was always a tossup and is playing out like it. Go Mane! Odd fact, apparently Senegal has never lost a World Cup group stage match.

So in general, things are lining up. The surprise is Brazil, Argentina, and Germany struggling so much. Brazil can still win the World Cup. However, with Brazil and Germany completely underwhelming, a Belgium v England world cup final doesn't seem as insane now.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I seem to have understood that the German coach didn't line up Team A against Korea, I suppose to spare his best assets any undue risk of injury. And also that he's supposed to have said that the mannschaft didn't deserve a win against Korea anyway.

In any case, the rest of us have lost all motivation and sense of purpose.

What are we doing here now that we can no longer just be an opportunity for Germany to beat us? What are we to do?

Argentina v. France next. Maradona may have to give us one or two finger to try and get us in the proper mood for a match. Come on, Diego, just one little finger!
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Both Belgium and England should now, the way things have turned out, arguably want to lose tomorrow. Should make for a great game. Not.

Coming second in the group means definitely avoiding Brazil, Argentina, France and Portugal, and it paves the way for a second round and a quarter final against (supposedly) comparitively weaker opponents (instead of, potentially, against Brazil), albeit with a potential semi-final against Spain. No offence intended to the Swiss (who, along with Spain would be in the '2nd place in group G' half of the draw) who are in fact ranked 6 places above England.

Some English pundits are trying to say that maintaining a winning momentum is more important, but I'm not totally convinced. I am partly convinced.

The question is, if they did want to finish 2nd, how to lose without being accused of trying to lose? The pundits seem to agree that one possible way to get towards that is to field a very weakened team, because that can be justified under 'resting key players', and Belgium are already hinting that that's going to be their approach.

It's more finely balanced for England, because Belgium can afford an honourable draw and still come second (unless they get more yellow cards, which it is possible to do on purpose, and arguably tactically not much of an actual loss if you get players who are not likely to feature in future games to get them).

It will be interesting to see how the game is played and who is playing. For example, if Harry Kane starts, England are probably going for goals, partly because Harry kane is going for the Golden Boot and unlikely to heed any calls to hold back.

Going by form, number of 'star' players and ranking, most likely outcome is arguably a Belgium win in any case. They're ranked 3rd in the world (England 12th).

So England's ideal scenario might be to narrowly (and ideally undeservedly, via dubious VAR controversies perhaps) lose a glorious and well-contested game 5-4, with Kane getting another hat trick.

 

[ruby sparks]

I admit to being slightly confused as to why S Korea's 1st goal was not deemed an offside offence. I have not seen any comment on this in the media, so perhaps it was clear cut and I am not appreciating something.

As I understand it, the goalscorer was in an offside position at the crucial point (when his team mate passed the ball forward) but it was not an offence because on the way to him, the ball hit a defender. My understanding was that that 'loophole' was only valid if the defender 'deliberately played' the ball.

I suppose one way of looking at it is that the defender (Kroos) tried to block the flight of the ball. I guess this must be interpreted as 'deliberately playing' the ball, but I could see how in another way it 'just hit him on the leg'.

It was a crucial decision. Germany had at least 2 good chances after it and the goalie would not have strayed up the pitch and essentially given away the 2nd goal.

 

[laughing dog]

I admit to being slightly confused as to why S Korea's 1st goal was not deemed an offside offence. I have not seen any comment on this in the media, so perhaps it was clear cut and I am not appreciating something.

As I understand it, the goalscorer was in an offside position at the crucial point (when his team mate passed the ball forward) but it was not an offence because on the way to him, the ball hit a defender. My understanding was that that 'loophole' was only valid if the defender 'deliberately played' the ball.

I did not see the play. But I have refereed soccer/football for over 20 years in the USA. The loophole is "attempted to play the ball". The attempt need not be successful. If a defender swings his/her foot at the ball and deflects it, then the attacked should not be deemed offside.

 

[Underseer]

And so ends another typical performance from Australia; Looked OK for a while, but finished bottom of their group.

See you all in Qatar for our next slightly disappointing attempt...

At least Australia got in the Cup at all. America, not so much.

 

[Underseer]

Some analysis I've read has suggested that Argentina just isn't a very good team. They probably have higher expectations than they deserve given Messi is on the pitch, but no matter how good the guy is it's a team sport.

I haven't been able to watch as much of the cup this go around as in 14'.. just weird match times. But did catch the Mexico, Germany, and a bit of the England game on the weekend. As always I've been wanting to watch Brazil play so hopefully they escape the preliminaries and one of their matches lands on a weekend.

Whenever Mexico plays America, they are the enemy and I hate them. When they play any other team, I cheer for them because they are a blast to watch. They showed all the weaker teams around the world that sometimes you can stay in the game with nothing but sweat, tears, gumption, hustle, and a fuck-ton of physical conditioning. You can see lots of the weaker teams (America included) following this basic model.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Both Belgium and England should now, the way things have turned out, arguably want to lose tomorrow. Should make for a great game. Not.

Coming second in the group means definitely avoiding Brazil, Argentina, France and Portugal, and it paves the way for a second round and a quarter final against (supposedly) comparitively weaker opponents (instead of, potentially, against Brazil), albeit with a potential semi-final against Spain. No offence intended to the Swiss (who, along with Spain would be in the '2nd place in group G' half of the draw) who are in fact ranked 6 places above England.

Some English pundits are trying to say that maintaining a winning momentum is more important, but I'm not totally convinced. I am partly convinced.

I think your pundits have it right. The most difficult thing to achieve for all the big teams seems to be to get their acts together and they're not going to achieve that by aiming for a loss. And a win also provides a psychological glue. And even if you do try for a win, you might still loose. So possibly two birds with one stone. My two cents.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

I admit to being slightly confused as to why S Korea's 1st goal was not deemed an offside offence. I have not seen any comment on this in the media, so perhaps it was clear cut and I am not appreciating something.

As I understand it, the goalscorer was in an offside position at the crucial point (when his team mate passed the ball forward) but it was not an offence because on the way to him, the ball hit a defender. My understanding was that that 'loophole' was only valid if the defender 'deliberately played' the ball.

I did not see the play. But I have refereed soccer/football for over 20 years in the USA. The loophole is "attempted to play the ball". The attempt need not be successful. If a defender swings his/her foot at the ball and deflects it, then the attacked should not be deemed offside.

That's what happened. Kroos (the german defender) tried to close his legs, the ball went between his legs and brushed the right one and went on to the South Korean attacker who was in an offside position.

In some ways, I think it's an odd rule.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And so ends another typical performance from Australia; Looked OK for a while, but finished bottom of their group.

See you all in Qatar for our next slightly disappointing attempt...

At least Australia got in the Cup at all. America, not so much.

Well, they did a 1-1 in the friendly with France just before the start of the world cup. They seem to be improving year after year. There's no magical recipe. You just have to slog it out.

It's already something that the country of baseball should condescend to play "soccer".

I mean, real football.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Both Belgium and England should now, the way things have turned out, arguably want to lose tomorrow. Should make for a great game. Not.

Coming second in the group means definitely avoiding Brazil, Argentina, France and Portugal, and it paves the way for a second round and a quarter final against (supposedly) comparitively weaker opponents (instead of, potentially, against Brazil), albeit with a potential semi-final against Spain. No offence intended to the Swiss (who, along with Spain would be in the '2nd place in group G' half of the draw) who are in fact ranked 6 places above England.

Some English pundits are trying to say that maintaining a winning momentum is more important, but I'm not totally convinced. I am partly convinced.

I think your pundits have it right. The most difficult thing to achieve for all the big teams seems to be to get their acts together and they're not going to achieve that by aiming for a loss. And a win also provides a psychological glue. And even if you do try for a win, you might still loose. So possibly two birds with one stone. My two cents.
EB

I sort of agree, but it's nuanced. There will likely be several team changes regardless (the game is a bit of a 'dead rubber' and so key players can be rested) so psychologically, it would not dent the feeling that a full-strength team would do better. And, trying for a win but losing is not particularly confidence or momentum building either.

At the end of the day, I don't think either team will try to lose, but neither team is likely to go all out for a win either. It could be a dull game, but who knows?