Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on May 21, 2018, 04:37:18 PM
-
I have a vague thought that a none of the above country should be allowed in - made up of players from teams that didn't make it. or players not selected for those that did.
-
Why?
-
Because I think of Giggs and Best. Because I think a non national team would be an interesting challenge to the flags. Because it would be fun
-
Not good enough reasons to fundamentally change the nature of the tournament in my view.
-
Not good enough reasons to fundamentally change the nature of the tournament in my view.
Surely it should be about the best football? Not the best flag? And challenging that and having George Best play at it would be worthwhile if you want a WORLD cup and involve people? The vast majority of people in the world have no team in Russia if flags are important - let's give them one.
-
Surely it should be about the best football? Not the best flag? And challenging that and having George Best play at it would be worthwhile if you want a WORLD cup and involve people? The vast majority of people in the world have no team in Russia if flags are important - let's give them one.
Its a tournament for senior men's national teams who are members of Fifa, not about individuals. Nothing to do with flags either.
-
Interesting idea. I often feel sorry for the great players from nations that are otherwise rubbish, people like, as you say, Ryan Giggs and most conspicuously, George Best.
On the other hand, the World Cup is run by corrupt officials and is being hosted in a gangster state that bribed its way to winning the bid. Frankly, we should consider giving it the cold shoulder.
-
Interesting idea. I often feel sorry for the great players from nations that are otherwise rubbish, people like, as you say, Ryan Giggs and most conspicuously, George Best.
On the other hand, the World Cup is run by corrupt officials and is being hosted in a gangster state that bribed its way to winning the bid. Frankly, we should consider giving it the cold shoulder.
Agree. Can’t abide international football at the moment.
-
Interesting idea. I often feel sorry for the great players from nations that are otherwise rubbish, people like, as you say, Ryan Giggs and most conspicuously, George Best.
On the other hand, the World Cup is run by corrupt officials and is being hosted in a gangster state that bribed its way to winning the bid. Frankly, we should consider giving it the cold shoulder.
I wouldn't mind that but then I think we need to not sell arms to gangster states.
-
I wouldn't mind that but then I think we need to not sell arms to gangster states.
Speak for yourself, I don’t sell arms to gangster states - or anybody in fact.
-
Speak for yourself, I don’t sell arms to gangster states - or anybody in fact.
As a UK citizen your govt does. You know the point but if you want to indulge in vacuous evasion, but you want to hug yourself and go 'oh, what a good boy am!'
-
As a UK citizen your govt does. You know the point but if you want to indulge in vacuous evasion, but you want to hug yourself and go 'oh, what a good boy am!'
No I actually said what I said as an alternative to pointing out that you were indulging in whataboutism.
-
No I actually said what I said as an alternative to pointing out that you were indulging in whataboutism.
You don't really understand whataboutism, do you?
-
Because I think of Giggs ...
Giggs could have chosen to play for England, and had he done so would undoubtedly have been a part of a number of major tournaments. England might even have done credibly in some of those tournaments.
However the moment he chose Wales over England he had effectively ruled himself out of major tournament finals. Michael Owen made an alternative choice.
-
Giggs could have chosen to play for England, and had he done so would undoubtedly have been a part of a number of major tournaments. England might even have done credibly in some of those tournaments.
However the moment he chose Wales over England he had effectively ruled himself out of major tournament finals. Michael Owen made an alternative choice.
Does that matter to the point? did you need to do the part quote on order to ignore it by arguing the specific case?
-
You don't really understand whataboutism, do you?
I say the World Cup is corrupt, hosted in a gangster state and we should have nothing to do with it. You say “but what about selling arms to gangster states”?
I understand whataboutism perfectly thank you.
-
I say the World Cup is corrupt, hosted in a gangster state and we should have nothing to do with it. You say “but what about selling arms to gangster states”?
I understand whataboutism perfectly thank you.
Except I am not saying you are wrong, just maybe taking a hypocritical position, ergo you don't get whataboutism m as you have just demonstrated.
-
Does that matter to the point? did you need to do the part quote on order to ignore it by arguing the specific case?
All I was doing was making the point that the reason why we never saw Ryan Giggs in an England shirt (except at schoolboy level), and therefore not at a major tournament, was basically down to his choice. No idea about George Best (your other example) although that was a rather different era.
But on your broader point, no I don't think there should be a team made up from the best players from countries that didn't qualify. Seems to me there are two approaches to teams - first club football, where (provided you have sufficient resources and perhaps the right scouting) you can put together any team you like regardless of nationality. Secondly international football, where each team is limited to picking only players qualified to play for that team. I really enjoy both, each brings different challenges for management, selection etc, but you can't mix the two. It is one or the other.
Sure you could have some pointless one-off friendly but that's the sort of contrived approach other sports tend to adopt, perhaps because they aren't confident of their 'product', but football doesn't need to do that.
-
Yes, I know it is 'one thing or another ' for you, that isn't an argument as to if it is a good idea. Not sure about why your last paragraph makes any sense given it is a straw man.
-
Yes, I know it is 'one thing or another ' for you, that isn't an argument as to if it is a good idea.
Yes it is an argument as to why it isn't a good idea. Not being in favour of a 'mixed economy' for player eligibility for different teams in the same tournament seems to be a perfectly reasonably argument against.
For exactly the same reason you wouldn't want a tournament where some teams are restricted to under 21s, while others can pick players of any age.
Not sure about why your last paragraph makes any sense given it is a straw man.
My point being that other sports have this type of approach - I think cricket had at least one England or Australia vs rest of the world series over the years. And rugby has the regular nonsense (in my opinion) that is the Lions tour. Both seem totally contrived and based on a fundamental premise that some teams or countries simply aren't good enough to compete on a level playing field.
-
Yes it is an argument as to why it isn't a good idea. Not being in favour of a 'mixed economy' for player eligibility for different teams in the same tournament seems to be a perfectly reasonably argument against.
For exactly the same reason you wouldn't want a tournament where some teams are restricted to under 21s, while others can pick players of any age.
My point being that other sports have this type of approach - I think cricket had at least one England or Australia vs rest of the world series over the years. And rugby has the regular nonsense (in my opinion) that is the Lions tour. Both seem totally contrived and based on a fundamental premise that some teams or countries simply aren't good enough to compete on a level playing field.
I note your obsession with nationality as important vs a more internationalist view point.
-
I note your obsession with nationality as important vs a more internationalist view point.
Not at all - it is just one way to define eligibility for a team - there is, of course, another way as we see in club football, where you can select players from anywhere - a truly international approach, as we see currently in the Premier league. And great football it provides. But you can't mix the economy - effectively restricting some teams to only picking players from their own country while allowing another team to pick from anywhere.
In my view there is a place for both the club approach (where there are no fundamental restrictions) and the nation team approach (where there are fundamental restrictions) as each provides distinct challenges to creating a great team. What you can't do is mix and match.
-
Not at all - it is just one way to define eligibility for a team - there is, of course, another way as we see in club football, where you can select players from anywhere - a truly international approach, as we see currently in the Premier league. And great football it provides. But you can't mix the economy - effectively restricting some teams to only picking players from their own country while allowing another team to pick from anywhere.
In my view there is a place for both the club approach (where there are no fundamental restrictions) and the nation team approach (where there are fundamental restrictions) as each provides distinct challenges to creating a great team. What you can't do is mix and match.
Why not? Other than your own nationalist bias?
-
Why not? Other than your own nationalist bias?
There is no nationalist bias or I wouldn't be in favour of club football.
Here is another compelling argument against. That of conflict of interest for individual players. Currently the only way for a player to play in a finals tournament is for them to be part of a team that qualifies, and likely they will contribute. Under your approach a world class player knows they will be going to the finals regardless of how their nation performs in the qualifying tournament. Indeed some players might prefer to be picked in a 'best of the rest' team as it may be far more competitive in the finals than their own nation. So they might not be bothered about helping their national team qualify, or even might actively ensure they don't qualify to give them the best chance of a winners medal.
This would become even worse if you allowed non-selected players from qualifying teams to be part of the 'best of the rest' - so a great player makes themselves unavailable for selection for their qualifying national team to ensure they can be selected for the 'best of the rest' along with great players from other teams unlikely to come close to the sharp end of the tournament. So, in effect, asset stripping the best players from teams good enough to qualify but not good enough to progress far.
-
I note your evasion that nationalism is the important thing. Any player not trying to qualify would do damage to their own chance of selection so your argument is specious as well as a bizarre piece of conspiracy theory.
-
Can you have a conspiracy theory about the actions of someone when that someone doesn't exist and neither does the imagined scenario?
-
Any player not trying to qualify would do damage to their own chance of selection so your argument is specious as well as a bizarre piece of conspiracy theory.
No they wouldn't.
Arguably (certainly many Wales fans think so) Ryan Giggs never really fully contributed to the Welsh national side - indeed he seemed to find himself unavailable through injury regularly and then managed to turn out fine for Man U, presumably as that represented his best chance of winning medals. In your world why on earth would he not be one of the first names selected for a 'best of the rest' team - that he couldn't be bothered to play at his best for Wales (a team never likely to gain him a winners medal) wouldn't be an issue as he was obviously a world beater, and were the 'best of the rest' team competitive as tournament winners, and there is no reason why they wouldn't be, then the Man U Ryan Giggs would turn up rather than the Wales Ryan Giggs.
What you would be doing would be giving players from teams that had effectively failed (in the qualifying tournament) a bye into the finals.
-
Can you have a conspiracy theory about the actions of someone when that someone doesn't exist and neither does the imagined scenario?
I'm not sure you can.
However I don't think it beyond comprehension to think that a truly great player in a mediocre national team might prefer the chance of winning the world cup with a bunch of similarly truly great players from mediocre national teams rather than help their national team qualify and then go out in the group stages.
-
In my world, it's an alternative approach to nationalism. It seems you think that even with the flag based approach that happened could be accused of not making an effort. So the idea that if my idea was introduced would affect people's efgort, you are arguing against already
-
In my world, it's an alternative approach to nationalism.
But a perfectly acceptable alternative approach already exists - it is called club football. But even there players are declared cup tied if they have already played for one club in a tournament and therefore cannot then play for a different club at a later stage in the competition. You are arguing that players should have two bites at the cherry, effectively being able to play for a different team later in the competition if the team they played for earlier hasn't progressed.
-
I'm not sure you can.
However I don't think it beyond comprehension to think that a truly great player in a mediocre national team might prefer the chance of winning the world cup with a bunch of similarly truly great players from mediocre national teams rather than help their national team qualify and then go out in the group stages.
The whole 'national team' thing is a bit odd anyway though. The French, for example, have a big problem losing their home-grown players to Senegal, and as you've noted Giggs had a choice. It is something that's been exploited for ages.
-
But a perfectly acceptable alternative approach already exists - it is called club football. But even there players are declared cup tied if they have already played for one club in a tournament and therefore cannot then play for a different club at a later stage in the competition. You are arguing that players should have two bites at the cherry, effectively being able to play for a different team later in the competition if the team they played for earlier hasn't progressed.
That's nice but entirely irrelevant to the didvusdion. National football hapoens, and I am talking about a different take on that. I'm just pondering nationality is that important here. You seem to argue that it is.
-
The whole 'national team' thing is a bit odd anyway though. The French, for example, have a big problem losing their home-grown players to Senegal, and as you've noted Giggs had a choice. It is something that's been exploited for ages.
And would certainly be if players whose national team failed to qualify just got a back door route into the finals.
To try to get NS to recognise that my objections aren't to do with nationalism, we should look at an analogy in club football. What NS is effectively arguing for is the equivalent of the Champions league allowing a new team to join the tournament at the knockout stages made up of players from teams that failed to progress at the group stages - and indeed presumably never even qualified for the champions league at all. That would make a mockery of the whole event. In BBC parlance on the FA Cup, it is winner stays on, not winner stays on unless you lose and then are readmitted as a member of another team.
-
That's nice but entirely irrelevant to the didvusdion. National football hapoens, and I am talking about a different take on that. I'm just pondering nationality is that important here. You seem to argue that it is.
I'm not arguing that it is (see my champions league example, and comments on players being cup tied). My point is regardless of how you define teams you need to be consistent and not allow some players the ability to lose, and then be allowed back in.
-
I'm not arguing that it is (see my champions league example, and comments on players being cup tied). My point is regardless of how you define teams you need to be consistent and not allow some players the ability to lose, and then be allowed back in.
Why?
-
And would certainly be if players whose national team failed to qualify just got a back door route into the finals.
To try to get NS to recognise that my objections aren't to do with nationalism, we should look at an analogy in club football. What NS is effectively arguing for is the equivalent of the Champions league allowing a new team to join the tournament at the knockout stages made up of players from teams that failed to progress at the group stages - and indeed presumably never even qualified for the champions league at all. That would make a mockery of the whole event. In BBC parlance on the FA Cup, it is winner stays on, not winner stays on unless you lose and then are readmitted as a member of another team.
Except that wouldn't make sense since players would still be playing for clubs unlike players not playing for countries at the time of the World Cup.
-
Of course the WC is about nationalism. Among other things.
I'm not convinced it necessarily showcases the best players in the world though, and I don't think that is what it is for.
-
Of course the WC is about nationalism. Among other things.
I'm not convinced it necessarily showcases the best players in the world though, and I don't think that is what it is for.
Which is what my random idea was for. A way to challenge the flags!
-
Which is what my random idea was for. A way to challenge the flags!
I get it, but it is what it is. TBH I'd like to see the whole sorry mess swept away and something else in its place.
-
Except that wouldn't make sense since players would still be playing for clubs unlike players not playing for countries at the time of the World Cup.
But that's purely about logistics rather than principle.
Try it another way - imagine a completely new approach to defining eligibility for teams for a tournament (which has nothing to do with nationalism) - that eligibility if defined by birth week, so there are 52 teams, the first with people born in the 1st week in January eligible etc. There is a qualifying tournament to select the 32 teams to play in the finals tournament. But rather than pick the top 32 teams, they only pick the top 31 and allow a 32nd team to enter made up of the best players from the other 21 teams. If you are a player which is better to enhance your chances of winning - to be part of one of the 31 teams that actually qualifies or to be part of the team made up of the best players from 21 other teams. I'd suggest the latter, which would incentivise a great player to ensure that his birth week team does not qualify to maximise his chance of winning the trophy.
So it would incentive players to throw games in order to maximise chances of winning the tournament, plus also it is fundamentally wrong on the basis that some players who have lost suddenly reappear in the tournament while others have to win in order to be in the finals.
-
Maybe in NS’s idea the ‘rest of the world’ players can only come from national sides who have consistently low FIFA rankings and/or a low population? I don’t see why anyone would object to gifted players from no-hope nations re-entering at the finals. And realistically, without the structure of regular coaching together, playing together in the same leagues etc, they aren’t that likely to progress far.
-
Maybe in NS’s idea the ‘rest of the world’ players can only come from national sides who have consistently low FIFA rankings and/or a low population? I don’t see why anyone would object to gifted players from no-hope nations re-entering at the finals. And realistically, without the structure of regular coaching together, playing together in the same leagues etc, they aren’t that likely to progress far.
Agree, I don't think it would necessarily do well as a team at all. I also think that someone throwing a football match in order to try to get selected for another team selected by someone they would at stage be unaware of would be very arrogant and very dumb, even by the standards of football players.
-
Agree, I don't think it would necessarily do well as a team at all. I also think that someone throwing a football match in order to try to get selected for another team selected by someone they would at stage be unaware of would be very arrogant and very dumb, even by the standards of football players.
I just don’t see how one player can throw matches to the extent that they go out of a tournament without it being blindingly obvious. So long as the only players that can qualify are from the no-hope sides I don’t see the problem. The whole argument in favour of this is that the likes of Best couldn’t win matches on their own if they were in an otherwise poor team. He couldn’t throw one on his own either.
-
I just don’t see how one player can throw matches to the extent that they go out of a tournament without it being blindingly obvious. So long as the only players that can qualify are from the no-hope sides I don’t see the problem. The whole argument in favour of this is that the likes of Best couldn’t win matches on their own if they were in an otherwise poor team. He couldn’t throw one on his own either.
And not being able to play well in such important matches would make it less likely that they would be selected for their own team and any RoW team.
I see that Ruth Davidson has suggested that a joint world cup bid would help the Union.
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1415657-ruth-davidson-calls-for-joint-uk-wide-world-cup-bid/
-
I just don’t see how one player can throw matches to the extent that they go out of a tournament without it being blindingly obvious.
Perhaps throwing a match was too strong, perhaps better to think of it as constructive lack of commitment. We see this all the time in clubs where a top player wants a move and effectively stops committing to their current team, often to the point of being dropped. By definition we are talking about international sides involving a world class player (or they wouldn't be likely to get into a 'best of the rest' side) in an uncompetitive team. In those cases success or failure is often defined by whether their star players 'turns up' so to speak. If they declare themselves injured or aren't 100% committed their team fails. That might not be throwing a match, but it has the same overall effect.
-
In all seriousness, what can be done about the WC? Fifa is a toxic brand and this and the following WC, stand as testimony to its corruption. Nationalism is a global stain. Can the WC be redeemed?
-
In all seriousness, what can be done about the WC? Fifa is a toxic brand and this and the following WC, stand as testimony to its corruption. Nationalism is a global stain. Can the WC be redeemed?
I agree that there is a problem with FIFA and in particular the awarding of the tournament - but they aren't alone in this in terms of venue for big sporting events.
But beyond that I think the World Cup is a great sporting tournament. Don't forget football is a team sport and you need some way to define teams. I've got no problem with, at time, defining teams in terms of nations, and at other times as clubs.
But while I agree in broad terms on nationalism, I really don't see it as a big issue here. The world cup has never been a focus for rampant nationalism and overt politicisation (in the way that the olympics has) - it is a celebration of football. Unlike the olympics a big proportion of the people glued to the world cup for the month are regular fans of football, at all levels.
They know and love the game, they know the players (many of whom will play for clubs who they watch regularly) - while many will have an added sense of excitement when watching England play (and probably added level of disappointment) they will be relishing watching Spain vs Portugal in the group stage and many, many other games that don't involve England. Worth noting that at the last world cup the most watched match (and indeed the most watched tv programme of 2014) didn't involve England - of the four most watched matches, 2 didn't involve England.
It is interesting to note that although national anthems are played before the games, as far as I am aware there is no 'nationalism' for the winners - no playing of the national anthem then, no raising of the national flag - again unlike the olympics.
First and foremost the world cup is a proper sporting event for the regular fans of that sport - it isn't like the olympics which is overtly nationalistic, involving competitors in non-team sports competing for a country (why, they could just compete as themselves) with fans of the 'event' (rather than the sport) glued to a sport they don't understand, would never watch on tv, let alone pay to go to at any other time and largely only interested (and only shown in coverage) brits competing with all other competitors ignored and largely unknown to the audience.
Sure the world cup has its faults, but for me it remains the best one off sporting event in the world - not least because it is watched by knowledgeable fans who are passionate about that sport week in week out.
-
I rarely watch any ither teams apart from the ones I support (West Ham and England).
-
It's all the Olympic hooligans that get me.
-
I rarely watch any ither teams apart from the ones I support (West Ham and England).
In general I prefer watching stuff where I don't really support either team but they play well.
-
It's all the Olympic hooligans that get me.
But on the plus side - no Clare Balding.
-
In general I prefer watching stuff where I don't really support either team but they play well.
I like both. My son loves watching European football.
-
It's all the Olympic hooligans that get me.
Sure hooliganism is a big problem in football. But it isn't just a problem in national team matches, there is just as much (maybe more) in club games so you cannot link it to nationalism associated with the world cup.
But regarding the Olympics - it is unlikely to generate hooliganism as it mostly involves spectators going along out of curiosity and ability to 'experience' the event, rather than hard core fans of the sport they are watching. In 2012 we got tickets for the women's basketball (all we were allocated from our application) and had a lovely day out with the family. Thoroughly enjoyed it, although neither us, nor most people around us had the slightest clue as to what was going on. In fact they had a short 'primer' before the game to explain how is worked, the scoring etc. Can you imagine needing the same before a football match?
-
Sure hooliganism is a big problem in football. But it isn't just a problem in national team matches, there is just as much (maybe more) in club games so you cannot link it to nationalism associated with the world cup.
But regarding the Olympics - it is unlikely to generate hooliganism as it mostly involves spectators going along out of curiosity and ability to 'experience' the event, rather than hard core fans of the sport they are watching. In 2012 we got tickets for the women's basketball (all we were allocated from our application) and had a lovely day out with the family. Thoroughly enjoyed it, although neither us, nor most people around us had the slightest clue as to what was going on. In fact they had a short 'primer' before the game to explain how is worked, the scoring etc. Can you imagine needing the same before a football match?
I have absolutely no idea why that is significant? Surely the lack of Olympic hooligans means there is less ethnic nationalism. That people go and see sports that they don't follow is irrelevant to that?
-
Surely the lack of Olympic hooligans means there is less ethnic nationalism.
Why do you think that hooliganism in football has anything to do with ethnic nationalism? When Swansea and Cardiff fans have a punch-up, or Leeds vs Sheffield Wednesday or Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe or Catania and Palermo etc, etc what on earth has that to do with ethnic nationalism. Hooliganism in football is certainly to do with tribalism, but certainly not exclusively nor even predominantly tribalism associated with an allegiance to ethnic nationalism.
-
I like both. My son loves watching European football.
Me too - I really enjoy watching a great game where I am entirely neutral and frankly don't care who wins. But I also love the different experience of watching a game where you care passionately who wins with its heightened highs and lows.
Both are great and one of the reasons why the world cup is so fantastic - the games come thick and fast so there are daily opportunities to enjoy the first type of game, then every few days you get the second kind (which sadly has always ended in a low).
-
Why do you think that hooliganism in football has anything to do with ethnic nationalism? When Swansea and Cardiff fans have a punch-up, or Leeds vs Sheffield Wednesday or Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe or Catania and Palermo etc, etc what on earth has that to do with ethnic nationalism. Hooliganism in football is certainly to do with tribalism, but certainly not exclusively nor even predominantly tribalism associated with an allegiance to ethnic nationalism.
False dichotomy. That there is hooliganism to do with non ethnic nationalism is not an indication that there is no hooliganism to do with ethnic nationalism.
Are you saying that Russian football hooligans are not in any sense related to ethnic nationalism?
-
False dichotomy. That there is hooliganism to do with non ethnic nationalism is not an indication that there is no hooliganism to do with ethnic nationalism.
Are you saying that Russian football hooligans are not in any sense related to ethnic nationalism?
I think hooliganism (e.g. in football) is related to a certain type of tribalism - if it was about ethnic nationalism per se then you'd get just as much in every sporting event involving a Russian national team - but you don't. Just because at times tribalism is hung onto a national team as a badge of convenience doesn't mean it is driven by ethnic nationalism.
-
Are you saying that Russian football hooligans are not in any sense related to ethnic nationalism?
But most of the football hooliganism in Russia is associated with club sides - so when the highly organised 'ultra'-type groups from FC Spartak Moscow have a ruck with their equivalents from FC Lokomotiv Moscow, how on earth is that to do with ethnic nationalism.
-
I think hooliganism (e.g. in football) is related to a certain type of tribalism - if it was about ethnic nationalism per se then you'd get just as much in every sporting event involving a Russian national team - but you don't. Just because at times tribalism is hung onto a national team as a badge of convenience doesn't mean it is driven by ethnic nationalism.
Again no one has said it's all hooliganism in football is about ethnic nationalism. In what way do you want to argue that those who follow a flag and approach it in a tribal manner are not being ethnically nationalist? Because it seems about the definition.
-
But most of the football hooliganism in Russia is associated with club sides - so when the highly organised 'ultra'-type groups from FC Spartak Moscow have a ruck with their equivalents from FC Lokomotiv Moscow, how on earth is that to do with ethnic nationalism.
Yet we are talking about what happens with support of the national team. Given no one is saying that all tribalism in football is ethnic nationalism - using the false dichotomy for the umpteenth time is just pointless.
-
Again no one has said it's all hooliganism in football is about ethnic nationalism. In what way do you want to argue that those who follow a flag and approach it in a tribal manner are not being ethnically nationalist? Because it seems about the definition.
They are following a team, not a flag. And most England fans (and those of other national sides) are also fans of club sides - which is why you usually see flags which are a combination of the banner of the national team with the name of their club side adorned.
And what has ethnicity got to do with it - actually one of the features of national sides over the past couple of decades is that ethnicity has become increasingly irrelevant - so a significant proportion of the England squad are not 'ethnically English' i.e. white and the same is true for most other leading national sides.
-
They are following a team, not a flag. And most England fans (and those of other national sides) are also fans of club sides - which is why you usually see flags which are a combination of the banner of the national team with the name of their club side adorned.
And what has ethnicity got to do with it - actually one of the features of national sides over the past couple of decades is that ethnicity has become increasingly irrelevant - so a significant proportion of the England squad are not 'ethnically English' i.e. white and the same is true for most other leading national sides.
That they follow club in addition is irrelevant. Their tribalism is based on a perception of the team and the flag. Ethnicity is still often relevant in teams, and that it is reducing, which you post admits, merely states it as a problem.
-
Yet we are talking about what happens with support of the national team.
Which is merely a different form of tribalism associated with a different football team.
So I ask again if football hooliganism associated with national sides is about ethnic nationalism (as you claim) why is it only (or largely only) associated with football. Surely there would be loads of opportunities for the same ethnic nationalists to show their support for their national side through acts of hooliganism whenever their cricket, rugby, ice hockey, speed skating etc etc teams are playing. But they don't.
-
Their tribalism is based on a perception of the team and the flag.
I disagree - it is based on a perception of the team - the flag is largely an irrelevance. And the bottom line (once again) is tribalism - they are my team 'I'm City til I die' ... 'I'm England til I die' - same thing - that one is a club team with the name of a city in it and the other is a national team linked to a county isn't the point - the point is that this is their team.
-
Which is merely a different form of tribalism associated with a different football team.
So I ask again if football hooliganism associated with national sides is about ethnic nationalism (as you claim) why is it only (or largely only) associated with football. Surely there would be loads of opportunities for the same ethnic nationalists to show their support for their national side through acts of hooliganism whenever their cricket, rugby, ice hockey, speed skating etc etc teams are playing. But they don't.
Of course it's merely a different form of tribalism - again no one has suggested ethice nationalism isn't tribalism,
And there is the opportunity for ethnic nationalism to be associated with other sports, that isn't an argument against being associated with one sport or more sports. Your point appears specious
-
I disagree - it is based on a perception of the team - the flag is largely an irrelevance. And the bottom line (once again) is tribalism - they are my team 'I'm City til I die' ... 'I'm England til I die' - same thing - that one is a club team with the name of a city in it and the other is a national team linked to a county isn't the point - the point is that this is their team.
So when the Russian fans boasted about capturing English flags it was irrelevant?
-
Of course it's merely a different form of tribalism - again no one has suggested ethice nationalism isn't tribalism,
But you have failed to argue the case that for national teams it is about ethnic nationalism, while for club sides it clearly isn't.
And there is the opportunity for ethnic nationalism to be associated with other sports, that isn't an argument against being associated with one sport or more sports. Your point appears specious
Not at all - if ethnic nationalism is the trigger for hooliganism in the case of national football teams, why don't we see it for national teams in other sports. Surely if you are a fervent enough ethnic nationalist to give others a good kicking in defence of your national football team, you'd also be just as keen to do so in defence of your national lawn bowls team.
-
So when the Russian fans boasted about capturing English flags it was irrelevant?
I suspect the FC Spartak Moscow make the same boasts about capturing FC Lokomotiv Moscow flags and banners - what's your point. It is about getting one over on another rival team.
-
But you have failed to argue the case that for national teams it is about ethnic nationalism, while for club sides it clearly isn't.
Not at all - if ethnic nationalism is the trigger for hooliganism in the case of national football teams, why don't we see it for national teams in other sports. Surely if you are a fervent enough ethnic nationalist to give others a good kicking in defence of your national football team, you'd also be just as keen to do so in defence of your national lawn bowls team.
So Lazio, Millwall, and indeed Spartak have no ethic nationalism elements in the support? Really? Again you are using a straw man and a false dichotomy. Whether there is ethnic nationalism in club support tells you nothing about it being in national team support, but since no one has suggested anything of the sort, then your point is specious.
As to the difference in how something might be supported then that is all about how important it is seen and how it might be seen as relating to ethnicity.
-
I suspect the FC Spartak Moscow make the same boasts about capturing FC Lokomotiv Moscow flags and banners - what's your point. It is about getting one over on another rival team.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/night-russian-ultras-we-respect-8190868
-
I disagree - it is based on a perception of the team - the flag is largely an irrelevance. And the bottom line (once again) is tribalism - they are my team 'I'm City til I die' ... 'I'm England til I die' - same thing - that one is a club team with the name of a city in it and the other is a national team linked to a county isn't the point - the point is that this is their team.
It is tribalism - the them and us senario and people of a certain type will attachthemselves to opportunities and events where they can act out this tribalism. Football has been the traditional vehicle for this. World Cups are alos opportunities though for cross cultural 'bonding'. In Frande in 98 I spent time with Argentinian, Japanese, Dutch and Croatian fans, people who I would never have met otherwise.
-
It is tribalism - the them and us senario and people of a certain type will attachthemselves to opportunities and events where they can act out this tribalism. Football has been the traditional vehicle for this. World Cups are alos opportunities though for cross cultural 'bonding'. In Frande in 98 I spent time with Argentinian, Japanese, Dutch and Croatian fans, people who I would never have met otherwise.
Did you find any elements in the support of the teams that was ethically nationalist?
-
Did you find any elements in the support of the teams that was ethically nationalist?
Some were, especially the Croatian fans. The Dutch were full of admiration for English football and grounds. The Japanese were passionate but inclusive and fun. The Argentinians, well, we didn't mention being English!
-
In general I prefer watching stuff where I don't really support either team but they play well.
It's probably because I don't really have any second teams. I love the teams I support with a passion and hate all other teams, especially Millwall. As an exception I have watched some Liverpool games this season (my best mate over here, who's from England, is a Liverpool fan) and have enjoyed watching them play at the same time wishing West Ham played that way too.
-
In general I prefer watching stuff where I don't really support either team but they play well.
Not me, I need to prefer one team or the other usually. I try never to watch Man Utd games though, as I don't want to risk seeing them win!
-
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/night-russian-ultras-we-respect-8190868
An article which pretty well entirely proves my point - that the motivation for Russian hooliganism in football (according to the article) is basically nothing to do with ethnic nationalism (there is a single sentence to do with this) but pretty well entirely about a deep rooted cultural tribalism, initially from 'stenka na stenku' which was an organised violence between neighbouring groups, transposed to football clubs as a convenient vehicle for the tribalism.
-
It is tribalism - the them and us senario and people of a certain type will attachthemselves to opportunities and events where they can act out this tribalism. Football has been the traditional vehicle for this. World Cups are alos opportunities though for cross cultural 'bonding'. In Frande in 98 I spent time with Argentinian, Japanese, Dutch and Croatian fans, people who I would never have met otherwise.
Exactly.
And in a manner the violence associated with national teams is almost like an interesting and exotic way to develop the club hooliganism a little further. Providing the opportunity to get together with some of the tribes you usually fight and challenge yourself against a new group.
-
Did you find any elements in the support of the teams that was ethically nationalist?
Of course - but then there are element in the support of my football team that are vegetarian. One of the most loyal supporters of my team is a committed choral singer (how I know him) singing in multiple choirs. Does that mean that football hooliganism is somehow linked to vegetarianism or choral-singing?
-
Some were, especially the Croatian fans. The Dutch were full of admiration for English football and grounds. The Japanese were passionate but inclusive and fun. The Argentinians, well, we didn't mention being English!
I guess for the Croatian fans it is because their nation (and therefore their national team) is very young so the very presence of a national team is a manifestation of recent nationhood. That isn't the case for most national football teams.
-
When does the yawnathon start?
-
When does the yawnathon start?
14th June
-
Thanks.
-
Talked to my boy about the Rest of the World team. Henrikh Mkh of course, and he wondered about Aubameyang.
-
Talked to my boy about the Rest of the World team. Henrikh Mkh of course, and he wondered about Aubameyang.
Some suggestions here.
https://sillyseason.com/list/best-xi-footballers-who-will-not-be-going-to-the-2018-world-cup-108284/3/
-
Some suggestions here.
https://sillyseason.com/list/best-xi-footballers-who-will-not-be-going-to-the-2018-world-cup-108284/3/
But I'd argue that the Dutch players should be there, as possibly should the Chileans. I think this only works with genuine no-hopers, otherwise ProfD starts to have a point about those who fail to qualify getting a second chance. It really should only fall to those in teams who never stood a chance to begin with.
-
Scotland isn't in, then?
-
Scotland isn't in, then?
Are there any Scots who would qualify for the Team of Genius we are putting together?
-
Are there any Scots who would qualify for the Team of Genius we are putting together?
An argument could be made for Kieran Tierney in a squad but other than that, no.
-
I bet Gareth Bale is seriously pissed off that he has to play for a no-hope national side like Wales!
-
I bet Gareth Bale is seriously pissed off that he has to play for a no-hope national side like Wales!
But they aren’t. A year ago they were ranked above England.
-
I bet Gareth Bale is seriously pissed off that he has to play for a no-hope national side like Wales!
Firstly he doesn't have to play for them, he chose to. He was qualified to play for England too.
Secondly Wales aren't so bad at the moment, and that is of course partly due to Bale himself. He's one of very few Welshman alive who have actually played in a major finals tournament.
Finally I suspect he defines his career and its success in terms of club honours, and he isn't doing badly on that one so far, although I passionately hope he doesn't add to his club honours tonight.
-
I dare say you're right. I don't really follow football, but I thought that Wales was not prominent in football because they were more of a rugby nation.
-
I dare say you're right. I don't really follow football, but I thought that Wales was not prominent in football because they were more of a rugby nation.
Wales made the semi-finals of the European championship in 2016 - the last time England made the semis of a major tournament was 1996.
Arguably Wales are currently better at football than rugby. And I'd actually challenge the notion that Wales are a rugby nation rather than a football one - its a bit of a myth and doesn't stand up to looking at the facts, e.g. numbers of registered football and rugby players, number of teams and numbers of spectators watching week in week out.
-
I dare say you're right. I don't really follow football, but I thought that Wales was not prominent in football because they were more of a rugby nation.
It’s a comparatively recent thing - Giggs would have made it into my RotW team as Wales were pretty useless in his day; Bale wouldn’t as Wales should have qualified this time around. Even so, for a tiny nation they punch above their weight.
-
It’s a comparatively recent thing - Giggs would have made it into my RotW team as Wales were pretty useless in his day; Bale wouldn’t as Wales should have qualified this time around. Even so, for a tiny nation they punch above their weight.
And they did reach the quarter finals of the World Cup in 1958 with a rather good team that stretched the Brazilian team in that quarter final.
-
And they did reach the quarter finals of the World Cup in 1958 with a rather good team that stretched the Brazilian team in that quarter final.
Bit before my time. ;)
I do wonder what Chris Coleman was thinking when he swapped Wales for Sunderland.
And I’m also wondering whether the way in which most players from the Welsh squad play outside of Wales at club level drives up standards. Would the same happen for Scottish football?
-
Bit before my time. ;)
I do wonder what Chris Coleman was thinking when he swapped Wales for Sunderland.
And I’m also wondering whether the way in which most players from the Welsh squad play outside of Wales at club level drives up standards. Would the same happen for Scottish football?
A lot of the Scottish squad do play outside but they tend to play at Championship level. We just don't have the same quality that we had when we had so many players in the top teams in England, and a selection of good players in a variety of teams in Scotland. I hope that Gerrard makes Rangers competitive, and that Hibs and Aberdeen kick on from last season.
If Liverpool perform well tonight, I suppose that the RotW squad could use Andrew Robertson.
I think Coleman may have thought the only way was down, and how right he was. On the subject of punching above their weight, Northern Ireland under Michael O'Neil do precisely that.
-
Well many of the Welsh squad play at Championship level too. I just don't get what happened to Scottish football. I was in Peebles as a 6 yr old when Scotland were in the WC in '78. That's what I grew up with - the expectation that Scotland would be up there with England and even surpass them. I know that Scottish football seems to have shot itself in the foot, but even so there should still be the talent. When I was growing up many of the greatest players in the then First Division were Scots. Do these things just come in waves?
-
The last in football for Scotland is another country, we did things differently there. I suspect that there are a number of reasons but football is not of the same cultural importance it had. 51 years ago yesterday, Celtic win the European Cup, but people forget that Rangers were in the final of the Cup Winners Cup that year, and obviously there was the 3-2 drubbing ;) of England, the World Champions at Wembley.
-
The last in football for Scotland is another country, we did things differently there. I suspect that there are a number of reasons but football is not of the same cultural importance it had. 51 years ago yesterday, Celtic win the European Cup, but people forget that Rangers were in the final of the Cup Winners Cup that year, and obviously there was the 3-2 drubbing ;) of England, the World Champions at Wembley.
Do you think that could be part of it? The fact that England and Scotland rarely face each other any more, could that have contributed to the lack of interest?
I really can't see how football has fallen away so much - do kids not have jumpers for goalposts any more? Football is so much more portable than rugby.
-
This discussion has reminded me that I shall re-read and probably buy the updated Story of the World Cup by Brian Glanville, as I tend to do every 4 years.
-
Do you think that could be part of it? The fact that England and Scotland rarely face each other any more, could that have contributed to the lack of interest?
I really can't see how football has fallen away so much - do kids not have jumpers for goalposts any more? Football is so much more portable than rugby.
They certainly don't seem to play as much football as I did growing up. I don't think it's the lack of the England match but a much wider change in society. There is a much wider choice of sports to be interested in, and other activities too. There is still a huge interest but it seems qualitatively different from when I was growing up.
-
They certainly don't seem to play as much football as I did growing up. I don't think it's the lack of the England match but a much wider change in society. There is a much wider choice of sports to be interested in, and other activities too. There is still a huge interest but it seems qualitatively different from when I was growing up.
Well, yes, there are plenty of opportunities for sports out there, and many kids take part in them, but it's still the easiest thing in the world to keep a ball in the boot of the car for impromptu kickabouts or take a ball down to the rec with your mates, I cant think of any other sport that is so easy to play on the spur of the moment, except running. No idea what it is like north of the border but my son buys every print edition of MotD magazine, Match and Kick, and reads and re-reads them, and his favourite Xbox game is FIFA - he has a staggering knowledge of global players. Today he's as excited about the Championship playoff final, as he wants to see Fulham get promotion, as he is the CL final.
I guess if the Scots youngsters really aren't that interested then Scottish football will have little future.
-
It's not as important but still important. We could still get a decent side and do as well as similar small countries but the days of us being continually good are gone.
-
The last in football for Scotland is another country, we did things differently there. I suspect that there are a number of reasons but football is not of the same cultural importance it had. 51 years ago yesterday, Celtic win the European Cup, but people forget that Rangers were in the final of the Cup Winners Cup that year, and obviously there was the 3-2 drubbing ;) of England, the World Champions at Wembley.
Now, now there's no need to bring bad language into the discussion. Although I suppose that you didn't mention Iceland, or Swedes 1, Turnips Nil.
-
Salah’s dislocated his shoulder. :(
-
Salah’s dislocated his shoulder. :(
or had it dislocated?
-
or had it dislocated?
Probably not making that much difference to him just now.
-
Wrong thread probably but wtf was Karius doing?
-
Crazy by Karius. Well done by Liverpool to respond.
-
What a goal by Bale!
-
What a goal by Bale!
Absolute genius.
-
Liverpool are missing Salah.
-
Yeah.
-
Oops.
-
Oops.
Oh dear!
-
Oh dear!
So Liverpool will be in the market for a new goalie then.
-
Yes, but it's been a weakness for a while and they haven't bought anyone.
-
What a goal by Bale!
Every time you watch it, it gets better
-
It does indeed.
-
He’s modelling himself on Andy Carroll, clearly.
-
May I please intrude and ask: who scored Liverpool's goal yesterday? Who was the goalkeeper who made a terrible mistake and what was it?
Thank you. It is just too difficult trying to find the answers on google.
-
May I please intrude and ask: who scored Liverpool's goal yesterday? Who was the goalkeeper who made a terrible mistake and what was it?
Thank you. It is just too difficult trying to find the answers on google.
Sadio Mané scored the Liverpool goal. Loris Karius was the goalkeeper. He was throwing the ball out with Karin Benzema about 10 feet away on his own, and accidentally threw it at Benzema who stuck a leg out and it rolled into the net.
-
I noticed Bale fishing for a transfer, unless it's part of some arcane internal politics at RM. Who can afford him?
-
Sadio Mané scored the Liverpool goal. Loris Karius was the goalkeeper. He was throwing the ball out with Karin Benzema about 10 feet away on his own, and accidentally threw it at Benzema who stuck a leg out and it rolled into the net.
Thank you very much. No wonder the commentators were so aghast! I hasten to add that I did not listen to the whole thing - just ten minutes here and there!
-
Thank you very much. No wonder the commentators were so aghast! I hasten to add that I did not listen to the whole thing - just ten minutes here and there!
He also mishandled the ball for the third goal. Poor chap was distraught at the end.
-
I noticed Bale fishing for a transfer, unless it's part of some arcane internal politics at RM. Who can afford him?
Can’t blame him, he shouldn’t have been a sub. PSG seem awash with cash but that can’t last. Otherwise I guess he’ll be heading to Manchester.
-
In all the excitement, I forgot to congratulate Fulham on promotion. They play nice stuff, if they can keep their good players, esp. the boy wonder, Sessegnon. But then their owner is threatening to buy Wembley.
-
True then, true now
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/world-cup-still-hasnt-started-2014052987044
-
I turn to Five Live quite often - and just as often switch away again"" - but over the past few years I have unavoidably learnt various things about football that I certainly would not have searched for! :)
Anyway, I think the really hurtful, ugly things that people have said about this chap, Raheem Sterling, are a disgrace. The internet has made much more information available to all, but it has shown us all just how many people have a nasty streak in them that we'd never have known about before.
-
I agree, Susan. This has come up on Jeremy’s Twitter thread.
There seems to be a desire to knock the best England players, turn fans against them and destroy confidence. Race may play a part but they did it with Beckham too, and ultimately it just seems to be about selling more papers, getting more web hits.
-
Not just England players ......... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44304606
-
I expect jealousy and envy play a very large part - it often does when people behave like that, plus the desire to drag others down instead of being pleased for them for their success and admiration for the hard work and effort put into it.
-
Not just England players ......... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44304606
That’s just a journo doing his job. Sure, it’s persistent, and it must be annoying, but he’s just asking questions that would give him a huge scoop we’re they to be answered - you can’t blame him. It’s very different from the spite, bile, spin, intrusion and outright lies that England footballers face from our press.
-
I expect jealousy and envy play a very large part - it often does when people behave like that, plus the desire to drag others down instead of being pleased for them for their success and admiration for the hard word and effort put into it.
I certainly think that the tabloid press know that a good part of their audience envies the footballer lifestyle and tap into that.
-
That’s just a journo doing his job. Sure, it’s persistent, and it must be annoying, but he’s just asking questions that would give him a huge scoop we’re they to be answered - you can’t blame him. It’s very different from the spite, bile, spin, intrusion and outright lies that England footballers face from our press.
I'll take your word for it, I don't read the press these days. I don't remember it happening in the '40's and '50's when footballers got paid the same as bricklayers and the cost of watching a match was at a low level.
-
I'll take your word for it, I don't read the press these days. I don't remember it happening in the '40's and '50's when footballers got paid the same as bricklayers and the cost of watching a match was at a low level.
Things have changed but even then it wasn't this sort of jumpers for goal posts idea. Have a look at the story of Hughie Gallacher for the idea. Besides the treatment of Salah and Ramos is about the game not a tattoo.
-
I cannot help hearing the 'one million simulations' phrase in the tones of Dr Evil
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44383950
-
I cannot help hearing the 'one million simulations' phrase in the tones of Dr Evil
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44383950
Bollocks those preditions, just like the FIFA rankings.
-
Bollocks those preditions, just like the FIFA rankings.
Are you pantsdrunk already?
-
Bollocks those preditions, just like the FIFA rankings.
What in particular do you disagree with?
-
What in particular do you disagree with?
I just don't place any value on those sort of predictions. Too many variables.
-
Enjoy the football everybody.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/gay-rights-abuses-war-crimes-world-cup-russia-fifa-putin
-
Enjoy the football everybody.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/gay-rights-abuses-war-crimes-world-cup-russia-fifa-putin
Yes, you would think that in global occasions like this we would look to have a minimal level of human rights to be allowed to hold. I can get the argument that you don't isolate everyone from participation as it can work as a carrot. It's all about money though.
-
Its not widely known but Putin doesn't give a fuck about carrots.
-
Its not widely known but Putin doesn't give a fuck about carrots.
But in what I was suggesting he wouldn't have got to hold the Cup or indeed the Winter Olympics. Participation bans might not be as beneficial.
-
But in what I was suggesting he wouldn't have got to hold the Cup or indeed the Winter Olympics. Participation bans might not be as beneficial.
Yes but that relies on FIFA adopting some kind of moral position. That is not something they are currently capable of doing.
I will not be watching.
-
But which countries would be allowed to hold sporting events? China, no, US, no, UK, no, and so on. I will be watching.
-
But which countries would be allowed to hold sporting events? China, no, US, no, UK, no, and so on. I will be watching.
So will I.
-
I’m with those who say that it shouldn’t be there, but it is. I can take or leave international football these days, mostly thanks to FIFA, but my boy is growing up fast and evenings around the telly with a match and a pizza might become less frequent. Selfish I may be, but I’m creating memories and screw Putin.
-
Spain having an early nervous breakdown, sacking their manager. The first own goal, I guess.
-
Spain having an early nervous breakdown, sacking their manager. The first own goal, I guess.
Seems like a massive hissy fit.
-
Yes but that relies on FIFA adopting some kind of moral position. That is not something they are currently capable of doing.
I will not be watching.
What! Not even the opening match of Russia v Saudi Arabia which will just be a big gay rainbow of tolerance!
-
And more tolerance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-44481590
-
Peter Tatchell arrested.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/russia/peter-tatchell-has-been-arrested-in-russia-for-staging-an-anti-putin-protest/ar-AAyDVEP?li=BBoPRmx&OCID=ansmsnnews11
-
I thought England were supposed to have played their first match by now, but I haven't heard anything about it.
-
I thought England were supposed to have played their first match by now, but I haven't heard anything about it.
No. Monday evening.
-
I thought England were supposed to have played their first match by now, but I haven't heard anything about it.
Yesterday's battle of the bastards was the opening match.
-
Maeght and NS
thank you for the info.
-
Portugal v Spain is terrific.
-
Best game I've seen in ages.
-
What a game!
-
Some of the Spanish play is beyond belief, like a kind of dance. Sheer will-power by Ronaldo, also.
-
Motty's desert island disc top pick is Three Lions.
No idea why but that made me both :D and :'(.
-
Just listened to Three Lions. Classic. Got my England top on and buzzing for the game.
-
Well it's not a true classic but the memories it evokes... really happy with Southgate in charge, this feels like a happy ship to me.
-
Good tempo, but ffs Sterling!
-
;D
-
Go England, this is good.
-
Poor goalie person though.
-
What are we doing in front of goal?!
-
.... and at the back!
-
Well it's England isn't it...
-
Just loving the speed. Watched the Belgium game and they were playing so slooooooow.
-
Well it's England isn't it...
Indeed
-
Penalty. What an idiot.
-
Soft penalty
-
Agreed.
-
::)
-
Delph for Alli?
-
That was a penalty. As a relative neutral this is great fun
-
Wrestling on Kane!
-
Facepalm.
-
Facepalm.
Sums the half up.
-
That was a penalty. As a relative neutral this is great fun
Never a penalty. Walker was turning and the Algerian geezer run into his arm. Soft penalty fit only for girls league.
-
Never a penalty. Walker was turning and the Algerian geezer run into his arm. Soft penalty fit only for girls league.
I was referring to the wrestling of Kane from Wales, not the penalty given to Tunisia.
-
Never a penalty. Walker was turning and the Algerian geezer run into his arm. Soft penalty fit only for girls league.
Penalty in the modern game.
-
Penalty in the modern game.
Then there are 20 penalties not given every game, and England should have been a penalty and the Tunisian player booked at least for the wrestling on Kane.
-
Then there are 20 penalties not given every game, and England should have been a penalty and the Tunisian player booked at least for the wrestling on Kane.
Yes.
-
Is it normal to have sprinklers on the pitch at half time?
-
That's mad. Penalty x2.
-
And that should be another penalty, and from my view point a sending off. Inconsistency from the referee.
-
Poor referreeing.
-
It's gone a bit flat. :-\
-
Other than the goal, given he is captain, Kane has been disappointing
-
Other than the goal, given he is captain, Kane has been disappointing
They'll say he's tired after a long season again.
-
Other than the goal, given he is captain, Kane has been disappointing
Truthfully I don't think he has a lot of character. I went off him when he started swearing on his daughter's life in order to get a goal. It seemed quite adolescent.
-
Referee has been shit. This is ending 1-1. Referee probably got a backhander.
-
Referee has been shit. This is ending 1-1. Referee probably got a backhander.
No, just a crap referee.
-
How was that a foul from that corner?
-
Timewasting.
-
Referee has been shit. This is ending 1-1. Referee probably got a backhander.
Aw!!! All the toys out of the pram!!!
-
Aw!!! All the toys out of the pram!!!
Linekar did have a point at half time the England rarely get the rub of the green. But they do themselves few favours.
-
;D
-
Points to Kane
-
Aw!!! All the toys out of the pram!!!
Where are Scotland? Oh! We've just scored. Ha ha!
-
Well that's what Kane's there for. :D
-
Linekar did have a point at half time the England rarely get the rub of the green. But they do themselves few favours.
I think that's a very English take. Did he mention Owen's dive?
-
Where are Scotland? Oh! We've just scored. Ha ha!
You struggling to read that I've been supporting you for this match?
-
Lucky in the end. For once the forgot to wrestle Kane to the ground.
-
Lucky in the end. For once the forgot to wrestle Kane to the ground.
Indeed.
-
Lucky in the end. For once the forgot to wrestle Kane to the ground.
Don't see it as lucky. Played better football, had better chances. Had worse decisions against them.
-
I like the font on the Tunisian shirts.
-
Don't see it as lucky. Played better football, had better chances. Had worse decisions against them.
They aren't tournament winners though.
-
Is that important? So far we have seen good teams but no obvious winners. England didn't expect to be winners
-
It's a thing though isn't it? There's always so much expectation on England, even when it is unrealistic.
-
I thought they did OK, for one thing, they were resilient. They went flat later, but good substitutions by manager brought some energy back. Kane is a pure goal-scorer. They should get through to the next stage.
-
I'm thinking that they'll be so much more mature by the Euros. That could be their tournament.
-
I like the whole team. And Southgate is good.
-
The wrestling by Tunisia was ridiculous, Kane was half-strangled.
-
I like the whole team. And Southgate is good.
I rate Southgate and I like his selections. He doesn’t mistake making interesting decisions for controversial for the sake of it like Hoddle etc.
-
I don't think England are going to win the whole thing, but they have avoided those ghastly headlines about needing to win the last game, and so on. Progress of sorts. You can see them getting through to the next round, and even beyond that, but I think then you come up against Brazil or Germany, unless the Germans are having a nervous breakdown (unlikely). So a quarter final appearance would be success, but they might have to beat Poland. Aaaagh!
-
This made me laugh.
https://newsthump.com/2018/06/19/gareth-southgate-apologises-for-letting-down-tabloid-hacks-with-unexpected-england-win/
-
Classic game of its kind - Portugal/Morocco. Morocco had all the play, but had no top striker, result no goals. Portugal are ugly and boring, but have a world-class striker, result one goal. If Portugal win the World Cup, I will go to Waitrose in my drawers.
-
This made me laugh.
https://newsthump.com/2018/06/19/gareth-southgate-apologises-for-letting-down-tabloid-hacks-with-unexpected-england-win/
Nice one!! :D
-
I think I've seen all the big teams now, and they look hopeless, basically too slow. I expect they're playing it safe, and will rev up. Just watching Brazil, very sluggish, but starting to warm up. Still it gives England some hope.
-
The odd thing is that surely there is no shock in the tactics of the 'lesser' teams. It's like the coaches have decided 'Well, no one is going to try a well organised defence shutting us down before the final third and trying to hit us on the break. So we'll just play very slowly.'
-
I think there is a lot of caution about not peaking too soon, but this is ridiculous. Best teams - Croatia, Senegal, Russia, and I suppose, Spain, but it will change.
-
I'd add in Belgium, England, and Mexico to those teams, I think at this satge there has been benefit in having a traditional number 9, such as Kane, Lukaku, Diego Costa and' to the extent that he is traditional, Ronaldo.
-
I always forget Belgium.
-
Well, that was enjoyable, Neymar doing his theatrics, but a good knockdown from Firminho, and Coutinho drills home. What a barrel of laafs and madness.
-
Neymar's a whining little girl.
-
But a brilliant whining little girl.
-
Intriguing match last night, with the undertones of Serb / Kosovan history.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44586587
-
Yeah, I thought the Serbs had it sown up, but the Swiss came back with a wallop. No more cuckoo clocks.
-
Swiss goalscorer facing bans
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44592846
-
Loving this from England.
-
6-0! I know Panama are shite, but that must be a big boost to England's morale.
-
Yeah, they played well. Who knows what's next? They could probably beat most teams, or they could lose.
The funny thing about the first goal (Stones), was that the Panama players were so busy hauling English players to the ground, that Stones was unmarked.
-
Nice demolishion job against a team who we should do it against anyway. Feels nice. Kane's penalties were superb. The pressure is off for a change. I'm drunk. Writing this took bloody ages.
-
It appears that Panama managed to get a goal by the end. Bugger. I suppose if they'd got three goals, it'd've been a Panama hat trick. Still an impressive result for England, though.
-
Watched bits of the games last night, and VAR is taking on a life of its own now. The interesting thing is that it hasn't reduced controversy, but increased it. For example, Ronaldo would either get a red card or not, but now the referee trudged over to the screen, stares at it interminably, Ronaldo looks scared/angry, the Iranians are screaming for red, and then the ref pulls out yellow. Bedlam all round. It's like watching Eastenders.
-
Bloody Argies. Through by the skin of rheir teeth. What makes it worse is seeing that pig Maradona celebrate ir.
-
Maradona is the best player who I got to see most of their career for.
-
Maradona is the best player who I got to see most of their career for.
Still a cheating pig. I'll never forgive him for that.
-
Still a cheating pig. I'll never forgive him for that.
Players cheat all the time, Maradona was also incredibly talented.
-
Well, did you see Germany go out? Another surreal game, Germany looking jaded, another VAR goal, showing how the system can work well. This World Cup is fun.
-
With one of France and Argentina to go out next round, another chance for a favourite to go out. Enjoying the play!
-
Well, did you see Germany go out? Another surreal game, Germany looking jaded, another VAR goal, showing how the system can work well. This World Cup is fun.
Never thought I'd see the day Germany imploding.
-
With one of France and Argentina to go out next round, another chance for a favourite to go out. Enjoying the play!
A very small chance I would say.
-
France or Argentina will go out though.
-
France or Argentina will go out though.
What? Are you counting Argentina as a favourite?
-
Pretournament maybe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43529009
-
Pretournament maybe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43529009
Agree, they are one of the teams you ecuect to be there at the end. Then you see them play...
-
This has been a strong performance from Brazil. And I think they can get better.
-
A very small chance I would say.
Both given a big chance pre tournament. Both know how to win world cups.
-
This has been a strong performance from Brazil. And I think they can get better.
Hopefuly not. They're an annoying team, full of diving little ponces.
-
Germany really performed below par. Maybe Löw has been in the position too long.
-
Hoping England win tonight. I'm really not bothered which side if the draw we're on. Momentum is everything in tournaments.
-
Hoping England win tonight. I'm really not bothered which side if the draw we're on. Momentum is everything in tournaments.
Think that is best attitude, To win you have to beat those in front of you. Don't see that much difference in sides you might face.
-
Think that is best attitude, To win you have to beat those in front of you. Don't see that much difference in sides you might face.
Agreed. You have to beat the best to win the tournament. I'm not saying we're going to win it but we have to have the right attirude. No pissing about.
-
Southgate has played the tournament. Boring game. Belgium deserved to win. Let's hope the risk payed off.
-
Southgate is the complete manager. He can play anti-football.
-
Matches like last night's are always going to be a bit odd. At least it wasn't the last 15 minutes of the Japan game.
-
It struck me how rusty the players looked, for example, Dier looked slow. But the English season finished a month ago, so they haven't played much. One of the problems with summer football.
-
The Champions League just about to start up in a couple of weeks. And some places are in middle of season. I think the need to get playing time justified Southgate's selection
-
Hat doffed to Shearer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44662690
-
Mbappe scorching across the grass, but Argentina have hope after the wonder strike from Di Maria.
-
That was some game, France looking good, Mbappe terrific.
-
Yep. The France v Argentina was the best game of the tournament so far, imo.
-
I was fascinated by the Spain/Russia game. Spain made over a 1000 passes, but seemed to spin a web that began to choke them. But then not playing Iniesta seemed bonkers, as he can thread the eye of a needle. Isco the new star though, with prodigious talent. Now for Brazil and the sublime Coutinho.
-
Hoping Chicharito bangs in s couple of goals, then bye bye Brazil.
-
Mexico out playing Brazil. This is fun. They need to score..
-
Have to question some of Mexico's decision making. A few times they've been on the break and have gone for the long shot when there have been better options. I fear the game is beyond then now. Mexico's goalie seems pretty tasty though. Made some good saves.
-
Yes, Mexican goalie excellent. Good goal from Brazil, backheel from Neymar finds Willian, who is excellent today, he crosses, Neymar taps it in. Easy really.
-
Fancy bringing on Firminho as a sub. Yikes.
-
If you didn't watch the Belgium game, watch the highlights. Magnificent.
-
Gutted for Japan.
-
Indeed. :(
-
Oh buggerybollocks - Brazil beat Mexico.
-
Heartbreaking for Japan. Not as heartbreaking when Steven Gerrard scored that goal in the 2006 FA Cup final against West Ham, but heartbreaking nonetheless.
-
Heartbreaking for Japan. Not as heartbreaking when Steven Gerrard scored that goal in the 2006 FA Cup final against West Ham, but heartbreaking nonetheless.
I try not to think about that.
-
Well he has a point...
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jul/02/marouane-fellaini-nacer-chadli-fringes-belgium-hazard-flatters
-
I think this is part of the beauty of football, you can't pin it down to a few neat formulae. Actually, Fellaini has done it before for Belgium. And Man Utd fans are snobs. But tournament football tends to be more unpredictable, this is a great one. Incidentally, the third Belgian goal was a work of art, De Bruyne driving forward, pass sprayed out to Meunier, who crosses, monster dummy by Lukaku, Chadli scores, but all in one flowing movement.
-
One thing I enjoyed was the torrent of social media stuff after Martinez brought on Fellaini and Chadli. All the armchair experts were sneering, about the low-class subs. Who's laughing now? I suppose Brazil will beat Belgium?
-
I guess that Martinez had experience of seeing them play in the prom, but even so...Chadli, who has been on the West Brom's physio's couch more than the bench, let alone the pitch.
-
Good stuff so far from England.
-
Just seen on Twitter:
'What did we do to deserve Glenn Hoddle as a pundit? Must have been something in a previous life.'
:D
-
Ha! Mark Lawrenson is calmer.
Definitely red card.
-
Ha! Mark Lawrenson is calmer.
Definitely red card.
Yep.
There ITV commentary is woeful. I like Gary Neville but as for the rest...
-
Neville saying you have to dive even it's not needed...mmm
-
Neville saying you have to dive even it's not needed...mmm
Modern way, isn't it?
-
Modern way, isn't it?
Maybe, but there is no need to support it.
-
I get the feeling I could go and have a bath or something and be back in time for the penalty shoot-out...
-
Maybe, but there is no need to support it.
Is it supporting it or is it just saying it like it is?
-
Is it supporting it or is it just saying it like it is?
If he's saying it's the thing to do, then yep, that's by definition supporting doing it.
-
If he's saying it's the thing to do, then yep, that's by definition supporting doing it.
It's not the thing to do therefore the referee won't see it? I get what you are saying but against a team like Columbia it's understandable.
-
It's not the thing to do therefore the referee won't see it? I get what you are saying but against a team like Columbia it's understandable.
Against a team like England, it's understandable will be being said in Columbia.
-
Foul on Kane but foul by Kane to get by. So strictly speaking no penalty. If I was a referee, in some of these matches there would be two goal keepers punting the ball at each other.
And Henderson should be off.
-
And now they are scuffing up the penalty area... we aren't that fucking good.
Commentary getting worse. >:(
-
Almost certainly golden boot for Kane, at very least a share. Can't see Lukaku getting 3 goals.
-
They'd been aiming for that.
-
Don't like matches like this. Does neither side any credit.
-
and Stones should be off now. This is dramatic but a huge bad advert for football.
-
Yep.
-
This is really going to kick off.
-
A dramatic match should be enjoyable. This isn't.
-
Columbia are 'like an errant child' and England despite having two players who should be off are composed. The commentary is astounding.
-
I know. No doubt that Columbia are being provocative but even so.
-
A dramatic match should be enjoyable. This isn't.
sort of like an after leaving the pub at closing time walk through the city centre on a Saturday night.
-
Something like that.
More from Twitter:
I hope Glenn Hoddle is reincarnated as me listening to Glenn Hoddle
-
Abd:
Think the best route to the final is the one not involving Clive Tyldesley and Glenn Hoddle.
-
Champion and McCoist have been the best commentary pairing.
-
Tyldesley's always been poor.
-
How is Barrios still on?
-
Fucking hell, Walker!!!!
-
Seconded.
-
I do like seeing Vardy in the WC.
-
One of the great comments I have seen is that we will only be properly intelligent when we are on screen at the football, we wave at the camera and not the screen.
-
:D
-
This can't end soon enough, and for more than one reason...
-
Jinx!
-
Knew I could have had a bath...
-
If the referee has been doing his job, it would have been filled with players having an early one.
-
If the referee has been doing his job, it would have been filled with players having an early one.
Not with me in it too though.
-
Got to mute the sodding commentary.
-
Kane in general played too deep
-
This is of course a Columbia team without their biggest impact player
-
You've got to fancy Columbia to snatch this. England hanging on.
-
I do like a penalty shoot out.
Except when England are in it.
-
Kane looks slow but you can't take him off for penalties.
-
The Jordan Pickford save was incredible. Had to go to find it on web though.
-
Lovely run from Rose
-
Dreadful header Henderson, er sorry, Dier
-
Just seen elsewhere.
England's keeper just brought off save of tournament.
Columbia's keeper looks like Tyrion Lannister's stunt double.
Penalties, hurrah!
-
Sod.
-
Must be tough mentally on Southgate.
-
Good penalties so far
-
Tense?
-
Bloody Pickford. :D
-
OMG. ;D
-
There you are, 'curse' over.
-
Pleased for everyone, but especially Southgate.
-
With you on Southgate! Oddly the commentary team forget that the match before Southgate's miss, England won a penalty shootout vs Spain. But good for him. And the more deserving team won.
So the first advert after all that is for Viagra?
-
Was it? :D
-
Was it? :D
was here, pity it wasn't Pizza Hut.
-
I do like a penalty shoot out.
Columbians think a penalty shoot-out is what happens between rival drug gangs.
-
Columbians think a penalty shoot-out is what happens between rival drug gangs.
And a big hello to Bernard Manning.
-
And a big hello to Bernard Manning.
Columbia is notorious for its drug barons, so I don't think that joke is particularly Manningesque.
-
Columbia is notorious for its drug barons, so I don't think that joke is particularly Manningesque.
Seems the definition of stereotyping.
-
Seems the definition of stereotyping.
Are you saying the Columbian drug cartels aren't really that bad?
If you think that joke was stereotyping, you should have heard what my boss said about the Russians today.
-
Are you saying the Columbian drug cartels aren't really that bad?
If you think that joke was stereotyping, you should have heard what my boss said about the Russians today.
For the first question, thanks for the straw.
For the second question, your argument is that if you only punch people, it's ok because others knife them.
-
For the first question, thanks for the straw.
You were the one that claimed it was stereotyping. Columbia does have a serious problem with drugs cartels. It's not a stereotype, it's true.
For the second question, your argument is that if you only punch people, it's ok because others knife them.
I see you have constructed your own straw man.
-
You were the one that claimed it was stereotyping. Columbia does have a serious problem with drugs cartels. It's not a stereotype, it's true.
I see you have constructed your own straw man.
Some y do x, therefore all y do x. That's stereotyping.
And nope, sorry just because you used a lousy argument doesn't make it a strawman from me. Your idea that someone said something very racist, doesn't make someone less racist, not racist.
-
I thought we controlled the game except for that one lapse in concentration at 90 odd minutes when Colombia scored. They'll learn from that though. We do need to get more goals from open play but to be fair Colombia did set up very defensively with a back four and three defensive midfielders and defended our set pieces well. Magnificent save by Pickford in that shootout. Southgate seems to have got that team believing in themselves and winning that penalty shootout will only lift their confidence. Can't wait for the next game.
-
I turned on Five Live and started listening ... then stayed listening right to the very end!! :) It was definitely interesting enough to keep me awake!
-
Interesting turn of phrase from Southgate re 'Englishman'. I notice the BBC has turned this into 'England fan' in its headline but not in its direct quote. I was going to say that I would have thought the FA would have given Southgate instructions on using inclusive language, but then I laughed at my own daftness.
-
Are you saying the Columbian drug cartels aren't really that bad?
If you think that joke was stereotyping, you should have heard what my boss said about the Russians today.
NS specialises in sanctimonious, self-righteous sneers at other people's posts. Take no notice.
-
And your joke was shit.
Can we get back to the footie?
-
Phew, exhausting to watch. They did OK, and showed resilience. Beginning of extra time was rocky, but they came back. It's so hard to score in open play, and no doubt Sweden will set up a tank-trap defence. Keep going. Trippier quite brilliant.
-
NS specialises in sanctimonious, self-righteous sneers at other people's posts. Take no notice.
I love you too, darling!
Anyway, Sweden, no pushovers. I disagree with wigginhall that they will do anything specific in terms of defence. They will play their normal current style which is very similar to Leicester when they won the Premiership.
-
As entertainment, I preferred the Belgium/Japan match as there appeared to be no aggressive gamesmanship going on. England did well to survive considering the last minute equaliser and what appeared to be 90% of the crowd against them. Still if they ever meet Russia in the tournament, that experience might strengthen them.
-
As entertainment, I preferred the Belgium/Japan match as there appeared to be no aggressive gamesmanship going on. England did well to survive considering the last minute equaliser and what appeared to be 90% of the crowd against them. Still if they ever meet Russia in the tournament, that experience might strengthen them.
Yes, it was a terrible match to watch. Much better football has been played. But, we are still in it.
-
I am strangely cheered by seeing David Baddiel's tweet of himself and Frank Skinner celebrating the win on his sofa. Some things change, some things stay the same...
-
Yes, not attractive football, except in a kind of grim clenched way. But, I guess it suited.
-
I am strangely cheered by seeing David Baddiel's tweet of himself and Frank Skinner celebrating the win on his sofa. Some things change, some things stay the same...
That was rather lovely. I got annoyed at some of my fellow Scots moaning about it. Just a couple of football fans, happy that their team had won.
I'm sorry to have missed Baddiel's latest show while it was touring.
-
Phew, exhausting to watch. They did OK, and showed resilience. Beginning of extra time was rocky, but they came back. It's so hard to score in open play, and no doubt Sweden will set up a tank-trap defence. Keep going. Trippier quite brilliant.
Sweden have played 4-4-2 for what seems forever. The way they play is rather uninspiring but they manage to grind out results playing not very pretty football. We ain't got the best record against them either. There is something different about this England team compared to previous one that might cause Sweden trouble though. I love the way we're passing the ball about with confidence and the way we're defending from the front. On Saturday we shall see.
Trippier is a great crosser of the ball. He just gets it in that sweet spot so often. Stones and Maguire were good too and aren't afraid to push up. I also noticed Sterling tracking back really well. I'm happy.
-
Sweden have played 4-4-2 for what seems forever. The way they play is rather uninspiring but they manage to grind out results playing not very pretty football. We ain't got the best record against them either. There is something different about this England team compared to previous one that might cause Sweden trouble though. I love the way we're passing the ball about with confidence and the way we're defending from the front. On Saturday we shall see.
Trippier is a great crosser of the ball. He just gets it in that sweet spot so often. Stones and Maguire were good too and aren't afraid to push up. I also noticed Sterling tracking back really well. I'm happy.
They don't have players of the same calibre as they have had in the past. They usually had a proven goalscorer. Agree about Sterling - thought when he went off it affected the style a lot and Kane dropped deeper which isn't right thing.
-
Sweden have played 4-4-2 for what seems forever. The way they play is rather uninspiring but they manage to grind out results playing not very pretty football. We ain't got the best record against them either.
Yes, I remember the newspaper attack on the manager Graham Taylor at Euro 1992 with the headline "Swedes 2 Turnips 1"
-
Some y do x, therefore all y do x. That's stereotyping.
Another straw man. Nobody said that all Columbians are drug dealers.
And nope, sorry just because you used a lousy argument doesn't make it a strawman from me. Your idea that someone said something very racist, doesn't make someone less racist, not racist.
The straw man was you pretending that the statement I made was an argument at all. Furthermore, I did not claim anybody said anything racist.
-
Can we get back to the footie?
The England win has ruined my weekend. I had planned a relaxing afternoon with some friends with a few beers and maybe a barbecue. Now I'm going to be enduring two - maybe three - hours of buttock clutching tension capped with perhaps five minutes of elation or weeks of crushed dreams and bitter disappointment.
On a positive note, given that this is the World Cup that Putin bought, humiliating the English bid team in the process, it would be rather nice to knock them out in the semi-finals.
-
The England win has ruined my weekend. I had planned a relaxing afternoon with some friends with a few beers and maybe a barbecue. Now I'm going to be enduring two - maybe three - hours of buttock clutching tension capped with perhaps five minutes of elation or weeks of crushed dreams and bitter disappointment.
On a positive note, given that this is the World Cup that Putin bought, humiliating the English bid team in the process, it would be rather nice to knock them out in the semi-finals.
It's the hope that kills you. As a Scotland and Morton fan, this is not a problem for me.
-
Sweden have played 4-4-2 for what seems forever. The way they play is rather uninspiring but they manage to grind out results playing not very pretty football. We ain't got the best record against them either. There is something different about this England team compared to previous one that might cause Sweden trouble though. I love the way we're passing the ball about with confidence and the way we're defending from the front. On Saturday we shall see.
Trippier is a great crosser of the ball. He just gets it in that sweet spot so often. Stones and Maguire were good too and aren't afraid to push up. I also noticed Sterling tracking back really well. I'm happy.
Pretty accurate. I'm not a Sterling fan. I think England lack a top creative player like Hazard, and the Alli/Lingard/Sterling axis were rather muted. Still, it kind of works. Life is so good without Rooney.
-
This is brilliant from Southgate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44715244
-
This is brilliant from Southgate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44715244
Hero. Absolute hero.
(and a little bit hot...)
-
So how would things look if Allardyce had stayed on?
(Must admit, I thought Southgate was a good appointment from the start).
-
Bloody stupid song. Think I must have something in my eye.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44711564
-
So how would things look if Allardyce had stayed on?
(Must admit, I thought Southgate was a good appointment from the start).
BFS should never have got the job in the fist place. He's a dinosaur. Under him I think we would be much worse off. We would have probably drawn against Tunisia and Panama, then would have been shiting ourselves for the game against Belgium.
-
BFS should never have got the job in the fist place. He's a dinosaur. Under him I think we would be much worse off. We would have probably drawn against Tunisia and Panama, then would have been shiting ourselves for the game against Belgium.
That's if we'd qualified...
-
It's the hope that kills you. As a Scotland and Morton fan, this is not a problem for me.
I don't expect England to get past Sweden.
-
I don't expect England to get past Sweden.
Tbh everything in from here is a bonus. I think that as they mature we can expect more from them.
-
Fellaini is starting for Belgium. :-\
-
That's to free up De Bruyne, (I think). F is the clogger, DB the artist.
-
Belgium sensational, Brazil flat. De Bruyne, Hazard, and Lukaku, unplayable. Fellaini a rock in mid-field.
-
And Roberto Martinez could be the winning manager of the WC.
-
They look like champions.
-
;D
-
Was that good or what?
-
would you believe it - I was listening to the computer broadcast on Five Live and it suddenly stopped about 30 seconds before the end!! I had to phone my son to check that all was well!!
-
Is it me or is Jurgen Klinsmann starting to resemble Julian Clary?
-
The weird thing is, it was relatively easy. Sweden had a flurry, second half, and that was it. Complete performance, except for the first 15 minutes.
-
Croatia next. Are they any good? (Not that I care about foot-the-ball, but it'd be nice if we won, or at least made the final.)
-
The weird thing is, it was relatively easy. Sweden had a flurry, second half, and that was it. Complete performance, except for the first 15 minutes.
I felt quite calm yesterday, barring numerous explitives during the game. A comfortable win. Whatever happens from here Southgate and the team can hold their heads up with pride.
-
I felt quite calm yesterday, barring numerous explitives during the game. A comfortable win. Whatever happens from here Southgate and the team can hold their heads up with pride.
Yes, thats it exactly. Calm. No need to hide in the kitchen.
Or am I the only one that does that?
-
This is wha I thought Southgate would bring as manager - a fresh par of eyes when appraising players. I may be wrong but under a different manager these guys may not even have made the squad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44753849
-
Interesting, thoughtful piece brought to my attention elsewhere by a long gone poster (Ivyowl):
http://novaramedia.com/2018/07/07/talented-diverse-a-team-this-england-side-is-the-opposite-of-the-countrys-ruling-elite/
-
Interesting, thoughtful piece brought to my attention elsewhere by a long gone poster (Ivyowl):
http://novaramedia.com/2018/07/07/talented-diverse-a-team-this-england-side-is-the-opposite-of-the-countrys-ruling-elite/
This article from the Beeb reflects this in part.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-44739882
What I find odd though is that if you look back on the 'golden age' squad of Terry, Ferdinand, Rooney et al, only Lampard came from any kind of privileged background, and that is only because his dad was a famous footballer. Quite what it was that created that sense of entitlement and arrogance, completely unmatched by achievement, I don't know.
-
This article from the Beeb reflects this in part.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-44739882
Quite what it was that created that sense of entitlement and arrogance, completely unmatched by achievement, I don't know.
A clever agent, strong publicity, high price tag?
-
A clever agent, strong publicity, high price tag?
But these guys will be on comparable wages. They have won stuff at club level. And they will have agents.
Dunno, there was something toxic in English football back then. Think Terry exemplified all that was wrong with the game.
-
Good article by Mark Perryman
https://culturematters.org.uk/index.php/itemlist/user/283-markperryman
-
One interesting thing about this team is their lack of history. That are not a golden generation, in some ways they are a prosaic non-glamorous bunch. Southgate is the same, in fact, many people were doubtful about him. I think this has helped them, I suppose if they win the WC, they will become legendary.
-
Interesting, thoughtful piece brought to my attention elsewhere by a long gone poster (Ivyowl):
http://novaramedia.com/2018/07/07/talented-diverse-a-team-this-england-side-is-the-opposite-of-the-countrys-ruling-elite/
Seriously?
Do we have to bring class into everything.
-
Quite what it was that created that sense of entitlement and arrogance, completely unmatched by achievement, I don't know.
The media.
I don't suppose the sense of entitlement or arrogance really existed within previous World Cup squads at all. It was all manufactured by our press.
-
Mbappe looking good
-
A world star, I think.
-
Southgate has been talking about how 'our country' has had some problems with unity recently, and how he hopes the WC run will bring us together.
"Football in particular has the power to do that. We can feel the energy and feel support from home and it's a very special feeling, a privilege for us."
-
Southgate has been talking about how 'our country' has had some problems with unity recently, and how he hopes the WC run will bring us together.
"Football in particular has the power to do that. We can feel the energy and feel support from home and it's a very special feeling, a privilege for us."
I think that's one of his rare missteps.
-
Thought this was a well done article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44785165
-
I think that's one of his rare missteps.
Maybe. But it isn't untrue. I don't think it's a bad think to focus on what unifies us for once.
-
Maybe. But it isn't untrue. I don't think it's a bad think to focus on what unifies us for once.
'Us'?
-
'Us'?
England. Now, I remember cheering on Scotland in the WC. It was only as an adult that I noticed that the feeling isn't reciprocated. These days we are no more one nation than the EU is. I don't think it is wrong to talk about finding unity in England any more than I would if it were Wales in the WC semifinal and we were talking about what it means to the Welsh, although I don't think they have the issues that the English do.
Southgate in England manager. I don't see the problem with him talking about the country that his team represents.
-
England. Now, I remember cheering on Scotland in the WC. It was only as an adult that I noticed that the feeling isn't reciprocated.
England is fractured. Anything that unifies can't be a bad thing.
Quite a few Scots support England here, not all do. And unity is not always a good thing.
-
Quite a few Scots support England here, not all do. And unity is not always a good thing.
Modified my post, sorry.
No, unity isnt always a good thing, but given how fractured England is at the moment I think anything that is bringing people together has to be good. It's already been talked about how multiracial the team is, but also how multiracial the support is...the days where it was white racists cheering on the team and making exceptions for players of colour are gone. Reclaiming football from the dickheads has a feel to me of reclaiming decency and working as a team, and given the pathetic shower in Westminster and elsewhere I dont see that as a bad thing.
-
It would appear that at least one Scot went a bit too far in 'supporting' England.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/woman-filmed-dancing-ambulance-after-12891840
The problems I see with Southgate's comment is that the obvious ongoing division is Brexit which isn't an English only issue and that given that the 'country' is either the UK which is incorrect in football, or the division of the other countries that make up the UK are seen as irrelevant. Further, there is in any football Support of countries, that I have ever come across, a seam of xenophobia, and to me in exaggerating the importance of football, Southgate bolsters that.
-
I think in ordinary times I might agree. But right now... I think of Windrush and I see those kids playing for us, and I hope that things might just be better. That's all.
-
I think in ordinary times I might agree. But right now... I think of Windrush and I see those kids playing for us, and I hope that things might just be better. That's all.
At least some of those being united with are of the opinion that the PM is guilty of treason. It's precisely because these are not ordinary times that I think it a misstep from Southgate
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/07/11/theresa-may-guilty-treason-plenty-readers-think-politicians/
-
At least some of those being united with are of the opinion that the PM is guilty of treason. It's precisely because these are not ordinary times that I think it a misstep from Southgate
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/07/11/theresa-may-guilty-treason-plenty-readers-think-politicians/
And precisely why I disagree.
-
And precisely why I disagree.
People who think May is guilty of treason are not going to think they are wrong on that because the England team is multiracial. If England do well they will see it as all the more reason why May is a traitor. Overeating the benefits of football as I think Southgate did here, just makes them think they are more right in their beliefs.
But you may well be right that it would be better to concentrate on the good bits here and not be an Eeyore about it. I will be going round to friend's house to cheer on England tonight. I doubt we shall indulge in Three Lions but for all the good things about Southgate and the team hoping to see them through.
BTW did you see the interview with Harry (Which should England win, combined with the royal wedding is going to be a very popular nane, I would think) Maguire by Gabby Logan? I can only think he had been given the task by his teammates to get the word surreal in as many times as possible.
-
Dear English Brothers & Sisters,
I have thoroughly enjoyed England's journey throughout this world cup and I hope and pray that it truly is coming home :P :P
Come on Engerland
And I much prefer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaBdajHOsSM
Gonnagle.
-
People who think May is guilty of treason are not going to think they are wrong on that because the England team is multiracial. If England do well they will see it as all the more reason why May is a traitor. Overeating the benefits of football as I think Southgate did here, just makes them think they are more right in their beliefs.
But you may well be right that it would be better to concentrate on the good bits here and not be an Eeyore about it. I will be going round to friend's house to cheer on England tonight. I doubt we shall indulge in Three Lions but for all the good things about Southgate and the team hoping to see them through.
BTW did you see the interview with Harry (Which should England win, combined with the royal wedding is going to be a very popular nane, I would think) Maguire by Gabby Logan? I can only think he had been given the task by his teammates to get the word surreal in as many times as possible.
I get the impression the England squad would tell Rees Mogg to do one of he invited them round for champers. Not sure I'd say the same for Terry and Rooney. And the racist wankers would still be racist wankers and still want May in the tower even if England hadn't qualified. Fancy speculating on how shit we were in 2016 in the Euros and where that left us? Maybe losing is worse for us than winning.
Anyways...enjoy this evening. I'm not sure I will.
Didn't see the interview but I did enjoy Kyle Walker on Twitter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44765085
-
Yes, it's one of the benefits of not really being a fan, much easier to enjoy it, though if the game is shite then you lose interest.
-
I'm nervous. It's the hope that's so horrible.
-
According to local TV news this is an historic match and businesses are struggling to meet the needs of staff who want to watch the match.
Is it me or is this overkill?
Historic in what sense?
On shift, go to work.
Nation of fucking snowflakes.
I'm sure we didn't have all this bollocking hyperbole in 1966.
-
According to local TV news this is an historic match and businesses are struggling to meet the needs of staff who want to watch the match.
Is it me or is this overkill?
Historic in what sense?
On shift, go to work.
Nation of fucking snowflakes.
I'm sure we didn't have all this bollocking hyperbole in 1966.
My dad was at a wedding for the '66 match. All the blokes were huddled around a transistor radio and the bride was in tears.
I depends on the job, but the young chap I was talking to on the till in Tesco told me they have no - zero - customers during an England game. Not a lot of sense in paying people to do nothing.
-
I'm nervous. It's the hope that's so horrible.
I guess the consolation is that we went into this tournament with no hope at all.
-
I'm sure we didn't have all this bollocking hyperbole in 1966.
I bet we did.
Don't forget that the 1966 world cup final remains the most watched event on tv in the UK ever. And in those days the population of the UK was lower than today and not everyone even had a tv.
-
It was pretty ott. I was working in a pub, what larks. And I saw the game.
-
I bet we did.
Don't forget that the 1966 world cup final remains the most watched event on tv in the UK ever. And in those days the population of the UK was lower than today and not everyone even had a tv.
More so than the Coronation, or the 1977 Morecambe & Wise Christmas thing?
(Not being provocatively rhetorical; genuinely interested. I admit the memory is hazy but I always thought it was M&W '77 or possibly the assumed end of Only Fools and Horses c. 1999 (?)).
-
Yep Prof is right, see table in link below.
Not sure if it shows that the amount of hyperbole was the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts
-
It was pretty ott. I was working in a pub, what larks. And I saw the game.
What were you doing "working" in a pub in '66, wiggy? Drinking limeade through a waxed straw with a packet of crisps?
-
Yep Prof is right, see table in link below.
Not sure if it shows that the amount of hyperbole was the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts
Well bugger me.
(Although to me the difference between "programmes" and "special events" seems a fine one).
-
What were you doing "working" in a pub in '66, wiggy? Drinking limeade through a waxed straw with a packet of crisps?
You don't realize how ancient I am. I remember seeing Disraeli put his bicycle clips on. I can't tell you on what, as this is a family programme.
-
Well bugger me.
(Although to me the difference between "programmes" and "special events" seems a fine one).
It's still the highest but it's noticeable that special events are often on both main channels. And in 66 there were only 2 channels.
-
:(
-
Heard in my living room:
'It's staying there, it's staying there, it's staying, football's staying there...'
-
More so than the Coronation, or the 1977 Morecambe & Wise Christmas thing?
(Not being provocatively rhetorical; genuinely interested. I admit the memory is hazy but I always thought it was M&W '77 or possibly the assumed end of Only Fools and Horses c. 1999 (?)).
Well, certainly more than the Coronation, because hardly anyone had a telly in 1952.
-
Oh buggerybollocks.
-
Er........ https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/scotland-dies-laughing-20071121549
-
;D
-
Er........ https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/scotland-dies-laughing-20071121549
Bollocks. We know you were planning on invading during the final.
-
After the initial disappointment I think the England team and especially Southgate can hold their heads high and be proud. They gave us a reason to hope and I for one have fallen in love with the England team again. No one gave us a chance before the tournament. In the end we just seemed to run out of steam.
-
So disappointing, particularly after a stunning first half. We needed another goal when we were on top.
On viewing figures, the reports are that 26.5M watched last night - not sure whether that includes those watching on streaming services or just traditional tv. Certainly doesn't include all those watching on big screens in public spaces or pubs etc.
Certainly puts it well up there with the most watched events ever in the UK - and possibly even the most watched ever on a single channel and not repeated.
-
I hope Croatia go on to win now.
-
After the initial disappointment I think the England team and especially Southgate can hold their heads high and be proud. They gave us a reason to hope and I for one have fallen in love with the England team again. No one gave us a chance before the tournament. In the end we just seemed to run out of steam.
Agree with this. I've been cynical about the national side for some time. This has really changed how I feel about it.
-
Wow, some game. France were battered in the first half, then turned on the style, Mbappe, Griezmann, Pogba, came forward. Six goals, one of the great finals. Football, bloody hell.
-
Bollocks! Wabted Croatia to win but an entertaining game nonetheless.
-
VIVE LA FRANCE!
-
I bet we did.
Don't forget that the 1966 world cup final remains the most watched event on tv in the UK ever. And in those days the population of the UK was lower than today and not everyone even had a tv.
There were only two channels and it wouldn’t surprise me if they were both showing the final.
-
Bleedin' 'ell! We couldn't even win the third-place play-off!
-
Bleedin' 'ell! We couldn't even win the third-place play-off!
Never mind that: love the new name!
-
Never mind that: love the new name!
Good! I wanted to use Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle- dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz- ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer- spelterwasser-kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein- nurnburger-bratwustle-gernspurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut- gumberaber-shonedanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm, but that was too long even if I used the signature as well.
-
Good! I wanted to use Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle- dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz- ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer- spelterwasser-kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein- nurnburger-bratwustle-gernspurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut- gumberaber-shonedanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm, but that was too long even if I used the signature as well.
I thought that was an opera by Mozart.
-
https://youtu.be/Dzn0tIy3dzM
-
Bleedin' 'ell! We couldn't even win the third-place play-off!
They looked jaded and I don't think anyone wanted to risk getting injured just for a third place play-off four weeks before the start of the Premier League season.
-
https://youtu.be/Dzn0tIy3dzM
I don't recall ever seeing that one: I have now though!
-
Bleedin' 'ell! We couldn't even win the third-place play-off!
Who cares?
I don't know why they even bother. Well, I do, it's to bring in more money, but nobody cares who came third.
-
Just reading about how this will be the last WC as we know it. The next one will be in winter and the one after will be much larger and with more poor standard teams, so the knockout stages will take longer to come around and there will be quite some wait before the big teams g=finally meet. And it won't be hosted by one nation but three - the US, Canada and Mexico, which will remove that feel of a 'host nation' that is so important. Although I guess you could argue that the joint effort of those three countries working together in any capacity is an achievement at present.
-
On viewing figures, the reports are that 26.5M watched last night - not sure whether that includes those watching on streaming services or just traditional tv. Certainly doesn't include all those watching on big screens in public spaces or pubs etc.
The figures have been revised.
26.6M watching at home on traditional tv
Plus an additional 4.3M watching on ITVs streaming service making a total of 30.9M
And that doesn't include anyone watching in public places, whether in pubs or big public outdoor screening.
This means it is the 3rd most watch event (or tv programme) ever, after the 1966 world cup final and Princess Diana funeral and the highest ever on a single channel.
-
It won't be hosted by one nation but three - the US, Canada and Mexico...
None of which are major football nations*, but probably more so than Quatar.
*Unless Mexico is - I don't really follow the game.
-
None of which are major football nations*, but probably more so than Quatar.
*Unless Mexico is - I don't really follow the game.
Mexico was in this World Cup and has hosted it on its own. The infamous Hand of God incident was in Mexico.
-
Mexico was in this World Cup and has hosted it on its own. The infamous Hand of God incident was in Mexico.
And the USA have played in the World Cup on numerous occasions (even beating England once); it was unusual for them not to qualify. They also hosted it in 1994.
-
They also hosted it in 1994.
When England failed to qualify.
-
When England failed to qualify.
And Diana Ross scored a penalty.
Or not.
-
Mexico was in this World Cup and has hosted it on its own. The infamous Hand of God incident was in Mexico.
Mexico have hosted the World Cup twice already, in 1970 and 1986.
-
And the USA have played in the World Cup on numerous occasions (even beating England once); it was unusual for them not to qualify. They also hosted it in 1994.
Doubtless, but they're still not a major footballing nation. The USA excells at sports that no-one else plays: American "football", baseball, and basketball.
-
Doubtless, but they're still not a major footballing nation. The USA excells at sports that no-one else plays: American "football", baseball, and basketball.
There are very few major footballing nations in that sense, certainly less than 10 and all would be in either Sth America or Europe. Football while still not not huge in the US is simply because of the size and diversity something important to many many millions. Combined with Mexico for which football is huge and generally both qualify and get out of the group stage, you have a huge audience. If you want to expand it as a global brand you cannot just play it on 2 continents
The other thing is that it will be the first world cup of 48 teams, and very few countries will manage that easily on their own. And yes, even with the expansion I doubt Scotland will qualify at the moment.
Qatar is a farce.
-
Doubtless, but they're still not a major footballing nation. The USA excells at sports that no-one else plays: American "football", baseball, and basketball.
The USA women's team seems to be one of the best in the World judging from their results.
What is the definition of "major footballing nation"?
-
The USA women's team seems to be one of the best in the World judging from their results.
What is the definition of "major footballing nation"?
Size of fan base and success at senior mens level.
-
Size of fan base and success at senior mens level.
Why the senior men’s level?
anyway, sidestepping the sexism on the grounds that the fan base is usually much bigger for the men’s game, could you put some figures on your criteria please. How big does the fan base have to be? How successful does the team have to be? Is Italy a major footballing nation given that its team is so unsuccessful it failed to qualify for the World Cup?
-
Why the senior men’s level?
anyway, sidestepping the sexism on the grounds that the fan base is usually much bigger for the men’s game, could you put some figures on your criteria please. How big does the fan base have to be? How successful does the team have to be? Is Italy a major footballing nation given that its team is so unsuccessful it failed to qualify for the World Cup?
Womens football has less money and less fans because it's basically crap. Same with hockey, except perhaps in Canada. Same can be said of U23's which is just kids football.
-
Why the senior men’s level?
I guess because we are discussing the men’s world cup, not the women's.
How successful does the team have to be? Is Italy a major footballing nation given that its team is so unsuccessful it failed to qualify for the World Cup?
Sure even the most successful of nations have blips. So we aren't talking about a snap-shot of success, but over a long period. In which case Italy certainly qualify as a major footballing nation.
-
I guess because we are discussing the men’s world cup, not the women's.
This is in the context of defining a "major footballing nation".
Sure even the most successful of nations have blips. So we aren't talking about a snap-shot of success, but over a long period. In which case Italy certainly qualify as a major footballing nation.
How long a period? How successful? I feel that, if we are going to be categorising nations by how footballing they are, we need some solid empirical rules, especially if that is a criterion for judging whether they deserve to host the World Cup or not.
-
This is in the context of defining a "major footballing nation".
The starting point of which was discussion over which countries should be able to host the men’s world cup, with Genial Harry Grout asking whether any of the 2026 hosts were major footballing nations.
How long a period? How successful? I feel that, if we are going to be categorising nations by how footballing they are, we need some solid empirical rules, especially if that is a criterion for judging whether they deserve to host the World Cup or not.
I never made any claim that only 'major footballing nations' should be able to host the world cup. My claim was that Italy are a 'major footballing nation', regardless of the fact that they failed to qualify for the 2018 world cup.
-
I never made any claim that only 'major footballing nations' should be able to host the world cup.
I don’t believe I ever claimed you did.
My claim was that Italy are a 'major footballing nation', regardless of the fact that they failed to qualify for the 2018 world cup.
Do you agree with ad’s criteria of size of fan base and success at the senior men’s level? If so, I’d like to see some proper quantification so we can objectively decide who is a major footballing nation.
-
Do you agree with ad’s criteria of size of fan base and success at the senior men’s level? If so, I’d like to see some proper quantification so we can objectively decide who is a major footballing nation.
Broadly - it, of course, isn't an exact science - but factors you'd want to include would be:
1. Average crowd sizes for club games in their top league and lower leagues
2. Track record of top club sides in major international club competitions, e.g. Champions league
3. International reach of club football - e.g. value of rights to show games outside of that country
4. Track record of the national team of that country in qualifying for/reaching latter stages/winning major international tournaments and in international rankings.
And you'd involve some blender quotient that wouldn't suggest that failure of a national side to qualify for one tournament would drop them from tier, unless the other aspects also nose dived at the same time.
So in European terms top tier countries would be England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France. Thereafter countries such as Portugal, Netherlands and so on.
In South America, Brazil and Argentina in top tier.