Football - clouds on the optimism horizon

[StefCurry]

7 hours ago, Consigliere said:

Last season as well. In the past couple of years he does manage a decent performance now and again but Rooney's "good games" are becoming fewer and farther between. Mostly his performances range from anonymous to liability.

let's see him on the bench against Slovenia.

[Philokles]

21 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

If this is how you were taught to play rugby, then I'd posit that your coaches weren't fantastic. I mean, it can get a bit grindy but there's a definite tactical shift and flow to it. And frankly (I should watch rugby more) watching a good successful passing move completed is just as satisfying as in football. And moreso (for me) than in American Football because there's more spontaneity in it.

I loved playing rugby in school. I should watch it more often.

By the way, I hope we're all talking about Union here. Not that pale imitation that calls itself League.

The coaches were pretty good, but only cared if you were in the rugby squad. Who went in what class was determined by English ability, which, given its lack of correlation to athleticism, meant the few big guys who knew how to play dominated the entire matches and were happy to make it a physical battle they knew they'd win. Given that it was my first impression, as I watched football only at home, that idea of it has stuck.

[Consigliere]

This is what happens when there is an international break: the football thread turns into a rugby/NFL/basketball/baseball discussion. International break sucks!!!

On topic(): I find Rugby to be far more watchable than NFL. Especially these days where the old physical approach based around rucks, mauls and kicking for position is being replaced with 'running rugby'. More and more teams these days employ -- or are attempting to employ --  a high tempo, free flowing attacking game and keeping ball in hand. The All Blacks in particular are a joy to watch. I've tried watching Gridiron a number of times over the past decade or so as a good mate of mine is a big fan but I just couldn't get into it. I found the game to be mind-numbingly boring.

 

[Rorshach]

Proper football talk again: Roberto has gotten his defence sorted. Playing away, they didn't let in a goal!

Granted, they played Gibraltar, but still...

[Iskaral Pust]

Wijnaldum pulled his hamstring.  With Lallana's groin strain too, our midfield is badly disrupted just ahead of the Utd game.  Jammy scum. 

Hopefully Can is ready to play because he looked a bit sluggish and off the pace in his cameos. 

[Horus Ex Machina]

6 hours ago, Horse of Kent said:

Cameroon were decent against Algeria defensively, so that group looks a three-horse race. I know Nigeria have struggled in AFCON qualification recently, but putting three of the teams that went to Brazil a couple of years ago in with each other makes the groups a little unbalanced. A and D look particularly soft in contrast.

You don't have to tell me.  CAF's qualifying system is a joke.  I personally think that it's one of the biggest things that has hurt African team's performance in the World Cup.  It relies soley on FIFA rankings without regard to current form, new players, etc.  Because of that they often do not send all of the best teams they could at a given time.  It's  a concession to the fact that they play 2 African Cups complete with their own qualifiers.  

Somehow CONCACAF manages this yet still manages a superior qualifying system which ensures that all of the best teams will play head to head to qualify.  Or even AFC's qualifiers.  CONCACAF'S setup is only possible because it doesn't treat all teams equal, which will never happen in CAF.  I think that this, more than anything, is why CAF lobbies so hard for an expanded World Cup.  They have to know that their qualifiers are crap.  So upping to 7 spots bails out the system by providing a pathway for group runner-ups and allowing for more continuity for Africa's top sides. 

It is what it is, sadly.  Me and others have hashed out numerous alternative formats which would merge the AfCon with WC qualifying and sufficiently expand qualifying to make it more legitimate.   It seems so doable, that it follows that if they haven't done it by now, they will never do it because they can't be bothered to.  So that's why I personally have to hold out hope that the WC expands, much as others will hate it.  Because it will actually keep CAF from continuing to hamstring its better sides.

[Calibandar]

12 hours ago, Consigliere said:

This is what happens when there is an international break: the football thread turns into a rugby/NFL/basketball/baseball discussion. International break sucks!!!

On topic(): I find Rugby to be far more watchable than NFL. Especially these days where the old physical approach based around rucks, mauls and kicking for position is being replaced with 'running rugby'. More and more teams these days employ -- or are attempting to employ --  a high tempo, free flowing attacking game and keeping ball in hand. The All Blacks in particular are a joy to watch. 

 

I agree, rugby has become even better to watch nowadays. The players have become ( even) more impressive and the temp has increased in most games. Plus of course it is still an incredibly tough sport.

13 hours ago, polishgenius said:

By the way, I hope we're all talking about Union here. Not that pale imitation that calls itself League.

We are definitely talking Union. 

16 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

They did.  Rugby football was introduced to America and was subsequently bastardized into gridiron football.  It's essentially the same game but with a totally different ethos: gridiron is a long series of very short, carefully orchestrated set plays.  Rugby and football are flow games, which is the complete opposite.  Even basketball is less of a flow game than it should be -- each possession feels like a one-off orchestrated set play with the defenders retreating deep to a pre-set formation and the attackers moving into a pre-set attack pattern.  Baseball is like this too: a series of one-off duels between pitcher and batter, with relatively little flow or connectivity.  I doubt American audiences would appreciate total football.

 

I never thought about it in a greater context of other sports as well. Baseball is unwatchable. I do see a lot of Americans complain about the time it takes for both AF and baseball games to be played though.

The flow of rugby is just ten times more watchable.

14 hours ago, baxus said:

 

As for American football, I must go all Euro-commie on this one and admit I find it mind-numbingly boring. I tried watching it NFL games level, European Cup (or whatever it's called) games, CEEFL (Central and Eastern Europe Football League - including teams from Slovenia, Austria, Serbia, Hungary and maybe some other countries in the region) and Serbian league games. I've seen it on TV (NFL obviously) and live (EC, CEEFL, Serbian league). I've had a friend from college playing in our local team that played in CEEFL, an later on reached EC final so I even had that element of being involved on a bit of a personal level. I've tried watching it in every possible way and at every possible level and found it's insanely boring every single time. Baseball is even worse, I haven't been able to manage more than a couple of minutes of those games.

My thoughts exactly. I've given it a chance, even tried to watch the Superbowl. So dull. So many interruptions. So little actual play. I don't understand why it ever got popular.

[baxus]

1 hour ago, Calibandar said:

My thoughts exactly. I've given it a chance, even tried to watch the Superbowl. So dull. So many interruptions. So little actual play. I don't understand why it ever got popular.

It's popular for one reason - it's a great way to spend time with your friends. You get so many breaks during which you can talk about the game or anything else you're inclined to talk about. If you're watching it on TV, you get a lot of replays, analysis and, the most important for Americans from what I've seen so far, STATISTICS! It seems that Americans go batshit crazy over statistics. The sport is irrelevant, they'll talk for hours about batting averages, yards carried, pass completions, field point percentage, points per game... you name it! Hell, if quidditch (spelling?) became a thing, they'd keep track of how many times players hit the big balls with their bats and their success rate at getting an opponent of the broom.

[Raja]

Slovenia all over England here - Should be ahead. 

[Philokles]

Hart's been great, Slovenia's kit is nice and they have a player called Rok Kronaveter, so that is more positives than the average England game.

[mormont]

Well, another glorious qualifying campaign for Scotland over before the whistle goes on the third game.

[StefCurry]

I hate international matches. England..

[Spockydog]

14 hours ago, mormont said:

Well, another glorious qualifying campaign for Scotland over before the whistle goes on the third game.

So disappointing. Strachan is surely toast now.

 

[mormont]

55 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

So disappointing. Strachan is surely toast now.

 

I dunno. What are the alternatives? Great coaches aren't lining up for a turn at managing Scotland.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

On 10/11/2016 at 6:25 AM, baxus said:

It's popular for one reason - it's a great way to spend time with your friends. You get so many breaks during which you can talk about the game or anything else you're inclined to talk about. If you're watching it on TV, you get a lot of replays, analysis and, the most important for Americans from what I've seen so far, STATISTICS! It seems that Americans go batshit crazy over statistics. The sport is irrelevant, they'll talk for hours about batting averages, yards carried, pass completions, field point percentage, points per game... you name it! Hell, if quidditch (spelling?) became a thing, they'd keep track of how many times players hit the big balls with their bats and their success rate at getting an opponent of the broom.

A lot of the conversation goes to how today's players compare to players of the past so that's why talking about batting average, OBP, slugging pct, earned run average, strikeouts and to a lesser degree whip and k/9 are important to a lot of us. Some people take it too far when they add in the sabermetrics though.  

You can't have the banter without that stuff. 

[ljkeane]

I think baseball's a sport that lends itself well to statistics, cricket's the same. It's probably because baseball was the major sport in America that other sports have also developed a liking for statistics even if they're less well suited to it like American Football.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

13 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I think baseball's a sport that lends itself well to statistics, cricket's the same. It's probably because baseball was the major sport in America that other sports have also developed a liking for statistics even if they're less well suited to it like American Football.

I'm only guaranteed to watch one football game a year so I'm not very familiar with any of the statistics outside of the most basic ones. 

The man who came invented the box score and a lot of the first baseball statistics was the Cricket reporter for the New York Times before he discovered baseball. So I guess he was inspired by Cricket. 

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

I dunno. What are the alternatives? Great coaches aren't lining up for a turn at managing Scotland.

It's Fergie time.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

It's Fergie time.

Fergie's had a go. With better players than we have now, too. Didn't seem to enjoy it. Let him race his horses in peace. The idea of Fergie trying to turn Gordon Greer into a world-beater is too sad to contemplate.

Speaking of managerial appointments, Villa have taken the radical option of appointing little-known tactical innovator Steve Bruce. Guess that rules him out of the England job? Expect Alex to sign at the next transfer window.

[polishgenius]

I think the best managerial news of the week is that Derby have re-hired Steven McClaren.