Football: Kane is coming home

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Lord of Oop North said:

I don't believe in luck.

Luck is literally the key to everything in life. It's the difference between hitting the post or sneaking it in or bumping into the person you're going to date for the next few years, maybe marry, if you run into them at the right time. It's getting the right job at the right time or committing a crime and getting caught. Luck is the cornerstone of having a great life, and the lack of it a miserable one. You should always prepare as best you can for any occasion, but without luck, you'll probably end up with nothing.

[Heartofice]

19 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Controlled the game? I don't think so. England had the midfield for most of the game. That's why Griezmann had to do so much defensive work for them. But he does that a lot. Rice was all over the pitch, too, running things, and so was Henderson.

And yes, refereeing does come into it when foul after foul are let go, which only emboldens the opposition. It was hilarious watching Theo Hernandez explain that his bulldozing of Mount was just shoulder to shoulder action. It's like he didn't understand why he was being penalized for that when he and his teammates had gotten away with a whole bunch before.

My point is that Dechamps is essentially a cautious manager and he let England play in a way that never really threatened France. We barely created any really dangerous opportunities and relied on penalties and set pieces. France pressed us very well in the right areas and let us have the ball in areas that were not a problem for them. Plus they just have more dangerous players than us. 

[Lord of Oop North]

2 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

The better team frequently don't finish their chances. Football's a low scoring sport which does allow weaker teams to often win. We've all seen teams park the bus then flukily shin one in at the other end and somehow come away with a win, doesn't make them the better team.

This is true, but I wouldn't call this game an example of one team parking the bus. Both teams were trying to go forward, one more successfully on most occasions (England).

 

[Spockydog]

It appears that not one English journalist has bothered to ask Southgate why he took Saka off.

A lot of focus on Harry Kane's missed penalty, but that's not what cost England. The moment Saka went off, the French were lifted. And England lost most of their verve.

Terrible, terrible decision from Southgate.

Someone, for the love of god, ask him what the fuck he was thinking.

 

[Lord of Oop North]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Luck is literally the key to everything in life. It's the difference between hitting the post or sneaking it in or bumping into the person you're going to date for the next few years, maybe marry, if you run into them at the right time. It's getting the right job at the right time or committing a crime and getting caught. Luck is the cornerstone of having a great life, and the lack of it a miserable one. You should always prepare as best you can for any occasion, but without luck, you'll probably end up with nothing.

I think maybe you misunderstand. Yes many of those things you describe luck. But we are talking about football, and what happens on the pitch once it begins. Once the game begins, being in the right place at the right time is not luck at all - that is the cornerstone of a good footballer.

The difference between hitting the post and putting in a goal is the result of countless hours of training, dedication, and practice. It is the direct result of players creating the space, exploiting mistakes, and taking their chance. That isn't luck - that is football. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Lord of Oop North said:

I think maybe you misunderstand. Yes many of those things you describe luck. But we are talking about football, and what happens on the pitch once it begins. Once the game begins, being in the right place at the right time is not luck at all - that is the cornerstone of a good footballer.

The difference between hitting the post and putting in a goal is the result of countless hours of training, dedication, and practice. It is the direct result of players creating the space, exploiting mistakes, and taking their chance. That isn't luck - that is football. 

No, and stop making this one thing so unique and special compared to everything else. You can train to play pool for thousands of hours and sometimes you hit a perfect shot and the ball still doesn't go in. Everything at every level of sport still requires a bit of luck.

[MercenaryChef]

southgate is a fraud and simpleton. 

three newcastle players on the bench. trippier hits those free kicks. pope makes that save. wilson puts away that penalty. 

toon could have saved england but southgate can't pick a side or make useful subs. 

disagree with me and be completely wrong like southgate.

[BigFatCoward]

2 minutes ago, MercenaryChef said:

southgate is a fraud and simpleton. 

three newcastle players on the bench. trippier hits those free kicks. pope makes that save. wilson puts away that penalty. 

toon could have saved england but southgate can't pick a side or make useful subs. 

disagree with me and be completely wrong like southgate.

But now they are all rested for the push for the top 4. 

And I'd take top 4 or a cup above a world cup win all day long. 

[Lord of Oop North]

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, and stop making this one thing so unique and special compared to everything else. You can train to play pool for thousands of hours and sometimes you hit a perfect shot and the ball still doesn't go in. Everything at every level of sport still requires a bit of luck.

If you hit a perfect shot and it doesn't go in, that isn't a perfect shot at all. The perfect shot goes in. If it was stopped, that just means you were beat - whether it be by the keeper, the defense or yourself.

[MercenaryChef]

39 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

But now they are all rested for the push for the top 4. 

And I'd take top 4 or a cup above a world cup win all day long. 

club over country! i am in!

and brazilb was kind enough to not play bruno. shar did get subbed off injured vs Portugal but seems to be fine. 

honestly crazy for the toon to have so many players in the world cup. but,  we are massive. i need to keep reminding myself.

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, MercenaryChef said:

southgate is a fraud and simpleton. 

three newcastle players on the bench. trippier hits those free kicks. pope makes that save. wilson puts away that penalty. 

toon could have saved england but southgate can't pick a side or make useful subs. 

disagree with me and be completely wrong like southgate.

I was thinking after France's first goal whether or not either Ramsdale or Pope would have saved that. Pickford was in the wrong position and lacked the reach to get it. But much like Brazil's Tite, Southgate tends to go with the players who played well for him in the past.

[Spockydog]

“Southgate might be a lovely bloke with great man-management skills but it takes more than that to win a World Cup,” says Oliver Forrest. “I don’t recall many players talking up Deschamps’ personal skills but he knows how to make the right calls to win tournaments. Southgate inexplicably substituted our best player (Saka) for one of our most out of form players (Sterling), took off our best midfielder (Henderson) and gave France the initiative by sitting deep throughout the first half. We did play well in some ways but we should do, on paper we’re a top side and a quarter-final is the minimum these players should achieve. To go from a good team to a cup-winning team, the margins are very fine, and unfortunately the difference last night was the manager.”

 

[Padraig]

It actually is very hard to separate the last 4 teams left in the tournament.  France seem to have the best players but they certainly underperformed last night.  On the other hand, while no team truly looked great in the early stages, France were probably the most impressive team against decent opposition before the quarter finals.  Maybe they will bounce back but I could certainly see Morocco threatening them, if Morocco can keep up their momentum (and don't have too many injuries).  It wouldn't be easy to keep reaching those levels though.  The  games aren't getting easier.

This is probably Messi's best chance of winning the WC.  In 2014, when they last reached the final, Germany were much stronger than them.  But their panic when they went 2-1 against the Netherlands will give Croatia a lot of hope.  And they remain way too dependent on Messi.  Hard to see Argentina win if they go behind, but Croatia can certainly respond to an Argentinian goal.  I could see Croatia go all the way, if Modric can keep going.   But they find scoring difficult, which is a major drawback.

I hope a team rises to the occasion but not sure right now.

[3CityApache]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk, England to me looked like clearly the better team. They had an insane number of chances to score and just couldn't do it. That missed PK will haunt Kane for the rest of his life. They would have been the favorite if it went to ET.

Naaah, France was better when they had to be, which is when the score was even. After every goal they withdrew to the defence, which was weird, but it was obvious enough for me they can always step up and score another if needed, which they actually did.

[butterweedstrover]

20 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Croatia-Morocco, lets go!

Why do you want a game where both teams sit it out waiting for penalties? France was good, England needed three players to keep Mbappe down and made only one fake goal.

[Corvinus85]

12 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Why do you want a game where both teams sit it out waiting for penalties? France was good, England needed three players to keep Mbappe down and made only one fake goal.

What do you mean by fake goal?

I don't like Argentina, and I can't say I'm fond of France, either.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

48 minutes ago, 3CityApache said:

Naaah, France was better when they had to be, which is when the score was even. After every goal they withdrew to the defence, which was weird, but it was obvious enough for me they can always step up and score another if needed, which they actually did.

This feels a bit meaningless. If England scored at the same rate as France they would have won easily. Instead they didn't make the most of their opportunities while France did on fewer chances.

 

[3CityApache]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This feels a bit meaningless. If England scored at the same rate as France they would have won easily. Instead they didn't make the most of their opportunities while France did on fewer chances.

 

Problem is, the way I see it they wouldn't have those chances if the weren't losing, because then it would be France having chances, they were better until they scored both times.

 

It would actually be quite funny if we had the same final as four years ago, which is kinda likely.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, 3CityApache said:

Problem is, the way I see it they wouldn't have those chances if the weren't losing, because then it would be France having chances, they were better until they scored both times.

 

It would actually be quite funny if we had the same final as four years ago, which is kinda likely.

Idk, England was more dangerous when the teams were 0-0 and 1-1. Even when France had a lead I didn't have a great deal of confidence in them.

[Winterfell is Burning]

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

Why do you want a game where both teams sit it out waiting for penalties? France was good, England needed three players to keep Mbappe down and made only one fake goal.

Because it would be a slap in the face of FIFA and the current "UEFA Superleague" type of mentality of these types of people. Would also be nice to see Modric or an African nation win one.

Also, a title for one of the others would make a people already notorious for being the most arrogant and self-important in the world even more smug...and wouldn't be nice to see the French win either.