World Cup Thread

[hogesar 9,618]

I think Colombia had the advantage in the latter stages of being extremely high on cocaine. That''s got to be an energy boost.

Anyway, I thought we played quite well. I think if you compare this to our recent previous competitions Gareth has got a lot right and some of the criticism on here is a little over the top.

I don''t think Alli and Sterling have been as poor as some have suggested - certainly Sterlings running has created space for other players on numerous occasions. When he was replaced with Vardy we struggled.

I think if you look at all the ''weaker'' teams in this tournament, they''ve generally all put up a fight and Columbia aren''t mugs. They are dirty, drug running coke heads, but they''re not mugs.

To progress through penalties has to be a psychological plus point and I personally can''t wait till Saturday.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Don''t follow the train of thought at all on the penalty.  I''ve looked at it again and again and can''t see anything illegal Kane did at all in trying to break free of the close attention of the defender.  The defender had arms up on both sides of Kane, even if he wasn''t literally hanging on to him - and if you can''t try and get away from that kind of blocking then there is something wrong with the game.   That Kane was clever after that, of course he was, but the defender was all over him and that is why it was a penalty, with no doubt about it.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

Don''t follow the train of thought at all on the penalty.  I''ve looked at it again and again and can''t see anything illegal Kane did at all in trying to break free of the close attention of the defender.  The defender had arms up on both sides of Kane, even if he wasn''t literally hanging on to him - and if you can''t try and get away from that kind of blocking then there is something wrong with the game.   That Kane was clever after that, of course he was, but the defender was all over him and that is why it was a penalty, with no doubt about it.

[/quote]

Like I said, pause the video at 54 secs on BBC site and you can see Kane grab the guy round the back of the neck and shove his head down. Sorry LDC but that''s illegal.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="lake district canary"]

Don''t follow the train of thought at all on the penalty.  I''ve looked at it again and again and can''t see anything illegal Kane did at all in trying to break free of the close attention of the defender.  The defender had arms up on both sides of Kane, even if he wasn''t literally hanging on to him - and if you can''t try and get away from that kind of blocking then there is something wrong with the game.   That Kane was clever after that, of course he was, but the defender was all over him and that is why it was a penalty, with no doubt about it.

[/quote]

Like I said, pause the video at 54 secs on BBC site and you can see Kane grab the guy round the back of the neck and shove his head down. Sorry LDC but that''s illegal.

[/quote]

Grab him?  Push his head down?  That''s overstating it.  Sure he uses his arms to try and get free of the defender, but is he supposed to just stand there and not try and get away from his marker?  How else are you going to get free of someone who has their arms around you?   I''ve looked at it again and again and all I can see is a player using his strength to get away from being closely marked. 

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="kick it off"][quote user="lake district canary"]

Don''t follow the train of thought at all on the penalty.  I''ve looked at it again and again and can''t see anything illegal Kane did at all in trying to break free of the close attention of the defender.  The defender had arms up on both sides of Kane, even if he wasn''t literally hanging on to him - and if you can''t try and get away from that kind of blocking then there is something wrong with the game.   That Kane was clever after that, of course he was, but the defender was all over him and that is why it was a penalty, with no doubt about it.

[/quote]

Like I said, pause the video at 54 secs on BBC site and you can see Kane grab the guy round the back of the neck and shove his head down. Sorry LDC but that''s illegal.

[/quote]

Grab him?  Push his head down?  That''s overstating it.  Sure he uses his arms to try and get free of the defender, but is he supposed to just stand there and not try and get away from his marker?  How else are you going to get free of someone who has their arms around you?   I''ve looked at it again and again and all I can see is a player using his strength to get away from being closely marked. 

[/quote]

If you say so. We both know that you can''t put your hands anywhere near opposition player''s heads, and if you do then you risk the ref spotting it and giving a foul. If it was the other way round you would have a different tune I suspect.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="kick it off"][quote user="lake district canary"]

Don''t follow the train of thought at all on the penalty.  I''ve looked at it again and again and can''t see anything illegal Kane did at all in trying to break free of the close attention of the defender.  The defender had arms up on both sides of Kane, even if he wasn''t literally hanging on to him - and if you can''t try and get away from that kind of blocking then there is something wrong with the game.   That Kane was clever after that, of course he was, but the defender was all over him and that is why it was a penalty, with no doubt about it.

[/quote]

Like I said, pause the video at 54 secs on BBC site and you can see Kane grab the guy round the back of the neck and shove his head down. Sorry LDC but that''s illegal.

[/quote]

Grab him?  Push his head down?  That''s overstating it.  Sure he uses his arms to try and get free of the defender, but is he supposed to just stand there and not try and get away from his marker?  How else are you going to get free of someone who has their arms around you?   I''ve looked at it again and again and all I can see is a player using his strength to get away from being closely marked. 

[/quote]

If you say so. We both know that you can''t put your hands anywhere near opposition player''s heads, and if you do then you risk the ref spotting it and giving a foul. If it was the other way round you would have a different tune I suspect.

[/quote]

We''ll have to disagree, but to me it looks like a case of six and half a dozen.

[Hairy Canary 668]

KIO "If it was the other way round you would have a different tune I suspect"

If you''re saying that it is impossible to have an objective view when watching the team you support then you''re wrong KIO.

Like Lakey and the referee and the VAR I also couldn''t see how Kane has committed a foul. You seem to be in a minority of one on this one. I wonder why that is?

See we can all play this silly game that you can''t be objective when you have an agenda.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]KIO "If it was the other way round you would have a different tune I suspect"

If you''re saying that it is impossible to have an objective view when watching the team you support then you''re wrong KIO.

Like Lakey and the referee and the VAR I also couldn''t see how Kane has committed a foul. You seem to be in a minority of one on this one. I wonder why that is?

See we can all play this silly game that you can''t be objective when you have an agenda.[/quote]

Again, if you say so. We can agree to disagree but if that had been given at the other end, my opinion is that you''d be talking about Colombia''s dodgy penalty and how they "got away with one". I''m not saying it''s impossible to have an objective view, I''m saying the view that you and LDC seem to be taking is a subjective one. Someone else commented similar thoughts to mine on the VAR thread, not sure you can play majority card on the basis of a 2-1 opinion but obviously it''s not just me who saw it that way so your point holds no water anyway in that respect.

Again, I haven''t said the ref got it wrong, I said you could certainly make a case for it being a free kick the other way. It''s a shame your agenda prevents you from being objective and you choose to try and paint people into corners instead.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Well I was certainly trying to be objective - I am certain Kane is clever at drawing fouls - in the game against Tunisia, for the second penalty shout he was holding on to the defenders arm in front of him to make it look like the defender was grabbing him.  Like I said the objective view is that it was six and half a dozen - if you want to go by the letter of the law and take it right back to the start of the incident, the defender having two arms around Kane is obstruction......

[SHRIMPER 328]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]The non-patriotic zealot unbiased neutrals are the kind of fools that can''t wait to criticize every aspect of their country. Can''t wait for ''em to feck off.[/quote]

Oh do shut up you boring tw*t. You have nothing useful to contribute to discussion as per usual, just personal attacks (which you then ironically accuse everyone else of doing to you). 

[/quote]

You are dead right KIO, and he is still a FVCKWIT.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

Well I was certainly trying to be objective - I am certain Kane is clever at drawing fouls - in the game against Tunisia, for the second penalty shout he was holding on to the defenders arm in front of him to make it look like the defender was grabbing him.  Like I said the objective view is that it was six and half a dozen - if you want to go by the letter of the law and take it right back to the start of the incident, the defender having two arms around Kane is obstruction......

[/quote]

Sorry LDC, I didn''t mean to lump you in as being subjective. I''ve said several times - I''m not saying the ref got it wrong, but you can cerrtainly see why Colombia felt hard done by from the decision. If it had been against Norwich I would have felt hard done by. That''s not saying it''s a foul, it''s just saying that if you look  at it objectively you can see both sides (which to be fair, I think you do).

Whether it was a foul or not is almost immaterial to the point that incidents like that can and are given fairly frequently, whether that''s right or not is kind of an aside.

[Hairy Canary 668]

You see here is the thing. If someone has a different view to you it doesn''t suddenly become subjective. The referee stood right next to the incident and saw it clearly and he had no doubt. I take it you accept he was unbiased or perhaps his view was subjective too?

I thought Maguire dived and then tried to cover it up by waving the penalty away himself. I also thought the Linguard incident wasn''t a foul and that Henderson embarrassed himself when he went down easily after the "headbutt".

I agree we can disagree but it is offensive to extrapolate that into saying that I would be claiming the opposite if the incident was at the other end.

[Fuzzar 1,702]

Can we at least all agree that Poland stunk out this World Cup and that their FIFA ranking of 8th plainly demonstrated the fallibility of whatever algorithm they''re using!

Kane has been man-handled this whole World Cup and it was a penalty. If Stones or Maguire had done it at the other end I would have had no complaints.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]You see here is the thing. If someone has a different view to you it doesn''t suddenly become subjective. The referee stood right next to the incident and saw it clearly and he had no doubt. I take it you accept he was unbiased or perhaps his view was subjective too?

I thought Maguire dived and then tried to cover it up by waving the penalty away himself. I also thought the Linguard incident wasn''t a foul and that Henderson embarrassed himself when he went down easily after the "headbutt".

I agree we can disagree but it is offensive to extrapolate that into saying that I would be claiming the opposite if the incident was at the other end.[/quote]

Ok, fair enough. The point seems to have got a bit lost here in the mix. I can understand why the Colombians felt aggrieved, and I probably would be if it was given against Norwich. Whether it was a foul by Kane or not is kind of irrelevant and maybe you would have seen it differently and accepted it if it were given against you and not felt hard done by. Not sure I would, but then I''m not great at objectivity when my teams are involved so apologies if I''ve projected my flaws onto you.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="Fuzzar"]Can we at least all agree that Poland stunk out this World Cup and that their FIFA ranking of 8th plainly demonstrated the fallibility of whatever algorithm they''re using!

Kane has been man-handled this whole World Cup and it was a penalty. If Stones or Maguire had done it at the other end I would have had no complaints.[/quote]

Absolutely can agree on that. Total shambles. Shame because they were excellent in qualifying aside from the Denmark game but the tournament was entirely embarrassing. They were up to 5th at one point - FIFA have changed their algorithm now I believe in response to Poland abusing it. One other thing that was made patently clear - Lewandowski is not world class. Great finisher and right up there in terms of very good strikers but he can''t carry the team in the way others who are truly elite do.

Kane has been manhandled but to be fair, he is also very good at getting his body between the player and the ball and throwing himself down at the slightest breeze. He''s got more than a touch of the Grant Holt to his game.

[Surfer 1,547]

Fair point about Kane initiating some contact, but the decider for me is when the Colombian defender completely leaves the ground. Like a two footed tackle, that''s pretty hard to argue that you weren''t aiming to take out the player rather than get to the ball.

[AJ 1,218]

Re: the Pen - Kane didn''t really foul his man. But their player decided to jump on and drag Kane literally RIGHT in front of the Referee. Only one way it was going to go.

How good is Kane at Penalties though? Bam, every time!

I thought all our players drew fouls well last night given Colombia''s approach to the game. Henderson was the only one who really reacted.

As others have said, if Colombia had concentrated on playing football they might actually have won the game.

[Big Vince 318]

Stamina is going to be a real problem from now on.

Sapping heat in Samara.

Doubt if England have anything left in the tank.

Would love to be proved wrong though.

[king canary 7,580]

It isn''t a foul by Kane.

He''s using his arm for leverage to get past his man- that is fair in set pieces. If you''ve got players man marking each other it isn''t going to be non contact.

What you can''t do is wrap your arms round someone to pull them down as the Colombian player does.

[Jools 584]

[:D]

[GenerationA47 749]

^ Except, unlike the actual EU referendum, the shoot-out result wasn’t advisory.

So, the premise of the meme is a barefaced fabrication, that would entertain only deceitful fanatics, the terminally dim-witted, or the well-meaning but sadly misled.

All in all, a fitting parable for the Exitable ones

[A Load of Squit 5,133]

If the Brexiteers were running the England team they would still be trying to name the starting eleven for the Tunisia game. [:D]

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="Hairy Canary"]KIO "If it was the other way round you would have a different tune I suspect"

If you''re saying that it is impossible to have an objective view when watching the team you support then you''re wrong KIO.

Like Lakey and the referee and the VAR I also couldn''t see how Kane has committed a foul. You seem to be in a minority of one on this one. I wonder why that is?

See we can all play this silly game that you can''t be objective when you have an agenda.[/quote]

Again, if you say so. We can agree to disagree but if that had been given at the other end, my opinion is that you''d be talking about Colombia''s dodgy penalty and how they "got away with one". I''m not saying it''s impossible to have an objective view, I''m saying the view that you and LDC seem to be taking is a subjective one. Someone else commented similar thoughts to mine on the VAR thread, not sure you can play majority card on the basis of a 2-1 opinion but obviously it''s not just me who saw it that way so your point holds no water anyway in that respect.

Again, I haven''t said the ref got it wrong, I said you could certainly make a case for it being a free kick the other way. It''s a shame your agenda prevents you from being objective and you choose to try and paint people into corners instead.

[/quote]

Oh do take your anti-Englih agenda and stuff it where the sun don''t shine, snowflake.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"][quote user="kick it off"][quote user="Hairy Canary"]KIO "If it was the other way round you would have a different tune I suspect"

If you''re saying that it is impossible to have an objective view when watching the team you support then you''re wrong KIO.

Like Lakey and the referee and the VAR I also couldn''t see how Kane has committed a foul. You seem to be in a minority of one on this one. I wonder why that is?

See we can all play this silly game that you can''t be objective when you have an agenda.[/quote]

Again, if you say so. We can agree to disagree but if that had been given at the other end, my opinion is that you''d be talking about Colombia''s dodgy penalty and how they "got away with one". I''m not saying it''s impossible to have an objective view, I''m saying the view that you and LDC seem to be taking is a subjective one. Someone else commented similar thoughts to mine on the VAR thread, not sure you can play majority card on the basis of a 2-1 opinion but obviously it''s not just me who saw it that way so your point holds no water anyway in that respect.

Again, I haven''t said the ref got it wrong, I said you could certainly make a case for it being a free kick the other way. It''s a shame your agenda prevents you from being objective and you choose to try and paint people into corners instead.

[/quote]

Oh do take your anti-Englih agenda and stuff it where the sun don''t shine, snowflake.

[/quote]

Again, nothing useful to contribute.

It''s charming that you''ve decided to follow me round the forum like a lost puppy, but you''re incredibly dull.

If you''re going to stalk me, can you at least try and be a bit more interesting?

[stewfil 10]

KIO 3rd generation in UK and you are still neutral?

Congratulations on your families adapting well to our culture.

[kick it off 1,948]

I''m not getting into the ins and outs of why Stewfil. Suffice to say that you know absolutely nothing about me or my family. Our culture is British and the issue with having a polish identity comes from some of the racist abuse I''ve had by virtue of having a polish name, despite being born here and being entirely British to all intents and purposes. So if you want to point fingers about integration, try doing it a bit closer to home.

[ron obvious 1,501]

That brought back floods of memories kio. From age about 9-11 my best mate was Czech (Mickey Kozdon, where are you now?), but he went off to private school so we lost touch a bit. Still remember being on the back of his Matchless 500 when the crankshaft broke though.

I don''t remember him being racially abused, but he may have kept it to himself. By all (his) accounts it helped with the ladies- he looked a bit Nureyevish.

The trouble is it''s our own personal attitudes & experiences which we extrapolate to general society. You seem to think there''s something uniquely horrible about the British, but I suspect it''s no better elsewhere, certainly in countries subject to high immigration.

I''m of mixed German & French ancestry by the way.

Just remembered I nearly had a fight with Edward Zarzecki (sp?) when I was 11, but he didn''t turn up. He was just a tit though. Memories ...

[kick it off 1,948]

I don''t think there''s anything uniquely horrible about the British at all Ron. I totally agree with what you say with it being it being no better elsewhere. I do however challenge the perspective that Britain is a panacea as many people choose to gloss over the issues in society and shout down anyone who points them out as being anti-English or whatever - as we''ve seen already in this thread with our resident b3ll3nd RTB chipping in....

I also don''t extrapolate my experiences on society as a whole. It was a different time, being of polish ancestry was not as common as it is now etc etc.... but I can''t change the way those experiences shaped my perspectives and perceptions. When your formative years are punctuated by every time you have a row with someone the insults are always preceded with the word Polish, it doesn''t exactly make you feel like you belong. I''m at peace with it and it is what it is, but i can''t force myself to feel waves of patriotism. I just don''t feel it. It can''t be changed, it''s not a choice, it just is.

Like I said, I want England (And all the home nations for that matter) to do well but I don''t feel the affinity to support them as I''ve always felt alienated from the flag waving patriotism side of things.

[Rock the Boat 0]

Some poor losers, without the skills to navigate the real world, start to blame their short-comings on everyone else. They can''t handle the fact we''re doing real fine and it''s them who are out of step. So they take their inadequacy out on anyone else. What better than to blame the whole country for your own personal failings.

They hate to see England do well because it might just be indicating they have the problem and not the rest of us.

He''ll be talking up Sweden in the next couple of days.

[kick it off 1,948]

Oh good, I was really worried for a while then RTB because I''d posted without you responding with some absolute shyte you''ve made up in your head. Glad to have you back. That was quite a good reply by your admittedly low standards, I particularly liked the bit where you referred to others being inadequate whilst being so desperate for attention yourself that you are literally following a stranger round an internet forum for no good reason.