World Cup Thread

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="curious yellow"]Did Neil Adams train Harry Kane on pens? 4/4 for him but Vardy not brave enough. Aren''t the goalies supposed to stand on the line?[/quote]

Nope, hey can do what they want, but

they must stay on the line until the ball is kicked

[Guest]

How did we get on tonight? There seems to be a news black out.

[Guest]

Fucking quiet on here tonight isn''t it?

[Capt. Pants 4,234]

With the exception of Hendo all the penalties were excellent especially big balls Trippier. What a night I am drained and pissed

[KiwiScot 1,443]

[quote user="Mr Benn"]

20 World cups - only 8 winning countries

3 countries only won it once - England, Spain and France

6 European countries in last 8

[/quote]Previous winners left in the tournament in order of last win. Uruguay, England, France, Brazil.

[Bill 1,788]

Three of which are in the other ''half'' of the draw

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]How did we get on tonight? There seems to be a news black out.[/quote]

That''s what comes of living in Cornwall

[Bill 1,788]

Colombia cheating ?

naaah, just a bit of ''gardening'' around the penalty spot

here

[SwindonCanary 455]

Yes we won and time to rejoice, but the underlining problems remain. Once we went one up we never pushed on for a second goal, and our passing was poor, too many time a player not under pressure passed the ball straight to the opposition !

[Van wink 2,994]

Phew, at last a win on pens, well done the lads.

Question still remains unanswered, can this team step up and play with the intensity, and more importantly score goals from open play, that will be needed to progress further, or are England Ironically to become the penalty kings?

[Guest]

Yes we won and time to rejoice, but the underlining problems remain. Once we went one up we never pushed on for a second goal, and our passing was poor, too many time a player not under pressure passed the ball straight to the opposition !

I think you are part correct.

I think the substitution to bring on Dier was negative and told Colombia we were surrendering position on the field.

Up until then the game had become stretched because of Colombia''s need to score and we had as much chance of scoring a second as they did equalising.

[Herman 9,767]

Tend to agree with that. A more attacking sub would have been better. I don''t think Alli has stepped up to show what he is capable of yet, maybe the injury is still a problem.

[SHRIMPER 328]

Grandson and two of his mates are now staying for the next one. Did not intend to but I think they have just got caught up with the euphoria of the moment. Lets hope its  money well spent.

[Guest]

I don''t think Alli has stepped up to show what he is capable of yet, maybe the injury is still a problem.

And yet Glenn Hoddle, would have us believe that Lingaard, Sterling and Ali have been playing well.

Certainly Ali and Sterling have not contributed much yet and every game I keep saying to myself, today is the day these boys will show them.

[ron obvious 1,502]

It was a bit concerning really, if Colombia had realised they couldn''t foul their way to a win earlier & played football before 80 minutes or so they''d probably have won.

We''ve not much creativity. If only England had a skillful, intelligent midfielder who can unlock packed defences, ride tackles superbly, drift into goalscoring positions - & finish.

Perhaps with excellent dead ball skills as well .... hmm...

[AJ 1,221]

We did OK all in all, without really playing that well. Got the goal then sat on it because we never looked capable of scoring a second from open play. Just glad we squeezed through after the sickener of conceding so unfortunately late on (and after such a great save form Pickford!).

As for the Pens, no Hendo bashing as it was an OK penalty, it was just a good save. Credit to Trippier for scoring the next one so confidently, to Pickford for that big save, and then huge credit to Dier (who looked nervous as hell) for sticking it away!

Never thought I''d see us win on Penalties again in my life time!

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="ron obvious"]It was a bit concerning really, if Colombia had realised they couldn''t foul their way to a win earlier & played football before 80 minutes or so they''d probably have won.  [/quote]

It was a weird game overall - neither team looked like they had much idea what to do in the final third, but then that''s been symptomatic of most of this round. Even Belgium vs Japan was very cagey in the first half and only opened up after the second Japan goal. The only teams that have come out all guns blazing and had a real go from the kick off were France and Argentina.

Got to wonder whether not having James had an effect on the Columbian mentality in that respect. It was a bit like watching a team that had no belief at all that they could outplay the opposition. 

The "dirty Columbia" thing is being overblown by bias though. Henderson headbutted in the second half and he was the one initiating the shoving in the Columbian headbutt incident, Young went straight over the top of the ball after half time and would have been sent off for it 9 times out of 10. The penalty was a clear foul on Kane, but Kane fouled Sanchez first - he initiated the contact and dragged Sanchez''s head down to waist height in the process of getting round him, then went down like a feather. It was a penalty, but it certainly could have gone the other way and Kane bought it by going down easily. The diving as well was ludicrous. Maguire should have been booked for throwing himself down in the area etc etc. 

Columbia didn''t cover themselves in glory, but I don''t think England were much better in the "fair play" respect - the ref kept giving decisions England''s way too which certainly did nothing to calm the situation (eg Falcao getting booked and then a similar foul at the other end by an England player going uncarded 2 minutes later, the penalty, the bizarre goal kick when it clearly went off Dier''s head for a corner etc). I''m sure I''ll get dog''s abuse for saying the above and told I''m an England hater blahblahblah because I watched it neutrally without the patriotic zealotry but that''s just how I saw the game, and it''s difficult to make a case against any of the points raised objectively. The commentators were incredibly biased in fuelling the dirty Columbia narrative too but don''t think you could expect much else, I''m sure every commentator is commentating as fans and with the same level of bias in every country around the world.

I don''t think Sweden are as good as Columbia so it should be a fairly simple path through to the semis - but this world cup is crazy, anything can happen.

[Hairy Canary 704]

I think you''ve been a bit selective in the points you make KIO. Certainly we gave out our fair share as you point out but there were things the Colombians did that I''m not sure I''ve seen before.

The scuffing up of the penalty spot for instance. You seen any other team do that? Three minutes from the penalty award until it was taken Three minutes! The ref was pushed and confronted beyond the usual protests that all teams do. How about the member of back room staff who barged into Sterling as he left the field at half time? Not sure I will ever see Hodgson or Southgate behave like that?

[Mello Yello 2,294]

I wonder who these ''non-patriotic zealot unbiased neutrals'' support?......

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

When they dispensed with the cynical stuff Colombia played the better football. They had no choice though as they were chasing the game.

England were toast in the first period of extra time, but fought their way back into it and looked slightly the better team towards the end.

Harry Kane was a constant thorn in their side and `won` free kick after free kick to the opponent''s displeasure. The manner in which he was consistently toppled from behind reminded me of the way our own Grantilla used to cleverly, yet legally, use the shielding tactic to frustrate opponents whereby the slightest touch used to fell him, often in dangerous positions.

The better team overall, just, won the game. Just.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

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.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]I wonder who these ''non-patriotic zealot unbiased neutrals'' support?......[/quote]

Poland - third generation. I know England haven''t been great for a few decades but certainly can''t be accused of gloryhunting supporting the consistently embarrassing Polish team!

Like England to do well but can''t say I "support" them. I''m more of an interested neutral than anything I guess.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]

The scuffing up of the penalty spot for instance. [/quote]

This tac-tic was always going to fail as the pitch was made and installed by SIS Pitches of Maryport Cumbria.

The next time I''m up there I will pass on the thanks of a grateful nation. [:D]

[kick it off 1,952]

[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). 

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]I think you''ve been a bit selective in the points you make KIO. Certainly we gave out our fair share as you point out but there were things the Colombians did that I''m not sure I''ve seen before.

The scuffing up of the penalty spot for instance. You seen any other team do that? Three minutes from the penalty award until it was taken Three minutes! The ref was pushed and confronted beyond the usual protests that all teams do. How about the member of back room staff who barged into Sterling as he left the field at half time? Not sure I will ever see Hodgson or Southgate behave like that?[/quote]

I completely agree. Like I said, Columbia didn''t cover themselves in glory by any stretch of the imagination, but I don''t think it''s absurd to put the oppositional perspective given how selective some in here have been with the points they make.

The barge into Sterling was embarrassing, although given Sterling''s performance so far this tournament, it would have done England a favour if he''d injured him in the process. How he is keeping Loftus-Cheek (who has been excellent) out the team is an absolute mystery.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

"The penalty was a clear foul on Kane, but Kane fouled Sanchez first - he initiated the contact and dragged Sanchez''s head down to waist height."

Yet there is a photograph in today''s Guardian showing the player with his arms around Kane, and holding him back, before the kick was even taken.

Shirt pulling and arm grabbing at every corner and free-kick, by attackers as well as defenders, has been rife in the game for some time. It seems that the blatant, and well publicised, failure of VAR when not penalising the manhandling of Harry Kane in the Tunisia game, and which seemed to indicate that such fouling was acceptable, was the catalyst that meant from then on wards in the tournament referees have paid particular attention to such actions, knowing that VAR was in operation no doubt.

Let''s hope such strict observance of the rules is applied to the domestic game next season.

[kick it off 1,952]

There was lots of pushing and shoving before the ball was in play. As the ball was not in play then a penalty would have been incorrect if awarded for that. When the ball comes into play, Kane initiates the contact and shoves his head down, which is a foul...

On the BBC highlights here: Pause at 54 seconds - The Columbia player clearly has his arm in front of Kane but does not have hold of him - you can see his hand behind Kane''s back. You can also see Kane''s hand on the back of his neck shoving his head down. Not sure how that''s debatable really.

I have a screenshot but this atrocious forum software wont let me put it in, however it''s very clear if you pause at 54 secs.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

Yet VAR failed to pick up KANE as the aggressor despite the benefit of technology, including screen shots no doubt.

I do not think that it is debatable that this particular incident was one of the most blatant penalty decisions of the tournament so far. Pushing and shoving apart, any defender who thinks it is acceptable to drag an opponent to the ground the way this player did, whilst inside the area and in front of the official, should be well aware of the consequences.

Fair enough, Harry Kane gives out a lot and he''s strong and competes as he needs to, but in this instance the defender completely lost it.

[Mello Yello 2,294]

I think the in the opposition''s box, ''human centipede''.....er, I mean ''love train''.....showed how England team bonding, has come along leaps and bounds....

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]Yet VAR failed to pick up KANE as the aggressor despite the benefit of technology, including screen shots no doubt.

I do not think that it is debatable that this particular incident was one of the most blatant penalty decisions of the tournament so far. Pushing and shoving apart, any defender who thinks it is acceptable to drag an opponent to the ground the way this player did, whilst inside the area and in front of the official, should be well aware of the consequences.

Fair enough, Harry Kane gives out a lot and he''s strong and competes as he needs to, but in this instance the defender completely lost it.[/quote]

And as we have established so far in this world cup, VAR is absolutely infallible of course. One of the most blatant so far if you''re entirely subjective about it. Otherwise it was quite clearly one that was open to debate. Not saying the ref got it totally wrong, there was contact that was a foul (even if Kane threw himself down in Tom Daley fashion).... just that I can see why the Colombians were complaining so vociferously about it as there was contact on the defender first which was missed. If it had been given the other way you''d be screaming about how it was a terrible decision etc etc. I think it''s fair to say it was debatable either way and could have been given either way - there''s merits to both sides of the coin.