Men's Football FIFA World Cup 2018

[Werloc 3,164]

Just now, dcro said:

 

Well, now you know whose fault it is.

[Sindo 1,504]

1 hour ago, hckosice said:

Page 300

 

Which would probably be page 350 without the deleted posts

[OlympicsFan 858]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Henry_Leon:

 

I agree (about Italy).

All good idea/changes/and other "magic formulas" ....... proposed after our elimination are far away from start.

Yes, you need to change your system like Germany did after 2004. You trust old players too much and don't give enough chances to young players + your coach has been very bad.

[OlympicsFan 858]

vor einer Stunde schrieb hckosice:

Page 300

Not if the deleting of comments continues ...

[hckošice 14,835]

Just now, Sindo said:

 

Which would probably be page 350 without the deleted posts

 

If it continue like that we will return to page 270 tonight

 

 

[hckošice 14,835]

So if ENG somehow let say hypothetically equalize the score and one of their players will receive a direct Red Card, there will be a draw of lots to determine the winner

[OlympicsFan 858]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Dunadan:

You brought this as "proof" but now you are saying that it is irrelevant. For me it's an absurd claim.

 

In the first tournament Italy was helped by referees, in the second tournament there was nothing irregular or shady involving Italy.

 

No, I was only trying to see if you are consistent. I personally prefer to accept the official count and don't consider any WC a joke but if I had to follow your logic I could find something very shady about many tournaments, for example involving Brazil and Germany(which I pick ed because your original comment was about the teams with the higher number of titles won)

-1954 would be a joke for the doping scandal (http://www.worldsoccer.com/columnists/keir-radnedge/west-germanys-culture-of-doping-kept-under-wraps-341986) and biased refereeing in the final: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_FIFA_World_Cup_Final#Controversies

- 1962 would be a joke because the Brazilians corrupted officials in order to have Garrincha in the final after he was sent off in the semifinal

  Inhalt unsichtbar machen

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/mar/04/stunning-moments-no4-battle-of-santiago

"The Brazilian FA, however, were not. His availability for the final lay in the hands of a Fifa disciplinary committee, at which the match officials would give evidence. But first the referee, the Peruvian Arturo Yamazaki, received a phone call from his country’s president requesting that he tone down his testimony, and made Garrincha’s offence sound positively trifling. Then the linesman, Uruguay’s Esteban Marino, on whose say-so Yamazaki had acted in the first place and whose evidence was to be crucial, failed to turn up at all.

"He just disappeared. It was like something out of an Agatha Christie novel,” wrote the Brazilian journalist Argeu Affonso, who was covering the tournament. “It was Agatha Christie football. He just disappeared, and nobody knew where he’d gone.” It turned out that the Brazilian World Cup referee John Etzel had been given $10,000 in cash by his FA to pass on to his colleague in return for his disappearance. Without him Fifa found that they had insufficient evidence to ban Garrincha, who played as Brazil beat Czechoslovakia 3-1 in the final. “It was me who won the World Cup,” Etzel later claimed, and he got more than that: it later transpired that he had given Marino only half of the cash, and kept the rest for himself

 

End of the discussion on my part.

 

"You brought this as "proof" but now you are saying that it is irrelevant. For me it's an absurd claim."

I didn't bring it as proof for anything. If one country is forbidden to play at the world cup by another country that invaded it just weeks before, then that's a scandal for me and if that country was one of the biggest rivals of the eventual world champion, then the title loses at least some of its value in my opinion, but we obviously disagree about that one. At least we agree that the first italian win was a joke. Is there any proof for german doping? If yes, then this would also make that world cup a joke. I didn't know about the brazilian scandal and i never claimed that i did know about all world cups, but good that you brought it up, because it means that Germany should be tied first place in world cups together with Brazil. In the end the essence of this discussion is that world cup wins from 80 years ago don't really have much relevance, because it was a completely different game. Italy won only 2 world cups after 1938, noone in his right mind would put them on the same level as Brazil or Germany. Margaret Court won 24 slams, but noone seriously considered her as great as Williams or Graf, because she won her titles in a time when the competition was clearly weaker, the same is true for Italy concerning football, they won half of their world cups in a time when there weren't really any professional league. That is the reason why many experts consider Italy the Maragaret Court of football.

[Quasit 865]

So, one out of will be at least 4th.

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Quasit

[rybak 3,218]

[hckošice 14,835]

Group G

 England - Belgium 0:1 (0:0)   

Goals 51. Januzaj 0:1

 

Yellow Cards:  Tielemans, Dendoncker.

Officials:  Skomina - Praprotnik, Vukan (all SLO), 33.973 attendance

 

England:  Pickford - Jones, Stones (46. Maguire), Cahill - Alexander-Arnold (79. Welbeck), Loftus-Cheek, Dier, Delph, Rose - Rashford, Vardy

 

Belgium:  Courtois - Dendoncker, Boyata, Vermaelen (74. Kompany) - Chadli, Fellaini, Dembele, T. Hazard - Januzaj (86. Mertens), Batshuayi, Tielemans