• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

World Cup 2018 Semi Finals

awesome dawson said:
View attachment 4720
Click to expand...
Their picker doesn't let me choose my proper formation - the middle would be a diamond with Alli at the point behind Kane.

england-xi-d59b704d2b39930dfcf6de6e7c42b1b9.jpg


Loftus-Cheek is only in there because all of the options past Dier and Lingard are fudging awful. There is a serious lack of midfield talent in that squad - it's a miracle Southgate has got them so far.
 
This has been one of the best organized and most exciting World Cup in recent years. But there has been no outstanding team in this World Cup and all the teams have been inconsistent throughout. Just imagine, Mexico beat Germany, but then got thrashed by Sweden who then went down tamely to England and Belgium almost lost to Japan but beats Brazil next. Due to the big teams being inconsistent, there have been too many 1-0 wins this time, limiting the number of goals scored in total.

With 60 matches played and only 4 matches left, a total of 157 goals have been scored so far. This is less goals scored than 2014 (171 goals), 1998 (171 goals) and 2002(161 goals) but more than 2010(145 goals) and 2006(147 goals). It looks like can overtake the 161 goals scored in 2002 but will need a miracle to overtake the 171 goals scored in 1998 and 2014. Germany's 7-1 win over Brazil in the semi final helped to increase the goals in 2014. We will need a similiar score in the semi final if this World Cup is to equal or overtake the 171 goal tally. We cannot expect many goals in the France-Belgium semi final and the Final. I think only England can help to increase the goal tally by scoring or conceding at least 7 goals against Croatia. A 5-4 or 6-5 scoreline will really help this World Cup. Maybe, if England didn't get enough time in the semi final, they can continue the job in the 3rd/4th play-off match.
 
I see FIFA is now considering to expand the wc to 48 teams already in the next wc! 48 teams will be a disaster! Who wants to see Malaysia vs Burkina Faso? It's already becoming a bit of a farse, because players seem to have their mind set on other things than the WC.
A very average Sweden team reach the QF, and a pretty average England team, with no midfield, reach at least the semi, and pretty much all of the "big teams" are long gone.
There are already too many games played, and 48 teams won't help, and will additionally make the tournament at lot less interesting imo.
 
Kandi1977 said:
I see FIFA is now considering to expand the wc to 48 teams already in the next wc! 48 teams will be a disaster! Who wants to see Malaysia vs Burkina Faso? It's already becoming a bit of a farse, because players seem to have their mind set on other things than the WC.
A very average Sweden team reach the QF, and a pretty average England team, with no midfield, reach at least the semi, and pretty much all of the "big teams" are long gone.
There are already too many games played, and 48 teams won't help, and will additionally make the tournament at lot less interesting imo.
Click to expand...

They are trying to make it more exciting with more teams. But I will prefer if they organize the World Cup every 2 years instead of every 4 years. Waiting for 4 years for the World Cup is always too long.

Not sure having 48 teams will make the World Cup more exciting as they have to change the format to fit into the current 32 days of tournament. Reports say, 48 teams will be divided into 16 groups of 3 teams each. This means every team will only get to play 2 matches in the group stages. The top 2 teams progress to Round of 32 followed by the usual knockout stages as of now. The total matches will be 80 compared to 64 now. Of course, there will be more chances of weak teams playing in the World Cup, not just from the rest of the world but from Europe as well. I think there are only 5-8 good European teams while the others are weak teams who will only make up the numbers like Scotland. Remember, Scotland have played in 8 World Cups but have never progressed from the group stage !
 
I think no one would have predicted France V Belgium and England V Croatia semi finals. Personally, I feel disappointed the traditional big teams like Brazil and Argentina are not in the semi finals.

France V Belgium is going to be very tight and boring. Can see both teams cancelling out each other in midfield with few goal scoring chances. I think neutral fans will prefer Belgium to win as they have never won the World Cup before compared to France who have won it in 1998. It will be interesting to see Lloris in goal for France while Alderweireld and Vertonghen in defence for Belgium. Belgium will be boosted in confidence after beating Brazil. But they have been inconsistent so far, only playing well in patches. Let's see if they can turn up against France for the full match.
 
Spurs7891 said:
They are trying to make it more exciting with more teams. But I will prefer if they organize the World Cup every 2 years instead of every 4 years. Waiting for 4 years for the World Cup is always too long.

Not sure having 48 teams will make the World Cup more exciting as they have to change the format to fit into the current 32 days of tournament. Reports say, 48 teams will be divided into 16 groups of 3 teams each. This means every team will only get to play 2 matches in the group stages. The top 2 teams progress to Round of 32 followed by the usual knockout stages as of now. The total matches will be 80 compared to 64 now. Of course, there will be more chances of weak teams playing in the World Cup, not just from the rest of the world but from Europe as well. I think there are only 5-8 good European teams while the others are weak teams who will only make up the numbers like Scotland. Remember, Scotland have played in 8 World Cups but have never progressed from the group stage !
Click to expand...


Spent two days winding up the English and now picking on the Scots.
 
Kandi1977 said:
I see FIFA is now considering to expand the wc to 48 teams already in the next wc! 48 teams will be a disaster! Who wants to see Malaysia vs Burkina Faso? It's already becoming a bit of a farse, because players seem to have their mind set on other things than the WC.
A very average Sweden team reach the QF, and a pretty average England team, with no midfield, reach at least the semi, and pretty much all of the "big teams" are long gone.
There are already too many games played, and 48 teams won't help, and will additionally make the tournament at lot less interesting imo.
Click to expand...

If I had my way it would be 24 teams maximum. I would only allow that to give all the confederations a fair crack of the whip.
 
24 teams is not a good number as you have sloppy thirds qualifying. 16 or 32 works best. If they really want to expand it go to 64 and forget the 48 format. The 64 teams would produce a lot more games (128 over 64), but with an appropriate format and scheduling would only add one game for the final four or about 5 days. The problem is they would stretch it out to avoid overlapping games.
 
Spurs7891 said:
I think no one would have predicted France V Belgium and England V Croatia semi finals. Personally, I feel disappointed the traditional big teams like Brazil and Argentina are not in the semi finals..
Click to expand...

I’m so glad those two aren’t in it as their flaky teams in reality and mentally weak. Their also not never good despite the hype

History is the past and the past has been and gone

All that matters is the future and that’s what happens today and tomorrow and every day henceforth
 
Spurs7891 said:
They are trying to make it more exciting with more teams.
Click to expand...
Its all politics and $$ isn't it? Nothing about spectacle or excitement.

The heads of Fifa get voted in, countries FA's vote them in so by promising more places if they are elected they get more votes, its a bribe.

Fifa sell the WC TV / Sponsorship rights if a country is in the WC they spend more on the rights than if they are not - more countries = more $$.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Its all politics and $$ isn't it? Nothing about spectacle or excitement.

The heads of Fifa get voted in, countries FA's vote them in so by promising more places if they are elected they get more votes, its a bribe.

Fifa sell the WC TV / Sponsorship rights if a country is in the WC they spend more on the rights than if they are not - more countries = more $$.
Click to expand...

Based on quality there's already too few European sides and this expansion would mostly benefit everyone else.

Here's what it could look like with the currently suggested expansion:

Africa: Burkina Faso, DR Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda
Asia: Australia, China (playoffs), Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan
CONCACAF: Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Trinidad & Tobago, USA
Europe: Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, England, Iceland, Italy, France, Germany, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
Oceania: New Zealand
South America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay (playoffs), Peru, Uruguay
 
Jordinho said:
Based on quality there's already too few European sides and this expansion would mostly benefit everyone else.

Here's what it could look like with the currently suggested expansion:

Africa: Burkina Faso, DR Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda
Asia: Australia, China (playoffs), Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan
CONCACAF: Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Trinidad & Tobago, USA
Europe: Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, England, Iceland, Italy, France, Germany, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
Oceania: New Zealand
South America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay (playoffs), Peru, Uruguay
Click to expand...


Yep but people argue that the WC should not be based on quality but represent the world, "festival of Football"- if you look at number of Qualifiers per Countries in the region Europe is way ahead.

I do not agree with this argument but it is the one that is made to justify the expansion in the other continents.
 
Spurs7891 said:
I think no one would have predicted France V Belgium and England V Croatia semi finals. Personally, I feel disappointed the traditional big teams like Brazil and Argentina are not in the semi finals.

France V Belgium is going to be very tight and boring. Can see both teams cancelling out each other in midfield with few goal scoring chances. I think neutral fans will prefer Belgium to win as they have never won the World Cup before compared to France who have won it in 1998. It will be interesting to see Lloris in goal for France while Alderweireld and Vertonghen in defence for Belgium. Belgium will be boosted in confidence after beating Brazil. But they have been inconsistent so far, only playing well in patches. Let's see if they can turn up against France for the full match.
Click to expand...

I think it will be a good game tonight

Belgium are strong allround with two great creative players. France are all about power and pace and Mbappe hitting teams on the break with (I don't see them as strong in midfield).

I'd like France to win because they are the weaker team, and to see Spurs players as both WC final captains
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I’m so glad those two aren’t in it as their flaky teams in reality and mentally weak. Their also not never good despite the hype

History is the past and the past has been and gone

All that matters is the future and that’s what happens today and tomorrow and every day henceforth
Click to expand...

Brazil and Argentina are poor teams. Argentina were minutes away from not qualifying remember.

The good thing about this WC is that teams have one over one-man-show sides. Messi, Neymer and Ronaldo were all largely nullified
 
Back tracking a bit and looking at what we have 'acheived' with a dose of realism, I'm not sure the teams we have played are any different to a typical euro/world cup qualifier group that we usually cruise through. (With the Belgium game akin to a friendly in the middle)

You can reasonably say well done to Southgate just for getting us to beat those average teams in light of previous failures at major tournaments.

He's a nice guy, looks at (and improves) the details and sees the benefit of having the team comfortable with each other (hence no bellends like wheelchair and Shelvey). He's had the benefit of knowing a few of these from the U21's and that has helped in gaining their trust.

I do think he is stretching his loyalty to them by not tinkering with the starting line.-up, you are only as strong as your weakest link. A weakest link that has not really been tested yet. It feels he's just hunkering down and hoping everything holds.

The real games come now, and chappeau to him if he wins both as both will be proper tests.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Yep but people argue that the WC should not be based on quality but represent the world, "festival of Football"- if you look at number of Qualifiers per Countries in the region Europe is way ahead.

I do not agree with this argument but it is the one that is made to justify the expansion in the other continents.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with the expansion but do agree with the sentiment that it's a festival of football - id cut the number of European teams in the 32 and give the spaces to Africa/Asia. Same as with the CL id prefer to see less sides from the big leagues and a more even representation of the continent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back