World Cup 2018

[clubchamp98]

Unlucky Lovren 
Greatest defender of all time apparently 

He’s not the best defender in Liverpool never mind the world.

 

[anotherdouble]

Some people might think so but is it our responsibility to question why

 

[shortgame]

Great World Cup - probably the best one since Euro 96....!! 😉

Thoroughly deserved winners in France - played some great football; and who'd have thought you'd see so many Frenchmen committed to attacking in Russia? Finally will be able to retreat from Moscow with their heads held high!! 😂😂

And let's face it - what a great Mbappe will be when he adds some of Raheem's skill and technique to his game!

Finally on France; Giroud cementing his place quite rightly among to top 5 strikers in the world......and highlighting just how far ahead of his time Emile Heskey was!!

Ah and England, good old England, a team lacking in - let's be honest - flair and creativity, but compensating massively with youthful verve, exuberance, and a touch of sartorial elegance, thrilled and delighted a nation! And gave us the chance to once again feel proud in acting smug, arrogant and superior.....especially to those pesky Scots, Welsh and Irish!! 😉😂😂😂

But ultimately Russia 2018 will be fondly remembered for the goals, the incredible matches, and the tournament where the minnows stole the limelight. It also gave us VAR and the most sexist tv cameramen ever!

But ultimately it unfortunately couldn't provide every Englishman's greatest desire. No not a World Cup final, a win and 'It's Coming Home' breaking the record for most weeks at No.1 in the singles chart, but the death of Diego live!!

Oh well, roll on Qatar 2020!!

What a great post! :thup: :thup:

 

[pbrown7582]

Easily the best and most consistent team across the whole tournament and all whilst carrying Giroud!

Very much deserved.

If you think Giroud didn't have a good World Cup, maybe you don’t quite follow Deschamps tactical plans?
France looked poor when Deschamps tried to please the hipster purists and play Griezmann upfront lone and play Dembele.
Suited Griezmann to have the big No9 up alongside as he does every week at Atletico, Giroud off the ball work is so crucial to France winning the cup.

 

[Kellfire]

If you think Giroud didn't have a good World Cup, maybe you don’t quite follow Deschamps tactical plans?
France looked poor when Deschamps tried to please the hipster purists and play Griezmann upfront lone and play Dembele.
Suited Griezmann to have the big No9 up alongside as he does every week at Atletico, Giroud off the ball work is so crucial to France winning the cup.

He wasn’t good enough. He needs to score goals. He didn’t in this World Cup. In a higher standard World Cup, France wouldn’t have gotten away with him.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

If you think Giroud didn't have a good World Cup, maybe you don’t quite follow Deschamps tactical plans?
France looked poor when Deschamps tried to please the hipster purists and play Griezmann upfront lone and play Dembele.
Suited Griezmann to have the big No9 up alongside as he does every week at Atletico, Giroud off the ball work is so crucial to France winning the cup.

Giroud was key to the way they played but people only look at stats and it says no goals so immediately equal that to being carried and poor

It’s very similar to the way Sterling was vilified all the way through the World Cup - because the stats say no goals he must be having a shocker when it was quite clear he was playing the way his manager wanted him too

Both Southgate and Deschamps had other players on the bench that could have played instead but they kept playing their preffered choices because quite simply they were playing well and playing to exactly what the managers tactics required - but it’s easier to point to the “goal scored” record and suggest they were poor

 

[Kellfire]

Giroud was key to the way they played but people only look at stats and it says no goals so immediately equal that to being carried and poor

It’s very similar to the way Sterling was vilified all the way through the World Cup - because the stats say no goals he must be having a shocker when it was quite clear he was playing the way his manager wanted him too

Both Southgate and Deschamps had other players on the bench that could have played instead but they kept playing their preffered choices because quite simply they were playing well and playing to exactly what the managers tactics required - but it’s easier to point to the “goal scored” record and suggest they were poor

How did I know you’d use Giroud to justify Sterling’s woeful World Cup?! As sure as night follows day...

 

[Papas1982]

Giroud was key to the way they played but people only look at stats and it says no goals so immediately equal that to being carried and poor

It’s very similar to the way Sterling was vilified all the way through the World Cup - because the stats say no goals he must be having a shocker when it was quite clear he was playing the way his manager wanted him too

Both Southgate and Deschamps had other players on the bench that could have played instead but they kept playing their preffered choices because quite simply they were playing well and playing to exactly what the managers tactics required - but it’s easier to point to the “goal scored” record and suggest they were poor

I agree generally about the tactical choices. I think most though felt that england had similar alternatives. Playing one of our other attackers, at least trying it may have added something. Rashford and Vardy night have pace and can play a similar role to Sterling.

France don’t have another version of giroud so they were stuck with him. Although I agree his main role isn’t goals, he’s actually got an alright record for them, and I expect they thought he would chip in at some point, where as Sterling I believe isn’t expected to contribute (goals)

 

[Fish]

It’s very similar to the way Sterling was vilified all the way through the World Cup - because the stats say no goals he must be having a shocker when it was quite clear he was playing the way his manager wanted him too

I get that to a degree, and he did work hard and he did terrorise defences, but, when afforded opportunities and had clear chances he didn’t take them, he’s not a natural clinical finisher as all strikers need to be first and foremost imo.

 

[Crazyface]

This was the worst World Cup ever. The technical ability of 90% of the players could be matched by most Sunday pub teams, if not bettered. Most couldn't pass a ball to save their lives. As for the winners. Blurg ! Mbap is just a whippet with no end product (90% of the time), he will do nothing. We had one at Macc once. Praised to the skies he was. sure we sold him for a bucket of cash but he was soon found out and fell through the divisions and is still falling LOL. Pogba? Just Henderson in a blue shirt. In fact I'd play Henderson over Pogba every time. Just jogs up and down the pitch.
Jut my opinion. The worst bit was that Pogba can now wave a WC winners medal in the faces of players vastly superior to him. Lets hope it spurs our lot on to much better performances. (but it won't )

 

[Beezerk]

Giroud was key to the way they played but people only look at stats and it says no goals so immediately equal that to being carried and poor

It’s very similar to the way Sterling was vilified all the way through the World Cup - because the stats say no goals he must be having a shocker when it was quite clear he was playing the way his manager wanted him too

Both Southgate and Deschamps had other players on the bench that could have played instead but they kept playing their preffered choices because quite simply they were playing well and playing to exactly what the managers tactics required - but it’s easier to point to the “goal scored” record and suggest they were poor

Both managers must have told them to get in great positions, then make a right mess of it and miss the target 😂
It’s like having a bbq but with no matches to light the fire.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

My Grandson still chuckles when he tells his unbelieving pals that, a few years ago, he saw Pogba playing at Somerset Park, the home of Ayr United

 

[Orikoru]

That was a very entertaining final, it had a bit of everything, bar a red card. Griezmann dived for the free kick, but I think it was a penalty - his hand moved towards the ball and slapped it away, which has stopped the ball going into the box. He's unlucky but it was a pen. Both goalkeepers were pretty poor for different reasons. Mbappe looks the real deal, reminds me of Brazilian Ronaldo, and with the right coaching he could even reach his level one day.

I think England can hold their heads up pretty high. Going into the tournament we were looking at our squad saying it was one of the poorest in 20 or 30 years (well I was). So to put our best tournament performance in since 96 is a good achievement. I don't care who we had play - look at the list of teams that have put us out over the years, or who've we had poor results against, and you'll see it doesn't matter who we're playing - Iceland, Costa Rica, USA & Algeria - we've had the 'easy draw' before and not got the job done, so this is definitely a step up. Much to work on now for Southgate, but he's formed the basis of a good young side here who will only improve. Most crucially, he's got the support and interest of the nation back, after the apathy born out of 20 years of poor performance.

 

[Dan2501]

Giroud did the job that was asked of him, he worked hard, held the ball up well, got the other attackers involved in the play, etc etc, however that does not mean he had a good World Cup. He did his job, just like Sterling did, but neither of them had good tournaments. They were somewhat effective in the role they were asked to play but neither had good tournaments, they merely were able to fulfil a role. At the end of the day attackers are judged on their performances in front of goal as that is what wins games and both missed a number of good opportunities. Giroud played 546 minutes in the tournament and didn't register a single shot on target, that is not a record to be proud of and not the record of someone who had a "good" tournament. He may have been able to fulfil a role for France in the system Deschamps wanted to play but that does not mean he had a good tournament.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Giroud did the job that was asked of him, he worked hard, held the ball up well, got the other attackers involved in the play, etc etc, however that does not mean he had a good World Cup. He did his job, just like Sterling did, but neither of them had good tournaments. They were somewhat effective in the role they were asked to play but neither had good tournaments, they merely were able to fulfil a role. At the end of the day attackers are judged on their performances in front of goal as that is what wins games and both missed a number of good opportunities. Giroud played 546 minutes in the tournament and didn't register a single shot on target, that is not a record to be proud of and not the record of someone who had a "good" tournament. He may have been able to fulfil a role for France in the system Deschamps wanted to play but that does not mean he had a good tournament.

I understand your point, but I’d disagree, if he’s done the role requested/required by the manager and his team mates understand his role and he’s come home with a World Cup Winners medal, I’d argue he’s had a fantastic tournament.

Using your analogy, Kane has had a good tournament because he won the golden boot by scoring 6 goals as a striker and reached a S/F, in my opinion, I think Kane will be disappointed with himself.

 

[Dan2501]

It's not black and white though - scoring goals /= good tournament either. Kane didn't have a brilliant tournament, even though he scored goals, he wasn't enough of a threat from Open Play and was probably missing some of the good things Giroud was doing. A combination of the two of them would have made for a good tournament.

I'm not saying Giroud had a bad tournament, he definitely didn't, he did a lot of good things but as an attacker I struggle to rate him positively when he didn't even get a shot on target. All the other good stuff he does should be a bonus, not his primary output. His first job when leading the line as an attacker is to threaten the opposition with shots on target and ultimately goals, Giroud did neither and so for me, I don't think he had a good tournament, he just did okay.

 

[Orikoru]

Giroud is the French Emile Heskey. Make of that what you will.

 

[pbrown7582]

This was the worst World Cup ever. The technical ability of 90% of the players could be matched by most Sunday pub teams, if not bettered. Most couldn't pass a ball to save their lives. As for the winners. Blurg ! Mbap is just a whippet with no end product (90% of the time), he will do nothing. We had one at Macc once. Praised to the skies he was. sure we sold him for a bucket of cash but he was soon found out and fell through the divisions and is still falling LOL. Pogba? Just Henderson in a blue shirt. In fact I'd play Henderson over Pogba every time. Just jogs up and down the pitch.
Jut my opinion. The worst bit was that Pogba can now wave a WC winners medal in the faces of players vastly superior to him. Lets hope it spurs our lot on to much better performances. (but it won't )

here we go again .... :rofl:

 

[pbrown7582]

Giroud was key to the way they played but people only look at stats and it says no goals so immediately equal that to being carried and poor

It’s very similar to the way Sterling was vilified all the way through the World Cup - because the stats say no goals he must be having a shocker when it was quite clear he was playing the way his manager wanted him too

Both Southgate and Deschamps had other players on the bench that could have played instead but they kept playing their preffered choices because quite simply they were playing well and playing to exactly what the managers tactics required - but it’s easier to point to the “goal scored” record and suggest they were poor

Oh no i agree im off to have a lie down! :rofl:

 

[Crazyface]

I also had a brain wave on the penalty thing. The size of the penalty area should be reduced. An offence is committed in the far reaches of it. Were they going to score from there? Really? Draw the lines out from the six yard box out 18 yards / (meters). This would be the new penalty area and this is where you would expect a player to score if they prevented from doing so by a foul or hand ball. Also hand ball rule to change regarding penalty decisions, to if ball strikes anywhere from elbow down to fingers, inside new penalty area, it's a penalty. No if's or buts.