THE OFFICIAL PROPER FOOTBALL THREAD 2020/21

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Waemoth said:

Over the years, the English teams has quite frequently made it to the quarter finals, have they not? I get that English football wasn't exactly at an all-time high previously, but despite that, they were still among the better teams around.

Broadly (and generalising), I'd actually consider England to have been at about ''Swedish level'', with the greatest respect, 1980-2006: a ''quarter-final'' tinge. Sometimes England were better than that (1990/96 semi-finalists) sometimes worse (1994/2008 - ''did not qualify'') but summarising, I'd place England into that middling-good/quarter final bracket which is approximately where Sweden are.

That period however from about 2008 to 2016, Wally with Brolly/Capello/Hodgson era, England were truly diabolical.

[Waemoth]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Broadly (and generalising), I'd actually consider England to have been at about ''Swedish level'', with the greatest respect, 1980-2006: a ''quarter-final'' tinge. Sometimes England were better than that (1990/96 semi-finalists) sometimes worse (1994/2008 - ''did not qualify'') but summarising, I'd place England into that middling-good/quarter final bracket which is approximately where Sweden are.

That period however from about 2008 to 2016, Wally with Brolly/Capello/Hodgson era, England were truly diabolical.

Yeah neither England nor Sweden have been bad in recent history, so much is for sure. Just like England, Sweden has been weak until recently, partially because Zlatan just didn't seem work as part of the team. All in all, both Sweden and England had the potential to win, that much is true. Anything can happen, South Korea knocked Germany out of the cup after all. 

What I'm saying is essentially that not everyone, probably not the majority, shares your English opinion of bronze-matches. You can either go, "this cup was worthless, we didn't win!" or react by thinking that you performed well and didn't walk away empty handed. I believe this reaction comes down to national history in football, as well as culture. I might be wrong though!

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, Waemoth said:

Yeah neither England nor Sweden have been bad in recent history, so much is for sure. Just like England, Sweden has been weak until recently, partially because Zlatan just didn't seem work as part of the team. All in all, both Sweden and England had the potential to win, that much is true. Anything can happen, South Korea knocked Germany out of the cup after all. 

What I'm saying is essentially that not everyone, probably not the majority, shares your English opinion of bronze-matches. You can either go, "this cup was worthless, we didn't win!" or react by thinking that you performed well and didn't walk away empty handed. I believe this reaction comes down to national history in football, as well as culture. I might be wrong though!

Maybe it is a cultural thing. It is difficult for me to view that match as anything other than ''glass half empty'' (i.e., we missed out in the semi and shouldn't be here but playing on Sunday). But you can I suppose view it ''glass half full'' (i.e., we did well to progress this far, and 3rd place is a respected position to try and obtain). I don't believe I am the only one though who views it as a waste of time. 

[ChristmasFnatic]

Not really excited to watch the match for 3rd place lol. Even qualifying matches are more exciting. But hey, will watch it regardless. Would be another 4 years before Qatar. Sucks.

[Padme]

31 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

An ''one off situation''? 2002, South Korea beat Spain and Italy and got through to the semis where they were beaten by the Germans 1-0. Turkey got through to the semis in the same World Cup where they were beaten 1-0 by Brazil. A Turkey v South Korea 2002 World Cup Final was/is not inconceivable!! 2014, Costa Rica were beaten by pens in the quarters by the Dutch. 2018, Japan led Belgium 2-0, that same Belgium who were beaten 1-0 by France in a reasonably close encounter. A Japanese-Croatian final this time round was more than a distinct possibility. 

Do you see SK beating Spain everyday. Do you see Italy missing the WC all the time? Do you see Costa Rica reaching quaterfinals or semifinal most of the time? If the answer is no. Then you're talking about a one off thing

35 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Don't understand what this is all about??

You mentioned Greece organized the Olympic Games in 2004. Well the Olympic Games were born in Greece. So it makes perfect sense if from time to time Greece gets to organize the Games. But Greece is not an Olympic power. You see the U.S. or China winning most of the medals

 

40 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

An ''one off situation''? 2002, South Korea beat Spain and Italy and got through to the semis where they were beaten by the Germans 1-0. Turkey got through to the semis in the same World Cup where they were beaten 1-0 by Brazil. A Turkey v South Korea 2002 World Cup Final was/is not inconceivable!! 2014, Costa Rica were beaten by pens in the quarters by the Dutch. 2018, Japan led Belgium 2-0, that same Belgium who were beaten 1-0 by France in a reasonably close encounter. A Japanese-Croatian final this time round was more than a distinct possibility. 

Don't understand what this is all about??

Some of them will. Some of them will regress. New minnows will emerge. Minnows this time round will no longer be considered ''minnows'' next time round. 

The football hierarchy is not a fixed monolith. It is in constant flux, and reassembled during every World Cup/Continental Competition, constantly on a two year basis. Uruguay were a superpower at one time, whereas now they are considered a middling side. Do you know who the greatest team of the 1950s were? The Hungarians, the Might Magyars. They would be considered outright minnows now if they even qualified for a World Cup. Did you know that the Germans were considered barely considered ''underdogs'' up until 1954 (this was just a few years after the war)? England this competition! England were considered a joke up to 2016, images of them being ridiculed and called ''wankers'' by their own supporters on the pitch after being defeated by Iceland. Now England are a respectably competitive ''force'' in world football again! 

You could say that the seeds of Croatia today were planted in 1998. Up until 1998 Croatia were outright minnows. Croatia have built dynasties and are now seeing the fruits. Within a twenty year period Croatia have advanced from minnows, through to middling, to now contesting a Final. Who is to say there won't be a period of Croatian domination thereafter? 

Hungarians, other one off. However at that time they did have a few great players. In 1950 Brazil and Uruguay played the final. Uruguay won. But Uruguay was good then and they are good now. Uruguay didn't disapeared from the face of the earth after 1950. They are comapetitive. Where were Cameroon, Iran and Panama in 1950? 

Germany after the war was not nothing. They needed to rise from the ashes as a country first. They needed to be a brand new country. They had a mountain to climb in 1950. And in 1954 they sarted a winning tradition. Football has always been a very popular sport in Germany. Bayern Munich was born long before 1954.

Croatia is a more complicated thing. Because of different political situations they had to deal with last century. 

 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Padme said:

Do you see SK beating Spain everyday. Do you see Italy missing the WC all the time? Do you see Costa Rica reaching quaterfinals or semifinal most of the time? If the answer is no. Then you're talking about a one off thing

Well they are all one-offs to a certain extent. There has been 200+ associations of FIFA contesting 21 quadrennial world cups 1930-2018, and only 8 nations have ever won the thing (potentially 9 if Croatia win the thing on Sunday) - in fact, three nations have won over half of the 21 world cups (Brazil, Italy, Germany). Only one nation has ever retained the world cup (Brazil 1958-62) , and then there is the ''curse of the champions'', both suggest that it is near impossible to achieve ''continuous success'' even for the three ''superpowers'' - although the Germans seem to be very successful at getting to finals.

13 minutes ago, Padme said:

You mentioned Greece organized the Olympic Games in 2004. Well the Olympic Games were born in Greece. So it makes perfect sense if from time to time Greece gets to organize the Games. But Greece is not an Olympic power. You see the U.S. or China winning most of the medals

I was referring to Greece winning the 2004 UEFA European Championship.

Surely if Greece can win the Euros, it is not outside the laws of probability that a Japan,S. Korea, or one of the better African countries like Nigeria can win the World Cup?

15 minutes ago, Padme said:

Hungarians, other one off. However at that time they did have a few great players. In 1950 Brazil and Uruguay played the final. Uruguay won. But Uruguay was good then and they are good now. Uruguay didn't disapeared from the face of the earth after 1950. They are comapetitive. Where were Cameroon, Iran and Panama in 1950? 

Germany after the war was not nothing. They needed to rise from the ashes as a country first. They needed to be a brand new country. They had a mountain to climb in 1950. And in 1954 they sarted a winning tradition. Football has always been a very popular sport in Germany. Bayern Munich was born long before 1954.

Croatia is a more complicated thing. Because of different political situations they had to deal with last century. 

Uruguay slipped off the World Cup map between the 1970 and 2010 world cups (although there were three Copa Americas across the '80s and '90s). The 1950s Hungarians fashioned one of the greatest teams of all time; it goes down as one of the ''best teams to have never won the world cup'' (alongside the Dutch of the '70s and Brazilians of '82).

There is nothing complicated about Croatia other than that they are an example of a minnow advancing from minnows to (possible) world cup winners in the space of twenty years. They created a great crop of players in 1998 and built upon their achievement. 

[Juventino]

Mentioning Greece had nothing to do with the 2004 Olympics, but their European Championship win.

Which was already mentioned.

But @DieselDaisy , forget Brazil, Italy were the first to retain the World Cup.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Juventino
Added more

[Padme]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well they are all one-offs to a certain extent. There has been 200+ associations of FIFA contesting 21 quadrennial world cups 1930-2018, and only 8 nations have ever won the thing (potentially 9 if Croatia win the thing on Sunday) - in fact, three nations have won over half of the 21 world cups (Brazil, Italy, Germany). Only one nation has ever retained the world cup (Brazil 1958-62) , and then there is the ''curse of the champions'', both suggest that it is near impossible to achieve ''continuous success'' even for the three ''superpowers'' - although the Germans seem to be very successful at getting to finals.

Sure, but then don't claim countries like Panama went to Russia with expectations of winning. Only the superpowers, the powers and consistant good teams went to Russia with expectations to win.

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is nothing complicated about Croatia other than that they are an example of a minnow advancing from minnows to (possible) world cup winners in the space of twenty years. They created a great crop of players in 1998 and built upon their achievement. 

I'm talking about before 1998 and 1994

 

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I was referring to Greece winning the 2004 UEFA European Championship.

And what the build with that? Again another one off

[MillionsOfSpiders]

57 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Maybe it is a cultural thing. It is difficult for me to view that match as anything other than ''glass half empty'' (i.e., we missed out in the semi and shouldn't be here but playing on Sunday). But you can I suppose view it ''glass half full'' (i.e., we did well to progress this far, and 3rd place is a respected position to try and obtain). I don't believe I am the only one though who views it as a waste of time. 

It has the feeling of a friendly game to me. Nothing to get excited about, might watch it if I’m not doing anything else. 

[ChristmasFnatic]

Is 3rd place even a given? 

Is it coming home...? The bronze medals?

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Maybe it is a cultural thing. It is difficult for me to view that match as anything other than ''glass half empty'' (i.e., we missed out in the semi and shouldn't be here but playing on Sunday). But you can I suppose view it ''glass half full'' (i.e., we did well to progress this far, and 3rd place is a respected position to try and obtain). I don't believe I am the only one though who views it as a waste of time. 

I couldnt give a flying fuck.  I mean, fuckin’, come on, second or third or fourth best, whats it actually mean in real terms in regards to where our stock has risen from anyway since crashing out to Iceland to years ago?  Fuck all really.  And also, from the high of like, being so close you’re no longer in the mood for such clinical concerns.  I dont even wanna watch the fuckin final to be honest, I couldn’t give a toss and I love my football as you know.  The whole fuckin’ tournament builds and builds towards this one goal with every game being a meaningful something in pursuit of that goal...and then right at the end there’s this one thats fighting for second fiddle, its the worlds biggest anti climax and, for the players anyway, it must take a gargantuan level of will, I certainly couldnt hack.

[SoulMonster]

Too bad with the result yesterday, but as the game progressed it was fair that Croatia won. Pretty awesome of England to get this far, anyway, and I expect a lot from them in Europe 2020.

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Too bad with the result yesterday, but as the game progressed it was fair that Croatia won. Pretty awesome of England to get this far, anyway, and I expect a lot from them in Europe 2020.

I don’t.  Lets be honest it was a soft fortuitous run where the big teams fell by the wayside.  They still did brilliantly but lets be real here.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

I don’t.  Lets be honest it was a soft fortuitous run where the big teams fell by the wayside.

Honest? England did well and shows a lot of promise. That's honesty.

[Len Cnut]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Honest? England did well and shows a lot of promise. That's honesty.

Did well?  Definitely.  Showed promise?  Definitely.  International honours winning promise?  Not so sure. 

[Eric Cantona]

 

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Juventino said:

Mentioning Greece had nothing to do with the 2004 Olympics, but their European Championship win.

Which was already mentioned.

But @DieselDaisy , forget Brazil, Italy were the first to retain the World Cup.

I'd forgotten that. The Mussolini era haha. 

2 hours ago, Padme said:

Sure, but then don't claim countries like Panama went to Russia with expectations of winning. Only the superpowers, the powers and consistant good teams went to Russia with expectations to win.

I do not know what the Panamanians were thinking but if any team enters the World Cup not thinking he can win it, then there is no point in going. Fundamentally it is only six-seven football matches in a row.

Understand that all 32 teams have traversed a qualification campaign to begin with - beating other teams, seeing other teams fall by the wayside - so there already is this criteria which they have met just to be on the plane to a World Cup. All teams deserve to be there. 

[moreblack]

Don't believe the minnows tag for Croatia, Yugoslavia's always been good. Since the 60s they've been in the latter rounds of tournaments (runners up at the Euros, World Cup semifinalists), they even eliminated the Denmark team that won it in 92, but couldn't compete due to the conflict. Croatia inherited a lot of that legacy.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Did well?  Definitely.  Showed promise?  Definitely.  International honours winning promise?  Not so sure. 

Consider where they have come from?

Iceland 2016!!!

England have literally jumped from being a sort of joke team, a bunch of clueless millionaires with no footballing abilities, into the top four teams of the FIFA World Cup. This lot have done better than your Beckhams and Lampards or any of those wankers. There has been this whole era of wank, and now we are back. 

[ChristmasFnatic]

Forgive my ignorance, not familiar with European football as I mostly watch Sao Paulo football and CONMEBOL.  But this European championship, its all players from that country right? Like team from WC. Ronaldo cant play for Italy, etc. and no SA players?

[moreblack]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

England have literally jumped from being a sort of joke team, a bunch of clueless millionaires with no footballing abilities, into the top four teams of the FIFA World Cup. This lot have done better than your Beckhams and Lampards or any of those wankers. There has been this whole era of wank, and now we are back. 

They did it with a very young team as well. Maybe that inexperience was the difference in who won that semi.

Just now, ChristmasFnatic said:

Forgive my ignorance, not familiar with European football as I mostly watch Sao Paulo football and CONMEBOL.  But this European championship, its all players from that country right? Like team from WC. Ronaldo cant play for Italy, etc. and no SA players?

It's the equivalent of your Copa America.

[ChristmasFnatic]

1 minute ago, moreblack said:

They did it with a very young team as well. Maybe that inexperience was the difference in who won that semi.

It's the equivalent of your Copa America.

Thanks. If I start to get familiar with leagues there, which should I watch? Something that is fun/lots of action and not boring. 

[DieselDaisy]

My gawd,

Admittedly starting to waver in my Croatian support after reading that haha.

[moreblack]

Yeah where was he when Bale came on?

[Waemoth]

32 minutes ago, ChristmasFnatic said:

Thanks. If I start to get familiar with leagues there, which should I watch? Something that is fun/lots of action and not boring. 

Norwegian league. Was blown away when I saw the two worst teams face-off. Could not make one successful pass, haha.