Printable View
It doesn't say much for the Africa teams, I thought they were woeful, with some crazy passing that just got themselves into trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
England should have been about 5-1 up at halftime, but ended up leaving it very very late.
In the second half they looked fairly limited and ran out of ideas, but always looked likely to get something from set-pieces.
Other side of it is that Tunisia were quite cynical, and got what they deserved out of the game.
Even there about ten minutes from time, they had a fella standing over the ball stopping England taking a free-kick even after the ref had told him to move away. The two penalty calls were blatant; they were even wrestling two separate players on one of them.
Nasty team. Hope Panama stuff them.
Agree absolutely. Only one team tried to win that game and score goals. I knew they'd win it when in the 89th minute George Hamilton said that England hadn't looked like breaking Tunisia down and of course 2 minutes later we have the classic "oh, danger here" moment. Ronnie Whelan said England didn't deserve to win. Not sure what game he was watching but they missed a load of chances, had nearly all the attacking play and possession and didn't play camped in their penalty area. It's good for football that ultra negative tactics like this don't work. The African teams should take a leaf out of the South American teams' tactics: attack and then attack again. Dietmar Hamann disagreed with Whelan and was quite optimistic about England's future in the competition. They tried to pass the ball around. We shall see.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
watching the Tunisia-England game last night with my flatmate, and there's a closeup shot of the Tunisian goalkeeper
Him: The keeper's got braces
Me: Dental plan!
Was that mixed up with Tunisia’s attacking Plan .....Or was that toothless .....Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
A nice dynamic to the Columbia/Japan game now, with Columbia a man down but needing to score. Only a quarter of the game gone, but they look good to score at least one, but the gaps at the back mean Japan's general inferiority isn't as much of a factor.
Japan are hopeless up front from first half viewing, and completely unable to stretch the Colombian defence at all.
Thought they had two decent chances after the penalty, but its clear that Columbia are the better side.
Japan a completely different side this second half, look to be on their way to a well earned victory.
Much much better from Japan in the second half. Making Colombia run all over the place. Looks like the first half efforts from Colombia really took a lot out of them.
Are you George Hamilton is disguise ;) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Some interesting facts from the game. First time an Asian team has beaten a South American side (18 games) at the WC and it's the first tournament where all of the SA sides have failed to win in the opening games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
Surprised by how poor Poland were, bull**** second goal or no. This makes Columbia/Poland real interesting.
It also appears Neymar's tournament is in serious jeopardy.
Is George Hamilton the only RTÉ commentator in Russia? Ger Canning was commentating on a GAA match at the weekend.
Shambles of a goal there for Russia. Simple catch for the keeper, but he punches. Then the defender - with 130 caps - spends so much time pulling his opponent's jersey that he misses where the ball is, and slots into the bottom corner of his own net.
This shirt-pulling in particular seems more endemic than ever it was. I thought there was a rule brought in a couple of years ago that it was a penalty, and it was to be clamped down on hard?
There was, officials just aren't enforcing.
Egypt going out with a whimper here, the hosts strolling into the second round. Really expected better of Egypt, I've spent literal decades hearing about how they were one of the best teams to consistently fail to qualify.
Egypt are pretty much a one man show. No real threat.
Another team that pass the ball round neatly in areas where it will do no damage, but are fairly toothless up front.
Morocco the first team out of contention after failing to find a way through Portugal. They gave it a go at least. Uruguay currently toying with the Saudis.
I know commentators are supposed to remain neutral, but Canning could be commentating on the final, or the colour of his wallpaper, and it would be delivered in the same monotoneQuote:
Originally Posted by legendz
I think its a combination of ignorance of the sport/players, and apathy from a GAA head for what he's seeing. The contrast with him and Kerr in terms of knowledge and interest is gigantic: Kerr yesterday was actually analyzing the game and pointing out where exactly Saudi Arabia were going wrong, with Canning offering a basic English summation of what was occuring. You'd think there would be some football reporter in the office they'd give a chance to.
To be fair, the commentator's job is to narrate what is happening, the analyst's job is to provide insight into why things are happening.
Canning probably doesn't want to be commentating on it, any more than we want to be listening to him.
Speaking of commentating, George didn't do in the Spain/Iran game what I learned to do the hard way many years ago: before thinking that a goal that has been scored, look at the ref and then the linesman. The ref never indicated that the Iranian shot which hit the back of the net was a goal. The flag was up but George merrily went his way commentating as if it was a goal.
As to the match itself, an interesting game I thought despite the ultra defensive play by the Iranians until Spain scored. And after they scored, the Iranians came out and played some good football and could have equalised. Sadlier said he thought Iran were correct to play ultra defensive because Spain would cut them open if they didn't. Well why was it then that when Iran played a much more expansive game Spain never looked like scoring again? It's not that they didn't try. Although I don't want to sound like Dunphy, Spain did look a bit dodgy at the back on occasions.
I really think that teams like Iran with their foreign coaches are not doing themselves justice with these play for a draw tactics in most games. They can play football.
to be fair to george Hamilton the scoreboard on the screen went 1-1 which, I assume, was solely under the host broadcasters control. he wasn't the only one who thought it was a goalQuote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
For a country that once had Michael O' Hehir as a supreme commentator I can’t say that Ger Canning measures up . Ok , It would be very hard to come anywhere near .
Its so typical of RTE that a Person gets into a Position and is then impossible to move on . Could they not have Promoted him upstairs or something ?
what's more disappointing is that it appears they have sent maybe only one commentary team to Russia with the rest quite obviously sitting in a studio in Dublin. the result is that the commentary sounds like it was added after the match was over and the atmosphere comes across mutedQuote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
You're right of course, I should have been more expansive by saying that Canning's basic decription is obviously lacking in any kind of verve or effort to appear engaged with whats happening/ A real Kent Brockman "Half-back passes to centre" job.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I though the Iranians were fine physical specimens with very good fitness which is handy against Spain . You’d wonder how good they could be if given their heads against another team other than Spain . As good as Spain were they won by a fortunate goal .Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
Great result for Australia. Group on a real knife-edge now: if France and Peru draw, France and Denmark could have a kickabout 0-0 in the last game and both progress. If Peru win, any one of the four could go through.
This World Cup is starting to fall a but flat tbh. We're down below Italia 90 levels goalswise, and that's after starting with a 5-0 and 3-3 in the first 24 hours.
There's been few enough upsets to speak of. Peru have done ok, but have nothing to show for it.
There's been some good games - Spain v Portugal; Denmark v Peru; Germany v Mexico to name 3 - but too many have been turgid affairs.
And the games are all very similar. One team attacks, but there's 8 defensive players around the edge of the box; no way through; get tackled. Up to the other end, but there's already 8 defensive players around the edge of the box; no way forward; have a shot from 25 yards; wildly over. It's too easy now for professional teams just to sit on the edge of the box.
I think that's why it feels like there's been so many great goals - scoring from 25 yards is becoming increasingly important as a skill because you can't cut defences open any more.
There's still two-thirds of the tournament to go, so have to give it time. But if so many games continue being one-dimensional turgid 1-0 wins, you wonder will rule changes be proposed (like the backpass rule in 1991). But I can't think of anything simple and obvious (cutting out wrestling aside) that might help.
/shaking fist at cloud
^^^^^ All Joking aside the Goals need to be made bigger . At least One Ball higher and two ball widths wider .
Once upon a time you were lucky if the goalkeeper was 6 foot tall and most of the time he was in 4 to 6 inches of mud . Its a very simple change that will lead to more Goals .
There have been lots of dud matches: too many of the lower seeds playing for draws, too many of the "big" teams struggling to either put in the appropriate amount of effort (Uruguay for one) or breakdown a packed defence more than once a game. A 1-0 can still be entertaining of course, but when they start to pile-up...
At least there are already two groups where the third round of games have must-win scenarios for lower seeded sides that could provide some serious drama.
Making the goals bigger would certainly lead to more goals alright. I remember Kevin Myers had a column in the Irish Times years ago saying they should be made 10ft high and 10 yards wide (as opposed to 8x8 now), so there'd be areas of the goal that keepers couldn't reach, and you'd get 5-3s all over the shop. That's daft; you can't have unsaveable areas, and 5-3s would diminish the power of the goal. An rud is annamh is iontach, and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
But I don't think making the goals bigger would alter the fact that it's so hard to get a shot away in the first place. Arguably the solution is to make the pitch bigger, but that's obviously impossible. Reducing teams to 10 a side would probably be too big a move for FIFA to consider (understandably so; there has to be some continuity with the game's past)
You can't give more points for a win because that just further paralyses teams already scared of losing. You can't give bonus points for scoring goals because that just screams "match rigging" You could tweak the offside so you can't be offside in the box, say, but those kind of tweaks have been counter-productive in recent years (lots of long ball stuff)
Not entirely sure what the answer is. The players are just so much bigger and fitter than they were when the game was invented that they're too big for the pitch now.
This one is quite nasty. A poor game, but the leg-breakers are breaking up (if you'll excuse the pun) the general monotony of the games to date, and are making it vaguely watchable.
Argentina falling apart. Shambolic stuff.
Argentina in big trouble in the group now. Need to beat Nigeria, but if Iceland do that as well, then Argentina are going to have a good bit of goal difference to catch up. Could well see them not in the knock-outs.
Feel sorry for Messi; he's about the only one trying out there for them.
Iceland will beat Nigeria and Croatia. Croatia will rest players. Argentina are gone I'd say.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
A dull 0-0 draw more likely; I think Croatia will want to top the group. Runner-up probably plays France next; winner plays Denmark/Australia.
But yeah, quite possible alright.
A lot of the Argentinian players have looked seriously fatigued, perhaps a training issue? When that midfielder (missed the name) lost the ball ahead of the second goal, and refused to track back, it took on shades of the 7-1.
Just no kind of shape to them. A team of individuals. Croatia just had to absorb and break when the moments came.
Are Croatia a physically big team . The Argentines looked smaller than them in nearly every position .
Both Croatia and Serbia are Physically big . Something in the water in them there parts .
I think you talked yourself back to making the Goals bigger there . Its the most simple solution to the problem and attacking teams would benefit .Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu