There are 20 better teams in Europe, let alone with world...
You can only beat what's in front of you. In this case we are thrashing them
I am old enough to remember several decades of England starting tournaments nervously and cautiously, and sometimes calamitously
Spot on. As I have said before, Francis is absolutely unwilling to give England credit when it is due.
England done very well today. Bellingham showing class (as I have said for ages he should have been playing all the time). Saka excellent as well. Defence is still dodgy though.
Point was that due to the way FIFA ranking system works, you get nonsense like Iran being 20th in the world. The Athletic had a good piece the other day about why the group of death doesn't really exist now because of FIFA reeingeering the tournament meaning the best teams aren't actually all there e.g. Italy.
Mm, perhaps - though Fifa can hardly be held responsible for Italy failing to squeak past North Macedonia.
They are making us look like Arsenal with a lot of slick play outside the box. And even down to losing it and nearly giving them a goal back as a result.
Stop making a false comparison please. It's misleading.
The truth is that this is psepholoically like 1997 but economically FAR WORSE.
Conservatives on here need to prepare for the Dark Night of the Soul.
Unlike 1997 though there will be no golden economic legacy for Starmer and Reeves so the economy will then be their problem
1997 was not exactly a golden economic legacy even though things had improved since the collapse of the Major Government's economic strategy at the the time of the Autumn 1992 ERM fiasco. Labour still inherited Budget and Balance of Payments deficits. Ted Heath enjoyed a better legacy from Labour in 1970.
Terrible balance of payments figures (a £31 million trade deficit) and rising inflation, a selective employment tax, unemployment at its highest level since 1940 and union indiscipline?
The Balance of Payments was in strong surplus at that time - notwithstanding a single month's deficit due to Jumbo Jets - far stronger than 1997.
It was still relatively low, certainly compared to 2010 and now.
Inflation was also lower in 1997 than 1970 and there was far less union militancy
It's an additional ten minutes that's added on to the end of the game so that s couple of England players can get injured and miss the rest of the tournament.
This is possibly the most encouraging video I have seen out of Russia lately. A panellist on Russian TV berates Solovyov for even suggesting that peaceful cities should be attacked.
Meanwhile in Russia: a rare moment of sanity on Russian state TV, when one panelist was finally fed up with Vladimir Solovyov's threats to wipe Kyiv or Kharkiv off the face of the earth. https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594529208650317824
Yes, he sounds great - a former Israeli politician, apparently? There's also criticism of the idea that it's a mere "operation" and not a war. I do get the impression that Russian TV is less monolithic than we think.
On topic: There are paralllels in American politics. After their disastrous defeat in 1964, the Republicans won in 1968 and in a landslide in 1972. Going back further, the Democrats lost big in 1928, but won in 1932. And there have been big swings during campaigns, for example, duing the 1988 presidential election. (After the Democratic convention, Dukakis was ahead of Bush, 55-38 source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_United_States_presidential_election#Polling )
But I think any analysis of contemporary British politics should begin with the recognition that 2019 was -- mostly -- a "negative landslide". The repudiation of Jeremy Corbyn was far more important in explaining the results than any positive thing Boris Johnson promised. Or the Conservative government had accomplished. (Wikipedia tells me that in the 2019 election, Labour lost 7.9 percent of the popular vote, whild Conservatives were gaining just 1.2 percent.)
So, Sunak could win your next general election, but he would need help from "events", and probably from Keir Starmer. (From afar, that seems unlikely. Though Starmer does not strike me as a gifted politician, he appears intelligent, and cautious enough so that I would be surprised if he made any serious blunders.)
Gerry Adams, Brendan Behan, Dana, Seamus Heaney, Roy Keane, your boys have taken a hell of a beating.
"Up the RA" is disgusting celebration of terrorism. It really says a lot about how ugly Irish culture is that this is still widespread. Absolute contempt for the thousands of grieving relatives.
Of course, it's entirely possible that post-Columbian emigrants took a very old coin with them.
Surely old news? Viking settlement is long established. There is a great book - "A voyage long and strange" on this subject.
But it can't be Vikings with a 1427 coin! The implication in the article is that there was contact and trade with the eastern seaboard of America - especially Northumberland - half a century and more before Columbus. I don't think it's inconceivable - if you had discovered a new land whose seas teemed with fish, you wouldn't necessarily tell all and sundry about it.
I think its all bound up with Greenland etc. I suspect trading had been going on for centuries before Columbus.
Off topic: In brief, how did Qatar get the World Cup?
Was bribery a part of it, and, if so, was it bribery that could be prosecuted had it occurred in the US, or the UK? Or was it disguised bribery, payments to "consultants", and the like?
For all those PBers who are nostalgic for that time a couple of hours ago when they were screeching about craven cowardice over armbands and (somewhat confusingly) about meaningless Woke gestures.
Gerry Adams, Brendan Behan, Dana, Seamus Heaney, Roy Keane, your boys have taken a hell of a beating.
"Up the RA" is disgusting celebration of terrorism. It really says a lot about how ugly Irish culture is that this is still widespread. Absolute contempt for the thousands of grieving relatives.
Is that not trending due to that Northern Irish woman(?) chanting it at Arlene Foster?
I was glad it wasn't a total rout for Iran tbh - but a vindicating performance for England, though a better attacking team will have fun with the English defence. And an eight goal game isn't bad going for the second in the tournament.
Senegal-Netherlands should be the first really competitive game though. Up next!
Off topic: In brief, how did Qatar get the World Cup?
Was bribery a part of it, and, if so, was it bribery that could be prosecuted had it occurred in the US, or the UK? Or was it disguised bribery, payments to "consultants", and the like?
Gerry Adams, Brendan Behan, Dana, Seamus Heaney, Roy Keane, your boys have taken a hell of a beating.
"Up the RA" is disgusting celebration of terrorism. It really says a lot about how ugly Irish culture is that this is still widespread. Absolute contempt for the thousands of grieving relatives.
Given the recent escalations in Strabane and Derry it's so irresponsible too. These are people's lives, not vogueish Twitter hot-takes.
Gerry Adams, Brendan Behan, Dana, Seamus Heaney, Roy Keane, your boys have taken a hell of a beating.
"Up the RA" is disgusting celebration of terrorism. It really says a lot about how ugly Irish culture is that this is still widespread. Absolute contempt for the thousands of grieving relatives.
Wait till you hear about sections of British culture and them singing about being up to their knees in Fenian blood.
Gerry Adams, Brendan Behan, Dana, Seamus Heaney, Roy Keane, your boys have taken a hell of a beating.
"Up the RA" is disgusting celebration of terrorism. It really says a lot about how ugly Irish culture is that this is still widespread. Absolute contempt for the thousands of grieving relatives.
Is that not trending due to that Northern Irish woman(?) chanting it at Arlene Foster?
Perhaps, but it is not an isolated incident. The Ireland Women's team sang it after a victory. How is it possibly acceptable enough in Irish culture that nobody in the team intervened?
By the way, I think the UK should complain to Iranian Mullahs. If the US and Israel are, respectively, a great Satan and a little Satan, surely the UK should at least be a "large Satan".
The penalty was an absurd decision and the Iranian goal was pretty good. I wouldn't worry.
Whatever they score, we'll score more. Now what team used to live by that motto?
The Iranian goal was a huge mistake by Maguire. He completely lost his man. I like Southgate a lot but I don't understand why Stones-White isn't our central defence.
Off topic: In brief, how did Qatar get the World Cup?
Was bribery a part of it, and, if so, was it bribery that could be prosecuted had it occurred in the US, or the UK? Or was it disguised bribery, payments to "consultants", and the like?
Dr. @hans_kluge, @WHO Regional Director for Europe, paints grim picture of health situation in Ukraine as winter sets in: "This winter will be life threatening for millions of people in Ukraine." "Ukraine's health system is facing its darkest days of the war so far."
The penalty was an absurd decision and the Iranian goal was pretty good. I wouldn't worry.
Whatever they score, we'll score more. Now what team used to live by that motto?
The Iranian goal was a huge mistake by Maguire. He completely lost his man. I like Southgate a lot but I don't understand why Stones-White isn't our central defence.
Off topic: In brief, how did Qatar get the World Cup?
Was bribery a part of it, and, if so, was it bribery that could be prosecuted had it occurred in the US, or the UK? Or was it disguised bribery, payments to "consultants", and the like?
Good video here summarising all the strands of the corruption, including all the way to the top in France.
By the way, I think the UK should complain to Iranian Mullahs. If the US and Israel are, respectively, a great Satan and a little Satan, surely the UK should at least be a "large Satan".
Credit where due.
Goldilocks-zone Satan. We're just devilishly right.
I'm as happy to throw shade on England football as anyone, but are we really carping about a 6-1 England win in a World Cup?
Nah, of course not. Really happy with the win and gives us huge confidence going into the more difficult matches in the group.
Huge contrast with other tournaments (e.g. 2010 - booed off after a 0-0). Takes some of the pressure off - one more win or two draws should be enough to get through. Win your first game and life always looks better,
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
Gerry Adams, Brendan Behan, Dana, Seamus Heaney, Roy Keane, your boys have taken a hell of a beating.
"Up the RA" is disgusting celebration of terrorism. It really says a lot about how ugly Irish culture is that this is still widespread. Absolute contempt for the thousands of grieving relatives.
Is that not trending due to that Northern Irish woman(?) chanting it at Arlene Foster?
Perhaps, but it is not an isolated incident. The Ireland Women's team sang it after a victory. How is it possibly acceptable enough in Irish culture that nobody in the team intervened?
While there is probably zero value in any WC market, Senegal do feel slightly undervalued here to me.
Its interesting that unlike the past 3 WC nobody is really talking up African teams. Previous recent WC, one of the African nations has always been talked up & the its only a matter of time until one wins the WC. But that seems to have diminished, despite widespread participation of African players in the top leagues.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
I'm as happy to throw shade on England football as anyone, but are we really carping about a 6-1 England win in a World Cup?
Nah, of course not. Really happy with the win and gives us huge confidence going into the more difficult matches in the group.
Huge contrast with other tournaments (e.g. 2010 - booed off after a 0-0). Takes some of the pressure off - one more win or two draws should be enough to get through. Win your first game and life always looks better,
That 0-0 with Algeria was one of the worst games I've ever seen. If memory serves, didn't a bird build a nest on one of the goalposts?
I really don't get the Southgate criticism. He's by some margin the most successful England manager after Sir Alf. And (the question nobody ever seems to answer) who would do a better job?
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
The penalty was an absurd decision and the Iranian goal was pretty good. I wouldn't worry.
Whatever they score, we'll score more. Now what team used to live by that motto?
The Iranian goal was a huge mistake by Maguire. He completely lost his man. I like Southgate a lot but I don't understand why Stones-White isn't our central defence.
I still don't really get Maguire either.
Its because Southgate won't select Chris Smalling, didn't pick Fikayo Tomori...so it experienced Dier, who is erhhhh hit & miss or Ben White who again Southgate doesn't seem to really ever want to try out.
Question after scoring a load of goal, does Southgate stick with the more attacking formation, or back to his preferred more cautious 3 centre backs (Walker coming in)?
While there is probably zero value in any WC market, Senegal do feel slightly undervalued here to me.
Its interesting that unlike the past 3 WC nobody is really talking up African teams. Previous recent WC, one of the African nations has always been talked up & the its only a matter of time until one wins the WC. But that seems to have diminished, despite widespread participation of African players in the top leagues.
There's often a sense of great potential, especially from the populous West African nations which produce so many excellent players.
Senegal seem the best of the lot this time round - but since Ghana in 2010 no team has really lived up to the hype (I felt for Ivory Coast in 2006 though, an excellent squad in an extremely tough group).
I'm as happy to throw shade on England football as anyone, but are we really carping about a 6-1 England win in a World Cup?
Nah, of course not. Really happy with the win and gives us huge confidence going into the more difficult matches in the group.
Huge contrast with other tournaments (e.g. 2010 - booed off after a 0-0). Takes some of the pressure off - one more win or two draws should be enough to get through. Win your first game and life always looks better,
That 0-0 with Algeria was one of the worst games I've ever seen. If memory serves, didn't a bird build a nest on one of the goalposts?
I really don't get the Southgate criticism. He's by some margin the most successful England manager after Sir Alf. And (the question nobody ever seems to answer) who would do a better job?
There is a lingering disappointment about the 2018 WC semi and the Euro's final last year. Both times we took the lead, both times we failed to go for the jugular and both times we lost because of it. I think we were unlucky not to get a second against Croatia, but against Italy it looked like we thought we could do an Italy on them and keep it to 1-0 for the 90.
We can know what could have happened if we had been a bit more attacking, but Southgate has built his success on defending well and hitting on the break. And its worked better than anything else since Robson in 1990 or Venables in 1996.
Gets it spot on. The idea that it's optics or virtue signalling is nonsense. It's not being run as a serious media organisation.
Some of it it optics. Brand safety is optics, as in the linked screenshots. No company wants their brand appearing in people’s feeds next to hate content or pornography because it’s radioactively toxic to their carefully cultivated brand identity.
Twitter has (for the moment) sacked most of the staff responsible for keeping this stuff off Twitter. Sure, there might be some future wonderful world where AI solves the problem for brand advertising on Twitter, but right now that doesn’t exist & brands are rightly concerned about appearing to be associated with any of this stuff, no matter how tangentially.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
The obvious improvement for VAR in football should be teams appeal & they only get x challenges, like cricket, like tennis...
While there is probably zero value in any WC market, Senegal do feel slightly undervalued here to me.
Its interesting that unlike the past 3 WC nobody is really talking up African teams. Previous recent WC, one of the African nations has always been talked up & the its only a matter of time until one wins the WC. But that seems to have diminished, despite widespread participation of African players in the top leagues.
Yes, it is remarkable how, despite the spread of the game around the world, the World Cup (and Euros, to an extent) is still dominated by the traditional powers from Europe and S America. 20 years ago you expected this to change, but it hasn't, and looks like it never will
The only team that might break into the closed shop is perhaps the USA, but even there I'm not entirely sure
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
I am not an expert in these matters, as my interest in football is close to nil, but I turned this up.
Is it not correct ?
...The referee can initiate a ‘review’ for a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ when:
the VAR (or another match official) recommends a ‘review’
the referee suspects that something serious has been ‘missed’...
So not entirely referee's whim, but certainly still in there.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
I'm as happy to throw shade on England football as anyone, but are we really carping about a 6-1 England win in a World Cup?
Nah, of course not. Really happy with the win and gives us huge confidence going into the more difficult matches in the group.
Huge contrast with other tournaments (e.g. 2010 - booed off after a 0-0). Takes some of the pressure off - one more win or two draws should be enough to get through. Win your first game and life always looks better,
That 0-0 with Algeria was one of the worst games I've ever seen. If memory serves, didn't a bird build a nest on one of the goalposts?
I really don't get the Southgate criticism. He's by some margin the most successful England manager after Sir Alf. And (the question nobody ever seems to answer) who would do a better job?
There is a lingering disappointment about the 2018 WC semi and the Euro's final last year. Both times we took the lead, both times we failed to go for the jugular and both times we lost because of it. I think we were unlucky not to get a second against Croatia, but against Italy it looked like we thought we could do an Italy on them and keep it to 1-0 for the 90.
We can know what could have happened if we had been a bit more attacking, but Southgate has built his success on defending well and hitting on the break. And its worked better than anything else since Robson in 1990 or Venables in 1996.
There is a severe failure amongst England fans to appreciate how much better Italy played in the second half in the final last year than in the first. And, no, it wasn't just because "we let them".
While there is probably zero value in any WC market, Senegal do feel slightly undervalued here to me.
Its interesting that unlike the past 3 WC nobody is really talking up African teams. Previous recent WC, one of the African nations has always been talked up & the its only a matter of time until one wins the WC. But that seems to have diminished, despite widespread participation of African players in the top leagues.
Yes, it is remarkable how, despite the spread of the game around the world, the World Cup (and Euros, to an extent) is still dominated by the traditional powers from Europe and S America. 20 years ago you expected this to change, but it hasn't, and looks like it never will
The only team that might break into the closed shop is perhaps the USA, but even there I'm not entirely sure
The US is just beginning to get a decent (non-retirement) soccer league. But it's hampered by the fact that there are team salary caps, which means that it's still very much a "top of the Championship" quality of play.
They recently signed a 10 year deal with Apple TV, that's going to roughly treble the amount of money that the teams get from TV, and will (hopefully) lead to a much, much higher salary cap. And therefore... one would hope... a better domestic soccer league and therefore the possibility of them breaking through.
2026 - when the World Cup is in the US, Canada and Mexico - might be a decent year. Home field advantage and all; maybe we see the US reach the Quarter or Semi finals.
Comments
However let us enjoy the pleasure of a fine England performance, and excellent stuff from Bellingham, Saka et al
goallllll
Inflation was also lower in 1997 than 1970 and there was far less union militancy
Hence the equalled bit.
It's going to need a shit-load of PR spend to get itself rehabilitated...
Told you ref had 8 goals or over on the spread.
However 6-2 is bloody good!
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_United_States_presidential_election#Polling )
But I think any analysis of contemporary British politics should begin with the recognition that 2019 was -- mostly -- a "negative landslide". The repudiation of Jeremy Corbyn was far more important in explaining the results than any positive thing Boris Johnson promised. Or the Conservative government had accomplished. (Wikipedia tells me that in the 2019 election, Labour lost 7.9 percent of the popular vote, whild Conservatives were gaining just 1.2 percent.)
So, Sunak could win your next general election, but he would need help from "events", and probably from Keir Starmer. (From afar, that seems unlikely. Though Starmer does not strike me as a gifted politician, he appears intelligent, and cautious enough so that I would be surprised if he made any serious blunders.)
Perhaps he just had Iran scoring 2 or more.
It's about that for the next match between Netherlands and Senegal.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.197093917
Was bribery a part of it, and, if so, was it bribery that could be prosecuted had it occurred in the US, or the UK? Or was it disguised bribery, payments to "consultants", and the like?
Senegal-Netherlands should be the first really competitive game though. Up next!
U.S. Says FIFA Officials Were Bribed to Award World Cups to Russia and Qatar
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/sports/soccer/qatar-and-russia-bribery-world-cup-fifa.html
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n5bYFInAhbg
Whatever they score, we'll score more.
https://twitter.com/petergyang/status/1594696056348049410
Credit where due.
https://twitter.com/IranIntl/status/1594691052111384578?s=20&t=hPzaNh-e1AkSaa4ZBZIpuw
Senegal 6.4
Draw 3.8
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.197093922
"Ukraine's health system is facing its darkest days of the war so far."
...WHO has verified 703 “attacks on health” facilities in Ukraine by Russia, which he says are in breach of international humanitarian law.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1594710155588997122
https://youtu.be/gHjbay54F4U
1-0 Netherlands win: 6.2
2-0 Netherlands win: 7.8
1-1 draw: 8
2-1 Netherlands win: 10
0-0 draw: 10.5
3-0 Netherlands win: 15
1-0 Senegal win: 16.5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.197093932
I really don't get the Southgate criticism. He's by some margin the most successful England manager after Sir Alf. And (the question nobody ever seems to answer) who would do a better job?
Question after scoring a load of goal, does Southgate stick with the more attacking formation, or back to his preferred more cautious 3 centre backs (Walker coming in)?
Senegal seem the best of the lot this time round - but since Ghana in 2010 no team has really lived up to the hype (I felt for Ivory Coast in 2006 though, an excellent squad in an extremely tough group).
We can know what could have happened if we had been a bit more attacking, but Southgate has built his success on defending well and hitting on the break. And its worked better than anything else since Robson in 1990 or Venables in 1996.
Twitter has (for the moment) sacked most of the staff responsible for keeping this stuff off Twitter. Sure, there might be some future wonderful world where AI solves the problem for brand advertising on Twitter, but right now that doesn’t exist & brands are rightly concerned about appearing to be associated with any of this stuff, no matter how tangentially.
The only team that might break into the closed shop is perhaps the USA, but even there I'm not entirely sure
Is it not correct ?
...The referee can initiate a ‘review’ for a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ when:
the VAR (or another match official) recommends a ‘review’
the referee suspects that something serious has been ‘missed’...
So not entirely referee's whim, but certainly still in there.
17/2
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/world-cup
Might be some VALUE in betting against this, as this is surely over-confident England fans driving the price
They recently signed a 10 year deal with Apple TV, that's going to roughly treble the amount of money that the teams get from TV, and will (hopefully) lead to a much, much higher salary cap. And therefore... one would hope... a better domestic soccer league and therefore the possibility of them breaking through.
2026 - when the World Cup is in the US, Canada and Mexico - might be a decent year. Home field advantage and all; maybe we see the US reach the Quarter or Semi finals.