The World Cup

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Every time Messi draws a foul I want England to accuse him of diving.

Love to see him get some clog for 90 minutes and not have a kick. They rely so much on him it would be worth having Stones just man mark him all game finally answering the question in the affirmative that he probably wouldn’t have been able to do at away at Stoke on a wet Tuesday night 😉


You can’t have Stones man mark him. To start with hasn’t got the engine. As previously said, Anderson who did a great job filling the space where the through balls to Haaland could have come from.
 



You can’t have Stones man mark him. To start with hasn’t got the engine. As previously said, Anderson who did a great job filling the space where the through balls to Haaland could have come from.

Anderson is the answer. Messi, for all his gift, only has a certain amount of running steps in those aged legs and if he has a pretty dynamic man-marker who doesn't lunge in and end up on the deck as he skips over and drives him wide or backwards we can possibly deal with him. He plays a distinct inverted nine these days and runs at defences daring them to gamble on the tackle. The defence do not need to be bamboozled by his deftness and prevent themselves ball watching because he will be in and on goal withing three short passes. Stop the cross, stop the one-twos, drive him away from goal and stop him shooting from the 20 yard mark. Anderson needs to be on him all match and not let him get more than a metre from his position.

We also need to not play pretty football playing it out from the back but 'gerrit forrad' and play in their half. Argentina have an unbearable habit of scoring goals from nowhere, and we don't half throw the dice passing it out of defence.
 
England have only ever played Argentina five times in competitive fixtures. That just seems bizarre. Why would you organise world football so it's worked out like that?
Whilst on one hand I agree that it is indeed bizarre, it's also one of the things that makes the WC special.

The Champions League has destroyed those sort of "rare" matchups. It used to be an event when Liverpool played Barcelona. Now it's every second Tuesday in November. And in many ways the League does main it boring because of three lack of jeopardy.

Sometimes sport isn't about finding the absolute"best" team. It's about the entertainment. And jeopardy creates entertainment.


I believe/worry that the best teams can be knocked out on a particular bad day in a way that we would not tolerate in "proper" league football when deciding the best team.
As an England fan, 4th in the world, in the semis against the teams ranked 1,2, and 3 we need "better" teams to be knocked out.
 
Whilst on one hand I agree that it is indeed bizarre, it's also one of the things that makes the WC special.

The Champions League has destroyed those sort of "rare" matchups. It used to be an event when Liverpool played Barcelona. Now it's every second Tuesday in November. And in many ways the League does main it boring because of three lack of jeopardy.

Sometimes sport isn't about finding the absolute"best" team. It's about the entertainment. And jeopardy creates entertainment.



As an England fan, 4th in the world, in the semis against the teams ranked 1,2, and 3 we need "better" teams to be knocked out.
Liverpool have played Barcelona in five competitive UEFA ties in their history. I'd hardly call that every second Tuesday.
 
Anderson is the answer. Messi, for all his gift, only has a certain amount of running steps in those aged legs and if he has a pretty dynamic man-marker who doesn't lunge in and end up on the deck as he skips over and drives him wide or backwards we can possibly deal with him. He plays a distinct inverted nine these days and runs at defences daring them to gamble on the tackle. The defence do not need to be bamboozled by his deftness and prevent themselves ball watching because he will be in and on goal withing three short passes. Stop the cross, stop the one-twos, drive him away from goal and stop him shooting from the 20 yard mark. Anderson needs to be on him all match and not let him get more than a metre from his position.

We also need to not play pretty football playing it out from the back but 'gerrit forrad' and play in their half. Argentina have an unbearable habit of scoring goals from nowhere, and we don't half throw the dice passing it out of defence.
The nice problem to have is being in a WC semi final against Messi and wondering how to deal with his ability. Something that amazed me is that he said in the last couple of days that he's not faced England before even though he's been around so long. He said:

"Obviously, playing against England is special because they are a powerhouse, and matches against powerhouses are always special," he told ESPN. "Personally, it's the first time I'm going to play against them. I've played against everyone except England, so it will be nice for that reason too."

205 games, his Argentina debut in 2005 v Hungary in a friendly, 17th August, he then played in Argentina's competitive games against Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Not sure why, perhaps through injury, but he missed the England friendly on 12th November, before playing against Qatar four days later on 16th November 2005. We haven't played Argentina since.

When you watch Messi, and it has been mention a few times by pundits and stats, like Haaland, he walks around a lot, looking uninterested and often out of the game, letting his team mates do the leg work. But its in those moments when he see's a passage of play 2-3 passes ahead that he then makes his move and finds space to receive the ball to either pick a killer pass or to bag a goal. It feels like he's come from nowhere. Kane and Bellingham can also do it but they put the running in as well.

Its this though which makes me torn about man marking him because it would take a player like Anderson out of the organised midfield to then effectively walk around with his Dad for most of the game. The alternative is to leave him alone until he comes into a danger area and then pick him up, which given England's sloppy defending at times against Norway and Ghana, its also not favourable.

I think though that you're right about being more direct. Getting the ball out to Saka and Gordon has been our real strength and retaining possession for long periods in the final third hasn't been effective for many teams. Ourselves, Spain, Argentina and even France have been frustrated in games in this way, but retaining the ball is far less tiring than chasing players, so it does make sense. Against Mexico we became the counter attacking side.

If we can absorb periods of pressure without the ball, then play the counter attacks again which have proved to work with Kane being the target and Bellingham arriving just in time, its got to give us that chance.

We need to put in the Mexico performance again rather than Norway.
 
According to the Wall Street Journal, England/Argentina is the greatest rivalry in the history of sports.


I think deciding the "greatest" is a fools errand.

What it might be is the biggest rivalry that simply doesn`t get played that often. Even India v Pakistan in the Cricket happens almost every ICC tournament. This is only the third time we have played them competitively in 60+ years

United v them lot
Red Sox v Yankees
El Classico

almost any other rivalry you can think of has multiple meetings over a 10 year period - its been 24 years in this case.

I struggle, in international football, to think of a rivalry that is played as rarely that has this much "baggage"
 
I think deciding the "greatest" is a fools errand.

What it might be is the biggest rivalry that simply doesn`t get played that often. Even India v Pakistan in the Cricket happens almost every ICC tournament. This is only the third time we have played them competitively in 60+ years

United v them lot
Red Sox v Yankees
El Classico

almost any other rivalry you can think of has multiple meetings over a 10 year period - its been 24 years in this case.

I struggle, in international football, to think of a rivalry that is played as rarely that has this much "baggage"
Sheffield Bankers v Sheffield Collegiate - the Abbeydale Park Derby.
 
According to the Wall Street Journal, England/Argentina is the greatest rivalry in the history of sports.


Anyone who remembers the 1966 World Cup Quarter Final will know where that comes from - highlights were posted on here a few days ago - worth watching if you haven't seen it.

Possibly animosity rather than rivalry - even more so when you throw in the Falklands
 
I think deciding the "greatest" is a fools errand.

What it might be is the biggest rivalry that simply doesn`t get played that often. Even India v Pakistan in the Cricket happens almost every ICC tournament. This is only the third time we have played them competitively in 60+ years

United v them lot
Red Sox v Yankees
El Classico

almost any other rivalry you can think of has multiple meetings over a 10 year period - its been 24 years in this case.

I struggle, in international football, to think of a rivalry that is played as rarely that has this much "baggage"
I'd always say that England v Germany has a bigger significance but we have played them far more frequently and they're closer to home. England v Scotland is obviously a big one and England v France carries some signifcance as well.

For England as we don't play against Argentina very often, its hard to look beyond the Falklands conflict for our rivalry. Yes we had Mexico '86 and the hand of god, followed by Simeone v Beckham, but its more of an off the field rivalry with them., which they've brought into football. I guess similar to the WW stuff with Germany. What's become clear to me during this world cup is that Argentina have taken the Falklands war and their losses and put into a football context.

Its added a bit more spice to the game and i think Argentina will be out for England rather than the other way around, because that's what their fans expect. I'm alright with that though, love to see a good clash and hopefully our players can stand up to it and not react. Bellingham will be the obvious target
 
I think deciding the "greatest" is a fools errand.

What it might be is the biggest rivalry that simply doesn`t get played that often. Even India v Pakistan in the Cricket happens almost every ICC tournament. This is only the third time we have played them competitively in 60+ years

United v them lot
Red Sox v Yankees
El Classico

almost any other rivalry you can think of has multiple meetings over a 10 year period - its been 24 years in this case.

I struggle, in international football, to think of a rivalry that is played as rarely that has this much "baggage"

Anyone who remembers the 1966 World Cup Quarter Final will know where that comes from - highlights were posted on here a few days ago - worth watching if you haven't seen it.

Possibly animosity rather than rivalry - even more so when you throw in the Falklands


I would imagine Israel v Iran would be quite spicy if they ever met in a tournament.
 



I think deciding the "greatest" is a fools errand.

What it might be is the biggest rivalry that simply doesn`t get played that often. Even India v Pakistan in the Cricket happens almost every ICC tournament. This is only the third time we have played them competitively in 60+ years

United v them lot
Red Sox v Yankees
El Classico

almost any other rivalry you can think of has multiple meetings over a 10 year period - its been 24 years in this case.

I struggle, in international football, to think of a rivalry that is played as rarely that has this much "baggage"

This will be the fifth time we have played them competitively in 60 years (sixth overall)

1966 World Cup quarter final. W 1-0.
1986 World Cup quarter final. L 1-2.
1998 World Cup last 16. D 2-2. Lost on penalties 3-4.
2002. World Cup group stage. W 1-0.

The fifth competitive match played to date was in the 1962 World Cup at the group stage. W 3-1.
 
It feels huge this one, doesn't it?

Biggest England game in my lifetime that I can remember.

What's making it worse for the nerves is that I think we can actually win.

When we played Croatia in 2018 it felt like we'd already gone one step too far.

I still can't see anybody beating France but you never know.
 
When you watch Messi, and it has been mention a few times by pundits and stats, like Haaland, he walks around a lot, looking uninterested and often out of the game, letting his team mates do the leg work. But its in those moments when he see's a passage of play 2-3 passes ahead that he then makes his move and finds space to receive the ball to either pick a killer pass or to bag a goal. It feels like he's come from nowhere.
I think it was the last World Cup where the pundits/commentators picked up on this. Messi was wandering round without breaking into a run but he was constantly looking around to see where the other players were. His legs may not be as quick as they once were but his footballing brain is streets ahead of most. This is where he differs from C. Ronaldo, who is all about him scoring whereas Messi is all about the team scoring. Two phenomenal players but wildly different.
 
I think there's a better chance of getting to the final than 2018

This one is basically 50-50

If I had to bet, I'll say 2-2 after extra time and Argentina on penalties

There's animosity towards England from Argentina's direction, but not the other way around. They will be extra motivated. To this England team it's just a world cup semi final. To them it seems like a bit more

This is what you should want, as a football fan. A grand occasion like this with a bit of spice to it. This exact game is the peak scenario for this tournament for us - basically as interesting as it can get. I'm very indifferent about international football now but I'm still looking forward to this
 
I think there's a better chance of getting to the final than 2018

This one is basically 50-50

If I had to bet, I'll say 2-2 after extra time and Argentina on penalties

There's animosity towards England from Argentina's direction, but not the other way around. They will be extra motivated. To this England team it's just a world cup semi final. To them it seems like a bit more

This is what you should want, as a football fan. A grand occasion like this with a bit of spice to it. This exact game is the peak scenario for this tournament for us - basically as interesting as it can get. I'm very indifferent about international football now but I'm still looking forward to this
You're spot on about the animosity being just one way. I think most young England fans don't really know or understand the history between the two countries in both a footballing and political sense.

The "extra motivation" that they have is the concern / question mark because we know that it only takes a little reaction or a player making a poorly timed tackle can be the spark change the game. We all hope that its a moment of brilliance, but more often than not in these big games there is an incident like against Mexico with the red card.

Argentina playing in their dark away shirt which is lucky for them...
 
You're spot on about the animosity being just one way. I think most young England fans don't really know or understand the history between the two countries in both a footballing and political sense.

The "extra motivation" that they have is the concern / question mark because we know that it only takes a little reaction or a player making a poorly timed tackle can be the spark change the game. We all hope that its a moment of brilliance, but more often than not in these big games there is an incident like against Mexico with the red card.

Argentina playing in their dark away shirt which is lucky for them...
The thought of this England team being remotely motivated by evoking Falklands history is absolutely laughable. Not so with Argentina

Could be quite a fiery game. I hope it is. Football in this era has lost that massively. If it is, it's not clear who it favours - but probably them. The midfields are a good match up, it'll be interesting to see who wrestles control of the game, if anybody. I do like their midfield a lot - all very good all round players. Similar with Rice and Anderson but they haven't imposed themselves as they should so far
 
Messi was wandering round without breaking into a run but he was constantly looking around to see where the other players were. His legs may not be as quick as they once were but his footballing brain is streets ahead of most.
He was the same when I was at the Man City v Barcelona match in 2016. Walked about a lot but opened the scoring in a few seconds of magic. Man City fought back to win 3-1
 
I think there's a better chance of getting to the final than 2018

This one is basically 50-50

If I had to bet, I'll say 2-2 after extra time and Argentina on penalties

There's animosity towards England from Argentina's direction, but not the other way around. They will be extra motivated. To this England team it's just a world cup semi final. To them it seems like a bit more

This is what you should want, as a football fan. A grand occasion like this with a bit of spice to it. This exact game is the peak scenario for this tournament for us - basically as interesting as it can get. I'm very indifferent about international football now but I'm still looking forward to this
For a neutral fan I am sure they'll love it. This is worse than a derby match to me, it will be torture to watch it.

I think you are correct about the team having no animosity towards Argentina, they either weren't alive or wont remember 86/98.

But they'll be animosity after, it will "kick off" in one way or the other during this match.
 
The nice problem to have is being in a WC semi final against Messi and wondering how to deal with his ability. Something that amazed me is that he said in the last couple of days that he's not faced England before even though he's been around so long. He said:



205 games, his Argentina debut in 2005 v Hungary in a friendly, 17th August, he then played in Argentina's competitive games against Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Not sure why, perhaps through injury, but he missed the England friendly on 12th November, before playing against Qatar four days later on 16th November 2005. We haven't played Argentina since.

When you watch Messi, and it has been mention a few times by pundits and stats, like Haaland, he walks around a lot, looking uninterested and often out of the game, letting his team mates do the leg work. But its in those moments when he see's a passage of play 2-3 passes ahead that he then makes his move and finds space to receive the ball to either pick a killer pass or to bag a goal. It feels like he's come from nowhere. Kane and Bellingham can also do it but they put the running in as well.

Its this though which makes me torn about man marking him because it would take a player like Anderson out of the organised midfield to then effectively walk around with his Dad for most of the game. The alternative is to leave him alone until he comes into a danger area and then pick him up, which given England's sloppy defending at times against Norway and Ghana, its also not favourable.

I think though that you're right about being more direct. Getting the ball out to Saka and Gordon has been our real strength and retaining possession for long periods in the final third hasn't been effective for many teams. Ourselves, Spain, Argentina and even France have been frustrated in games in this way, but retaining the ball is far less tiring than chasing players, so it does make sense. Against Mexico we became the counter attacking side.

If we can absorb periods of pressure without the ball, then play the counter attacks again which have proved to work with Kane being the target and Bellingham arriving just in time, its got to give us that chance.

We need to put in the Mexico performance again rather than Norway.
According to this scouting report, we should definitely target the wings:

World Cup scouting report: the lowdown on Argentina, England’s semi-final opponents https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...i-final-opponents-argentina?CMP=share_btn_url
 
I would imagine Israel v Iran would be quite spicy if they ever met in a tournament.
The AFC Asian Cup is the equivalent of the UEFA EUROs. The 1968 AFC Asian Cup was actually hosted by Iran. It was a perfectly deeeelish five team tournament. Played as a Round Robin, with no knock out phase. Iran (as hosts) were joined by Hong Kong as Central Zone winners, the Republic of China/Taiwan/Chinese Taipei as Eastern Zone Winners, what was then Burma as winners of Western Zone 2, and Israel as winners of Western Zone 1.

On 19 May 1968, Iran beat Israel 2-1 in the Amjadieh Stadium in Tehran. Iran were crowned Asian Champions. Played four. Won four. Israel finished third. Played four. Won two. Lost two.

Israel and Iran also met in the Western Zone Qualifiers for the 1960 AFC Asian Cup. That was a four team round robin played in Kochi, in India. Israel, Iran, India and Pakistan.

Iran beat Israel 3-0 in the first game, the second game was 1-1. Israel topped the group and qualified.

There was a game in a different tournament, The Asian Games, in Tehran in 1974. Iran beat Israel, in the final, 1-0.

Israel were expelled from the Asian Football Confederation just after that tournament.
 
The AFC Asian Cup is the equivalent of the UEFA EUROs. The 1968 AFC Asian Cup was actually hosted by Iran. It was a perfectly deeeelish five team tournament. Played as a Round Robin, with no knock out phase. Iran (as hosts) were joined by Hong Kong as Central Zone winners, the Republic of China/Taiwan/Chinese Taipei as Eastern Zone Winners, what was then Burma as winners of Western Zone 2, and Israel as winners of Western Zone 1.

On 19 May 1968, Iran beat Israel 2-1 in the Amjadieh Stadium in Tehran. Iran were crowned Asian Champions. Played four. Won four. Israel finished third. Played four. Won two. Lost two.

Israel and Iran also met in the Western Zone Qualifiers for the 1960 AFC Asian Cup. That was a four team round robin played in Kochi, in India. Israel, Iran, India and Pakistan.

Iran beat Israel 3-0 in the first game, the second game was 1-1. Israel topped the group and qualified.

There was a game in a different tournament, The Asian Games, in Tehran in 1974. Iran beat Israel, in the final, 1-0.

Israel were expelled from the Asian Football Confederation just after that tournament.
The Shah had decent relations with Israel. His successors? Not so much.

Israel qualified as Western Zone 1 winners in 1968 because all the other teams - all from Moslem countries - withdrew rather than play them, not for the first time.
 



All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom