Incognito

Depay isn't creating much either. I'd be wanting RVP and Memphis off if I were a Dutch supporter

Van Persie not having his best day.

thup tbh He's a: Cultivator of Unnecessary Newcastle based Tripe.

I remember Sabella as a cultured playmaker for Sheffield United and Leeds many years ago.

Even the great Brazil sides had the aggressive side to their game. They've never been soft touches which has been the let down for many flair teams of the past.

I hope these boring twats get Mullered next round by whomever.

Typically workman like. Typically German.

Germany won't get an easier game in this tournament. Hummels is top notch like. Everything he does looks easy.

Who?

Mitchell Johnson takes a dive.

It's like theyve invited Alain Depardieu to do the team talk.

Sackho shite off

No urgency or anything from France. Absolutely disgusting let alone a World Cup qf.

I saw Richards in town not so long back. He's a lot smaller than he looks on TV. 5'10" max. Good player, though. I'd love him to be our RB. I agree. Fret at corners and set penises too.

Freddy Rincon.Now there was a player. Remember waxing lyrical about that Colombia side pre 94 and my pals and I flooding our Dream Teams with Colombians. I still get stick off the old cunts today for it. Especially Freddy.[emoji1]

The glory hunting cunts at work are doing their nut about his comments in the Currant Bun My spoon will be weaving its magic today

He was on the BBC talking about watching Honduras v Chile in 2010 & thinking aye I'll have a bit of Espinoza and Beausejour t'other day and how it's his duty to know every player playing in the tournament. Made my stomach turn. Fucking professional cunt [emoji1]

Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. There is given that it happens in every single game ffs They scored the winner 2 minutes from the end in one game, ten minutes from the end in another and twelve from the end in the other......and you think they'd do the same if they scored early on as they nearly did last night? You're fucking hatstand man. Hatstand? And no they wouldn't have laid siege on the USA goal if they scored after a minute. They wouldn't go as defensive but they wouldn't be committing as many men forward as they would before the goal. And if USA conceded after a minute they would start to get on the ball more and try to take the initiative That's me...I'm out. You're doing it again, stating fact on a hypothetical happening by comparing it to a totally different situation. You're the very person that started this by saying Belgium would have won at a canter but for Howard But he broke the World Cup record for saves in a match...there is substance behind what I'm saying...I'm sorry, I don't have the need to continue with this banal debate. Especially as you didn't even see the fucking game.

Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. There is given that it happens in every single game ffs They scored the winner 2 minutes from the end in one game, ten minutes from the end in another and twelve from the end in the other......and you think they'd do the same if they scored early on as they nearly did last night? You're fucking hatstand man. Hatstand? And no they wouldn't have laid siege on the USA goal if they scored after a minute. They wouldn't go as defensive but they wouldn't be committing as many men forward as they would before the goal. And if USA conceded after a minute they would start to get on the ball more and try to take the initiative That's me...I'm out. You're doing it again, stating fact on a hypothetical happening by comparing it to a totally different situation.

Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise. There is given that it happens in every single game ffs They scored the winner 2 minutes from the end in one game, ten minutes from the end in another and twelve from the end in the other......and you think they'd do the same if they scored early on as they nearly did last night? You're fucking hatstand man.

The "expansive" game he wants to play with the technical players is ready. Jozy + Johannson, Brooks + Omar, Mix, Green, etc. Bring it on. I can see just a slight flaw in the plan

So for you fatigue doesn't come into it. Why Belgium sat back in the second period of extra time. Youre stating stuff as fact despite the circumstances not occurring. Belgium would've sat back had they scored. [emoji1] I'm not criticising the US team here. They worked their bollocks off and with a little bit of luck could even have won it. But it would be silly to say Belgium didnt deserve it after being dominant for most of the game. Many of the US players were gassed after 55 minutes while Belgium looked fresh. IMO it was pretty clear Belgium just shat their pants after Green scored. Belgium obviously deserved their win but hats off to the USA. Murphy pointed out that Witsel and Fellaini could hardly walk in extra time and couldn't understand them staying on whilst Hazard was pulled. Chadli was cack when he came on too.

Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever. So if they were outstanding as a unit how did Belgium create all these chances? Do you really think Belgium would have continued to attack as much as they did if they got a goal? I'm basing it on more than just the Belgium game, and I don't know because they didn't. But there's no reason to suggest otherwise.

Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield. You'd have Damarcus Beasley over Rodriguez? That's like the best left back in the world cup against the worst. USA have a better keeper I agree. Switzerland have a way better midfield and Drmic despite not being much of a goalscorer is better than clint Dempsey as a striker.]....... On Belgium winning at a canter. It simply wouldn't have happened. They were taking so many shots because they had USA pegged back. If they scored they would have sat back more and let USA into it. Its just the way football goes unless one team is way better than the other. Its a bit like saying in the Iran Argentina game that Iran could have hammered Argentina because they had a lot of chances Not having that. Clint's been very good and a fret in every game. The second bit, again you're stating fact into scenarios which didn't happen. How can you know these things? These chances incidentally weren't all long distance shots....some were one on ones, indeed one was as early as the first couple of minutes.....but you missed the first hour didn't you.. I'd have the US back 5 because as a unit they were outstanding, that said, your criticism of Beasley has no merits whatsoever.

Argentina and Belgium have had pretty identical tournaments so far. I do think that Switzerland are a good bit better than USA though I'd rather have the US back 4 and keeper. Neither side has a good striker and the Swiss are better in midfield.