Kaizero

#b1b3b2 #b7b3cb Different on paper, sure. On the color spectrum they're still far too close to be used to separate positions, IMO

As in warfare, and everything else, being defensive is harder than being offensive. Defenseive units in general only succeed if they manage to turn their defensive measures into a war of attrition, wearing out the energy of the offensive opponent. When translated into the world of football strategy, there seems to exist an overall misconception that not just going all out attack when you have a vastly superior unit in offense than you do in defense is a bad strategy because the offensive players will tire - so the best strategy (to them) is a firm defense that allows the opponents superior offensive players to tire, before then trying to nick a goal to steal the win. Guess what, scientifically, is more tiresome for a footballer of these two options: 1. Playing defensively 2. Playing offensively To the surprise of nobody (except stone age defensive minded coaches), the answer is number two. Being on the defense is much more tiresome on the body and mind than being on the offense, meaning what actually happens when a team sets up to defend all game in hope of nicking a draw (or even stealing a win), thinking the offensive players of the opponent will eventually tire from attacking them? Just look up how many goals are conceded by the "inferior" team after the match clock goes past 70:00 - it's unfathomable to me how today's game can both be intensely focused on statistics and a more "scientific" approach to the game, yet mentally still be retarded. If you're, say, Luton Town facing Manchester City. On paper, you know you'd likely lose that match-up 99 out of 100 times, so you prepare a tactic to "soak up" the pressure and, if luck wills it, you'll get a chance that becomes a goal and you might end up nicking it. It ignores the basic concept of a football match between two teams; you need to score more goals than your opponent to win a match, and how do you get the chance to score any? You attack. Meaning that statistically the best chance of winning against the supposed "vastly superior" Man City team increases exponentially when you attack, as attacks are what enables your team to score. I've gone off on a rant and feel I've lost track of the point I tried making, so just stopping here You all know what I mean, god damn.

Personally I'm not a fan of Kane simply due to finding his public personality incredibly boring. Imagine being forced to try engaging both James Milner and Harry Kane into a three-way conversation that would be enjoyable listening for anyone? Can't drag on his stats as a player, though. Glad he left the PL as that removed the threat from him to one day take the crown from Shearer as the player with most PL goals.

I like what you've done there, but it irks me to no end - for no actual reason as it doesn't affect anything - that England in 2nd has the same color as the 5th through 8th placed teams, yet, 3rd and 4th have a different color

Great work running this, @Magpie I see that in the end, my performance was full-on Mike Ashley by only a last minute scramble to avoid the bottom through an England runner-up bonus got me comfortably mid-table, what more can you want?

It's a tweet with Footy Headlines as its source, it's not "leaked" pics - it's computer generated pics based on descriptions. I struggle with the fact people still seem to view Footy Headlines as a credible source for kit leaks.

TIL: Luis Suarez still exists.

Went down a Wikihole and ended up crawling through some barely attached cave systems (started the journey reading up on Robinho having started serving the jail sentence he was given after being a part of gang raping a girl in France), it all started by continuing to read up on former/current footballers that have been sentenced to hard time by a court of law - somehow ending with cracking the fuck up over a throwaway line said in court when long-term 3rd choice keeper through the 90s/early 00s for the Norwegian national team was told his sentence for (at 45) having had sex with his niece (15) multiple times, and I quote; "The defendant, Mr. Olsen, stated that the sexual relationship had been one hundred percent consensual and wanted by both of the involved parties. The jude quickly rebuffed Mr. Olsen's statement, telling him "this court finds the scenario suggested by the defendant to be absolutely, one hundred percent, unthinkable. A blockbuster Hollywood feature could not manage to put the amount of make-up required on any pig of their choosing to successfully manage convincing any member of its audience that the victim would voluntarily agree to any form of sexual relations with Mr. Olsen." The judge's words, paraphrased:

Your post triggered my latent urge for sometimes jumping into discussions as the devil's advocate. The greed at the very top of the global game has pushed it far towards its inevitable demise sometime in the distant future, but when we think of future hosts of a "World Cup" we need to remember that over the last couple of decades, the game has advanced an insane amount and increased its global fanbase/viewership from its already outrageously high numbers into stratospheric numbers. The 2022 World Cup Final was watched by 1 in 5 (rounding down from 5.3) of all living humans as it happened. The 1994 World Cup Final was watched by 1 in 176 (rounding down from 176.3125) of all living humans as it happened. The 1966 World Cup Final was watched by 1 in 8495 of all living humans as it happened. I found and sourced the numbers by googling and I didn't spend any time proof-checking sources. Just saying that up front before someone on here decides to dedicate their weekend diving head first down a source-checking rabbit hole they end up returning from with the ability to say I was off by "this and this" fraction of an amount That said - anyone willing to fact check are more than welcome to do so, of course 👍🏼 Given the exponential growth in the total amount of viewers across a World Cup tournament these days, knowing it will only grow in the future as well - I dare say it's borderline lunacy being against potential changes to the tournament, as long as those changes are undeniably good for all of the following: the tournament itself, the health of its players and the entertainment level for those watching in the stands and from home. However, when changes are made on the basis of increasing the personal wealth for a select few individuals at the top of he command chain running a corrupt organization that, time and time again, gets their pants pulled down to reveal the exact level of corruption happening that we were all already aware of, yet do nothing about. Given how the game has grown across the world and interest in the game having had the kind of exponential growth it has over the past couple of decades, the idea of a World Cup having 64 nations present shouldn't be an offensive thought. It would only add one extra game for players, and even then only for the players representing teams that in a 32 nation World Cup format advanced further than the Round of 16. It's a no brainer as whilst European nations can still pull up to the WC with the largest amount of quality nations able to partake, we won't see a growth in quality if young players never see their homegrown talent reach the biggest stage. The trade off for an extra game due to having 64 nations participating in a WC, on paper, seems to be a net positive gain for the sport, the tournament and player growth in nations without the successful history the "established greats" have on their resume. The only negative aspect for a change like this would, and even then arguably so, be the extra 90 to 120 minutes players have to go through at the tournament to reach the final. Those extra 90/120 minutes across a full season should be removed from somewhere else, in my opinion. They are better served taking place at a World Cup once every 4 years than at some random pre-season tournament et al. If we, in an ideal world, had succeed in rooting out the corruption all through FIFA and appointed leaders that genuinely wanted the best for the sport, finding a host country for a 64 nation tournament that has enough stadiums of the required/expected standard and size already built and ready to go quickly start approaching zero. Based on the situation as is when it comes to having access to enough stadiums for a tournament the size of a World cup - all within the borders of a single country? It'd likely mean that country having to put a lot of money into getting their existing stadiums brought up to the standards and size required of a stadium if it were to host a WC match, or even worse - the footballing equivalent of what happens to the arenas after a city hosts either the summer or winter olympics as the demand for the arena size/the audience base isn't large enough to support them. If I could choose based on my personal preference, the World Cup would always be hosted by one single country. The realist in me hope that when we inevitably will have to accept that the current reality of the game and world is as it is, meaning future bids to host the WC will more likely than not be two or more nations joining forces - presumably to avoid having to pay to refurbish/expand multiple stadiums in their country to meet the standard/requirement for stadiums deemed capable to host a WC match. However, I hope those bids are made by non-massive (hello north america) neighbouring countries and not more than three host nations in total - the nation with the historically "best" footballing resume of the two/three host nations should automatically get to host the final. I fear we might end up seeing random countries all across the world end up teaming up to bid for a WC given FIFA's track record when it comes to turning down a big check even if them taking the cash directly makes the game itself suffer negatively. Going back to the middle ground scenario, I honestly don't think it's a bad idea in general - even if we removed FIFA's blatant corruption from the WC bidding process. Being Scandinavian, I'll never experience a WC being hosted this far north - but an EC shared between Norway, Sweden and Denmark? A bid like that would have potential to get off the ground if the bidding process weren't 100% ran on pure corruption, as we're stereotypically so shit we already know we're too shit to even attempt gaming the system like every other nation - as we'd undoubtedly fail and our schemes unravel for all to see. I feel like I've picked up the mantle from good 'ol HTT these days looking at the novella length of most of my posts, even copying his style when it comes to veering off the initial topic very quickly and rambling on about whatever comes to mind until I realize I need to do something else and abruptly stop writing without a proper conclusion to any of the points I discussed/raised in the novella-post I mean, for fucks sake... throw me onto your ignore pile until I manage to check myself, hopefully before I wreck myself.

Extremely tempted by these two: https://shop.newcastleunited.com/products/newcastle-united-harrington-jacket?variant=45289720381684 https://shop.newcastleunited.com/products/newcastle-united-camo-poly-lightweight-shower-jacket?variant=45289718743284 Quick forum consensus on how appropriate any, or both, of these two would look on person looking like a knock-off version of George Costanza? Yes? No? Maybe?

Went down a Wikihole and ended up reading the 2030 WC Wiki, this has to be intentional: "A goal... ...for thE WoOoOOLEEEEeee OFFF AFFFRIcCCAaa!"

Spain 1 - 1 England

Spain 1-1 France Netherlands 1-1 England

Got tied up with life today and ended up forgetting the time - if it's any consolation I'd have been waaaay wrong (as per usual) so it'd have made no difference whatsoever Spain v Germany Portugal v France England 1-1 Switzerland Netherlands 3-2 Turkey

He'll do alright, a club like Wolves is probably just about right for his ability in the sense that he'll not improve Wolves and that he ended up at a club like Wolves doesn't feel shocking at all.

That the handball rule is fucked up now we can blame 100% on the English and the Scots IFAB has one meeting per year where its members vote over all the alterations/rewording/removal/additions/expansions/limitations suggested by its members since their last meeting. FIFA has 4 votes, as far as I can tell they are the only member of IFAB that has actively submitted suggestions to IFAB over the last 20+ years. IFABs other members are made up of the English FA, the Scottish FA, the Welsh FA and the Irish FA - each of the FA's have one vote, making the total amount of possible votes eight. For a suggestion to be implemented by IFAB into the laws of the game, a minimum of six "aye" votes are required. The Irish and Welsh FA's appear to actually consider each suggestion being put forward, as looking through some of the minutes from the annual IFAB meetings show that they vote "no" to suggestions quite often (as they did when FIFA suggested changing the offside rule into the farce we're witnessing now). The English FA, however, as well as the Scottish FA... I could not find a single time any of the two voted against a FIFA suggestion - which means that since FIFA+England+Scotland = 6 votes, the presence of the Irish and Welsh at these meetings is just a literal waste of time for those two FA's as FIFA know they get all their suggestions through the annual IFAB vote. It's painful that the English and Scottish FA representatives at IFAB quite clearly are bought and paid for by FIFA and blatant corruption is occuring at the most important meeting for all of football each fucking year, because that's what it is. There's no fucking way there has never been a suggestion put forth by FIFA that the English and Scottish FA reps should've voted down, but they never vote against FIFA The fact the Welsh and Irish reps vote against FIFA quite often at those meetings only helps to highlight the blatant corruption The game's fucked, guys. After discovering how IFAB operates I wholeheartedly recommend choosing to stay blissfully ignorant, jumping head first down the rabbit hole will just make you feel like all is lost. There's no way IFAB will end up being able to correct its course and start to give a shit about the sanctity of the rules they're meant to regulate on behalf of the entire world, simply because it's not a money making operation so even though the corruption is clear, obvious and taking place in full daylight - nobody's losing any money from it so nobody that could do something about it will ever care enough to do.

Watching England under Southgate is the only comfort I have as a Norwegian, not having seen Norway present at any tournament since the 2000 EC in Spain. Southgate straight up refusing England of their chance to use one of, if not the most, talented generation of footballers they've had to go win a trophy. What Norway is doing is like watching a depressing low-budget indie-movie. What England is doing is like watching the Hollywood remake. The story is the same as in the original, but the Hollywood budget makes it worth sitting through one more time just for the spectacle.

It is actually the complete opposite, that decision being made was good officiating. That is of course if the metric used to "measure" good vs. bad officiating is how effectively and correctly a referee enforces the rules of the game. I think the level of competency in the English referee stock compared to other "big" footballing nations is absolutely laughable, don't get me wrong. But the insane amount of factually incorrect absolute idiotic whining about decisions referees have made so far this EC has leapfrogged all of my other pet hates in football, now reigning supreme at the top of my list without a snowball's chance in hell of another pet hate ever overtaking it again It's now reached a level where I couldn't contain myself from actually making a post in defense of Stuart fucking Atwell's refereeing skill - which never would even have been close to happening before all the fucking fucktard whiners started shouting in their echo chambers this EC... jesus fucking christ, the pundits are meant to be "experts" and all they do is say factually incorrect shit to rile up the public for engagement and ad money. I mean, if we imagine a world where money doesn't rule all and informing the general public about the actual fucking problem(s) with football instead of riling them up by spouting bullshit - there'd be a genuine chance that fans would make enough noise and get the actual problem fixed. Fixing the problem would give fans less to get riled up about and result in less viewers/online engagement though, so that will never happen. For clarity: The referees at the EC have, so far, delivered the best performance by referees at a major footballing tournament - at least in my lifetime - when judged on the criteria they're meant to be judged on; how correct they enforce and apply the rules of the game. Now, please re-read the five words in bold at the very end of the above paragraph again. Okay. Now, read it once more, for safety. The problem isn't the referees - the problem with what you're witnessing at the EC is the rules the referees have been ordered to follow and enforce. Pundits should enlighten the public about that fact, not blame referees who are actually, for once, doing their jobs well. Don't get me wrong, I hate the way the rules are at present and I am just as annoyed at the same incidents as everyone else. If we, the fans, want to see those annoyances go away and football be "repaired" - then we're doing ourselves no favours by allowing IFAB to use the referees as scapegoats they can hide behind as they continue on with their apparent crusade intended to fucking destroy the game of football that we know and love. IFAB needs to alter/rewrite the laws of the game. That way referees on the pitch (and VAR teams) won't continue to piss off everyone when they do a good job. (just fyi; @Pata , my rant isn't directed at you even though I quoted your post before going off you're one of the good guys )

Only realistic danger that isn't a part of the"fuckin' forrins" hyperbole is those owners taking their toys with them to fuck off to play in the a non-relegation "super league" with their other rich mates to protect the value of their investment portfolios. The way the world is trending at the moment, sure, there's a chance we'll end up seeing the Community Shield turn into even more of a glorified sideshow pre-season friendly than it already is by ending up being played at a venue outside the UK. Other than the actual, real, threat of a breakway "super league" - there just isn't a realistic cause for concern that foreign ownership will ruin football in England. In fact, if I was asked to choose one club in the PL at present whose owners would be most likely to push for scrapping tradition if it meant they could host a cup final or PL games in their "home country" - my answer would be Newcastle. The "threat" isn't American club owners - it's club owners to whom the only thing that matter is turning a profit. Our years under Mike Ashley, an English owner, is the perfect example of how the game could one day actually end up in ruins - 5-6 clubs at the top have rich enough owners to compete between themselves for the league title whilst the rest of the teams are there to make up the numbers and turn a profit for their owners by being "a part of the Premier League", with no ambition or intent to even try challenging for honors. Not woken up properly yet so my apologies if this post is just a complete mess of stray thoughts that doesn't make any sense Halfway through I had forgotten what my initial point was meant to be, as well as why I started typing a response to @toon25's post in the first place...

In the shops I've been in over here (Norway), we're front right and centre. In the years since we were last with Adidas, you'd struggle to find a single NUFC shirt for sale in any store selling kits. "Marketed worldwide" doesn't mean they waste product by trying to flog it in areas it won't sell it's why you don't see Flamengo shirts for sale all over the place even though that club have signed the same elite tier sponsorship agreement with Adidas as we have.

Swizerland 1-2 Italy Germany 2-0 Denmark England 1-1 Slovakia Spain 2-3 Georgia France 3-1 Belgium Portugal 2-1 Slovenia Romania 3-2 Netherlands Austria 2-2 Turkey

Just inferring that it couldn't have mattered that much, as he played in the matches before those two friendlies and has played in all the matches after. He'll not have learnt Spanish in under two months, and the guy is a Villareal player Was meant as a dig at what the Chile manager said, not at you for posting it.

That was said when he was left out of Chile's squad for two friendly matches - he's in their Copa America squad, and playing.