Infinitely Content

Hey man, Japan have it in them to win this still. Howayyyy.

Nah it's fine it's the easier route against these minnow nations

fucking sexy arse with the strike

Get the fuck in!

Lovely little arse anarl

In terms of playing as a team effectively, Japan have showed they're one of the most cohesive units in the tournament imo. Impressive stuff.

I dinna, I'm laughing at the idea of two nobodies from the Scottish/Turkish leagues being good signings. Can't imagine out more uninspiring myself.

do they?

Aye but they're both out

Rather have McGeough than Ki marra.

I think we will buy Kenedy this month

I'm yet to see what people are raving about regarding Brazil this tournament. They've been ordinary aside from Coutinho imo. Edit:

Armstrong could probably do the same job Gayle done for us last season. IE. run about a lot and try to link up play, not really threatening too much in the meantime. He's probably a better footballer than Gayle too, although Gayle is perhaps stronger & more combative - something yet to be seen from Armstrong.

Don't think he's an international type manager tbf, think he loves the day to day stuff. Nah he would do well at international level after he's done with club football I reckon. His attention to detail and ability to respond to and exploit subtleties in the opposition would suit tournament style football well. Being tactically flexible is a big asset. It would be, but would he get enough time to work his methods long term on players. Lots of managers don't touch international football because of how little time they get to work with players. Aye it's a fair point like. He certainly does benefit from forming close relationships with players as can be seen with Lascelles & Shelvey here. I just think back to how quickly he transformed us almost instantly after arriving despite going down that season - I reckon he could have a impact without needing too much time. Essentially he's good enough to do it, but I think you're right in that his preference is the day to day stuff.

Good game this.

Don't think he's an international type manager tbf, think he loves the day to day stuff. Nah he would do well at international level after he's done with club football I reckon. His attention to detail and ability to respond to and exploit subtleties in the opposition would suit tournament style football well. Being tactically flexible is a big asset.

2-1 Brazil (Coutinho, Silva - Lozano)

Whose quote is that? It doesn't really make much sense or show an any understanding of the player. Jorgensen is much more mobile than Mitrovic, he even used to be a winger which would suggest running the channels is quite a natural part of him game. Not every tall, physical striker has the same attributes.

No they don't England have beaten Panama and Tunisia and haven't won a knockout game in a tournament in 12 years Aye, England aren't favourites or even second favourites like. Which might work in their favour tbf. ...but let's get passed Colombia first ffs They're twice the side of Tunisia and England made bloody hard work of that for the most part.

The scenes if Mexico & Japan went through today man.

Because I just can't see a good enough reason to quantify it in such a way. Say Switzerland thrash Sweden 4-0. Brazil edge past Mexico on pens. Who would I rather play? Well the answer isn't all that definitive & clear to me in such a scenario. So without knowing things such as form, which requires fresh judgement on a game-to-game basis, there's no such thing as an easier side to me.

If I had to have any preference/choice of teams to come up against, I would sooner make that choice based on form/last match rather than names anyway. Same would go for Newcastle in a semi final for instance. Would I rather play say Leicester bang in form or Chelsea not really playing up to their full capabilities at the time? Certainly makes it a less clear cut question. I personally would veer towards the bigger side, with the added rationale that teams often step up and play better when the quality they're facing is perceived as being higher. Basically, it's just not as simple as > see big name > choose other way, for me personally. Gladly football doesn't work that way too as we have seen numerous times in this tournament.

Still bite us in the arse that we didn't even try to finish first get Japan. And it'd go down as a shite WC if we only beat Tunisia and Panama and then lose the only two decent teams we played Love the excuses coming out already Just face it we should have been trying to win every game man, nay such thing as an easy side of the tournament. Russia just knocked out one of the best sides in it earlier, after all. Anything can happen. Uruguay, Portugal, France, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico & Japan Colombia, Spain, Russia, Croatia, Denmark, Switzerland & Sweden If you could hand pick one side to be on before the tournament started, which would you choose? On one side of the draw, we could have played our best but if the opposition also did, there's 3 better than us and 2-3 who'd run us close. On the other there's one who'd beat us at their best (they're out), a few who on their day could beat us but if we play our best, we should beat. I'd say "Oh, here we have 14 teams all capable of getting out the groups, they'll all be tough games. As well as that, this is football and there's thankfully a lot more to it than face-value. We best just take it on a game-by-game basis try win every match we can and build up steam as well as we can".

I don't know how you've come to that conclusion. Experience of the league is obviously important and an advantage. Good players being coached properly can adjust quicker of course.