FIFA World Cup: 2030 hosts confirmed as Spain/Portugal/Morocco & Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, The Prophet said:

The defender doesn't go through Saka though. I'll not labour the point, as it's obviously subjective, but the defender just puts him under a bit of pressure. It certainly isn't clear or blatent.

 

 

 

 

Again, I can't get my head around you thinking this. The defender has three bites at him, on the third Saka's leg is sweeped in the process of the defender getting to the ball. I can't really say anymore than that. 

 

In fact he doesn't even get the ball. It's even more of a foul than I originally thought. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[LFEE]

I’m with @The Prophet Don’t see much wrong with the Saka fouls. On this montage I agree it should’ve been a Red Card for second penalty (given) and thought the leg tangle warranted what would’ve been the first penalty (not given).

 

 

[The Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Again, I can't get my head around you thinking this. The defender has three bites at him, on the third Saka's leg is sweeped in the process of the defender getting to the ball. I can't really say anymore than that. 

 

In fact he doesn't even get the ball. It's even more of a foul than I originally thought. 

 

 

 

 

There is one point where the defender has a nibble and there is contact with the thigh, but at that point Saka has already slipped and is going to ground. 

 

I don't think it's a foul and certainly not a clear and obvious error. Saka is just bullied off the ball by a stronger player. 

[Jaqen]

It was a blatant foul that probably gets blown for 99/100 time in matches. It's not like it's directly resulted in them scoring as there was plenty of play after that but by the rules it was still the same passage of play and should have been dissallowed. 

 

Thought the ref was very poor outside of the game changing decisions anyway. Was whistle happy as soon as any French players hit the deck but was happy to wave play on against obvious fouls against our players. Don't think it was a red against Theo mind, thought he got that right as there wasn't really an obvious goal scoring chance denied. 

[Magpie]

For me he completely swiped Saka's legs from under him.

[dorty]

Normally, I don't like to criticise refs but that one was shite. 

[The Prophet]

I though there was a particularly clear foul on Saka not give in the second half, Rabiot could have been booked for persistent fouling and there was a couple of soft fouls given, but nothing to write home about. 

 

For me, he gets all four major decisions correct. The Saka incident discussed above, the Kane tangle of legs appears to be to be outside the box but

could have been a free kick, while both of our penalties were rightfully given in the end.

[Pata]

Red card for Hernandez is absolutely laughable shout, Mount would never have got to that ball.

 

Ref got some things wrong but it was obvious from the start that he was going to let a lot go through and keep the game flowing. Felt like England were still going down from every contact all game expecting to get the calls. 
 

Like I said, he got some things wrong but that always happens. I thought he was pretty consistent and liked that he let the game flow especially after the horror show of previous night. England should have adjusted better to the fact that they are not getting the fouls they are used to getting in the PL and not waste so much energy on complaining. That reffing would have been an advantage to you in the past but this generation is from Planet Soft Cunt.

[Kid Icarus]

If the benchmark we're having to hit is that Kane's 'could have been a freekick' then you're never going to be convinced the Saka one was. Both were blatant fouls, but the Kane one isn't even slightly contentious. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[The Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

If the benchmark we're having to hit is that Kane's 'could have been a freekick' then you're never going to be convinced the Saka one was. Both were blatant fouls, but the Kane one isn't even slightly contentious. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I agree, just bad phrasing on my part that one.

[Pata]

Also liked the ref’s attitude to penalties in the age of VAR. If he wasn’t sure he wasn’t going to whistle it due to VAR never overturning anything if there’s any contact. So he let a lot go and let VAR decide if something was too egregious like the Hernandez foul (that looked a lot worse on replays imo).

[Kimbo]

Some of the refs behaviour was bizarre, such as stopping the game while England was attacking because a French player went down holding their leg. Not exactly in the spirit of letting the game flow.

[astraguy]

4 hours ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

The point is Man-U got worse even though Ronaldo individually had some decent numbers on the surface, there were large periods where he was poor and so were Man-U

 

What has Ronaldo done with Portugal that Messi hasn't with Argentina? Messi's best tournaments with Argentina surpass the best Ronaldo has managed for Portugal 

 

[Kimbo]

We count the nations league as a major trophy now? I had to look up what their second trophy was.

[Geordie Ahmed]

48 minutes ago, astraguy said:

 

 

They qualified for 2002 without Ronaldo and Pauleta was the top scorer in qualifying for them

 

Pauleta was top scorer again when they qualified for 2006 

 

When qualifying for 2010 they had to go through a play off, with Simao as top scorer, don't think Ronaldo scored a goal 

 

For 2014 he was their top scorer but they needed a play off to get there 

 

For 2018 he was their top scorer

 

For 2022 he was top scorer in the group stage but they needed a play off, where Bruno F was top scorer 

 

 

They qualified for Euro 96 and 2000 without him, they hosted in 2004 and have qualified since

 

Portugal benefitted from both the WC and Euro expansion, combined with increase in talent (before Ronaldo), so this idea that he's dragged Portugal up makes for a lovely tweet but scratch beneath the surface and reality is very much different 

 

 

 

 

[LFEE]

 

[TenkoDaLuz]

https://sports.yahoo.com/company-faces-major-loss-buying-125936596.html

 

Who the fuck is "sure" they'll be world champions at the 4 finals?

 

To make this kind of decision, and looking at the design of the shirt, something tells me this "manager" is your typical "I care only for the NT" football fan who watches football every 4 years and is absolutely clueless. 

 

“I have been really impressed with England’s performance in Qatar and was sure they would win this year’s tournament. When approached by a supplier to sell the shirts, I simply couldn’t say, ‘No.’"

 

- Yes you could, mate. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by TenkoDaLuz

[The College Dropout]

I think too much is being made of the referee.

 

I like the fact VAR is leaning heavily on the referee's in game decision. The foul on Saka was definitely a foul but it happens such a long time before the goal that i'm not overly upset over it. There was a lot of football to play and defending to do. The biggest issue was being overly concerned with Mbappe, midfielders being too deep and allowing Tchou the free shot.

 

The Kane foul, was a foul but not a penalty. The ref missed it, play on - it wasn't a penalty.

 

The fact he didn't blow for the penalty was annoying but VAR corrected it.

 

Biggest issues was over focus on Mbappe and Southgate not making substitutions based on what was happening on the field and game state. He had Walker babysitting Mbappe for 100 minutes. Shaw ended up being the best crosser of the ball when we were chasing and a right-side of Walker and Sterling. We needed Trippier/Trent and to leave Saka on until his legs went. Rashford needed to come on earlier. And we shouldn't have ended the game with Rice & Bellingham. Silly penalty aside - we didn't create any good opportunities at 2-1 down.

[joeyt]

 

 

[LiquidAK]

8 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

 

What the fuck, there's 2 other "sightings" in the comments under that going back to 2014. Some kind of fan-for-hire?? So weird

[tgarve]

2 minutes ago, LiquidAK said:

What the fuck, there's 2 other "sightings" in the comments under that going back to 2014. Some kind of fan-for-hire?? So weird

Wonder if he’s a setup for the cameras 

[cubaricho]

Reminds me of that movie with Ed Helms called The Clapper or something like that. He gets hired to be in crowds clapping.  
 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by cubaricho

[triggs]

Preparing myself to cry with either happiness or sadness in front of my mates in some redneck bar in the Australian outback at 4am on Sunday night watching the final

[Jaqen]

6 hours ago, tgarve said:

Wonder if he’s a setup for the cameras 

 

Goes to every tournament and when England get knocked out he just joins in with whatever fans he thinks are having the most fun. 

 

Had a look on his Instagram and it looks like he has a blast wherever he goes to be fair to him. 

[TheBrownBottle]

On 13/12/2022 at 05:53, astraguy said:

 

Sounds rather less impressive when you realise that:

 

The majority of WCs before Ronaldo only had 16 teams qualify; and from 82-94 only 24 did, reducing Portugal's chances

All Euros before Ronaldo only had 8 teams qualify - actually, before 80 it was only 4.  Which made it very difficult to qualify.  And one of the Euros where they qualified with Ronaldo, they qualified as hosts.  So unless he put together Portugal's bid package, it was only 4 Euros.

 

Portugal has always been a major football country - no-one looks at Holland's lack of WC wins and writes them off as non-entities.