Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

In a group of 4 the final matches are played at the same time so it reduces potential collusion if not completely remove it 

 

 

 

Still instances where a convenient draw works for both. In those games there's less risk of one going for the win because if they lose, they're out. Here though, the team who are top have no risk of going out so might be more inclined to go for the win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1982 was a funny World Cup. England didn’t play that well (played well the 1st game against France), didn’t lose a game and didn’t concede a goal in the 2nd phase and went out with a load of could have been’s. 
 

KK obvs missed that chance against Spain which did for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Still instances where a convenient draw works for both. In those games there's less risk of one going for the win because if they lose, they're out. Here though, the team who are top have no risk of going out so might be more inclined to go for the win.

Lots of scenarios whereby one of the teams is shafted in the group.

 

Lets say one group has England, New Zealand and Mexico in it. England play NZ first and win 4-0. Next game is England v Mexico. England know they're pretty much already through regardless of the result, so play the squad players to keep the better players fresh. As a result we lose say 0-2 and in the process have basically eliminated NZ before they even play Mexico (unless they beat them 3-0)......

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

I don't see how that's any different to a group of 4 though where the team in 1st who's won 2 games play a scratch XI.

It's much more likely in a group of three though. I suppose we'll find out in 4 years time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd probably think something like.

 

Likely: Trippier, Pope, Schaar, Bruno, 

Possibly / probably: Kuol, Wilson

Unlikely: Joelinton, Botman

 

 

It's an interesting one. The likes of Joelinton and Botman would probably hardly feature if they were selected having never previously made a senior squad (I don't think), but it would be good for their morale if selected, but probably better for NUFC if they went to Saudi instead, so I probably hope they aren't selected, since it isn't too likely. Wilson is a bit different - he probably won't feature too much either, unless desperate, but he is nearly 31, probably his last chance of a World Cup, and very much in contention to go and (he) would be gutted if he missed out, so I probably hope he is selected.

 

 

Edited by Paullow

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

1982 World Cup had groups of 3 in the Second Round, anyone got any idea how they went? Might have been the only time so guessing the fact it was gone by 86 suggests it was shit.

You mean you’ve never heard the story of West Germany v Austria? ? Look it up…

 


(Edit: done it for you ?)

 

 

 

 

Edited by LFEE

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that was when it was in the First Round with the group of 4.

 

Guessing it was this game that made all group games end on the same day. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember watching Golé! 100’s of times when I was young. My dad hired it out of Gateshead Library. The amount of times he hired it for me he could’ve bought it 10 times over probably ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian Hislop isn't wrong but I don't really see what choice Neville or any other broadcaster has got. Has anyone (who you'd expect to be making a meaningful and visual appearance at the tournament) declared that they're refusing to go? I'm sure there are some and fair play to them; but I saw, for instance, BBC's line-up, and all the usual suspects are going, including Alex Scott who recently made public that she'd been in a same-sex relationship, which is illegal in Qatar. And why shouldn't they go if everyone else is?

 

Maybe at some point in the past there existed an organised strategy/opportunity to really damage and completely devalue the entire tournament, thereby demonstrating that football isn't beholden to corruption and nor will it pander to oppressive regimes - but that has long, long gone. So I don't see why any one individual, be it Gary Neville or even a player, make the call to not go now, and deny themselves a colossal career milestone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Ian Hislop isn't wrong but I don't really see what choice Neville or any other broadcaster has got. Has anyone (who you'd expect to be making a meaningful and visual appearance at the tournament) declared that they're refusing to go? I'm sure there are some and fair play to them; but I saw, for instance, BBC's line-up, and all the usual suspects are going, including Alex Scott who recently made public that she'd been in a same-sex relationship, which is illegal in Qatar. And why shouldn't they go if everyone else is?

 

Maybe at some point in the past there existed an organised strategy/opportunity to really damage and completely devalue the entire tournament, thereby demonstrating that football isn't beholden to corruption and nor will it pander to oppressive regimes - but that has long, long gone. So I don't see why any one individual, be it Gary Neville or even a player, make the call to not go now, and deny themselves a colossal career milestone. 

It's probably that Neville has been more outspoken than most. His 'get them around the table' and 'highlight the issues' shtick is naivety at best and a weak excuse at worst.

 

Lineker will likely excuse himself as well. Rules for thee not for me 

 

 

Edited by Kid Icarus

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would feel sorry for him as he looked proper deer in the headlights. But if you're agreeing to host HIGNFY less than a month before you're going to commentate on the most controversial World Cup ever, it's probably best to brush up on your arguments for the inevitable digs to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they've had how many years to really protest and highlight the issues but they will till now.

i'm talking about the celebs, ex players, etc - not human rights groups.

there should have been massive pressure, threatened boycotts, public statements etc years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A do think lot of people come across as very mackem esque when it comes to human rights . They only highlight it when it suits their agenda . You either decide you want nothing to do with anything related to human rights. You don’t watch a particular football club or the World Cup etc because you feel that strongly against it , or you just decide you tolerate it and continue to live your life as normal . I personally think it’s class being a Newcastle fan at the moment, therefore can’t really take the moral high ground when it comes to the World Cup or Gary Neville or anyone else when it comes to human rights . Others for example will cry on all day long about our owners but watch the World Cup with a clear conscience which is just totally wrong and actually makes a mockery of human rights .

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, huss9 said:

they've had how many years to really protest and highlight the issues but they will till now.

i'm talking about the celebs, ex players, etc - not human rights groups.

there should have been massive pressure, threatened boycotts, public statements etc years ago.

 

Exactly. The nature of the awarding to Qatar was utterly transparent from the word go; there should have been a widespread, organised rejection of the entire thing instantly, not literally a decade later.

 

Resisting now is not so much 'horse has bolted' as it is: horse has bolted, had esteemed and prestigious career in horse racing, had horse grandchildren who've had esteemed horse racing careers of their own, whilst original horse's grave has become a pilgrimage for horse history buffs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LFEE said:

Remember watching Golé! 100’s of times when I was young. My dad hired it out of Gateshead Library. The amount of times he hired it for me he could’ve bought it 10 times over probably ?

 

 


I loved World Cup ‘82. 
 

My first one and genuinely think it was the best in terms of quality and entertainment I’ve ever seen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...