World Cup Thread

[BillyStubbsTears]

Dickos

I’m afraid you are missing the point. Very few sides ever win the World Cup by beating a string of top-level opponents. Simple probability tells you how hard that is.

If you play an opponent of similar quality to yourself, you’d expect to progress half the time and not progress half the time. The more high quality opponents you play against, the lower your realistic chances of staying the course become.

If we win this group, the likelihood is that we’d face Brazil (favourites) in the QF and France (3rd favourites) in the Semi with maybe Spain (2nd fav) in the final. No team has ever won the WC by beating the top three favourites.

What you are doing is buying into the romantic ideal that “we shouldn’t fear anyone.” But that’s nonsense. There are many opponents that we should fear and that we’d prefer to avoid for as long as possible.

Imagine a three-sided war. Three evenly-matched armies. Only one side can survive. If you were the general of Army A, would you deliberately do battle with Army B, then take on Army C? Or would you do all you could to make sure C&B did battle whilst you took on the victor? It’s bleeding obvious isn’t it?

[dickos1]

I’m not missing the point
But it’s a very dangerous thing to start saying this side will be easier to play against than this side.
We don’t even know who’s going to qualify yet,

[BillyStubbsTears]

Ok. This is about decision making without having 100% clear facts.

But here’s a fact. Assuming we beat Panama and Belgium beat Tunisia, by the time we play Belgium we will already know how the path to the semi is looking.

Given that fact, if it looks like winning the group puts you up against, say Japan in R2 then the winner of the Brazil-Germany R2 match in the QF,  whereas coming second in the group puts you up against, say, Senegal in R2, then the winners of the Switzerland-Serbia R2 game, which one would you prefer?

Bearing in mind, always, that, aside from 1966,  no England side has EVER beaten one of the leading sides in the knock-out phase of the WC.

[The Red Baron]

Of course both teams might be trying to lose that England v Belgium game!

[dickos1]

Switzerland and Serbia are in the same group so it wouldn’t be the winners of that.
Would be one of them probably v Mexico

[Pancho Regan]

As England v Belgium is the last game, they'll both know potential routes to the final. If both teams have six points, and the team finishing second has a easier draw, it will be one hell of a spectacle. Both teams playing to lose.

I'd have no worries if this was the scenario.

Nobody can lose games like England, we're past masters at it!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Switzerland and Serbia are in the same group so it wouldn’t be the winners of that.
Would be one of them probably v Mexico

Yes. My mistake. Doesn’t massively change the question though.

[wing commander]

   I think we are to nice sometimes..I for one wouldn't have a problem with looking at the group after the 2nd round of matches and if it looks like 2nd gives us a better chance,swap the whole team and take it easy..Belgiums goal difference is likely to be better so a draw or a loss would give us 2nd if required...
   Like has been said when there is a dark horse unlikely winner it's normally because they had the easiest passage...Yes we could beat Germany,Spain,Portugal,Brazil in a one off game if the gods are with us..But if we have to play a couple of those on a trot we are unlikely to progress..

[wing commander]

   That said I've backed the Spanish to win it and England to go out in the quarters...lol

[IDM]

IDM

The point is that the more leading teams you come up against, the more likely you are to meet your match.

The oft-used phrase that you have to beat the best to win is ba-baa. What you want is for the best sides to play each other and knock each other out, while you progress against weaker sides and have as few really hard matches as possible.

Plus, whilst your confidence in our ability to beat Germany and Brazil is laudable, it flies in the face of experience. Other that in 1966, we have never beaten top sides (Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland or Italy) in the knockout stages of the WC.

I’m not saying England could or would beat those sides, more that they are beatable - including by other countries ie look what Mexico did..

I want to see England play well and progress, who that is against us a secondary consideration IMHO..

[drfchound]

Just watching Portugal v Morocco.
Morocco look as though they could get something out of the game.

[dickos1]

Switzerland and Serbia are in the same group so it wouldn’t be the winners of that.
Would be one of them probably v Mexico

Yes. My mistake. Doesn’t massively change the question though.

But not sure you can say playing Mexico would be much easier game than Germany.
Only side they’ve beaten recently is Saudi Arabia.
They could even struggle to qualify

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right. Would you prefer Brazil or Mexiconin the QF?

[Glyn_Wigley]

It could be my perception playing false, but there seems to have been a lot fewer yellow and red cards so far. I wonder if this is a subconscious effect of having VAR?

[The Red Baron]

It could be my perception playing false, but there seems to have been a lot fewer yellow and red cards so far. I wonder if this is a subconscious effect of having VAR?

No, I think the refs have been told to go easy on the cards.

[drfchound]

It could be my perception playing false, but there seems to have been a lot fewer yellow and red cards so far. I wonder if this is a subconscious effect of having VAR?

No, I think the refs have been told to go easy on the cards.

Why do you think that TRB.

[BillyStubbsTears]

To be fair, there have been very few rank bad fouls.

[drfchound]

Well Portugal were lucky to get away with that victory.
If Morocco had had a bit more composure in attack they would have got at least a draw.

At least England were never in danger of losing to Tunisia.

Without Ronaldo Portugal would be a very average team.

[Retdon1]

Well Portugal were lucky to get away with that victory.
If Morocco had had a bit more composure in attack they would have got at least a draw.

At least England were never in danger of losing to Tunisia.

Without Ronaldo Portugal would be a very average team.

Morocco just need a decent striker to put their chances away. Portugal look a poor side but always have a chance with Ronaldo in the side.

[Bristol Red Rover]

It could be my perception playing false, but there seems to have been a lot fewer yellow and red cards so far. I wonder if this is a subconscious effect of having VAR?

No, I think the refs have been told to go easy on the cards.

Agreed, seems they have used cards really well so far. It could be that VAR gives the refs more confidence all round but they have mainly been good.

A shout out for the linos who have been positive with their decisions,  less of the obsequious waiting for the ref to decide on the direction of the throw ins before they flag.

One irritating part of the game that could be clamped down on is opposition players standing in front of the ball when a free kick is given, perventing quick options and gfenerally slowing down play. A ten yard advancement for such things would be good.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound

Aye. But they HAVE got Ronaldo. Just like avery ordinary Argentina had Maradona in 86.

[IDM]

Ronaldo will only take Portugal so far.. 

I agree there hasn’t been many times when a red card may have been shown. Maybe that will change once the games become more competitive ie winner takes all?

[drfchound]

Hound

Aye. But they HAVE got Ronaldo. Just like avery ordinary Argentina had Maradona in 86.

Yes they have and we have got Harry Kane.

I would like to know whether the Portuguese supporters are having a pop at their team for “only just beating Morocco” in the same way as some of the English people had a go at our team after the Tunisia game.

[RoversAlias]

Ronaldo will only take Portugal so far.. 

I agree there hasn’t been many times when a red card may have been shown. Maybe that will change once the games become more competitive ie winner takes all?

Ronaldo proved two years ago he can drag a very average team to the trophy. They were poor today but Morocco lacked the striker to punish them for it. Good teams will (and have: Spain) make them pay but they can't be discounted with Ronaldo in the side.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Hound

Aye. But they HAVE got Ronaldo. Just like avery ordinary Argentina had Maradona in 86.

The 1986 Argentina side were pretty decent, it was the 1990 side that was ordinary and totally relied on Maradona to carry them to the final

[dickos1]

Right. Would you prefer Brazil or Mexiconin the QF?

Win group and we could be playing the winners of Serbia v Sweden in quarters.

[The Red Baron]

It could be my perception playing false, but there seems to have been a lot fewer yellow and red cards so far. I wonder if this is a subconscious effect of having VAR?

No, I think the refs have been told to go easy on the cards.

Why do you think that TRB.

I think FIFA don't feel games with a lot of cards are a good look for the game. Also they don't want "big" players banned in the later stages for picking up trivial yellows. Some refs have taken leniency too far - the one in the Tunisia v England game comes to mind.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right. Would you prefer Brazil or Mexiconin the QF?

Win group and we could be playing the winners of Serbia v Sweden in quarters.

Aye ok.

[Boomstick]

Really really dislike VAR.
the fallibility of the officials is part of what makes the game.

[RedJ]

I'd rather they get the majority of decisions right in all honesty.