leicsmac

Had been coming, the Brazilians clearly got a rocket at HT.

And the "efficient" Germans, especially when it comes to penalties. That being said, this Japan team does have it's main strength in both work rate and playing to a plan.

It's Matterface. He embodies about all the worst elements of modern commentators.

And this defence will have been incredibly well drilled, and will not break unless broken.

Now we'll see if this Brazilian team actually have any cojones to go with their skill. Skill alone won't unlock this Japan defence now they're ahead.

Technically? Absolutely. In the heat of the situation? Well, I guess we might soon find out.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure how many times that's stopped them from toeing the tangerine line before, but I know what you mean.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4wwy0nkeno https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8q2z5wpn2o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93629rzpgxo Three instances of the Supreme Court showing respect for the office they hold and some courage in one day? Glory be.

It's funny, I've got this inverted because I think this Brazil side are just the type to choke horribly in a penalty shootout. Talent, but not much backbone in the hardest situations.

Well done to the NZers, showing a team is often much better than the sum of its parts. England do need a change of personnel, approach, or both. They'd still be better off not listening to the "traditionalists" and "purists" who think their way is the only way the game should be played though; that was the reason that this team had to change things up in the first instance four years ago.

Cheers guys, just think that if they going to do it, it will be having gone the distance.

Wonder what the odds are on Japan winning either AET or on penalties?

Interesting history behind it, though.

Yep, he's jumped before being pushed.

Absolutely, and much appreciated, mate.

Agreed. And it would be easier to look away, to walk on by. It would certainly be less stressful. But I won't. I'm not even sure if I can. That's just me. Any price to be paid for that...I pay it gladly.

You know something mate, I'm glad you've brought this up because it's something I've been wrestling with myself, and I think you're probably right. I guess it's mostly the frustration talking on my own part - like, how can a supposedly intelligent and (relatively) powerful species exist on a planet along with all this, this...thisness? Pardon my "going hard", as you put it, the state of us sometimes does piss me off, and I think it always will. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing - again, borrowing from one of my favourite authors, Pratchett had a lot to say on the topic of anger being channeled positively (but you have to be careful there).

It does indeed. There is absolutely going to be blood on the floor no matter which option is taken, even in the time it would take to work the "correct" solution. As per my original post, I take issue with viewpoints that either overlook that blood being spilled because it's not "our" blood, or deny any agency in the matter because there was always going to be blood. You're right about the inevitability of negative consequences, but as per above it would be nice to have viewpoints on this issue that are actually honest with acceptance of that loss of life rather than skating over it dishonestly as often happens.

And accept that those decisions come with negative consequences, yes.

Global action is absolutely required, anything else would mean such a plan wouldn't be workable. I guess it comes down to how someone views the "algebra of necessity" and the moral debate around decision making that will cause harm to other people, in order to ensure less harm to ones "closer" to the decision maker, when there are no other better options to be had. Some people may view that as "acceptance", others may think that because they don't apparently have a choice, it shouldn't be framed in a way that implies responsibility on their part. It might also be argued that such a thing isn't a zero-sum game, and yes, it really doesn't have to be...but without addressing the root causes as per above, it is and always will be.

How does it not, exactly? It may not be acceptance of the "yeah, we're OK with that" type, but it could still be the "well, there doesn't look to be much choice, so it's going to happen..." type. Some honesty regarding actual consequences is rather lacking when this debate comes round, I often find.

I'm just basing my thoughts on the opinions put forward here.

...if there's so much disagreement chatter on here, then it clearly wasn't a clear cut decision either way.

Posted this about a year ago, pretty sure it's still true: Any argument about immigration control that doesn't include a workable plan to address the root causes of why it occurs now (and why there may well be much, much more in the future) is either well-meaning but ultimately massively ineffective, or flat-out accepting the death and suffering of a very large amount of human beings so long as the arguers "tribe" can go on living life in the comfort they now inhabit.

Carney annoying the more hard-line Israelis, then. Good. They deserve to be annoyed consistently.