Russia v Saudi Arabia - Match Thread

[Fox92]

Teams like Saudi qualified fair so okay fair play but all these sides should play each other in qualifying stages. Granted the Netherlands and Italy are shite so don't deserve to go through but they'd provide much more quality than these sort of teams. I'd be gutted if I spent money on travel, accommodation and a match ticket to end up at Russia v Saudia Arabia.

 

And FIFA say they're getting more teams in. Jesus.

[Samilktray]

4 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Teams like Saudi qualified fair so okay fair play but all these sides should play each other in qualifying stages. Granted the Netherlands and Italy are shite so don't deserve to go through but they'd provide much more quality than these sort of teams. I'd be gutted if I spent money on travel, accommodation and a match ticket to end up at Russia v Saudia Arabia.

 

And FIFA say they're getting more teams in. Jesus.

This elitist attitude is disgusting. I'll remind you of this post when you're gushing over some Sunday league side getting pumped 6-0 by Accrington Stanley

[Fox92]

1 minute ago, Samilktray said:

This elitist attitude is disgusting. I'll remind you of this post when you're gushing over some Sunday league side getting pumped 6-0 by Accrington Stanley

Oh totally, I know it is. That's why I said fair play and they've qualified then okay and some "better" or "historic" nations didn't qualify. But there's far less quality, that's all. Russia aren't anything special yet just won 5-0.

 

Why would FIFA then add another 16 sides or whatever it's going to be? 16 sides worse than these?

Edited 14 June 2018 by Fox92

[The Doctor]

Really looking forward to a 48 team world cup tbh. San Marino vs Brazil, England getting knocked out by Kuwait,, Scotland losing out to Andorra in qualifying. Gonna be lit

[Facecloth]

18 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Teams like Saudi qualified fair so okay fair play but all these sides should play each other in qualifying stages. Granted the Netherlands and Italy are shite so don't deserve to go through but they'd provide much more quality than these sort of teams. I'd be gutted if I spent money on travel, accommodation and a match ticket to end up at Russia v Saudia Arabia.

 

And FIFA say they're getting more teams in. Jesus.

But at point to you decide to put other teams in extra qualifying stages? Do we go by rankings? We all know fifa rankings are bollocks. Padt tournament record? love that football is open, if you **** up someone else will get in. Like New Zealand messing up and Tahiti getting to confederations cup. Hate the fact sports like Rugby Union and Cricket have pretty much guaranteed qualification for certain nations. Embrace it, it's the beauty of the game. Plus these team will never improve and the game will never grow in those nations if we deny them the chance of qualifying. You never know, one if them may shock you sometime. Look at Wales and Iceland at the last Euros, progressed to the latter stages, but their past tournament record might have seen them in pre qualifying. 

[Fox92]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

But at point to you decide to put other teams in extra qualifying stages? Do we go by rankings? We all know fifa rankings are bollocks. Padt tournament record? love that football is open, if you **** up someone else will get in. Like New Zealand messing up and Tahiti getting to confederations cup. Hate the fact sports like Rugby Union and Cricket have pretty much guaranteed qualification for certain nations. Embrace it, it's the beauty of the game. Plus these team will never improve and the game will never grow in those nations if we deny them the chance of qualifying. You never know, one if them may shock you sometime. Look at Wales and Iceland at the last Euros, progressed to the latter stages, but their past tournament record might have seen them in pre qualifying. 

I cannot argue with this.

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

45 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Teams like Saudi qualified fair so okay fair play but all these sides should play each other in qualifying stages. Granted the Netherlands and Italy are shite so don't deserve to go through but they'd provide much more quality than these sort of teams. I'd be gutted if I spent money on travel, accommodation and a match ticket to end up at Russia v Saudia Arabia.

 

And FIFA say they're getting more teams in. Jesus.

 

But it's a world cup and as such should be representative of world footy.

 

I enjoyed today's game, didn't bother me in the slightest that neither are footballing powerhouses. I've seen some absolute howlers between more historic / prestigious footballing nations in international tourneys.

[Fox92]

23 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

But it's a world cup and as such should be representative of world footy.

 

I enjoyed today's game, didn't bother me in the slightest that neither are footballing powerhouses. I've seen some absolute howlers between more historic / prestigious footballing nations in international tourneys.

Yeah definitely. Was a bit of a stupid post by me in hindsight, I mean I hate those people that complain about "big clubs" being in the Championship while the likes of Bournemouth and in the PL. It's all about the now.

[Kitchandro]

To be fair, a 32 team World Cup allows for a good balance of quality and some minnows who have a chance at some relative glory.

 

But 48 teams is going to be a shambles and was only thought of because they are desperate to find any way to make more money. Soon it will be 60 teams. There’s only so many crap quality matches I can take.

 

It is elitist to want the very best teams competing in the best international or European tournament but that is the whole point of their existence. Otherwise it would be an invite rather than qualification.

 

Frankly, I think it’s a shame in every way, sporting and otherwise,  that Saudi Arabia are in the World Cup, but it is unavoidable.

[Kitchandro]

South America should be granted an extra place in my opinion.

 

I know about half of them qualify anyway, but they still have far less teams than Europe despite offering a lot on and off the pitch with consistently good performance, generally entertaining brand of football and good support.

 

I mean Chile or Paraguay not being here really is a loss to everyone.

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

1 minute ago, Kitchandro said:

South America should be granted an extra place in my opinion.

 

I know about half of them qualify anyway, but they still have far less teams than Europe despite offering a lot on and off the pitch with consistently good performance, generally entertaining brand of football and good support.

 

I mean Chile or Paraguay not being here really is a loss to everyone.

 

So you want to boost the quality of the tournament by allowing teams that weren't good enough to qualify into it?

[Koke]

Asia have 4 teams. Just 4. They are by far the largest continent with highest population. What do people propose, that Asia get 3 spots? 2? So we can have more Northern Ireland and Hungary in the WC instead. 

 

Increasing the WC teams was a bad idea as was increasing the Euro teams. 2026  will see a Canada v China openung match. 32 WC teams was just about the right number.

[Max Wall]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Really looking forward to a 48 team world cup tbh. San Marino vs Brazil, England getting knocked out by Kuwait,, Scotland losing out to Andorra in qualifying. Gonna be l

Edited 14 June 2018 by Max Wall
My inability to read the post properly.

[Guest Col city fan]

I get all the arguments above but I just don’t think having some team getting hammered 5-0 in the opening game provides any sort of spectacle to supposedly the biggest sporting tournament on the earth.

It can’t be good for the team that gets battered either really can it? The only ‘experience’ they’ll have is being watched by a billion people across the globe thinking just how rubbish they are.

I don’t know the answer. They’ve qualified so they’ve deserved it. But it can’t be good for the tournament surely?

[Max Wall]

The same was often said about the African nations in the 70's. Half the time it looked like they didn't even know the laws during games. Zaire in 1974 was a perfect example. Whilst African nations haven't won a World cup yet, as predicted by some, there is simply no argument that African nations have improved markedly. I thought today's game was shite tbh but a WC has to be all incusive. If it wasn't we would never have had results like Argentina 0 Cameroon 1. Also, if there is a team that look worse than the Saudi's at this WC, I'd be surprised. It's just unfortunate they were involved in the opener.

Edited 14 June 2018 by Max Wall

[Facecloth]

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

I get all the arguments above but I just don’t think having some team getting hammered 5-0 in the opening game provides any sort of spectacle to supposedly the biggest sporting tournament on the earth.

It can’t be good for the team that gets battered either really can it? The only ‘experience’ they’ll have is being watched by a billion people across the globe thinking just how rubbish they are.

I don’t know the answer. They’ve qualified so they’ve deserved it. But it can’t be good for the tournament surely?

It doesn't matter of they get battered, I'm sure they know they are miles behind, but they are there and giving their best, so losing 5-0 is probably disappointing but I'm sure they can live with it. I remember them losing 8-1 to Germany is 2002 I think, it happens. (Actually as a bit of tangent, 5-0 is still closer than one of the semi finals last time between two of the powerhouses of world football.)

 

There is no better way than we currently have to pick 32 teams to compete at this competition. Yes you could argue Italy, USA, Netherlands, Chile, Paraguay etc. are better than the Saudis, but Asia has very few spots for its size we can't take any more away. There's probably better teams in Asia than the Saudis but tough they didn't do their job and the Saudis did so they earned their right to go to the world cup. 

 

These are the 32 qualified teams, I couldn't give **** what the results are game by game, they are what they are, each team has earned the right to play that game, whether they win or lose 5-0.

[Donut]

Saudi Arabia have scored one of the best goals in World Cup history, they are there on merit, teams like Italy, Holland, USA, Chile, they had the chance to sort their own places out in the tournament and they couldnt do it.

The tournament isnt worse for having a team like Saudi Arabia in it. People embraced having Trinidad & Tobago in the tournament, people embraced Jamaica, theyll embrace Panama.

Saudi's have taken a 5-0 thats disappointing, but theyre in a world cup. Probably a huge occasion for the Saudi lads, opening night vs the hosts, massive stage. Do people say kick Port Vale out the FA cup? no.

The qualifying balance seems very fair.

Edited 14 June 2018 by Donut

[Super_horns]

Saudi Arabia only just lost to Germany the other week - Germany must have just not trying very hard !!

 

Decent goals for Russia and will boost their goal difference but much tougher games to come ofcouse where their defenders will be tested .

[Dan]

I didn't realise their manager had walked out on them so recently. Got a bit more sympathy with them in which case, although their new bloke got it horribly wrong today.

[stix]

8 hours ago, Col city fan said:

I get all the arguments above but I just don’t think having some team getting hammered 5-0 in the opening game provides any sort of spectacle to supposedly the biggest sporting tournament on the earth.

It can’t be good for the team that gets battered either really can it? The only ‘experience’ they’ll have is being watched by a billion people across the globe thinking just how rubbish they are.

I don’t know the answer. They’ve qualified so they’ve deserved it. But it can’t be good for the tournament surely?

 

 

[TheHitman™]

I think Ramadan fasting also affected the Saudis. But other than that their defending was terrible, they lingered too long on the ball. Couldn't create anything because of that.

[The Doctor]

47 minutes ago, TheHitman™ said:

 But other than that their defending was terrible, they lingered too long on the ball. Couldn't create anything because of that.

They tried to play a possession brand of football with players who can't pass. Remind you of anyone