Brazil v Belgium Quarter Final match thread

[SouthStandUpperTier]

3 minutes ago, trabuch said:

I'm quite glad to see the back of Neymar. Belgium V France will be very interesting. I think Belgium have enough to beat them. Uruguay were disappointingly poor today and France weren't that convincing.  

Yep. Neymar outed himself as a massive tool in this tournament. From the opening game hairstyle all the way to the moment he dived instead of burying that cross in the last minute against Belgium. Always looking for the easy option (diving) rather than getting on with the game and imposing his obvious talent on the opposition.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

1 minute ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Yep. Neymar outed himself as a massive tool in this tournament. From the opening game hairstyle all the way to the moment he dived instead of burying that cross in the last minute against Belgium. Always looking for the easy option (diving) rather than getting on with the game and imposing his obvious talent on the opposition.

Real shame because talent wise he didn’t need to do that. Pathetic idiot 

 

he could easily be the best player in the tournament and chose to try and cheat instead 

 

what a cvnt

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Yep. Neymar outed himself as a massive tool in this tournament. From the opening game hairstyle all the way to the moment he dived instead of burying that cross in the last minute against Belgium. Always looking for the easy option (diving) rather than getting on with the game and imposing his obvious talent on the opposition.

Thats because he isnt a real clutch brazilian star. He is a real clutch w@nker though.

[ARTY_FOX]

Personally think we’d beat France. 

[ARM1968]

3 hours ago, Gerbold said:

Errr - what match were you watching? Uruguay did give them a fight - were threatening, passed well, defended well, tried to take the game to France and played as a team - but Cavani's absence revealed their lack of strength-in-depth.

Belgium do have enough to beat them France but France would have beaten Brazil convincingly. No team I've seen so far have that 'je ne sais quoi' that France have displayed.

 

Klinsmann, in his summations, used the word "ego" a lot - and Neymar displays his ego unstintingly. Although I dislike seeing talented players hacked out of the game (which is what happened to Pele in '66), Neymar represents a type of 'modern' player - driven by ego rather than team spirit, who leaves me cold - he's like a fine wine which has been 'corked'.

 

I had a chat in the chippie last night - the young chap serving got it right - France have a superb spine running through the team - Lloris, Umtiti, Kanté. Pogba and Mbappé/Griezmann in attack - makes them immensely solid right down the centre.

This was the strong half of the draw - looking at what's left the other side - it's not so impressive. Sweden are a dour unit, Russia are going to come off the rails soon and Croatia, like many fine technical sides from Eastern Europe who've never seemed to be able to add 'steel'  to their games, will probably make it through the fianl but will capitulate to France (or Belgium).

 

England have displayed little more than Sweden -  Kane is the only really outstanding player in the team - with Alli doing his best to hide his potential under a cloak of mediocrity and, to use the word again, ego. Trippier has been the one player who's consistently risen to the occasion. They're really going to have to raise their game two notches but there's no-one in the team who has that creative spark. As someone stated in a WC thread the English Premier is an obstacle to the development of English talent - when one sees the likes of Hazard,de Bruyne and Lukaku developing their game in England and then asks where the English Hazard or de Bruyne is there's no answer - because that potential has been stifled by the money-men who've decided to make the English League a home for mercenary players from all over the world. So, unless the Hand of God guides us to the final I presume we're going to fall foul of Sweden or Croatia (or even Russia) and if we make it to the Final - France or Belgium await. Yet, if we do win it, then it will be akin to Germany beating Hungary in 1954 or Holland in 1974 - when it was obvious that two of the mightiest national sides in history had lost to the inferior team. A triumph indeed but not a reflection on the standard of football played.

 

Isn't it about time that seeding took place after the group stage - to ensure a balanced progression to the final?

 

 

 

Winning is winning my man. Taking that logic you could easily rubbish our title winning season. Wimbledon were vastly inferior to Liverpool in that FA Cup triumph - I don’t supppse anyone remembers that though?

 

you beat what’s in front of you, that’s it. Football is not a complicated game. Sometimes you get lucky, more often you don’t. I for one would not be sucking the joy out of a win and muttering to myself about the better team losing. 

[foxes_rule1978]

Belgium were brilliant I’m eating humble pie and enjoying it! they say you don’t see the winners until the QF’s usually, well we have a real contender that is for sure. Is Neymar still in the Kazan Arena rolling around? 

[Bob Weasel Fox]

It is worth noting that Belgium got lucky with the Jesus penalty which was as clear a penalty as you will ever see

 

should of been 2-2 really

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

Belgium were brilliant I’m eating humble pie and enjoying it! they say you don’t see the winners until the QF’s usually, well we have a real contender that is for sure. Is Neymar still in the Kazan Arena rolling around? 

With the amount of rolling he does i'd expect he would be somewhere in paris by now about to roll over the atlantic

[ARM1968]

3 hours ago, Gerbold said:

Football is as complex as you want it to be - just like life. Some people sleepwalk their way through their lives and others observe the rich, interweaving patterns that influence their passage from maternity ward to undertaker.

 

City, during the Premier winning season, were, at times, sublime - so don't devalue the appeal of their play. I think most people are aware that some games are won by luck and by determination - and I feel a certain amount of pity for fans of teams like United and Manchester City, who are addicted to winning. And there sure have to be a busload of losers to produce one winner. Winning is an elusive, transitory and often can be, in its triumphalist guise, an unattractive creature.

 

I'm not sure I criticised winning - per se, that is, but there's winning beautiful and winning ugly. Anyone who followed Brazil's progress in Mexico in 1970 will know how a football competition is won the beautiful way -  by a team so gifted that occupying the same turf at the same time could be considered an honour - whilst losing to them the expectable outcome. England ran them close in their one encounter that World Cup - a resilient England with a few stars of their own - a better England than in '66.

 

I'd hoped to see at least one team winning the beautiful way and only one team has even begun to approach that - France. Hitherto last night's match, I hadn't seen England more than stumble their way though games. Last night they stepped up a gear - and weren't looking to 'arry to sort it out - instead, another Harry stepped up. One great goal and one competent goal - but it was against a stolid, unimaginative side. Croatia will be a different challenge and, if England rise to the occasion, will find France or Belgium more than worthy opponents.

 

England could win - but they'll have to step up one more rung to see the prize that France already have in their sights. If it happens it will be a glorious achievement but I just hope that, in the doing, it will be more by flair than luck.

 

 

And how many people do you think will decry an ugly England World Cup win?  You may be in a spectacularly small minority. 

[ARM1968]

Lo

On 08/07/2018 at 23:05, Gerbold said:

You just won't get it, will you?

My point is that I'd rather follow an England team that plays more than just workmanlike football. Do you think I watch the games with my nose in the air - sniffing punctiliously every time Sterling runs into a cul-de-sac or Henderson decides to lose his cool? No - I'm watching this team willing them to win - which is the way I've always watched City. Because this time they're a different England.

 

I watched England win at Wembley in '66 - they were a great team with a tremendous 'spine' through the middle. The team which competed in 1970 were judged to be even better - holding the finest Brazil team ever (and therefore the finest team ever) to one conceded goal. Pele himself has stated that it could have gone either way. I see only Kane and possibly Maguire as in any way living up to their legacy. But I was young then and impressionable.

 

There's no shame in losing well - a view held by me and those others in my "spectacularly small" but nonetheless Corinthian minority. After all this isn't a war - it's a game - no-one dies and no land is lost. And more than a minority are stating now that England can come home without the World Cup yet still have done their fans 'proud'.

 

I'm interested in how much "ugly" it would take for you to change your mind about this importance of winning you emphasise. I watched Pele get kicked out of the '66 Cup by a bunch of Portugese thugs who were intent on winning at all costs. England encountered them later - and if you thought Colombia were "ugly" those nasty buggers made them look like angels.

 

Saturday enthused me because they held Sweden comfortably and Maguire scored a tremendous goal. They were the better team. If they shackle messrs Rakatić, Modrić, Mandžukić, Perisić et al and win by a single o.g. that'll suit me. If they get to the final then they will have to give it everything; risk losing in order to win. If it's France and they manage to beat them then they most certainly won't have done it "ugly". Shit or bust I think is the phrase. They will have even bettered England in '66  - because they benefited from a bad call by the linesman - no VAR then.

 

There's a caucus of players in the team who have the potential to rise a level - it's just going to be a case of motivation and self-belief. Perhaps those attributes may come to the fore at the right time. I hope so.

 

Lots of words in there. Does verbosity equal intelligence?