World Cup Final - Argentina vs France - Sunday 18th December

[Mike Oxlong]

8 hours ago, foxfanazer said:

Messi for the win! He looks like a man possessed 

Fabulous player but a bit weird though that he has a tattoo of Noel Fielding on his back 

 

[Deeg67]

9 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

Can't stand too many Argentina players but a world cup win for Messi seems fitting. 

 

Don't want France being back to back world champions either. 

I'm conflicted.  Messi is a good egg and the greatest ever finally winning one as a senior citizen would be a great story.  But everyone else on their team and the manager in a A-hole.

[gerblod]

4 hours ago, foxy boxing said:

Hard to think of two sides that the English hate more, Argentina with a history of cheating players like Maradona and the 'hand of god' and the Argentines continued claims to the Falklands Islands. France who is our closest European neighbour who routinely block the channel tunnel with their fisherman or farmers when they have a dispute and who we were at war with ' the hundred years war' and whose arses we saved in world war I and II. 

Jesus H. feckin' Christ! Do you edit The Sun? Or have you been reading it too much?

I'm English and I don't hate Argentinians. I will never forgive Maradona for doing the dirty over that particularly good England squad but it was a Junta of particularly nasty far-right military men, led by a bloke named Gualtieri, who took over Argentina and decided to invade the Falklands. These guys inflicted more violence on Argentinians than they ever did to Falklanders, our task force or our task force inflicted on Argentinian conscripts.

As for French farmers or fisherman routinely blocking the Chunnel - are you serious, or is this all a wind-up? The farmers regularly protest against and disrupt French central and local government but they've never disrupted the UK. And how do you think les pêcheurs française could disrupt the tunnel traffic - sail a trawler down it?

The Hundred Years War was fought on what is now France, by (until the very later stages) French speaking Norman (Norman = Norsemen = Vikings) kings (the lineage whose original progenitor, Duke William of Normandy (aka William the Bastard), killed our rightful Anglo-Saxon (Anglo = English) King Harold at Hastings in 1066).

He then proceeded to kill English people particularly in the North and destroy towns and villages for a good twenty years for refusing to accept him as King.

No English person ever suffered any hurt in the 100 Years War - except the soldiers in the various English armies. The French peasantry however did.

As for saving French arses in the World Wars, you're wide of the mark again. French soldiers fought and died from the start to the finish of WW1 - 1.2 million men - 300k more than the British armies.

WW2 - the Yanks and, indirectly, the Soviets, saved British and French, Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourgian arses. Plus all the Canadian, Anzac, Indian and colonial African and Caribbean men who volunteered to fight for Britain in both world wars.

 

I'll be a neutral watching the final. I like the way Argentine players defend - always have. I like the way France have played since Zidane won the 1998 final. Lots of elan, flair and creativity. Should be a great game.

Edited 15 December 2022 by gerblod
Necessary qualification of one statement

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

 

To begin with, I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with the post of yours I've quoted from - I don't. Indeed, it was a welcome riposte to some jingoistic Little Englander nonsense.

 

Except this bit.

 

17 minutes ago, gerblod said:

our rightful Anglo-Saxon (Anglo = English) King Harold

 

a) no such thing as a rightful king. They were all just fighting and killing to claim the throne.

 

b) not sure you can say Anglo=English in this context. Obviously 'England' comes from 'Angle-land,' but the Angles weren't 'English.'

 

c) Harold's family connections were as much Scandinavian as 'English.'

Basically everyone - Normans, Anglo-Saxons, Norwegians - was just Vikings really!

d) You can't really say 'our' king Harold. After a thousand years, the modern English are descended from Normans as much as from Anglo-Saxons. Both sides (well, neither really) are 'ours.'

 

Anyway, that's my Thursday morning pedantry out of the way. Time for breakfast!

[filbertway]

Messi in tears and a France win please. 

[Nalis]

37 minutes ago, gerblod said:

 I like the way France have played since Zidane won the 1998 final. Lots of elan, flair and creativity. Should be a great game.

I'm not sure the France I've been watching is the same one you've been watching

Edited 15 December 2022 by Nalis

[Fox92]

So tough to pick as an Englishman but it's got to be France. Can't have those lot from Argentina winning it.

 

But I think Argentina will win it. They seem to have the Messi factor about them this time, which I can only assume it was like in 1986 with Maradona contributing so much.

 

Hopefully it's just a good final.

[CosbehFox]

Deschamps asked if Benzema could play any part of the final and he refused to answer. 

[RowlattsFox]

Not sure what would be a greater sight, Messi finally lifting the world cup or seeing Emi Martinez crying into his gloves. I guess its win win in that situation. 

[gerblod]

1 hour ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

 

To begin with, I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with the post of yours I've quoted from - I don't. Indeed, it was a welcome riposte to some jingoistic Little Englander nonsense.

 

Except this bit.

 

 

a) no such thing as a rightful king. They were all just fighting and killing to claim the throne.

 

b) not sure you can say Anglo=English in this context. Obviously 'England' comes from 'Angle-land,' but the Angles weren't 'English.'

 

c) Harold's family connections were as much Scandinavian as 'English.'

Basically everyone - Normans, Anglo-Saxons, Norwegians - was just Vikings really!

d) You can't really say 'our' king Harold. After a thousand years, the modern English are descended from Normans as much as from Anglo-Saxons. Both sides (well, neither really) are 'ours.'

 

Anyway, that's my Thursday morning pedantry out of the way. Time for breakfast!

I hope you enjoyed your brekkers 😁.

I did catch myself out with the idea of a rightful King. But Harold was a recognised Saxon (or Anglo-Saxon) noble whose father was probably the most powerful man in what was recognised by as England (as opposed to Danelaw) at the time. Angles, Saxons and Jutes had invaded/settled the island after Roman occupation (500s A. D.?).

Sure, 'England'  had already had Danish king(s) by then (Cnut) and I suspect that, if you lived in this area (Leicestershire)  assimilation between Danish settlers and Saxons had been ongoing since Danelaw was established. Apparently there was segregation of a kind - where Danish settlements were separate.

Village names ending in -by and -ton (Groby, Ratby, Blaby, Enderby, Staunton, Peckleton etc are Norse settlements), but boys and girls will be boys and girls and I suspect most of us are genetically predominantly of that combined antecedence.

The Norman's created a strata of aristocracy which didn't intermarry. William gave parcels of land to his buddies and destroyed what some believe to have been a more egalitarian system of government. I'm sure Norse > Norman blood has infiltrated the common strain, but the English aristocracy has kept its lands by strictly picking and choosing who it allows into its gene pool.

Jeremy Paxman has written about "The English" and the 'Establishment' - they're probably very informative about 'us' and who controls us.

I believe there's still a vague but definable line which separates these genetic lines - people still instinctively identify themselves as northerners and southerners. Cumbria, Northumbria and Durham, Yorkshire, East Midlands and East Anglia as distinct from a line taking in all the land south of Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire, Bucks, Beds et al.

The Norman and Viking DNAs are indistinguishable, so those of us who have Danish 'blood' are broadly connected to Normans, but only indirectly. I've often considered having one of these tests. But my dad was German (where the Saxons originated)  so my blood line is no guide I'm afraid afraid.

[Lcfc098]

Don't see France stopping Messi tbh especially considering Morocco were getting a lot of joy on that right hand side

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

3 minutes ago, gerblod said:

I hope you enjoyed your brekkers 😁.

I did catch myself out with the idea of a rightful King. But Harold was a recognised Saxon (or Anglo-Saxon) noble whose father was probably the most powerful man in what was recognised by as England (as opposed to Danelaw) at the time. Angles, Saxons and Jutes had invaded/settled the island after Roman occupation (500s A. D.?).

Sure, 'England'  had already had Danish king(s) by then (Cnut) and I suspect that, if you lived in this area (Leicestershire)  assimilation between Danish settlers and Saxons had been ongoing since Danelaw was established. Apparently there was segregation of a kind - where Danish settlements were separate.

Village names ending in -by and -ton (Groby, Ratby, Blaby, Enderby, Staunton, Peckleton etc are Norse settlements), but boys and girls will be boys and girls and I suspect most of us are genetically predominantly of that combined antecedence.

The Norman's created a strata of aristocracy which didn't intermarry. William gave parcels of land to his buddies and destroyed what some believe to have been a more egalitarian system of government. I'm sure Norse > Norman blood has infiltrated the common strain, but the English aristocracy has kept its lands by strictly picking and choosing who it allows into its gene pool.

Jeremy Paxman has written about "The English" and the 'Establishment' - they're probably very informative about 'us' and who controls us.

I believe there's still a vague but definable line which separates these genetic lines - people still instinctively identify themselves as northerners and southerners. Cumbria, Northumbria and Durham, Yorkshire, East Midlands and East Anglia as distinct from a line taking in all the land south of Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire, Bucks, Beds et al.

The Norman and Viking DNAs are indistinguishable, so those of us who have Danish 'blood' are broadly connected to Normans, but only indirectly. I've often considered having one of these tests. But my dad was German (where the Saxons originated)  so my blood line is no guide I'm afraid afraid.

It's all fascinating stuff. And complex. Certainly the English often aren't quite as English as some like to think. The Welsh are probably more original English (if such a thing exists) than the English.

[Balj]

Europe v South America. It's the strongest federations going for it and probably the 2 current strongest teams in each so let's hope for a good game. It would be fitting for it to be Messi's finale at international level. Some romance in what is likely to be a fairly attritional game I suspect.

[lcfc old boy]

4 hours ago, gerblod said:

Jesus H. feckin' Christ! Do you edit The Sun? Or have you been reading it too much?

I'm English and I don't hate Argentinians. I will never forgive Maradona for doing the dirty over that particularly good England squad but it was a Junta of particularly nasty far-right military men, led by a bloke named Gualtieri, who took over Argentina and decided to invade the Falklands. These guys inflicted more violence on Argentinians than they ever did to Falklanders, our task force or our task force inflicted on Argentinian conscripts.

As for French farmers or fisherman routinely blocking the Chunnel - are you serious, or is this all a wind-up? The farmers regularly protest against and disrupt French central and local government but they've never disrupted the UK. And how do you think les pêcheurs française could disrupt the tunnel traffic - sail a trawler down it?

The Hundred Years War was fought on what is now France, by (until the very later stages) French speaking Norman (Norman = Norsemen = Vikings) kings (the lineage whose original progenitor, Duke William of Normandy (aka William the Bastard), killed our rightful Anglo-Saxon (Anglo = English) King Harold at Hastings in 1066).

He then proceeded to kill English people particularly in the North and destroy towns and villages for a good twenty years for refusing to accept him as King.

No English person ever suffered any hurt in the 100 Years War - except the soldiers in the various English armies. The French peasantry however did.

As for saving French arses in the World Wars, you're wide of the mark again. French soldiers fought and died from the start to the finish of WW1 - 1.2 million men - 300k more than the British armies.

WW2 - the Yanks and, indirectly, the Soviets, saved British and French, Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourgian arses. Plus all the Canadian, Anzac, Indian and colonial African and Caribbean men who volunteered to fight for Britain in both world wars.

 

I'll be a neutral watching the final. I like the way Argentine players defend - always have. I like the way France have played since Zidane won the 1998 final. Lots of elan, flair and creativity. Should be a great game.

elan flair and creativity you did not watch the q/f and s/f then , you also forgot to put in falling down at the slightest touch 

[urban.spaceman]

Not sure who I want to win but I do love the fact that Fofana forced his way out to Chelsea to try and get in the France squad, got himself another long term injury, and then had to watch his country get to the World Cup final without him. 

[AjcW]

15 hours ago, tom27111 said:

I'd like Argentina to win it, simply for Messi.

 

It'll probably be an absolute hideous game, with either a mistake or a moment of magic deciding it.

 

2018 final was a bit of a miss match and an anomaly, but these are usually, in recent times, dull and tetchy games.

 

See 2014, 2010, 2006...

 

A late Messi moment of genius to win it.

 

15 hours ago, hejammy said:

Could be one of the most boring finals ever. Just a load of players trying to out dive/scream/play act one another. Probably won't watch it as I really don't want either team to win. If I had to chose it would be Argentina simply because I think Messi deserves a World Cup. 

I mean the two shared a 4-3 classic just four years ago in a knockout game, so I'm surprised at how many think this will be dull.

Yes I know it's a final, but personally think it could be a real thriller. The last World Cup final was 4-2... no reason this one wont be open.

 

Think a lot will be down to how the ref performs mind.

[gerblod]

2 hours ago, lcfc old boy said:

elan flair and creativity you did not watch the q/f and s/f then , you also forgot to put in falling down at the slightest touch 

Doing a dive at the appropriate moment could also be described as creative - not that I admire that kind of creativity.

I thought Griezmann has been the most creative and technically best player of the tournament - except maybe for Messi and Modric.

P. S. You don't have to include all the post - you could have deleted the history of the English speaking peoples. I wouldn't have taken offence.

[lcfc old boy]

3 hours ago, gerblod said:

Doing a dive at the appropriate moment could also be described as creative - not that I admire that kind of creativity.

I thought Griezmann has been the most creative and technically best player of the tournament - except maybe for Messi and Modric.

P. S. You don't have to include all the post - you could have deleted the history of the English speaking peoples. I wouldn't have taken offence.

if i could i would have but i dont know how, apologies if you have taken offence in which you must off because why even bring it up, i just found it amusing the last piece 

[whoareyaaa]

I've not been that impressed with France but they do know how to win but look a bit iffy at the back, Argentina have looked solid in most games bar the 10 minutes against the dutch and the loss against the Saudis which I didn't watch, I think with Messi on form they will win it.

 

 

[Super_horns]

Polish ref got the final .

 

Done both teams so they will know him well I guess .

 

https://sportsbrief.com/football/30460-polish-referee-szymon-marciniak-charge-world-cup-final/

[Tielemans63]

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Backed France so want them to win. That aside, don't care. 

[Livid]

I’m going to have to go with Argentina. France seem to have ridden their luck against us and Morocco and I just see them coming undone unless they can raise their game to another level. 
 

France with Kante, Pogba and Benzema would be a different story. 
 

I respect Messi as a truly outstanding footballer but I’m really not looking forward to the massively nauseating media love in if they pull it off. 

[Foxxed]

After careful consideration, and consideration made easier by the absence of Kante, I dislike more French players than Argentinean players so I'll be cheering on Argentina.

[FoyleFox]

17 hours ago, gerblod said:

Porquoi?

Aside from Kante, they have and have had for many a year a vast selection of dislikable players.