No thread on Morroco v France?

If Morocco can walk through the French defence at will, Messi and co certainly will. And the Argy strikers have teeth.
 
France have benefited a bit from scoring quite early on in both the quarter final and tonight. It's allowed them to play to their strengths on the counter attack. They do it well, but I just don't think they're anything particularly special and if they go a goal down I think they'd struggle tbh.

Morocco were excellent, just the final decisions let them down.
 
Giroud is such a class act. Off the pitch as well as on. France got the luck with their second when the ball deflected to their player. Morocco didn't get any luck. Sometimes the difference, the serial winners get lucky more often.
 
poolfc said:
Think they've a few who missed out with injury. And some current starters absent with illness tonight

It's probably simplified things for them, let the likes of Griezmann play his game without Pogba in his way pricking about dancing. But it'll probably also be the thing they cite as why they couldn't quite retain the trophy in the end if they don't win.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer to play them without that trio though
 
Shandypants said:
I'd prefer to play them without that trio though
Click to expand...
That's why I said if they come up short they'll be saying they'd have been stronger without the injuries. But still enough strength in depth to be able to make their way to the final as nobody has found a way to stop them.
 
poolfc said:
That's why I said if they come up short they'll be saying they'd have been stronger without the injuries. But still enough strength in depth to be able to make their way to the final as nobody has found a way to stop them.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a vintage WC, it'll be remembered for the lesser nations doing well, that said they all play in Europe anyway. I miss the 80s where Brazil were an unknown quantity, players you only saw every 4 years playing a brand of football that was totally different. Players are all european in style these days.
 
Shandypants said:
I don't think this is a vintage WC, it'll be remembered for the lesser nations doing well, that said they all play in Europe anyway. I miss the 80s where Brazil were an unknown quantity, players you only saw every 4 years playing a brand of football that was totally different. Players are all european in style these days.
Click to expand...
And exponentially more cheating.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
How did that not go in?
France will win this World Cup they seem to have all the luck going for them.
Click to expand...
Been saying the same.

It’s like their name is already on the trophy.
Not just the obvious lucky moments like the missed Kane pen or shots hitting the post. These last 2 matches they‘ve had lucky deflected shots, balls just not falling right, ricochets near the goal line falling to French players to clear. Every time.
 
if you are old enough to remember 1970, 1982 and even 1990 (apart from the group stages), I think this tournament has been a bit of a let down. No worse than 2018, but very pedestrian.

It doesn't help that there have been no stand-out teams, and even the two finalists are less than the sum of their parts. I think people will remember this tournament for Morocco and Japan long after they have forgotten the winners.

I don't watch much televised football nowadays, but how people put up with VAR is a mystery to me. It completely disrupts a game that is supposed to flow, and it hasn't improved decision making at all, as far as I can see. You can tolerate it in the NFL because (a) it is part of the culture (b) they explain the decisions as often as not and (c) they get it right 99.5% of the time. None of that applies to football.

At least 2026 will be in countries with a bit more of a football pedigree (even Canada). But 48 teams will mean you watch a lot teams (like Qatar and Wales) who are just making up the numbers. As well as strengthening the political support for whoever is running FIFA by then, of course. We mustn't forget what this expansion in really about, must we?
 
I disagree. It’s been a cracking World Cup.
Best for many a year, despite the obvious concerns about Qatar and even the corrupt process by which they hosted it. Also a real plus introducing many new fans into that part of the world, can only be a positive.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
if you are old enough to remember 1970, 1982 and even 1990 (apart from the group stages), I think this tournament has been a bit of a let down. No worse than 2018, but very pedestrian.

It doesn't help that there have been no stand-out teams, and even the two finalists are less than the sum of their parts. I think people will remember this tournament for Morocco and Japan long after they have forgotten the winners.

I don't watch much televised football nowadays, but how people put up with VAR is a mystery to me. It completely disrupts a game that is supposed to flow, and it hasn't improved decision making at all, as far as I can see. You can tolerate it in the NFL because (a) it is part of the culture (b) they explain the decisions as often as not and (c) they get it right 99.5% of the time. None of that applies to football.

At least 2026 will be in countries with a bit more of a football pedigree (even Canada). But 48 teams will mean you watch a lot teams (like Qatar and Wales) who are just making up the numbers. As well as strengthening the political support for whoever is running FIFA by then, of course. We mustn't forget what this expansion in really about, must we?
Click to expand...
Of course you try to discredit this WC because of your political agenda against it. That much is obvious. But no matter, let's talk about your opening para . Now I know I'm a few years older than you and I was 16 in 1970. I also know that the World Cup was played in Mexico and games kicked off pretty late. Were you really allowed to stop up and watch those games? And go on then tell me, all about those group games you must remember so well in order to make your assessment. Fact is I bet, you like me, haven't got a clue about any of those games and who they were between apart from England. And I just about recall we beat the Czechs 1-0 in what was a dreadful game. Yet your agenda to put down this current tournament means you pretty much have to make stuff up.

Go on, I'll give you a couple of hours to go do some research! Here you go, I've done a bit too. In Englands 3 group games we scored just 2 goals. Bet you couldn't recall that could you? Go then, a bit more research done. Italy won their group by scoring just ONE goal in 3 matches.
 
Last edited:
20togo said:
Of course you try to discredit this WC because of your political agenda against it. That much is obvious. But no matter, let's talk about your opening para . Now I know I'm a few years older than you and I was 16 in 1970. I also know that the World Cup was played in Mexico and games kicked off pretty late. Were you really allowed to stop up and watch those games? And go on then tell me, all about those group games you must remember so well in order to make your assessment. Fact is I bet, you like me, haven't got a clue about any of those games and who they were between apart from England. And I just about recall we beat the Czechs 1-0 in what was a dreadful game. Yet your agenda to put down this current tournament means you pretty much have to make stuff up.

Go on, I'll give you a couple of hours to go do some research! Here you go, I've done a bit too. In Englands 3 group games we scored just 2 goals. Bet you couldn't recall that could you? Go then, a bit more research done. Italy won their group by scoring just ONE goal in 3 matches.
Click to expand...

Dear me. You really don't like anyone having a different opinion to yours, do you?

Anyway, to deal with your main points :

1. I do think this WC has been discredited, for reasons we have done to death. That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that I think the football, particularly in the group stages, has been a bit underwhelming. I don't think the Qataris have got much value for the £200 billion plus they have invested - and I'm glad. I've not had a chance to watch WC tournament football since 2014 and I think the current standard, generally, is mediocre. It's just a view, you don't have to act like a startled virgin about it.

2. I made a point about there being no outstanding teams and later mentioned the 1970 WC as being memorable because it had perhaps the most iconic team of all, for people of my generation. I mentioned 1982 because it had some outstanding games and 1990 because England did surprisingly well after a poor start. I never claimed to have watched every game in 1970 (because I didn't), but I was allowed to stay up to watch late games and saw a lot of Brazil, the Germans and England in particular. I don't have to "make stuff up" because it actually happened and I remember watching games and highlights programmes. It was a period when I was falling massively in love with the game and it made a big impression.

3. This tournament has just not held my attention, for lots of reasons, some of which are football related, and some of which are about things that are far more important. You don't seem to see it that way, but mine is a commonly held view.

Sorry, you wasted your time with all that completely irrelevant research you did.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Dear me. You really don't like anyone having a different opinion to yours, do you?

Anyway, to deal with your main points :

1. I do think this WC has been discredited, for reasons we have done to death. That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that I think the football, particularly in the group stages, has been a bit underwhelming. I don't think the Qataris have got much value for the £200 billion plus they have invested - and I'm glad. I've not had a chance to watch WC tournament football since 2014 and I think the current standard, generally, is mediocre. It's just a view, you don't have to act like a startled virgin about it.

2. I made a point about there being no outstanding teams and later mentioned the 1970 WC as being memorable because it had perhaps the most iconic team of all, for people of my generation. I mentioned 1982 because it had some outstanding games and 1990 because England did surprisingly well after a poor start. I never claimed to have watched every game in 1970 (because I didn't), but I was allowed to stay up to watch late games and saw a lot of Brazil, the Germans and England in particular. I don't have to "make stuff up" because it actually happened and I remember watching games and highlights programmes. It was a period when I was falling massively in love with the game and it made a big impression.

3. This tournament has just not held my attention, for lots of reasons, some of which are football related, and some of which are about things that are far more important. You don't seem to see it that way, but mine is a commonly held view.

Sorry, you wasted your time with all that completely irrelevant research you did.
Click to expand...
Strange how you think some of the group games have been underwhelming yet you consider the research and facts I quoted from the 1970 WC to be irrelevant. Maybe that's because you were totally unaware of them. And also strange how you now switch tack from first talking about the lesser nations doing well[ which clearly had to be in the group stages in order for them to progress to now saying their matches were underwhelming.

And if you read AVFTT I think you'll find it's by far a more common view that politics aside, football wise this tournament has been a big success with lots of great games. The so called lesser teams have made it a very good tournament.

Oh, I'll make one final point. You talk of the new format of 48 teams and having to watch low ranking teams. Go and have a look at some of those teams who played in the 1970's finals. A few names will surprise you and I'm pretty certain they weren't top teams around that time. I'd suggest your view of the WHOLE competition in 1970 is heavily distorted because of ONE great team.

And without wishing to be disrespectful, it's not difficult to realise that you have reasons outside of football for not for want of a better expression "engaging" with the sport so much. So I wish you well in whatever you are dealing with. But don't let that distort your view of what so many of us think has been a very good tournament football wise.
 
Last edited:
20togo said:
Strange how you think some of the group games have been underwhelming yet you consider the research and facts I quoted from the 1970 WC to be irrelevant. Maybe that's because you were totally unaware of them. And also strange how you now switch tack from first talking about the lesser nations doing well[ which clearly had to be in the group stages in order for them to progress to now saying their matches were underwhelming.

And if you read AVFTT I think you'll find it's by far a more common view that politics aside, football wise this tournament has been a big success with lots of great games. The so called lesser teams have made it a very good tournament.

Oh, I'll make one final point. You talk of the new format of 48 teams and having to watch low ranking teams. Go and have a look at some of those teams who played in the 1970's finals. A few names will surprise you and I'm pretty certain they weren't top teams around that time. I'd suggest your view of the WHOLE competition in 1970 is heavily distorted because of ONE great team.

And without wishing to be disrespectful, it's not difficult to realise that you have reasons outside of football for not for want of a better expression "engaging" with the sport so much. So I wish you well in whatever you are dealing with. But don't let that distort your view of what so many of us think has been a very good tournament football wise.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is much point in this conversation, is there? You either ignore or misunderstand the points I am making and I can't be bothered going through them again. We have different opinions on the merits of this tournament and as far as I'm concerned that is fine.

I've no idea what your last paragraph means.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I don't think there is much point in this conversation, is there? You either ignore or misunderstand the points I am making and I can't be bothered going through them again. We have different opinions on the merits of this tournament and as far as I'm concerned that is fine.

I've no idea what your last paragraph means.
Click to expand...
my last para is simply a reply to your point 3 where you mention other reasons rather than football as to why the tournament hasn't grabbed your attention, that's all.
 
I was referring to the fact that the whole charade was an affront to probity actually, but I was probably a bit too cryptic. And the point has been made many times over by a number of posters.
 
Well, seeing as you rarely comment on football or BFC these days, I just thought there was some other reason. No worries though, like I said I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. However, the point has also been made many times more over by a number of posters what a great tournament it's been. There's been enough threads on all the various matches with many posters positive comments which somehow you seem to have missed. But hey, there you go.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top