World Cup 2018 - Russia

davet010 wrote:

Sane, not Mane.

;)

Ahhhhh! That changes everything. That's for pointing that out.

For some reason I got them blended in my head, and didn't even notice the City reference as being wrong for Mane. My high impressions are for Mane.

I can see Sane getting left off, honestly. He can be infuriating to watch. Brilliant one moment, and infuriatingly wasteful for the next 20 moments. I suppose risk-taking is to be encouraged for his role in City, and they want him to continue to develop which means playing aggressively. But for Germany, I could see that not being the case, and his style of play just not the way the national team is playing.

I would have thought that 10 goals, the 2nd most assists in the PL last season with 15, and the YPOTY would be worth more than a trip home. Your description of 'infuriatingly wasteful' is probably more apt for Raheem Sterling...who I would be OK with seeing leave tomorrow if City got value for him. If RM came in with a bid that involved a swap for Asensio (with a free Isco), I'd snap their hands off.

I don't understand the Sane cut. Every time I've watched city play this year he's been fantastic on the wing. Great ability to take defenders one on one, create chances, get behind the defensive line, etc. This feels like one of those "gotta go with my gut" terrible decisions. Can't wait to hear all the punditry judging Lowe's decision if Germany don't play perfectly and score 90 goals a game.

I can totally respect the Sane opinions, and agree that his play had enough moments of brilliance on the whole to be worthy of the accolades he's getting. I also think that he's a player with a huge upside that needs to be used the way that Guardiola is using him in order for him to reach his potential. I also think that you want a winger playing aggressively, as he does.

However, in the Man City games I saw this year, there were a good number where Sane would turn the ball over a lot, and then toss in a single brilliant play that led to a goal. Given the number of chances he'd get in a game, often because of the quality of players around him, it left me feeling that he's very much a work in progress with a huge upside. Put him on any other team than City and his numbers would be less impressive.

So I can see a more conservative manager who wants to win with a more conservative, ball possession offense not liking what he's seeing and leaving him off the team in favor of more experienced players.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I'm not a subscriber to the idea that players have a separate club form and national form, although I can admit there may be some psychological factors. Your national form is a much smaller sample size than your club form, so the latter has to be considered.

Having better national form does happen sometimes, but it's not uncommon at all to have worse form for a national team than for your club.

Not only is it possible that the national team plays a different formation and style a player is used to, the comparatively-infrequent playtime national squads get together can be an issue for cohesion and tactical understanding. The fact that the USMNT was together for almost two years solid ahead of the 1994 World Cup is definitely a part of why they over performed, relative to the talent we had on offer.

A player may also be surrounded by a significantly lower caliber of teammate (talent-wise) on the national team than at their club.

For my part, I'll be road tripping down to Des Moines to hang out with Psych and watch the first couple days of the World Cup - definitely looking forward to gorging myself on soccer next week.

Cool story on Iceland in Sports Illustrated:
Iceland's Underdog's Take on the World Cup Stage

I'd like to congratulate Costa Rica, for having the most English-sounding person on the field today for their friendly with England, when they brought on sub Ian Smith. Who is actually Costa Rican!

Stele wrote:

Guess I'll still watch. Who to cheer for though?

My usual rule is to cheer for whatever country left makes the best beer so that I can drink something from that country during their games. I tend to start with Germany or Belgium.

Negra Modelo!

Figured I'd root for our NA rivals to the south. Probably root for Germany once Mexico is out.

I'm always happy for a fellow CONCACAF team to make a run - hoping that Mexico and Costa Rica both manage to make it out of their groups, though Mexico probably has the toughest road to get there.

I'll be cheering for Denmark, CONCACAF teams, Iceland, and then underdogs / whoever is playing prettier football, in roughly that order.

What podcasts and videos have y'all been using to prep for the tournament? I've been consuming a variety of things. So far, perhaps the best has been the UK's The Totally Football Show (podcast). They bring in various journalists who are specifically knowledgeable about each of the teams, which is wonderful. I had watched some group predictions by FourFourTwo on YouTube, but they so clearly knew nothing about countries such as Iran and Morocco. I realize those aren't the stars of the show, but come on.

I've also enjoyed the videos of former US player Jimmy Conrad. He did a preview way back in December after the draw, and just this week he's started revisiting and revising his picks. He strikes a great balance between being serious and lighthearted.

What have y'all been enjoying?

I haven’t had much time yet to really dig in, but we get the dead tree version of Sports Illustrated, and the latest issue had a World Cup overview. They had something on every team, although some were much better covered than others. I read through that, which was good to do while eating lunch.

You mean besides Men in Blazers? Nope, just Men in Blazers.

The Totally Football Show and the Guardian's Football Weekly are my week-in week-out mainstays (sadly, Sid Lowe's The Spanish Football Podcast is done for the season). I should give the Ringer FC podcast a try though.

Godzilla Blitz wrote:
davet010 wrote:

Sane, not Mane.

;)

Ahhhhh! That changes everything. That's for pointing that out.

For some reason I got them blended in my head, and didn't even notice the City reference as being wrong for Mane. My high impressions are for Mane.

I can see Sane getting left off, honestly. He can be infuriating to watch. Brilliant one moment, and infuriatingly wasteful for the next 20 moments. I suppose risk-taking is to be encouraged for his role in City, and they want him to continue to develop which means playing aggressively. But for Germany, I could see that not being the case, and his style of play just not the way the national team is playing.

I ended up randomly talking with a German yesterday who said the exact same thing. He's very much ok with Sané being left out.

I'd rewatch the battle of Nuremberg, but without the Netherlands in the WC, what's the point?

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/xWFA4qX_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

That's an interesting graphic and I like it more than the Man City is sending the most players story. I swear it's not only because it lessens DaveT's banter but because it paints a more accurate picture of where talent is being cultivated. No surprise that despite Arsene's pride on growing players, Arsenal is nowhere on that list.

I predict Portugal will draw all games, get a third place, go through to the final and Éder comes in the last minutes and scores the winning goal.

Wait, what? Teams in third place can't go through? Éder isn't in the team? Well, f***.

For Americans, how will matches be streamed to us? Specifically, is Fox going to force us into buying that $20 a month subscription or will there be a broader Fox coverage that comes with your cable subscription. I'd think the latter would generate the most views for them and be the smartest approach but Fox has been stupid before.

bigred wrote:

For Americans, how will matches be streamed to us? Specifically, is Fox going to force us into buying that $20 a month subscription or will there be a broader Fox coverage that comes with your cable subscription. I'd think the latter would generate the most views for them and be the smartest approach but Fox has been stupid before.

It's the latter.

I missed this.
I guess it's one way to prepare for the tournament.

I mean, don't sports players refuse to have sex during big tournaments like this? Just... getting it out of the way early, I guess.

EDIT: Speaking of Mexico, how the hell did we Rafa Marquez is wanted by the US Treasury for alleged ties to drug traffickers?

*Insert joke about keeping his strikers supplied here*

Fedaykin98 wrote:
bigred wrote:

For Americans, how will matches be streamed to us? Specifically, is Fox going to force us into buying that $20 a month subscription or will there be a broader Fox coverage that comes with your cable subscription. I'd think the latter would generate the most views for them and be the smartest approach but Fox has been stupid before.

It's the latter.

I've found SoccerOnTV a solid resource for figuring out how to watch matches.

A lot of the matches are over the air on Fox Network, and the rest are Fox Sports 1 & 2 (cable).

FIFA's moving to an Elo system for their men's rankings that have been terrible for a long time now (they already use Elo for the women).

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upl...

Teams not getting punished for playing friendlies will be a massive improvement. You would see smart teams avoid playing friendlies, especially after they qualified but before groups in tournaments were set, so they could get better seeding. I think Wales in particular benefited from being smart like that.

I have a World Cup podcast recommendation: World Cup Stories.

It's basically 1-on-1 interview reflecting on past World Cups from the same guy who does the fantastic 'By Association' soccer podcast. It's not going to keep you up to date on this World Cup but it's great.

Big vote tomorrow! Morocco or United (USA, Canada, Mexico) for the 2026 World Cup.

Godzilla Blitz wrote:

Big vote tomorrow! Morocco or United (USA, Canada, Mexico) for the 2026 World Cup.

Morocco has the advantage in the soft, declared support count. Duane's been following the declared support all along and for the "United" bid to have a path to victory they need the CAF nations to not vote as a block.

There is a "none of the above" option on the ballot and it's a ranked ballot procedure. My understanding is "none of the above" wins neither nation can take part in the reopened bidding process but with the declared support that seems unlikely.

Still hoping Morocco (or none of the above, now that I know that's an option) wins. I never want to see Canada host a men's World Cup and being given the sh*tty 1/8 of a tournament (with not even a quarterfinal, never mind a semifinal) to launder the USA's image is really not appealing given the last couple of years.

I'm surprisingly of mixed opinions on which way I hope the vote goes. It's hard for me to separate the vote from the world's current political situation.

It'd be awesome to have a World Cup in North America to increase support for the game here. And if it's in the US I could probably get to a match, which would cross "Attend World Cup game" off my bucket list.

But I'm uneasy that a USA-dominant bid wins given our current immigration policies. A country should be less isolationist if it's going to be rewarded with this type of tournament.

Well, that could have been timed better.

Spain fire coach on eve of WC

Not quite sure why RM announced it before the WC, unless they were sick of speculation. Perez had better be ready for a sh*t-storm if Spain don't do as well as projected in the WC.

Lot of people tipping them for the final. I can't see it really, they've still got the same CB pairing as in 2014 (Ramos and Pique), so just have a watch of the Netherlands 5 Spain 1 group game to see how well that turned out.

Spain, that's extremely random.

Also Canada. I mean the united bid. I mean Nafta? Won the 2022. I mean 2026 bid.

Godzilla Blitz wrote:

But I'm uneasy that a USA-dominant bid wins given our current immigration policies. A country should be less isolationist if it's going to be rewarded with this type of tournament.

Could be worse, could be a dictatorship like Russia. Oh wait...