World Cup 2026 politics free FOOTBALL match day thread

Bryce said:
You need a bit of luck in knockout football anything can happen . You need a bit of rub of the green and perhaps taking 1 half chance or a world class strike .
For me VAR has ruined rub of the green . It consistently favours the favourites and decisions seem to go with them . This threshold for a foul in or out of the box is nonsense. It’s a foul or not . Simple . It’s a contact sport . Contact needs to be allowed . Reckless or very careless contact is a foul . Anywhere. Contact happens but it’s been demonized to legitimise favouritism and VAR are re refereeing games , which ever way you cut it .
Click to expand...
Agree regards VAR.

This 'higher threshold' stuff is *******s. It's either a foul or it's not.
Also the fact that refs at the WC have been asked to take a more-lenient view of fouls to allow the game to flow is something I agree with, but it shouldn't be just for this tournament. It should be all the time. As you say, football is (should be) a contact sport and it should be refereed as such, not just for one tournament but consistently, all of the time.
It's no wonder that players are confused as to what is allowed and what isn't!
 
More hysteria over nothing.

Lisandro Martinez was fouled. It's not the worst foul you'll see. It's not even a booking. But he grabbed his shirt and stood on his foot. If that was viewed in isolation, it wouldn't even be up for debate that it's a free-kick outside the area. So, the right decision was made.

The Salah one is laughable. Again, in isolation, the idea that you would give a penalty for brushing someone's foot in such a soft manner after clearly winning the ball would be laughed at. If it didn't result in a goal, I genuinely don't think it would have made the highlights package after the game.

The fact Lisandro Martinez was fouled 100 yards from goal is also irrelevant. The chief factor is the time, as opposed to the distance. There will be many VAR reviews that are longer in time from the offence to the goal. Argentina didn't reset, their defender was fouled.

They were both pretty standard, easy calls. I know part of the 'conspiracy' is that it wouldn't be given the other way, but had Egypt benefited from those calls, VAR would be getting praised for doing its job.

Unfortunately, football is now jut about narrative for quite a lot. I think people should watch WWE. There's an agenda beforehand, and fairness doesn't matter. I saw it with the Hearts/Celtic stuff, and there are many examples at this World Cup, including this one.

As I said on the other thread, I'd argue one of the worst decisions in this tournament was the failure to award Ghana a penalty against England. Were Lineker and Shearer going mental then? Of course not. Were the media? Did we call it corruption on here? No.
 
WeAreTheWolvesII said:
More hysteria over nothing.

Lisandro Martinez was fouled. It's not the worst foul you'll see. It's not even a booking. But he grabbed his shirt and stood on his foot. If that was viewed in isolation, it wouldn't even be up for debate that it's a free-kick outside the area. So, the right decision was made.

The Salah one is laughable. Again, in isolation, the idea that you would give a penalty for brushing someone's foot in such a soft manner after clearly winning the ball would be laughed at. If it didn't result in a goal, I genuinely don't think it would have made the highlights package after the game.

The fact Lisandro Martinez was fouled 100 yards from goal is also irrelevant. The chief factor is the time, as opposed to the distance. There will be many VAR reviews that are longer in time from the offence to the goal. Argentina didn't reset, their defender was fouled.

They were both pretty standard, easy calls. I know part of the 'conspiracy' is that it wouldn't be given the other way, but had Egypt benefited from those calls, VAR would be getting praised for doing its job.

Unfortunately, football is now jut about narrative for quite a lot. I think people should watch WWE. There's an agenda beforehand, and fairness doesn't matter. I saw it with the Hearts/Celtic stuff, and there are many examples at this World Cup, including this one.

As I said on the other thread, I'd argue one of the worst decisions in this tournament was the failure to award Ghana a penalty against England. Were Lineker and Shearer going mental then? Of course not. Were the media? Did we call it corruption on here? No.
Click to expand...

Two in almost as many days.

You have some wild opinions and I admire your ability to start on such a tangent where blaming everybody else for having the majority opinion is seen as wrong by you. It's impressive.
 
Wolf316 said:
To be fair he’s right on this one.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is.

VAR is not supposed to re-referee the game and the ref didn't give a foul.

You've then got the nonsense of phase of play. Argentina had 100yds, 3 passes and 6 players to defend that goal.

In no way should it have been pulled back.

And then if you're giving the Martinez foul (which is debatable in the first place) VAR had to give the pull in the area from Mac Allister
 
WeAreTheWolvesII said:
More hysteria over nothing.

Lisandro Martinez was fouled. It's not the worst foul you'll see. It's not even a booking. But he grabbed his shirt and stood on his foot. If that was viewed in isolation, it wouldn't even be up for debate that it's a free-kick outside the area. So, the right decision was made.

The Salah one is laughable. Again, in isolation, the idea that you would give a penalty for brushing someone's foot in such a soft manner after clearly winning the ball would be laughed at. If it didn't result in a goal, I genuinely don't think it would have made the highlights package after the game.

The fact Lisandro Martinez was fouled 100 yards from goal is also irrelevant. The chief factor is the time, as opposed to the distance. There will be many VAR reviews that are longer in time from the offence to the goal. Argentina didn't reset, their defender was fouled.

They were both pretty standard, easy calls. I know part of the 'conspiracy' is that it wouldn't be given the other way, but had Egypt benefited from those calls, VAR would be getting praised for doing its job.

Unfortunately, football is now jut about narrative for quite a lot. I think people should watch WWE. There's an agenda beforehand, and fairness doesn't matter. I saw it with the Hearts/Celtic stuff, and there are many examples at this World Cup, including this one.

As I said on the other thread, I'd argue one of the worst decisions in this tournament was the failure to award Ghana a penalty against England. Were Lineker and Shearer going mental then? Of course not. Were the media? Did we call it corruption on here? No.
Click to expand...
Rational words away from all the hysteria.

Egypt lost focus and defended deeply. Argentina still had to score those three goals. The third Argentina goal came from Salah flopping over in the penalty area looking for another penalty. It was a brilliant pin point cross and sublime finish to win the game.
 
Fifty Niner said:
Argentina still had to score those three goals. The third Argentina goal came from Salah flopping over in the penalty area looking for another penalty. It was a brilliant pin point cross and sublime finish to win the game.
Click to expand...

The thing about Argentina is that they always remember how to play football when it matters, which differentiates them from the other twin latino hotheads like Uruguay and Paraguay who'll never match them for talent.
 
Seen a lot of Americans talk about if they put all there best athletes into “soccer” they’d dominate the sport and it’s a total load of rubbish.

1. 90/80% of there athletes they have in there already big sports wouldn’t be able to play football professionally due to their build. Super explosive 6ft5 300ibs blokes have no chance being able to survive on the field for 90mins. In reality, you’ll be stuck with the skill positions who have the only functional athleticism for the sport.

2. Sporting infrastructures they rely on is counter productive for producing Football players. You can remove all the other sports for them to play and let them play just football. But if there only coaching they’re reviving is at school, many not starting till late middle school or high school. It’s already 10 years too late. To have the same level of infrastructure Europeans have, they’ll need multiple cat 1 level academies in each state. For context, without roughly an hours drive of my house the are 10 cat 1/2 academies plus another 10 or so professional teams. That’ll be impossible to get similar.

3. It’s not a lack of athleticism that limits the US, they were clearly more athletic than Belgium but they couldn’t get close to them on a tactical or technical level.

4. Great athleticism while a child can be counter productive, and removes the need for them to develop technique and intelligence.
 
Before the Belgium game a Yank said who's Belgium, not in terms of taking the mickey but more in terms how on earth can a small country even compete with us.

Obviously don't understand the rich history of European football. They seemed so USA centric oblivious to what's happening outside in the football world.

They have a long way to go. They had to get outside private finance to pay for Poch. That's how far behind they are.
 
Dan G WWFC said:
Seen a lot of Americans talk about if they put all there best athletes into “soccer” they’d dominate the sport and it’s a total load of rubbish.

1. 90/80% of there athletes they have in there already big sports wouldn’t be able to play football professionally due to their build. Super explosive 6ft5 300ibs blokes have no chance being able to survive on the field for 90mins. In reality, you’ll be stuck with the skill positions who have the only functional athleticism for the sport.

2. Sporting infrastructures they rely on is counter productive for producing Football players. You can remove all the other sports for them to play and let them play just football. But if there only coaching they’re reviving is at school, many not starting till late middle school or high school. It’s already 10 years too late. To have the same level of infrastructure Europeans have, they’ll need multiple cat 1 level academies in each state. For context, without roughly an hours drive of my house the are 10 cat 1/2 academies plus another 10 or so professional teams. That’ll be impossible to get similar.

3. It’s not a lack of athleticism that limits the US, they were clearly more athletic than Belgium but they couldn’t get close to them on a tactical or technical level.

4. Great athleticism while a child can be counter productive, and removes the need for them to develop technique and intelligence.
Click to expand...
IF they decided to get serious about football and put resources and infrastructure in place, then with their finances and population no doubt they could produce a competing team in time, but it wouldn't happen overnight, probably 15 years plus. I.e. when kids of 5-6 now start coming through a proper system.
 
jrpb-3 said:
IF they decided to get serious about football and put resources and infrastructure in place, then with their finances and population no doubt they could produce a competing team in time, but it wouldn't happen overnight, probably 15 years plus. I.e. when kids of 5-6 now start coming through a proper system.
Click to expand...
100% this. We can compete with any other country in terms of athleticism but as far as football goes, we are miles off it. Yes, we have great athletes but you couldn't take Tyreek Hill out of the NFL and pop him on a football pitch, he'd be useless. So it'll be the kids growing up in the system now. And it's imperative we make the game accessible to everyone. As it stands now "traveling soccer", the higher tier of youth football in this country, is financially restrictive. It's too expensive for the average family to get their kid(s) into the game and it shouldn't be that way. So we do have a very long way to go, but you have to admit if we do get the infrastructure in place and do give more weight to football, we could be a powerhouse on the global stage.
 
jrpb-3 said:
IF they decided to get serious about football and put resources and infrastructure in place, then with their finances and population no doubt they could produce a competing team in time, but it wouldn't happen overnight, probably 15 years plus. I.e. when kids of 5-6 now start coming through a proper system.
Click to expand...
Exactly, China got serious about football around 10 years ago and they are nowhere to be seen on the world stage.

If the USA suddenly got serious about it now, they might have a chance at making the semi final of the 2050 world cup. Allowing for time to get the infrastructure in place.
 
shadowcat said:
100% this. We can compete with any other country in terms of athleticism but as far as football goes, we are miles off it. Yes, we have great athletes but you couldn't take Tyreek Hill out of the NFL and pop him on a football pitch, he'd be useless. So it'll be the kids growing up in the system now. And it's imperative we make the game accessible to everyone. As it stands now "traveling soccer", the higher tier of youth football in this country, is financially restrictive. It's too expensive for the average family to get their kid(s) into the game and it shouldn't be that way. So we do have a very long way to go, but you have to admit if we do get the infrastructure in place and do give more weight to football, we could be a powerhouse on the global stage.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Maybe. I don't think we fundamentally have a culture that is conducive to developing truly great footballers. Football is a working class game at its core. Class is in the DNA of the game. We just fundamentally don't have a consciousness of that here in the same way it drips from more or less anywhere in Europe.

I also don't think we really want to be. There's a limit to how much anyone here is going to respect the game when everything about its rules and officiating is fundamentally a farce. It's a fun to watch farce, but it's rough convincing people who love watching other sports to put up with the way the game is officiated. Pretty much anyone here feels the referee just makes **** up as he goes along. The simulation from players is something you see in basketball (ahem, strong racial feelings here) and anywhere else the level that it's frowned upon is more or less violent.

I imagine the trajectory will stay basically the same for awhile.
 
jrpb-3 said:
IF they decided to get serious about football and put resources and infrastructure in place, then with their finances and population no doubt they could produce a competing team in time, but it wouldn't happen overnight, probably 15 years plus. I.e. when kids of 5-6 now start coming through a proper system.
Click to expand...

They would be better, no doubt. But to get in infrastructure anything close to Europe would take billions, and as you say, decades to start producing.
 
brianm said:
I dunno. Maybe. I don't think we fundamentally have a culture that is conducive to developing truly great footballers. Football is a working class game at its core. Class is in the DNA of the game. We just fundamentally don't have a consciousness of that here in the same way it drips from more or less anywhere in Europe.

I also don't think we really want to be. There's a limit to how much anyone here is going to respect the game when everything about its rules and officiating is fundamentally a farce. It's a fun to watch farce, but it's rough convincing people who love watching other sports to put up with the way the game is officiated. Pretty much anyone here feels the referee just makes **** up as he goes along. The simulation from players is something you see in basketball (ahem, strong racial feelings here) and anywhere else the level that it's frowned upon is more or less violent.

I imagine the trajectory will stay basically the same for awhile.
Click to expand...
We don't have the culture right now, but who's to say we won't in 10 years or 20. I'm not holding my breath that I'll ever see the US win the WC in my lifetime but I do think we could eventually be competitive and respected.

I think it's difficult to generalize the entire population. But it is obvious that it won't reach the heights of the NFL, NBA, or MLB anytime soon. As far as officiating goes, people put up with bs all the time, I don't think that's a factor of getting people interested. In my opinion the desire to play the game, and be good at it, is derived from our natural competitiveness. We want to win and we want to be the best. The issue is most people aren't willing to put in the work or trudge through the mud to get to where those top levels are. There's no benefit to put in that much effort because the game isn't respected here the same way. It will take a long time for the culture to adapt.

I think it's critical that the MLS continues to grow and that homegrown talent is represented in our league. It's all fine and good getting Messi, Lewandowski, all these big names. But we want to develop our own superstars. That's how the youth get it's into the game, when they see Americans like them achieving great things.

The trajectory is hopefully gradually increasing. I think the discourse around this World Cup has changed dramatically. Obviously since we hosted part of it it's at the forefront of the zeitgeist right now but there's waves being made. I remain optimistic.

EDIT: I should caveat all this and say that the game is big here, our USWNT is incredible and has been for decades. So I don't mean to disparage or diminish their significance.
 
shadowcat said:
We don't have the culture right now, but who's to say we won't in 10 years or 20. I'm not holding my breath that I'll ever see the US win the WC in my lifetime but I do think we could eventually be competitive and respected.

I think it's difficult to generalize the entire population. But it is obvious that it won't reach the heights of the NFL, NBA, or MLB anytime soon. As far as officiating goes, people put up with bs all the time, I don't think that's a factor of getting people interested. In my opinion the desire to play the game, and be good at it, is derived from our natural competitiveness. We want to win and we want to be the best. The issue is most people aren't willing to put in the work or trudge through the mud to get to where those top levels are. There's no benefit to put in that much effort because the game isn't respected here the same way. It will take a long time for the culture to adapt.

I think it's critical that the MLS continues to grow and that homegrown talent is represented in our league. It's all fine and good getting Messi, Lewandowski, all these big names. But we want to develop our own superstars. That's how the youth get it's into the game, when they see Americans like them achieving great things.

The trajectory is hopefully gradually increasing. I think the discourse around this World Cup has changed dramatically. Obviously since we hosted part of it it's at the forefront of the zeitgeist right now but there's waves being made. I remain optimistic.
Click to expand...
While l hope for your sake that you are right l can't help but remember similar cautious optimism the last time the US hosted.
 
Investment in sport and infrastructure in sport can make a big difference but takes time GB went from a low of 1 Gold at the Atlanta Olympics in 96 to a high of 29 in London in 2012, lottery funding, identifying talent and makings sports more accessible
 
Read an interesting article in The I at the weekend by Daniel Storey. Basically he’s been doing a road trip across USA in the past few weeks. He reports that across much of the country away from the host cities there is very little awareness or interest in the World Cup. He has travelled, to amongst several other places, Oregon, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Tennessee. Whilst there were pockets of fervent support usually it involved those who call the US home but have footballing ties to hereditary nations. Whilst he sites the insular nature of your average American he also talks about the big 4 Sports there not having a worldwide competition as they see the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL as the pinnacle and all the US sports fan needs. Be interesting to see what the future holds for football in the States.
 
S G Wolves said:
Before the Belgium game a Yank said who's Belgium, not in terms of taking the mickey but more in terms how on earth can a small country even compete with us.

Obviously don't understand the rich history of European football. They seemed so USA centric oblivious to what's happening outside in the football world.

They have a long way to go. They had to get outside private finance to pay for Poch. That's how far behind they are.
Click to expand...
I think you have to be careful taking what you see on social media and extrapolating it to the population as a whole.

Football fans here are very realistic in terms of the US' place in the world when it comes to the world cup.

Then you have Americans who don't follow it at all giving their idiotic views.

The latter is what you see making the rounds on Twitter et al.
 
It was the US media that were bigging the team up and pushing the "why couldn't they win it" narrative. Anyone who knows the international game could give them a list of reasons as to why they couldn't or wouldn't. For the casual fan though they listen to the media, get excited and then inevitably get disappointed. By driving enthusiasm you increase attendance and shirt sales, etc and that is what modern sports is all about. Now I will say that I do believe in the "any given Sunday" ethos (e.g. Grimsby vs Man Utd) but in a cup competition you have to win every Sunday for 8 weeks for it to all work out. On another note, the success of the US Women's Team has been highly focused on them being better athletes and to be fair that has been a resounding success but women's and men's football are two very different animals.
 
Interesting discussion about the lack of emphasis on Football (FIFA) and more time spent on their homegrown sports.
The USA were semi-finalists in the inaugural World Cup, and beat England in 1950's World Cup.
Perhaps the conclusion has to be they're happy with their own sports and there is definitely more money, in those sports for US athletes.
 
brianm said:
I dunno. Maybe. I don't think we fundamentally have a culture that is conducive to developing truly great footballers. Football is a working class game at its core. Class is in the DNA of the game. We just fundamentally don't have a consciousness of that here in the same way it drips from more or less anywhere in Europe.

I also don't think we really want to be. There's a limit to how much anyone here is going to respect the game when everything about its rules and officiating is fundamentally a farce. It's a fun to watch farce, but it's rough convincing people who love watching other sports to put up with the way the game is officiated. Pretty much anyone here feels the referee just makes **** up as he goes along. The simulation from players is something you see in basketball (ahem, strong racial feelings here) and anywhere else the level that it's frowned upon is more or less violent.

I imagine the trajectory will stay basically the same for awhile.
Click to expand...
I dunno
The dual nationality and heritage these days going back to grandparents would be a massive plus for those parents or grandparents born in or after ww2 and subsequently lots of us bases around the world where service personnel have married local girls and had families

There are lots of dual national teens around lakebheath and mildenhall for example . They sound Suffolk born and bred but grandad was a 1970s service usaaf personnel.

With bases all around the world it’s not a huge leap if USA were serious about becoming a top 15 team
 
Madmalc said:
Interesting discussion about the lack of emphasis on Football (FIFA) and more time spent on their homegrown sports.
The USA were semi-finalists in the inaugural World Cup, and beat England in 1950's World Cup.
Perhaps the conclusion has to be they're happy with their own sports and there is definitely more money, in those sports for US athletes.
Click to expand...
They actually managed to beat Belgium in that world cup (with 6 British-born players). It was a largely American affair, just 13 countries & only 4 from Europe ; none from Asia or Africa (Egypt actually failed to make the ship in time). Uruguay (hosts & winners)/Argentina final.
 
Chris H said:
This is always the worst day of the World Cup. The first one without a game.

What am I supposed to watch, I need a Tunisia vs New Zealand or some other random game that I’d never watch if it wasn’t a World Cup.
Click to expand...
*sniffs* just a quick fix *rubs nose* please
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

What's new

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
11,285
Total visitors
11,363
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
313,611
Messages
5,776,615
Members
3,436
Latest member
Trophywolf

Share this page

Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2026 XenForo Ltd. Design by: Pixel Exit
Back
Top Bottom