Football

[tim2]

Has Ole Gunnar Solksjaer had his vote of confidence yet?

[Sidi Fidi Gold]

5 minutes ago, tim2 said:

Has Ole Gunnar Solksjaer had his vote of confidence yet?

By the sound of things , the board are discussing his severence pay .

[Adelaide Tiger]

Watford are a disgrace to football.  All they had to do was beat Man Ure by one goal and make it look as though Man Ure were competitive so Ole was kept in the job for a bit longer ….. but no, they had to show off and thump them!

[graveyard johnny]

12 hours ago, Sidi Fidi Gold said:

By the sound of things , the board are discussing his severence pay .

and hes a gonner 

[Wiltshire Rhino]

Great day in Wales yesterday 

Newport 1-2 Swindon Town 

Our away form vs our home form is nuts

Home 6pts from a possible 21

Away 23pts from a possible 27

Two home games this week

[CornwallRL]

Womens football needs to get itself in shape. World Cup qualifiers included a 19-0, 12-0, & 11-0 results.

Not even San Marino Men went that bad.

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, CornwallRL said:

Womens football needs to get itself in shape. World Cup qualifiers included a 19-0, 12-0, & 11-0 results.

Not even San Marino Men went that bad.

Football International competitions are based on meritocracy and equality. Men's and Women's WC qualifying tournaments,  everyone plays. Not so RU with their closed shop 6 nations , who won't let Georgia play. Or Cricket with the elite Test playing nations,  or RL with tier one and two categorisation. Football is global,  the others aren't, 10 or 20 years ago the likes of Albania, Macedonia,  etc were getting slaughtered,  but exposure has increased the quality of these countries and I'm sure the women will improve. Hells bells last night my team Spurs lost to a load of Slovenians !

[HawkMan]

Hate to say it but Ralf Rangnick's appointment at Man U is a masterstroke. He is a great coach and his Football Director role after this season looks a smart move,  he and Pochettino could really do something. Ed Woodward has actually got something right. Grrr!

Edited November 26, 2021 by HawkMan

[Sidi Fidi Gold]

World Cup play offs ! Italy or Portugal will miss out , possible Wales v Scotland Play off final, that will be interesting after 1978 and 1986 .

[HawkMan]

14 minutes ago, Sidi Fidi Gold said:

World Cup play offs ! Italy or Portugal will miss out , possible Wales v Scotland Play off final, that will be interesting after 1978 and 1986 .

FIFA can't be happy with that draw. There should have been a way to keep Italy and Portugal apart. I would have had the top three teams out of those twelve based on FIFA rankings in separate qualifying pathways.

[Niels]

2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

FIFA can't be happy with that draw. There should have been a way to keep Italy and Portugal apart. I would have had the top three teams out of those twelve based on FIFA rankings in separate qualifying pathways.

I don't know why they didn't do this. Usually they never have a free draw and have changed their rules in the past. Your idea was sensible. 

It was a terrible draw for me. I like Portugal most but have Turkish family so I hoped both would go through. Then the winner of course playing Italy. Though fortunately at home. 

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, HawkMan said:

FIFA can't be happy with that draw. There should have been a way to keep Italy and Portugal apart. I would have had the top three teams out of those twelve based on FIFA rankings in separate qualifying pathways.

They did have seeding, I think, but it was quite a convoluted mix of Nations League and qualifying results?

Anyway, I'm very much looking forward to the inevitable Austria and Ukraine 'final'.

[tim2]

11 hours ago, HawkMan said:

FIFA can't be happy with that draw. There should have been a way to keep Italy and Portugal apart. I would have had the top three teams out of those twelve based on FIFA rankings in separate qualifying pathways.

Wouldn't have happened in Blatter's day.

Come on, Portugal!

[Futtocks]

Despite the for and against scores, this is a Football League: https://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/divisions/285/

Oh dear, London Sports Club.

[JohnM]

On 26/11/2021 at 21:40, HawkMan said:

Hate to say it but Ralf Rangnick's appointment at Man U is a masterstroke. He is a great coach and his Football Director role after this season looks a smart move,  he and Pochettino could really do something. Ed Woodward has actually got something right. Grrr!

Yet another temporary manager post-Ferguson.  How many is that now? 7 in 7 years,  I think.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

20-0 

[HawkMan]

31 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

20-0 

I've just been scanning social media and the fans are loving this. The England girls seem to get more popular by the game. This isn't going to hurt Women's football in the slightest.  A lot of folk on here believe that at next year's RLWC a few England blowout wins will really galvanise the country,  and I agree with that, so we can't have it both ways. Yep it's a blowout,  an equivalent RL score would be about 100- 0 , but it ain't going to de- rail Women's soccer.  Actually the fact of the matter is whereas in the men's game , in Europe alone 30 to 35 countries can give each other a good game, in the Women's it's about half that. Still I'd be interested to compare next year's Women's Euro's in England with the RLWC as far as attendance and media interest go.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

9 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

I've just been scanning social media and the fans are loving this. The England girls seem to get more popular by the game. This isn't going to hurt Women's football in the slightest.  A lot of folk on here believe that at next year's RLWC a few England blowout wins will really galvanise the country,  and I agree with that, so we can't have it both ways. Yep it's a blowout,  an equivalent RL score would be about 100- 0 , but it ain't going to de- rail Women's soccer.  Actually the fact of the matter is whereas in the men's game , in Europe alone 30 to 35 countries can give each other a good game, in the Women's it's about half that. Still I'd be interested to compare next year's Women's Euro's in England with the RLWC as far as attendance and media interest go.

It's such a different attitude from fans isn't it? Us rugby league fans think blowouts scores massively damage our international game and highlights how uncompetitive our nations are for the most part which we think will not appeal to people whereas football fans just think the bigger the battering the better despite being fully aware that certain nations will never be competitive. I don't really know which attitude is the better one to take tbh, we all want to see a highly skilled and competitive game of course but at the same time a complete pasting can be just as fun. 

[HawkMan]

21 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

It's such a different attitude from fans isn't it? Us rugby league fans think blowouts scores massively damage our international game and highlights how uncompetitive our nations are for the most part which we think will not appeal to people whereas football fans just think the bigger the battering the better despite being fully aware that certain nations will never be competitive. I don't really know which attitude is the better one to take tbh, we all want to see a highly skilled and competitive game of course but at the same time a complete pasting can be just as fun. 

I've thought about this a bit, and to see a football team get battered is mesmerising because it should not happen. You really have to be painfully,  jaw droppingly awful to lose like that at football. I remember watching live Southampton 0 Leicester 9, I was cheering Leicester because it was just plain bonkers. In football you can just pack the defence, boot the ball out, roll over and waste time, you should not get tanked unless you are comically pathetic.  In Rugby,  both codes, if you are weak, can't take the hits, you inevitably get steamrollered. There's no humour just a procession of tries to one team, in football it's a sort of, " OMG , this is hilarious "

Edited November 30, 2021 by HawkMan

[The Hallucinating Goose]

11 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

I've thought about this a bit, and to see a football team get battered is mesmerising because it should not happen. You really have to be painfully,  jaw droppingly awful to lose like that at football. I remember watching live Southampton 0 Leicester 9, I was cheering Leicester because it was just plain bonkers. In football you can just pack the defence, boot the ball out, roll over and waste time, you should not get tanked unless you are comically pathetic.  In Rugby,  both codes, if you are weak, can't take the hits, you inevitably get steamrollered. There's no humour just a procession of tries to one team, in football it's a sort of, " OMG , this is hilarious "

Yeah I think you've hit the nail on the head with this. Essentially, high levels and frequent levels of scoring is frequent in rugby especially since there are multiple ways of scoring, seeing a score ever couple of minutes is not particularly unusual whereas in football it is quite unusual to see a game with more than just a few scores so when one does occur it is seen as quite incredible.

To take the amounts of points we mentioned earlier, to see 100 points in rugby is not necessarily unusual and is a very entertaining game if the scoring is kept close, say the 100 points are split into a score of 52-48, this shows there has been suspense throughout the game, the score staying close, either teams being able to win right up to the end. Whereas 100-0, the game is very much over a long time from the end and it just becomes a procession of the same scoring again and again and just becomes boring. However in football, because you're expecting a 2-1 or a 1-0 or something like that most of the time and would in fact be very happy with these kinds of scores, when a 20-0 comes along it just astonishes and you can't quite believe what you're seeing. 

[Niels]

1 hour ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Yeah I think you've hit the nail on the head with this. Essentially, high levels and frequent levels of scoring is frequent in rugby especially since there are multiple ways of scoring, seeing a score ever couple of minutes is not particularly unusual whereas in football it is quite unusual to see a game with more than just a few scores so when one does occur it is seen as quite incredible.

To take the amounts of points we mentioned earlier, to see 100 points in rugby is not necessarily unusual and is a very entertaining game if the scoring is kept close, say the 100 points are split into a score of 52-48, this shows there has been suspense throughout the game, the score staying close, either teams being able to win right up to the end. Whereas 100-0, the game is very much over a long time from the end and it just becomes a procession of the same scoring again and again and just becomes boring. However in football, because you're expecting a 2-1 or a 1-0 or something like that most of the time and would in fact be very happy with these kinds of scores, when a 20-0 comes along it just astonishes and you can't quite believe what you're seeing. 

The men usually ease off once it becomes one sided. For example Liverpool v Man utd when it was 5-0 against 10 men is a recent example. 

I just don't think there is any need to embarrass an opponent in this manner. It shows a lack of class to me. 

 

[Guest]

My lad supports Newcastle, well both of them do. But one of them went to SJP last night. I didn't realise they hadn't won a game all season! He thought they would hang on. 

Supposedly no side has not won by this stage and not get relegated. 

[gingerjon]

5 hours ago, Niels said:

I just don't think there is any need to embarrass an opponent in this manner. It shows a lack of class to me. 

You obviously didn't watch it. There was absolutely no lack of class.

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, HawkMan said:

I've just been scanning social media and the fans are loving this. The England girls seem to get more popular by the game. This isn't going to hurt Women's football in the slightest.  A lot of folk on here believe that at next year's RLWC a few England blowout wins will really galvanise the country,  and I agree with that, so we can't have it both ways. Yep it's a blowout,  an equivalent RL score would be about 100- 0 , but it ain't going to de- rail Women's soccer.  Actually the fact of the matter is whereas in the men's game , in Europe alone 30 to 35 countries can give each other a good game, in the Women's it's about half that. Still I'd be interested to compare next year's Women's Euro's in England with the RLWC as far as attendance and media interest go.

The reason it was impressive was that England kept their focus pretty much throughout and, at no point, resorted to fancy tricks or showboating, or stopping playing out of 'respect' which always rather gives away what you think of the opposition. Latvia had a couple of decent players but there is an always gulf here and it will take a long time to close. I don't think we'll be seeing 20-0 too often - and the fact that it's 16 years since England's previous record (13-0) backs that up. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

Personally I don't think it does show respect to ease off against a lesser opponent because you are basically saying to them, "we know you are so rubbish that we don't even need to try against you". I've seen managers and fans of tiny nations in the men's game say they find it quite offensive when England show up to play them with their reserve team, the fans having gone, wanting to see the best players in the world play and being treated to a bunch of kids no one has heard of, again, the bigger nation just saying, "yeah we know we can beat you with a load of also rans". 

Surely carrying on playing with the same intensity throughout the game shows more respect to your opponent because you are showing that you feel you need to keep playing to the best of your ability to match their game, similarly not taking off your best players for the second half because they aren't needed anymore.