World Cup match chat

#1
Russia look to have got off to the start FIFA hoped for when they heated up those balls, can’t see them not winning this one now and should give them a shot at second place behind Uruguay.

Neither team looks much but Saudi Arabia look worst, pretty much knocked out by half time of the first game.
 
#3
The third ended the game, that’s as comfy as opening win as you could ask for. Huge game against Egypt next for Russia, if Salah is fit I can see him causing that defence big problems, they have won comfortably but against poor opposition.
 

Manorman

Junior Member
#6
5-0! Not sure why the last goal was given though spectacular as it was. 4 minutes were added but by the time the kick was taken the clock showed it was at least 15 seconds past 4minutes. Surely the clock doesn’t stop for free kicks to be taken.
 
#7
5-0, the most one sided opening score line I can remember, at least the Russians will get well into the tournament now and Putin won’t boot everyone out and cancel the whole tournament for at least another week.
 
#11
5-0! Not sure why the last goal was given though spectacular as it was. 4 minutes were added but by the time the kick was taken the clock showed it was at least 15 seconds past 4minutes. Surely the clock doesn’t stop for free kicks to be taken.
It kind of does actually. It's certainly been an unofficial rule since at least 1978 to let any play from set pieces continue. It's why you usually see the whistle blown when the ball is in the middle third of the pitch.
 

m

Active member
#12
Maybe a cliche but Saudi reminded me of us in the early Appleton days or Pep's team.

Fannying about with 15 foot passes without any clear objective. 60% possesion but ultimately humped by a team who didn't fanny about.

Reinforced my belief that tika-taka* played by poor teams is utter shite to watch - I think I'd prefer long-ball...

*can't be arsed to check if that's grammatically correct
 
#13
The Saudis passed the ball more and had a higher ball retention well into the second half from the stat they put on screen, but it was mostly nothing balls aiming to look pretty. Passing is all well and good but if it’s all you have then it gets you know where.
 

tonyw

Active member
#15
Thought the Saudis were almost unbelievably awful. Couldn't string three passes together, badly organised, slow, weak on the ball, zero cutting edge.
Reminded me a lot of their 2002 team that got humped 8-0 by the Germans and didn't score a goal all tournament. They had a comical build up to the World Cup and it showed.

Russia worked hard, pressed all over the park and were tough and uncompromising. And - fair play to them - Golovin came up with a great free kick and two sumptuous crosses whilst that Cheryshev guy can take a bow for two outstanding finishes. So there was some quality on show as well.

Obviously they'll have much, much tougher games ahead but they displayed a competence that a lot of people (including their own President) seemed to think was beyond them pre-tournament. And the tournament is always better off if the hosts are competent......
 

Manorman

Junior Member
#17
It kind of does actually. It's certainly been an unofficial rule since at least 1978 to let any play from set pieces continue. It's why you usually see the whistle blown when the ball is in the middle third of the pitch.
Maybe you are right. I remember Clive Thomas blew the whistle at a World Cup game in 1974 just as the ball was heading into the net from a corner I think. It obviously is safer for officials to wait until play is in a neutral area and maybe that incident brought about the change.
 
#18
It kind of does actually. It's certainly been an unofficial rule since at least 1978 to let any play from set pieces continue. It's why you usually see the whistle blown when the ball is in the middle third of the pitch.
Maybe you are right. I remember Clive Thomas blew the whistle at a World Cup game in 1974 just as the ball was heading into the net from a corner I think. It obviously is safer for officials to wait until play is in a neutral area and maybe that incident brought about the change.
I can see you probably didn't click the link in my original post!
 

Sarge

Well-known member
#19
Maybe you are right. I remember Clive Thomas blew the whistle at a World Cup game in 1974 just as the ball was heading into the net from a corner I think. It obviously is safer for officials to wait until play is in a neutral area and maybe that incident brought about the change.
It was 1978( as on @beyondthefourth link), Thomas the book, blew his whistle when BRAZIL were about to score in time added on, meaning Brazil drew 1-1 ...... Thomas ( who courted controversy throughout his career as a referee*) .... Thomas obviously hadnt hadn't read the FIFA directive that Brazil had to win that match! .... He never officiated a World Cup Finals match after that . Always have and always will be questionable FIFA and how they operate. .... World Cup Final Allocations, very strange draws for group stages, inexplicable decisions during matches etc etc etc , Plus backhanders and bribes, which came to a head under the Sepp Blatter regime .... corrupt & rotten to the core Fifa are IMO



*(anyone remember that curly haired tosser Keegan eventually getting Gary Rambo Briggs sent off very late in a U's home cup match v Newcastle, after pecking ref for that one Clive Thomas' head the entire game because Briggs had Keegan in his pocket all match, Keegan didn't get a sniff of the ball until Briggs went off. Then the permed midget scored a consolation goal. Final score was, I think, Oxford Utd $ Newcastle 1)
 

SteMerritt

Moderator
Staff member
#20
I don't think the Briggsy sending off was massively late, think it was around the 70min mark or so (although I may be wrong). But Keegan was certainly in the ref's ear all game.
 
Top Bottom