2018 FIFA World Cup Qualifiers and International Friendlies ** Spoilers ** [22nd - 28th March 2017]
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
It's like watching a pre-season game so far, I'm happy for Defoe though he's one of the best players to be snubbed by England and the type of striker we've been missing for years.
England can move forward now that Rooney is no longer swanning around and taking up a spot, it's not a coincidence that he's been dropped like a ton of bricks as soon as he's broken those records.
England can move forward now that Rooney is no longer swanning around and taking up a spot, it's not a coincidence that he's been dropped like a ton of bricks as soon as he's broken those records.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,255
- Location
- Cornwall
He probably hasn't been picked for England because he doesn't have much to his game and there have always been far better players ahead of him. As it is, playing someone like him in this system makes no sense at all.
And just as I'm writing that, one of those players makes it 2-0.
Just pathetic.
Simple solution here...just ban the teams from playing or shove their games behind closed doors. The last thing people need right now, especially in Paris is idiots storming the players.
I was watching the England game the other day and had to switch off as it was so dull. One thing that really annoys me is Eric Dier in CDM against poor opposition. Now I like Dier, but it's so frustrating watching him take it off one of Stones/Keane only to pass it to... Stones/Keane. He doesn't have the class of an Alonso or a Pirlo to find those intriciate little balls - that's a type of player we seem to lack at the moment. I'm hoping Ward-Prowse will come good. The Ox also looked out of place it midfield.
Not all bad though; Keane looks like he is really progressing; Stones looks like he's learning that he doesn't always have to play champagne football, Lallana is fun to watch; Rashford looks class.
We were always going to beat Lithuania. The only teams that should give us any bother are Slovakia, Slovenia and only because they would be super up for it, Scotland.
Not all bad though; Keane looks like he is really progressing; Stones looks like he's learning that he doesn't always have to play champagne football, Lallana is fun to watch; Rashford looks class.
We were always going to beat Lithuania. The only teams that should give us any bother are Slovakia, Slovenia and only because they would be super up for it, Scotland.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,255
- Location
- Cornwall
WTF? Video assistance for the France vs Spain game tonight? About ******* time!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,255
- Location
- Cornwall
Video ref has already proved its worth.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,255
- Location
- Cornwall
Pretty much destroyed Ince's 10 minute rant before the program started 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,735
- Location
- Welling, London
Nice and quick, no bother. Just bring it in everywhere asap.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,255
- Location
- Cornwall
That looked very soft so I'm surprised it didn't go to the video ref.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,255
- Location
- Cornwall
That was a bit more of a delay but that was another good call.
Edit: Paul Ince makes me want to listen to Chris Sutton.
Edit: Paul Ince makes me want to listen to Chris Sutton.
Last edited:
Regarding the delays, I don't normally read comments on BBC sport (or instantly regret doing so) but as one person pointed out, a 30s delay isn't really any longer than often gets wasted on goal kicks. If there's a controversial penalty and/or red card the fracas afterwards often goes on for a couple of minutes as well.
Doubtless there will be a few quirky situations we'll need to get past but I think that is a price worth paying to move away from the highly impactful incorrect decisions we see every weekend (many of which are quite understandable when you consider they are real time from a single angle made by human's trying to keep track of multiple things at the same time). Offside is a classic example of a flawed decision making process because the person making it needs to be running exactly in line with the penultimate defender whilst simultaneously looking both directly across at them, and at the ball.
Doubtless there will be a few quirky situations we'll need to get past but I think that is a price worth paying to move away from the highly impactful incorrect decisions we see every weekend (many of which are quite understandable when you consider they are real time from a single angle made by human's trying to keep track of multiple things at the same time). Offside is a classic example of a flawed decision making process because the person making it needs to be running exactly in line with the penultimate defender whilst simultaneously looking both directly across at them, and at the ball.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
We've had really slow decisions on offsides recently anyway, the difference being a goal being disallowed or allowed incorrectly after it which changed the result. Also after poor decisions we usually get players arguing back because some will know it's wrong, which adds to the delay.
When you have a video replay the confidence in said decision will go through the roof with mistakes being incredibly rare, as a result players will after a very short period simply stop fighting said decisions and get straight back on with the game. When you feel aggrieved that the refs/lino has made the wrong call you won't accept it, when you feel like it's 99% likely to be accurate, you might be disappointed but you'll feel it's a fair decision and feel no need to argue with players surrounding the ref.
The delay wasn't at all longer than normal controversial decisions. However if you're into football, you're already dedicating lets say an average of 45min travel time each way, 90 mins of normal time, 7-8 mins of extra time, 15 mins of half time..... but adding 90 seconds of video replays ruins the day? Fact is after all that travel and on average lets call it 110mins start to finish, ultimately fans will feel far better seeing a fair result than wasting that time just for a ref to cheat you out of a fair result.
But another HUGE point that gets overlooked is the time video replays will save. If you have a system where like a lot of other sports, maybe managers get 3 challenges but lose one if they are wrong, then things like dives for penalties, dives to get players sent off, shirt pulling in the box, over a course of a few weeks of loads of challenges in a match, red cards and teams losing games due to diving and shirt pulling, after a few weeks players will stop doing these things entirely. So that 2-3 dives a game where a ref wastes time arguing with players who say they didn't touch the other guy, players pretending to be injured to try to get the other guy a card, dead play while they wait to take a freekick/penalty/be fake treated by a trainer/arguing, that will all pretty much stop and save a hell of a lot of time.
Currently players dive because there is a big payback in terms of risk/reward, players pull shirts for the same thing. If diving means an almost certain yellow card because the other player tells his manage to review the decision then players will stop diving.
I would have no problem if video replays meant major decisions added 90 seconds to a game, or even 4 minutes, I'd prefer to watch a fair game than a marginally shorter unfair one. But the reality is having video replays will stop a LOT of cheating and prevent a lot of stoppages in play from diving and players arguing with refs.
When you have a video replay the confidence in said decision will go through the roof with mistakes being incredibly rare, as a result players will after a very short period simply stop fighting said decisions and get straight back on with the game. When you feel aggrieved that the refs/lino has made the wrong call you won't accept it, when you feel like it's 99% likely to be accurate, you might be disappointed but you'll feel it's a fair decision and feel no need to argue with players surrounding the ref.
The delay wasn't at all longer than normal controversial decisions. However if you're into football, you're already dedicating lets say an average of 45min travel time each way, 90 mins of normal time, 7-8 mins of extra time, 15 mins of half time..... but adding 90 seconds of video replays ruins the day? Fact is after all that travel and on average lets call it 110mins start to finish, ultimately fans will feel far better seeing a fair result than wasting that time just for a ref to cheat you out of a fair result.
But another HUGE point that gets overlooked is the time video replays will save. If you have a system where like a lot of other sports, maybe managers get 3 challenges but lose one if they are wrong, then things like dives for penalties, dives to get players sent off, shirt pulling in the box, over a course of a few weeks of loads of challenges in a match, red cards and teams losing games due to diving and shirt pulling, after a few weeks players will stop doing these things entirely. So that 2-3 dives a game where a ref wastes time arguing with players who say they didn't touch the other guy, players pretending to be injured to try to get the other guy a card, dead play while they wait to take a freekick/penalty/be fake treated by a trainer/arguing, that will all pretty much stop and save a hell of a lot of time.
Currently players dive because there is a big payback in terms of risk/reward, players pull shirts for the same thing. If diving means an almost certain yellow card because the other player tells his manage to review the decision then players will stop diving.
I would have no problem if video replays meant major decisions added 90 seconds to a game, or even 4 minutes, I'd prefer to watch a fair game than a marginally shorter unfair one. But the reality is having video replays will stop a LOT of cheating and prevent a lot of stoppages in play from diving and players arguing with refs.