Also, blame our national "anthems". Whenever I hear La Marseillaise I honestly wish I was French. I listened to Bravado from the Clockwork Angels tour tonight. What a beautiful song. The lyrics are probably a bit too close to the truth of what Scottish independence might be in reality, but imagine a nation getting behind a tune that isn't a hymn to Charlie the unfaithful husband. Some sort of unity in Glasgow my beloved city would be a start though. Reach for the stars, eh?

England's anthem ought to be Manowar's HAIL TO ENGLAND, the England soccerball team could take to wearing furry nappies too. That'd inspire them.

Quote from: dom on December 11, 2022, 05:49:24 PMThey were the key moments of the match and they were far more relevant than any questionable decisions. Had much more of an impact than any wrong call by the man in black.

You must know that's not true, come on Dom. France made it through to the semi only because of consitently unfair refereeing, I have no doubt about that. It's possible France would have edged their way through in a fair contest, I won't deny that. I think it's improbable on balance, but we'll never know.

I absolutely don't believe that to be the case. The referee was poor I don't deny but not to the degree that he changed the course of the match. All of the big decisions ended up being correct once VAR had its say.

Over the 90 minutes England were the better team but France more clinical.   The ref didn't change that. He didn't decide to make France more clinical and England less so. That was down to the players and managers.

OK Dom, I accept that your perspective coincides very nicely with what you'd find most convenient. You genuinely believe it, and perhaps you also think that referees don't really have an influence on football games. I'll accept that you honestly believe these things if you like, though many wouldn't, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I genuinely believe that in certain parts of the world (ahem) referees have a not so secret agenda. Alex Ferguson made a hugely revealing statement in an STV documentary when he was the manager of Aberdeen. Referees can very often influence the results of games. Personal hatred, bigotry, sectarianism, Brexit, empire building history, racism. You name it. Certain groups will always suffer from this, there's no real protection and England are definitely high on the hated list. Ask Eurovision (except this year). 😁

Quote from: Slim on December 11, 2022, 11:38:04 PMOK Dom, I accept that your perspective coincides very nicely with what you'd find most convenient. You genuinely believe it, and perhaps you also think that referees don't really have an influence on football games. I'll accept that you honestly believe these things if you like, though many wouldn't, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

When Henry handled the ball in 2009 against Ireland and wasn't spotted by the ref and his assistants was an example of poor referring influencing the result of a match. Another time was Schumaker nearly beheaded Battiston in 1982 and wasn't even booked. schumaker went on to be the hero for West Germany in the penalty shootout. I'm sure there are plenty of others too. Such as when a ref sends undeservedly sends of a player or the reverse.

He was a poor ref but not to the extent that he adversely affected the game in France's favour. I thought his biggest error was not giving a fk to England 30 yards out when Saka was fouled. He could also have booked Greizmann a foul or 2 earlier than he actually did. Neither decision altered the course of the game in any meaningful way imo.

The big calls were spot on even if he didn't call them right originally.

The referee dished out three yellow cards to French players - one of those before half time to Griezmann - compared to one for England, very late on to Maguire.  He correctly awarded two blatant penalties to England, whereas the more debatable decisions - chiefly when Saka was floored by the stronger physicality of his opponent and when Kane was challenged just outside the box - were just that: debatable, hence he understandably wasn't as certain about those marginal decisions as he was rightly totally certain about the penalties.  Also, with England players aggrieved about those sort of decisions, any decisions against them that quickly followed - as they did - were seen through a skewed lens of injustice against them.  So the referee, who I would agree didn't have a great game, nonetheless wasn't as bad as the likes of Gary Neville bitterly ranted about.

So what of the actual players who did or didn't influence the game in key moments?  Well, the most prominent example for all to see, which also represented the match in microcosm, was the contrast between Griezmann - France's best player who demonstrated his considerable class throughout and swung into the box the delivery of the tournament - and Bellingham, the feted golden boy of English football, who toiled and huffed and puffed and was exposed against truly world class opposition as a far from finished article; to be fair, he didn't ask for all the hype, but neither did he deserve it.

And then there was Maguire vs. Giroud; the former actually looking fairly comfortable, the latter anonymous - until they weren't, with that killer winning goal.  But that's what separates canny Champions from plucky contenders.       

This is the article to which I referred earlier - hits the nail right on the head with every sentence:

France overcame England because champion teams win the big moments

QuoteWith one bullet in the gun, Giroud did his job and Kane failed to do his. But the game was also won and lost in the smaller moments: the moments when France simply flexed their imperial strength, reached into their database of solutions and made their vision flesh.

QuoteEngland rose to the occasion. France had no need, for the occasion was already France-sized. England were brave. France had no need to be brave, as their default level of courage was already sufficient. England believed. France knew.

Classic Guardian, that. Sorry, but it's been written for no other reason than to mock and belittle this country.

Not read it then - it's actually brimming with compliments and pride about England's display.  But admits it simply wasn't enough.

It's a great article and I really like the reference to Real Madrid.  So many Champion league victories when they weren't the best team in the tournament.  In the World Cup the same has been true of Germany and Italy in past tournaments. Just that bit of nous that seems to count more than pure ability. 

Quote from: Matt2112 on December 12, 2022, 03:13:15 PMNot read it then - it's actually brimming with compliments and pride about England's display.  But admits it simply wasn't enough.

I read a few paragraphs until my stomach started to turn. I'm sure the compliments are only there as a sort of insincere credibility vehicle for the usual Guardian foreigner-worshipping anti-British stance.

I won't give a detailed response as it will move the discussion into politics but that's nonsense

I'm sure it looks that way to you, but it certainly isn't.

Same paper, same day, different sport - spot the Brit bashing?

QuoteMark Wood blew through Pakistan either side of lunch on the fourth day to claim a nervy 26-run win in the second Test and a famous series victory.

England had won two Tests on Pakistani soil before this tour but in the space of two weeks, and after last week's ransacking of Rawalpindi, they have now doubled this. Ben Stokes and his band of ultra-aggressors will head to Karachi for the series finale that starts on Saturday with an unassailable 2-0 lead and another chapter in their remarkable transformation secured.