WORLD CUP FINAL: France v Croatia, 4pm BST, BBC and ITV

The World Cup comes to end.. a World Cup Arsenal dominated

Best goal: Xhaka against Serbia

Best midfielder: Torreira

Best assistant manager: Thierry Henry

Best pundit: Arsene Wenger

Best unused subtitute: Welbz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

Have you just recently started watching sport?

---

Ha, no, i'm just naive enough to think standards are supposed to be getting better...

Me: :pal:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Overmars

The penalty was a bit harsh but I don’t think the balance of play was so heavily in Croatia’s favour to say the best team lost. Just sounds like glorious failure to me from a nice and functional team but with no real and consistent threat in the final third. I don’t think they would have got anywhere near the final without being in the pub side of the draw and even en route to this final they made it a real struggle going to penalties and extra time in every game.

Meh, ordinary team with a few tidy players.

France are deserving winners.

---

C'mon, Croatia completely bossed it for a good 60 mins, but inevitably the ref's interventions turned the game because they had to try to come from behind

It's not the team with the best players that deserves to win, it's the team that plays the best football, consistently, and Croatia was that team for me, take the point about the draw but they still had a much harder route than, say, england

They beat argentina 3-0 remember, plus beating the home nation with the whole crowd against them and i reckon they'd have beaten germany and spain easily, and would have given brazil and portugal a run for their money too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mac76

This game is fixed that's why

---

By whom and to what end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

By whom and to what end?

---

By Putin to destroy decadent capitalist pig

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mac76

C'mon, Croatia completely bossed it for a good 60 mins, but inevitably the ref's interventions turned the game because they had to try to come from behind

It's not the team with the best players that deserves to win, it's the team that plays the best football, consistently, and Croatia was that team for me, take the point about the draw but they still had a much harder route than, say, england

They beat argentina 3-0 remember, plus beating the home nation with the whole crowd against them and i reckon they'd have beaten germany and spain easily, and would have given brazil and portugal a run for their money too

---

Don't really agree with this, Croatia did well in the first half, penalty for me was a tough one could have gone either way, he seemed to stick out his hand, but then it was also close. 2nd half France controlled it and had 2-3 more opportunities they should have scored, Croatia only scored through luck when Loris made a mess of it when France were cruising.

Best side (on the day and in terms of quality) won, I agree with MO their side of the draw was easy no big teams at all in the knockouts, that's unheard of in the World Cup, in all honesty they laboured through that side of the draw, even England could have beaten them if they'd put their chances away in the 1st half when they were on top.

They did well and all that but no doubt the better team won on the day, more quality, more goal threat, more chances.

I didn't actually see the final, watched the highlights this morning. Looked eventful.
The penalty was nonsense in my opinion but otherwise I don't know what you're all crying about.
France were the stand out team in this tournament, IMO. I expected them to win the final and they did.
Overall it wasn't a high quality tournament but France deserve to be champions. I'd buy allegations of fixing if Russia had won it, but they didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Overmars

I have no affinity for Giroud at all but I could probably say the same for a lot of Arsenal players over the past 10 years. Maybe it’s because I’m older now and have no interest in hero-worshipping footballers like I did when I was a kid.

---

Me neither, think he's rubbish frankly and should be nowhere near the France team. Typical Wenger player, some nice touches at times but a poor finisher, not a great amount of ability, we've seen his usual missed in this World Cup, even Chelsea want rid apparently now.

Glad we sold the guy to be honest, never good enough and it's embarassing we kept him as our number 1 striker for so long tbh.

:lol: Why do you lack the simplest ability to think in any other ways than black and white?
Giroud is not "rubbish", but he's not World Class. He's not the sort of player who will drag you to a title, or a World Cup.
As a squad player he did a good job for us, he scored a load of goals coming off the bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

I didn't actually see the final, watched the highlights this morning. Looked eventful.
The penalty was nonsense in my opinion but otherwise I don't know what you're all crying about.
France were the stand out team in this tournament, IMO. I expected them to win the final and they did.
Overall it wasn't a high quality tournament but France deserve to be champions. I'd buy allegations of fixing if Russia had won it, but they didn't.

---

Some GW villains were successful, that usually means a faux outpour of annoyance. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

:lol: Why do you lack the simplest ability to think in any other ways than black and white?
Giroud is not "rubbish", but he's not World Class. He's not the sort of player who will drag you to a title, or a World Cup.
As a squad player he did a good job for us, he scored a load of goals coming off the bench.

---

I don't rate the guy, went missing too often, went long spells without scoring goals, he scored the odd spectacular goal I'll grant you that, but just not my kind of player.

Good job is debatable, I think he missed key chances that cost us personally and when we needed him the most he usually went missing. Not his fault of course he can't help that's he's very limited, but just should have never been anywhere near this club IMO, somehow we manage to pick the players from small clubs who never amount to anything most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Özim

I don't rate the guy.

---

Noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

By whom and to what end?

---

maybe i didn't really mean it...?

Maybe. But when it's just a string of words on a computer screen it's not easy to tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Özim

Don't really agree with this, Croatia did well in the first half, penalty for me was a tough one could have gone either way, he seemed to stick out his hand, but then it was also close. 2nd half France controlled it and had 2-3 more opportunities they should have scored, Croatia only scored through luck when Loris made a mess of it when France were cruising.

Best side (on the day and in terms of quality) won, I agree with MO their side of the draw was easy no big teams at all in the knockouts, that's unheard of in the World Cup, in all honesty they laboured through that side of the draw, even England could have beaten them if they'd put their chances away in the 1st half when they were on top.

They did well and all that but no doubt the better team won on the day, more quality, more goal threat, more chances.

---

"more quality" - maybe on overall quality of the side, but take out Mbappe and Croatia's players weren't far off - not just Modric but Strinic, Rakitic, and many others really stepped up though i would admit they wasted some chances

"more goal threat" - no, not until they went 2-1 up thanks to the ref and they could then pick off Croatia on the break

"more chances" - ditto the above

anyway if England had pubbed their way to the title most of you would have said 'we deserved to win, we won through on the day' even though France woudl have been far the better team, so why is it that when it's Croatia that doesn't count for anything and it's all 'oh well France is the better team so that's that'?

Tell you what, why bother holding a tournament, why not just get a panel to assess the quality of each player in every squad and award the trophy to the one that's most highly rated????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mac76

"more quality" - maybe on overall quality of the side, but take out Mbappe and Croatia's players weren't far off - not just Modric but Strinic, Rakitic, and many others really stepped up though i would admit they wasted some chances

"more goal threat" - no, not until they went 2-1 up thanks to the ref and they could then pick off Croatia on the break

"more chances" - ditto the above

anyway if England had pubbed their way to the title most of you would have said 'we deserved to win, we won through on the day' even though France woudl have been far the better team, so why is it that when it's Croatia that doesn't count for anything and it's all 'oh well France is the better team so that's that'?

Tell you what, why bother holding a tournament, why not just get a panel to assess the quality of each player in every squad and award the trophy to the one that's most highly rated????

---

France have so much quality, look at some of the players they have, yes Mbappe is outstanding but they also have Griezmann, Kante, Pogba, Varane, Mendy, Matuidi, Dembele, Lemar, Fekir, Loris ignoring Payet who was injured and the others who weren't picked!

Doesn't matter when the goal threat came, a game is 90 minutes, France came out in the 2nd half and controlled the game and won it fairly easily in the end, they missed a 2-3 chances they were casual with that you'd expect them to put away if they weren't cruising as well, Croatia barely had a sniff in the 2nd half.

England were never going to win it, they might have got to the final because of the favourable draw but in the final they would have lost, everyone knew the winner would come from the other side of the draw.

Croatia had a good run, worked hard and did well to get to the final, for me though the game against England showed that whilst they're a good side they aren't a top side, they have a few standout players (all into or almost into their 30s) but lack a real goal threat.

Ok. OK. This is a sentence I don't think I've ever typed before and didn't think I'd ever have cause to, but...
Zim is right.
:sick:
France were the best side in this tournament, they had a tough route to the final and had England stumbled their way through to the final France would have torn us apart.
England aren't a top side. We were better than I expected us to be and I actually enjoyed watching us play. But the draw did open up for us, had we played anyone that good before the semi-final we wouldn't have reached it.

Slightly changing tack, it's a complete joke that Kane got the Golden Boot. Half of them were penalties. He wasn't a standout player of the tournament, he wasn't even a standout player in the England Squad (Trippier and Pickford, for me)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

Ok. OK. This is a sentence I don't think I've ever typed before and didn't think I'd ever have cause to, but...
Zim is right.
:sick:
France were the best side in this tournament, they had a tough route to the final and had England stumbled their way through to the final France would have torn us apart.
England aren't a top side. We were better than I expected us to be and I actually enjoyed watching us play. But the draw did open up for us, had we played anyone that good before the semi-final we wouldn't have reached it.

Slightly changing tack, it's a complete joke that Kane got the Golden Boot. Half of them were penalties. He wasn't a standout player of the tournament, he wasn't even a standout player in the England Squad (Trippier and Pickford, for me)

---

Worst golden boot ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GP

Worst golden boot ever.

---

By a mile. He really wasn't that good in this tournament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

Ok. OK. This is a sentence I don't think I've ever typed before and didn't think I'd ever have cause to, but...
Zim is right.
:sick:
France were the best side in this tournament, they had a tough route to the final and had England stumbled their way through to the final France would have torn us apart.
England aren't a top side. We were better than I expected us to be and I actually enjoyed watching us play. But the draw did open up for us, had we played anyone that good before the semi-final we wouldn't have reached it.

Slightly changing tack, it's a complete joke that Kane got the Golden Boot. Half of them were penalties. He wasn't a standout player of the tournament, he wasn't even a standout player in the England Squad (Trippier and Pickford, for me)

---

Oddly enough, I agree about Kane! :faint:

I know they all count, but most of them were against Panama who were terrible and probably the worst team in the tournament. Penalties are an odd one as clearly they're easier to score than most goals, but I guess you can't discount them totally. Maybe they should have a rule where either they only count if you won them yourself (as in the player that scores them won them) or that only the person that wins it can take the penalty.

I think they should count and there's no denying he took them well, but it's not the same as a goal form open play.
It does massively water down the achievement of winning the golden boot.
I even had a Spurs fan friend admit Kane didn't have a great tournament, he was playing so deep, I'm not sure why.

Kane was average at best, it's a very meaningless golden boot and I bet there's a part of him that is slightly embarrassed about it as well. The goals against Tunisia were pretty much as good as it got for him in the tournament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

I think they should count and there's no denying he took them well, but it's not the same as a goal form open play.
It does massively water down the achievement of winning the golden boot.
I even had a Spurs fan friend admit Kane didn't have a great tournament, he was playing so deep, I'm not sure why.

---

If in golden boot terms we call a goal a 'point' then i think at best penalties should be half a point.

also i think whether the goal was intentional should count - that goal off kane's arse was totally random and it shouldn't be counted towards a prize for scoring goals, as that is there to reward skill

again at best maybe give a 'half-point' as he was in the box in an attacking position which is something

so put that together and Kane's total would have been 4 points, which would be a far better reflection although arguably still a little flattering...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Özim

France have so much quality, look at some of the players they have, yes Mbappe is outstanding but they also have Griezmann, Kante, Pogba, Varane, Mendy, Matuidi, Dembele, Lemar, Fekir, Loris ignoring Payet who was injured and the others who weren't picked!

Doesn't matter when the goal threat came, a game is 90 minutes, France came out in the 2nd half and controlled the game and won it fairly easily in the end, they missed a 2-3 chances they were casual with that you'd expect them to put away if they weren't cruising as well, Croatia barely had a sniff in the 2nd half.

England were never going to win it, they might have got to the final because of the favourable draw but in the final they would have lost, everyone knew the winner would come from the other side of the draw.

Croatia had a good run, worked hard and did well to get to the final, for me though the game against England showed that whilst they're a good side they aren't a top side, they have a few standout players (all into or almost into their 30s) but lack a real goal threat.

---

you're still basically saying that a team that has the best players deserves to get unfair decisions in their favour because they're just the best team.

so if it had been the other way around and Croatia had had the lucky breaks you're saying it wouldn't have been fair for them to have won, but it's ok for France because they're the 'better team' ?

it still comes down to whether you believe in the whole point of a tournament, i.e. teams being able to overform to upset the odds, or whether you think we should just have a computer decide how everyoen will finish beforehand...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mac76

you're still basically saying that a team that has the best players deserves to get unfair decisions in their favour because they're just the best team.

so if it had been the other way around and Croatia had had the lucky breaks you're saying it wouldn't have been fair for them to have won, but it's ok for France because they're the 'better team' ?

it still comes down to whether you believe in the whole point of a tournament, i.e. teams being able to overform to upset the odds, or whether you think we should just have a computer decide how everyoen will finish beforehand...

---

Croatia were unlucky for the penalty decision. The freekick decision too, but you can't ignore the bad defending that led to the goal. That was of their own making. The unfortunate part comes down to the ref having to be conned into a giving a freekick to that piece of shit. But how can you ignore the piss poor defending and set up?

Also, on the few occasions Croatia broke down the flanks and had a good opportunity to play a dangerous cross, they over hit it. This happened two or three times from what I recall. That's another thing you're missing out. They weren't the best team. Possession means nothing. Arsenal should know that more than anyone else.

I think France had a perfectly balanced team to play the way they did. They looked to hit teams on the counter. When you have a really good defence and a tackling beast like Kante in the side, passers and pace, why set yourself up any other way? Argentina, Spain and Germany went out because they tried to dominate possession. It was their downfall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mac76

you're still basically saying that a team that has the best players deserves to get unfair decisions in their favour because they're just the best team.

so if it had been the other way around and Croatia had had the lucky breaks you're saying it wouldn't have been fair for them to have won, but it's ok for France because they're the 'better team' ?

it still comes down to whether you believe in the whole point of a tournament, i.e. teams being able to overform to upset the odds, or whether you think we should just have a computer decide how everyoen will finish beforehand...

---

Im not saying that at all, I'm saying the better side won, France created more chances and blew them away in the 2nd half, Croatia were never going to win that game, even if they didn't get the free kick and didn't get the penalty pretty sure they would have won, as I said Croatia barely created a chance in the 2nd half, the only goal they got was a freebie from Loris when France were cruising.

They had 45 minutes to equalise, instead they proceeded to conceded 2 more goals (should have been 4 with the sitters that were missed).

I believe teams should be able to upset the odds, but on merit, Mexico did, South Korea did, Russia did, Japan almost did etc Croatia didn't deserve to and didn't, they didn't even look close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Özim

Im not saying that at all, I'm saying the better side won, France created more chances and blew them away in the 2nd half, Croatia were never going to win that game, even if they didn't get the free kick and didn't get the penalty pretty sure they would have won, as I said Croatia barely created a chance in the 2nd half, the only goal they got was a freebie from Loris when France were cruising.

They had 45 minutes to equalise, instead they proceeded to conceded 2 more goals (should have been 4 with the sitters that were missed).

I believe teams should be able to upset the odds, but on merit, Mexico did, South Korea did, Russia did, Japan almost did etc Croatia didn't deserve to and didn't, they didn't even look close.

---

Ok, thanks for sticking with it, i don't totally agree still but i think the truth is maybe halfway between what we're both saying

I still think that ref totally ruined the game and I for one felt i'd wasted my time on it - as far as i'm concerned, whether or not France deserved to win, fair play lost

Love the story that’s come out about Kante being too shy to celebrate with the trophy while his teammates lapped it up. :lol:

Wish we had discovered him before he went to Leicester.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Overmars

Love the story that’s come out about Kante being too shy to celebrate with the trophy while his teammates lapped it up. :lol:

Wish we had discovered him before he went to Leicester.

---

Yep Giroud & Kante are the two French lads whose success I can really admire given that they've both had to really work for it. Starting right at the bottom of the lower leagues, trying to get noticed and slowly progressing up the ladder. Not having the benefits of being at a top club from a young age and getting coaching & development at their elite academies under the tutelage of world class coaches. A shonenesque story of hard work and never giving up on your dreams.

Unsurprisingly it's probably the reason why they're both incredibly humble & grounded individuals (seen in the above story) which is refreshing as most modern day top-level footballers are seen as over-egotistical fucks with incredible wealth & material possession heaped on them at a young age.