France vs Belgium...so far I’ve seen nothing to scare

Croatia

:badoomtish:
:tumbleweed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony C

Croatia

:badoomtish:
:tumbleweed:

---

As we know T, either of these will destroy either of ours

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barrybueno

As we know T, either of these will destroy either of ours

---

France were extremely impressive. The organisation and commitment went far beyond what I thought Deschamps would get from this team. It was a fortunate goal to win it, but they created the best chances.

De Bruyne was very ordinary and left Hazard too much to do on his own.

I don't think England would get a single player into France's starting XI. Kane isn't as good as Mbappe and wouldn't be the domestique that Giroud has been throughout the tournament. Even if you did argue his case, it's one out of XI.

England are also determined and organised, great at set pieces, so they'd have a chance. I actually think England would prove a tougher challenge than Croatia, but it's a one off game, so who knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFC East

France were extremely impressive. The organisation and commitment went far beyond what I thought Deschamps would get from this team. It was a fortunate goal to win it, but they created the best chances.

De Bruyne was very ordinary and left Hazard too much to do on his own.

I don't think England would get a single player into France's starting XI. Kane isn't as good as Mbappe and wouldn't be the domestique that Giroud has been throughout the tournament. Even if you did argue his case, it's one out of XI.

England are also determined and organised, great at set pieces, so they'd have a chance. I actually think England would prove a tougher challenge than Croatia, but it's a one off game, so who knows?

---

The comparison of Kane to Mbappe is a strange one as the comparison should clearly be to Giroud. And Kane is miles better than Giroud at every aspect of the game, scoring goals in particular. And Trippier gets into the France team at RB very easily. Stones ahead of Umtiti as well. There would be those that would argue that Pickford has been as good as any keeper in the tournament as well. If you're as good as your opposition in goal and much better at no. 9 you've taken a big step towards winning.

But all of that sort of misses the point. It's the World Cup, not the Champions League. Teams that are more than the sum of their parts beating teams that are less than the sum of their parts happens routinely and as you said, it's a one off game. That's why analysis like 'England cannot win the World Cup with Henderson and Lindgard in their team' is deeply flawed.

I tried pointing this out a few days back but that Bavarian f*ckwit - amongst others - did a pretty good job of being too thick to get it.

This will come down to 1 thing...

If Maguire / Walker can contain Mbappe in their 1 v 1 battles then England will win this cosily imo

The French are still playing a 4231 but rely too much on Mbappe creating the space for the rest of the players in behind to press and control the flow of the game.

Without him they are 100% Hot Garbage imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony C

This will come down to 1 thing...

If Maguire / Walker can contain Mbappe in their 1 v 1 battles then England will win this cosily imo

The French are still playing a 4231 but rely too much on Mbappe creating the space for the rest of the players in behind to press and control the flow of the game.

Without him they are 100% Hot Garbage imo

---

England will struggle with the mobility of Mbappe and Greaseman, tbh. Whether Giroud is the centre forward who will win you a world cup remains to be seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

England will struggle with the mobility of Mbappe and Greaseman, tbh. Whether Giroud is the centre forward who will win you a world cup remains to be seen.

---

I think Giroud is their Sterling, they seem to need him for reasons we don't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barrybueno

I think Giroud is their Sterling, they seem to need him for reasons we don't understand.

---

I am a great admirer of the big, beardy galoot, but worry that his finishing isn't quite dependable enough.

I really think you should be discussing at this point whether England are likely to beat Croatia, rather than France.

You know the rules. You have upset the Gods of Football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

I really think you should be discussing at this point whether England are likely to beat Croatia, rather than France.

You know the rules. You have upset the Gods of Football.

---

Meh! I'm getting paid out* in a sweepstake regardless. France :cloud9:

*it'll just about cover the cost of all the other sweeps I entered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFC East

France were extremely impressive. The organisation and commitment went far beyond what I thought Deschamps would get from this team. It was a fortunate goal to win it, but they created the best chances.

De Bruyne was very ordinary and left Hazard too much to do on his own.

I don't think England would get a single player into France's starting XI. Kane isn't as good as Mbappe and wouldn't be the domestique that Giroud has been throughout the tournament. Even if you did argue his case, it's one out of XI.

England are also determined and organised, great at set pieces, so they'd have a chance. I actually think England would prove a tougher challenge than Croatia, but it's a one off game, so who knows?

---

The commentator was right, Belgium had run out of ideas. Klinsmann. Weren't at the races. Which is weird, considering it's the semifinal of the damned World Cup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

The comparison of Kane to Mbappe is a strange one as the comparison should clearly be to Giroud. And Kane is miles better than Giroud at every aspect of the game, scoring goals in particular. And Trippier gets into the France team at RB very easily. Stones ahead of Umtiti as well. There would be those that would argue that Pickford has been as good as any keeper in the tournament as well. If you're as good as your opposition in goal and much better at no. 9 you've taken a big step towards winning.

But all of that sort of misses the point. It's the World Cup, not the Champions League. Teams that are more than the sum of their parts beating teams that are less than the sum of their parts happens routinely and as you said, it's a one off game. That's why analysis like 'England cannot win the World Cup with Henderson and Lindgard in their team' is deeply flawed.

I tried pointing this out a few days back but that Bavarian f*ckwit - amongst others - did a pretty good job of being too thick to get it.

---

You don't seem to have read my post, so I'll do you the same service.

.............