World Cup 2018 | 14th July | Third Place: Belgium vs England, KO 15:00 (BST)

[Robinho's Subbuteo]

Why on earth is Kane Captain of England? He's an incredibly selfish player. The fact that he strenuously appealed a goal decision he didn't even touch to rob it from a Spurs team-mate, Eriksen I think it was, along with that player's goal bonus tells you all you need to know about whether he's a team player or not.

I've also always believed that a Captain should be in the thick of it. Not up front and not a keeper either. Centre half or a Centre Mid.

 

[SpiritofBurnden]

So your basically telling me that if sterling was in kanes position in that exact moment, he wouldnt of squared the ball ? I dont believe that for a second. This was the semi final of a world cup, when we could have gone 2-0 up at the break.

So why didn't he do it in the quarter final then?

What makes you think he would have scored anyway, given that he managed to miss an open goal completely when Lingard squared it to him in the Tunisia game?

 

[JimB]

I mentioned after an earlier WC game but it's worth repeating.....Kane has been played very differently by Southgate than he is by Pochettino for Spurs. City fans have, perhaps correctly, been complaining that Sterling wasn't used to best effect. The same is true of Kane.

It would also be fair to say that he hasn't looked 100% fit since his ankle injury towards the end of last season - even for Spurs. As to being selfish, sure........all high scoring strikers are. They always back themselves. It's part of what makes them so effective. But it would be quite wrong to say that Kane doesn't put a shift in and doesn't also have an excellent passing game and contribute plenty of assists (or assists to assists).

It's such an English thing to slag off our best players when they play for England.....Sterling, Kane, whoever.

 

[CityInWashingtonState]

Complete nonsense I'm afraid. If Spain had beaten Russia and Germany topped their group we'd have had a final 8 of:
France, Uruguay, Brazil, Belgium, Spain, Croatia, Germany and England.
That's a fairly strong last 8 but it's nonsensical to change the format because some big teams underperformed

The World Cup format is not designed to ensure that the strongest sides do not play each other until as late as possible - far from it.

Alternative tournament formats could ensure this.

Your observation that - if only the better sides had won their matches - we'd have had better matchups - is misplaced.

The point being - that much better tournament formats exist - mathematically rigorous formats - to ensure that we see the most compelling matchups possible, with the better sides avoiding each other until the final stages of the tournament.
===
The chief problems of the WC format in this regard are:
1) After the knockout stage, the placement of the surviving sides depends upon performance - finish 1st, you're on one side of the bracket, 2nd, you're on the other. This creates the possibility that most or all of the top teams finish on the same side of the bracket following the group stage (which happened in this cup). Moreover, it creates the possibility that losing a match is favorable to winning if your goal is to go as far as possible in the tournament (to wit, England v. Belgium in the final group stage match - the winner, loses).

2) Seeding is based on a flawed FIFA ranking system. Better to have a wide selection of football experts meet and force-rank all teams from first to last to determine seeding.
===
Admittedly, changing the format of the WC along these guidelines won't happen - a) b/c there's little dissatisfaction with the existing format; b) b/c FIFA is still corrupt at the highest levels; c) smaller countries have equal voting rights as large - and those smaller countries would want their sides - most likely inferior sides - to have the best chance of advancing - diametrically in opposition of having the best teams face each other as late as possible.
====
In short, a system designed to protect highly ranked teams, giving such teams the best chance to advance in spite of the randomness of lose-and-go-home exists; such a system is employed in USA college basketball. Such a system could be applied to the WC, but won't for various reasons.

The existing WC format does very little to protect the highest ranking sides - in fact, the ranking process itself is flawed.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

The World Cup format is not designed to ensure that the strongest sides do not play each other until as late as possible - far from it.

Alternative tournament formats could ensure this.

Your observation that - if only the better sides had won their matches - we'd have had better matchups - is misplaced.

The point being - that much better tournament formats exist - mathematically rigorous formats - to ensure that we see the most compelling matchups possible, with the better sides avoiding each other until the final stages of the tournament.
===
The chief problems of the WC format in this regard are:
1) After the knockout stage, the placement of the surviving sides depends upon performance - finish 1st, you're on one side of the bracket, 2nd, you're on the other. This creates the possibility that most or all of the top teams finish on the same side of the bracket following the group stage (which happened in this cup). Moreover, it creates the possibility that losing a match is favorable to winning if your goal is to go as far as possible in the tournament (to wit, England v. Belgium in the final group stage match - the winner, loses).

2) Seeding is based on a flawed FIFA ranking system. Better to have a wide selection of football experts meet and force-rank all teams from first to last to determine seeding.
===
Admittedly, changing the format of the WC along these guidelines won't happen - a) b/c there's little dissatisfaction with the existing format; b) b/c FIFA is still corrupt at the highest levels; c) smaller countries have equal voting rights as large - and those smaller countries would want their sides - most likely inferior sides - to have the best chance of advancing - diametrically in opposition of having the best teams face each other as late as possible.
====
In short, a system designed to protect highly ranked teams, giving such teams the best chance to advance in spite of the randomness of lose-and-go-home exists; such a system is employed in USA college basketball. Such a system could be applied to the WC, but won't for various reasons.

The existing WC format does very little to protect the highest ranking sides - in fact, the ranking process itself is flawed.

I quite like the system in place. If Germany aren't good enough to top a group of Sweden, Mexico and North Korea then they don't deserve to be in the knockouts.

 

[SpiritofBurnden]

The existing WC format does very little to protect the highest ranking sides - in fact, the ranking process itself is flawed.

Why should the 'highest ranking sides' be protected?

 

[CityInWashingtonState]

So you're saying we should fix the tournament even though it's been the best WC in decades.

Best in what regard?

I value seeing the best sides meet as late as possible in the tournament - creating exciting quarter final, semi final and final matches insofar as possible.

The existing WC format does not cater to this goal as well as it could.
===
In terms of seeing plucky underdogs win against supposedly better competition - yes, this WC has had a lot of that.

In terms of seeing the best sides face each other as late as possible in the tournament - yes, such on paper better sides will still need to win - this tournament has been a disappointment, with one side of the bracket having nearly all of the better sides.

 

[SpiritofBurnden]

I value seeing the best sides meet as late as possible in the tournament - creating exciting quarter final, semi final and final matches insofar as possible.

Who are these 'best sides' and what makes you think the matches between them would be 'exciting'?

 

[CityInWashingtonState]

Why should the 'highest ranking sides' be protected?

It's a goal of mine, but perhaps not of yours.

As antithesis to protecting the best sides, let's say we take the opposite approach - all of the high ranking sides face each other as soon as possible - in the group stage, ranks 1-4 are in the first group, 5-8 in the second, and so on. After the group stage, the highest ranking survivor plays the 2nd highest, 3rd plays fourth and so on. And at each stage of the tournament the highest ranking survivor is paired with the 2nd highest.

Is such a tournament better than what we have or far worse?

 

[Tb1981]

I mentioned after an earlier WC game but it's worth repeating.....Kane has been played very differently by Southgate than he is by Pochettino for Spurs. City fans have, perhaps correctly, been complaining that Sterling wasn't used to best effect. The same is true of Kane.

It would also be fair to say that he hasn't looked 100% fit since his ankle injury towards the end of last season - even for Spurs. As to being selfish, sure........all high scoring strikers are. They always back themselves. It's part of what makes them so effective. But it would be quite wrong to say that Kane doesn't put a shift in and doesn't also have an excellent passing game and contribute plenty of assists (or assists to assists).

It's such an English thing to slag off our best players when they play for England.....Sterling, Kane, whoever.

It’s sad really
Liverpool &United fans slag sterling
City slag off Kane jones young

They are all English
And they did their best