InsectPoison wrote:What Gryphoon is saying isnât wrong at all . The only reason the majority of players in France lineup was even eligible to play for them is due to French colonialism , we canât deny that can we ? The UK also colonised a shit ton of countries but they took over countries which prefer cricket and rugby and if you look at the England cricket team it is evident. Attributing the win to colonialism isnât racist at all.
He isn't wrong. But it's very simplistic.
He isn't necessarily being racist either. But there is definitely a double standard (not necessarily applied by him.) Like I said, why aren't people making these remarks about Argentina (Thank you team Mediterranean) or Brazil (Thank you team Africa and Mediterranean), South African rugby (Thank you team England/Netherlands), or Australia (Thank you team Earth, basically everyone except Australia)
The other countries you mentioned those players and their families have been living there for many many generations . I highly doubt anyone on the Argentine team is a 1st generation immigrant like majority of the French team is.
None of the french player is first generation migrant, they are all born in France. Noob. Edit exept Umtiti but that's not a majority+he came at 2 y.o so this is not like we made him come just because he was good at football or smg^^
InsectPoison wrote:What Gryphoon is saying isnât wrong at all . The only reason the majority of players in France lineup was even eligible to play for them is due to French colonialism , we canât deny that can we ? The UK also colonised a shit ton of countries but they took over countries which prefer cricket and rugby and if you look at the England cricket team it is evident. Attributing the win to colonialism isnât racist at all.
He isn't wrong. But it's very simplistic.
He isn't necessarily being racist either. But there is definitely a double standard (not necessarily applied by him.) Like I said, why aren't people making these remarks about Argentina (Thank you team Mediterranean) or Brazil (Thank you team Africa and Mediterranean), South African rugby (Thank you team England/Netherlands), or Australia (Thank you team Earth, basically everyone except Australia)
honestly if i werefrom another country would just take lol as , but still the point is far..
Argentina, South Africa, Australia, etc. all have suffered colonization so the point is different. USA kinda fall in that category too. I find remark about French colonization very actual since literally 80% of the good French football players from the last 20 years has been from colonies. The same remark would apply to England too except that most of English colonies had better development and apparently as result they got their own good team. At least in football.
50 years is nothing compared to France history. Could even be 300 years and point still remain. It is actual because of the WC and the migrant-related events.
Sure we have a a lot of people with a foreign background in our team (arround the half), but none of them are 1st generation migrant contrary to what instectracist said. You need to know that 40% of the french population has a foreign background in the last 3 generations, do that's normal to find arround the same in the national team. I am really shocked by how racist are all this people with their "african team" and stuff. Especially since that's exactly the same for most countries.
bwinner1 wrote:Sure we have a a lot of people with a foreign background in our team (arround the half), but none of them are 1st generation migrant contrary to what instectracist said. You need to know that 40% of the french population has a foreign background in the last 3 generations, do that's normal to find arround the same in the national team. I am really shocked by how racist are all this people with their "african team" and stuff. Especially since that's exactly the same for most countries.
Youâre calling me a racist ? Please quote me and explain how I was being racist .
The finals was maybe good. I'm just sad that - at least in world cup games - it seems like the best strategy is to defend and counterattack. I have felt like having the ball is actually a disadvantage. You'd rather give your opponent the ball, sit back and wait for a counterattack opportunity. Just a long ball, wait and see if it works and only then move forward. Otherwise fall back into your defensive posture. France impersonated this style, with a team that could easily play offensive football well but played to defend anyways. They even got pretty lucky with the first two goals (goal one, was that a free kick? and it had a smell of offside, and goal two was maybe barely a penalty). I thought Croatia played the better football, they just did a worse job at playing the game of football. It felt like watching some hopeless aoe3 match up, something like Iro vs <civ that loses badly vs them>, with the better player playing the shitty civ, actually outplaying but losing because they chose the wrong civ. Croatia lost because they didn't play modern football correctly. You shouldn't attack, you should defend. And that's what disappointed me, that this finals made it once again feel like football has turned into a game where you don't actually want to have the ball.
It would have been different if for example Wenger coached the squad, but I'm not sure they'd have won that way despite the pleasant style (see France vs Denmark).
I think the rules need a revamp actually. Teams and players are too professional and have found many 'bug abuses' that are really OP. Suggestions to change it:
1) True playing time. Delaying is way too effective, even extra time fails to account for it. Play 30 minutes twice, with the clock only running when the ball is rolling. Continuous fouls are too effective at bringing the game to a standstill and that's extremely unfun/frustrating (and the only boring part of the final) 2) Yellow card means you get a ~10 minute penalty. It's too easy to just ruin a promising attack by making a foul. There's 4-5 defenders and 3 midfielders that can just make a foul on purpose to prevent an attack. A yellow card matters some but people have become professional enough to just get one yellow card. With substitutes you can prevent more than 10 attacks by just tanking a yellow card. In practise, it has few consequences. It just makes it too hard to actually set up an attack. You see this way too often, promising attack and then it's just destroyed by a lame foul. 3) Maybe it'd be better to play 10 vs 10. Players are so fit and good that the pitch appears to be too small. its too easy to fall back and defend all space while still having the threat of a counter attack. If you only have 10 players, either you can't send anyone forward or you give away more space when defending - attacking might become more succesful. The game would be more fun if there were more chances and goals anyways. Nowadays there's often few actual chances in a game. In theory you could make the pitch larger - something that would be nice too. However, then you would have to rebuild every stadion in the world which seems to be impossible in practise.
momuuu wrote:I think the rules need a revamp actually. Teams and players are too professional and have found many 'bug abuses' that are really OP. Suggestions to change it:
1) True playing time. Delaying is way too effective, even extra time fails to account for it. Play 30 minutes twice, with the clock only running when the ball is rolling. Continuous fouls are too effective at bringing the game to a standstill and that's extremely unfun/frustrating (and the only boring part of the final) 2) Yellow card means you get a ~10 minute penalty. It's too easy to just ruin a promising attack by making a foul. There's 4-5 defenders and 3 midfielders that can just make a foul on purpose to prevent an attack. A yellow card matters some but people have become professional enough to just get one yellow card. With substitutes you can prevent more than 10 attacks by just tanking a yellow card. In practise, it has few consequences. It just makes it too hard to actually set up an attack. You see this way too often, promising attack and then it's just destroyed by a lame foul. 3) Maybe it'd be better to play 10 vs 10. Players are so fit and good that the pitch appears to be too small. its too easy to fall back and defend all space while still having the threat of a counter attack. If you only have 10 players, either you can't send anyone forward or you give away more space when defending - attacking might become more succesful. The game would be more fun if there were more chances and goals anyways. Nowadays there's often few actual chances in a game. In theory you could make the pitch larger - something that would be nice too. However, then you would have to rebuild every stadion in the world which seems to be impossible in practise.
By proposing these changes you could even get into the EP patch change team!
Discussing how (one of the) biggest sport(s) in the world, watched by millions and millions of people with huge economic and social impact should be changed doesn't fall under meaningful?
Hazza54321 wrote:way to change a good thread into a pile of boring nerdy shit
Is it too hard for poor little hazza to participate in any sort of meaningful discussion?
Why dont you spend hours writing a novel no one will read
Seriously, whats wrong with you? You don't have to read things if you don't want to. I don't see why you need to complain about posts having too much content.. That seems outright ridiculous. And FYI it has 3 likes so at least 3 people read the post and liked it.
I don't even know why you'd read a forum if you don't want to actually read comments with content.
momuuu wrote:I think the rules need a revamp actually. Teams and players are too professional and have found many 'bug abuses' that are really OP. Suggestions to change it:
1) True playing time. Delaying is way too effective, even extra time fails to account for it. Play 30 minutes twice, with the clock only running when the ball is rolling. Continuous fouls are too effective at bringing the game to a standstill and that's extremely unfun/frustrating (and the only boring part of the final) 2) Yellow card means you get a ~10 minute penalty. It's too easy to just ruin a promising attack by making a foul. There's 4-5 defenders and 3 midfielders that can just make a foul on purpose to prevent an attack. A yellow card matters some but people have become professional enough to just get one yellow card. With substitutes you can prevent more than 10 attacks by just tanking a yellow card. In practise, it has few consequences. It just makes it too hard to actually set up an attack. You see this way too often, promising attack and then it's just destroyed by a lame foul. 3) Maybe it'd be better to play 10 vs 10. Players are so fit and good that the pitch appears to be too small. its too easy to fall back and defend all space while still having the threat of a counter attack. If you only have 10 players, either you can't send anyone forward or you give away more space when defending - attacking might become more succesful. The game would be more fun if there were more chances and goals anyways. Nowadays there's often few actual chances in a game. In theory you could make the pitch larger - something that would be nice too. However, then you would have to rebuild every stadion in the world which seems to be impossible in practise.
momuuu wrote:I think the rules need a revamp actually. Teams and players are too professional and have found many 'bug abuses' that are really OP. Suggestions to change it:
1) True playing time. Delaying is way too effective, even extra time fails to account for it. Play 30 minutes twice, with the clock only running when the ball is rolling. Continuous fouls are too effective at bringing the game to a standstill and that's extremely unfun/frustrating (and the only boring part of the final) 2) Yellow card means you get a ~10 minute penalty. It's too easy to just ruin a promising attack by making a foul. There's 4-5 defenders and 3 midfielders that can just make a foul on purpose to prevent an attack. A yellow card matters some but people have become professional enough to just get one yellow card. With substitutes you can prevent more than 10 attacks by just tanking a yellow card. In practise, it has few consequences. It just makes it too hard to actually set up an attack. You see this way too often, promising attack and then it's just destroyed by a lame foul. 3) Maybe it'd be better to play 10 vs 10. Players are so fit and good that the pitch appears to be too small. its too easy to fall back and defend all space while still having the threat of a counter attack. If you only have 10 players, either you can't send anyone forward or you give away more space when defending - attacking might become more succesful. The game would be more fun if there were more chances and goals anyways. Nowadays there's often few actual chances in a game. In theory you could make the pitch larger - something that would be nice too. However, then you would have to rebuild every stadion in the world which seems to be impossible in practise.
thats just out of imignation changes
as are most suggestions. But for all its worth, #1 and #2 are actively being considered atm
momuuu wrote:I think the rules need a revamp actually. Teams and players are too professional and have found many 'bug abuses' that are really OP. Suggestions to change it:
1) True playing time. Delaying is way too effective, even extra time fails to account for it. Play 30 minutes twice, with the clock only running when the ball is rolling. Continuous fouls are too effective at bringing the game to a standstill and that's extremely unfun/frustrating (and the only boring part of the final) 2) Yellow card means you get a ~10 minute penalty. It's too easy to just ruin a promising attack by making a foul. There's 4-5 defenders and 3 midfielders that can just make a foul on purpose to prevent an attack. A yellow card matters some but people have become professional enough to just get one yellow card. With substitutes you can prevent more than 10 attacks by just tanking a yellow card. In practise, it has few consequences. It just makes it too hard to actually set up an attack. You see this way too often, promising attack and then it's just destroyed by a lame foul. 3) Maybe it'd be better to play 10 vs 10. Players are so fit and good that the pitch appears to be too small. its too easy to fall back and defend all space while still having the threat of a counter attack. If you only have 10 players, either you can't send anyone forward or you give away more space when defending - attacking might become more succesful. The game would be more fun if there were more chances and goals anyways. Nowadays there's often few actual chances in a game. In theory you could make the pitch larger - something that would be nice too. However, then you would have to rebuild every stadion in the world which seems to be impossible in practise.
thats just out of imignation changes
as are most suggestions. But for all its worth, #1 and #2 are actively being considered atm
fouls are part of game .. still people un professional enough with yellow cards ..I dnt see this change.. there hardly any delay on football beside fouls..
momuuu wrote:I think the rules need a revamp actually. Teams and players are too professional and have found many 'bug abuses' that are really OP. Suggestions to change it:
1) True playing time. Delaying is way too effective, even extra time fails to account for it. Play 30 minutes twice, with the clock only running when the ball is rolling. Continuous fouls are too effective at bringing the game to a standstill and that's extremely unfun/frustrating (and the only boring part of the final) 2) Yellow card means you get a ~10 minute penalty. It's too easy to just ruin a promising attack by making a foul. There's 4-5 defenders and 3 midfielders that can just make a foul on purpose to prevent an attack. A yellow card matters some but people have become professional enough to just get one yellow card. With substitutes you can prevent more than 10 attacks by just tanking a yellow card. In practise, it has few consequences. It just makes it too hard to actually set up an attack. You see this way too often, promising attack and then it's just destroyed by a lame foul. 3) Maybe it'd be better to play 10 vs 10. Players are so fit and good that the pitch appears to be too small. its too easy to fall back and defend all space while still having the threat of a counter attack. If you only have 10 players, either you can't send anyone forward or you give away more space when defending - attacking might become more succesful. The game would be more fun if there were more chances and goals anyways. Nowadays there's often few actual chances in a game. In theory you could make the pitch larger - something that would be nice too. However, then you would have to rebuild every stadion in the world which seems to be impossible in practise.
thats just out of imignation changes
as are most suggestions. But for all its worth, #1 and #2 are actively being considered atm
fouls are part of game .. still people un professional enough with yellow cards ..I dnt see this change.. there hardly any delay on football beside fouls..