FootballNews

you disappoint me Bomber.....this is not about 1 system nor about Ange....its about a mindset....and so far, everyone is happy to accept the status quo losing mentality....

anyway...this wasn't about 1 loss to France...this was more about the plaudits dished out for a 'gallant/honourable' loss and the implications of accepting that's the best we can EVER hope for....

BTW...how many point do you get for an honourable loss????

MegaBonus wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm reasonably confident that I see more of the 'real world' than most....

then grit and work ethic is what we need now.

Ok, as long as you accept that as Aussies we don't have a mortgage on these traits and there are other countries who do it better......ie Iceland

I'm astounded that we have Aussies in here suggesting we should accept our lot in life (2nd and 3rd best)...I'm a pragmatist and appreciate our limitations but where is the passion for change and improvement????????

Change needs to come before they hit the NT, not when they get there, not with this calibre of player.

MegaBonus wrote:you disappoint me Bomber.....this is not about 1 system nor about Ange....its about a mindset....and so far, everyone is happy to accept the status quo losing mentality....

anyway...this wasn't about 1 loss to France...this was more about the plaudits dished out for a 'gallant/honourable' loss and the implications of accepting that's the best we can EVER hope for....

BTW...how many point do you get for an honourable loss????

Mindset? Do you really think the players and coach go out there thinking they will lose?
Bottom line is they looked more organized tactically for the first time in two years. I can't help but think if we went out with a 3-4-3 formation we would have probably lost 5-0 or 5-1 or similar - and you get no points for that either.
If you get a class team (closest we have had was 2006) then you might have the luxury to tinker, but formation for formation sake (ie attack at all costs) is simply naïve. Even the top nations don't do it.
Pick your best side and play the system that best suits that side. Simple!

[quote="Cornuto"]The truth hurts, it WAS a penalty for France, video proved it.


Actually, if you watch the video in slow motion it is clear the Frenchy's final touch was hard and he had little chance of getting to the ball before Ryan, so he slowed his run to ensure his trailing leg was touched by Risdon and then made the most of it.

If you don't believe me watch the match view and you will see it clearly, remember he is one the quickest and smartest strikers in the game.

Old Master wrote:

Cornuto wrote:The truth hurts, it WAS a penalty for France, video proved it.


Actually, if you watch the video in slow motion it is clear the Frenchy's final touch was hard and he had little chance of getting to the ball before Ryan, so he slowed his run to ensure his trailing leg was touched by Risdon and then made the most of it.

If you don't believe me watch the match view and you will see it clearly, remember he is one the quickest and smartest strikers in the game.

So you confirm it was a penalty

MegaBonus wrote:you disappoint me Bomber.....this is not about 1 system nor about Ange....its about a mindset....and so far, everyone is happy to accept the status quo losing mentality....

anyway...this wasn't about 1 loss to France...this was more about the plaudits dished out for a 'gallant/honourable' loss and the implications of accepting that's the best we can EVER hope for....

BTW...how many point do you get for an honourable loss????

It was a good effort in the context of the players we have at our disposal and the current system that supports junior development in Australia. If we had the money and resources of France, then I would say it was not a good effort, but we do not. I don't want to continually suffer noble defeats, but as a realist I recognise that we can't expect to win world cups with the structures and systems we have in place.

The Kangaroos are slow learners

2006


2018

France and Italy at least should have a good showing at the next World diving championships too.

Sunny Vanilla wrote:

Old Master wrote:

Cornuto wrote:The truth hurts, it WAS a penalty for France, video proved it.


Actually, if you watch the video in slow motion it is clear the Frenchy's final touch was hard and he had little chance of getting to the ball before Ryan, so he slowed his run to ensure his trailing leg was touched by Risdon and then made the most of it.

If you don't believe me watch the match view and you will see it clearly, remember he is one the quickest and smartest strikers in the game.

So you confirm it was a penalty

Don't you understand English?

It cannot be a penalty if the ball was not playable (within reach) when contact was made - it was a well-executed dive that fooled the fool in charge of the VAR.

Read the 'Laws Of The Game' section on the awarding of Free-kicks and penalties.

The aussies would definitely win the whinging world championships.

Sorry OM the ball does not have to be within playable distance for penalty or direct free kick to be awarded. A direct free kick is taken where the offence occurs ( provided the ball is in play) and if the offence occurs in the penalty area then a penalty is given .

ozzie owl wrote:Sorry OM the ball does not have to be within playable distance for penalty or direct free kick to be awarded. A direct free kick is taken where the offence occurs ( provided the ball is in play) and if the offence occurs in the penalty area then a penalty is given .

A penalty cannot be awarded when the ball is not within playing distance at the time of the contact.

The most that can be awarded in this circumstance is an indirect free kick from the point of contact.

Ask any experienced referee and they will, or should, be able to explain that to you.

Old Master wrote:

ozzie owl wrote:Sorry OM the ball does not have to be within playable distance for penalty or direct free kick to be awarded. A direct free kick is taken where the offence occurs ( provided the ball is in play) and if the offence occurs in the penalty area then a penalty is given .

A penalty cannot be awarded when the ball is not within playing distance at the time of the contact.

The most that can be awarded in this circumstance is an indirect free kick from the point of contact.

Ask any experienced referee and they will, or should, be able to explain that to you.

And the adjudicator says...................drum roll......................

Old Master wrote:Don't you understand English?

It cannot be a penalty if the ball was not playable (within reach) when contact was made - it was a well-executed dive that fooled the fool in charge of the VAR.

Read the 'Laws Of The Game' section on the awarding of Free-kicks and penalties.

I suggest you go away and read the laws yourself if you think that's the case.

Come on tell the truth, these "claims" that you've played the game are just a wind up aren't they. WELL PLAYED!!

Bomber wrote:

Old Master wrote:

ozzie owl wrote:Sorry OM the ball does not have to be within playable distance for penalty or direct free kick to be awarded. A direct free kick is taken where the offence occurs ( provided the ball is in play) and if the offence occurs in the penalty area then a penalty is given .

A penalty cannot be awarded when the ball is not within playing distance at the time of the contact.

The most that can be awarded in this circumstance is an indirect free kick from the point of contact.

Ask any experienced referee and they will, or should, be able to explain that to you.

And the adjudicator says...................drum roll......................

That he has got out again, marbles well and truly lost.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Old Master wrote:Don't you understand English?

It cannot be a penalty if the ball was not playable (within reach) when contact was made - it was a well-executed dive that fooled the fool in charge of the VAR.

Read the 'Laws Of The Game' section on the awarding of Free-kicks and penalties.

I suggest you go away and read the laws yourself if you think that's the case.

Come on tell the truth, these "claims" that you've played the game are just a wind up aren't they. WELL PLAYED!!

His mate, who has reffed 3 World Cup finals, and has 8 satellite dishes, told him so.

Old Master wrote:It cannot be a penalty if the ball was not playable (within reach) when contact was made

What??? It doesn't matter where the ball is, provided it is in play.

Ofor Fuxake wrote:

Old Master wrote:It cannot be a penalty if the ball was not playable (within reach) when contact was made

What??? It doesn't matter where the ball is, provided it is in play.

I cannot wait for him trying to talk his way out of this one. He's shown he doesn't understand the game at all.

Old Master wrote:

ozzie owl wrote:Sorry OM the ball does not have to be within playable distance for penalty or direct free kick to be awarded. A direct free kick is taken where the offence occurs ( provided the ball is in play) and if the offence occurs in the penalty area then a penalty is given .

A penalty cannot be awarded when the ball is not within playing distance at the time of the contact.

The most that can be awarded in this circumstance is an indirect free kick from the point of contact.

Ask any experienced referee and they will, or should, be able to explain that to you.

OM miles off the mark direct free kicks are taken where the offence occurs not where the ball is (provided ball in play).

ozzie owl wrote:

Old Master wrote:

ozzie owl wrote:Sorry OM the ball does not have to be within playable distance for penalty or direct free kick to be awarded. A direct free kick is taken where the offence occurs ( provided the ball is in play) and if the offence occurs in the penalty area then a penalty is given .

A penalty cannot be awarded when the ball is not within playing distance at the time of the contact.

The most that can be awarded in this circumstance is an indirect free kick from the point of contact.

Ask any experienced referee and they will, or should, be able to explain that to you.

OM miles off the mark direct free kicks are taken where the offence occurs not where the ball is (provided ball in play).

Ozzie Owl....drum roll...I agree with you

What will be the OM response?

a) my mate misinformed me
b) I was up late and lacking sleep
c) I missed my medication
d) I'm still right, the rest of the world is wrong
e)
f) You're all bullies, so I wont answer and cause a bump to GIAE's unanswered questions thread

Ladbrokes odds to open shortly

Bomber wrote:What will be the OM response?

a) my mate misinformed me
b) I was up late and lacking sleep
c) I missed my medication
d) I'm still right, the rest of the world is wrong
e)
f) You're all bullies, so I wont answer and cause a bump to GIAE's unanswered questions thread

Ladbrokes odds to open shortly

All of the above plus more.

Weirdest post of the year award has to go to OM. Can't be a penalty if the ball is not within playing distance

limozeen wrote:Weirdest post of the year award has to go to OM. Can't be a penalty if the ball is not within playing distance

So I gather you're punting on "F" given his recent silence?

MegaBonus wrote:you disappoint me Bomber.....this is not about 1 system nor about Ange....its about a mindset....and so far, everyone is happy to accept the status quo losing mentality....

anyway...this wasn't about 1 loss to France...this was more about the plaudits dished out for a 'gallant/honourable' loss and the implications of accepting that's the best we can EVER hope for....

BTW...how many point do you get for an honourable loss????

We've got 1 point so far, that's 1 point more than the 2014 campaign.

Maybe it's best if you jump on YouTube for the rest of the Aussie part of the tournament and watch clips of Barcelona rondos

yeah Ok.....comparing France, Denmark and Peru to

Spain - at the time World Cup holders
Netherlands - eventual semi finalist lost to Argentina
Chile - qualified 3rd CONMEBOL losing (on penalties) to eventual finalist....

The Netherlands did not lose to brazil.

thanks....corrected....but you get my point....

MegaBonus wrote:thanks....corrected....but you get my point....

Point being you're the one touting "honourable losses" now!