Renault on 12/7/2018 at 14:09
Just means you're not playing any offense.
Thor on 12/7/2018 at 15:29
In addition to playing defense I would also add just any cowardly playstyle that puts people (spectators and even the opposing team) to sleep to the definition of anti-football - most notably - Spain's entire playstyle. Spain even won the 2010 world cup with it. They really butchered that tournament and stole the cup from the team that actually deserved it (the Netherlands). At least in 2014 the Netherlands really nicely raped them. That Van Persie's goal is still one of my favorite goals in football. It was just perfection - nothing to add nor take away. Almost like a staged movie scene that took oh-so-many takes to get right.
Also a team like Iran I did actually kind like. Maybe a bit because they're an obscure team that nobody even knew existed, but also because they made it such a passion to defend themselves, and then the few attacks that were so dangerous became that much more special.
Oh, and american football is, of course, anti-football. Don't have anything against the sport, but they really screwed up during their meeting when they went "Hmm, what should we call this sport? I mean, you use your feet to run and a ball is central to the plot, so... football? Yeah, can't go wrong with that."
Belgium's football I guess I can't sincerely call anti-football, I just dislike them and how they play overall. Sometimes they play like amateurs that look tired or make avoidable mistakes and get goaled a lot, and then they rely on fast counter attacks like they finally decided to play football. It's just the whole aura and the hype surrounding them, it feels arrogant (I don't know the people, so the game and their individual footballers obvious attempts to stand out visually is all I get to go by). Doesn't help that they have a 27 year old teenager as their front man. He makes precise shots though. It's probably the commentators I watch as well, who try to be impartial, but then they're clearly gushing over Belgium and all its endless talent (and how Japan's doesn't have talent, while the reality showed that Belgium were lucky to beat Japan, who themselves made at least 1 critically bad decision), which is reinforced when they strike luck and beat someone like Brazil (would have been 1:1 without the self-goal, remember). Then their luck finally bumps back down to normal levels and sure enough, they're defeated. Belgium and England also had like the 2 weakest teams in their group together (arabs would also suffice I suppose), so that's also a big part of why they got out of the group to begin with.
heywood on 12/7/2018 at 18:41
When I was a kid, we used to play keep away, and that's what I think of when somebody says anti-football. That playing style is probably one of the biggest reasons why football is not more popular as a spectator sport in the US.
I unfortunately missed the semifinals because I was off on a camping trip. Anybody know about these discriminatory chants the English fans are accused of?
Regarding the naming, football is a tree with many branches. IIRC, the earliest forms of football in America were based on traditional English or European mob football. Then some rugby football rules were incorporated. Then the line of scrimmage was introduced in the late 1800s which started the American branch. What I want to know is how did we get the name "soccer"? I know it's supposedly English slang for association football, but I don't get it.
When I lived in Australia, I used to get confused because depending on what town you were in and who you were talking to, when somebody said "football" it could refer to Australian rules football, rugby league, rugby union, or association football (aka soccer). And if they knew I was American they might even be referring to American football. "Footy" was a bit easier because that usually meant Aussie rules, at least outside of Sydney (where rugby league is just as big).
Thor on 12/7/2018 at 19:10
Opens up beer, notices it's belgian beer and appreciates the irony in the context of these last coujple of weeks. Life is beautiful.
SubJeff on 13/7/2018 at 10:01
Quote Posted by Thor
(arabs would also suffice I suppose)
.
Thor on 14/7/2018 at 09:03
What? :erg: Are you upset that I went for the short version instead of saudi arabia? Or that I think they were among the weaker teams?
I hope croats win the cup. Is this also a dot?
Tomi on 14/7/2018 at 16:14
Bronze medal game:
Belgium 2-0 England
This game was a bit of a disappointment, as neither side looked very interested. I think Belgium wanted the bronze medal more, and I'd say that they deserved it too. It wasn't a bad game, but at least the English players looked like they just wanted to go home, as if they had too many World Cup medals already. Well, there's not much to say about this game really. Belgium had a couple of nice counter-attacks.
SirLord Best on 14/7/2018 at 21:25
We (England) got well outclassed by a classy Belgium but I think we done well to come this far and I've loved every moment! Sure it's not Coming Home but our boy's did us proud!!
Tomi on 15/7/2018 at 17:12
Final:
France 4-2 Croatia
Lots of goals, but not really a classic game. Not bad for a final I guess, but instead of great skill and beautiful goals, I think it'll be remembered for awful individual errors and some (un)lucky incidents. It would have been great to see Croatia win this, but France were the better team and deserved their win.
Tomi on 15/7/2018 at 18:46
So that's it then. It's all over.
I think it was the best World Cup for a long time! The best team won in the end (I'm still annoyed about that 0-0 farce with Denmark though!) and I think that the France vs Belgium semi-final would have been a worthy final for this tournament. The French team was damn impressive throughout the World Cup.
VAR was a good addition after all. I just still can't understand why they don't do anything about the obvious cheats, when they've got the technology for that in their hands. I can't remember seeing a single yellow card for diving. At least VAR seems to have worked in getting rid of violent fouls and other dirty tricks. I think that the only red cards in this tournament were for handballs and "professional fouls"?
I was certain that there'd be a lot of trouble in Russia during the World Cup, but I haven't heard of any such incidents. No serious violence or hooliganism. That's awesome, sounds almost too good to be true...
We saw some great goals and exciting games during the last month, and it's been nice to see a step towards more positive and attacking football. My favourite goals (from the top of my head, in no particular order) were Kroos's amazing overtime free kick winner in Germany vs Sweden, Di Maria's insane long-range screamer in Argentina vs France, and Pavard's beautiful equaliser in the same game.
Ah, four more years until the next World Cup... or is it four and a half years, because it'll be played during the winter season in Qatar apparently? I already have low expectations for that tournament, but we'll see...