FIFA World Cup 2018 - Final

First France goal came off a flop by Griezmann. Sencond goal of a handball cause the French player missed the head on.
That was weird. Griezmann flopped, and then was fouled while he was flopping.
France was going to play counter-attack the whole game. They very well could have held us to one and scored two from the run of play doing that for 90 min. Sure, fine, whatever thats knockout football.

It just feels really shitty when they get an opportunity to score (which unfortunately they did) because a guy intentionally flops. You know he did, he was pulling his legs and curling up well before strinic comes in and "would" have hit him*. Who knows how that play finishes if he stays on his feel, maybe strinic picks him clean, maybe he gets his body in the way and draws the foul anyhow. But you cannot say he didn't flop cause he did. If you want to reward that behavior that's your call. It was clearly the game plan. Counter faster and score on a break or at the very least get a set piece close to goal.

Same fucking logic for why France desperately wanted that handball, "who knows what would have happened if it was allowed to get passed perisic's hand". That corner wasn't going to do shit and was going to get cleaned up by another croat behind him if it didn't hit perisic by accident only cause the guy missed the header. That frogger ducking should reset the proximity test of ball to hand. Perisic wasn't trying to gain an advantage, he was shocked it came through. Its shitty that they get a 90% PK shot from a 1% chance shit opportunity.

The way the game was going croatia was pinning the french back and whipping in crosses all day. Like I said sure thing france could have cleared them all and kept us scoreless (they essentially did) but you basically gifted france two easy chances letting them get the lead twice. That suits counterattacking football to a T. We need to attack because we need to tie. That opens us to a counter and we got stung for real twice. Unfortunately poor defending was also our fault on goal 3 and 4 but the opportunities were there because we were playing form behind.

We could have lost 2-1 and I would have been like, whelp thats what the french wanted to do and they executed, good for them. The ref unfortunately gives the PK because its an easier position to defend in the court of public opinion. To not give it would have meant a shit storm for him and his career (read: good bye any future world cup matches). I did feel however he spent the rest of the game making it up to croatia in small ways. He let a lot of 50/50 tackles go our way and gave a couple yellows that really stopped france from tackling harder. But if we really wanted to be fair, call one of the shirt tugs in the box a PK. It would have been the equivalent bullshit 1% chance converting to 90%. If we get it back to 2-2 at that point it resets the game and then we could see if the french tactics would have won them the game. If we were tied in the second half maybe goal 3 and 4 don't happen ( and certainly madzukic doesn't chase down lloris for our second). Maybe we do get stung on a counter and lose 3-2, maybe we hold on to the shootout. Who knows! But playing from behind really screwed our tactics and it sucks that it was a result of a flop and a soft PK.

That said I am still happy with 2nd place. Its a very very good result for our small nation. Not everyone can win. You gotta make peace with that and be happy with your lot in life.

*Just an aside - fucking Lalas had the balls to say you can have a foul without contact. What a fucking asshat. Its a contact sport, what are we doing if we give fouls for brushing the air. The douche also defended the PK call adamantly saying its 100% a PK. Fucking guy was a defender, he knows what a shitty call that was, he's loves to stir the pot. I really hate him.
 
Last edited:
It just feels really shitty when they get an opportunity to score (which unfortunately they did) because a guy intentionally flops. You know he did, he was pulling his legs and curling up well before strinic comes in and "would" have hit him*. Who knows how that play finishes if he stays on his feel, maybe strinic picks him clean, maybe he gets his body in the way and draws the foul anyhow. But you cannot say he didn't flop cause he did. If you want to reward that behavior that's your call.
Agreed, I don't think that a free kick there should have been awarded.

All I'm saying is, he clearly flops, and then is fouled while he is flopping. The only thing worth awarding there IMO is a yellow for simulation.
 
I’d like to also add that if the little pitch invader people were actually looking to get real political traction and western support, they’d have stopped a French attack, not Croatia.

Poor planning on their part.


I don't know France seem like a nice Western liberal Multicultural success story to me...
 
Last edited:
I don't France seem like a nice Western liberal Multicultural success story to me...
From whom you would want attention. Not the 6 million Croatians who are irrelevant from a global political perspective.
 

Watched some of the parade today. Players stayed on a open top bus for 5 hours just to make it into city center from the airport. Traveling at a crawl they passed more than an estimated 500,000 people. Then spent over an hour on stage being serenaded by the crowd. It was basically a massive concert put on for the players.
When Kovacic spoke he said ‘we’re all wasted right now’ (not a direct translation).
Vida holding a sign that reads, ‘Fuck, there’s a lot of us’
F4B10FE6-7962-4B79-AB9B-4A8A3DEAB2C5.jpeg

232AE431-F3D6-4704-80C7-549AFF73663B.jpeg
98DE16F1-0318-4FA7-8A45-3E9A8DF98578.jpeg


 
Last edited:

Watched some of the parade today. Players stayed on a open top bus for 5 hours just to make it into city center from the airport. Traveling at a crawl they passed more than an estimated 500,000 people. Then spent over an hour on stage being serenaded by the crowd. It was basically a massive concert put on for the players.
When Kovacic spoke he said ‘we’re all wasted right now’ (not a direct translation).
Vida holding a sign that reads, ‘Fuck, there’s a lot of us’
View attachment 8900
View attachment 8901 View attachment 8902


This is obviously organized and controlled despite all the flairs and smoke.

What do you think the celebration would have been like should Croatia had won?
 
This is obviously organized and controlled despite all the flairs and smoke.

What do you think the celebration would have been like should Croatia had won?
We were actually talking about it and it would of likely been the same lol. This is pretty nuts. They’re saying over 10% of our population came to Zagreb today to celebrate.
 
We were actually talking about it and it would of likely been the same lol. This is pretty nuts. They’re saying over 10% of our population came to Zagreb today to celebrate.
You like Lovren, now, don’t you?

I’ve loved that crazy bastard for forever. It’s good that he’s actually a good defender now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickFromAstoria
i'd like to congratulate the african all star team on winning their first world cup. It took a whole continent to beat a country of roughly 4 million people. well done.
 
France only had one player play in the WC Final that was born in Africa.
I made this comment to a friend who brought up the African super team thing. I don't love it either only because we just lost to France and its low hanging fruit to harp on but Croatia is just a mixed. Just because the french trace roots to africa its easier to "visually" see the difference and pick on them but croatia took players growing up all over europe too. You just gotta accept the fact that its a global world and people can pick teams based on personal connections to a country. They are not tenuous connections either there is thoughtful consideration put into why someone qualifies to play for a country.

In the end what does it really mean to be from a country? If its not good enough being born within its borders than does it mean your family was also from that country? But those blood ties are just qualifiers based on family members being born within the borders. The family test seems more like a time check then a geographical assessment. How many family generations is enough to say I'm really from that country? An african man could have been 5 generations in France and he would still be catching shit for playing on the French team.

What if you are a refugee forced to flee, as is the case with a lot of the Croatia players. Do they lose the right to play for the country of their family, one that could trace its roots back hundreds of years, just because for a 10 year period they had to stay in Germany or Switzerland? If your hard on this point of birth now they cannot play for croatia and they won't be accepted by Germany cause they are only transient refugees and now these people cannot play anywhere. And thats a shame.

If you don't look to borders and consider culture then how long is enough to feel culturally from a place, and who gets to decide? As was the case a few world cups back Croatia had a Brazilian guy who moved as a kid for the economic opportunity to play football in a Zagreb academy. He lived in croatia, spoke the language, married a Croatia woman and had children with her and had a hell of a lot more years inside the country then some of his teammates and yet he was given shit for playing on Croatia instead of brazil. I can tell you what, I would say culturally this guy was more croatian than I'd ever be, but because his name and skin tone don't match up he gets called an opportunist where as I probably would get a pass despite being American through and through.

Like I said, when you play for a country its cause you have some personal connections to said country, be it blood ties or cultural. Fifa tries to establish some rules like heritage or being 5 years in a country to prevent frivolous flipping around but for the most part players have a legitimate for being on a team. Yes the rules do favor economic powerhouses of europe because of their global reach and wealth. Players will choose to play where they will have the most success and exposure and a lot of times that means Euro clubs will have players who come from other continents. But now that's just a backhanded complaint about economic differences between countries. Sure all the french guys could be immediate starters for African teams if they qualified but why wouldn't you choose France if you could win more, get your name in the papers and up your chances for a fat contract from some club. That's the real issue here. Its the money disparity that pulls players away from other teams and stacks them in europe thats what people are subliminally upset about. But the players have all the right in the world to play where they qualify to play.
 
Last edited:
I made this comment to a friend who brought up the African super team thing. I don't love it either only because we just lost to France and its low hanging fruit to harp on but Croatia is just a mixed. Just because the french trace roots to africa its easier to "visually" see the difference and pick on them but croatia took players growing up all over europe too. You just gotta accept the fact that its a global world and people can pick teams based on personal connections to a country. They are not tenuous connections either there is thoughtful consideration put into why someone qualifies to play for a country.

In the end what does it really mean to be from a country? If its not good enough being born within its borders than does it mean your family was also from that country? But those blood ties are just qualifiers based on family members being born within the borders. The family test seems more like a time check then a geographical assessment. How many family generations is enough to say I'm really from that country? An african man could have been 5 generations in France and he would still be catching shit for playing on the French team.

What if you are a refugee forced to flee, as is the case with a lot of the Croatia players. Do they lose the right to play for the country of their family, one that could trace its roots back hundreds of years, just because for a 10 year period they had to stay in Germany or Switzerland? If your hard on this point of birth now they cannot play for croatia and they won't be accepted by Germany cause they are only transient refugees and now these people cannot play anywhere. And thats a shame.

If you don't look to borders and consider culture then how long is enough to feel culturally from a place, and who gets to decide? As was the case a few world cups back Croatia had a Brazilian guy who moved as a kid for the economic opportunity to play football in a Zagreb academy. He spoke the language, married a Croatia woman and had a hell of a lot more years inside the country then some of his teammates and yet he was given shit for playing on Croatia instead of brazil. I can tell you what, I would say culturally this guy was more croatian than I'd ever be, but because his name and skin tone don't match up he gets called an opportunist where as I probably would get a pass despite being American through and through.

Like I said, when you play for a country its cause you have some personal connections to said country, be it blood ties or cultural. Fifa tries to establish some rules like heritage or being 5 years in a country to prevent frivolous flipping around but for the most part players have a legitimate for being on a team. Yes the rules do favor economic powerhouses of europe because of their global reach and wealth. Players will choose to play where they will have the most success and exposure and a lot of times that means Euro clubs will have players who come from other continents. But now that's just a backhanded complaint about economic differences between countries. Sure all the french guys could be immediate starters for African teams if they qualified but why wouldn't you choose France if you could win more, get your name in the papers and up your chances for a fat contract from some club. That's the real issue here. Its the money disparity that pulls players away from other teams and stacks them in europe thats what people are subliminally upset about. But the players have all the right in the world to play where they qualify to play.
Solid post.

I'm tired of hearing this narrative, and you bring up so many good points about what does it take for someone to be "from" somewhere. I'm sure there are some players that are opportunistic in this sense, but those are few and far in between.

In France's particular case, every player that played in the WC final match (I didn't bother to look at those on the bench that didn't play) except for one was born in France. And the one that wasn't, moved there when he was 2 years old. That is all French to me and I could not judge a single one of them for that (I also couldn't judge them if they wanted to play for the country from which they had roots).

Let's put it this way. Say if the USA were to have qualified for this WC and we started Joe Corona, Miguel Ibarra, Jonathan Gonzalez (if he stayed with the US), Jesse Gonzalez, and Greg Garza. All dual-nationals with at least one parent from Mexico. Would this same narrative be spouted? I don't think so. And I think this narrative would be met with a lot more pushback than the narrative being used for France.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulrich and Rimil
Solid post.

I'm tired of hearing this narrative, and you bring up so many good points about what does it take for someone to be "from" somewhere. I'm sure there are some players that are opportunistic in this sense, but those are few and far in between.

In France's particular case, every player that played in the WC final match (I didn't bother to look at those on the bench that didn't play) except for one was born in France. And the one that wasn't, moved there when he was 2 years old. That is all French to me and I could not judge a single one of them for that (I also couldn't judge them if they wanted to play for the country from which they had roots).

Let's put it this way. Say if the USA were to have qualified for this WC and we started Joe Corona, Miguel Ibarra, Jonathan Gonzalez (if he stayed with the US), Jesse Gonzalez, and Greg Garza. All dual-nationals with at least one parent from Mexico. Would this same narrative be spouted? I don't think so. And I think this narrative would be met with a lot more pushback than the narrative being used for France.

For the record, when we were German-player heavy early in the qualifying, I remember a lot of pundits and people talking about how the team wasn't really there for the U.S. because so many of our players weren't really "American".
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam and SoupInNYC
For the record, when we were German-player heavy early in the qualifying, I remember a lot of pundits and people talking about how the team wasn't really there for the U.S. because so many of our players weren't really "American".
True. And that was a narrative that I think was ridiculous.

But for some reason, people thought pushing it was ok. But could you imagine what would happen if that same narrative was attempted for the Mexican-Americans playing for the US?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulrich
True. And that was a narrative that I think was ridiculous.

But for some reason, people thought pushing it was ok. But could you imagine what would happen if that same narrative was attempted for the Mexican-Americans playing for the US?
Of course it was ridiculous, but people believe what they want to believe. And what you're saying is definitely going to happen, it just hasn't yet because they haven't gotten many minutes as of now.
 
I made this comment to a friend who brought up the African super team thing. I don't love it either only because we just lost to France and its low hanging fruit to harp on but Croatia is just a mixed. Just because the french trace roots to africa its easier to "visually" see the difference and pick on them but croatia took players growing up all over europe too. You just gotta accept the fact that its a global world and people can pick teams based on personal connections to a country. They are not tenuous connections either there is thoughtful consideration put into why someone qualifies to play for a country.

In the end what does it really mean to be from a country? If its not good enough being born within its borders than does it mean your family was also from that country? But those blood ties are just qualifiers based on family members being born within the borders. The family test seems more like a time check then a geographical assessment. How many family generations is enough to say I'm really from that country? An african man could have been 5 generations in France and he would still be catching shit for playing on the French team.

What if you are a refugee forced to flee, as is the case with a lot of the Croatia players. Do they lose the right to play for the country of their family, one that could trace its roots back hundreds of years, just because for a 10 year period they had to stay in Germany or Switzerland? If your hard on this point of birth now they cannot play for croatia and they won't be accepted by Germany cause they are only transient refugees and now these people cannot play anywhere. And thats a shame.

If you don't look to borders and consider culture then how long is enough to feel culturally from a place, and who gets to decide? As was the case a few world cups back Croatia had a Brazilian guy who moved as a kid for the economic opportunity to play football in a Zagreb academy. He lived in croatia, spoke the language, married a Croatia woman and had children with her and had a hell of a lot more years inside the country then some of his teammates and yet he was given shit for playing on Croatia instead of brazil. I can tell you what, I would say culturally this guy was more croatian than I'd ever be, but because his name and skin tone don't match up he gets called an opportunist where as I probably would get a pass despite being American through and through.

Like I said, when you play for a country its cause you have some personal connections to said country, be it blood ties or cultural. Fifa tries to establish some rules like heritage or being 5 years in a country to prevent frivolous flipping around but for the most part players have a legitimate for being on a team. Yes the rules do favor economic powerhouses of europe because of their global reach and wealth. Players will choose to play where they will have the most success and exposure and a lot of times that means Euro clubs will have players who come from other continents. But now that's just a backhanded complaint about economic differences between countries. Sure all the french guys could be immediate starters for African teams if they qualified but why wouldn't you choose France if you could win more, get your name in the papers and up your chances for a fat contract from some club. That's the real issue here. Its the money disparity that pulls players away from other teams and stacks them in europe thats what people are subliminally upset about. But the players have all the right in the world to play where they qualify to play.
Yep great post! At what point is the line drawn, because theoretically, every player should be cap-tied to Ethiopia and some other eastern African countries where all mankind originated. And if not there, then a few thousand years later in Egypt, the Sinai, Mesopotamia, etc? I jest of course, but it’s really small-minded for people to complain about immigrants wanting to represent their chosen/new country.
 
The "Africa" trope is simply racist and needs to stop.
Is it really a thing though? We had one post here by one of our most ridiculous contributors. I haven't seen it expressed elsewhere. In fact, I saw easily a couple dozen heavily liked and shared Tweets that made the opposite point: they celebrated the fact that France's team was comprised of people from various origins and religions and cultures. I have not seen anything, again except for the one post here, making any sort of negative point or implication that this was a bad thing. Am I just out of touch with this sort of negativity or do we have lots of people here arguing against something that isn't really widespread? Is it really a trope? Or are all the posts on this topic responding to a single local troll?

And no, I don't want links. If it is, sadly, a thing, someone can just tell me. I'll take your word for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Jee
Based on my viewings through reddit and twitter, I've come across lots of negativity in this regard. Lots of people saying that the players should not be playing for france, etc. That's what I've been seeing, anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgarbowski