What, no thread about Russian doping?

[alka...@hotmail.com]

The entire country accused of a state-sponsored doping program.

All athletes banned from Rio Olympics.

FIFA silent on WC2018 repercussions (of course there won't be any).

[zepf...@gmail.com]

Russian footballers suck so bad that they might not be doping. And if they are, they have been supplied crap PEDs

[Insane Ranter]

Why would FIFA care? They gave the WC to a country that uses slaves.

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 7:28:06 AM UTC-7, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The entire country accused of a state-sponsored doping program.
>
> All athletes banned from Rio Olympics.

Not yet. Track and Field are banned, and upheld the ban with the CAS.

Weightlifting and rowing are also considering sport bans, and the IOC Executive Committee is weighing a full-team disqualification -- results in about a week.

Sounds like if they can and they don't think Putin will blow up the Games, they will throw Russia out.

Mike

[darkst...@gmail.com]

Could be a large step (both Russia and Qatar) to the creation of a new sanctioning body...

Mike

[Bruce D. Scott]

In football it is irrelevant because they aren't good enough to win
anything.

--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

[Benny]

On 22/07/2016 04:16, Insane Ranter wrote:

> Why would FIFA care? They gave the WC to a country that uses slaves.

No one uses slaves.

[alka...@hotmail.com]

Are you being literal in the definition of slavery, or are you defending Qatar's migrant labor practices?

[darkst...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 4:51:21 AM UTC-7, Bruce D. Scott wrote:

> In football it is irrelevant because they aren't good enough to win
> anything.

Between the doping, the state-sponsored sports terrorism, and the current state of things, I would not rule out a shock WC win, frankly.

Mike

[Werner Pichler]

On Friday, 22 July 2016 13:51:21 UTC+2, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
> alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The entire country accused of a state-sponsored doping program.
> >
> > All athletes banned from Rio Olympics.
> >
> > FIFA silent on WC2018 repercussions (of course there won't be any).
>
> In football it is irrelevant because they aren't good enough to win
> anything.

It's not as if Mutko hadn't been involved in football-related shenanigans in
the past...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/may/06/wales-yegor-titov-euro-2004-russia

Ciao,
Werner

[Benny]

On 22/07/2016 19:02, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Are you being literal in the definition of slavery, or are you defending Qatar's migrant labor practices?

The literal definition. There's a difference between abuse of workers,
sweatshops, poor unsafe working conditions etc, etc something most major
companies are guilty of including those parasites apple, and slaves.

[alka...@hotmail.com]

Agree that labor exploitation has been happening for a long time, and in all parts of the globe.

What's particularly bad about Qatar is that they confiscate the passports of the migrant workers for the duration for their contract. Which effectively makes them prisoners if they want to leave early.

I don't think there's moral equivalence between that and what Apple etc do.

[Bruce D. Scott]

Werner Pichler <wpic...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not as if Mutko hadn't been involved in football-related shenanigans in
> the past...
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/may/06/wales-yegor-titov-euro-2004-russia

He's not going to win a World Cup with small-time shenanigans like that.

[Bruce D. Scott]

darkst...@gmail.com wrote:

> Between the doping, the state-sponsored sports terrorism, and the
> current state of things, I would not rule out a shock WC win, frankly.

It's only two years. You would have expected to see some effect at the
EC but there wasn't one. Just as crap as WC14 and WC02. Last bright
spot was EC08 where they did it with flair, not speed and strength.
But even that was one to 1-1/2 good matches and then a weak flameout.

[Enzo]

What a leading post from a jihadi. The only reason is that Russia is the last bastion standing against these Muslims invading Europe ( along with Hungary, Poland and Serbia ).

[MH]

On 2016-07-25 3:56 AM, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
> darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Between the doping, the state-sponsored sports terrorism, and the
>> current state of things, I would not rule out a shock WC win, frankly.
>
> It's only two years. You would have expected to see some effect at the
> EC but there wasn't one.

How often does such an effect take place (obvious signs of a nation at
Euros in the process of peaking for a home WC) ?

1980. Spain showed little, but also were not impressive hosts in 1982
either.
1988. Italy were so-so, certainly not suggesting how good they would be
in 1990. Or maybe I under-rate their 1988 team.
1996. France looked solid, and were just getting things in shape for
two years later, yes.
2004. Germany as weak as they have been since 1984. No indication of
how good they would be in 2006

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On 2016-08-02, MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> On 2016-07-25 3:56 AM, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
>> darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Between the doping, the state-sponsored sports terrorism, and the
>>> current state of things, I would not rule out a shock WC win, frankly.
>>
>> It's only two years. You would have expected to see some effect at the
>> EC but there wasn't one.
>
> How often does such an effect take place (obvious signs of a nation at
> Euros in the process of peaking for a home WC) ?

It's not just that Russia sucked. It was that they sucked with a very
old team. Where were the players you could count on the be, if not
better, then not worse in two years time? The young hopes gathering
valuable experience?

[MH]

A very good question. However, there has been a bit of a changing of the
guard in Russia, with Zenit not even making the CL this year, and Rostov
finishing second. So maybe the players are coming along ? I really
don't know.

In 2004, Germany still had Ballack, Schneider, Jeremies, Kahn, Lehmann,
Bobic, Hamann, Wörns, Nowotny, Baumann, Ziege et al. in the squad.
Podolski and Schweinsteiger were the only teenagers and Lahm was 20.

Fast forward 2 years, A lot of those older guys were in fact still in
the squad, but also Mertesacker (21), Odonkor (22 - never did amount to
much), Huth 21, Jansen 20, Hanke 22, Metzelder 25 (I presume he was
injured in 2004 ?), Borowski (26). Gone were Jeremies, Wörns, Bobic,
Hamann, Baumann, Ziege. One could argue that several of those should
have been left out in 2004 in favour of younger talent.

[Benny]

On 02/08/2016 19:12, MH wrote:

> How often does such an effect take place (obvious signs of a nation
> at Euros in the process of peaking for a home WC) ?

> 1980. Spain showed little, but also were not impressive hosts in
> 1982 either.

They peaked in 2010 not the 1980s. Look at Euro 2008, which they won.

> 1988. Italy were so-so, certainly not suggesting how good they would be
> in 1990. Or maybe I under-rate their 1988 team.

They won the World Cup in 2006 not 1990. In Euro 2004 they missed out on
the KO stages due to the legendary biscotto.

> 1996. France looked solid, and were just getting things in shape for
> two years later, yes.

Lost in the SF on penalties. The basis for the WC winning team was there
- Desially, Blanc, Thuran, Deschamps, Zidane, Djorkaeff and Dugarry. The
post Cantona and Ginola era.

> 2004. Germany as weak as they have been since 1984. No indication of
> how good they would be in 2006

Again, they didn't win the World Cup in 2006 they won it in 2014. 2006
was a sign Germany was back among the World elite but they choked and
choked before finally winning the big one.

[MH]

On 2016-08-02 5:36 PM, Benny wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 19:12, MH wrote:
>
>> How often does such an effect take place (obvious signs of a nation
>> at Euros in the process of peaking for a home WC) ?
>
>> 1980. Spain showed little, but also were not impressive hosts in
>> 1982 either.
>
> They peaked in 2010 not the 1980s. Look at Euro 2008, which they won

You are missing the whole point. Read the thread. Bruce was mentioning
performance at a Euro by a team that was due to HOST the next world cup.
As HOSTS, they would want to prepare carefully and put in a strong
performance.

Spain were hosts in 1982, not 2010. So their Euro 2008 run was not a
preparation for a WC as hosts.

>
>> 1988. Italy were so-so, certainly not suggesting how good they would be
>> in 1990. Or maybe I under-rate their 1988 team.
>
> They won the World Cup in 2006 not 1990.

Again, completely irrelevant. In 1988 they were gearing up to be hosts,
and had arguably the strongest domestic league in the world.

In Euro 2004 they missed out on
> the KO stages due to the legendary biscotto.
>
>> 1996. France looked solid, and were just getting things in shape for
>> two years later, yes.
>
> Lost in the SF on penalties. The basis for the WC winning team was there
> - Desially, Blanc, Thuran, Deschamps, Zidane, Djorkaeff and Dugarry. The
> post Cantona and Ginola era.

Yes, correct. In 1996, France gave an indication of having put most of
the component parts together for a decent run at winning the WC at home.
Their back 4 was set, although the GK changed. Deschamps, Zidane and
Djorkaeff had firmly established themselves, and Dugarry had at least
kept himself in consideration.

But in spite of this there was still a fair bit of chopping and changing
- Loko was discarded, as were Di Meco, Pedros and Guerin, Ibrahim Ba was
tried and discarded between 1996 and 1998, Henry and Trezeguet, Petit,
Vieira, Guivarch and Candela all came into the squad after 1996, along
with lesser lights like Boghossian and Diomede.

Bruce suggested Russia showed nothing in the Euros that suggested they
would mount a decent challenge as WC hosts, and he is right. But they
still might be able to change things enough in 2 years, who knows. I am
not aware of any up and coming players, but they really missed the
injured Dzagoev, who is still quite young.

[Futbolmetrix]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:12:18 PM UTC-4, MH wrote:
> 1988. Italy were so-so, certainly not suggesting how good they would be
> in 1990. Or maybe I under-rate their 1988 team.

I think you are underrating Italy's 1988 team. It was a very young team built around the core of the successful team that had lost the U21 final to Spain two years before: Zenga, Ferri, De Napoli, Giannini, Donadoni, Vialli and Mancini were all part of that team (also Francini, Ferrara and Cravero, who didn't see much playing time). Plus Maldini, who was even younger. The only survivors from the 1982 WC winning squad were Baresi and Altobelli. Those two plus Ancelotti and benchwarmer Romano were the only non-GKs above age 25.

On the field, they did quite well: a 1-1 draw against the hosts (which really should have been a win if not for a ridiculous homer call on Zenga holding the ball for more than 4 seconds, which led to Brehme's equalizer); a tight 1-0 win over a good Spain team (the Butraguen~o + Michel generation was coming into their prime), and a fairly comfortable 2-0 win over Denmark. Reaching the semifinal was considered already a good achievement for such a young team, and they well far below their best against the Soviets and lost 2-0.

In fact, one can make a case that Italy 1988-1990 is exactly what Bruce was talking about. They completely dismantled whatever was left of the 1982 team and sent a super-young team to the Euros to gain experience, so that they would peak at the time of the home WC.

[MH]

On 2016-08-04 10:24 AM, Futbolmetrix wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:12:18 PM UTC-4, MH wrote:
>> 1988. Italy were so-so, certainly not suggesting how good they would be
>> in 1990. Or maybe I under-rate their 1988 team.
>
> I think you are underrating Italy's 1988 team.

Quite possible, even likely. I was back in Canada by then and had two
children under 2, no cable TV (and no coverage of the Euros in Canada),
so I saw no games live. Did arrive back in Europe in July and read
lots/saw footage of the tournament.

It was a very young team built around the core of the successful team
that had lost the U21 final to Spain two years before: Zenga, Ferri, De
Napoli, Giannini, Donadoni, Vialli and Mancini were all part of that
team (also Francini, Ferrara and Cravero, who didn't see much playing
time). Plus Maldini, who was even younger. The only survivors from the
1982 WC winning squad were Baresi and Altobelli.

That is not quite true. Bergomi was there. Though still only 24, he was
their second most-capped player.

Those two plus Ancelotti and benchwarmer Romano were the only non-GKs
above age 25.

Still, with 2 25 year olds, 6 24 year olds, and 3 23 year olds, they
were not a super-young team either.

>
> On the field, they did quite well: a 1-1 draw against the hosts (which really should have been a win if not for a ridiculous homer call on Zenga holding the ball for more than 4 seconds, which led to Brehme's equalizer); a tight 1-0 win over a good Spain team (the Butraguen~o + Michel generation was coming into their prime), and a fairly comfortable 2-0 win over Denmark. Reaching the semifinal was considered already a good achievement for such a young team, and they well far below their best against the Soviets and lost 2-0.
>
> In fact, one can make a case that Italy 1988-1990 is exactly what Bruce was talking about. They completely dismantled whatever was left of the 1982 team and sent a super-young team to the Euros to gain experience, so that they would peak at the time of the home WC.

Fair enough.


>