What's new
By:

FIFA World Cup 2018

MVP said:
Physically France looks so much stronger and faster. Not sure Peru can keep up with them. I like Carillo dude, he can play though.
Click to expand...
Yes, France physicality and speed is a problem, especially when they pressure up top. Carillo is ballin. Guerrero is pretty good
 
Well, Peru dreams are over. Talented squad, but not yet ready for the big stage. Maybe in Qatar they will have better luck.
 
Going home. Close game. Should have won against Denmark, which we deserved. Dominated France in the second half but couldnt create enough opportunities. This group is tough. Australia is also good. No ****** teams like Saudi Arabia
 
MVP said:
Well, Peru dreams are over. Talented squad, but not yet ready for the big stage. Maybe in Qatar they will have better luck.
Click to expand...
Yeah, altough qualifying in South America is hard. It's a young, talented team that isnt afraid of anyone. They play their game, plays hard. It's like my Jazz. Good things to come.
 
latin jazz said:
Fair enough. As of now, games would be too long. On a average game, 'effective play' is around 60 minutes.

Thus, two halves of 30 min have been discussed. Disagree that the only change would be more time awareness (which is not perceived as an issue) and that everything would remain the same. I think how teams manage time, gameplays and tactics could be affected (maybe for good!). I guess fans and authorities don't feel the system is broken therefore why fix it. Someone posted FIFA is reluctant to innovate and that is generally true. I will think about pros/cons.
Click to expand...
I mean dont change anything at all other than instead of having someone (the official im assuming is the one that decides the stoppage time) secretly stop time for a foul/out of bounds/etc have them stop time in a fashion that everyone can see. That way there is transparency.
The current system could have an official add more stoppage time than actually took place to help the losing time or add less stoppage time to help the winning team. I think that is too much control for a person to have on the game since an official, like anyone else, could be bias.
Also, currently no one really knows exactly when the game is going to end so strategy could be effected by the not knowing. I mean what if there was 30 seconds left in a close game and the teams thought that there was one minute and thirty seconds left? Wouldn't that effect the urgency of the situation?
 
latin jazz said:
Should have won against Denmark, which we deserved.
Click to expand...

You deserved a tie, I will give you that, but a win? No way. Denmark scored a goal and had two more 100% chances to put it away. So you can't say you deserved to win, not like refs robbed you of anything.
 
Sucks for Peru, they deserved a tie both games.
Denmark was disappointing again. Take Eriksen out and I am not sure they look like a team. I expected more from Sisto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top