Quote:
Originally Posted by cadence90
OK, you are more generous than I am then.
ESP-POR was good, fair even; we agree the most balanced opponents, by miles.
I thought that FRA-AUS was barely acceptable for teams of such disparate talent.
GER-MEX, ARG-ISL, BRA-SWI were mostly lethargic, piss-poor, very uninspired performances by much stronger sides against decidedly weaker ones. Imo.
I meant "top" sides in terms of general rankings etc., not purely personal opinions which will obviously vastly differ. Yes, ENG and BEL are not top 5; BEL are much closer than ENG, though. POR may or may not be, either way is OK. But by the same token it would be equally unfair to then place MEX or SWI anywhere near that top tier. They are not, not even relative to the teams they played and the "tough opponent" discussion.
ENG 2 - TUN 1 is still a weak result for ENG, relative to TUN's talent, no matter how over-hyped ENG may be. TUN is a complete minnow.
.
|
Fair enough, I can understand where you're coming from. I think the Swiss and Mexico are dangerous opposition in the right circumstances and posed match up issues with how they played but you're right, if GER and BRA were really that good they should've found ways to win.
The FRA game to me at the end of the day, they still got points even if they had to grind. Maybe it's just my background in sport but at this level just getting the win is most important. It's almost like in a grand tour, it's about minimizing losses (in this case literally rather than the time gap) and there's a lot to be said for getting a result even when you play poorly..
Agree on ENG vs TUN but like the ARG-ICL game, I didn't expect much more than that. ENG is vastly overrated, and ARG-ICL is more evenly matched than most think: talent vs organization