England v Colombia

[Foulthrow]

It will be interesting to see the approach of both teams in this game - I have feeling Colombia will sit back and try to hit us on the counter.

[gandhisflipflop]

I'd want whichever team is weaker.

There's no such thing as a bogey side.

Ok then. I'd want the best possible advantage over our opponents. And it is in my belief that psychologically playing sweden wouldn't give us that.

[RingoMcCartney]

Sports correspondent for the Times, Henry winter, has spent the morning in the England camp.

Just said on Talksport, he expects Tuesday's starting 11 to be the same as the one that started against Tunisia.

[FactualFrank]

Sports correspondent for the Times, Henry winter, has spent the morning in the England camp.

Just said on Talksport, he expects Tuesday's starting 11 to be the same as the one that started against Tunisia.

So Ali back in for Loftus-cheek (from the Panama game). No surprises really.

[houseboy]

It's hardly pedantic to point out there's a big difference between someone saying the next match would be easier and someone saying the route to the final would be easier.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that any team is guaranteed to lose if they face Brazil. By avoiding the possibility of playing Brazil until the final we have a bigger chance of getting there than Belgium who would be guaranteed to lose in the quarter finals if they got past Japan.

Obviously the assumption isn't true but, as tournament favourites, the chances of England, or anyone else, beating Brazil will be smaller than their chances of beating any of the other teams.

As an aside, we're avoiding the possibility of playing your tip for the tournament until the final as well.

So, in your world, everyone should speak and act as they are in a court of law, with absolute precision leaving no margin for error in understanding? The problem is most other people live in a world where interpretation and 'givens' are the norm. I could argue with you all day about logic and semantics, interpretations and probabilities but it would take too much time and I guess you are the kind of pedant who would just keep on using circular argument and gainsaying in order not to lose (but not actually win). My wife, with a degree in psychology and a personality as stubborn as a mule does that as well, the problem is it doesn't actually lead anywhere.

I stand by my statement, we have the hardest route BECAUSE our next game is the hardest of the two. IF we get past the next game I will re-evaluate.

[houseboy]

It will be interesting to see the approach of both teams in this game - I have feeling Colombia will sit back and try to hit us on the counter.

That's interesting because I thought the opposite, that Colombia will outplay us but we might win with solid defending and good counters. As you say it will be interesting. All clashes between European and South American countries are good because it is usually a clash of styles. I think Colombia will be a good test for our lads and if we get past them we could go all the way, although Sweden are starting to look very good.

[HiroshimaClaret]

What source did you get this from? I've read a few and they're just going off what Pekerman said straight after the match, before any examination.

BBC Sport, Sky Sports, ESPN, personally watching him come off after 30 minutes, etc, etc and of course...STEVE NICOL! They could of course be wide of the mark but as he came into the tournament injured, didn`t start the first game and now has been withdrawn early in a must-win game, it doesn`t take a rocket scientist...

[FactualFrank]

BBC Sport, Sky Sports, ESPN, personally watching him come off after 30 minutes, etc, etc and of course...STEVE NICOL! They could of course be wide of the mark but as he came into the tournament injured, didn`t start the first game and now has been withdrawn early in a must-win game, it doesn`t take a rocket scientist...

It looks like they're just recycling stuff that the manager said after the match. I'll still expect him to start on Tuesday.

[HiroshimaClaret]

It looks like they're just recycling stuff that the manager said after the match. I'll still expect him to start on Tuesday.

I suppose we`ll just have to wait and see but if he was an England player in the same situation, your opinion, I guess, would be wholeheartedly different regards his chances of starting.

[RingoMcCartney]

So, in your world, everyone should speak and act as they are in a court of law, with absolute precision leaving no margin for error in understanding? The problem is most other people live in a world where interpretation and 'givens' are the norm. I could argue with you all day about logic and semantics, interpretations and probabilities but it would take too much time and I guess you are the kind of pedant who would just keep on using circular argument and gainsaying in order not to lose (but not actually win). My wife, with a degree in psychology and a personality as stubborn as a mule does that as well, the problem is it doesn't actually lead anywhere.

I stand by my statement, we have the hardest route BECAUSE our next game is the hardest of the two. IF we get past the next game I will re-evaluate.

You're dealing with one of a gaggle of posters, who enjoy nothing more than to crawl, ant-like, over every word and punctuation mark and spelling. To forensically place your every sentence under a micro scope of pedantry. In order to try a disprove what you're saying. Rather than take a point in the spirit it was made, like most normal people would. They zoom in on what they perceive as a chink of weakness in your, written in good spirit, post.

They've transformed nit picking into a ******* art form.

[FactualFrank]

I suppose we`ll just have to wait and see but..

No buts. We'll wait and see.

[HiroshimaClaret]

No buts. We'll wait and see.

OK, FF. Have yourself a great Friday.

[Tall Paul]

I stand by my statement, we have the hardest route BECAUSE our next game is the hardest of the two. IF we get past the next game I will re-evaluate.

Why can't you look beyond the next game now and evaluate the whole route? Are you that shortsighted and blinkered? Can't you think more than one step ahead? If you're travelling somewhere and you know that one route has a giant mountain along the way, compared to a few small hills if you took a different route, would you wait until you're at the bottom of the mountain before deciding that it was the more difficult route?

I won't bother trying to explain it further as you clearly have little understanding of basic probability.

Sorry to sound harsh, but it's really frustrating that you can't see something that seems so simple to me. You managed to assess Uruguay's chances of winning the other day so why do you seem to be struggling with this?

[Tall Paul]

You're dealing with one of a gaggle of posters, who enjoy nothing more than to crawl, ant-like, over every word and punctuation mark and spelling. To forensically place your every sentence under a micro scope of pedantry. In order to try a disprove what you're saying. Rather than take a point in the spirit it was made, like most normal people would. They zoom in on what they perceive as a chink of weakness in your, written in good spirit, post.

They've transformed nit picking into a ******* art form.

Microscope is all one word.

So is nitpicking.

[claretinkorea]

Seems like a lot on here have decided that Colombia would be the more difficult second round match. Just recall the score between Colombia and Japan...

The point is that there really isn't much between any of the teams that were in Group H. I don't think England is any more or less likely to beat one or the other. The choice of Sweden/Switzerland or Brazil/Mexico... Quite happy to let the Belgians have a stab at removing (probably) Brazil (which I wouldn't put past them by the way).

Would be quite nice to have a rematch against Belgium in the final and see what both sides can REALLY do when they both want to win... But for now, no expectations and just enjoying each match as it comes - some cracking second round ties in there!!!

[houseboy]

You're dealing with one of a gaggle of posters, who enjoy nothing more than to crawl, ant-like, over every word and punctuation mark and spelling. To forensically place your every sentence under a micro scope of pedantry. In order to try a disprove what you're saying. Rather than take a point in the spirit it was made, like most normal people would. They zoom in on what they perceive as a chink of weakness in your, written in good spirit, post.

They've transformed nit picking into a ******* art form.

I realise this mate, I've cross swords with him before I believe (no doubt he will now say I haven't). Pedantry is alive and well and living on this site (thankfully with not too many).

[FactualFrank]

some cracking second round ties in there!!!

There certainly is.

Uruguay vs Portugal
France vs Argentina
Spain vs Russia
Brazil vs Mexico

They all look to have the potential of being belters (and biters).

[Tall Paul]

I realise this mate, I've cross swords with him before I believe (no doubt he will now say I haven't). Pedantry is alive and well and living on this site (thankfully with not too many).

It isn't pedantry when you say one thing (such as, "people were saying it might be good to lose because it would be easier in the next round") but mean something entirely different (such as "people were saying it might be good to lose because it would mean an easier route to the final") especially when you base your point on the thing you said rather than the thing you meant.

Things would be a lot easier if posters took a bit more care and said what they meant instead of expecting others to read their minds and realise they meant something entirely different.

[houseboy]

Why can't you look beyond the next game now and evaluate the whole route? Are you that shortsighted and blinkered? Can't you think more than one step ahead? If you're travelling somewhere and you know that one route has a giant mountain along the way, compared to a few small hills if you took a different route, would you wait until you're at the bottom of the mountain before deciding that it was the more difficult route?

I won't bother trying to explain it further as you clearly have little understanding of basic probability.

Sorry to sound harsh, but it's really frustrating that you can't see something that seems so simple to me. You managed to assess Uruguay's chances of winning the other day so why do you seem to be struggling with this?

I was going to use the 'journey' analogy but felt you wouldn't grasp it. You obviously have nothing better to do with your time than to run the rule over every statement made on here (yes I have checked you out) in order to start an argument where none existed. This is a football forum, not a courtroom and if I was so inclined, which I am not,
I would gladly engage you in an argument about logic, semantics and the law of probability, I'm actually pretty good at it (have a degree in English Language and Philosophy gained at Salford University some years ago, I also made a very good living at one time as an editorial writer for several business magazines) but frankly I have better things to do.

I suggest you take your 'razor-sharp' wit and analytical skills and start on someone who actually gives a damn what you think.

[RingoMcCartney]

I realise this mate, I've cross swords with him before I believe (no doubt he will now say I haven't). Pedantry is alive and well and living on this site (thankfully with not too many).

I've had the same pal. I happened to mention you could face jail if you didn't pay your tv licence. He reckoned you couldn't. I linked umpteen links to newspaper's showing 1000s of cases. Then he got the scalpel out to disect the words. To claim you don't get jail for not paying your licence, it's for non payment of the 1000 quid fine for non payment of the licence!

He's not called called Tall Paul cos he's high in stature. It's cos he never gets off his high horse.

[Tall Paul]

I was going to use the 'journey' analogy but felt you wouldn't grasp it.

Go on then, I've used the analogy to argue my case - that it's the journey as a whole that should be evaluated at the start, please use the analogy to argue yours - that only the first leg of the journey should be assessed. I'm sure I'd grasp it perfectly well. Then we can talk about logic and probabilities.

I'll ignore the rest of your post which is not much more than an ad hominem, but I admit that I do like a good argument, it helps pass the time on a boring Friday.

[houseboy]

I've had the same pal. I happened to mention you could face jail if you didn't pay your tv licence. He reckoned you couldn't. I linked umpteen links to newspaper's showing 1000s of cases. Then he got the scalpel out to disect the words. To claim you don't get jail for not paying your licence, it's for non payment of the 1000 quid fine for non payment of the licence!

He's not called called Tall Paul cos he's high in stature. It's cos he never gets off his high horse.

I remember that very thread. The debate split into what, exactly, you would get jailed for, TV licence evasion or non-payment of fines. Of course it would be the latter but your original argument was valid I suppose because the end result would be the same.

TP will be reviewing that thread now as we speak.

[houseboy]

Go on then, I've used the analogy to argue my case - that it's the journey as a whole that should be evaluated at the start, please use the analogy to argue yours - that only the first leg of the journey should be assessed. I'm sure I'd grasp it perfectly well. Then we can talk about logic and probabilities.

I'll ignore the rest of your post which is not much more than an ad hominem, but I admit that I do like a good argument, it helps pass the time on a boring Friday.

I would but alas I am actually at work unlike your good self who appears to be either retired or unemployed. Now run along and before you do make sure you reply to this post by saying something along the lines of 'Aha, I've got you, you can't argue with me so you are running away'. It's what pedants do when faced with someone who can't be bothered with them. It's the kind of psychological argument developed over the years to avoid losing an argument. It puts the opponent in an impossible position, either making them continue a circular argument or face being accused of having no answers. As I have said I have been married for 30 years to a far better opponent than you, the difference is I care a good deal for my wife whereas you are not even on the radar.

[RingoMcCartney]

I remember that very thread. The debate split into what, exactly, you would get jailed for, TV licence evasion or non-payment of fines. Of course it would be the latter but your original argument was valid I suppose because the end result would be the same.

TP will be reviewing that thread now as we speak.

Exactly, rather than taking it in the spirit it was made....

If you can't afford the 150 or what ever the licence is. It's unlikely you'll be able to stump up the grand fine. As you'll be aware, the all too predictable, pedantry rabbit hole, subsequently, ensued!

If I'd really wanted to waste valuable time, locking horns with an anal, stubborn as a mountain goat-like, common sense lacking bore. I could have given the ex wife a phone.

I'll sign off now take it easy.

[edison]

in the age of Twitter speculation, who needs sources?

[Tall Paul]

I would but alas I am actually at work unlike your good self who appears to be either retired or unemployed.

You've made more than twice as many posts as me today and more posts per day over the time you've been registered (I've checked you out too). Who's the one with nothing better to do with their time?

If I'd really wanted to waste valuable time, locking horns with an anal, stubborn as a mountain goat-like, common sense lacking bore. I could have given the ex wife a phone.

And yet lock horns you always do. Not only that, but you persist in bringing up old arguments months after everyone else has let them go.

[RingoMcCartney]

You've made more than twice as many posts as me today and more posts per day over the time you've been registered (I've checked you out too). Who's the one with nothing better to do with their time?



And yet lock horns you always do. Not only that, but you persist in bringing up old arguments months after everyone else has let them go.

Don't be a cock all your life Paul. It's Friday. Take the weekend off.

[Tall Paul]

Don't be a cock all your life Paul. It's Friday. Take the weekend off.

Pot, kettle, black.

[Tribesmen]

To be honest i am thinking 1-1 after 120 minutes then you know what will happen .

[DefourFiveSix]

Extra time and pens.

[Wile E Coyote]

no chance, 4-0 england written all over it, colombia are useles.

[tiger76]

Looking like Rodriguez will play after all,https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44651678 a major boost for Colombia if correct.