forameuss

Should also add that I don't think they've confirmed the 3 team groups, and that 4 team ones are still an option. Obviously brings its own problems though.

I'll go and read the rest of it in a minute, but I really hate the idea that adding teams that were on the fringes of qualifying automatically makes it a less interesting tournament to watch. Plenty of unfancied sides over the years have contributed moments that make World Cups memorable, and plenty of the "bigger" sides - often when playing each other - contribute to some of the more forgettable. Some of the added sides will stink the place out, that's unavoidable, but they'd hardly be alone in that. Some of them are going to light the place up. If I wanted top-notch technical skills at all times I certainly wouldn't go to Firhill every other weekend. There's more to football than that. EDIT: Perfect examples today. Serbia, Cameroon, Ghana and South Korea. Four countries that would be, at best, in the middle ranking of nations at the tournament. Nowhere near the top, no realistic chance of going deep. Yet two very watchable games.

Pretty sure they aren't licensed to sell new copies of previous games once the new one is released. It won't be coming back.

While the overall point is fine, citation very much needed on the bolded part. I'd imagine the level of testing they'd ideally want is probably something hundreds might be willing to do, and that's being generous.

It has been, on the whole, really odd for a number of reasons. There does seem to be a sort of air of didn't they do well from English media, like they're this adorable cat whose legs don't work too well, but it really doesn't affect them, and they're just so brave for soldiering on. All a bit patronising really. And when they're not doing that, it's going way over the top on how brilliant it all is. How Bale's a genius because he had a US player go through the back of him and scored a penalty. I wonder whether it's from seeing the coverage of the Euros from a Scottish perspective. We had our own coverage, which was equal parts tinpot. cringeworthy and ultimately pretty defeatist. Do Wales get their own coverage in the country that's a bit more realistic and balanced?

But he's a genius isn't he? Someone came through the back of him against the US and he scored from 12 yards. Basically Golden Ball stuff. There's always a chance. We got that 0-0 draw win at the Euros which was completely against how both sides were playing and went onto play. There's definitely a chance that Wales could cause them some problems, particularly if England are already through after winning tonight. But that's like your 1 in 10 stuff that they get a battling 0-0 like we did. Expecting them to not just win, but win comfortably enough to qualify? Naaaaaah

Belgium have to be the most tedious top-tier nation there is. Constantly near the top of the rankings while never really doing anything to actually threaten to win tournaments. No boom and bust, just a constant mid-to-high-level droning.

Any chance you could not quote me completely butchering the gif? 'sakes I see what you mean, but the whole point is the rankings. If they're not that accurate - which they're not, especially when comparing confederations that rarely play each other - then the whole point kind of falls down. It's constantly brought up as some gauge of quality (and granted they don't have much else) when it doesn't really mean much. Italy are 6th and are deservedly not at the tournament. Canada are ranked below Scotland, one of which could well still have a decent tournament and one of which are, again, deservedly not there (because we boycotted it and wanted to give Ukraine the place definitely. Definitely.). It's a weak group. Wales are lacking and were beaten by a side that completely shat it from England. Remains to be seen what England do to the US.

Because the rankings are absolutely infallible obviously, and totally represent the strength of each country.

Ah, the Scottish approach. Honestly, Austria and Ukraine must be sick watching this

Certain parts of me are sensitive every time I look at a picture of him to be fair.

While the AI outside of matches and everything that it touches is still so incredibly lacking, there's a long, long list of features that would be a waste of time by comparison.

There's an analogy with the progression of Covid there. I found a paper in the house from late-March or early-April 2020 and there was a front-page story about how someone had been airlifted from one of the offshore rigs in Scotland with a positive case. One case. Don't think it was even a death. Massive news. Fast forward a few months, and we're mentioning hundreds of deaths a day like it's nothing. There's going to be more stories like this from the tournament. Maybe even some worse. But it ends up just becoming noise, even though it shouldn't be. The time for anything to actually change has long disappeared.

Can't believe those awful Saudis are completely ruining Messi winning the World Cup. Disgusting.

Nice. A decent way to do it, still get the shock value, still get the publicity, charities still get their money, and you get the extra **** you of adding that there was no chance they'd ever get what they wanted anyway. Good on him.

What was it he ended up doing? For someone old who'd rather not catch every piece of news in video form

I did think in the run-up that was a bit of shame that with all the controversy around...well, everything, that we wouldn't get to see what a super rich state could do with those resources to deliver a unique world cup. The sort of mad **** they could build with a near unlimited budget and imagination. Turns out they couldn't even manage to build a fan park effectively.

Because nothing says "we really care about this cause" more than fear of backlash. Is bullying an establishment into making a decision really a win?

Interesting that the stuff around beer is huge news, yet you haven't heard much about this. Them suddenly banning beer is amusing to most, and probably no more than an inconvenience and annoyance to those that are there, but not providing enough water could well be deadly. The more that comes out about this, the more it seems like there's going to be something pretty serious happening during the tournament. Usually you get scare stories in the media during the tournament, and they come to nothing. Hopefully that's the case here, but...there's just soooo many. Is it going to be people dying from exposure? Someone gay getting his head caved in? A riot at the drunk tank? A stadium falling down?

Yeah, I'm sure the individual cases that money could help would be happy to forego it given they should never have been in that position to start with.

It's not even close to the most difficult challenge. The AI even managed it after a little while. Any challenge in the game has its difficulty evaporated as the seasons go on anyway, the AI isn't good enough to put up much of a long-term fight. Which doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't for a number of years. SPFL is the league system, Scottish Premiership is the league, in all its them-down-South aping glory.

I don't really see what any kind of "I'm not watching" boycott really achieves, other than to let people compete for just how much they're totally not going to watch. At this stage, the people who shouldn't have made the decisions that were made have already pocketed their money and left. Viewing figures going down (and that's if they even do go down by some noticeable amount) probably doesn't hurt anyone that actually makes a difference. If sponsors were going to rise up and take notice and put some real pressure on, they would have done so by now, not just days before the tournament. And to pile that on to hospitality venues that are talking about shutting in the New Year because of the struggle is pretty unfair. Showing the World Cup doesn't make them all bigoted homophobes. It doesn't make them a supporter of the Qatari regime. It doesn't mean that, just by showing it, everyone's going to suddenly forget what has gone before. It just means they're denying themselves money that other establishments will happily take instead.

It's amazing how much adding those older players improves this over just relying on the media-trained automatons that pass for current players. I doubt in 20 years time a number of the modern players will still get that kind of pop that having Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and Davids in there does.

I like the message behind it (even if it's something that will obviously never happen) but the consequence he's planning seems like he's backed himself into a corner. Do it, and it's a really bad look in a time where a lot of people are struggling. Don't do it, and a lot will probably question what the point of it all was. It's too sensationalist for something that didn't need to. Should've done something like starting out saying he's going to donate to the sort of causes that would really anger the sort of people he's railing against, but if Beckham would withdraw (which he won't/can't) then he'd double it. Of course that likely wouldn't have gained as much traction as threatening to destroy money.

Should be on a barge heading down the Thames, with him constantly reminding people who booked said barge. Farage at Large In Charge on a Barge.