Mrs Smoker
Full Member
If it was life and death situation, I'd call Steven Seagal, not play damn football game.
It's the fact that they put their fate in someone else's hand instead of taking care of it themselves. Its cowardly. It's not cheating, they are within their rights to do it. But its cowardly and not something I would ever want my team doing as if the game that you cant influence goes wrong, then you ended up wasting 20 minutes instead of trying to score against a shit side.
They went for a 0-0 draw which put them through regardless of anything else. It's not great to see, but it's normal and a big difference, as it's still taking care of business on their own instead of hoping someone else does it for you.Well Senegal didn't obviously put their own fate in their own hands if they couldn't score against Colombia now did they? If football is about scoring goals and we're criticising Japan for that, why not apply the same rules to Senegal?
I don't know which country you're from, but I certainly understand why Japan did that, making the L16 already matches their BEST EVER WC performance.
If you were a German or Brazilian, you'd probably rightly feel it's ridiculous to rely on Colombia.
Except for the fact Lewandowski had a clear cut chance of making it 2-0. You're acting like Japan could easily have scored against Poland if they wanted to. There's a reason they were the 4th favorite to progress in that group before a ball was kicked.Poland are pretty trash. I would want my team to try and score as it's unlikely Poland were going to do anything on the counter anyway, and that way it doesnt matter if somebody scored a 30 yard screamer out of nothing for Senegal.
Ah feck, I read that somewhere and didn't bother doing a fact check.Third, but agree with the post.
Cowardly because you dont have the balls to take care of the issue yourself and hope someone else will take care of it for you. Literally the definition of cowardly.
#metooIf it was life and death situation, I'd call Steven Seagal, not play damn football game.
Yeah you can have your easier route, will be fun watching Colombia play Sweden or SwitzerlandSecond gets easier route.
Not easily scored, but you have to try IMO. Also wasn't the Lewandowski chances right as Colombia scored or right before? Just think you should always try to put matters into your own hands, so I'll never like seeing the situation where they stop playing. Could easily have ended where Japans game ended, then Senegal scored right after and sent them out. It's the cowardly approach instead of believing in yourself.Except for the fact Lewandowski had a clear cut chance of making it 2-0. You're acting like Japan could easily have scored against Poland if they wanted to. There's a reason they were the 4th favorite to progress in that group before a ball was kicked.
What about Lukaku ?
Seriously, I know quite a few Japanese people and they had no expectation at all for this WC. The fact they made it through is almost a miracle.I'm English mate. I don't agree with it but from their perspective I suppose they were comfortable with doing that. From a bigger nation's POV then it'd be criticised even more so .
This is legit cowardly.So going by the popular opinion about Japan progressing, I hope people will call English team a bunch of cowards for trying to play such a weakened team and try to take the easy path instead of doing the honourable path of facing and defeating the big shots and trying their best to finish the group in 1st position
Like I said, they can go and do that, I'm not too bothered. From someone who has been a neutral the entire world cup and pretty much just forming a preference every game as the world cup has gone on, that alone is more then enough for me to hope they get absolutely battered in their next game. Everyone's allowed an opinion, mine is that that was cowardly football from them and that they got away with it, and in should no way be praised for it. Praise them for their first 2 games, sure. Not today though.Not really, the easiest thing for them to do in the situation was to try and score and put their fate in their own hands.
They chose the other, riskier option and gambled on something that was completely out of their control.
That is not a cowardly act. It’s stupid but it worked for them.
Get over it man![]()
Exactly, they were trying to score at that point and was almost caught on the break. If they continued to pile forward, there's every chance it could happen again.Not easily scored, but you have to try IMO. Also wasn't the Lewandowski chances right as Colombia scored or right before? Just think you should always try to put matters into your own hands, so I'll never like seeing the situation where they stop playing. Could easily have ended where Japans game ended, then Senegal scored right after and sent them out. It's the cowardly approach instead of believing in yourself.
Don't you know this is the most moral football forum in the world?The fecking moral indignation on here over Japan
Fecking hell
Call it whatever you want, by definition it’s just not cowardly.Like I said, they can go and do that, I'm not too bothered. From someone who has been a neutral the entire world cup and pretty much just forming a preference every game as the world cup has gone on, that alone is more then enough for me to hope they get absolutely battered in their next game. Everyone's allowed an opinion, mine is that that was cowardly football from them and that they got away with it, and in should no way be praised for it. Praise them for their first 2 games, sure. Not today though.
Exactly. If Colombia stopped playing the way Japan did, I'd call that cowardly.The "I'm within my right to criticise " response I've gotten twice now is hilarious to me. No one's questioning that but it doesn't validate what you say. Like shouting FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and thinking that legitimises an opinion.
Let's say Senegal score. And it's 1-1 with five minutes left. Both teams just play for a draw. Japan go out. With people be moralising over Colombia relying on Japan's result to see them through?
The "I'm within my right to criticise " response I've gotten twice now is hilarious to me. No one's questioning that but it doesn't validate what you say. Like shouting FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and thinking that legitimises an opinion.
Let's say Senegal score. And it's 1-1 with five minutes left. Both teams just play for a draw. Japan go out. With people be moralising over Colombia relying on Japan's result to see them through?
Wouldn't really say it's a logical choice. It sends a bad message IMO, even if you do qualify. Telling your players "don't try to score against an unmotivated side, we'll hope nothing happens in the other game". Though tbf the manager sent a bad message right from the start by resting so many players in a game that actually mattered for them. Got away with both decisions rather then both being good decisions IMO.Exactly, they were trying to score at that point and was almost caught on the break. If they continued to pile forward, there's every chance it could happen again.
You're entitled to your opinion on this matter, but I'd just say it was the logical choice for the manager.
Wouldn't really say it's a logical choice. It sends a bad message IMO, even if you do qualify. Telling your players "don't try to score against an unmotivated side, we'll hope nothing happens in the other game". Though tbf the manager sent a bad message right from the start by resting so many players in a game that actually mattered for them. Got away with both decisions rather then both being good decisions IMO.
Yep... Colombia could have, but they went and scored. Took matters into their own hands, even though they knew Poland was winning.Exactly. If Colombia stopped playing the way Japan did, I'd call that cowardly.
It's the logical choice because Colombia seeing out a 1-0 against Senegal is always far more likely than Japan getting an equalizer.Wouldn't really say it's a logical choice. It sends a bad message IMO, even if you do qualify. Telling your players "don't try to score against an unmotivated side, we'll hope nothing happens in the other game". Though tbf the manager sent a bad message right from the start by resting so many players in a game that actually mattered for them. Got away with both decisions rather then both being good decisions IMO.
They are both risks I don't think I would take. Not because of morality but the risk involved.Wouldn't really say it's a logical choice. It sends a bad message IMO, even if you do qualify. Telling your players "don't try to score against an unmotivated side, we'll hope nothing happens in the other game". Though tbf the manager sent a bad message right from the start by resting so many players in a game that actually mattered for them. Got away with both decisions rather then both being good decisions IMO.
6 changes in this game compared to the same starting 11 in the first 2 games. Pretty clear that's being "rested", when the first 2 games ended well for them.Which out right starters did he rest?