So, by your definition Wales got lucky against Belgium quite a lot for two wins and a draw. Belgium must be a really unlucky team. Did Leicester also luck their way to the premier league title?
Alternatively, that's all horseshit and Wales outplayed Belgium three games in a row, and took two wins and a draw for their efforts.
Hi Chris. I'm not going back in to the debate but think you're digging a pretty big hole for yourself with this luck discussion. Wales haven't been lucky (although Reading fans I spoke to have never seen the Robson Kanu turn before) and England weren't unlucky. Germany were pretty lucky at the weekend.
If it's under your control, it isn't luck. Luck is the things that happen by chance.
@drcongo I've got no idea about the other Wales Belgium games, I only know about the one I saw. There was a fairly nailed on penalty plus a tackle that should have been a second yellow (I think?) - if either of those had been given I suspect Wales wouldn't have won that game.
@chris; there was many a time like Hazard handling the ball, then blatantly throwing the ball away, that warranted a Yellow card, which the referee had no qualms dishing it out to Ramsey. There where a few things either way that could have changed the outcome, not forgetting the Welsh defender, who had the net at his mercy, strike at the keeper.
Wales out played Belgium and nullified Hazard threat to one or two signature shots, none on target.
If we had another poll referendum on here, my money, it wasn't down to luck, Wales winning 3-1.
But a Hazard yellow wouldn't have mattered, would it? Whereas a sending off or a penalty would have been likely to change the result.
I'm not saying it wasn't a good Wales performance, it was. They did well to beat a Belgium team rated 2nd best in the world (although are they really?). I'm just frustrated at the lack of acknowledgement of the role of luck in their success.
"Practised."
Anyway - Wales won the game by two clear goals, after having conceded first. They played well and thoroughly deserved their win. Good luck to them (no pun intended) and I hope they get to the final and win the thing.
Wales deserved to win as they scored more goals in the game. Did they (v Belgium) or Iceland (v England) outplay the other team on the night? All things being equal, I'd say not. But luckily that's not how football is won - it would be a pretty dull game. And of course things aren't equal - England should have beaten Iceland and Belgium should have beaten Wales as they were the relatively stronger sides. So Wales (and Iceland) winning is a great achievement.
Strange how the result blinds people to the reality of what actually happened. Yes, Iceland did what they needed to do, and won the game. But taking a step back, and looking at what actually happened, England were clearly on top for the whole game despite conceding a couple of goals from stupid defensive mistakes. This doesn't detract from Iceland's performance which was magnificent in the circumstances especially considering the gulf in quality between the sides. England underplayed against our expectations (no doubt they weren't good enough) and Iceland exceeded expectations. But (excepting the rather large issue of goals) England were the better side on the day, if you were a neutral who came to the game without knowing which side were expected to win.
England had 63% possession and 18 shots. Iceland had 37% and 8 (I'm not sure how England can have been lucky not to lose 4-1 when Iceland didn't have 3 shots on target). Now we all know statistics don't tell the whole story... but these stats seem to be to be an accurate reflection of how the game went. England were sloppy at the back, in midfield and upfront; but it was they who were running the game, not Iceland.
The Wales game wasn't as clear cut, but I still felt Belgium outplayed Wales despite the result.
I don't want to come across as bitter in all this, the Robson-Kanu goal was one of my favourite moment of the Euros so far (as is this http://www.snappytv.com/tc/2296928/1160933 ) but I think the contrast between England's failure and Wales's success has been over-analysed in the media. When looking for a grand narrative behind it all, some acknowledgement should be given to the role of chance. And probably some explanation of how England comfortably outplayed Wales when the two sides met.
You admit that England were sloppy at the back and made two stupid defensive mistakes Chris. Icelands defence was superb. Iceland defended much better than us on the day and that is the reason why they won and is nothing to do with luck.
How about this then. Imagine the two teams were reversed, England played the game Iceland did and Iceland played the game England did. Iceland had the ball for most of the game and had far more shots. England came from behind through a long throw into the box and a goalkeeping error.
Would you be saying that England's performance was great and they deserved to go through, no luck involved? That they had outplayed Iceland? I know I wouldn't.
all things being equal, England were the better side in the Iceland game despite losing (although clearly far from good enough given the respective strengths of the teams, and also given the respective strengths it was a great performance by Iceland)
luck played a part in the Wales victory against Belgium (again, clearly a great performance by Wales)
England dominated the game where they played Wales
And all these things should be borne in mind when making general conclusions about why or how Wales have overperformed and England have underperformed at the Euros. It's just human nature to want to come up with reasons for things when often they are down to luck, at least to some extent. And football would be dull if there wasn't luck involved.
"England were the better side in the Iceland game"
It's like you literally don't know the point of a game of football. Iceland were the better side in that game by a mile
In fact half an hour in, it was so obvious to me that England had no idea how to break Iceland down that I lumped a load of cash on Iceland to win. Remarkably, at this point they were still not favourites to win.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion of course but it's amazing to me that anyone could have watched that game and come away with the view that England were the better side. They gave away two shambolic goals having taken an early lead, and then at no point thereafter looked even remotely like scoring again. Indeed it was Iceland who came closest to scoring again.
I agree eric. The game is all about opinions but Chris is the first person I've seen who thought England were better than Iceland on the day. It's disrespectful to Iceland's performance.
And picking on a couple of incidents that may have gone the other way whilst ignoring the rest of the game is as fruitless as it is pointless. Joss Butler was caught behind last night in the T20 game against Sri Lanka when he only had a few but the umpire didn't see it. He went on to score the match winning innings. Would England have lost without this luck? I don't think so. Games move on from these points and both teams act differently based on the results of those incidents than if the decision or the incident had taken a different course.
Hello down there Chris. Do you need Mick Hucknall to bring his ladder?
Some sports are by their nature more influenced by luck than others. Who knows what would have happened if Buttler had been out? Who knows what would have happened if Belgium had been correctly awarded a penalty at 2-1?
re England v Iceland - if it had been the first game of a league campaign between two unknown sides my guess would be that England would finish higher than Iceland come the end of the season despite the result in that particular match. Do you think that is reasonable?
Chris. I have no idea what you are arguing now. Who knows or cares whether England would have finished above Iceland in a 38 game league. Who'd have thought Leicester would have finished above Man City or Arsenal last season?
England were not the better side against Iceland. At no stage in the tournament were England a better side than Iceland.
It was, which is why it's more subject to luck than a league competition.
If the game happened over and over again, the two teams playing at the level that they did, I still think England would win more often than they'd lose.
Of course, in real life, they lost. And that isn't good enough against Iceland.
I'm genuinely surprised that this is so controversial an opinion.
Comments
So, by your definition Wales got lucky against Belgium quite a lot for two wins and a draw. Belgium must be a really unlucky team. Did Leicester also luck their way to the premier league title?
Alternatively, that's all horseshit and Wales outplayed Belgium three games in a row, and took two wins and a draw for their efforts.
Hi Chris. I'm not going back in to the debate but think you're digging a pretty big hole for yourself with this luck discussion. Wales haven't been lucky (although Reading fans I spoke to have never seen the Robson Kanu turn before) and England weren't unlucky. Germany were pretty lucky at the weekend.
Most psychologists would not agree with your views about luck Chris, so I would tend to value their professional judgement over yours!
If it's under your control, it isn't luck. Luck is the things that happen by chance.
@drcongo I've got no idea about the other Wales Belgium games, I only know about the one I saw. There was a fairly nailed on penalty plus a tackle that should have been a second yellow (I think?) - if either of those had been given I suspect Wales wouldn't have won that game.
Most pychologists would probably say you get more positive results by thinking positively. I doubt they would say 'you make your own luck'.
I thoroughly recommend this book by talented ex-England cricketer Ed Smith on the topic of luck. He's also great on TMS.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Luck-Fresh-Look-At-Fortune/dp/1408830604
@chris; there was many a time like Hazard handling the ball, then blatantly throwing the ball away, that warranted a Yellow card, which the referee had no qualms dishing it out to Ramsey. There where a few things either way that could have changed the outcome, not forgetting the Welsh defender, who had the net at his mercy, strike at the keeper.
Wales out played Belgium and nullified Hazard threat to one or two signature shots, none on target.
If we had another poll referendum on here, my money, it wasn't down to luck, Wales winning 3-1.
Gary Player reckoned that he practiced his "luck". I wonder if the English players didn't practice enough
But a Hazard yellow wouldn't have mattered, would it? Whereas a sending off or a penalty would have been likely to change the result.
I'm not saying it wasn't a good Wales performance, it was. They did well to beat a Belgium team rated 2nd best in the world (although are they really?). I'm just frustrated at the lack of acknowledgement of the role of luck in their success.
Gary Player was wrong, he practiced his golf.
The more he practiced the luckier he got!
"Practised."
Anyway - Wales won the game by two clear goals, after having conceded first. They played well and thoroughly deserved their win. Good luck to them (no pun intended) and I hope they get to the final and win the thing.
Wales deserved to win as they scored more goals in the game. Did they (v Belgium) or Iceland (v England) outplay the other team on the night? All things being equal, I'd say not. But luckily that's not how football is won - it would be a pretty dull game. And of course things aren't equal - England should have beaten Iceland and Belgium should have beaten Wales as they were the relatively stronger sides. So Wales (and Iceland) winning is a great achievement.
I'd say Iceland outplayed England. We were lucky in the end not to lose 3 or 4-1
The better team won both games in my opinion.
Agreed. A group of better players, does not a better team make.
Strange how the result blinds people to the reality of what actually happened. Yes, Iceland did what they needed to do, and won the game. But taking a step back, and looking at what actually happened, England were clearly on top for the whole game despite conceding a couple of goals from stupid defensive mistakes. This doesn't detract from Iceland's performance which was magnificent in the circumstances especially considering the gulf in quality between the sides. England underplayed against our expectations (no doubt they weren't good enough) and Iceland exceeded expectations. But (excepting the rather large issue of goals) England were the better side on the day, if you were a neutral who came to the game without knowing which side were expected to win.
England had 63% possession and 18 shots. Iceland had 37% and 8 (I'm not sure how England can have been lucky not to lose 4-1 when Iceland didn't have 3 shots on target). Now we all know statistics don't tell the whole story... but these stats seem to be to be an accurate reflection of how the game went. England were sloppy at the back, in midfield and upfront; but it was they who were running the game, not Iceland.
The Wales game wasn't as clear cut, but I still felt Belgium outplayed Wales despite the result.
I don't want to come across as bitter in all this, the Robson-Kanu goal was one of my favourite moment of the Euros so far (as is this http://www.snappytv.com/tc/2296928/1160933 ) but I think the contrast between England's failure and Wales's success has been over-analysed in the media. When looking for a grand narrative behind it all, some acknowledgement should be given to the role of chance. And probably some explanation of how England comfortably outplayed Wales when the two sides met.
You admit that England were sloppy at the back and made two stupid defensive mistakes Chris. Icelands defence was superb. Iceland defended much better than us on the day and that is the reason why they won and is nothing to do with luck.
How about this then. Imagine the two teams were reversed, England played the game Iceland did and Iceland played the game England did. Iceland had the ball for most of the game and had far more shots. England came from behind through a long throw into the box and a goalkeeping error.
Would you be saying that England's performance was great and they deserved to go through, no luck involved? That they had outplayed Iceland? I know I wouldn't.
Ooh....he's got stats
And the hole keeps getting deeper. The most interesting part of this thread now is how long Chris keeps digging.
To summarise my digging:
And all these things should be borne in mind when making general conclusions about why or how Wales have overperformed and England have underperformed at the Euros. It's just human nature to want to come up with reasons for things when often they are down to luck, at least to some extent. And football would be dull if there wasn't luck involved.
To summarise my feelings about the modern English footballer living in a bubble (or a noise cancelled headphone)
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/521392/England-banned-honouring-war-dead-France
"England were the better side in the Iceland game"
It's like you literally don't know the point of a game of football. Iceland were the better side in that game by a mile
In fact half an hour in, it was so obvious to me that England had no idea how to break Iceland down that I lumped a load of cash on Iceland to win. Remarkably, at this point they were still not favourites to win.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion of course but it's amazing to me that anyone could have watched that game and come away with the view that England were the better side. They gave away two shambolic goals having taken an early lead, and then at no point thereafter looked even remotely like scoring again. Indeed it was Iceland who came closest to scoring again.
I agree eric. The game is all about opinions but Chris is the first person I've seen who thought England were better than Iceland on the day. It's disrespectful to Iceland's performance.
And picking on a couple of incidents that may have gone the other way whilst ignoring the rest of the game is as fruitless as it is pointless. Joss Butler was caught behind last night in the T20 game against Sri Lanka when he only had a few but the umpire didn't see it. He went on to score the match winning innings. Would England have lost without this luck? I don't think so. Games move on from these points and both teams act differently based on the results of those incidents than if the decision or the incident had taken a different course.
Hello down there Chris. Do you need Mick Hucknall to bring his ladder?
Some sports are by their nature more influenced by luck than others. Who knows what would have happened if Buttler had been out? Who knows what would have happened if Belgium had been correctly awarded a penalty at 2-1?
re England v Iceland - if it had been the first game of a league campaign between two unknown sides my guess would be that England would finish higher than Iceland come the end of the season despite the result in that particular match. Do you think that is reasonable?
The Better Side™
Chris. I have no idea what you are arguing now. Who knows or cares whether England would have finished above Iceland in a 38 game league. Who'd have thought Leicester would have finished above Man City or Arsenal last season?
England were not the better side against Iceland. At no stage in the tournament were England a better side than Iceland.
Mick? We need a bigger ladder
It would be an indicator of which team played better I'd have thought. Hence the point of the question.
Not getting the connection between Simply Red and ladders.
@drcongo No question that Rooney was bad, especially in the second half.
Oh my days, that is the worst point I've ever seen in any discussion on here
IT WAS A KNOCKOUT GAME IN A MAJOR TOURNAMENT!!!!!!!!!
It was, which is why it's more subject to luck than a league competition.
If the game happened over and over again, the two teams playing at the level that they did, I still think England would win more often than they'd lose.
Of course, in real life, they lost. And that isn't good enough against Iceland.
I'm genuinely surprised that this is so controversial an opinion.