Malenko

The CAW limit has been 100 forever. Unless you get mods it's impossible to get more.

I just thought it could be a fun game trying to guess which band we're talking about based on the timeline graph (minus their names), but I guess it would work better n music boards.

I didn't even know McLusky were still active. Jealous.

Tottenham 2-0 Brighton (Sat 12.30pm, BT)
Man Utd 1-0 Norwich (Sat 3pm)
Southampton 0-3 Arsenal (Sat 3pm)
Watford 0-2 Brentford (Sat 3pm)
Newcastle 2-3 Leicester (Sun 2.15pm, Sky)

I agree. FHM is much better than it used to be. Obviously it's not OOTP but OOTP has been around for so, so long.

2 hours ago, Serpenticloud said:

My friend's band is opening for Eyehategod next Saturday. Real tempted to finagle a ride to that one, not just because it's Eyehategod, but because I haven't seen my friend in years and years now and I've never got to catch her band live.

I'd go. I tend to go see my friends in bands regardless but if they're opening for a band I like, that's a no brainer.

14 minutes ago, Adam said:

I am pretty much never on the button with what is new and hitting the pop culture sphere musically these days, but I've found myself listening to the debut Wet Leg album, released today, and am really enjoying it so far.

It strangely brings a feeling of freshness and nostalgia to my ears all at once.

I like it. Thanks!

we're still 13 points away but I feel Roman Josi will be the first D-man to reach 100 points in a season since Brian Leetch in 1991. He's on pace to get it a couple games before the end of the season and with his current form he could get it sooner but we'll see. He already broke the franchise record for points in a single season. 

I don't know what's the right thread for this.

We just started watching GLOW.

I'm sure this has been discussed previously in these boards but don't want to risk spoilers. We've only watched a couple episodes. Is it worth it? Is it really bad? Any controversies? Really bad takes on anything? Just to know if we should keep going as we usually only watch one show at a time.

1 hour ago, The Kraig said:

Whaaaat. Well that's just daft. Think they would entertain the idea of an intercontinental qualifying league? That would separate wheat from chaff before the finals.

Maybe FIFA just want to ensure OFC have one representative so that interest doesn't die off in that region.

Just because with all this mess some people may not be aware, the number of qualifying spots per continent/confederation is pretty much decided and I only say pretty much because, as always, the confederation that gets to host is worth a qualifier so there's one less spot available through their qualifying groups.

We get 16 UEFA; 6 CONMEBOL; 9 CAF; 8 AFC; 6 CONCACAF; 1 OFC

Then you have the usual intercontinental playoffs for the final 2 spots. This time around there's a mini tournament and you could even get a second OFC team if they qualified. You won't because it will probably be the seventh CONMEBOL and one from either CAF, AFC, CONCACAF but you could. I think New Zealand will probably be there every tournament for a while like he said.

EDIT: part of this was said above already. I take too long to reply apparently. 

7 minutes ago, The Kraig said:

Actually, the OFC are the only region not guaranteed a representative. They need to go through a play-off, currently with a CONMEBOL team, whose region are almost all heavy hitters. Peru will be hard to beat, and if they do beat Peru, I take that as enough evidence of being deserving to be there.

It's difficult to compare rankings in things like this, since NZ don't have much chance to pump up their rankings like other countries. I think it's why I find the play-offs so interesting, it's the only good example we get to see non-seeded teams face off with high stakes.

I don't think a change in format will change OFC's qualification route, since their rankings are so low.

He means in 2026 and OFC gets a direct spot under the new format.

Yeah, it's 3 new european places and 2 from South America. 11 places will go to AFC, CAF and Concacaf teams. There will be a couple interesting qualifiers for sure.

5 hours ago, Colly said:

I've said it before, I'd vastly prefer them to just go the whole hog with a 32 team Euros and a 64 team World Cup. It's the best format in terms of structure and only adds one knockout.

I wouldn't mind that either. 8, 16, 32, 64. Not exactly rocket science.

Just now, Bobfoc said:

In all likelihood, that is the reason it changed. West Germany played Austria in 1982, both knowing that a 1-0 win for West Germany would see both of them through to the next round. West Germany scored after ten minutes and both teams then just decided to have a lazy kickaround for the rest of the match.

The most famous and obvious example. I expect a couple of those when we're back at the same situation in 2026, although maybe not so blatant.

8 minutes ago, Bobfoc said:

I strongly dislike the 48-team format, but it's a bit less confusing than the 24-team format that the World Cup used to have and the Euros have now. The top two teams from each group qualify, with the group winners playing the runner-up of the corresponding group, and vice-versa. Just like the 24-team competitions, two thirds of the teams get out of the groups, which is a lot, but at least you don't need a supercomputer to work out all the permutations in the final group matches.

That is true and I thought about it while writing my post but didn't feel like writing too much. No more confusing calculations involving groups other than your own.

One thing that I still can't get behind - and this happens in both the 24 and 48 team format - is the fact both teams who play the last group game know the result they need to achieve and if it's a 1-1 to screw the one team who played both already, so be it. This happened in the 80s more than once which - I like to pretend - is the reason why it changed.

I doubt we won't see a couple of these in the first 48-team WC.

Cameroon were awfully close in 1990 too. Must be tough to lose a 2-1 lead after two pens, one n extra time.

As for the format, I dislike it just like I disliked the 24 team format even though it was the only one I'd seen. There were too many controversial games in the last round. 32 was perfect, and of course, changed.

I'll still be entertained by a wider variety of NTs if I'm honest, but it will mean nothing when they're all out after the group stages (maybe second round for whoever the surprise underdog is that year).

Arsenal 1-0 Brighton (Sat 3pm)
Watford 0-0 Leeds (Sat 3pm)
Aston Villa 1-1 Tottenham (Sat 5.30pm, Sky)
Leicester 2-1 Crystal Palace (Sun 2pm)
Man City 3-1 Liverpool (Sun 4.30pm, Sky)

5 minutes ago, Szumi - A Polack said:

Canada's strength is that their primary tactic is defend deep and counter. They are already a very well drilled side for matches like they'll anticipate at the World Cup, and their attackers can definitely torch Belgium's ancient backline in transition.

Not saying they'll beat them, but I'm saying it's wholly possible.

Is it so old though? The full backs are young and although the CBs aren't, I doubt they'll be using Vertonghen and Alderweireld simultaneously. There will be at most one player over 31 in their defense at all times.

I really think Belgium is one of the strongest squads in the world at the moment. Of course sometimes World champions France lose to Senegal but that's not so common, or a predictable outcome.

I wouldn't be surprised if what you say happened vs Croatia since they'll probably be fielding 6 or 7 30+ year olds including 3/4 in the back 4, but I just don't see it happening to Belgium.

Way too many people in Spain (and I don't just mean regular fans like you and me) are saying he'll be much better than Nadal ever was.

Regardless of how undeniably talented he is and also regardless of your feelings towards Nadal, that is putting waaaay too much pressure on an 18 year old. I don't like it.

Real Madrid beats Celta 2-1 with 3 pens! Celta had a disallowed goal too!

Isn't Kucka an international footballer though?

2 minutes ago, Adam said:

What is that tournament logo actually supposed to be?

The swooping curves of the emblem represent the undulations of desert dunes and the unbroken loop depicts both the number eight – a reminder of the eight astonishing stadiums that will host matches – and the infinity symbol, reflecting the interconnected nature of the event. Besides echoing the shape of the iconic FIFA World Cup Trophy, the emblem’s central form takes inspiration from a traditional woollen shawl. During winter months, shawls are worn around the world and in the Arab and Gulf region in particular by a variety of people and in various styles.

Brighton 0-0 Norwich (Sat 3pm)
Burnley 0-2 Man City (Sat 3pm)
Chelsea 1-0 Brentford (Sat 3pm)
Man Utd 1-3 Leicester (Sat 5.30pm, Sky)
West Ham 0-0 Everton (Sun 2pm, Sky)

It was obvious UEFA wasn't really against the idea of a Super League even when they opposed it. They were just against the idea of someone else running the thing.

I really hate they use the word "inclusive" in a rule change that will make the competition anything but.