[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

No, but seriously. Let's move beyond this. I wouldn't mind debating what actually happened in the game. H8kurdt says we made life hard for ourselves, I agree. You disagree. That's more interesting to me than talking about the credibility of a man's grief-stricken outbursts or some kind of post-colonial rationalisation of simulation.

In retrospect I now think bringing on Dier for Alli, which I thought was a sensible decision when it happened, was the point for me where we lost control of the game.

right, i’m also uninterested in chest-thumping claims of purity and cartoon villains. that and the baudrillard nonsese two poles of the same dialectic about morality. enough with that theme.

so, YES. tactics. too much has been obscured by emotion and national baloney.

let’s discuss

you say dier for alli was the fuckup, but i have been saying the colombian subs and actual playing football were what changed the game

here’s what the oracle has to say:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a8430156.html

below the video (i’m skipping the video) there’s a really nice write up.

funny enough, he says it’s both things. colombia’s change of shape and dier failing to cope.

then colombia changing shape again and dier dropping deeper making it easier for england at the very end.

i think we can agree with that assessment?