DoofersDad

A NO vote is a vote for the status quo. If it was going to give any benefits to anyone compared with what we have now then it wouldn't be the status quo.

Heard that name before, not sure what League, it was in England, may have been Mansfield? No. B&Q Paint section.

Now that England are out, are folk able to narrow who they want to win down a little better than simply anyone but England? Personally I'd go for anyone but Uruguay. Oh! And Germany, of course!

On the left, presumably.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the FIFA investigation is. Despite meeting for some time yesterday, they failed to make a decision. Surely if it was simply to satisfy themselves that Suarez did bite Chiellini and to give Suarez a lengthy ban then that would have been done. This sounds to me as though it is going either one of two ways. Either they are going to say that the evidence is inconclusive and that as the referee took no action against Suarez, then neither can they. That would be a scandalous outcome and would be one which I am sure some members of the committee would not be prepared to accept. On the other hand, they may say that the evidence was conclusive and given Suarez's previous record are considering some draconian measure. They may also be considering some statement or taking action against Uruguay whose response to this episode is almost as bad as that of the goofy loony himself. I see even the President of Uruguay has chipped in almost condoning his actions rather than making a statement to the effect that Suarez has shamed his country. Apart from Chiellini himself, the italians have not said a lot about the incident. That is perhaps surprising because the incident may well have cost them their place in the tournament. It was just moments after this that Uruguay got their goal and it must have affected their focus. It would be nice to think FIFA would throw Uruguay out of the competition as well as Suarez himself to give an absolutely clear message of how seriously they regard the incident. Can't see it, though. The other point that emerges from this was raised by Alan Shearer last night in relation to the France / Nigeria game. One of the French players clearly elbowed a Nigerian in the face but this was in the situation where the Nigerian had the Frenchman in a bear hug to stop him moving at a set piece. Where attackers are prevented from moving in this way, they are bound to struggle to free themselves. I'm not saying this was why Suarez bit Chiellini as Chiellini was not holding Suarez at the time - but he may have been doing so earlier in the game. By all means throw the book at Suarez but might this not be a really good opportunity for Fifa to instruct referees to take actions against defenders fouling like this in the box? I'm sure a few decisions to award a penalty when defenders have attackers in bear hugs or are holding onto their arms etc would soon improve the situation and would prevent attackers lashing out in frustration. It is a physical game and there will always be jostling in the box - but I just think things have gone way beyond the limit.

If only he could have bitten someone before the England game Seriously though, Uruguay have looked a poor side and even with him in the team I wouldn't have expected them to progress very far. Assuming he will no longer be playing in the tournament, I don't think it will make much of a difference to Uruguay. If he gets the type of ban he deserves, it will however have pretty serious implications for Liverpool next season.

No, it's better than Scotland. England qualified to be in the last two finals and Scotland qualified for neither. Still sh*te though

Yes. Current. There are two things here. The first one is that the recent poll specifically indicates that there are many undecided voters who are more likely to vote "YES" if at referendum time they think Cameron will will win the next UK general. Just how current can you get? The Thatcher issue is a red herring. She was rightly hugely unpopular in Scotland but, she is gone. As I have said before, more often than not Scotland votes for the Government that takes power at Westminster. Since 1945 there have been only 6 occasions when Scotland voted differently to the UK as a whole with 4 of those being in the Thatcher / Major years. The current administration is one of the other two. It is hardly a trend that justifies ending a 300 year old marriage. Interestingly, back in 1951 Scotland Voted Tory whilst England voted Labour and we ended up with a Tory government. That goes to show how dynamic political preferences are. Clearly Thatcher has caused major damage to her party North of the Border and was the catalyst for the rise of the SNP, but there remains a strong body of opinion in Scotland which remains conservative (with a small "c"). Given the fluctuating dynamics of party politics, it does seem wrong to me to contemplate an irrevocable change based on such a short term sense of not being represented. And what of us in the Highlands and Islands? Whilst I have not looked at the figures, I would guess that we will be even less likely to get the Government we vote for in an Independent Scotland than we currently are within the UK. Since 1945 the Highlands has voted firstly Conservative and then latterly Lib Dem. If we had been an Independent country all this time we would have been living in a socialist state dictated by the central belt. Does that justify calling for Independence for the Highlands and Islands? No, of course not, just as perceived lack of representation in Scotland as a whole does not justify independence. The fact of the matter is that however large or small the electorate and whatever voting system you use, there will always be some people who perceive themselves to be disadvantaged. But this is just a reality of democracy. Remember that we also have a considerable range of powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament and therefore have rather more say on our own affairs than the English do. To suggest that we need independence because that is the only way we can have a say over our own affairs is a myth that continues to be pedalled by the YES campaign.

Which all goes to show how some folk are using the unpopularity of the current UK government in Scotland as a reason to break up the Union. That's all I'm saying for now - there's a world cup to watch.

I agree with the first bit about the referendum being about a system and not a party but the 2nd bit is complete nonsense. It is somewhat ironic that the author talks about honesty and then comes out with this nonsense about the "No" campaign pushing the idea that a "Yes" vote is a vote for the SNP. What the "No" campaign is doing is exactly the opposite, reminding the electorate that this is about a system and not the jam tomorrow propaganda that the SNP are pushing. If proof were needed, one only has to look at how the "Yes" campaign exploited the poll showing that more people were likely to vote "Yes" if they thought Cameron would win the next General Election. How party political can you get! Regarding the conservative party and the imbalance between Scottish support and UK wide support, the "Yes" campaign continues to promote this myth for all it is worth. It has been discussed before and the fact is that the norm is for Scotland to vote for the Goverment that the UK votes for. The current situation is the exception rather than the rule but the "Yes" campaign plug it as though this imbalance has been in place since the start of the Union.

Was that the worst ever performance from an Italian team? Fair play to Costa Rica who played very well, although they will be very exposed by any side with more than a schoolboy's nouce of how to stay on-side. It was an unbelievably incompetent attacking display from Italy who were useless even when they did beat the trap.

There's a certain Mr T Butcher who has fallen on hard times and who might appreciate a little keepsake to remind him of what might have been.

England aren't out of it yet. Italy to beat both Costa Rica and Uruguay, England to beat Costa Rica and it comes down to goal difference between 3 teams on 3 points. England then win their next 4 games on penalties and come home with the trophy. I'm not putting money on it, though.

I see that Yogi tipped Spain on the basis that they play football the way football is meant to be played. I'm afraid I disagree. In 2014 they won the world cup by scoring just 8 goals in 7 matches. All 4 of their games in the knock out stages were 1-0 victories. There is no doubting the technical abilities if their players but other teams have moved onwards and are wise to the style of play. The Dutch destroyed them with the quality of their counter attacking play whilst the Chileans totally out-thought and out-fought them. They took the game to Spain but constantly pressed Spain when they had the ball. When Spain did get forward Chile put 5 narrow at the back to stop them going through the middle and Spain simple did not have the players to go wide and get behind the defence. Notwithstanding that the tactics eployed by the Netherlands and Chile produced winds against the World Champions, the attacking play of the Dutch and the Chileans was simply far more entertaining to watch than anything Spain could produce.

Not at their best but victims of 2 brilliant performances. Chile really impress with their workrate and the way they play as a team. I can see them causing any team real problems. Australia are a bit unfortunate also to be on the way home so soon. They have done better against Holland and Chile than Spain have. I expect they will be really up for the game against Spain whereas Spain will want to be on the plane home. Whilst that will be the first meaningless match in terms of progression in the Tournament, it could be a very interesting game.

If we are going into film mode then it looks as though Germany's Muller will be getting the lead role as he is clearly the best actor around. Back on topic on a serious side I am disappointed in how little condemnation there has been of Muller. Most of the pundits seem to be agreed that whilst Muller over-reacted, Pepe only has himself to blame for getting sent off. Whilst he didn't actually head butt Muller he should know that touching heads in an aggressive manner like that was a no no and should have simply walked away. Whatever the current laws of the game may say about such incidents my sympathies are entirely with Pepe. Muller cheated in that he acted in a way which suggested that Pepe had committed an offence which might have warranted a red card. Pepe was legitimately angry but was unable to contain his anger and got sent of for his reaction. Then sending off may not have had a bearing on the result but may impact on Portugal's chances of progression both because of Pepe's absence in the next two games and the possibility of the 2nd place being decided on goal; difference. Meanwhile Muller did not even get a booking and went on to get a hat-trick. Within the current laws of the game or at any rate in the light of the way referees are told to interpret them, it pays to cheat. It is sad that there is so much acceptance of cheating. It then seems quite bizarre that there should also be some kind of self righteous condemnation of those who react against those who are doing the cheating. In my view Muller should have got the red card for his shameful cheating whilst Pepe should have got a yellow for his reaction. One of the features of the world cup so far is the level of commitment of the players and the spirit it is being played in (in general). There are some strong tackles flying in but the fact that this is passion and commitment and not malice is accepted. I would love to see some kind of video referee who could adjudicate on such incidents and instruct the referee to take the appropriate action. As it is, we have a player who shamed the beautiful game and yet is basking in the glory of a hat-trick. It is simply wrong and taints what has been an excellent tournament so far.

They're playing Buckie Thistle and Brora - that's it. Then they go to North America. Finances a bit tight then?

What a disgrace Honduras were; they were lucky to still have 10 men on the pitch at the end. I don't suppose we could have expected much better from them in the light of how they behaved in so called "friendlies" just prior to the tournament. Credit to France who kept their discipline - something that has sometimes been a problem for them. It'll be interesting to see how Messi performs after having shaken off his nerves with a quite brilliant goal. He was gash in the first half but in the 2nd he finally showed how he is capable of producing a bit of magic that can beat any defence in the world. Looking forward to Germany v Portugal tonight. This will give us a feel for how all the main teams are shapping up.

I think it is a bit early to say that but what I would say is that the possession based sides need to be at the top of their game to beat a decent attack with pace type team. What the Australians showed last night was that a team with very little real quality can cause real problems by pressuring those in possession and breaking quickly. Had Chile not got those two early goals the outcome could have been very different. To be fair to the possession based sides, there does seem to be a tendency to be a bit more adventurous going forward and before the Dutch got their equaliser there were some much more positive and probing balls from the Spanish than we have often seen before. Had they scored after such a move just before the Van Persie's equaliser, they might have gone on to win the game quite comfortably. I wouldn't write the Spanish off just yet, I think they will beat Chile and Australia whilst despite their 2nd half briliance, I think the Dutch will struggle to beat both. Being top of that group will be important as the 2nd team is likely to meet Brasil in the last 16. I would I rather watch an attack with pace team at their best than a possession based team at their best. The Dutch at their best are exhillerating and if Van Persie's goal does not turn out to be goal of the tournament we are in for something very special indeed. It's been a great start to the world cup.

Never mind about what's on the shirts, I like the fact that above the entrance to the players' tunnel is the word "Subway"!

This really illustrates the farcical nature of the process we are going through. The referendum is about the ongoing future of Scotland and not the make up of the Government for just the next 5 years. Yet it appears that we may choose to discard 300 years of history as part of the United Kingdom based on the fact that at one particular point in time in Scotland a particular Scottish politician is more popular than a particular English politician. The implications of this are just too depressing to contemplate at the moment.

David Beckham was having a game of football with his sons when the youngest was complaining that Brooklyn had grabbed the favoured no. 7 shirt again. Rather than tell Brooklyn to give up the shirt, David said "Romeo, Romeo, wear 4 aht there, Romeo." I know it's an old one, but it is the silly season.

Laurance, if you are so against bigotry, why do you "quite like" Rangers?

I'm English and I hate the English media too. But is the English media really any different from the Scottish media? Had Scotland qualified and England not, would we be having restrained reporting and regrets expressed that our much loved neighbours were not also in the competition? I think not. Reporting of the national team in most countries is totally OTT so not supporting England just because you don't like the English media seems a bit of a strange one to me. But unlike Laurence, I don't see the ABE attitude bigotted in any way. It is just a natural feeling of not wanting the neighbours having too many bragging rights - much the same as us lot having a good laugh at County's expense. I'm actually very happy for people to strongly endorse the ABE viewpoint because it will only make it more enjoyable to celebrate when England win the world cup - again. (I'm not sure if it's been mentioned recently but we actually won it in 1966!) If the Scots didn't want England to fail miserably I'd have nobody to gloat over! Banter aside, I honestly don't expect England to come through the group stage. Italy have been poor recently but have a knack of scraping through when form is not good. With the competition being in South America I think Uruquay will do well and Costa Rica could be a bit of a dark horse. England could well finish bottom of their group. I can now claim bragging rights if they exceed my miserable expectations.

I see that whilst OTJ is not seen as good enough by TB to be in the starting line up of the awful current Hibs side, he is in the Welsh squad for a friendly against the Dutch.