Leaderboard

Hazard missing means he ll be replaced by Mirallas/Carassco, both managable. Lukaku and De bruyne and Mertens are the real problems.

belgium might also miss fellaini and menia. https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=el&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.newsit.gr/athlitika/Velgio-Ellada-Amfivoloi-Felaini-kai-Menie/708567&usg=ALkJrhjPZMnCDrZdVb3g3-rEwBNCE10yIw http://www.newsit.gr/athlitika/Velgio-Ellada-Amfivoloi-Felaini-kai-Menie/708567

shame. I feel a lot more comfortable when he plays. Actually, I think he gives the NT more impact than Manolas or Sokratis. Think about the games that Kpaps played. I can't recall one game where our opponents scored more than 1 goal with kpaps on the field. He bleeds for the NT. From the 3, Manolas is the worst. He's too casual. He got outrun by Lafferty who is nowhere near as fast as him. Slacker.

Raise the status of women. When women get education and access to economic opportunity, they start having fewer children. Of course culture and religion are against gender equality.

I agree, all parking the bus will do is give Belgium half the field to work with and full possession of the ball to set up plays to break down our defense. It's a bad mentality because when you give a team like that possession they will eventually score some goals. You need to field a fast line up with a defense first mentality but are willing to attack as a group and put some pressure on there back end so that they will think twice about pushing everyone forward. If we play scared and just get rid of the ball when we get it then we will get destroyed.

Nikitas, Siopis should't start over in-form Stafylidis. We need some flair and ability to counter, or at least the perception that we can.

Extended highlights:

also missed handball in the box in favor of us, and sokratis took it to messi. smacking him around and fouling him to get into his head. that was key, but we ended up short

If we are to raise the living standards for humanity, there has to be population reduction. Even if you could, by magic, wanted to raise every human to the level of affluence in the US, you couldn't do it. You'd need 3 more earths. Technology can do so much, but there's a finite level of resources. One way to improve the world and reduce birth rates is to raise the status of women. In advanced countries, life spans doubled in the last 100 years! Doubled! But, the problem of population growth is in poor countries. Religion, culture, and economics in those countries perpetuate the problem of overpopulation. By the way, we farm very close to 100% of arable land, and there are water shortages worldwide, especially water for human consumption. A couple billion of people don't have access to clean water. Polluted water isn’t just dirty—it’s deadly. Some 1.8 million people die every year of diarrheal diseases like cholera. Tens of millions of others are seriously sickened by a host of water-related ailments—many of which are easily preventable.

The problem, the elephant in the room is always population and yet it's hardly discussed. It's the stuff of nightmares for economists and politicians who are fixated and addicted to the concept of perpetual growth. Enough to make the blood drain from their faces. Before technology, I'm talking even before the Agricultural Revolution, the population of humans could only get so big. Humans roamed where they roamed and required a certain amount of space just to survive. A small group of people, say 100, could require many square kilometres of land just to find sufficent food. But the Agricultural Revolution changed everything. Technology allowed the population of the human species to grow far beyond what it would without it. And since then each technological leap has allowed for an increase in numbers. This is sustainable, in a sense, but at a cost to the environment. There are only so many square kilometres of decent agricultural land, only so many fish in the sea, only so much of everything and that is just one problem. The other problem is limiting damage to the environment. Just imagine, 7 billion people every day need to eat! That's a lot of food, and even so, the damage we cause now is lessened by the fact that the standard of living for the majority of the 7 billion is quite low. As to what should be done, that is an extremely tricky question.

I would pay good money to see the different versions of you have an argument about your team