An €8.96m funding package has been announced for the Riverine Project in Lifford and Strabane. The project is set to create thirty acres of new cross-border community park space and infrastructure, designed to help bring people together.The funding sanctioned will allow the cross-border project to encompass a number of unique elements all designed to encourage greater levels of positive cross-community contact. A newly constructed pedestrian footbridge across the River Foyle will be built as part of the project, with cross-border pathways and greenways also being installed to accommodate leisure and recreation activities.The allocation will also see a pavilion building built for various cultural and heritage events, an outdoor wetland and park space for recreation and environmental education activities, and a family fun space comprising of a toddler and junior adventure play area.Representing the Lead Partner Cllr. Nicholas Crossan, Cathaoirleach of Donegal County Council said: “This is an iconic project with the potential to create a unique and transformational cross-border shared space that will see communities in Lifford, Strabane and the wider hinterlands coming together to deliver a project that will not only capture their imagination and inspire action but will act as a symbol of peace and reconciliation for generations to come.“The Riverine project is a multifaceted development and will deliver a unique blend of shared indoor and outdoor space linked by a cross-border pedestrian and cycle bridge enhancing the physical connection between these border communities. “Leading the delivery of this iconic project, that has the potential to transform and profoundly impact the lives of the people living in these border communities, demonstrates the Councils commitment to driving forward the shared vision for prosperous, healthy and inclusive communities.”Cllr Gary Doherty said on Wednesday the project could be “potentially the best news the towns have had in a generation.”He said: “This project is a massive endorsement of the hard work and commitment of community groups in the wider Lifford and Strabane areas.“They actively engaged with both Councils to ensure that the evidence was there to show that this new facility would be used by the community to foster enhanced links and relationships across the border.”Almost €9m funding granted for cross-border Riverine Project was last modified: June 14th, 2019 by Shaun KeenanShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
Charlie Austin’s powerful header hauled QPR back into what was becoming an embarrassingly one-sided game at Molineux.Austin netted eight minutes before the break after being found by Matt Phillips’ superb cross from the left.The striker’s goal came after Benik Afobe and Kevin McDonald had scored to put Wolves in command.An unmarked Afobe netted from close range on 17 minutes after James Henry’s ball into the box was deflected towards him.Rangers had almost taken an early lead when on-loan Arsenal keeper Emiliano Martinez fumbled Massimo Luongo’s shot before gathering the ball at the second attempt.After Afobe’s opener, the wet conditions meant Martinez was also troubled by a shot from Tjaronn Chery.But Wolves were otherwise dominant and doubled their lead on 24 minutes when McDonald made the most of the time and space he was afforded by firing into the bottom corner from near the edge of the penalty area.Alejandro Faurlin, back after a third cruciate injury in as many years, returned to the QPR starting line-up.The popular Argentine and former Wolves man Karl Henry were overrun in midfield as the home side had things their own way before Phillips and Austin combined to give the visitors hope.QPR: Green, Perch, Onuoha, Hall, Konchesky, Phillips, Henry, Faurlin, Luongo, Chery, Austin.Subs: Lumley, Doughty, Hill, Hoilett, Gladwin, Polter, Emmanuel-Thomas.Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
A fossil Cambrian arthropod shows a large complex brain, prompting evolutionists to propose that evolution ran backwards from there.“Complex brains evolved much earlier than previously thought, 520-million-year-old fossilized arthropod confirms” is how PhysOrg headlined a press release from University of Arizona that found “remarkably well-preserved brain structures” in a fossil from China. A similar headline is found on Science Daily: “Cambrian Fossil Pushes Back Evolution of Complex Brains.” Science Now announced, “Spider ancestor had big brain.” The press release continued the un-Darwinian refrain:The remarkably well-preserved fossil of an extinct arthropod shows that anatomically complex brains evolved earlier than previously thought and have changed little over the course of evolution. According to University of Arizona neurobiologist Nicholas Strausfeld, who co-authored the study describing the specimen, the fossil is the earliest known to show a brain.Cambrian arthropods, including trilobites, clearly had brains, but this one preserved the imprint of soft brain matter so clearly that scientists were able to trace the neural pathways from the brain to the eye stalks. The press release states that it “represents an extinct lineage of arthropods combining an advanced brain anatomy with a primitive body plan.” They must mean “primitive” with respect to age on the evolutionary timeline, else why would a “primitive” animal need a complex brain? One of the researchers, Nicholas Strausfeld, said, “In principle, Fuxianhuia‘s is a very modern brain in an ancient animal.” Live Science suggested “primitive” equates with “simple” – “The rest of the animal is incredibly simple, so it’s a big surprise to see a brain that is so advanced, as it were, in such a simple animal,” Strausfeld told Live Science.In the press release, Stausfeld, a neurobiologist at the University of Arizona, made other statements that run counter to evolutionary expectations, even though he assumed the brain evolved:The fossil supports the idea that once a basic brain design had evolved, it changed little over time, he explained. Instead, peripheral components such as the eyes, the antennae and other appendages, sensory organs, etc., underwent great diversification and specialized in different tasks but all plugged into the same basic circuitry.“It is remarkable how constant the ground pattern of the nervous system has remained for probably more than 550 million years,” Strausfeld added. “The basic organization of the computational circuitry that deals, say, with smelling, appears to be the same as the one that deals with vision, or mechanical sensation.”Another evolutionary expectation was shattered by this fossil. Fuxianhuia protensa is a malacostracan, a group with complex brains, including crabs and shrimp. Evolutionists preferred to believe that insects evolved from simpler-brained branchiopods (including brine shrimp). The discovery of a complex brain deep in the Cambrian explosion shatters not only that expectation but turns evolution backwards:Because the brain anatomy of branchiopods is much simpler than that of malacostracans, they have been regarded as the more likely ancestors of the arthropod lineage that would give rise to insects.However, the discovery of a complex brain anatomy in an otherwise primitive organism such as Fuxianhuia makes this scenario unlikely. “The shape [of the fossilized brain] matches that of a comparable sized modern malacostracan,” the authors write in Nature. They argue the fossil supports the hypothesis that branchiopod brains evolved from a previously complex to a more simple architecture instead of the other way around.The paper in Nature by Stausfeld, a Londoner and two Chinese colleagues stated that “early-diverging arthropods have scarcely been analysed in the context of nervous system evolution.” This was, therefore, the first and clearest opportunity to analyze it with Fuxianhuia, “exhibiting the most compelling neuroanatomy known from the Cambrian.” The authors had to make the astounding claim that later branchiopods underwent an “evolutionary reduction” in brain structure instead of the progressive increase as would have been expected. “The early origin of sophisticated brains provides a probable driver for versatile visual behaviours, a view that accords with compound eyes from the early Cambrian that were, in size and resolution, equal to those of modern insects and malacostracans,” the abstract stated. (Ma, Hou, Edgecomb and Strausfed, “Complex brain and optic lobes in an early Cambrian arthropod,” Nature 490, 11 Oct 2012, pp. 258–261, doi:10.1038/nature11495.)However they sliced it, the authors had to conclude that “the brain and optic lobes of Fuxianhuia suggest that the arthropod nervous system acquired complexity by the early Cambrian.” The editor’s summary of the paper stated again what this fossil means for evolutionary theory:The Cambrian explosion refers to a time around 530 million years ago, when animals with modern features first appeared in the fossil record. The fossils of Cambrian arthropods reveal sophisticated sense organs such as compound eyes, but other parts of the nervous system are usually lost to decay before fossilization. This paper describes an exquisitely preserved brain in an early arthropod from China, complete with antennal nerves, optic tract and optic neuropils very much like those of modern insects and crustaceans. This suggests that if insects evolved from quite simple creatures such as branchiopod shrimps, then modern branchiopods have undergone a drastic reduction in the complexity of their nervous systems.The authors found about 50 specimens in various orientations, leading them to infer that “the eye stalk assemblage possessed a considerable degree of rotational freedom and thus allowed active vision“. The preservation was so remarkable that they were easily able to compare structures with those from living malacostracans, insects and chilopods, each group having a similar tripartite brain. “Indeed, it is expected that optic lobes would have already evolved sophisticated circuits even more deeply in the arthropod stem-group, enabling high-level visual processing of the kind presumed to be associated with large compound eyes belonging to the stem-group arthropod Anomalocaris.”Spin DoctoringIn the same issue of Nature, Graham E. Budd tried to rescue evolution from this evidence, using the worn-out cliche that the fossil “may shed new light” on how brain tissues evolved. His opening paragraph is a masterpiece of spin doctoring, listing various unexpected fossil surprises as triumphs for evolution:Even to palaeontologists, the fossil record can resemble the chaotic attic of an eccentric relative, stacked with ancient bric-a-brac of dubious usefulness. But the record has recently been throwing up some surprises that are bringing new order to this jumble. Our concept of dinosaurs, for example, has evolved from what were essentially bolted-together lumps of bone into living creatures covered in graceful feathers — and in colour too. Other fossil finds have brought changes to the scale of our understanding of evolution. For example, the discovery of exceptionally well-preserved fossil muscle fibres throughout the record and fossilized embryos from at least the Cambrian period, some 500 million years ago, have provided remarkable insight into the fine-scale evolution of these tissues and life stages. Now, on page 258 of this issue, Ma and colleagues describe preserved nervous tissue from the Cambrian — a find that grants palaeontologists access to the exclusive zoological club of those who study the brain and nervous system.None of these “surprises” were anticipated by evolutionists, yet Budd described them all as providing “insight into the fine-scale evolution” of life stages. But clearly, in his own words, the only thing that has “evolved” is their “concept” of how evolution works. How complex muscle fibers and embryos from the earliest parts of the record could provide “insight” into evolution was left unexplained. His reference to dinosaurs covered in colorful feathers is also dubious.From there, Budd disputed the authors’ claim that complex brains appeared early in the arthropod lineage. His alternative? “Convergent evolution” (see 10/08/2012) or else a grab bag of rearrangement options:However, there are two potential alternatives to this far-reaching conclusion. It is possible that the arrangement in Fuxianhuia is convergent to that in the modern crustaceans or insects; in other words, similar brain assemblies to that reported for Fuxianhuia evolved again in later arthropods. Or it may be that we need to rethink the systematic position of Fuxianhuia. That latter option would entail a substantial rearrangement of our present understanding of early arthropod evolution — not least in the highly vexed issue of the ‘great appendage problem’. This refers to the controversial identity of a large anterior appendage found in many Cambrian arthropods, and seemingly also in the Fuxianhuia specimen described here. Discovering which part of the brain this structure is innervated from will add vital information to this debate. Either way, Ma and colleagues’ findings will prompt hasty re-examination of many old specimens, and quite possibly some recasting of recent theories.(Graham E. Budd, “Palaeontology: Cambrian nervous wrecks,” Nature 490, 11 October 2012, pp. 180–181, doi:10.1038/490180a.)We want to help our buddy Budd recast some recent theories without having to do any hasty re-examination of old specimens. Appealing to the fossil evidence, we point out abrupt appearance of all the animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion, with complex brains evident in the early Cambrian and no transitional forms. From there, diversification and simplification occurs according to built-in variability and adaptation mechanisms, but the original complex designs endure. This theory of descent is known as intelligent design. Reference: Darwin’s Dilemma. (Visited 66 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Some plants don’t have much of a root system while others show a beautiful root system with no shoot. What is going on? In each case I have looked at this year, each farmer was using more than 30 pounds of total nitrogen (N) (28% plus 10-34-0) and/or sulfur in a 2×2 system. These reduced stands appear to be caused by fertilizer injury burn.Urea ammonium nitrate (28% UAN) is made up of 50% urea, 25% ammonium, and 25% nitrate. When urea volatilizes, it turns into ammonia (the same type of ammonia in anhydrous ammonia) and is lost to the air. That’s why we need to work in urea (or stabilize it) within a few days after application if we are using it as a N source. As a starter, stabilizing N is not recommended and is not normally a problem.So what made urea volatilize faster this year?Volatility of urea is microbial driven, so warmer temperatures make this reaction occur more quickly. Urea can volatilize within two days in warmer temperatures. If the corn plant took up water slower (due to drying conditions, soil type, or planting depth), then the root system looks burned. If the plant took up water more quickly, then the root system developed and the coleoptile was burned off.Soils that are drying out cause the ammonia gas to move away from the 2×2 band, so moist soils followed by drying conditions cause more volatility. This is the same reason why anhydrous ammonia is injected 7 to 8 inches deep, because the ammonia gas will move up from the point of injection until it hits water. As the soil dries the ammonia will move up faster.Urea volatility is enhanced by higher pH. Unfortunately, the conditions that cause us to have higher yields can also increase volatility (both are due to enhanced microbial activity).Higher rates of N in a 2×2 band has the potential to volatilize more anhydrous, thus causing more burn. This, along with higher temperatures and drying soils, is the reason why farmers who are applying higher rates of a starter may see more damage.
A number of BCCI officials have expressed surprise and anger over Dhoni’s support for FletcherIndian skipper MS Dhoni can rest easy. And that’s not just because his batsmen are back on the front foot in their one day jersey. Also because the story about BCCI being unhappy about him calling Duncan Fletcher the ‘boss’ may be dying a premature death.BCCI Secretary Sanjay Patel speaking to India Today.in says, “The question of discussing Dhoni’s comments in the working committee does not arise. It may be his personal opinion and what he has said is a fact. Fletcher’s contract runs till the World Cup.”He would not elaborate why Dhoni was so confident that Fletcher would be the man who would coach India in the World Cup. But the idea of interpreting the skipper’s statement as mere reiteration of the factual position considering the coach’s original tenure, is a line even the BCCI interim President Shivlal Yadav has taken earlier.A number of BCCI officials in various positions have expressed surprise and anger over Dhoni’s support for Fletcher at a time when the Board had appointed Ravi Shastri as a Team Director over him and his subordinate support staff was replaced in the aftermath of the test defeat. But with the two leading officials that are running the show in the absence of N.Srinivasan, Secretary and Interim President not in a mood to come hard on Dhoni, this issue is unlikely to create a storm in the working committee, even if it is raised by some officials.advertisementPatel did however say any further decision on the support staff would be taken after receiving Ravi Shastri’s inputs following the one day series in England.The much delayed working committee itself will not be held before the Supreme Court hearing resumes in the first week of September over Mudgal committee findings. Sources confirm if the Mudgal committee seeks more time for submission of it’s report, the current BCCI dispensation may seek from the Apex court postponement of the AGM to protect the right of Srinivasan to fight the next BCCI election for the top post.
The team with the best chance of going undefeated this fall is not the team appearing No. 1 in most preseason polls. According to ESPN’s Football Power Index (the “best predictor of a team’s performance”), Oklahoma – not Alabama – is the team most-likely to go undefeated heading into bowl season. While the Crimson Tide are the likely preseason No. 1, it’s the Sooners with the best chance of reaching the College Football Playoff. Here’s the full top 10:Oklahoma – 16.9 percent chance of going undefeated before bowl seasonFlorida State – 10.6 percentClemson – 8.6 percentBoise State – 8 percentMichigan – 5.8 percentLSU – 5.3 percentTennessee – 4.5 percentOklahoma State – 2.4 percentWashington – 1.4 percentNotre Dame – 1.2 percentSome other notable percentages: Alabama – 0.6 percentOhio State – 0.4 percentNebraska – 0.4 percentMichigan State – 0.1 percentOle Miss – 0.1 percentYou can view ESPN’s full FPI here.
zoom Thailand’s Thoresen Thai Agencies (TTA) has expanded its fleet by adding a second-hand dry bulk vessel, the 58,700 dwt MV Thor Caliber.The Supramax vessel, which was formerly named MV Albion, was purchased for a price of USD 14 million.TTA informed that the 2008-units was bought from a company which is not connected to Thoresen Shipping Singapore (TSS), a wholly owned subsidiary of TTA.With this additional vessel, the Thoresen-owned fleet comprises a total of 21 vessels with an average size of 54,512 dwt and an average age of 11.57 years.The transaction comes on the back of the company’s sale of two older ships over the previous six months.In February 2018, TTA disposed of the 1995-built MV Thor Endeavour. The 42,529 dwt general cargo vessel was sold at a price of USD 4.2 million. In late 2017, the company sold its 2002-built MV Thor Horizon for USD 5.4 million.TTA said that the sale transactions were in line with prevailing dry bulk shipping conditions, in which older vessels become less competitive and less able to meet operating costs. The proceeds were to be used to improve the efficiency of the TTA fleet and the company’s fleet renewal program.
Rodgers is second only to Andy Dalton of the Bengals in Points Above Replacement.2Points scored above what would be expected with a replacement-level quarterback. Ranking and chart limited to QBs on pace to qualify for ESPN’s QBR leaderboard with highest PAR on their team. Yet the Packers have spent the fifth-smallest amount on offensive non-quarterbacks for the 2015 season. Part of this is because the Packers are fiscally responsible and aren’t spending much in general on payroll. But they also specifically rank near the bottom consistently in spending on the guys who play with their quarterback. Here’s how the Packers’ offensive spending over the past three seasons (including this one) stacks up to the rest of the league: Check out win and loss projections and playoff odds for all 32 NFL teams. The NFL salary cap alone explains some of this chart. Teams spending more on QBs often end up spending less on other offensive players, simply because they have to spend less money somewhere. But it’s striking to me just how much a lot of teams with big-name, big-money QBs lean on them. For example, the Packers, Steelers and Giants all spent less money than average on offense despite having three of the top QB salaries in the business. In general, many of the top QBs in the game probably deserve even more esteem than the considerable amount they receive already. For instance, Eli Manning should get a bit more of a break sometimes, as he receives literally the least financial support for his offensive teammates in the league.Rodgers, despite his team spending barely more money on offensive teammates than the Giants have for Eli Manning, has put up much better numbers. He has 73 TDs and 15 interceptions (counting the playoffs) since 2013, compared with 58 and 43, respectively, for Manning. What could Rodgers have done with another $60 million worth of offensive linemen?Twitter question of the weekAs usual, tweet me questions @skepticalsports and there’s a chance I’ll answer them, even if they seem a bit silly. Like this one: OK, silly, but interesting. The precise mechanism of NFL home-field advantage is still an open question. The conventional wisdom is that it has something to do with atmosphere, for example how crowd noise affects signal-calling. I can see how these kinds of effects might reach a nadir immediately after the half. But using ESPN’s play-by-play data, I tried filtering for drives by away teams that start immediately after the half, and found that they averaged a similar number of points as other drives.3Ditto for expected points for the handful of plays immediately after the half: I filtered for offensive plays by the visiting team in the first 100 seconds of the second half and found their average expected points added to be virtually identical to that for the visiting team on other plays. But for the margins we’re dealing with, that sample size is way too small to be meaningful.4I looked at about 2,200 third-quarter drives between the 2006 and 2015 seasons. So I fished around a bit and found that, broadly speaking, the third quarter is better for road teams than average.5That is, teams in the third quarter improved their chances of winning (as modeled by win probability added) by just about 1 percent per drive (over around 9,800 drives) in the third quarter (while matching modeled WPA in other quarters).Now, contra the conventional wisdom, many — though not all — statistically minded NFL analysts think home advantage is more likely to relate to officiating. So with that in mind, I looked a bit more carefully at penalties in particular. Penalties tend to favor the team on offense, but they favor the offense even more often when it’s the home team. The margins here also don’t look huge, but it’s pretty clear over more than 400,000 offensive plays: For every 100 plays a home offense runs, it normally nets about three (expected) points from all penalties called. The equivalent rate for away offenses is just more than two expected points per 100 plays. That difference adds up to about a point per game: not a large fraction of your typical scoreline, but a pretty big chunk of the total home-field advantage that we tend to see (generally around two to three points per game).But here’s the interesting bit: The home team’s advantage from penalties isn’t divided equally by quarter. Nor is it strongest in the fourth quarter, when calls are most crucial, as in basketball. The home team’s largest advantages are in the first and second quarters, with the smallest coming in the third quarter:Curious!I really don’t have any explanation for this, and at this point I would categorize my speculation as “wild.” For instance: Perhaps the second half is when refs start trying very hard not to give in to their unconscious bias toward the home team.Most empirically significant game of this weekThere are many great and potentially revealing matchups set for this weekend, including the Panthers at the Seahawks. A lot of rookie quarterback theory hinges on the fate of Cam Newton — whose rookie campaign bore the hallmark (namely lots and lots of production) of a potential all-time great, but who has had only one winning season in his first four years.But Carolina-Seattle gets only an honorable mention, because the matchup of the week is clearly the Patriots at the Colts. Since the AFC championship game thrashing by the Pats (known for a certain controversy), these two teams — and their two star quarterbacks — have been on very different trajectories. The Patriots obviously did this little thing called winning the Super Bowl, and have started this season on a tear reminiscent of their 16-0 campaign in 2007. Andrew Luck, meanwhile, has been outplayed by 40-year-old backup Matt Hasselbeck — the oldest non-kicker in football this year.After having one of the league’s strongest offenses last year, the Patriots have managed one of the league’s biggest offensive improvements this year (the biggest improvers have been the Cardinals, who with Carson Palmer back at quarterback have had the league’s second-best offense):Rodgers essentially has maintained his MVP form, while Peyton Manning seems finally to be in real decline. But the Colts and Luck, their 26-year-old quarterback, have underperformed by nearly as much as the Broncos have with 39-year-old Peyton Manning at QB.Luck, who is practically the patron saint of Skeptical Football, is expected to return. Given the result the last time these two teams met, the Patriots are expected to romp. Whether that happens or not, we should learn more about the strengths and weaknesses of some of the most important figures and phenomena in the sport today.Reminder: If you tweet questions to me @skepticalsports, there is a non-zero chance that I’ll answer them here.Charts by Ella Koeze and Reuben Fischer-Baum. Stop the presses! Last Sunday, the Packers’ Aaron Rodgers threw two interceptions, his first in Green Bay since December 2012. Granted, they were completely inconsequential, and at least the first was pretty much a freak accident — his pass deflected off a linebacker — but Rodgers accepted at least some of the blame for them all the same. Despite the embarrassment, his touchdown-to-interception ratio remains the stuff of legend. Now in his eighth year as a starter, he has 66 interceptions for his career, along with 262 touchdowns (counting the playoffs). Normally, I’m not impressed by such stats. As I wrote last year (and have defended on numerous occasions), I think that his incredibly low interception rate is in part the result of a potentially costly unwillingness to gamble — particularly in situations where his team is down multiple scores late. I haven’t changed my mind.But I don’t think this quirk of Rodgers substantially diminishes his value. Or put another way, he is so valuable to begin with that even if he’s slightly too risk-averse, it’s largely irrelevant. Of course, Rogers is still relatively young (he’ll turn 32 in December), and he hasn’t had to deal with the ups and downs of a full career yet, either. But he’s a huge outlier, even for a quarterback at this stage of his career. For example, here is how he has accumulated touchdowns relative to interceptions game by game for his career, compared to every QB in NFL regular-season history since 1960:For most quarterbacks, losing causes interceptions just as much as interceptions cause losing. Rodgers is no different; he’d be even more valuable if he made certain win-maximizing adjustments (even though they might hurt his statistics a bit). But the steepness of Rodgers’s rise has no parallel. Criticizing him for it is a bit like criticizing Bill Belichick for not going for it enough on fourth down, or criticizing Lionel Messi for playing tiki-taka football so much instead of trading as many possessions as possible with his opponents. That is, they’re still pretty much the best at what they do, but could possibly be doing a little bit better.There’s one more reason to give Rodgers the benefit of any (skeptical) doubt. Which brings us to our …Chart(s) of the WeekNaturally, a quarterback’s ability to win games is affected by his team’s running game, defense, special teams, coaching and everything else. Even his broader statistical portfolio is largely a team accomplishment, and untangling everyone’s contributions can be nearly impossible. But one indicator of the strength of a quarterback’s teammates is money paid on their salaries. Some teams spend lavishly to surround their quarterbacks with high-powered offensive teammates.1Whether NFL teams are any good at this is a different question. The Packers, not so much:
The 2018 World Cup is scheduled to take place in Russia from 14 June to 15 July 2018, after the country was awarded the hosting rights on 2 December 2010.Serbia has announced their 23-man squad for the 2018 World Cup, including several Serie A star such as Sergej Milinkovic-Savic, according to Football Italia.Coach Mladen Krstajic has named the group that will follow him to Russia for the tournament which kicks off in 13 days.Those on the list are Roma full-back Aleksandar Kolarov, Fiorentina defender Nikola Milenkovic, Lazio midfielder Milinkovic-Savic and Torino talent Adem Ljajic.Report: Euro 2020 qualifying Group B George Patchias – September 11, 2019 Euro 2020 qualifying Group B sees Portugal and Serbia play catch up with Ukraine.While Cristiano Ronaldo broke records and his Portugal side ran out…Marija Nastasic was ruled out because of injury, with Mijat Gacinovic, Nemanja Maksimovic and Aleksandar Jovanovic cut from the long-list while Vladimir Stojkovic, Predrag Rajkovic, Marko Dmitrovic are goalkeepers.For defenders, Aleksandar Kolarov, Antonio Rukavina, Milan Rodic, Branislav Ivanovic, Uros Spajic, Milos Veljkovic, Dusko Tosic, Nikola Milenkovic will lead the team, while midfielders are Nemanja Matic, Luka Milivojevic, Marko Grujic, Dusan Tadic, Andrija Zivkovic, Filip Kostic, Nemanja Radonjic, Sergej Milinkovic-Savic, Adem LjajicForwards are Aleksandar Mitrovic, Aleksandar Prijovic, Luka JovicThe 2018 FIFA World Cup will be the 21st FIFA World Cup, a quadrennial international football tournament contested by the men’s national teams of the member associations of FIFA.