C-man Posted 6 June 2010 Posted 6 June 2010 '54, '58, '66, '74, & '78 (Argy Autumn) were hardly tropical. And the High Veldt will soon put paid to 'northern European' notions (ie England's dreaming) of headless chicken, Monty Python knees bent running around advancing behaviour. The premium for England's high energy preference remains the same whatever the climate - FAILURE. I really want to know where you get all your ridiculous notions that history (not just recent events but things that happened before the majority of our squad were even born) will have any bearing on what will happen this summer. You sound like an intelligent guy but you ruin it by being so utterly far-fetched to the point where you make me want to bang my head on the laptop. You want to talk about failure and our 'high energy preference'. We'll use some recent history shall we? 1986 - Quarter-Final - Cheated by the eventual Winners 1990 - Semi-Final - Lost on Penalties to the eventual Winners 1998 - Last 16 - Lost on Penalties despite playing for more than an hour with 10 men to a supposedly (no doubt in your mind anyway) superior, Argentina. 2002 - Quarter-Final - Lost to a freak goal to the eventual Winners 2006 - Quarter-Final - Lost on Penalties despite playing 60 minutes with 10 men to a supposedly (no doubt in your mind anyway) superior, Portugal. Not done too badly considering how shit we are, and I doubt our 'high energy' strategy involves taking penalties so you can take your theories and fook off. Oh and for the record I don't think we'll get further than the Semi's where we'll lose to the eventual winners Brazil, probably on penalties because of our high octane style.
Guest ttfn Posted 6 June 2010 Posted 6 June 2010 I really want to know where you get all your ridiculous notions that history (not just recent events but things that happened before the majority of our squad were even born) will have any bearing on what will happen this summer. You sound like an intelligent guy but you ruin it by being so utterly far-fetched to the point where you make me want to bang my head on the laptop. You want to talk about failure and our 'high energy preference'. We'll use some recent history shall we? 1986 - Quarter-Final - Cheated by the eventual Winners 1990 - Semi-Final - Lost on Penalties to the eventual Winners 1998 - Last 16 - Lost on Penalties despite playing for more than an hour with 10 men to a supposedly (no doubt in your mind anyway) superior, Argentina. 2002 - Quarter-Final - Lost to a freak goal to the eventual Winners 2006 - Quarter-Final - Lost on Penalties despite playing 60 minutes with 10 men to a supposedly (no doubt in your mind anyway) superior, Portugal. Not done too badly considering how shit we are, and I doubt our 'high energy' strategy involves taking penalties so you can take your theories and fook off. Oh and for the record I don't think we'll get further than the Semi's where we'll lose to the eventual winners Brazil, probably on penalties because of our high octane style. In other news, South Africa beat Denmark 1-0 last night. Is it possible that they might actually make a decent fist of this?
Sparky Posted 6 June 2010 Posted 6 June 2010 In my prediction thing at work i got South Africa to make the quarter finals before we knock them out. Hosts seem to get the rub of the green
Guest ttfn Posted 6 June 2010 Posted 6 June 2010 In my prediction thing at work i got South Africa to make the quarter finals before we knock them out. Hosts seem to get the rub of the green What, so you think England will make the semi-finals? Totally delusional.
Sparky Posted 6 June 2010 Posted 6 June 2010 What, so you think England will make the semi-finals? Totally delusional. More hope than expectation, is that so fookin wrong ?
marbelladave Posted 6 June 2010 Posted 6 June 2010 I find the buzz preceding a major tournament hugely enjoyable and find the speculation and discussion that precedes it all quite fascinating. Depending on what I hear I find myself oscillating between deep pessimism and hopeless optimism. A day or two ago I was fuming, the realisation that England were going into the competition with virtually the same team that was so mediocre in 2006 and failed so completely to qualify for 2008 had hit home and the horror of an early exit at the hands of Serbia or more likely Germany (penalties obviously) seemed inevitable. A day or too later, listening to the woes and worries of other teams, I find myself thinking that we have some decent players and on occasion a passion and team spirit that takes a lot of beating. Just one or two 'big' performances could see us into a semi final, Brazil most likely, that takes place at sea level and in the cool of the evening. If that happens then in a one off game, most likely in Cape Town, who knows...:dunno:
Guest ttfn Posted 6 June 2010 Posted 6 June 2010 I find the buzz preceding a major tournament hugely enjoyable and find the speculation and discussion that precedes it all quite fascinating. Depending on what I hear I find myself oscillating between deep pessimism and hopeless optimism. A day or two ago I was fuming, the realisation that England were going into the competition with virtually the same team that was so mediocre in 2006 and failed so completely to qualify for 2008 had hit home and the horror of an early exit at the hands of Serbia or more likely Germany (penalties obviously) seemed inevitable. A day or too later, listening to the woes and worries of other teams, I find myself thinking that we have some decent players and on occasion a passion and team spirit that takes a lot of beating. Just one or two 'big' performances could see us into a semi final, Brazil most likely, that takes place at sea level and in the cool of the evening. If that happens then in a one off game, most likely in Cape Town, who knows...:dunno: I'm exactly the same, except I'm trying not to let my pessimism come to the fore. Spain and Brazil are clearly the best sides, but it's a 7 game tournament, not a season, so form will obviously be key. As you say, who knows? If tournament football was as predictable as league football, then the bookies will lose a lot of money (except for the profits they'll make on England!) More hope than expectation, is that so fookin wrong ? No, I agree with you totally. Sarcasm doesn't come across so well in text
Sparky Posted 6 June 2010 Posted 6 June 2010 I'm exactly the same, except I'm trying not to let my pessimism come to the fore. Spain and Brazil are clearly the best sides, but it's a 7 game tournament, not a season, so form will obviously be key. As you say, who knows? If tournament football was as predictable as league football, then the bookies will lose a lot of money (except for the profits they'll make on England!) No, I agree with you totally. Sarcasm doesn't come across so well in text Apologies then
Ric Flair Posted 7 June 2010 Posted 7 June 2010 I find the buzz preceding a major tournament hugely enjoyable and find the speculation and discussion that precedes it all quite fascinating. Depending on what I hear I find myself oscillating between deep pessimism and hopeless optimism. A day or two ago I was fuming, the realisation that England were going into the competition with virtually the same team that was so mediocre in 2006 and failed so completely to qualify for 2008 had hit home and the horror of an early exit at the hands of Serbia or more likely Germany (penalties obviously) seemed inevitable. A day or too later, listening to the woes and worries of other teams, I find myself thinking that we have some decent players and on occasion a passion and team spirit that takes a lot of beating. Just one or two 'big' performances could see us into a semi final, Brazil most likely, that takes place at sea level and in the cool of the evening. If that happens then in a one off game, most likely in Cape Town, who knows...:dunno: Bang on there dave! The fact of the matter is, we've not done a great deal in major tournaments for quite some time but we're still there or thereabouts so what's the point in not going in to the tournament without a bit of excitement. Who knows what might happen? There are some quality sides right now, but how many times have the strong forces bombed out in World Cups and Euro Championships? I'm far more confident in us becoming stronger as the tournament goes on, as Capello's biggest quality since taking over England is giving them belief, confidence and true grit the longer he spends time with the players. Fook it, blind optimism right now is better than pessism anyway. If you can't get fired up for the greatest tournament on earth then it's a shame.
ousefox Posted 7 June 2010 Posted 7 June 2010 That friendly vs Platinum or whoever is live on BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/matches/friendlies/ There's no commentary so i would advise putting it on mute unless you enjoy the sound of vuvuzelas
dogadug Posted 7 June 2010 Posted 7 June 2010 If anyone's interested, Englands last warm up match against Platinum Stars is currently being shown live on Sky Sports News. England currently 1-0 up through Defoe, but Platinum Stars missed a peno.
Wycombe Fox Posted 7 June 2010 Posted 7 June 2010 I going to have to play with the audio settings on my TV to see if I can adjust some frequency band to try and dull the noise of those ****ing vuvuzelas. Driving me mad already
Wycombe Fox Posted 7 June 2010 Posted 7 June 2010 Stuart Pearce is wearing a pair of 1975 vintage shorts. Tight Stu, tight.
Tilley Posted 7 June 2010 Posted 7 June 2010 Vuvuzelas Please tell me you're fucking kidding? So annoying.
Fosse Fox Posted 8 June 2010 Posted 8 June 2010 I really want to know where you get all your ridiculous notions that history (not just recent events but things that happened before the majority of our squad were even born) will have any bearing on what will happen this summer. You sound like an intelligent guy but you ruin it by being so utterly far-fetched to the point where you make me want to bang my head on the laptop. You want to talk about failure and our 'high energy preference'. We'll use some recent history shall we? 1986 - Quarter-Final - Cheated by the eventual Winners 1990 - Semi-Final - Lost on Penalties to the eventual Winners 1998 - Last 16 - Lost on Penalties despite playing for more than an hour with 10 men to a supposedly (no doubt in your mind anyway) superior, Argentina. 2002 - Quarter-Final - Lost to a freak goal to the eventual Winners 2006 - Quarter-Final - Lost on Penalties despite playing 60 minutes with 10 men to a supposedly (no doubt in your mind anyway) superior, Portugal. Not done too badly considering how shit we are, and I doubt our 'high energy' strategy involves taking penalties so you can take your theories and fook off. Oh and for the record I don't think we'll get further than the Semi's where we'll lose to the eventual winners Brazil, probably on penalties because of our high octane style. It's called grey matter sonny, you know that naturally occurring substance that the statto's use to fix the odds to fleece ****** like you whenever England are in a tourno. Because you have a yawning cavity between your lugs you see every England World Cup exit merely as a consequence of bad luck. And your failure to see the pattern in England's failures means the bookies can sucker you in time after time after time. What is ironic about your dissing of history as a predictive tool is that your expectations are based on all that '30 years of hurt' bollocks. You would be a damn sight less gung-ho had that domestic triumph never occurred. And you would be less full of lame excuses for England's pitiful World Cup Finals' record if it hadn't been for the invention of that face saving, blush sparing device called 'The Round of Sixteen (R16).' And it's ironic again that your laundry list of England failure commences with the introduction of the R16. You see, the R16 fed England the mediocre opposition (Paraguay) to enable them to register their first ever knock out phase win on foreign soil and allowed them over a 20 year period to acquire several more equally unimpressive scalps (Belgium, Demark, Ecuador) and thus pad out their Finals record. Without the R16 England would have only one knock out phase success (Cameroon) and this is a stat that gives great comfort to the bookies - they know England are jinxed when they face the World Cup pedigree breeds ie any previous finalist. Their grey matter allows them to read history. History tells them that England won't win and also tells them who will. England's 'high energy' game is of course a euphemism for all that pressing, long ball, kick and rush, mindless hoofery. That's what really cost us in '86 (we hardly had a kick before Barnes came on with 15 minutes to go, 'hand of God' or no) and '02 (funny how you don't mention Brazil being down to 10 men or Seaman's signature flap there). Being shagged out after a couple of hours of mongball doesn't exactly help with the peno's either but that's barely half the story in this case. You are in denial if you think that shoot outs are just a lottery. They are a supreme test of skill, nerve and wits. And history tells us these handy qualities are in short supply in Englands case (which is also why they resort to high energy huff and puff). If, in the unlikely event after banging your head on that laptop of yours, you find some grey matter on the keyboard, spoon some back in and trawl through the footie archives - if nothing else it will show you that England wouldn't be good value even at 20/1..
marbelladave Posted 8 June 2010 Posted 8 June 2010 It's called grey matter sonny, you know that naturally occurring substance that the statto's use to fix the odds to fleece ****** like you whenever England are in a tourno. Because you have a yawning cavity between your lugs you see every England World Cup exit merely as a consequence of bad luck. And your failure to see the pattern in England's failures means the bookies can sucker you in time after time after time. What is ironic about your dissing of history as a predictive tool is that your expectations are based on all that '30 years of hurt' bollocks. You would be a damn sight less gung-ho had that domestic triumph never occurred. And you would be less full of lame excuses for England's pitiful World Cup Finals' record if it hadn't been for the invention of that face saving, blush sparing device called 'The Round of Sixteen (R16).' And it's ironic again that your laundry list of England failure commences with the introduction of the R16. You see, the R16 fed England the mediocre opposition (Paraguay) to enable them to register their first ever knock out phase win on foreign soil and allowed them over a 20 year period to acquire several more equally unimpressive scalps (Belgium, Demark, Ecuador) and thus pad out their Finals record. Without the R16 England would have only one knock out phase success (Cameroon) and this is a stat that gives great comfort to the bookies - they know England are jinxed when they face the World Cup pedigree breeds ie any previous finalist. Their grey matter allows them to read history. History tells them that England won't win and also tells them who will. England's 'high energy' game is of course a euphemism for all that pressing, long ball, kick and rush, mindless hoofery. That's what really cost us in '86 (we hardly had a kick before Barnes came on with 15 minutes to go, 'hand of God' or no) and '02 (funny how you don't mention Brazil being down to 10 men or Seaman's signature flap there). Being shagged out after a couple of hours of mongball doesn't exactly help with the peno's either but that's barely half the story in this case. You are in denial if you think that shoot outs are just a lottery. They are a supreme test of skill, nerve and wits. And history tells us these handy qualities are in short supply in Englands case (which is also why they resort to high energy huff and puff). If, in the unlikely event after banging your head on that laptop of yours, you find some grey matter on the keyboard, spoon some back in and trawl through the footie archives - if nothing else it will show you that England wouldn't be good value even at 20/1.. Despite the un-necessary vitriol, sadly much of what you say is correct. England consistently fall to the first decent team they meet in the knock out stages, only the circumstances and the excuses vary. The logic is inescapable, but football is not, always, logical. Whilst history teaches us a valuable lesson it remains what it is, history. Teams (including England) can turn things around and achieve more, history only tells us how hard it will be for teams to do that, not that it won't ever happen. Sure it will require England to play at levels we have yet to reach in modern times and yes I (personally) am saddened that we appear to have made little progress on the more 'technical' aspects of modern international football but we do have some good players and we do have, on occasions, the kind of purpose and team spirit that could see us surprise a few people, your good self included. In any case, as an England fan it is pointless going into the competition with a completely defeatest attitude, we have to hope that the team does well and gives us a result or two to savour and then who knows? Sometimes technical ability and history really are not enough, on the day, sometimes it is just down to desire, character and passion. Do we have it?.......that is why we play the games....
C-man Posted 8 June 2010 Posted 8 June 2010 It's called grey matter sonny, you know that naturally occurring substance that the statto's use to fix the odds to fleece ****** like you whenever England are in a tourno. Because you have a yawning cavity between your lugs you see every England World Cup exit merely as a consequence of bad luck. And your failure to see the pattern in England's failures means the bookies can sucker you in time after time after time. What is ironic about your dissing of history as a predictive tool is that your expectations are based on all that '30 years of hurt' bollocks. You would be a damn sight less gung-ho had that domestic triumph never occurred. And you would be less full of lame excuses for England's pitiful World Cup Finals' record if it hadn't been for the invention of that face saving, blush sparing device called 'The Round of Sixteen (R16).' And it's ironic again that your laundry list of England failure commences with the introduction of the R16. You see, the R16 fed England the mediocre opposition (Paraguay) to enable them to register their first ever knock out phase win on foreign soil and allowed them over a 20 year period to acquire several more equally unimpressive scalps (Belgium, Demark, Ecuador) and thus pad out their Finals record. Without the R16 England would have only one knock out phase success (Cameroon) and this is a stat that gives great comfort to the bookies - they know England are jinxed when they face the World Cup pedigree breeds ie any previous finalist. Their grey matter allows them to read history. History tells them that England won't win and also tells them who will. England's 'high energy' game is of course a euphemism for all that pressing, long ball, kick and rush, mindless hoofery. That's what really cost us in '86 (we hardly had a kick before Barnes came on with 15 minutes to go, 'hand of God' or no) and '02 (funny how you don't mention Brazil being down to 10 men or Seaman's signature flap there). Being shagged out after a couple of hours of mongball doesn't exactly help with the peno's either but that's barely half the story in this case. You are in denial if you think that shoot outs are just a lottery. They are a supreme test of skill, nerve and wits. And history tells us these handy qualities are in short supply in Englands case (which is also why they resort to high energy huff and puff). If, in the unlikely event after banging your head on that laptop of yours, you find some grey matter on the keyboard, spoon some back in and trawl through the footie archives - if nothing else it will show you that England wouldn't be good value even at 20/1.. Firstly, I would never bet on England winning the World Cup because I don't think it will happen but I've said before that I don't think history (particularly before 1998) plays that much of a part other than raising expectations of so called '******' so all your 'grey matter' is irrelevant to me. I'd forgotten about Ronaldinho's ridiculous sending off in 2002. I don't remember too much about that game other than their winner. As for my expectations of reaching the last four, I think we will because we have a relatively easy run there. One of the more fanciful groups, tricky but very winnable last 16 and quarter-final games are what persuades me to think we'll get there, not history. Whatever stats you whack out or stories you bore people with it won't change the fact that football is unpredictable. Did you say to every Greek in 2004 that they'd have no hope of winning the competition because they have no history of success? Did you dismiss the Bulgarians in 1994 or Croats in 1998 (both beat Germany I must hasten to add, history could not have predicted that could it Chandler?)? And finally, why do you keep referring to England as 'we'? I thought you were supporting Serbia. I'd like to know where your allegiances will lie in this almost certain R16 fixture?
Fosse Fox Posted 9 June 2010 Posted 9 June 2010 Firstly, I would never bet on England winning the World Cup because I don't think it will happen but I've said before that I don't think history (particularly before 1998) plays that much of a part other than raising expectations of so called '******' so all your 'grey matter' is irrelevant to me. I'd forgotten about Ronaldinho's ridiculous sending off in 2002. I don't remember too much about that game other than their winner. As for my expectations of reaching the last four, I think we will because we have a relatively easy run there. One of the more fanciful groups, tricky but very winnable last 16 and quarter-final games are what persuades me to think we'll get there, not history. Whatever stats you whack out or stories you bore people with it won't change the fact that football is unpredictable. Did you say to every Greek in 2004 that they'd have no hope of winning the competition because they have no history of success? Did you dismiss the Bulgarians in 1994 or Croats in 1998 (both beat Germany I must hasten to add, history could not have predicted that could it Chandler?)? And finally, why do you keep referring to England as 'we'? I thought you were supporting Serbia. I'd like to know where your allegiances will lie in this almost certain R16 fixture? SERBIA???!!! Take it from me C Person that I will be supporting England. My criticism of the team is more to do with my loathing of The FA and their appalling historic indifference to the national team and the way in which the blazers dupe England fans (one of the reasons why Sven wanted to leave before '06) - their only real interest (apart from lining their own pockets) is The Premier League (the best pocket liner in world football). If there was a Nobel Prize awarded for complacency, this sentence, 'As for my expectations of reaching the last four, I think we will because we have a relatively easy run there...' would be the runaway winner. You might want to reflect on that ill considered remark in the very near future during that now traditional quadquennial festival : the England premature ejection wake. We've got enough to mull over without confusing Mondial 'shocks' with Euro 'surprises' (Greeks, Danes, Czechs etc) but what the hell. Given that the latter is a tourno where the honours are spread around a little more evenly (nine separate winning nations from thirteen competitions held compared to only seven out of eighteen for the World Cup - proving that the more elite a tournament is perceived to be, the more likely it is to be monopolised), England's record here is even more awful than in the World Cup and should be an even greater source of concern (the stats indicate that the Euro's are about half as difficult to win as the World Cup but England have yet to reach a final). Bulgaria's and Croatia's successes against Germany in the '94 & '98 World Cups would have been even more surprising and meaningful had they occurred at more advanced stages of the competition. However, both of these teams were regarded as potential hazards (particularly Croatia who were many punters' dark horses for France '98 after their exploits at Euro '96) and it is exactly this kind of unknown quantity currently submerged in a Limpopo watering hole that could easily take a painful chunk out of England's over rated arse. This is an historical no-brainer and the only people who will be surprised when it happens will be those who believed that England had a 'relatively easy run' to the semi finals...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.