Manwell Pablo Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 I'd say it's even between the three teams. Uruguay are overrated and England are underrated. Really though we should be finishing above a nation of 3 million people and if we don't get through the group then Roy Hodgson has to go. But apart from saying that and picking out a few one off results that suit your argument along with pointing out the fact that Lugano plays for WBA you've nothing to back that up. No as that's not how it works it's 11 vs 11 not 3 million vs 60 million, we should produce more quality footballer than them due to our population but we aren't.
kingcarr21 Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 I'd say it's even between the three teams. Uruguay are overrated and England are underrated. Really though we should be finishing above a nation of 3 million people and if we don't get through the group then Roy Hodgson has to go. Are you serious? We will be extremely lucky to even get out this group. This is a time where we need stability when it comes to the manager so the transition of bringing in new youth players to replace the older generation runs as smooth as possible. Hodgson has done a great job as manager so far. If we make it out the group i will be delighted as we would of hit well above our weight by taking out either Italy (who yes have a few aging players but on the international stage they know how to get the job done) and Uruguay who playing in there own climate with arguably the best strikeforce in the whole tournament. I think some England fans need a bit of a reality check and accept that we are not the great team that so many believe we are and to go into this tournament with little expectation. As an England fan it pains me to think that we (most likely) wont compete in the latter stages but this is the realisation that we find ourselves in.
kingcarr21 Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 I'd say it's even between the three teams. Uruguay are overrated and England are underrated. Really though we should be finishing above a nation of 3 million people and if we don't get through the group then Roy Hodgson has to go. What difference does the population make? We could play against a country with 100 people in it but if they had a good coaching set up they could arguably have a better starting 11 than us and anybody else for that matter. Poor points to your argument IMO
MC Prussian Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 I'd say it's even between the three teams. Uruguay are overrated and England are underrated. Really though we should be finishing above a nation of 3 million people and if we don't get through the group then Roy Hodgson has to go. I still don't get how you can use the population argument as a case in point. It's ridiculous. Uruguay managed to get to fourth spot in 2010 and England were left behind way earlier during the tournament. What does that tell you about population? Nothing! Judging from your comments, you underrate Uruguay (massively) and overrate England (massively). Let's hope for your own sake that your pride won't take a nosedive this summer. As for your Woy Out! comment, get a break. You don't sack a national manager after only two years in charge when you want to build on things. Seriously… some of the stuff you come out with.
Corky Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 I'd say it's even between the three teams. Uruguay are overrated and England are underrated. Really though we should be finishing above a nation of 3 million people and if we don't get through the group then Roy Hodgson has to go. Why do you keep bringing population into it? By that token, China should finish well ahead of us in tournaments.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Are you serious? We will be extremely lucky to even get out this group. This is a time where we need stability when it comes to the manager so the transition of bringing in new youth players to replace the older generation runs as smooth as possible. Hodgson has done a great job as manager so far. If we make it out the group i will be delighted as we would of hit well above our weight by taking out either Italy (who yes have a few aging players but on the international stage they know how to get the job done) and Uruguay who playing in there own climate with arguably the best strikeforce in the whole tournament. I think some England fans need a bit of a reality check and accept that we are not the great team that so many believe we are and to go into this tournament with little expectation. As an England fan it pains me to think that we (most likely) wont compete in the latter stages but this is the realisation that we find ourselves in. Of course I'm serious. We will be extremely lucky to get out the group? Who do you think we are? Northern Ireland? How has Hodgson done a great job exactly? He's done a decent job so far but nothing special. If we don't get out the group then it will be our worst World Cup ever (again after 2010) and for that Hodgson cannot stay.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 What difference does the population make? We could play against a country with 100 people in it but if they had a good coaching set up they could arguably have a better starting 11 than us and anybody else for that matter. Poor points to your argument IMO Even if San Marino had the best coaching set-up known to man they will still be a terrible team due to their tiny population. I just don't think it's acceptable we a nation of 53 million people should be finishing below a nation of 3 million people. And I highly doubt that Uruguay have a better coaching set up than England.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 I still don't get how you can use the population argument as a case in point. It's ridiculous. Uruguay managed to get to fourth spot in 2010 and England were left behind way earlier during the tournament. What does that tell you about population? Nothing! Judging from your comments, you underrate Uruguay (massively) and overrate England (massively). Let's hope for your own sake that your pride won't take a nosedive this summer. As for your Woy Out! comment, get a break. You don't sack a national manager after only two years in charge when you want to build on things. Seriously… some of the stuff you come out with. We were knocked out by Germany (80 million) who finished 3rd lest we forget. And you do sack your manager if he delivers your country's worst ever World Cup performance.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Why do you keep bringing population into it? By that token, China should finish well ahead of us in tournaments. China is not a footballing country though. Is it any co-incidence that the best country in football history is Brazil who also happen to have 200 million people to pick from? I don't think so.
MC Prussian Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 We were knocked out by Germany (80 million) who finished 3rd lest we forget. And you do sack your manager if he delivers your country's worst ever World Cup performance. Germany were better than England - but not because of their population. But because they have the better footballers and the better team as a whole. Following your argumentation, the US should've beaten Ghana convincingly. You only do sack your manager if you're massively impatient and/or completely capsized by your own delusions of grandeur. Nothing good comes out of being short-sighted.
kingcarr21 Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Of course I'm serious. We will be extremely lucky to get out the group? Who do you think we are? Northern Ireland? How has Hodgson done a great job exactly? He's done a decent job so far but nothing special. If we don't get out the group then it will be our worst World Cup ever (again after 2010) and for that Hodgson cannot stay. So just because we are England we have a divine right to get out the group?? We are an above average team at best we are not blessed with superstars. Rooney being classed as our talisman is quite frankly laughable. We hype him up to be the greatest player yet still wait for him to prove it on the big stage. He has done a great job by not being afraid to drop players and bring in fresh young hungry players to experiment with whilst still qualifying for the World cup as group winners without losing a game. (Granted our group wasnt the hardest but the job still needed to be done). England really are not the powerhouse you clearly believe we are. I hope im proved wrong and we win the group but it is a very big ask which i cant see happening
MC Prussian Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 China is not a footballing country though. Is it any co-incidence that the best country in football history is Brazil who also happen to have 200 million people to pick from? I don't think so. Actually, they are, albeit still miles behind in their development. But the importance of football is rising. Btw, not all 200 million people in Brazil are footballers!
kingcarr21 Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Even if San Marino had the best coaching set-up known to man they will still be a terrible team due to their tiny population. I just don't think it's acceptable we a nation of 53 million people should be finishing below a nation of 3 million people. And I highly doubt that Uruguay have a better coaching set up than England. that makes no sense at all if they were able to train and coach a team to become superstars what difference does it make if they had 100 or 100 million.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Germany were better than England - but not because of their population. But because they have the better footballers and the better team as a whole. Following your argumentation, the US should've beaten Ghana convincingly. You only do sack your manager if you're massively impatient and/or completely capsized by your own delusions of grandeur. Nothing good comes out of being short-sighted. Or if the manager underperforms i.e. not getting out of the group.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 that makes no sense at all if they were able to train and coach a team to become superstars what difference does it make if they had 100 or 100 million. Not gonna happen. You can have all the coaching in the world but you need natural talent. The bigger your population, the more naturally talented players you will have at your disposal.
MC Prussian Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Not gonna happen. You can have all the coaching in the world but you need natural talent. The bigger your population, the more naturally talented players you will have at your disposal. Exactly, that's why China and India are football powerhouses. Or if the manager underperforms i.e. not getting out of the group. Or if the team underperforms e.g if individual players underperform on the day.
kingcarr21 Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Not gonna happen. You can have all the coaching in the world but you need natural talent. The bigger your population, the more naturally talented players you will have at your disposal. So there couldnt possibly be some naturally talented players in a population of 100?? Just because a nation might have more talented players to choose from doesnt mean they automatically win You only need a teams worth of naturally gifted players to create a winning team whether its in a population of 100,1 million, 3 million or 53 million. If a country with a small population can still put together a strong team surely they have just as much chance of winning? its 11 vs 11 not 1 million vs 100 million. Really cant see the point your making
One Legged Beaver Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Of course I'm serious. We will be extremely lucky to get out the group? Who do you think we are? Northern Ireland? How has Hodgson done a great job exactly? He's done a decent job so far but nothing special. If we don't get out the group then it will be our worst World Cup ever (again after 2010) and for that Hodgson cannot stay. You're third favourites though and rightly so? Anything better than third should be considered a success, third would be as well as you should have done and fourth as an under-performance.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 You're third favourites though and rightly so? Anything better than third should be considered a success, third would be as well as you should have done and fourth as an under-performance. Why should we be third favourites? Personally, I'd have us as second favourites behind Italy.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Here are our previous finishes at the World Cup (13 appearances) 1st 4th 6th 6th 6th 7th 8th 8th 8th 8th 9th 11th 13th You can clearly see that the quarter-finals is our level (8 times) Semi-finals is over-performing (2 times) Last 16 is under-performing (3 times) A group stage (last 32) exit is simply unacceptable.
One Legged Beaver Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Why should we be third favourites? Personally, I'd have us as second favourites behind Italy. A lack of real quality in the England team along with alien and unfavourable conditions in Brazil that most, if not all, of the England squad will have have never experienced before. Not to mention that Suarez and Cavani less so are on a completely different level to everyone in the England squad.
Langston Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 It waa his fault that we had Nicky Butt and Trevor Sinclair on the pitch with Scholes relegated to the left wing. I want to un-read this, it's upset me.
MC Prussian Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 Here are our previous finishes at the World Cup (13 appearances) 1st 4th 6th 6th 6th 7th 8th 8th 8th 8th 9th 11th 13th You can clearly see that the quarter-finals is our level (8 times) Semi-finals is over-performing (2 times) Last 16 is under-performing (3 times) A group stage (last 32) exit is simply unacceptable. You can also clearly make out how England and its role in the World Cup tournaments has diminished over the years, as the team has found its level on a past-group stage level, with getting to the quarter finals being the sole highlights since 1990. Also, you don't take into account the growing number of footballing teams competing at World Cups. There's a much more even playing field, more competition and thus a more truthful representation of England and its "talent" on a global scale. You can't just take averages without considering the change of format. A group stage exit this year is a possible outcome.
Stadt Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 On his logic Pearson should have been sacked last season for not achieving promotion to the premier league where we belong.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 You can also clearly make out how England and its role in the World Cup tournaments has diminished over the years, as the team has found its level on a past-group stage level, with getting to the quarter finals being the sole highlights since 1990. Also, you don't take into account the growing number of footballing teams competing at World Cups. There's a much more even playing field, more competition and thus a more truthful representation of England and its "talent" on a global scale. You can't just take averages without considering the change of format. A group stage exit this year is a possible outcome. The new nations are not exactly Brazil or Germany. Countries like Croatia and Ukraine or Ghana are still below us in the pecking order. The best countries are still the original footballing powerhouses e.g. Brazil, Germany, Italy. A group stage exit in a 32-team World Cup is simply not good enough for a footballing nation of our stature.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.