View Full Version : Euro 2012 Qualifying Group B - General Discussion
Stuttgart88
17/10/2011, 7:31 PM
Is that, 3 points from a win being good enough, just a mere theory?It's that kind of thinking that caused the financial crisis.
geysir
17/10/2011, 8:12 PM
Are you guys a team now? Eric and Ernie, Cheech and Chong, now we have Poz and Stutz
paul_oshea
17/10/2011, 8:14 PM
Why are you jealous geysir :D
I just thought the line matched with the recipient, was quite apt.
geysir
17/10/2011, 8:19 PM
Here's me waiting for Stutts to find one example of a win being good enough to get a team into the next round and all I get is some obscure statement, that has Paul rolling on the floor.
Kingdom
17/10/2011, 9:45 PM
Are you guys a team now? Eric and Ernie, Cheech and Chong, now we have Poz and Stutz
What about geysir and Kinger?
geysir
17/10/2011, 10:33 PM
Seeing as i'm a half blooded Kerryman, I already have the assumption that I would be the senior party.
pineapple stu
17/10/2011, 11:40 PM
Does anyone know if the Estonians have any suspensions?
Sergei Zenjov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Zenjov) is out for the away game.
DeLorean
18/10/2011, 8:28 AM
Nearly? :)
At least I can offer a 3 draw example, Chile in 1998
Not to mention Ireland/Holland in 1990!!
Cameroon in '82 as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_FIFA_World_Cup#Group_1). First team to be knocked out of the World Cup without losing a game (followed by England later that same tournament)
Followed by a surprisingly unbeaten New Zealand last year.
Here's me waiting for Stutts to find one example of a win being good enough to get a team into the next round
I don't think there is such an example. As I said, Italy in 2002 proved the theory, even if they did conjur up another unnecessary point! One win was good enough for England to secure second spot in their group in 1950 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_FIFA_World_Cup#Group_2)...unfortunately for them only first place qualified.
Stuttgart88
18/10/2011, 8:34 AM
Thanks deLorean.
I couldn't find one, Geysir.
I stand by my retort though!
geysir
18/10/2011, 8:36 AM
A nearly example still does not rise it above 'in theory a team can go through with a win' whereas we know teams have gone through with just 3 draws.
I have to conclude that in the context of 3 points being good enough, the reference example of a team doing it on the back of 3 draws is the superior one.
Stuttgart88
18/10/2011, 9:07 AM
I didn't realise we were in competition. I just said that a team can also go through on 3 points. I understood your statement as your believing that 3 draws is the only way. I had in mind another way.
Claim a moral victory if you want. I've other things to worry about in the real world.
DeLorean
18/10/2011, 9:26 AM
A nearly example still does not rise it above 'in theory a team can go through with a win' whereas we know teams have gone through with just 3 draws.
We also "know" that Italy would have went through with just one win, and because we know this...it makes it a fact, not just a theory.
pineapple stu
18/10/2011, 9:36 AM
I have to conclude that in the context of 3 points being good enough, the reference example of a team doing it on the back of 3 draws is the superior one.
Would you ever stop? A "superior" example?! They're both perfectly valid examples.
geysir
18/10/2011, 9:36 AM
Chill out guys, I thought it was obvious I was not that serious.
pineapple stu
18/10/2011, 9:41 AM
You've a lot of work to do on your sense of humour!
paul_oshea
18/10/2011, 9:46 AM
Geysir the man, self noted, for his delving into the intricacies of what people really mean when they make statements, yet he remains misunderstood :)
geysir
18/10/2011, 10:21 AM
I have no control in how people interpret what I write, or if one post (apparently very very serious) is taken in isolation from other lighthearted posts on the same topic. All I can offer now is a belated clarification, a mea culpa.
geysir
18/10/2011, 10:23 AM
You've a lot of work to do on your sense of humour!
Who said I was trying to be funny?
pineapple stu
18/10/2011, 10:26 AM
So you weren't being serious and you weren't being funny?
geysir
18/10/2011, 10:31 AM
Yes.
Just because someone is not being serious does not mean they are trying to be funny.
DeLorean
18/10/2011, 10:46 AM
With over 30,000 posts between ye, it's no wonder familiarity is beginning to breed a bit of contempt. Not to worry, I knew you weren't being fully serious Geysir, but I still wanted to 'win' :)
Kingdom
18/10/2011, 5:39 PM
Here Geysir, I think we'll annul the Kinger and Geysir tag-team, how about Benner and Geysir?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.