not sure if this has been posted in the thread yet, but if you know the block number on your ticket, you can see the view you're going to have on Wednesday night.
I'm going to be enjoying this particular vista: http://www.wembleystadium.com/TheSta...6|event:sports
It's not that they can't tell the difference, it's that they don't care. They're a very special class of moron who divide the world into "English" and "not English". And as an English person was recently killed by (in their eyes) a non-English person, they'll be out looking for revenge against the non-English.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Ha, too true, sadly, too true.
Why the need to re-write history. This kind of pettiness is unnecessary. Here is where England finished in the last 4 world cups:Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
1998 - 9th
2002 - 6th
2006 - 7th
2010 - 13th
So, in competition it would be fair to say they were not in the top 10 in the world since 2008 (didn't qualify for Euro's), not 1991.
FIFA rankings are a joke. Are they better or have they been consistently better than Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Holland, Portugal groor for that matter Greece or Denmark since 1900 world Cup?. The answer is no. They have not won a tournament for almost 50 years. Poor team throughout the 1970''s post Mexico World Cup. Not much better throughout the 1980's. Currently second in a group behind Montenegro with no guarantee they will even qualify for 2014.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
England had a top team at the 1970's World Cup (better than 1966 team IMO). But have never matched that side in over 40 years. The South Americans especially do not take them seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irwin3
all those teams have gone through dodgy patches since 1990. 7th is probably a bit generous at the moment but they are always deservedly hovering aound 8th to 12th best in the world imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
In fairness, you can't claim that England have been out of the top ten for the past 20 years and then make up your own rankings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
England haven't won anything in years obviously, but in fairness to them, they're very consistent. To say they've not been top ten in the world since 1991 is groundless. They clearly have been.
They failed to Qualify for WC 94 and Euro 2008. One semi final appearance in all that time (91 to present) and that was on home soil. And currently they are in second place to Montenegro for 2014 qualifying. They are in the ranks of the also rans not the winners.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
England are probably a top 8-10 team in the world and have been on the whole for the last 20 years. The big problem with England is that they believe that they are a top 3-4 team that has a divine right to win trophies. To be fair, in 2006, they had a high number of really top players, but most years, they have maybe two really top tier players.
The English have been unlucky at various tournaments going out on penalties in that time. However, this highlights that when push comes to shove, they don't have the bottle or quality to beat the very best. A relatively poor German team can get to a World Cup final (2002). A very good England team normally goes out on penalties in the quarter final or in a very good year a semi final. That is the difference.
I actually would say that this current England team is the poorest England team in years. Their best player (Gerrard) is not the player he was, their next best player (Rooney) never really performs for them and their great hope (Wilshere) is always injured. Lampard is a class player but he never really has shone with Gerrard. Hart was showing glimpses of being a top tier goalie last year, but he's had a poor season. Johnson is a kamikaze defender who would be eaten alive by the very best international teams. Walcott is a talented headless chicken, while the likes of Milner, Barry and Lescott are nothing more than decent players. I do like Cahill as a centre half and I really rate Cole and Baines to be fair though. The fact that they have by their standards a relatively poor team on paper and a coach that is mediocre might actually work to their advantage in Brazil if they get there.
Think they will get to Brazil. FIFA will want them there, like a certain Gallic team, as we know to our cost...
And they could win fairly easily If they play to their potential on Weds. As we're only too aware of our side's many current deficiencies!
Obviously am hoping they don't...
BBC Preview:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22677284
You can be in the top 10 and not be in the "winners"; very few nations win stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
They are very consistent and the idea that they've not been top ten for 20 years is nonsense.
They usually make Quarter-Finals and then thankfully crash out...
For what it's worth, if you go back through the last five World Cups (1994 to 2010), and award points based on finishing as follows, for example -
- then England are actually in the top ten despite not having qualified for 1994 -Code:Winner 10
R-up 8
Third 6
Fourth 4
Q/F 3
2nd rd 2
Groups 1
Yes, they underachieve. Yes, their national team is no way a reflection of the strength of their domestic league. And yes, the league relies more on money than technique. But there's no rational means of ranking teams that results in the conclusion that England have not been a top-ten team since 1991.Code:Nation Pts Rank
Brazil 34 1
Germany 26 2
Italy 24 3
France 20 4
Spain 19 5
Holland 17 6
Ar'tina 12 7
England 10 8
Mexico 10 8
Sweden 10 8
Probably about right. Anyway, they can be no.1 for all we care. Just as long as they never win anything...
It is not just that. It is the amount of times they get beaten by sides like Romania and Sweden in crucial championship games. These games are never mentioned. There have been times since 1970 when all it would have taken (Euro 92 for example) was a single minded, hardnosed, tactically astute manager for England to have triumphed. But the FA have always (after Revie) chosen too many PR merchants.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Well that's over a long period of time, averaged out. I'd say England generally hover around the lower reaches of the top ten, but there are often teams that are better than them for short periods: Bulgaria in the early 1990s, Croatia on and off, Portugal on a regular basis, Czech Republic occasionally, even that Turkish side that did very well a while back...
Every single time. And even on the rare occasions that they admit they don't have a world class team (last year's Euros, for example) it's always with the implication that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
a)They should have a world class team, by rights, because Rule Britannia and all that.
b)Their team is not world class, not because English people aren't superior in every way to Johnny Foreigner, but because it's someone else's fault. Preferably someone foreign, like Maradona, Capello, or the Mexican water suppliers, but if that can't be made to wash, a rogue English scapegoat can be found, like McClaren, Southgate, Batty or Beckham.
And then they have the nerve to claim that the British (and by that they invariably mean the English) are one of the most modest and self-effacing nations in the world.
Absolutely agree. But Noelys comment was -Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
Which is clearly nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
Am I the only one who likes England to do well, up until about the quarter finals?!! I'm trying to figure out if it's my cruel desire to see them lose dramatically on penalties or my desire for them to do reasonably well as a form of guilt for the fact that most English are sound and actually want us to do well :)
Having played well, in injury time, to a penalty, which was clearly a dive ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
The day they get knocked out of a tournament is always one of the happiest of the year for me. I only really properly enjoy a tournament once they're out. It's like having a day off but knowing you've got to run an inconvenient errand mid-afternoon. It's great to be off, but you can only properly enjoy it once you're free to do what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Figo & Co giving them a 2-0 head start before picking them off 2-3 was a personal favourite. I laughed at that like they would laugh at Benny Hill on a banana skin.
France beating them 2-1 when England were 1 up on 89 minutes was particularly pleasing too.
prefer the own goal option myself... and theres a lot to be said for the traditional goalkeeping blunder!Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
Well there might be a more nationalistic fervour about and certain people might take offence to someone cheeringQuote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
when England concede a goal.
Why is it clearly nonsense? You have England 8th best FFS at the WC over that period. Their record at the Euros is even worse. They are not and have not been a top 10 team for some time. You have never seen a great English team. I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Where can we see this top ten, Noely?
The top ten is the TOP TEN. Not a UCD opinion of what the TOP 10 should be. Brazil 1970 just truly magic on so may levels. England competed with the greatest team I have ever seen. England never recovered
OK. Can I see it? I promise I won't show it to Stu or anybody else from UCD.
I was being nice. If you include the 1970's/1980's the record is laughable. Top 16 at bestQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Hang on a second, you were on base ten a second ago, now you've reverted to base eight. What the hell is going on?
Wait a minute, Top 10. Is that binary?
OK Did not qualify 72 and dismal Euro 74 Euros. Lest said about 76and 78 the better. Dismal 82 and 86 Maradona. 90 we were the better team. 92 Disaster. 94 Did not qualify. Im not going to go on.
Well you said they've been out of The Top Ten since 1991. As far as I know, only 92 and 94 come after 91, but I'm open to correction. You say you're not going to go on but you've already gone on and on about irrelevant things and said basically nothing to back up your point, nor have you provided me with a link to The Top Ten even though I've promised not to show Pineapple Stu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
I'm not sure why you think we were better in 1990 anyway. Certainly there is nothing in the results achieved by other team to suggest we were.
I'll argue with you Tomorrow when I'm sober. But again I'm not convinced that the people I'm arguing with are genuine sorts. Convince me you have not profited from the Irish economic collapse. Then we will have a chat. Maybe even about England being 3rd in the world.
1994 we were better!
;)
My money is on a hexadecimal top 16.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
If we used the Sexagesimal number system we would always be in the top 10 (most of the time).
Very popular with the Sumerian football team I hear, who were always in the top 10 in the area.
Leave UCD alone, you jealous p###ks!