Originally posted by trevor33england a one man team? would this one be be owen, rooney, lampard, gerrard, bechham, terry or cole?
Have u even watched an italy match since usa94, I doubt it, there a more attacking team now than usa ever was, just because they have the best defence in the world doesn't make them a defenceive team. Holland italy final, no south amerian team has ever won the world cup in europe and england second seeds give me break there a one man team and he's a prat.
Originally posted by trevor33Brazil beat Sweden in Sweden 5-2 in 1958 to collect their first World Cup trophy.
Have u even watched an italy match since usa94, I doubt it, there a more attacking team now than usa ever was, just because they have the best defence in the world doesn't make them a defenceive team. Holland italy final, no south amerian team has ever won the world cup in europe and england second seeds give me break there a one man team and he's a prat.
Italy a more attacking team than the US? England a one man team? You don't much about football, do you? Go back into your cave where you belong, loser.
Originally posted by VargI see them struggling in the WC as well, depending on their pairings as well as looking as their last performance in a major tourney, Euro 2004, where they lost to France and Portugal when it really counted.
I was responding to the guy that I quoted - that England struggled in the qualifying.
Originally posted by DOlivier2004a lot of englands best players were young and inexperienced at euro 2004. besides we beat portugal. it was only the ref deciding not to count sol campbels goal for no apparent reason that cost us that game
I see them struggling in the WC as well, depending on their pairings as well as looking as their last performance in a major tourney, Euro 2004, where they lost to France and Portugal when it really counted.
Originally posted by DOlivier2004Look, my post was responding to whoever said they struggled in qualifying.
I see them struggling in the WC as well, depending on their pairings as well as looking as their last performance in a major tourney, Euro 2004, where they lost to France and Portugal when it really counted.
From what I heard they finished top of the group and qualified with a game to spare for the first time in years.
It appears they lost a game they were expected to win, and didn't look convincing against another side.
I wasn't make any predictions about the final.
1 edit
Originally posted by 85There was an off-the-ball foul by John Terry against the goalkeeper in the keeper's area that the referee called in the 89th minute. Whether you agree with it or not is beside the point becuase England has opportunities in extra-time and in the penalty shootout to win the game, but failed to do so.
a lot of englands best players were young and inexperienced at euro 2004. besides we beat portugal. it was only the ref deciding not to count sol campbels goal for no apparent reason that cost us that game
England were inexperienced in that tourney, I'll give you that.
Originally posted by VargFair enough.
Look, my post was responding to whoever said they struggled in qualifying.
From what I heard they finished top of the group and qualified with a game to spare for the first time in years.
It appears they lost a game they were expected to win, and didn't look convincing against another side.
I wasn't make any predictions about the final.
Originally posted by 85That would be rooney think back 2 portugal he was the star man carried them into the 1/4final was playing well in it got injured and england were losted and got knocked out in pens, thats a one man team.
england a one man team? would this one be be owen, rooney, lampard, gerrard, bechham, terry or cole?
Owen's a good goalscorrer but without people around him he's nothing not the same player from 98. If lampard and gerrard played anything like they do for their clubs england wouldn't have a problem, but they don't, lampard's there to score goals look at his goal per game ratio for chelsea then look how many goals he gets for england, its not even close to being as good.
With beckham you get a good passing range, good crosses and the odd goal from a free kick but dosen't have the personality to be a captain. Cole fringe player for chelsea fringe player for england. They have a good defence if they play terry and campall not rio, i'm a united fan but that guy is the laziest player i've ever seen.
If rooney stays fit they have a good chance but souldn't be second seeds.
Originally posted by hopscotchI am perfectly aware of this, read the rest of my post... I was using this to make a point to whoever was moaning about the weakness in the bottom seeded teams, and that they are weak because they want to give continents the chance to develop, not just having the best 32 teams there.
If the qualifying for the cup was run on teams from across the world the world cup would end up consisting entirely of Europe and South America, that's why we do it by continent.
Originally posted by sasquatch672I said USA does not deserve their top ten ranking. I stand by that. I was them play against Scotland, and they were not that impressive. There are plenty of european teams better than the US, even those who did not qualify.
Ok Varq, I'm back. I watched both the Wales 0-1 result and the loss to Northern Ireland - even if it was in Northern Ireland, not how a top contender for the Cup would want to finish their qualifying, is it? They looked very unimaginative and sluggish. I mean really, with the group they're in, even with teams playing for draws at home, shouldn't E ...[text shortened]... hey draw against. (Meaning the European teams will enjoy a distinct advantage from their fans.)
All european teams have a 'distinct advantage'? Sounds like excuses are already being prepared...
Originally posted by sasquatch672I see your point, but you must take into account the vast changes in football recently. In the past, travelling was a major thing, especially the very early days, before air transport was common. Now it is nowhere near the problem it was. Many teams now draw their players from leagues across the globe, like the US has many players in Europe, which was not the case in the past, where players mainly played in their home nations leagues.
You're not serious. (Are you?)
Year Winner RU Host
1930 Uruguay Argentina Uruguay
1934 Italy Czechoslovakia Italy
1938 Italy Hungary France
1950 Uruguay ...[text shortened]... I planned it to come out. Sorry, the information's all there, but I can't fix its appearance.
Yes, european teams do well when the tournament is held in europe, and south american teams do well when held in south america... BUT european teams do well in south america and other foreign continents too, as do south american teams in europe. Maybe this is because they are simply better teams?
Last 5 world cup finals: South American vs Eurpean, 2 held in North/ Central America, 2 in europe, one in asia. Looks like the teams reaching the final just happened to be better than the others in the tournament. Bulgaria played brilliantly in USA '94, despite being far from home, and never having previously won a finals game (Pld 16, W0, D6, L10 pre-1994WC)
- Joined
- 23 Mar 04
- Moves
- 264360
Originally posted by trevor33No, the Dutch really have a bad team. They should have won eight years ago. But now, no, they won't be making it through the first round.
Holland italy final, no south amerian team has ever won the world cup in europe and england second seeds give me break there a one man team and he's a prat.