come on patterson
yuh reception breakmup???
England!!!!!
what a great preformance by the three lionsI'm English till I die...I love you love you England...I'm English till I die!!!!!!!!!
England!!!!!
what a great preformance by the three lionsI'm English till I die...I love you love you England...I'm English till I die!!!!!!!!!
haha ... nah i was upset i am a trini ... das just a chant sorry if it offended ne1
u no i just kixing around palos
As usual, england choose to play some mediocre side (doh care if Greece name Euro champs, they're not de same great team dat won). Then they will beat dem bad, and pat theyself on de back, and dat shyte bout we on fire and we could win euro, one set ah tata. SteupS!!!!!!!!!!
Why dey eh play some serious side like Germany, or Spain, or Italy, or even Ghana self! Play a team dat actually went to the world cup, and then beat yuh chest. Same tata they do with dat jamaica game. Beat ah mediocre side 6-0, then talk bout they winning world cup.
Here we go again. ::)
England!!!!!
what a great preformance by the three lionsI'm English till I die...I love you love you England...I'm English till I die!!!!!!!!!
The people that say that Small Mag wouldn't piss on you if you were on Fire. When I go to away grounds like villa you'll see them people and think what idiots.
that hairpuller crouch try a spanner in the game and de slowest stepover ever seen... de ting look like some kinda industrial fan...
he does try some ting like bicycle and scissors kick with he awkward-lookin self that does make me wonder if he ever score even one ah dem ting in practice
As usual, england choose to play some mediocre side (doh care if Greece name Euro champs, they're not de same great team dat won). Then they will beat dem bad, and pat theyself on de back, and dat shyte bout we on fire and we could win euro, one set ah tata. SteupS!!!!!!!!!!
Why dey eh play some serious side like Germany, or Spain, or Italy, or even Ghana self! Play a team dat actually went to the world cup, and then beat yuh chest. Same tata they do with dat jamaica game. Beat ah mediocre side 6-0, then talk bout they winning world cup.
Here we go again. ::)
As usual, england choose to play some mediocre side (doh care if Greece name Euro champs, they're not de same great team dat won). Then they will beat dem bad, and pat theyself on de back, and dat shyte bout we on fire and we could win euro, one set ah tata. SteupS!!!!!!!!!!
Why dey eh play some serious side like Germany, or Spain, or Italy, or even Ghana self! Play a team dat actually went to the world cup, and then beat yuh chest. Same tata they do with dat jamaica game. Beat ah mediocre side 6-0, then talk bout they winning world cup.
Here we go again. ::)
England!!!!!
what a great preformance by the three lionsI'm English till I die...I love you love you England...I'm English till I die!!!!!!!!!
Several things to remember;tell them Mr. Englishman :beermug:
1) This game was organised many months ago
2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday
3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks
4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup
5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!
End of!
Several things to remember;
1) This game was organised many months ago
2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday
3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks
4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup
5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!
End of!
No offense, just the whole Euro being harder to win is a pet peeve of mine. European teams should win more WCs if that were true..instead I think its Europe 9 - South America 9.
No offense, just the whole Euro being harder to win is a pet peeve of mine. European teams should win more WCs if that were true..instead I think its Europe 9 - South America 9.
and out of that 9............ England 1
as usual one set ah hype bout England
all name and no game
England eh winning not now not never
when yuh watching the spots highlights all yuh seeing in England trashing Greece yuh swear they win a big trophy, one would ah never think they had other internationl games on the same day
No offense, just the whole Euro being harder to win is a pet peeve of mine. European teams should win more WCs if that were true..instead I think its Europe 9 - South America 9.
and out of that 9............ England 1
as usual one set ah hype bout England
all name and no game
England eh winning not now not never
when yuh watching the spots highlights all yuh seeing in England trashing Greece yuh swear they win a big trophy, one would ah never think they had other internationl games on the same day
If England ever won the world cup, half the guys on this forum would say it was lucky, there were no other decent teams, England cheated (Like all colonial countries do apparantly) or the referees were biased.
we had a pre season friendly against Greece and won 4-0, not only that, the performance was fairly good as well. No one is saying it was a great victory or it is a sign of things to come, just that we put in a good display.
I wish some people would take their blinkers off when it comes to England.
Several things to remember;
1) This game was organised many months ago
2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday
3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks
4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup
5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!
End of!
It's all the shyte talk I can't stand.
Several things to remember;
1) This game was organised many months ago
2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday
3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks
4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup
5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!
End of!
Warning! warning! Filho is about to swerve severely off topic ;D
Well Ocky...if you read my earlier post you will see where I come from on this topic. But you see that point you make there...#4. I hadda say something about that. Europeans go on about the European Cup being harder to win than the WC. Its is so boring. Sorry, but the WC is much harder to win....
1) The WC is a longer and therefore more physically strenuous tourney.
2) The European Cup has fewer 'weak' teams, so the average quality per game may be higher in the group stages and the first knockout stage, but once you get to the final stages (quarters, semis, etc) the weaker teams are usually gone. To actually win the WC you not only have to be better than the top European teams, but you throw in Brazil, Argentina and maybe one or 2 dark horses. Just as high quality..but added variety in playing style to deal with...oh and did I mention you might have to play against a nasty behemoth like Brazil or Argie after playing 6 games (your European Cup would have been done already)
3) European teams can often create a 'home-team' atmosphere at the European Cup even when playing away from home. On average, much harder to do so in the WC.
4) When was the last time a traditionally crap team hit form at the right time and won the WC? never really. In the WC, the cream rises to the top. Greece wasn't winning the WC, even with its Euro 2004 form ..or at least..not as likely. That extra game lessens the probability an upstart will win cuz it's one extra chance for Goliath to take on David
No offense, just the whole Euro being harder to win is a pet peeve of mine. European teams should win more WCs if that were true..instead I think its Europe 9 - South America 9.
Several things to remember;
1) This game was organised many months ago
2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday
3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks
4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup
5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!
End of!
For your information, I have been following english football since primary school (grew up in a male household, cannot be helped). Also, I have been living in england for years now. I actually liked england for years.
A few years after coming here I changed my opinion. I cannot stand the hype and false impressions. Yes, hype is all over the world. Delusional press included. It's the same with the US. Cannot stand their biasness.
England is not as bad I must admit. I guess it gets to me that they're so good on paper, but forever underachieving. And I also guess the english press and all the so-called pundits (especially these ole fogey ex-players) gets to me more so than the team. You've never really heard me go on about indiviual players (except probably Becks). It's all the shyte talk I can't stand.
Hi Filho,
So many points to respond to!! And I'm such a short poster as a rule! Therefore very briefly I'll just point out some of the flaws in your thinking!!
I wouldn't disagree with most of your thinking, however to call the World Cup a longer and physically more strenuous journey is false. How can it be more strenuous when the group games are relatively simple for most of the top seeded teams?? These are just warm up games for what follows in the knock out stages, you don't get that in the European Championship!! In Portugal 2004 we had in the first round France, Croatia and Switzerland to get past before any knock out stages. And the only difference in the length of the competition is one game!! Come on be realistic! Then to call the European competition easier to create a home atmosphere is false too. remember it works for both teams which it doesn't do in the WC!! Therefore this geographical argument is neutralised. In fact it's better for teams like us in the WC than it is in Europe!!
The argument you use for the cream rising to the top doesn't work either. This WC probably followed a bit of form but still didn't see the best teams reaching the final. No serious arguments about France or Italy but neither side has done very much in competition for some time. If you take the previous WC two very poor sides reached the Final, Brazil & Germany. In fact Germany getting that far was a real travesty when they failed to qualify for the WC automatically and had to play off against the Ukraine. Even teams like Korea managed far better performances than they realistically held hopes for. The WC generally throws up more wild-cards and lucky teams than the European ever does. Yes I will agree that Greece winning the last European was criminal but it generally doesn't work like that.
Finally, (this is a long post for me!!!) to count the number of World Cups won by various continents is again a false argument. Because of the time scales, every 4 years & on different Continents then some of the really old stuff can't count. In reality anything prior to 1966 is often considered to be irrelevant and for many reasons, i.e. the qualifying format, the size of the competition, the teams declining to enter etc. The South American sides won many of the earlier WC's when European teams didnt (wouldn't) enter. Just check the stats for recent WC's and see how many European teams get to the quarter final and semi final stage!! I would agree with Argentina and Brazil being classified as real WC contenders, but you tell me who else can rightly claim to be serious contenders from anywhere else but Europe!!
Finally, finally, just check out how many really good European teams do not get into the WC finals despite holding very high World rankings. Because of the qualifying format many good European sides are left by the wayside in order to give the WC a more balanced global look. Some countries qualify for the WC but would never get past the qualifying games for a European competition.
Sorry for the long post!!!
Several things to remember;tell them Mr. Englishman :beermug:
1) This game was organised many months ago
2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday
3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks
4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup
5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!
End of!
if wasn't fuh England and inventing football what woulda we be doing now? ;D
Hi Filho,
So many points to respond to!! And I'm such a short poster as a rule! Therefore very briefly I'll just point out some of the flaws in your thinking!!
I wouldn't disagree with most of your thinking, however to call the World Cup a longer and physically more strenuous journey is false. How can it be more strenuous when the group games are relatively simple for most of the top seeded teams?? These are just warm up games for what follows in the knock out stages, you don't get that in the European Championship!! In Portugal 2004 we had in the first round France, Croatia and Switzerland to get past before any knock out stages. And the only difference in the length of the competition is one game!! Come on be realistic! Then to call the European competition easier to create a home atmosphere is false too. remember it works for both teams which it doesn't do in the WC!! Therefore this geographical argument is neutralised. In fact it's better for teams like us in the WC than it is in Europe!!
The argument you use for the cream rising to the top doesn't work either. This WC probably followed a bit of form but still didn't see the best teams reaching the final. No serious arguments about France or Italy but neither side has done very much in competition for some time. If you take the previous WC two very poor sides reached the Final, Brazil & Germany. In fact Germany getting that far was a real travesty when they failed to qualify for the WC automatically and had to play off against the Ukraine. Even teams like Korea managed far better performances than they realistically held hopes for. The WC generally throws up more wild-cards and lucky teams than the European ever does. Yes I will agree that Greece winning the last European was criminal but it generally doesn't work like that.
Finally, (this is a long post for me!!!) to count the number of World Cups won by various continents is again a false argument. Because of the time scales, every 4 years & on different Continents then some of the really old stuff can't count. In reality anything prior to 1966 is often considered to be irrelevant and for many reasons, i.e. the qualifying format, the size of the competition, the teams declining to enter etc. The South American sides won many of the earlier WC's when European teams didnt (wouldn't) enter. Just check the stats for recent WC's and see how many European teams get to the quarter final and semi final stage!! I would agree with Argentina and Brazil being classified as real WC contenders, but you tell me who else can rightly claim to be serious contenders from anywhere else but Europe!!
Finally, finally, just check out how many really good European teams do not get into the WC finals despite holding very high World rankings. Because of the qualifying format many good European sides are left by the wayside in order to give the WC a more balanced global look. Some countries qualify for the WC but would never get past the qualifying games for a European competition.
Sorry for the long post!!!
Hi Filho,
Nice post! :)
I'm not going to counter your arguments as we could be here all year! After all these are very good debating points, but I would just like to add something to your posts that could serve you well or maybe other people who are reading this!
2) A debating point either way here! Not convinced by your argument of physical teams etc
3) Again not convinced. Coming into this WC France had failed to score in this competition for something ridiculous like 10 games and x years. They had continually been turned over in friendlies and qualifying games. Yet again they were lucky to qualify for the WC and for a long time nobody expected to see them there. It was only the fact that Zidane came out of retirement that saved their campaign. Prior to that they went out in the first round in 2002 without scoring a goal!!
4) I picked 1966 because if you study the history of the WC that is the generally agreed position. It was the first WC to be televised worldwide and in colour. The final itself is still regarded as one of the most memorable of all time. Check out the FIFA website!! And again 1962 was an appalling competition held in the mountainous regions of Chile, England's stadium was a training ground in the mountains that only a few hundred people could get to! You mention 1958, what a year that was!! That competition was played in Sweden ( nobody knows why!) to crowds of less than 5,000. The English team of that year was still recovering from the decimation of the Manchester Utd team in the Munich Air Disaster 3 years previous where most the England squad had been wiped out. That year of course saw all 4 Home Nations qualify, England ,Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales. England's group consisted of Russia, Austria and Brazil with Austria the red hot favourites to win the competition. England drew with Brazil 0-0 and then had to have a play off with Russia (no penalty knock outs!) and ended up losing 1-0 whilst Bobby Charlton sat on the bench the whole game much to the consternation of the whole nation! It was their 0-0 draw with England that inspired the Brazilian team, Pele & Garrincha being thrown into the team for the first time helped them to the final where they beat a very weak Sweden 5-2. I could go on!!
As I said in my original post, 'some people would say that the European Competition is harder to win' which implies I don't necessarily agree with the argument. To be honest I'm not convinced either way but what I am pleased about is that we get to compete in a major competition every second year rather than waiting 4 years. The other good thing about being an England supporter is some of the away trips we get to go on. This time we get to visit Andorra, Israel, Macedonia, Croatia, Estonia and Russia. Fantastic! Can't wait!!
Thanks for listening!! ;) ;)
Hi Filho,
Nice post! :)
I'm not going to counter your arguments as we could be here all year! After all these are very good debating points, but I would just like to add something to your posts that could serve you well or maybe other people who are reading this!
2) A debating point either way here! Not convinced by your argument of physical teams etc
3) Again not convinced. Coming into this WC France had failed to score in this competition for something ridiculous like 10 games and x years. They had continually been turned over in friendlies and qualifying games. Yet again they were lucky to qualify for the WC and for a long time nobody expected to see them there. It was only the fact that Zidane came out of retirement that saved their campaign. Prior to that they went out in the first round in 2002 without scoring a goal!!
4) I picked 1966 because if you study the history of the WC that is the generally agreed position. It was the first WC to be televised worldwide and in colour. The final itself is still regarded as one of the most memorable of all time. Check out the FIFA website!! And again 1962 was an appalling competition held in the mountainous regions of Chile, England's stadium was a training ground in the mountains that only a few hundred people could get to! You mention 1958, what a year that was!! That competition was played in Sweden ( nobody knows why!) to crowds of less than 5,000. The English team of that year was still recovering from the decimation of the Manchester Utd team in the Munich Air Disaster 3 years previous where most the England squad had been wiped out. That year of course saw all 4 Home Nations qualify, England ,Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales. England's group consisted of Russia, Austria and Brazil with Austria the red hot favourites to win the competition. England drew with Brazil 0-0 and then had to have a play off with Russia (no penalty knock outs!) and ended up losing 1-0 whilst Bobby Charlton sat on the bench the whole game much to the consternation of the whole nation! It was their 0-0 draw with England that inspired the Brazilian team, Pele & Garrincha being thrown into the team for the first time helped them to the final where they beat a very weak Sweden 5-2. I could go on!!
As I said in my original post, 'some people would say that the European Competition is harder to win' which implies I don't necessarily agree with the argument. To be honest I'm not convinced either way but what I am pleased about is that we get to compete in a major competition every second year rather than waiting 4 years. The other good thing about being an England supporter is some of the away trips we get to go on. This time we get to visit Andorra, Israel, Macedonia, Croatia, Estonia and Russia. Fantastic! Can't wait!!
Thanks for listening!! ;) ;)
Several things to remember;
1) This game was organised many months ago
2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday
3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks
4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup
5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!
End of!
For your information, I have been following english football since primary school (grew up in a male household, cannot be helped). Also, I have been living in england for years now. I actually liked england for years.
A few years after coming here I changed my opinion. I cannot stand the hype and false impressions. Yes, hype is all over the world. Delusional press included. It's the same with the US. Cannot stand their biasness.
England is not as bad I must admit. I guess it gets to me that they're so good on paper, but forever underachieving. And I also guess the english press and all the so-called pundits (especially these ole fogey ex-players) gets to me more so than the team. You've never really heard me go on about indiviual players (except probably Becks). It's all the shyte talk I can't stand.