World Cup draw thread and that. 3pm UK time and that.

epic73 · Dec 14, 2017

Dirk said:
In 1966 it wasn't a goal

How bloody old are you???

Dirk · Dec 14, 2017

epic73 said:
How bloody old are you???

Have you already forgotten your answer from another thread?

epic73 said:
Believe it or not you can go to websites like https://www.youtube.com and watch videos of things that aren't even happening live. You can even rewatch them multiple times. Some say you can even watch videos of things that happened before you were born...

epic73 · Dec 14, 2017

Dirk said:
Have you already forgotten your answer from another thread?

Didn't realize they had recordings of the 1966 final. :lol:

Dirk · Dec 14, 2017

Indeed, they have.

I have all available World Cup Finals on DVD (plus special matches like England vs Germany or Italy vs Germany in 1970) and this special final is my most watched (although we lost but, you know, it's the only one with Uwe Seeler in it

)

mente captus · Dec 14, 2017

Ebeneezer Goode said:
We were far, far better against Germany than Algeria. It would have been 2-2 at the break but for a scandalous refereeing decision, and only we conceded further because we were done on the counter with too many bodies up the pitch. The Algeria performance by contrast might have been the worst I've seen at a tournament until Iceland came along. And Costa Rica, lest we forget, were the best side in that group having beaten both the Italians and the Uruguayans.

The equalizer was a clear goal, but bloody hell looked England helpless the most time of the match. the result could have been much much more worse for England and it was not even our best performance in 2010

Ebeneezer Goode · Dec 15, 2017

Because England have been Poland-tier team for the past decade.

St. Juste · Dec 15, 2017

Ebeneezer Goode said:
We were far, far better against Germany than Algeria. It would have been 2-2 at the break but for a scandalous refereeing decision, and only we conceded further because we were done on the counter with too many bodies up the pitch. The Algeria performance by contrast might have been the worst I've seen at a tournament until Iceland came along. And Costa Rica, lest we forget, were the best side in that group having beaten both the Italians and the Uruguayans.

Let's again look at the BBC quote from the game:

"England's World Cup ended in a mixture of humiliation and controversy as they were thrashed by Germany in Bloemfontein.

Germany's deserved win and convincing victory margin"

And that is being hailed as better than a 0-0 draw? Really? Most nations would be deeply embarrassed losing 4-1 to a nation that is less than 50% bigger than them.

Well, Italy and Uruguay also beat England and by the time Costa Rica got round to it - they didn't even need to. I'm astonished England fans are proud of their performances in that group!

Ebeneezer Goode said:
Because England have been Poland-tier team for the past decade.

I don't think Poland fans would put a 4-1 defeat against Germany as a better performance than 0-0 against Algeria.

Ebeneezer Goode · Dec 15, 2017

St. Juste said:
Let's again look at the BBC quote from the game:

"England's World Cup ended in a mixture of humiliation and controversy as they were thrashed by Germany in Bloemfontein.

Germany's deserved win and convincing victory margin"

And that is being hailed as better than a 0-0 draw? Really? Most nations would be deeply embarrassed losing 4-1 to a nation that is less than 50% bigger than them.

Well, Italy and Uruguay also beat England and by the time Costa Rica got round to it - they didn't even need to. I'm astonished England fans are proud of their performances in that group!

I don't think Poland fans would put a 4-1 defeat against Germany as a better performance than 0-0 against Algeria.

I don't suppose many Poland fans would be dense enough to need me to sit and explain the difference between a performance and a result, or how much of a difference the strength of the opponent makes.

St. Juste · Dec 15, 2017

Ebeneezer Goode said:
I don't suppose many Poland fans would be dense enough to need me to sit and explain the difference between a performance and a result, or how much of a difference the strength of the opponent makes.

They might need help explaining why a 4-1 defeat was a better performance than a 0-0 draw.

Algreria aren't as good as Germany, but they're far from a terrible team either.

Are you saying the 4-1 was a better defensive performance? A better attacking performance? Both?

Are you proud of the performance? Was it one of Englands best against in the past 10 years?

What is clearly happening is a bit of arrogance. England save their best performances for the top sides, despite never winning, but even if they play rubbish they still usually waltz past lesser sides. In actual competitions they contrive to do neither.

Ebeneezer Goode · Dec 15, 2017

St. Juste said:
They might need help explaining why a 4-1 defeat was a better performance than a 0-0 draw.

Only someone being deliberately obtuse (or else just of low intelligence) would need it explaining to them.

Algreria aren't as good as Germany, but they're far from a terrible team either.

Are you saying the 4-1 was a better defensive performance? A better attacking performance? Both?

It was certainly a better attacking performance against Germany, defensively probably on par.

Krazy8 · Dec 15, 2017

Performances against lower ranked teams always look worse. They usually sit back, get 10 men behind the ball and allow us to attack. Obviously we’re atrocious at this and end up just knocking it about in our own half boring the country to death.

Abertawe · Dec 15, 2017

Krazy8 said:
Performances against lower ranked teams always look worse. They usually sit back, get 10 men behind the ball and allow us to attack. Obviously we’re atrocious at this and end up just knocking it about in our own half boring the country to death.

rip

St. Juste · Dec 15, 2017

Ebeneezer Goode said:
Only someone being deliberately obtuse (or else just of low intelligence) would need it explaining to them.

It was certainly a better attacking performance against Germany, defensively probably on par.

Just to be clear, conceding 4 goals was as good a defensive performance as conceding 0.

And you accuse others of being obtuse and lacking intelligence.

You've got yourself in a bit of a state here, probably best to just admit you got it wrong.

epic73 · Dec 15, 2017

St. Juste said:
Most nations would be deeply embarrassed losing 4-1 to a nation that is less than 50% bigger than them.

ffs not this again

Ebeneezer Goode · Dec 15, 2017

St. Juste said:
Just to be clear, conceding 4 goals was as good a defensive performance as conceding 0.

And you accuse others of being obtuse and lacking intelligence.

I think you're probably alone in believing that the Algerian attack was on par with the German attack.

St. Juste · Dec 18, 2017

Ebeneezer Goode said:
I think you're probably alone in believing that the Algerian attack was on par with the German attack.

They clearly are not.

But you think conceding 4 is a better defensive performance than conceding 0.

Absolutely astonishing.

Ebeneezer Goode · Dec 18, 2017

St. Juste said:
They clearly are not.

But you think conceding 4 is a better defensive performance than conceding 0.

I said on par, not better. One of the best sides in the world managed to score four goals past that defence while one of the worst sides in the tournament couldn't score past it at all. It's all pretty straight forward. Please re-read the discussion before responding again lest you embarrass yourself further.

St. Juste · Dec 19, 2017

Ebeneezer Goode said:
I said on par, not better. One of the best sides in the world managed to score four goals past that defence while one of the worst sides in the tournament couldn't score past it at all. It's all pretty straight forward. Please re-read the discussion before responding again lest you embarrass yourself further.

Germany scored 5 goals in 3 games at the group stage, and 4 against England alone.

Let's have a look at what you are saying - your performance in a 4-1 defeat was a lot better than your performance in a 0-0 draw, against a perceived lesser side. You asserted that none of your performances against top sides, even the games in which you were hammered, were as bad as your performances against lesser sides. So far some of the performances you have cited in your favour are the draw against Italy, where the press slammed England for being ragdolled throughout, and a strong attacking performance when you lost 4-1 to Germany. And then asserting that conceding 4 is on a par with conceding 0.

Yes, I can certainly see the embarrassment being on my side.

W88	W88 trang chu	KUBET Thailand
Fun88	12Bet	Get top UK casino bonuses for British players in casinos not on GamStop
The best ₤1 minimum deposit casinos UK not on GamStop	Find the best new no deposit casino get bonus and play legendary slots	Best UK online casinos list 2022
No-Verification.Casino	Casinos that accept PayPal	Top online casinos
	sure.bet
	Need help with your academic papers? Customwritings offers high-quality professionals to write essays that deserve an A!

World Cup draw thread and that. 3pm UK time and that.

Well-Known Member

Wir kommen wieder!

Well-Known Member

Wir kommen wieder!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Blowfishing This Up

Site Supporter

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Log in

Forum statistics

SITE SPONSORS