• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* English Football Season 2005-06

twctopcat

twctopcat

International Regular
steds said:
The only chance I can see the Bucs have of winning is if Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Charlton, Tottenham, Middlesborough, Wigan and West Ham all have Munich air disaster-esque catastrophes
Click to expand...
Absolute guff.
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Scaly piscine said:
How many decent sides have England faced?
Click to expand...
Well obviously the likes of Germany and Argentina and both useless and it's only luck that we beat both of them.

If Sven were from the North East, you wouldn't hear a word against him.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
marc71178 said:
Well obviously the likes of Germany and Argentina and both useless and it's only luck that we beat both of them.

If Sven were from the North East, you wouldn't hear a word against him.
Click to expand...
The Germany that was supposed to have had one of their worst sides in their history you mean? Argentina was a reasonable side, nothing more, otherwise they'd have still made it past the group stage.
 
Barney Rubble

Barney Rubble

International Coach
Scaly piscine said:
The Germany that was supposed to have had one of their worst sides in their history you mean? Argentina was a reasonable side, nothing more, otherwise they'd have still made it past the group stage.
Click to expand...
If Argentina were "reasonable" then what, in your opinion, constitutes "good"? There's a difference between being a poor side and having a couple of poor games - clearly in that tournament the best sides had a couple of poor games in the group stage, because if you're trying to tell me that South Korea and Turkey were legitimately two of the four best sides in the world, then quite frankly you're an idiot. They had some good games, and they had some average games against bad teams, which meant they got through - but Argentina had a squad full of world-class players, and just happened to be drawn in an extremely tough group. It also doesn't help that each of their players thinks they're the best in the squad.

That World Cup was clearly not representative of the quality of the teams - unlike Euro 2004, where Greece deserved to win every game they did win, and deserved to lose the one they did lose, the only team that really got their just desserts were Brazil, who obviously walked the tournament - everyone else was either hard done by or flattered by the results they gained in the tournament. England probably fall into the "flattered" category - they were outstanding against Argentina, but lacklustre against Sweden, terrible against Nigeria and lucky not to get obliterated by Brazil. Senegal, South Korea, Turkey, Japan, Belgium and many others fall into the same category, whereas Argentina, Portugal, Uruguay and a few others were in the other group.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Craig said:
And I'm now in outright 4th spot.

And Henry should be returning soon?
Click to expand...
In the squad for tonight. Won't be starting, but Sir Arsene was talking of him getting half an hour at least.
 
PY

PY

International Coach
Thierry Henry, take a bow.

That is class. Factor in that he's been out a while and was declared unfit for the game and then he does that.....:cool2:
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Barney Rubble said:
If Argentina were "reasonable" then what, in your opinion, constitutes "good"? There's a difference between being a poor side and having a couple of poor games - clearly in that tournament the best sides had a couple of poor games in the group stage, because if you're trying to tell me that South Korea and Turkey were legitimately two of the four best sides in the world, then quite frankly you're an idiot. They had some good games, and they had some average games against bad teams, which meant they got through - but Argentina had a squad full of world-class players, and just happened to be drawn in an extremely tough group. It also doesn't help that each of their players thinks they're the best in the squad.
Click to expand...

Argentina as a TEAM were merely reasonable, England were occasionally good and Brazil were very good (hard to say they're better than that because generally they hardly played any good teams - they were losing to England til England collectively hit 'the wall'). And no the group was not 'extremely tough', Sweden were mediocre and Nigeria were poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top