OK, if it satisfies you to indulge in infantile sophistry then you do that. I'll be sticking to real life and real results.bobcar wrote:Thank you, that just confirmed I'm right and you know it.
So ... Who could England have beaten???
Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks
-
- Posts: 8167
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
-
- Posts: 26537
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:31 am
- Location: Forest Gate
- Has liked: 144 likes
- Total likes: 2406 likes
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
I think we could have avoided defeat to pretty much anyone with a bit of luck. Who we could have beaten is a different thing because we hardly ever beat a big or even a 2nd tier sized footballing nation in a competitive game (going back probably to Croatia in qualifiers in 2008)
what we normally do is beat all the crap teams in qualifying, draw with the secondary team (maybe even 3rd teams) in our group and qualify. Then, as we are usually 1st or 2nd seed at the finals we can get through the group stages by beating the worst team and a couple of draws. Then we stay in the competition until we meet one of the top sides and either lose or draw and go out on penalties
Nothing really changed this time except we had a harder group with 2 rather than 1 other 'top' nation and instead of scraping a couple of draws we narrowly (unluckily) lost both. I have no doubt at all that if we had played Costa Rica first we would have won, and no doubt that if we had needed to beat them last game to progress we would have done
The performances relative to the opposition was not really any different this time to other tournaments in my mind, except that the group and order of fixtures was not in our favour and the historical reliance of not losing games (even if we were crap) came to an end
what we normally do is beat all the crap teams in qualifying, draw with the secondary team (maybe even 3rd teams) in our group and qualify. Then, as we are usually 1st or 2nd seed at the finals we can get through the group stages by beating the worst team and a couple of draws. Then we stay in the competition until we meet one of the top sides and either lose or draw and go out on penalties
Nothing really changed this time except we had a harder group with 2 rather than 1 other 'top' nation and instead of scraping a couple of draws we narrowly (unluckily) lost both. I have no doubt at all that if we had played Costa Rica first we would have won, and no doubt that if we had needed to beat them last game to progress we would have done
The performances relative to the opposition was not really any different this time to other tournaments in my mind, except that the group and order of fixtures was not in our favour and the historical reliance of not losing games (even if we were crap) came to an end
-
- Posts: 8167
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
I still don't get it. Are people confusing complexity or chaos for bad luck? I always thought bad luck was something you can't control, like the ref being a total cretin, etc.Crouchend_Hammer wrote:...(unluckily) ...
Danny Wellbeck being as much use as a cat flap in an elephant house isn't bad luck, it's innate shitness.
-
- Posts: 26537
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:31 am
- Location: Forest Gate
- Has liked: 144 likes
- Total likes: 2406 likes
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
i agree with you QM to a certain extent. We probably weren't good enough to beat either Italy or Uruguay, but with a bit more luck we were certainly good enough not to lose to them.
If we played that Uruguay game 10 times, i would say the likilihood is we would win twice, draw 5 times and lose 3 times. In my opinion an 80% chance we wouldn't lose. Similar to Italy
i still stand by the fact that if we had played Costa Rica first, or even 2nd, things would have been very different
If we played that Uruguay game 10 times, i would say the likilihood is we would win twice, draw 5 times and lose 3 times. In my opinion an 80% chance we wouldn't lose. Similar to Italy
i still stand by the fact that if we had played Costa Rica first, or even 2nd, things would have been very different
-
- Posts: 8167
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
Gone home with 0 points?Crouchend_Hammer wrote:i still stand by the fact that if we had played Costa Rica first, or even 2nd, things would have been very different
- Morocco Mole
- Posts: 21117
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:31 pm
- Location: Funky Nassau
- Has liked: 3687 likes
- Total likes: 2405 likes
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
I'm with you Quint primarily because this is not a new phenomena. Bar '66 and '90, QF is our zenith. We haven't even qualified three or four times. Were they all bad luck too?
We drew a tough group, got beat twice and went home. This is not a great England team and as nice a fella as he is Hodgson is not a particularly great manager. Luck had nothing to do with it.
We drew a tough group, got beat twice and went home. This is not a great England team and as nice a fella as he is Hodgson is not a particularly great manager. Luck had nothing to do with it.
- Philosophical Dan
- KUMB's campest cyclist
- Posts: 33275
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:40 pm
- Location: 10 PRINT "Philosophical Dan is Skill! "; 20 GOTO 10
-
- Posts: 26537
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:31 am
- Location: Forest Gate
- Has liked: 144 likes
- Total likes: 2406 likes
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
i never said luck was the main reason. What i said was, i do not think we were any worse relative to the competition than in any other recent tournament (not saying much admittedly) We just had a harder group than normal and instead of grinding out a couple of draws (or even one draw - which may have been enough at that point) we got narrowly beaten, meaning the game that i think we would have won become irrelevant. If we had started with Costa Rica first, i honestly think we would have beaten them and qualified in 2nd place and one thing that England are reasonably good at is not losing knock-out games (excluding penalties of course)I'm with you Quint primarily because this is not a new phenomena. Bar '66 and '90, QF is our zenith. We haven't even qualified three or four times. Were they all bad luck too?
We drew a tough group, got beat twice and went home. This is not a great England team and as nice a fella as he is Hodgson is not a particularly great manager. Luck had nothing to do with it.
In a group where you only play three games, the make-up of the group and the order of fixtures can make a huge difference if you are not considerably better or worse than the other teams
- Hambrosia Stu
- Posts: 18222
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:03 pm
- Location: Deepest, darkest, Devonia
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
It's a very valid point, perfectly shown by Costa Rica's progress.Crouchend_Hammer wrote:In a group where you only play three games, the make-up of the group and the order of fixtures can make a huge difference if you are not considerably better or worse than the other teams
Their first game was against Uruguay. Their nemesis, who they'd never beaten. Uruguay slightly under-estimated them, partly for that reason, and the Uruguayans (and Suarez in particular it seems) put greater emphasis on their second game, against England. Costa Rica played like a team with nothing to lose, and Uruguay weren't expecting such a challenge from the minnows of the group.
Had Uruguay beaten Costa Rica, I doubt very much whether Costa Rica would have beaten Italy in their 2nd game. As it was, Costa Rican tails were up, they were flying, full of confidence, and they took that into the Italy game
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
As I said when you result to insults you've lost the argument.QuintonNimoy wrote: OK, if it satisfies you to indulge in infantile sophistry then you do that.
- PF.
- Warsaw's Peter Stringfellow
- Posts: 5728
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:26 pm
- Location: Poland
- Total likes: 416 likes
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
In a nutshell. It's not just England, and the Italy and Uruguay games could have gone either way,derek zoolander wrote: I've been saying all tournament that the gaps between nations are closing. The game is truly professional worldwide & it shows.
Still, nothing to beat the normal pessimism of the standard english supporter.
-
- Posts: 8167
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
All your points were engaged with and addressed by me, you're the one dodging the debate. It's up to you what you want to do but you seem to think it's more about finding excuses for petty points scoring and "being clever". Makes no odds to me, whatever makes you happy. Have the moral high ground by all means, you're welcome to it.bobcar wrote:As I said when you result to insults you've lost the argument.
- Clucking Bell
- Posts: 6102
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Make piss ..... check ..... crossed arms .... check .... wife hates me ... result!!
- Has liked: 118 likes
- Total likes: 130 likes
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
I think this is the first time I've agreed with Crouchy about anything. :lol:
Ours was frankly a bang average group and almost any result could have happened. We played pretty well against Italy and we're unlikely to lose although, equally, we probably didn't really deserve to win. On the other hand, we were **** against Uruguay. If Rooney didn't turn up against Italy, he was the only one to put in an appearance against Uruguay. The fact that they only beat us by the one goal, is probably more indicative of the fact that they're **** despite us proving to be more **** on the day. The Costa Rica game was totally meaningless.
All of that said, even if we had got a draw against Italy and beaten the other two, well, we might have beaten Greece and we're capable of getting a result against Holland although it's another one of those play them ten times, get five draws, win twice and lose three times things. But, to actually get our hands on the Cup, we've actually got to beat three tier one countries in the space of ten days and I honestly can't see us doing that unless FIFA choose to hold the competition in England again.
Ours was frankly a bang average group and almost any result could have happened. We played pretty well against Italy and we're unlikely to lose although, equally, we probably didn't really deserve to win. On the other hand, we were **** against Uruguay. If Rooney didn't turn up against Italy, he was the only one to put in an appearance against Uruguay. The fact that they only beat us by the one goal, is probably more indicative of the fact that they're **** despite us proving to be more **** on the day. The Costa Rica game was totally meaningless.
All of that said, even if we had got a draw against Italy and beaten the other two, well, we might have beaten Greece and we're capable of getting a result against Holland although it's another one of those play them ten times, get five draws, win twice and lose three times things. But, to actually get our hands on the Cup, we've actually got to beat three tier one countries in the space of ten days and I honestly can't see us doing that unless FIFA choose to hold the competition in England again.
- last.caress
- Star Raid-er
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:38 pm
- Location: Eyes that shine, burnin' red. Dreams of you all through my head.
- Has liked: 1241 likes
- Total likes: 1650 likes
- Contact:
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
I can't honestly see home advantage making that difference, Cluckers. Not at the moment, not for awhile.Clucking Bell wrote:But, to actually get our hands on the Cup, we've actually got to beat three tier one countries in the space of ten days and I honestly can't see us doing that unless FIFA choose to hold the competition in England again.
Re: So ... Who could England have beaten???
There are nine teams who achieved one point or less. They are:
Cameroon, Oz, Japan, Russia, S. Korea, Ghana, Iran, Honduras and.........England.
That's the company we are keeping at the moment. Something needs looking at. With the money being poured into the English game we really should be producing a far better quality of player.
Cameroon, Oz, Japan, Russia, S. Korea, Ghana, Iran, Honduras and.........England.
That's the company we are keeping at the moment. Something needs looking at. With the money being poured into the English game we really should be producing a far better quality of player.