Tuesday qualifiers

by Liam Mon 09 Sep 2013, 12:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

Macedonia vs Scotland (7:30)
Wales vs Serbia (7:45)
Ukraine vs England (7:45)
Austria vs ROI (7:45)

As a welsh man i'm not holding out for too much against Serbia. We're without joniesta and williams so it means there's even more pressure on Ramsey to pull something out the bag again. Hopefully Coleman's team selection and tactics improve and we're more positive against Serbia. If we'd gone for it we would've won in Macedonia. Fingers crossed bale get's 15 mins at least.

Tough games for England and ROI, I expect England to get a point at least or maybe sneak a win.

by Champagne_Socialist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:51 pm

super_realist wrote:
The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:I'm trying to think of that polish striker but no ones ever heard of him so think i'm on a losing battle, oh that's it Lewandowski is polish, i'm sure all those nobodies who play for Poland, Montenegro and Ukraine are the reason we haven't beaten them. What embarrassing excuse, bottom line we should be beating these teams home and away comfortably not settling for a draw, wake up and smell the coffee.
How so?, That's the entire reason behind England's failure. Expectation, specifically expectation born of ignorance.

There is no reason why you should beat the likes of Poland and Ukraine comfortably home and away.

The stark truth is that England really aren't very good, demeonstrated by poor and abject showings in tournaments for generations, and until you stop thinking there are teams (on, or near your level I might add) that you "deserve" to beat then you'll never get any better.
Nobody deserves to beat anyone on the basis of "who they are".

No doubt you'll say man for man you are better? Perhaps you are or perhaps they are embellished by the media to be seen as such, but football is a team game, and until England start behaving like one and playing like one with the players who best fit a team rather selected due to their name or their fame then they won't beat these teams, and certainly don't deserve or have any right to do so.

Take it from me that there will be a lot of countries who probably say the same thing about England, that they should be beating them home and away, doesn't mean they should and simply because you don't know much about the opposition, doesn't mean you "should" beat anyone simply because you are "England", a very average team indeed.

I agree, it is ignorance like terror of tylorstown that puts too much pressure on england. Poland and ukraine is a diffulcult match just like any russian club game away is difficult.

by Duty281 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:53 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Tevez better than Rooney, I can't take you seriously. 197 goals in 404 games and he's not a chief goalscorer?
Okay that aside are you honestly telling me this England side have it in them to put in a strong challenge ie semis or final or winning the World Cup next year?

Bear in mind you laboured to a win over Scotland at their lowest ebb.

You are toiling to qualify for the World Cup.

The virtual same set of players couldn't challenge with any notoriety to win the Euros two years ago.

And you are on the slide down the rankings.

Let's see then:

1) It was a pointless friendly.
2) Toiling to qualify? And yet top of the group with our most difficult games behind us.
3) Rankings don't matter.

by Champagne_Socialist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:59 pm

Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Tevez better than Rooney, I can't take you seriously. 197 goals in 404 games and he's not a chief goalscorer?
Okay that aside are you honestly telling me this England side have it in them to put in a strong challenge ie semis or final or winning the World Cup next year?

Bear in mind you laboured to a win over Scotland at their lowest ebb.

You are toiling to qualify for the World Cup.

The virtual same set of players couldn't challenge with any notoriety to win the Euros two years ago.

And you are on the slide down the rankings.
Let's see then:

1) It was a pointless friendly.
2) Toiling to qualify? And yet top of the group with our most difficult games behind us.
3) Rankings don't matter.

I love how people use the scotland game to bash england even though it was a friendly we won but yet those same people give england no praise for friendly wins over spain, brazilfrance and italy saying it's just a pointless friendly.

We are massive favourites to win our group, 2 home games.

And yes rankings do not matter, USA are 13th and belgium and colombia are above Brazil.

by super_realist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:59 pm

However Duty, when England win similar "pointless" friendlies against Argentina or Spain the media and plenty deluded fans almost spontaneously combust with superlatives and reach to put one hand on the World Cup/Euro's.

One question I usually pose to put things in perspective is : "How many teams will be worried about playing England in a tournament?"

Very few and I can't see that changing any time soon.

There is no shame in being England's standard at football, most countries would love to qualify for every tournament and get to play a few games, probably make the knockouts, maybe even the quarters on a good year, and as there is no reason to expect them to get further than they do, I'm rather confused as to why people think they should.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:01 pm

1. Pointless friendly it my have been but surely a team destined for perceived World Cup glory should be winning such a game against old rival coming out of their lowest ebb in their history especially considering you were at home.

2. Yes toiling to qualify as you are the top seeds in the group I'd expect you to be at a point where you were almost guaranteed qualification.

3. You say that now but I'd hazard a guess those that claim England are world class used the rankings as some form of evidence.

By the way Gordon Strachan must think Belgium are better than England. He called them the best team Scotland have played since he took charge.

by super_realist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:04 pm

There is no doubt that Belgium are better than England, none at all, and given current form they are justifiably ranked higher than Brazil too.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:10 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Tevez better than Rooney, I can't take you seriously. 197 goals in 404 games and he's not a chief goalscorer?
Okay that aside are you honestly telling me this England side have it in them to put in a strong challenge ie semis or final or winning the World Cup next year?

Bear in mind you laboured to a win over Scotland at their lowest ebb.

You are toiling to qualify for the World Cup.

The virtual same set of players couldn't challenge with any notoriety to win the Euros two years ago.

And you are on the slide down the rankings.
Let's see then:

1) It was a pointless friendly.
2) Toiling to qualify? And yet top of the group with our most difficult games behind us.
3) Rankings don't matter.

I love how people use the scotland game to bash england even though it was a friendly we won but yet those same people give england no praise for friendly wins over spain, brazilfrance and italy saying it's just a pointless friendly.

We are massive favourites to win our group, 2 home games.

And yes rankings do not matter, USA are 13th and belgium and colombia are above Brazil.

Well what do you expect? After all when England fans revel n how crap Scotland are and have been then you make a cross for your back so when your team of World Cup winning potential can only toil to a narrow win do you honestly expect anything less than stick?

Massive favourites? Even if you are shouldn't it already be sorted if you are so far ahead of teams in your group?

I would agree with you there in general though about the rankings.

by Champagne_Socialist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:10 pm

super_realist wrote:There is no doubt that Belgium are better than England, none at all, and given current form they are justifiably ranked higher than Brazil too.

Current form? Brazil ust won the confederations cup destroying Spain and Uruguay on the way. They also just beat Portugal very easily 3-1.

Brazil should be ranked top 3 in the world. No way is belgium a better team than brazil.

by Champagne_Socialist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:12 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Tevez better than Rooney, I can't take you seriously. 197 goals in 404 games and he's not a chief goalscorer?
Okay that aside are you honestly telling me this England side have it in them to put in a strong challenge ie semis or final or winning the World Cup next year?

Bear in mind you laboured to a win over Scotland at their lowest ebb.

You are toiling to qualify for the World Cup.

The virtual same set of players couldn't challenge with any notoriety to win the Euros two years ago.

And you are on the slide down the rankings.
Let's see then:

1) It was a pointless friendly.
2) Toiling to qualify? And yet top of the group with our most difficult games behind us.
3) Rankings don't matter.

I love how people use the scotland game to bash england even though it was a friendly we won but yet those same people give england no praise for friendly wins over spain, brazilfrance and italy saying it's just a pointless friendly.

We are massive favourites to win our group, 2 home games.

And yes rankings do not matter, USA are 13th and belgium and colombia are above Brazil.
Well what do you expect? After all when England fans revel n how crap Scotland are and have been then you make a cross for your back so when your team of World Cup winning potential can only toil to a narrow win do you honestly expect anything less than stick?

Massive favourites? Even if you are shouldn't it already be sorted if you are so far ahead of teams in your group?

I would agree with you there in general though about the rankings.

Who cares if qualification is sorted out now or if we do it in the next 2 games? As long as we qualify I dont care.

Scotland are very poor and that is why england beat them.

by Duty281 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:13 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:1. Pointless friendly it my have been but surely a team destined for perceived World Cup glory should be winning such a game against old rival coming out of their lowest ebb in their history especially considering you were at home.

2. Yes toiling to qualify as you are the top seeds in the group I'd expect you to be at a point where you were almost guaranteed qualification.

3. You say that now but I'd hazard a guess those that claim England are world class used the rankings as some form of evidence.

By the way Gordon Strachan must think Belgium are better than England. He called them the best team Scotland have played since he took charge.

1) Who on earth has said England are destined for World Cup Glory? Anyway, I'm sure you rate Holland higher than England and they drew with Estonia. Yes Estonia, in a proper game.

2) Like Portugal you mean? Anyway, England will qualify, no doubts, and are in a better off position currently than France, Portugal or Uruguay.

3) No one takes notice of the world rankings. They're a joke. I don't even know where England are, or where anyone else are for that matterm

by CaledonianCraig Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:16 pm

Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?

by super_realist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:17 pm

Duty, I don't think anyone said they were destined for glory, rather that they were/are contenders, however anyone with an ounce of logic would see that to be a complete pipe dream.

As I said a few posts ago, there is no shame in being as average as England are. It's just the level they have virtually always been at, expecting them to suddenly make the leap to contending tournaments is as unrealistic and fanciful as expecting Scotland to regularly qualify for tournaments.

by Duty281 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:20 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?

Do you not understand the concept of a friendly? I think Spain drew with Costa Rica in the run-up to Euro 2012 - that didn't matter did it?

by CaledonianCraig Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:22 pm

Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:1. Pointless friendly it my have been but surely a team destined for perceived World Cup glory should be winning such a game against old rival coming out of their lowest ebb in their history especially considering you were at home.

2. Yes toiling to qualify as you are the top seeds in the group I'd expect you to be at a point where you were almost guaranteed qualification.

3. You say that now but I'd hazard a guess those that claim England are world class used the rankings as some form of evidence.

By the way Gordon Strachan must think Belgium are better than England. He called them the best team Scotland have played since he took charge.
1) Who on earth has said England are destined for World Cup Glory? Anyway, I'm sure you rate Holland higher than England and they drew with Estonia. Yes Estonia, in a proper game.

2) Like Portugal you mean? Anyway, England will qualify, no doubts, and are in a better off position currently than France, Portugal or Uruguay.

3) No one takes notice of the world rankings. They're a joke. I don't even know where England are, or where anyone else are for that matterm

1. A few posters on here won't hear anything else than England are possible World Cup winners.

2. But I am not having to listen to Portugese fans telling me they are potential World Cup winners. Besides Portugal are a point away from guaranteeing at least a play-off spot (are England?). France are second in their group but only because they are in the same group as Spain who are World and European champions. As for Uruguay I wouldn't paint them as contenders anyway.

3. No I don't take any notice in the rankings either.

by Champagne_Socialist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:23 pm

Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:1. Pointless friendly it my have been but surely a team destined for perceived World Cup glory should be winning such a game against old rival coming out of their lowest ebb in their history especially considering you were at home.

2. Yes toiling to qualify as you are the top seeds in the group I'd expect you to be at a point where you were almost guaranteed qualification.

3. You say that now but I'd hazard a guess those that claim England are world class used the rankings as some form of evidence.

By the way Gordon Strachan must think Belgium are better than England. He called them the best team Scotland have played since he took charge.
1) Who on earth has said England are destined for World Cup Glory? Anyway, I'm sure you rate Holland higher than England and they drew with Estonia. Yes Estonia, in a proper game.

2) Like Portugal you mean? Anyway, England will qualify, no doubts, and are in a better off position currently than France, Portugal or Uruguay.

3) No one takes notice of the world rankings. They're a joke. I don't even know where England are, or where anyone else are for that matterm

I agree with all of this and point 2 as well. France and portugal are destined for a play off and Urugual look likely to have to play a play off as well. At least ENgland will qualify automatically.

by The Terror of Tylorstown Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:23 pm

No such thing as a friendly against Scotland.

England are performing atrociously, with the players available we should be romping through this group but we're so bad qualification is still in the balance. I don't care about this garbage that qualifying is all that matters, how you perform certainly does matter.

by Champagne_Socialist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:24 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:1. Pointless friendly it my have been but surely a team destined for perceived World Cup glory should be winning such a game against old rival coming out of their lowest ebb in their history especially considering you were at home.

2. Yes toiling to qualify as you are the top seeds in the group I'd expect you to be at a point where you were almost guaranteed qualification.

3. You say that now but I'd hazard a guess those that claim England are world class used the rankings as some form of evidence.

By the way Gordon Strachan must think Belgium are better than England. He called them the best team Scotland have played since he took charge.
1) Who on earth has said England are destined for World Cup Glory? Anyway, I'm sure you rate Holland higher than England and they drew with Estonia. Yes Estonia, in a proper game.

2) Like Portugal you mean? Anyway, England will qualify, no doubts, and are in a better off position currently than France, Portugal or Uruguay.

3) No one takes notice of the world rankings. They're a joke. I don't even know where England are, or where anyone else are for that matterm
1. A few posters on here won't hear anything else than England are possible World Cup winners.

2. But I am not having to listen to Portugese fans telling me they are potential World Cup winners. Besides Portugal are a point away from guaranteeing at least a play-off spot (are England?). France are second in their group but only because they are in the same group as Spain who are World and European champions. As for Uruguay I wouldn't paint them as contenders anyway.

3. No I don't take any notice in the rankings either.

England are two home games away from automatic qualification, stop wumming.

by Duty281 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:25 pm

super_realist wrote:Duty, I don't think anyone said they were destined for glory, rather that they were/are contenders, however anyone with an ounce of logic would see that to be a complete pipe dream.

As I said a few posts ago, there is no shame in being as average as England are. It's just the level they have virtually always been at, expecting them to suddenly make the leap to contending tournaments is as unrealistic and fanciful as expecting Scotland to regularly qualify for tournaments.

Teams that I feel could win the world cup next year, in no particular order:

Germany, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, Belgium, Portugal, Holland, and Uruguay.

England are in that bracket. On raw technical ability, they're at the lower end of that list. On organisation and defensive ability, they're right at the top end. Right now, I'd make Germany favourites for the World Cup. But England certainly have a chance.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:26 pm

Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?
Do you not understand the concept of a friendly? I think Spain drew with Costa Rica in the run-up to Euro 2012 - that didn't matter did it?

Of course I do. Brazil beat Scotland 2-0 in a friendly and they weren't at home and USA recently beat us 5-0 so why could England only manage a narrow win at home? All friendlies and if anything there is much more of an edge to a Scotland-England match than a Brazil-Scotland or USA-Scotland match.

by Duty281 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:27 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:1. Pointless friendly it my have been but surely a team destined for perceived World Cup glory should be winning such a game against old rival coming out of their lowest ebb in their history especially considering you were at home.

2. Yes toiling to qualify as you are the top seeds in the group I'd expect you to be at a point where you were almost guaranteed qualification.

3. You say that now but I'd hazard a guess those that claim England are world class used the rankings as some form of evidence.

By the way Gordon Strachan must think Belgium are better than England. He called them the best team Scotland have played since he took charge.
1) Who on earth has said England are destined for World Cup Glory? Anyway, I'm sure you rate Holland higher than England and they drew with Estonia. Yes Estonia, in a proper game.

2) Like Portugal you mean? Anyway, England will qualify, no doubts, and are in a better off position currently than France, Portugal or Uruguay.

3) No one takes notice of the world rankings. They're a joke. I don't even know where England are, or where anyone else are for that matterm
1. A few posters on here won't hear anything else than England are possible World Cup winners.

2. But I am not having to listen to Portugese fans telling me they are potential World Cup winners. Besides Portugal are a point away from guaranteeing at least a play-off spot (are England?). France are second in their group but only because they are in the same group as Spain who are World and European champions. As for Uruguay I wouldn't paint them as contenders anyway.

3. No I don't take any notice in the rankings either.

1) I believe I'm the only one on here who believes England have a real chance.

2) England need 2 home wins and are in Brazil, a far superior position than Portugal.

by Champagne_Socialist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:28 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?
Do you not understand the concept of a friendly? I think Spain drew with Costa Rica in the run-up to Euro 2012 - that didn't matter did it?
Of course I do. Brazil beat Scotland 2-0 in a friendly and they weren't at home and USA recently beat us 5-0 so why could England only manage a narrow win at home? All friendlies and if anything there is much more of an edge to a Scotland-England match than a Brazil-Scotland or USA-Scotland match.

Forget about the world cup england fans and forget about even qualifying for the world cup because england only beat Scotland by 1 goal in a friendly pre-season.

by super_realist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:29 pm

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:No such thing as a friendly against Scotland.

England are performing atrociously, with the players available we should be romping through this group but we're so bad qualification is still in the balance. I don't care about this garbage that qualifying is all that matters, how you perform certainly does matter.

That (again) is the problem. The expectation that England will prevail because they wrongly assume they have better players than other teams is a very good reason why they are just an average nation, better players according to who? A bunch of hacks who don't know anything about Poland or Ukraine? Do you not think Poland and Ukraine fancy themselves against England for that very reason? Overconfidence and arrogance that they deserve to beat teams?

They have no right to "romp" past Poland or Ukraine.

by Duty281 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:29 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?
Do you not understand the concept of a friendly? I think Spain drew with Costa Rica in the run-up to Euro 2012 - that didn't matter did it?
Of course I do. Brazil beat Scotland 2-0 in a friendly and they weren't at home and USA recently beat us 5-0 so why could England only manage a narrow win at home? All friendlies and if anything there is much more of an edge to a Scotland-England match than a Brazil-Scotland or USA-Scotland match.

And England have beaten Italy, Spain, Belgium and Brazil in friendlies during the past 2 years. Do you wish to take notice of that?

by CaledonianCraig Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:30 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:1. Pointless friendly it my have been but surely a team destined for perceived World Cup glory should be winning such a game against old rival coming out of their lowest ebb in their history especially considering you were at home.

2. Yes toiling to qualify as you are the top seeds in the group I'd expect you to be at a point where you were almost guaranteed qualification.

3. You say that now but I'd hazard a guess those that claim England are world class used the rankings as some form of evidence.

By the way Gordon Strachan must think Belgium are better than England. He called them the best team Scotland have played since he took charge.
1) Who on earth has said England are destined for World Cup Glory? Anyway, I'm sure you rate Holland higher than England and they drew with Estonia. Yes Estonia, in a proper game.

2) Like Portugal you mean? Anyway, England will qualify, no doubts, and are in a better off position currently than France, Portugal or Uruguay.

3) No one takes notice of the world rankings. They're a joke. I don't even know where England are, or where anyone else are for that matterm
1. A few posters on here won't hear anything else than England are possible World Cup winners.

2. But I am not having to listen to Portugese fans telling me they are potential World Cup winners. Besides Portugal are a point away from guaranteeing at least a play-off spot (are England?). France are second in their group but only because they are in the same group as Spain who are World and European champions. As for Uruguay I wouldn't paint them as contenders anyway.

3. No I don't take any notice in the rankings either.
England are two home games away from automatic qualification, stop wumming.

Whose wumming? I am pointing out facts and before you get ahead of your station they are two home games that you first have to win. Just remember back to Croatia who were written off and came to England and won an end of campaign qualifier.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:32 pm

Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?
Do you not understand the concept of a friendly? I think Spain drew with Costa Rica in the run-up to Euro 2012 - that didn't matter did it?
Of course I do. Brazil beat Scotland 2-0 in a friendly and they weren't at home and USA recently beat us 5-0 so why could England only manage a narrow win at home? All friendlies and if anything there is much more of an edge to a Scotland-England match than a Brazil-Scotland or USA-Scotland match.
And England have beaten Italy, Spain, Belgium and Brazil in friendlies during the past 2 years. Do you wish to take notice of that?

Yes but enlighten me to how they have done in competitive matches against those teams? Each (barring Belgium) have far superior records in the top competitions compared to England. After all that is what determines World Cup contenders is it not?

by super_realist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:32 pm

Craig, I think you are embarrassing yourself on the talk of friendlies. They are meaningless. Would the sweaties be kidding themselves they were a good team if they had beaten England? Come on. Scotland are terrible, have been for years, and England are simply average, and have been for years. Neither team looks suddenly like stepping up the necessary notch.

That's it in a nutshell, about time people admitted it.

by Duty281 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:32 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:1. Pointless friendly it my have been but surely a team destined for perceived World Cup glory should be winning such a game against old rival coming out of their lowest ebb in their history especially considering you were at home.

2. Yes toiling to qualify as you are the top seeds in the group I'd expect you to be at a point where you were almost guaranteed qualification.

3. You say that now but I'd hazard a guess those that claim England are world class used the rankings as some form of evidence.

By the way Gordon Strachan must think Belgium are better than England. He called them the best team Scotland have played since he took charge.
1) Who on earth has said England are destined for World Cup Glory? Anyway, I'm sure you rate Holland higher than England and they drew with Estonia. Yes Estonia, in a proper game.

2) Like Portugal you mean? Anyway, England will qualify, no doubts, and are in a better off position currently than France, Portugal or Uruguay.

3) No one takes notice of the world rankings. They're a joke. I don't even know where England are, or where anyone else are for that matterm
1. A few posters on here won't hear anything else than England are possible World Cup winners.

2. But I am not having to listen to Portugese fans telling me they are potential World Cup winners. Besides Portugal are a point away from guaranteeing at least a play-off spot (are England?). France are second in their group but only because they are in the same group as Spain who are World and European champions. As for Uruguay I wouldn't paint them as contenders anyway.

3. No I don't take any notice in the rankings either.
England are two home games away from automatic qualification, stop wumming.
Whose wumming? I am pointing out facts and before you get ahead of your station they are two home games that you first have to win. Just remember back to Croatia who were written off and came to England and won an end of campaign qualifier.

England were at their lowest ebb in that one. They're a much better team than then. Besides which, that Croatia team were far better than The current Poland and Montenegro teams.

by Duty281 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:34 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?
Do you not understand the concept of a friendly? I think Spain drew with Costa Rica in the run-up to Euro 2012 - that didn't matter did it?
Of course I do. Brazil beat Scotland 2-0 in a friendly and they weren't at home and USA recently beat us 5-0 so why could England only manage a narrow win at home? All friendlies and if anything there is much more of an edge to a Scotland-England match than a Brazil-Scotland or USA-Scotland match.
And England have beaten Italy, Spain, Belgium and Brazil in friendlies during the past 2 years. Do you wish to take notice of that?
Yes but enlighten me to how they have done in competitive matches against those teams? Each (barring Belgium) have far superior records in the top competitions compared to England. After all that is what determines World Cup contenders is it not?

Exactly CC. clap

That is why friendlies are meaningless, I'm glad we got there in the end.

by Steffan Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:35 pm

So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)

by Duty281 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:38 pm

Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)

My heart tells me, semi-finals and out on penalties. But only after England have taken out a big name in the quarters.

by Guest Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:38 pm

Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)

2nd round KO.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:39 pm

Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?
Do you not understand the concept of a friendly? I think Spain drew with Costa Rica in the run-up to Euro 2012 - that didn't matter did it?
Of course I do. Brazil beat Scotland 2-0 in a friendly and they weren't at home and USA recently beat us 5-0 so why could England only manage a narrow win at home? All friendlies and if anything there is much more of an edge to a Scotland-England match than a Brazil-Scotland or USA-Scotland match.
And England have beaten Italy, Spain, Belgium and Brazil in friendlies during the past 2 years. Do you wish to take notice of that?
Yes but enlighten me to how they have done in competitive matches against those teams? Each (barring Belgium) have far superior records in the top competitions compared to England. After all that is what determines World Cup contenders is it not?
Exactly CC.

That is why friendlies are meaningless, I'm glad we got there in the end.

Since when have Scotland-England been friendlies? And why not answer how England have done against other teams more deserving of the tag of contenders? Steffan if that question was directed at me then perhaps if they get there England will exit by Second Round and QF's at absolute push.

by GSC Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:42 pm

Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)

They'll scrap through if they get a kind draw but they'll be gone as soon as they run into anybody good

by Champagne_Socialist Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:02 pm

Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?
Do you not understand the concept of a friendly? I think Spain drew with Costa Rica in the run-up to Euro 2012 - that didn't matter did it?
Of course I do. Brazil beat Scotland 2-0 in a friendly and they weren't at home and USA recently beat us 5-0 so why could England only manage a narrow win at home? All friendlies and if anything there is much more of an edge to a Scotland-England match than a Brazil-Scotland or USA-Scotland match.
And England have beaten Italy, Spain, Belgium and Brazil in friendlies during the past 2 years. Do you wish to take notice of that?
Yes but enlighten me to how they have done in competitive matches against those teams? Each (barring Belgium) have far superior records in the top competitions compared to England. After all that is what determines World Cup contenders is it not?
Exactly CC.

That is why friendlies are meaningless, I'm glad we got there in the end.

haha you got him in the end, nice one Duty.

by super_realist Fri 13 Sep 2013, 6:16 am

Duty281 wrote:
Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)
My heart tells me, semi-finals and out on penalties. But only after England have taken out a big name in the quarters.

I admire your optimism, but considering they haven't made a semi in eons in countries considered to be far easier to play in what possible reason other than rose tintedness and sentimentality is there that England will make the semi's? Good job you said your heart, because your head would tell you knockouts probably and QF possibly.

Thats like a Swede, Czech, Chilean or Dane saying they will reach the semi (teams similar to standard of England) hoping to get to the semi's

by mystiroakey Fri 13 Sep 2013, 6:44 am

You make out you aren't scottish. Yet you share the main scottish trait!!

You are as scottish as haggis and bagpipes

by CaledonianCraig Fri 13 Sep 2013, 7:01 am

Even English posters here admit England aren't contenders - does that merit your ire or wrath as well. Posters are oblivious to the signs:-

Even though top seeds you are currently on a par with fellow group members Montenegro and Poland (are they also World Cup contenders by the way)?

The same basic squad of players couldn't even get passed the QF's of the Euros so there is the latest indicative of England's level.

Go further back in time and it is now a generation since you reached a major semis and you were at home for that.

Digest those facts and then offer me your reasons as to why England should be considered contenders.

by Champagne_Socialist Fri 13 Sep 2013, 8:26 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Even English posters here admit England aren't contenders - does that merit your ire or wrath as well. Posters are oblivious to the signs:-

Even though top seeds you are currently on a par with fellow group members Montenegro and Poland (are they also World Cup contenders by the way)?

The same basic squad of players couldn't even get passed the QF's of the Euros so there is the latest indicative of England's level.

Go further back in time and it is now a generation since you reached a major semis and you were at home for that.

Digest those facts and then offer me your reasons as to why England should be considered contenders.

because we beat the mighty Scotland 3-2 Smile

by CaledonianCraig Fri 13 Sep 2013, 8:44 am

Yup and Belgium beat us more comfortably as did Serbia and Wales and......shall I go on? If that is the best evidence you can come up with then it tells us all we need to know.

by Champagne_Socialist Fri 13 Sep 2013, 9:02 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yup and Belgium beat us more comfortably as did Serbia and Wales and......shall I go on? If that is the best evidence you can come up with then it tells us all we need to know.

It must hurt you so much that your own country is so poor that it doesn't stand a chance qualifying for a tournament let alone winning it that you have to spend all of your time talking about another country's chances of winning the world cup clap

by CaledonianCraig Fri 13 Sep 2013, 9:11 am

I am still waiting for your reasons as to why England can be considered contenders but instead you retort with a childish rant. I rest my case.

by Stella Fri 13 Sep 2013, 9:12 am

I think Champagne is relying on luck Very Happy

by monty junior Fri 13 Sep 2013, 9:27 am

mystiroakey wrote:I would safely say that england have a much better chance of winning a world cup than scotland have of qualifying.

england approx 15/1 to win a cup

scotland 100/1 to qualify.

Sorry Monty but that is the truth of it.

You might as well add a thousands zero's on the end of both those odd's, bare in mind they are British bookmakers, if you went out of the country those odds would triple. Where did you pluck the Scotland odds from? It's been mathematically impossible for us to qualify for months, so you can't even get odds. I'm just being realistic on both parts, we suck, you guys suck slightly less but after a drab draw in the Ukraine and scraping past us I think it's madness to even suggest England can win it, quarter final's would be a good job.

by Stella Fri 13 Sep 2013, 9:29 am

England are normally about 12-1 when we start our campaigns. Anyone taking this bet needs to be sectioned (sorry duty).

by Champagne_Socialist Fri 13 Sep 2013, 9:42 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am still waiting for your reasons as to why England can be considered contenders but instead you retort with a childish rant. I rest my case.

I'm trying to find out why a scotsman is so interested in another country's team to the point he spends days on an internet forum arguing about it.

by CaledonianCraig Fri 13 Sep 2013, 9:47 am

Likewise I'd like to find out how a topic about Tuesday's qualifiers turned into another topic about England being potential World Cup winners which we have all heard before in 1970, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2010. I wonder what happened at those tournaments?

by TopHat24/7 Fri 13 Sep 2013, 10:04 am

super_realist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)
My heart tells me, semi-finals and out on penalties. But only after England have taken out a big name in the quarters.

I admire your optimism, but considering they haven't made a semi in eons in countries considered to be far easier to play in what possible reason other than rose tintedness and sentimentality is there that England will make the semi's? Good job you said your heart, because your head would tell you knockouts probably and QF possibly.

Thats like a Swede, Czech, Chilean or Dane saying they will reach the semi (teams similar to standard of England) hoping to get to the semi's

It's not optimism, it's called blind ignorance and stupidity.

QF's if we get a lucky break somewhere along the way, most likely come unstuck in the second round.

by TopHat24/7 Fri 13 Sep 2013, 10:06 am

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Yup and Belgium beat us more comfortably as did Serbia and Wales and......shall I go on? If that is the best evidence you can come up with then it tells us all we need to know.
It must hurt you so much that your own country is so poor that it doesn't stand a chance qualifying for a tournament let alone winning it that you have to spend all of your time talking about another country's chances of winning the world cup

More painful knowing we have 10 times the populace, 10 times the wealth, 10 times the heritage and still can barely achieve anything more.

by Duty281 Fri 13 Sep 2013, 10:21 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course it matters when it is sorted as it is a clear indication of what sort of form you are in. As you have yet to confirm qualification by right or even a play-off spot that says you are toiling does it not if you consider you are top seeds in the group?

So Scotland are very poor - well if we are it must make England just average. Surely beating a poor side (with an injury hit side) by one goal at home is not what you'd expect from a World Cup contending side?
Do you not understand the concept of a friendly? I think Spain drew with Costa Rica in the run-up to Euro 2012 - that didn't matter did it?
Of course I do. Brazil beat Scotland 2-0 in a friendly and they weren't at home and USA recently beat us 5-0 so why could England only manage a narrow win at home? All friendlies and if anything there is much more of an edge to a Scotland-England match than a Brazil-Scotland or USA-Scotland match.
And England have beaten Italy, Spain, Belgium and Brazil in friendlies during the past 2 years. Do you wish to take notice of that?
Yes but enlighten me to how they have done in competitive matches against those teams? Each (barring Belgium) have far superior records in the top competitions compared to England. After all that is what determines World Cup contenders is it not?
Exactly CC.

That is why friendlies are meaningless, I'm glad we got there in the end.
Since when have Scotland-England been friendlies? And why not answer how England have done against other teams more deserving of the tag of contenders? Steffan if that question was directed at me then perhaps if they get there England will exit by Second Round and QF's at absolute push.

Well if it wasn't a friendly, do you mind telling me what the point was of it? Did England get a trophy for their troubles? No. Did England take a step closer to Brazil? No. Was it all an irrelevant match that 90% of the population have all forgotten? Yes!

by Duty281 Fri 13 Sep 2013, 10:24 am

super_realist wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)
My heart tells me, semi-finals and out on penalties. But only after England have taken out a big name in the quarters.

I admire your optimism, but considering they haven't made a semi in eons in countries considered to be far easier to play in what possible reason other than rose tintedness and sentimentality is there that England will make the semi's? Good job you said your heart, because your head would tell you knockouts probably and QF possibly.

Thats like a Swede, Czech, Chilean or Dane saying they will reach the semi (teams similar to standard of England) hoping to get to the semi's

What does the past have to do with this? How England did in 2006 and 2010, or even before that, will have very little bearing on how England do next summer.

by Sponsored content