Tuesday qualifiers

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.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Stick your dummy back in eh Socialist.  

Can we have conversations without childish outbursts please. If so I will continue and put across a few facts to why myself and other posters here of whom a fair few are English feel England are not going to be contenders.

.

not childish at all. You are from a different country to angland and thus the oly reason you are so passionate about england football team in a negative way is due to being jealous of englads relative success to scotland.

England might not win the WC but at least as English people we get to enjoy all of the hype and excitement and group draws for the world cup and saving up money for a ticket to go and see our coutry play on the biggest stage.

Win or lose it is an amazing month of football made better if your coutry is playing during it

I remember Euro 2008 when England never qualified and I just couldn't get passionate or excited about the tournment. Yes I looked forward to the games but the whole tournament never had that buzz that it normally has when your country is there. I can imagine as a scottish fan international tournaments lack that buzz/passion cos scotland are not in them.

Haven't you forgotten something?

Success is relative and Scotland have no aspirations at all, they don't even consider qualification a realistic opportunity so they can never really fail whereas a few on here think England are better than they. We're not very good, we're bloody awful in comparison to the best teams and haven't even reached a semi final since 1996.

we are not awful no. That is a ridiculous thing to state.

Its as if you believe we have a god given right to be one of the best.
Just accept it. We are a top 15 club and out of 200 countries thats not bad, not good considering we invented the game and have the most successful domestic league out there(revenue wise) but not awful. We spread our sporting talents thinly. It is tough for us to compete at the top..

The people that slate england are the ones with unrealistic expectations. The Irony is that they are the first to cast aspersions against more optimistic fans!(that are actually more rounded and have thier feet more on the ground!!)

GSC wrote:Why would you think we would've won the Germany game? They were the better side throughout.

Yea that's the most deluded post of the whole thread and I've read some bad ones. Germany dominated most of the game, save 5 minutes. Remember before it the BBC pundits saying none of the Germany players would get in the England team, how can they even contemplate employing such inept one eyed morons  .

monty junior wrote:

GSC wrote:Why would you think we would've won the Germany game? They were the better side throughout.

Yea that's the most deluded post of the whole thread and I've read some bad ones. Germany dominated most of the game, save 5 minutes. Remember before it the BBC pundits saying none of the Germany players would get in the England team, how can they even contemplate employing such inept one eyed morons  .

Wasn't me that said that, it was TopHat. Mind you, seeing as England had more possession and more shots in that game, it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that a team scoring 2 in 2 minutes would complete a dream comeback.

Teams like Italy, Germany, Holland, Spain, Portugal etc have always been quality teams.

England have never been a quality team so to claim because a team like Italy have won tournaments after poor qualification tournaments that England might do the same is stupid.

You have to be a good team to win things, England aren't even close, and yes, they are at a level with Sweden, similar qualifying record and similar level of achievement in tournaments.

Much like people who believe in God based on no evidence, people who believe England are capable of winning tournaments based on an equal amount of evidence are just as ridiculous.

Yes, you want England to do well, and you "believe" they might, but that, in the end, means absolutely nothing at all. I'm sure all 32 teams in a world cup "hope" they can win, probably only 4 or 5 can actually do so, and England are nowhere near being in that select few, nowhere near.

Englands cup records are much closer to portugals than swedens..

To suggest that portugal are up there with spain, germany and italy is beyond stupid tbh

and suggesting sweden is up there with england is also beyond stupid..

And suggesting that england have never been a quality team is seriously highlighting some issue(or ignorance) over stupidity tbh. Because even the most stupidest football fan can realise that england were and have been a quality team!!

Look mate- Maybe the footy fans don't realise you hate football, and have zero knowledge of the game. But the golf forum knows the truth! You openly admit it!!

They still have a greater chance of winning a tournament than England.

Portugal are probably around a top 6-8 team. England are more like 12-16. Zero chance of them winning a tournament.

What way aren't Sweden up there with England? Two very average teams. I would perhaps expect England to get to the odd QF more than Sweden do but other than that there is nothing between them.

When were England quality? 1990? Most of this board won't even be able to remember that tournament.

England haven't even been "above average" in over a generation.

I may not like football, footballers or football supporters (especially grown men wearing football tops), doesn't mean I know nothing about it. Nor does it mean I can't comment on the preposterous claims that England in their current guise have even a remote chance of winning a tournament. Even a football "expert" like yourself would have to admit that.

last 20 years

england 1 semi
england 4 quarters
england 2 top 16
sweden 1 quarter 2 round of 16.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist!

SR I just don't understand why you only ever talk about football to have a pop at england fans!!

You never talk about Football, other than to have a dig at england..

England are very clearly above sweden and much closer to portugal in the last 20 years.

So if you want to argue- fine. But get your facts straight. Don't say fans are deluded by grouping portugal and england together , and then to counter you group portugal with spain and germany and england with sweden!! That is the deluded outlook.

and Oakey, can you remember who the semi finalists, quarter finalists, top 16 players of the last 4 FA Cups were?

It's irrelevant. It doesn't make you good, in fact the very reason you hold it up as some sort of achievement is testament to how absolutely dreadful England are.

by the way Sweden were THIRD at the 1994 World Cup after making the semi final and top 16 twice in the last 20 years.  So really not much to choose between them. England only have two quarters in the world Cup (not 4) and don't have ANY semi finals in the last 20 years. So you could say Sweden actually have a BETTER "recent " World Cup record than England.

Why do I have a dig at England? Mmm, possibly because they are a bit like The Old Firm, people still think they are a big force, a team to be feared, but in reality they are just another team of no hopers.

I like the English, half my friends and family are English, but it doesn't change the fact that England have virtually zero chance of winning anything except the prize for the team with the greatest amounts of hateful players in it.

in the last 10 tourney england have got into the top 8 50% of the time and top 16 70% of the time.

sweden have got top 16 30% of the time and top 8 10% of the time..

That should tell you the gulf between the sides if you can't figure it out yourself.

Btw this is not me saying england will win the WC!!!

sr when we talk about cups we talk about the wc and euro cup..

This should be very obvious to you. The euro cup is just as hard if not a harder tourney and must be used when comparing euro teams!

ok yes i forget 1994!!

that was a long time ago - but hey bump sweden up to 20% top 8 and 40% top 16, england are still 50% top 8 and 70% top 16!

Oakey, I've consistently referred to next years World Cup in my Sweden/England comparison, and England have no more chance of winning it than they have at any other tournament they enter.

As for Portugal in the last 20 years they've had a runner up and three semi finals in major tournaments, so don't even think of putting England in the same bracket as them and you accuse me of knowing nothing about football.

So who would you compare England too in terms of likelihood to win anything? Russia, Nigeria, Columbia?

portugal 60% top 8 and 70% top 16- however they have had 40% top 4's!- so over the last 20 years i would have to put portugal above england(the concern is that two of them games were pen shootouts v england!!!- so in reality both teams are very similar- and much more similar than england and sweden!)


but if you want to only judge WC's - portugal have not performed in that tourney- There major form has been at the euros(this isn't something i downgrade though!)

"As for Portugal in the last 20 years they've had a runner up and three semi finals in major tournaments,"

"by the way Sweden were THIRD at the 1994 World Cup after making the semi final and top 16 twice in the last 20 years.  So really not much to choose between them. England only have two quarters in the world Cup (not 4)"


Look sr with these two comments you are only showing a clear agenda tbh. You are using the euro when it suits an argument against england.

if you use both then . portugal<england<sweden

if you use the wc only portugal are worse than sweden!!!!

Oh christ, here we go, penalties. Which England are also hopeless at.
By the way. Portugal lost a penalty shoot out to Spain too in the Semi Final, so are they the same level as Spain?

Play a tournament game of England v Portugal and I'd expect Portugal to win at least 70% of the time.

super_realist wrote:Oh christ, here we go, penalties. Which England are also hopeless at.
By the way. Portugal lost a penalty shoot out to Spain too in the Semi Final, so are they the same level as Spain?

Play a tournament game of England v Portugal and I'd expect Portugal to win at least 70% of the time.

Did you watch the two games. Both very similar levels of quality..

You clearly don't have a scooby Sr and are manipulating stats to show an agenda against england. You haven't even watched the games.. if you don't remember how close the portugal and england games were in consecutive tournies!!

no, i started using the Euro's too when you brought it up to compare England and Sweden then I used to it to point out just how much better Portugal are than England. So if I'm using it to prove a point, you are trying to ignore it to prove yours.

There isn't a rational person in the world who would put England in with a realistic chance of winning anything, present any statistics you like, they just aren't a tournament winning side.

super_realist wrote:no, i started using the Euro's too when you brought it up to compare England and Sweden then I used to it to point out just how much better Portugal are than England. So if I'm using it to prove a point, you are trying to ignore it to prove yours.

There isn't a rational person in the world who would put England in with a realistic chance of winning anything, present any statistics you like, they just aren't a tournament winning side.

You are the one presenting incorrect data. You judge sweden and england on wc only form and portugal and england on both.

Its retarded beyond belief and you cant fool anyone!

So I wouldn't even try!

And Oakey, even though those games were close, and you lost on penalties, you still lost.

However it's hard to disagree that England have actually regressed in the years since then.

Portugal are the better tourney side I admit that

however

england are much closer to portugal , than sweden are to england.

I haven't once mentioned that england are going to win anything. Just pointing out the fact you have gone ott the other way!

mystiroakey wrote:

super_realist wrote:no, i started using the Euro's too when you brought it up to compare England and Sweden then I used to it to point out just how much better Portugal are than England. So if I'm using it to prove a point, you are trying to ignore it to prove yours.

There isn't a rational person in the world who would put England in with a realistic chance of winning anything, present any statistics you like, they just aren't a tournament winning side.

You are the one presenting incorrect data. You judge sweden and england on wc only form and portugal and england on both.

Its retarded beyond belief and you cant fool anyone!

So I wouldn't even try!

Yet you refute the data to assert that England are of a similar level to Portugal

I compared England and Sweden in the World Cup, broadly similar levels, you then legitimately added the Euro's which improved Englands stats. Fair enough I can accept it that statisically England are better than Sweden.

Truth is that neither England or Sweden are good enough to win a tournament.

SR

Can we agree on.

portugal>England>sweden.

x

Oakey, here is the jist of it.

Portugal are a better team than England, and far more likely to reach a semi/final than England.

England are a better team than Sweden and more likely to reach a quarter.

All three are teams which are likely to reach tournaments on a regular basis, but only one stands a chance of winning, and it would take a bit of luck to do so.

mystiroakey wrote:

super_realist wrote:Oh christ, here we go, penalties. Which England are also hopeless at.
By the way. Portugal lost a penalty shoot out to Spain too in the Semi Final, so are they the same level as Spain?

Play a tournament game of England v Portugal and I'd expect Portugal to win at least 70% of the time.

Did you watch the two games. Both very similar levels of quality..

You clearly don't have a scooby Sr and are manipulating stats to show an agenda against england. You haven't even watched the games.. if you don't remember how close the portugal and england games were in consecutive tournies!!

Key stats from Euro 2004 Portugal V England match:-

Total shots 35 16
Shots on target 8 8
Possession 61% 39%
Corners won 13 9
Fouls committed 14 25
Offsides 5 2
Bookings 3 3
Sent Off 0 0

Seems pretty damn one-sided that don't you think?

The 2006 World Cup meeting stats were maybe not so damning but still heavily weighed in Portugal's favour:-

England Possession Portugal
49% 51%
Shots on target
7 15
Shots off target
4 11
Corners
6 4
Fouls
18 10

I can't see how portugal could win a tourney unless ronaldo was on fire and without him they go back to what england's chances would be!

Oakey, So we agree that England are a second tier team? I think that is fair enough.

I know you've never said they could win, but some deluded people on this thread have claimed that England are amongst a group of teams that are, even though they are at the very bottom of that list.
I just can't see that at all.

Who, then if they aren't as good as Portugal but better than Sweden would you place them? Croatia? Russia?, Ukraine?

Craig, what matters is goals in a match, not possesion stats.

Remember the stats of Celtic v Barcelona? Yet Celtic won (somehow)

Craig jesus mate. 2004 was in PORTUGAL!!(do you understand home advantage?)

in 2006 rooney was sent of after 60 mins. So england had to play the last 60 mins a man down.


Even with all that england were still very much 50/50 in both games!!!

Home advantage then Oakey negates some of Englands stats for Euro 96 doesn't it?

SR.

there is a clear top 2 at the moment imo. and possibly a top 5 that would make up tier 1

spain and germany- then holland, brazil, argentina.

then portugal alongside, italy, colombia and uruguay.

then i would say england and france are topping that next level.(this is on current form)

If truth be told mysti if you offered me a free £10 bet on either England or Portugal my money would be on Portugal for the World Cup. I wouldn't be expecting a return on my money though.

If the same deal was offered on England and Sweden the bet would go on England for the World Cup but again there'd be return on the money.

super_realist wrote:Home advantage then Oakey negates some of Englands stats for Euro 96 doesn't it?

Not really the point sr- however playing away we set up counter attacking- so you need to understand what the stats represent. 60/40(possesion) wouldn't have been the reality of the game.. it was actually very 50/50

mystiroakey wrote:SR.

there is a clear top 2 at the moment imo. and possibly a top 5 that would make up tier 1

spain and germany- then holland, brazil, argentina.

then portugal alongside, italy, colombia and uruguay.

then i would say england and france are topping that next level.(this is on current form)

Seems about fair enough
I'd also put Belgium above England. So England are at best around 12th or in other words, a knockout round team with an occasional QF thrown in . Exactly where at best we expect them to be.

super_realist wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:SR.

there is a clear top 2 at the moment imo. and possibly a top 5 that would make up tier 1

spain and germany- then holland, brazil, argentina.

then portugal alongside, italy, colombia and uruguay.

then i would say england and france are topping that next level.(this is on current form)

Seems about fair enough although I thought we'd just agreed that Portugal were better than England, yet they haven't been included in the level above England.
I'd also put Belgium above England. So England are at best around 12th or in other words, a knockout round team with an occasional QF thrown in . Exactly where at best we expect them to be.

Exactly. The ire non-conformist posters are getting is because they dare to see England as not being contenders and as contenders I mean semi-finalists, finalists and eventual winners . The best part about all of this is this conversation goes on with a qualifying campaign that is far from done and dusted.

Yes i put portugal above england anyway.

sweden certainly IMO a better team than there recent showings . I honestly think they lack belief, and maybe we have too much. but a top 20 team all the same, england i would say are around that 10 -15 mark

I'd expect England to qualify as they usually do Craig with two home games against two not brilliant teams and I don't begrudge them it at all because they are a team of enough quality to almost always qualify and almost always reach the knockouts. It's hard to deny them that.

super_realist wrote:I'd expect England to qualify as they usually do Craig with two home games against two not brilliant teams and I don't begrudge them it at all because they are a team of enough quality to almost always qualify and almost always reach the knockouts. It's hard to deny them that.

No my point is they'd be better concentrating on qualifying first. The job isn't done yet and they'd do well to remember that Croatia game at Wembley when they got a nasty shock. As for how far England go if they get there then it greatly depends on the draw in my opinion.

Duty281 wrote:

monty junior wrote:

GSC wrote:Why would you think we would've won the Germany game? They were the better side throughout.

Yea that's the most deluded post of the whole thread and I've read some bad ones. Germany dominated most of the game, save 5 minutes. Remember before it the BBC pundits saying none of the Germany players would get in the England team, how can they even contemplate employing such inept one eyed morons  .

Wasn't me that said that, it was TopHat. Mind you, seeing as England had more possession and more shots in that game, it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that a team scoring 2 in 2 minutes would complete a dream comeback.

Care to quote me on that??

I don't think the Sweden comparison is bad at all, but for the come from behind victory at the Euro's, England hadn't been Sweden in a competitive match in decades. The overall record between the two is 8 wins each with 9 draws, I'm not sure if England have ever officially beaten Portugal in a competitive fixture though I stand to be corrected on that one.

Monty

Mexico 86? Or was that a draw?

Stella wrote:Monty

Mexico 86? Or was that a draw?

No that was a 1-0 win for Portugal.

We beat Portugal en route to winning the big one in 1966.

How can you forget that one  

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Stella wrote:Monty

Mexico 86? Or was that a draw?

No that was a 1-0 win for Portugal.

They were pretty average then as we'll. I only remember the Poland game from the groups. The QF obviously stands out.

monty junior wrote:I don't think the Sweden comparison is bad at all, but for the come from behind victory at the Euro's, England hadn't been Sweden in a competitive match in decades. The overall record between the two is 8 wins each with 9 draws, I'm not sure if England have ever officially beaten Portugal in a competitive fixture though I stand to be corrected on that one.

Try the semi final in 1966  

Great match , by the way.