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.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

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??

OK then:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

super_realist wrote:EH? Close games? England got absouttely smashed 4-1 going on 6 against Germany in R2 in 2010

Close, IMO. Result was a joke and the score flattered the Germans.

I actually thought it was the best we played up until the Lampard goal was not given which was the turning point of the game.  That given I'd have backed us to win.

Run Toppy, run for the hills.

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.

And when has Portugal beaten England last competitively.

England v Portugal . 8 draws in the last ten. One win each

2000 with Figo, 04' on pens, 06' on pens.....just sums us up though. Tough to beat but offensively don't offer much so games go to pens. Even more will do under Hodgson.

Pens don't count as a win.

Do when the entire nation is sat watching the game, nerves and tension everywhere in a major european competition or world cup and you go out on penalties and don't progress. It's a loss and you exit the competition. It might go down as a draw in the stats but let's not kid ourselves.

We are discussing the strengths of England Portugal and sweden.

England v Portugal almost allways ends in a draw. Same goes for England Sweden End of story


I have lived every up and down as an England fan for 30 years.. but that is immatirial to rating the quality of the sides

Moving on from England/Portugal/Sweden, here's one for you all to pull apart etc.

Is the current Belgium squad better than the current England one?

Nope.

The best it has ever been but no its not better

Of course it's better.

You'd have to be massively biased to think otherwise.

Vertonghen, Kompany, Fellaini, Benteke, Hazard, Lukaku etc would all walk into our first team

Plus players like Dembele, Chadli and Vermaelen

Lukaku? He doesn't look that good to me.

we could also list the players that would walk into theirs,

it prives nothing

GSC wrote:Of course it's better.

You'd have to be massively biased to think otherwise.

you are joking right. Seriously. You must be!!

we are talking about a squad!

I would only defo take felani, hazard and kompany in all fairness. The other players you list are very average!

If we had to make a squad out of belgium and england players- I would guarantee we would all agree that more england players would get in!

And talk about scraping the barrel with Benteke and Lukluka!!

Benetke may not even be starting for Villa soon!!

[laugh]

mystiroakey wrote:we could also list the players that would walk into theirs,

it prives nothing

They also have Defour, Alderweireld, Witsel, Mirallas and Mertens.

Not to mention their 2 keepers.

Seriously there isn't really a competition in terms of quality, they crush us

GSC you are again talking nonsense

Why do you say things like they crush us and that all the best teams walk all over us?

Why do you have to go so far the other way GSC?

Maybe you need to be a bit more rounded. Its all well and good saying they have a better squad- But crush us. I mean seriously!

No Myst, you are im afraid

Scraping the barrel with 2 strikers that outscored every English player in the PL last season

Murray beats them all

By the way you have kind of made a decent point. The fact is if welbeck or sturridge were playing regular football they would have got a lot more goals.. Benetke is a lucky man that he gets games.. Our best players are always squad rotated players. And it is screwing your stats. I wish the likes of zaha, welbeck etc would get more games and not stuck at united wasting away.. If benetke went there for instance you wouldn't even mention him!

Benteke is miles better than Wellbeck and Sturridge.

no way

Hero wrote:Moving on from England/Portugal/Sweden, here's one for you all to pull apart etc.

Is the current Belgium squad better than the current England one?

Surprised you even have to ask. Far more Belgium players would get into the England team than vice versa.

The problem with England players is that they are judged rose tintedly by English fans. Imagine for example that Wellbeck, Sturridge, Hart etc were from Finland and not England, you probably wouldn't have even heard of them.

Thanks guys, I thought I was going insane there.

Welbeck is no where near Bentekes level

This belgian lot have done nothing as of yet. You lot are jumping on a bandwagon akin to england's golden generation. Don't fall into that trap. They have two world class players .(hazard and kompany). The rest is just talent

Belgium don't have a winning mentality you know. Or does that not matter, because they aren't England?

mystiroakey wrote:This belgian lot have done nothing as of yet. You lot are jumping on a bandwagon akin to england's golden generation. Don't fall into that trap. They have two world class players .(hazard and kompany). The rest is just talent

and the English have done what exactly? Flattered to deceive, failed repeatedly, bottled it?

What Golden generation? Brown generation more like.

England haven't done anything either

super_realist wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:This belgian lot have done nothing as of yet. You lot are jumping on a bandwagon akin to england's golden generation. Don't fall into that trap. They have two world class players .(hazard and kompany). The rest is just talent

and the English have done what exactly? Flattered to deceive, failed repeatedly, bottled it?

What Golden generation? Brown generation more like.

do you understand the term golden generation?

I take it you dont!

You know, Belgium haven't scored as many goals as England during qualification.

*Says Duty281, trying to keep a straight face*

The golden generation was lamps, becks and all that. they were bigged up and off course did nothing substantial bar 4 quarters.

Anyway this is belgiums golden generation.(its a tag when the players are bigged up by the media- Basically you are bigging up low level players as if there are good when they haven't proved anything yet.

Just calm down and let them make there own way. Big them up when they have done something. (or not as the case will be!!)

At least in the case of england many had done very well at CL level. Only a few of the belgium's feature!

mystiroakey wrote:

super_realist wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:This belgian lot have done nothing as of yet. You lot are jumping on a bandwagon akin to england's golden generation. Don't fall into that trap. They have two world class players .(hazard and kompany). The rest is just talent

and the English have done what exactly? Flattered to deceive, failed repeatedly, bottled it?

What Golden generation? Brown generation more like.

do you understand the term golden generation?

I take it you dont!

a normal person would take it to mean a team of the most talented a country has produced in a while and who by virtue of their skill and talent have achieved something in global football. I.e France 98 and 2000, current spain squad, however for England it just means a list of players who "on paper" are the best in a sea of mediocrity but in reality are ridiculously over-rated, who believe their own hype, continuously bottle it, don't know how to play as a team and who have never achieved anything in the international game and look like they never will.

England players who would get into Belgium's team (I think):

Hart, Cole, Wilshere, Walcott, Rooney.

Possibly Johnson and Cahill as well.

No SR its a media tag. Normal people understand that. When its mentioned in these scenarios add a dose of IRONY!!

mystiroakey wrote:The golden generation was lamps, becks and all that. they were bigged up and off course did nothing substantial bar 4 quarters.

Anyway this is belgiums golden generation.(its a tag when the players are bigged up by the media- Basically you are bigging up low level players as if there are good when they haven't proved anything yet.

Just calm down and let them make there own way. Big them up when they have done something. (or not as the case will be!!)

At least in the case of england many had done very well at CL level. Only a few of the belgium's feature!

Well there are 6 times fewer Belgians, and the Belgian league isn't exactly amazing so would you expect as many to be doing so well? That's what's rather impressive about Beligum. A tiny country with a hell of a lot of good players. Mirror image to England really, big football country, very few genuinely good players, and virtually none who have ever performed consistently well internationally.

mystiroakey wrote:No SR its a media tag. Normal people understand that. When its mentioned in these scenarios add a dose of IRONY!!

You think I don't understand that Oakey? Why do you think I called them the Brown Generation, because I can see that the term Golden Generation is just another media contrived cliche.

England should play in brown to remind themselves of how turd like they are.

I have no idea what you are talking about SR..

worry about scotland!

England have competitive teams in many sports. We are a sporting powerhouse.

super_realist wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:No SR its a media tag. Normal people understand that. When its mentioned in these scenarios add a dose of IRONY!!

You think I don't understand that Oakey? Why do you think I called them the Brown Generation, because I can see that the term Golden Generation is just another media contrived cliche.

England should play in brown to remind themselves of how turd like they are.

Its ok they will play in the colour they chose thanks..

mystiroakey wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about SR..

worry about scotland!

England have competitive teams in many sports. We are a sporting powerhouse.

Damn right. What other country could be in contention to win the football, cricket, rugby union, and rugby league World Cups? Only Australia at a push. Then there's boxing, golf, cycling, rowing etc.

Oakey, I don't care about Scotland, you know that.

It's much more fun to get stuck into England's laughable team whilst there are still people who think they are contenders.

I appreciate that you don't think they are, but it's fun to debate why they aren't.

"A sporting powerhouse" is as cliched as "Golden Generation" Oakey.

Duty281 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about SR..

worry about scotland!

England have competitive teams in many sports. We are a sporting powerhouse.

Damn right. What other country could be in contention to win the football, cricket, rugby union, and rugby league World Cups? Only Australia at a push. Then there's boxing, golf, cycling, rowing etc.

Except they aren't in those.

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about SR..

worry about scotland!

England have competitive teams in many sports. We are a sporting powerhouse.

Damn right. What other country could be in contention to win the football, cricket, rugby union, and rugby league World Cups? Only Australia at a push. Then there's boxing, golf, cycling, rowing etc.

Except they aren't in those.

Who aren't?  

We do well in sports SR. I am happy enough. I know a sport for you is only marathon running , swimming or cycling. But hey we have MO FARAH, FROME and that side burned fella

Why did he highlight Rugby union  

We've established that England aren't contenders for the World Cup.

I'm aware how well GB do in sports, certainly better than 10 or 20 years ago, but I don't think that because the talent is spread across lots of sports  is the reason why England stink in tournaments for Football, they've been rubbish since we were rubbish at every other sport.

mystiroakey wrote:Why did he highlight Rugby union  

That's what I got a bit confused over. 2 finals in the last 3 tournaments!

maybe its time to just say . Who cares if we are great or good or average or rubbish and just support the team(I understand that concept is alien to you SR)