Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Sebastian Larsson say England were lucky to escape with a win in Kiev on Friday that saw Sweden depart Euro 2012. "Against England it feels like we were the best team, but it isn't always the best team that wins â Sebastian Larsson Sunderland and Sweden midfielder At one stage the Swedes led the Group D fixture 2-1 but a Theo Walcott-inspired rally secured a 3-2 win for England which propelled them into second place. Sweden striker and captain Ibrahimovic, 30, said: "I think we were the better team against England." Larsson - "It doesn't really matter now we are out of the tournament, but we were definitely better than England, but they are leaving with the points, so what can you say?" You can stop crying and get over it. Losers
Sore losers...Ibrahimovic taunted Hart after their second goal as well, and one of their former players called England "predictable and delusional" - has he noticed the lack of optimism? I doubt it. Not to menton the guy asserted Sweden would definitley beat us...and to think England are supposed to be arrogant.
If we are so predictable then how come they could not predict us winning 3-2 ay ? We played overall slightly better than Sweden with more possession and generally more shots (I do believe). They did quite well attacking the ball mind. Sweden don't seem to be doing very well in the press at the moment; they look like fools after the comments today and isn't this from the same team whose manager called his players "a bunch of cowards"? Not very professional at all .
You don't win anything by having more possession, shots, corners, etc, or for hitting the bar or the post. The better team ALWAYS wins.
Sweden were pants apart from the goals they scored. How they think they were better is beyond me, the first half they didn't even know where the England goal was, bloody idiots.
I missed the whole of the first half, but leading up to the goal and until the substitution Sweden looked the more likely to win, mainly because everytime there was a challenge or ball bobbled about it seemed to break for Sweden, plus silly mistakes like the back pass going for a corner compounded it. Sweden didn't look that good, and seemed to get away with quite a lot of 'robust' challenges, especially on Parker, without any free-kicks, but after the substitution England seemed to settle and get their shape again.
What a load of rubbish "Against England it feels like we were the best team, but it isn't always the best team that wins" The best team always wins,the team that outscores the other team always win even if 1 team has 10% of possesion and the other has 90% and the dominate side loses they weren't the better team because they lost. Get your acts together you twits ...Another one to add to my list then,Larsson and Ibrahimovic. Where were Sweden in the 1st half?Rash tackles that ultimately led to goals were England's downfall,fair play to Sweden on the 2nd goal that they took well even though it was bad defending. Sour grapes,now go home and watch the rest of the tournament on TV .
What a load of rubbish, the best team doesn't always win, the recent champions league shows just that. If one team gets outplayed all game but has one counter which goes in via a massive lucky deflection it doesnt make them the better team all of a sudden.
What about Barcelona or Bayern Munich?The best team won because they beat the other team thus making them the best. Not always the favourites win though,that's the difference.The best team always wins,it's a fact.
It does.They won because they outscored the opposition,it's a fact as Rafa would say. Having 90% possesion and having 30 shots on goal and losing 1-0 doesn't mean that the best team lost it means that the team wasn't efficient enough.
Sweden were unlucky to not get at least a draw. If anyone deserved to win, they did. I'm well chuffed they didn't get what the deserved though
It would mean the best team had lost as 99 times out of 100 the dominating team would win. Because a team gets lucky doesn't make them better.
Chelsea weren't lucky.Barca didn't take their chances and they lost because Chelsea we're the better team because they won.
Again, agreed. There is a difference in those who play more technical football and those who play more efficient football. Most people quite rightly give credit to the more technical teams. However some of these teams lack discipline and this is the reason for why Chelsea won the champions league; they played a disciplined game which is what Barca and Bayern lacked on the day. Also it gets on my t*ts when supporters who are fans on the technical game say how we as England are "falling behind" as a nation, these people clearly know nothing as far as I'm concerned. A deserved win against the Swedes who only really scored due to great set pieces. Nonetheless we deserved the result at 3-2 as there defense was obviously worse than ours!
Chelsea got incredibly lucky. Luck, luck, luck. So did England. Neither care because it's better to be lucky than better.
