of course it's not impossible. i never said it was. i'm arguing against glp's assertion that england are crap. they may be boring to watch and a lot of other things, but they tend to get results. if you'd watched the 1994 world cup final, which you appear to have been lucky enough to have missed, you'd be aware that even brazil can be bloody boring. also spanish tippy tappy is bloody boring crappy. argentina are thugs on drugs and have never played pretty football. they are sneaky devious cheats and deserve everything bad that happens to them. i have no respect at all for any argentine football player since about 1911.
And why do you treat anyone who dares think or talk about city the way you do about england like a ****? You have no credibility. None whatsoever.
I'd probably take notice of that if it was coming from someone other than you, the way you act on here.
I think you need to get your glad rags on and have a night out with your mates For a young chap you spend way to much of your time on here.
Firstly, I understand the rankings perfectly well. The proprietary reason they are flawed is due to the rankings including meaningless friendly results which go towards ranking position. The rankings go back over a 4 year period but they are weighted so current year has a greater bearing than the first year of the ranking and so on. Brazil may have lost recent tournament games, but at least they made the final, they consistently make the latter stages of competitions, England don't. England couldn't even make it out of the group stages at the last World Cup. The World Cup matches group and final stages all carry the same ranking weighting, greater weighting should be given to the teams that progress further in the competition, for your benefit there are matches beyond the group stages, these weightings can be applied to all international football competitions so teams that regularly make semi finals or finals accrue more points than on the current ranking weighting system. If you discounted friendly results and included a weighting for finals (Semis/Quarters/Final) performance then you would I am sure see a very different league table. Football is our primary sport in this country, we invented the game, we don't have a divine right to win it, but the fact we are ranked 10th with a population of nearly 64 million versus Belgium ranked 1st with a population of 10.5 million would suggest we are some ****ing way off where we should be. There's more money sloshing around the top domestic leagues in this country than probably any other countries domestic leagues in world football, so actually, being ranked 10th in the world is pretty ****. The home of football, huge population, huge resources, we shouldn't be content with 10th or with bloody awful performances like we see regularly from the National team. I don't accept mediocrity as acceptable - therein lies the difference. Your malaise and defence seems you're content with mediocrity. I have no issue with Belgium, I have long been an advocate of what they have achieved on the International football stage - which was instigated years ago when they realised that mediocre performance in competitions and qualifying wasn't acceptable, so they ripped up the rule book and started again with grass roots coaching at all levels, which is why they now have such a conveyor belt of world class players, from an incredibly small population versus the UK. If people, like yourself, continue to think that 10th in the World Rankings is great, and accepting that we'll be beaten by teams in the top 1-9 positions because that's the natural order of proceedings then nothing will ever change - I want to see change. I want to see England being an International powerhouse in world football, I want to see success, I want to see them win things. I don't want to see the ****ing utter ****e we get served up on a regular basis by one trick pony managers and piss poor players. The resources at our disposal makes it an embarrassment. Don't reply as really I can't be arsed responding. Ta.
The trouble is that the clubs have no interest whatsoever in making the international team a success It ll just rumble on like this and i don't think it will ever change
Germany did the same - after Euro 2000 (when they went out in the group stage with us), they tore German football up and started again. Now look at them. Unfortunately when you have the people we currently have in charge of the FA, and a fanbase which seems to be happy for it to continue judging by some on here, there is no chance of any change, and as a result, no chance of improvement.
you can't be arsed reading or thinking, that's your trouble. anyway, thank you for removing the obligation to reply. i shall ignore it, even though you won't read or reply to my reply. i have no idea what a "proprietary reason" is. suspect the phrase has no meaning at all. proprietary prəˈprʌɪət(ə)ri/ adjective adjective: proprietary 1. relating to an owner or ownership. "the company has a proprietary right to the property" behaving as if one owned something or someone. "he looked about him with a proprietary air" 2. (of a product) marketed under and protected by a registered trade name. "proprietary brands of insecticide" that hasn't helped. i don't know which final brazil reached in the last four years. i seem to remember germany sticking 7 past them in a semi at some point and they lost in the quarter-finals of the copa america. since you know the ranking system so well, you'll know that games in the world cup qualifiers are worth 2.5 times as much as friendlies and games in the finals are worth 4 times as much as friendlies. giving extra weight to three more games in the finals would make very little difference to the rankings; the differences between rankings of the top teams is huge compared to differences lower down, another reason why some teams can easily move quickly up or down the rankings. teams that reach the semis and the final of the world cup already gain an advantage by having potentially two more games in which they can gain ranking points at 4 times the weighting of a friendly. as i said, no ranking system is perfect and my problem with it is that losing teams get nothing at all, even if the game is close, and even if they perform as expected. you have started comparing england with brazil after telling me you didn't earlier on. it's pointless saying that "england are ****e because they are not as good as brazil". that is no argument. spain are not as good as germany, but that does not prove that spain are ****e. 1. football has occasional teams punching above their weight. bournemouth are in the premier league. birmingham are lower. it isn't permanent. 2. the population of england is not 64 million, it's about 53 million. in the world order, that puts us around 24th, much lower than 10th. it's not a huge population. it's lower than brazil, italy, germany, turkey, egypt, etc, etc. there are 12 countries with populations more than double ours. http://www.geoba.se/population.php?pc=world 3. belgium has a smaller population than about 80 other teams, including germany and brazil. is there a german or brazilian version of you claiming his country is "some ****ing way off where we should be"? 4. comparing the team at the top of the rankings with another team has no bearing on the quality of the other team. it's meaningless. it's like saying "hull city are not manchester city and are therefore rubbish". illogical. england are better than 200 other teams. 5. populations appear to be a poor indicator of strength in world football (eg: india, china, indonesia). 6. football would be less interesting if all games were won by the more powerful teams. most would agree that this is the case. 7. football is the primary sport in many countries. china might even believe they invented it, as might the romans and greeks, and others still. 8. money doesn't slosh around our leagues, it goes straight into the pockets of players and agents. you continue to argue that england are crap because they should, for a variety of reasons, be doing better. i have conceded the point that they should be doing better, so there is no need for you to keep reiterating it. however, your insistence that they are crap is entirely at odds with the results they produce, even though you deny it. if hull city had similar analyses, you would be shouting if from the rooftops. england have just qualified for the euros with a 100% record. i fully expect you to insist that this is because they were only playing against crap teams, yet mysteriously one of those teams is now only two places behind us in the rankings, and teams are, i believe, seeded for the qualifier groups. and yet the mighty belgium lost and drew with wales, without even scoring. even germany failed to win 30% of their games. you continue to argue that i am somehow bedazzled by england being 10th in the crappy rankings, despite the fact i said we should be doing better and despite the fact i told you i rarely watch england because they are boring. this is curious and makes me wonder if your reading and comprehension of english is all it should be. once more this makes me wonder about your powers of comprehension. much of what you say is stating the obvious. we all want - to see change - to see England being an International powerhouse in world football - to see success - to see them win things i'm interested to hear where you intend to locate better players than the "piss poor" ones that are usually picked. what you can't seem to understand is that being beaten by a better team does not make england a crap team. you fail to acknowledge that i agree that things could and should be better. your assessment that a team in the top 10 is "dross", "poor, very poor", "****ing utter ****e", etc, is just plain nonsense.
Oh, go on then. Sorry I had to delete all of your piffle as it made the combined response too long. I have however left a lower case 'h' in your quote to make you feel comfortable. You do like lower case letters don't you? http://www.yourdictionary.com/proprietary Your comprehension point made me laugh! I must admit I skim read over most of what you write. But I must ask if your shift or caps lock button is broken? You have written a whole raft of gibberish across 3 or 4 posts and not used one capital letter, my daughter is 8 and can use capital letters. Would you like help? I think adding weight to quarter finals, semi finals and finals would make a difference as generally it is the same core of teams that make the latter stages. Recently France, Spain, Brazil, Germany have all made finals or the latter stages. World Cup Finals Brazil have made 3 from 6 France have made 2 from 6 Germany have made 2 from 6 Italy have made 2 from 6 Spain have made 1 from 6 Euros Final France have made 1 from 6 Germany have made 3 from 6 Italy have made 2 from 6 Spain have made 2 from 6 Hell - even Greece have made a European final and won it. I haven't compared Brazil to England I was using Brazil as an example of a team that consistently makes the latter stages of competitions, versus our pitiful performances in World Cup Finals or the Euros. As the 10th best ranked team, we should consistently be making the last 16 of competitions like the Euros or the World Cup Finals. We have one of the best domestic leagues in World Football, it is broadcast via various platforms around the world to over 212 countries with a broadcast audience of 4.7bn. We have some of the best football academies in the world, yet still we play agricultural football at international level that simply hasn't improved. As I have said repeatedly, there's a number of factors which need to be considered. England need to start doing things differently like Germany and Belgium have done and France when they went through a period of renaissance. Population may not be a barometer to success, but it certainly helps, particularly seeing as football is our first sport and we are seen as the 'Home' of football. Football is not a first sport in India (Cricket), Indonesia (Badminton) or China (Table Tennis). Not enough time or money is invested in grass roots football, this is the model that Germany and Belgium followed in order to deliver results on the pitch. Belgium started a new coaching philosophy in 2006 - it has taken just 9 years to establish a pool of players capable of delivering international honours. In 2009 they were ranked at number 66 in the world, they are now ranked at number 1. This is not a coincidence, this is down to delivering coaching methods that develop players capable of winning. Not all money goes into players or agents pockets, I think you are confusing club wealth with country wealth. There's not many Football Associations that would be in a position to announce a profit of £261m, which they did year ending July '14. Have you not seen St Georges Field - Money is re invested. I would guess that England as a footballing country have significantly better resources and facilities than many of the teams above them in the rankings. Qualification for the Euros regardless of the record in doing so is a minimum requirement, isn't it? Qualification is just that, qualification, no doubt they will still perform to usual expectations in the competition itself, which in recent times hasn't been particularly good. Given the resources at their disposal, the 10th place ranking really isn't good. The performances from England are dross and ****e, which you agree with, you don't watch them stating 'Boring'. Qualification for the Euros is a minimum requirement, regardless of the record in qualifying. You agree with me that you want to see change, you want to see success, you want to see a powerhouse in world football. I'd focus on changes at grass roots football and coaching methods as well as management. Develop a new breed of English footballer to bring green shoots of recovery to a successful and entertaining competition winning International football team. This won't happen over night obviously, but why have a team that nobody wants to watch because they are boring - or in my opinion ****e. Thanks for agreeing with me anyway. What are you personally doing to address the problem of not having to watch 'boring' football? Me, I'm involved in grass roots coaching. You? "i have conceded the point that they should be doing better" "the fact i said we should be doing better and despite the fact i told you i rarely watch england because they are boring" "what you can't seem to understand is that being beaten by a better team does not make england a crap team." "you fail to acknowledge that i agree that things could and should be better." Why, is that because they are crap at the moment? Give me City any day of the week. Now **** off you bore.
I've seen Jesse Lingard has got in the senior team now, after scoring one goal. Same old England then. Roy clutching at straws.
Although Roys not up to it i doubt any manager anywhere in the World would be able to formulate a team that could make us serious contenders
Calling up Lingard when players like Redmond are ignored only helps prove the big club argument. Just look at Phil Jones, he's played about 90 minutes total for Man Utd this season, and he's starting for England ahead of Stones, our most promising defender. Hank sums it up perfectly. I don't think anyone believes we are contenders, and most are pissed off with the shower of ****e performances and style of football Woy serves up, which is what I have been saying since he came in. I think Redknapp would've been better, and I really didn't want him in.
Just seen Lingard's record so far this current league season. He's played 180 minutes for United. Surely, there's players more deserving than someone whose played 2 matches Roy.
yeah, in a minute. i can use capitals if i choose to. is it relevant to the england football team and the quality of its performances? i personally am addressing the problem of boring football by never watching it. "you fail to acknowledge that i agree that things could and should be better." Why, is that because they are crap at the moment? ???? don't you think man utd and arsenal and brazil fans, players, managers and so on believe things could and should be better? is that because they are crap at the moment? no, it's because they're not the best at the moment. being second best is not the same as being crap. being 10th best out of 200 is not the same as being crap. winning more than half your games isn't the same as being crap. i'm going to readdress the problem of this debate by relabeling england as "effective". i am keen for someone to make them better and i hope someone will. here are some figures to back up my belief that they are effective. all england results since the start of 2011 - played 52 won 31 drawn 14 lost 7 scored 100 conceded 31 points would have been 107 all england competition games since the start of 2011 - played 30 won 20 drawn 8 lost 2 scored 71 conceded 16 points would have been 68 you can argue all day about the quality of the opposition and the horribleness of the style of play, but all hull city fans would be happy to win 20 out of every 30 games while only losing 2. or even 31 out of every 52. so, effective it is, but needs to be more effective and stylish. okay? will that do you?
The arguments in this are all pointless, England aren't the best, but aren't the worst! They are very mediocre! This grass roots thing has been talked about for years & still appears to be years away! The FA are to blame for the whole mess, Hodgson is a pawn in this whole mess, he's the person everyone vents at when we don't do well! What are the alternatives? Bring in another foreign coach, personally I'd rather stick with Roy! We need to keep an English manager IMO! Friendlies are pointless if we just put out the first choice players & equally pointless if we replace everyone! We can mix them up & have a team that can compete a little, but until we start looking further than just the top teams we'll never progress! If we fail next year it should be the whole FA board to go along with Roy, we should begin preparing this now. The FA is very similar to FIFA in the ways that we leave the same people to run it for years with no progress!
You can offer up all the facts that you want. Statistics are complete bollocks and theres only one fact that can be offered up really. When it comes to the big games England WILL get beat.Hope that helps with this spat!!!
