I'm simply treating it as a messageboard; making my point and explaining it when questioned. What do you think I should have done? I can't be arsed to go back and quote the exact wording, but Chazz gave me his usual damning verdict. While even in your most recent post before this one you're trying to take the piss as if it's abnormal or worthy of ridicule to try and defend one's position when questioned.
Now that's a fact. And regarding all those new arrivals, was'nt that kid Januzi who plays for Man Utd offered the chance to play for England if he lived here for 5 years.
6 times now. Can you please start reading what I say instead of making points on my behalf. It doesn't matter if it's a 'gang' or one person since it's the Internet. No one's made a valid point yet everyone's in a position to take the piss. When I question that it's all "You're taking yourself too seriously." All I'm doing is consistently trying to debate a point.
Are you being serious? Honestly mate you're sounding a bit precious here. It's as if anyone who challenges you're opinion is either taking the piss or wrong. Calling other posters cum swallowing turds is abuse, simply challenging your ill founded opinions is not. Maybe that's why this board is on the slide.
Exactly, so in five years we might have had one foreigner eligible. To be totally clear, I'm not saying I want people like Januzaj playing for England when he's clearly not English, but it does affect the selectable population, which was the original point.
See above post. I don't know why you're being so confrontational here. I think you mean if it's from Blampey it's abuse
If that was the case, someone would have made a counter-argument by now instead of all this nonsense.
I was just trying to point out what actual mindless abuse is. You start bleating on this thread because people have the temerity to disagree with you and you see it as abuse. It really isn't. But seeing as though mindless abuse is permitted, depending on who states it, then I can't see the problem( if there was one) anyway.
As you must be well aware by now, my complaint is that no one has actually disagreed with me properly. They've just scoffed at what's posted as if they're infinitely wiser, but haven't actually offered anything in the way of an argument. I'm not saying no one can have a go at me; I'm perfectly happy to take stick on the Internet, but if I feel it's wrong I'll obviously question it. And if it's just lazily mocking my post rather than sensibly debating then I'll definitely question it.
Okay, Germany aren't better than us because they have more immigrants playing for them, they're better because they are disciplined, have a better manager, have no big time Charlies, have high expectations and are more determined.
I could debate this face to face much easier, can't be arsed with all the two finger typing. But i will have a go. I suggested that it did'nt matter who is the manager they all pick the same old faces, your mildly critical reply was they know better than the fans and pick the best available. My response our best are no better than Costa Rica and Uruguay. No answer. I threw in the Bradford City exploits and Greece winning the Euro's as examples of teams playing with a desire to win, unlike our bunch of overpaid prima-donnas. No answer. The new arrival example of Januzaj is a scenario open to all young players. In 5 years we could have 10 20 or 30 or more elegible players, you missed the point and said only one new player would'nt help. I understand its off season, debates go this way and that, but in this case there is no simple clear answer as to why but England under-performed yet again and that is a fact.
Thanks for that. But as I've been saying, I'm not under the illusion the only difference is population and/or proportion of population eligible for the national team. I merely proposed it could be one factor. I agree there are several reasons we're not doing well, agree with some of your reasons but disagree with others. I don't think the expectations thing is relevant. Our expectations were high in the noughties with our 'golden generation' but it didn't get us through those shoot-outs. Brazil had massive expectations for this WC and it didn't help them either. High expectations can even hinder a team. I think our expecations have only dipped (justifiably) after our results have dipped further in the last few years. I think we shouldn't worry about the past few years or decades, we should just focus on the here and now and look at what we can't do that others can. I said a few times earlier in the tournament that we struggle a lot with breaking down an organised defensive unit. Both our goals came on the counter, but we didn't look anything like scoring against a full defence who'd had time to get back in position. It's a similar issue to what City have had in the last few years when we've not been scoring enough.
I agree completely with your last sentence. Everyone's got a view but it can't be that simple and there must be more than one problem. I remember ignoring those posts you've mentioned, but didn't realise they were by the same poster. I didn't respond because I don't disagree strongly with either of them.
wasn't Owen Hargreaves & Terry Butcher a pair of johnny foreigners ? along with the current England player Raheem Sterling
First of all, good god has this turned into an attack PLT thread? Anyway, sure, I know you dont think it is all about population. I do find it interesting the population argument though that you do hear often. Clearly when you look at the final 16 and the populations of those teams you can see a very interesting thing with the majority of countries having extremely small populations. I also find it strange the argument you hear about domestic leagues. Just about all of the countries in the final 16 have relatively poor domestic leagues. The Brazilian commentator was talking after the game that part of the problem is that Brazilian players are leaving Brazil younger and younger and the players are being trained differently as they are not all playing in the same country. He thought this was a major problem because players end up having different styles of play. Germany for instance had at one point 7 of their starters being Bayern Munich players. Perhaps an argument can be made that it has to do more with players being developed in a like manner than where the players play. If a major club like Man U or someone like that started trying to buy up the english national team players like Bayern seems to do perhaps your national team would improve. I am just tossing it out there not making any sort of definitive statement.
Too many enormous posts to read, but we have migrants playing for us. Zaha has a cap. He may or may never be good enough to be a regular but he can and has played. There's another lad who's played as well who's not British born, I think I'm wrong with him but Sterling springs to mind for some reason. Arteta and Almunia both could have played for us. This topic has come up umpteen times before and most recently when Januzaj was touted to be holding out for England. Not a problem for people who have basically grown up in the country, like Klose and Podolski for Germany, and obviously not for any British born/British blood. Smaller countries will take players who really have little to do with them other than parents/grandparents coming from there, Boyd for Scotland or Aluko for Nigeria for example, but as an Englishman and a football supporter, I wouldn't be happy to see someone like Arteta or Januzaj grace the three lions. Regardless of how long they've spent here, they've not grown up here, they're not English and they shouldn't play for England. The fact that they're eligible makes no odds, we're a big country, and despite our shortcomings, are still capable of fielding an English team. And as far as I'm aware, the rules making migrants eligible for national teams are the same for every country in Europe, so there's no disadvantage for us n that respect.
