Match Day Thread Spain v England
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
not really. take the fa cup. nearly every team loses once a year. it's no indication of quality.
no, no, no. you are failing to see my point, as is glp.
i've said repeatedly that i'm NOT happy that england are not better. evidently you, like glp, has some sort of blind spot to the places i've written that.
what i have said that is on the spectrum of international teams, which is where england compete, they are NOT crap. they are one of the better teams, but NOT the best. and i do want the to be the best, but not being the best does not mean they are crap.
if hull city had won 20 and lost 2 of their last 30 matches, you wouldn't be saying they were crap.
let me put it like this:
PRACTICALLY EVERY TEAM NEAR THE TOP OF THE RANKINGS LOSES WHAT YOU CALL "THE BIG GAMES".
it's a knockout tournament. it's unusual for more than one team to go through such a tournament undefeated.
take the last world cup:
brazil lost in the semi-final. that was a big game. they lost seven bloody one! holland lost in the other semi. another big game.
italy lost in the final. games don't come bigger than that.
holders spain didn't get out of their group. nor did italy, four time winners. nor did russia or portugal.
only germany didn't lose a match. does that make all the other teams crap? of course not.
look, i know you're a wum, but teams that are "bang average" and "middle of the road" do not win more than half their games and lose less than 10% of their games.
the premier league may well be a hindrance to progress.
if hull city had played 30 games, won 20, drawn 8, and lost 2, with 71 goals for and 16 against, would you think the team was average?
The problem isn't the PL.
It's the FA and the way they manage youth players.
The Germans aren't ace because of the Bundesleague, it's because of their youth system.
It's the FA and the way they manage youth players.
The Germans aren't ace because of the Bundesleague, it's because of their youth system.
WUM!
You asked for a definition! Those terms, IMO, mean, do just enough to get there & once there they maybe get out the group, maybe don't! Yes they qualified with 100% record, the only team to do so!http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/qualifiers/season=2016/standings/
But we all know England at tournaments! I'll watch it & hope, if they do well then great, we've all been proved wrong! It's just the assumption of failure once they get on the pitch!
So unless they do extremely well & reach the semis or Final then it'll be just another tournament where they make up the numbers!
I don't give a **** about these friendlies, they're meaningless & pointless to me.
Hull City dont get to play teams as woeful as some of the teams in qualifying
Also are you counting friendlies????
Poor team unable to hang on to possesion long enough to threaten the good teams in the world and that is a 100% fact
I dont care about stats.
Stats are for boring nerds
Yes it's a brilliant stat, I don't believe anyone is denying that or can! The problem is that after qualifying for the Euros it then turns into a knockout competition! If you lose in the knockout bit, then usually you end up going home!
If Hull City had those stats then they'd be on 68 points in the league, if in a cup competition then we'd have silverware because we play in knockout cups every season not every 4 years!
England don't 'manage' the game against opposition who control the ball. We try to play out from the back but don't look assured, then the ball goes long and when Kane can't keep it the opposition dominate possession. In Ross Barkley we have a potentially world class player and he needs to be in the middle of things from the outset - Carrick is finished.
so you don't look at league tables? i posted the figures that included friendlies earlier. it's not much different.
the unbeaten qualification did include twice beating a team currently a place behind us in the rankings, but don't let that bother you. did you know that when barcelona last won the spanish league, they only beat teams worse than themselves? how easy must that have been?
"Poor team unable to hang on to possesion long enough to threaten the good teams in the world and that is a 100% fact" are you glp in disguise? i'll say it once more - a team that IS good enough to beat 95% of the teams in the world is NOT a bad team nor even an average one. by the very definition of average/mediocre whatever you like. they may not be good enough, but not are spain or brazil or arsenal or man utd.
how many teams remain undefeated in a knockout competition? normally it's ONE. if you take argentina, brazil, germany, italy, spain, france, holland, then at least six of them are going home without silverware.
WUM!
http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/qualifiers/season=2016/standings/
But we all know England at tournaments! I'll watch it & hope, if they do well then great, we've all been proved wrong! It's just the assumption of failure once they get on the pitch!
So unless they do extremely well & reach the semis or Final then it'll be just another tournament where they make up the numbers!
I don't give a **** about these friendlies, they're meaningless & pointless to me.
i did ask for a definition, but you won't accept that the average teams are the ones that lose as many as they win.