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.