***********************en gland will never win the world cup********************** ***

[rebel11]

I have no doubts, it will take some doing and a lot of luck, 'In Roy we Trust'.

He does well in adversity.

[antone]

England will be eliminated in the second round, probably on penalties. You heard it here first.

[rebel11]

Nooooooo, won't happen, Roy's got a sports psychologist in.

 

England will be eliminated in the second round, probably on penalties. You heard it here first.

[antone]

Instead of a psychologist, maybe he should get some guys who can take penalties.

[rebel11]

The psychologist is taking one of the penalties:madgrin:

 

Instead of a psychologist, maybe he should get some guys who can take penalties.

[Guest]

the psycho to be used is the lfc one!

 

can they win it? they've got a chance, if they're allowed to play and go for it. imo.

like the optimism though rebel, the pundit majority are pretty much saying no chance, quarters at best.

[renegadeimp]

England are 60/1 to win the world cup. For those of you that dont bet, that means if you put £20 down on them, youll lose £20.

[Guest]

eng are around 33/1 to win it atm. worth a tenner?

[antone]

eng are around 33/1 to win it atm. worth a tenner?

 

A fiver each way, perhaps. I could see them making the semis if they get a following wind.

[antone]

the psycho to be used is the lfc one!

 

can they win it? they've got a chance, if they're allowed to play and go for it. imo. like the optimism though rebel, the pundit majority are pretty much saying no chance, quarters at best.

 

The problem with English pundits (and I say this as a Scot) is that they tend to heap ridiculous expectations on their team. The English team is never as bad as the pundits say, and never as good as the pundits say - if you see what I mean. They're a perfectly respectable team who could well make the quarters, and there's no shame in that. To finish the tournament as one of the top 8 teams in the world? Most of us would settle for that.

 

But they ain't world beaters.

[caro]

Incredibly low odds for a country with players earning £300k a week!!! Maybe they aren't quite worth it.

 

(I do know that's not for playing for their country but you see my point)?

[45002]

Looks like site team been on the POP again,drunk in charge of a forum

 

lets hope they don't ban themselves by mistake

 

And yes England will Never ever win the world cup again with a bunch of millionaires paying

[renegadeimp]

No english footballer is any good. They might be good in the home leagues which are full of the same quality players, but on the international stage, they dont stand a chance in hell.

[antone]

Looks like site team been on the POP again,drunk in charge of a forum

 

lets hope they don't ban themselves by mistake

 

And yes England will Never ever win the world cup again with a bunch of millionaires paying

 

Site Team? Drunk?

 

What are you talking about? Hic. Burp.

[Guest]

The problem with English pundits (and I say this as a Scot) is that they tend to heap ridiculous expectations on their team. The English team is never as bad as the pundits say, and never as good as the pundits say - if you see what I mean. They're a perfectly respectable team who could well make the quarters, and there's no shame in that. To finish the tournament as one of the top 8 teams in the world? Most of us would settle for that.

 

But they ain't world beaters.

 

yes, i know what you mean re pundits.

 

imo, we can be 'world beaters' given our potential attack. the signs were there when we beat spain recently, and did well v brazil. albeit friendlies. thing is getting the balance right, and going for it. do what we do best, and not try to outplay what we can't outplay. if you see what i mean

thats something for roy to address. which i'm dubious about. imo, hoddle s/b there. but, will stand by roy.

eg the italians, they usually play defensive boring footy and usually get to the quarters at least. can eng do that? imo, no. in cf. i think we should go for it, the attacking players are there imo, although mostly young. the heat might be a factor though.

[Guest]

Site Team? Drunk?

 

What are you talking about? Hic. Burp.

 

its friday night

[antone]

yes, i know what you mean re pundits.

 

imo, we can be 'world beaters' given our potential attack. the signs were there when we beat spain recently, and did well v brazil. albeit friendlies. thing is getting the balance right, and going for it. do what we do best, and not try to outplay what we can't outplay. if you see what i mean

thats something for roy to address. which i'm dubious about. imo, hoddle s/b there. but, will stand by roy.

eg the italians, they usually play defensive boring footy and usually get to the quarters at least. can eng do that? imo, no. in cf. i think we should go for it, the attacking players are there imo, although mostly young. the heat might be a factor though.

 

One thing I notice as an outside observer is that there's no team that I can say for sure will beat England. Consider, for example, Scotland's Euro qualifying group: we've got Germany. We will lose to Germany. But England? Sure, they might lose to Germany or Brazil or Argentina or Spain, but on another day, they might win.

 

If I were English, I think I'd be most annoyed about the teams repeated failure to live up to its potential. Because on their day, England can beat anyone, but to win the WC, you need to do it consistently. And there lies the problem.

[Guest]

spot on re consistency

 

ps, its a difficult one, many good attacking players to choose from. i can't pick our best 11, nor can the pundits. they all differ in their picks. headache for roy!

[antone]

spot on re consistency

 

ps, its a difficult one, many good attacking players to choose from. i can't pick our best 11, nor can the pundits. they all differ in their picks. headache for roy!

 

To be honest, and if I were English, I'd treat as an opportunity to show the world what you can do. I don't know what players Roy should pick, but I'd still just be aiming to do as well as possible.

 

That's obvious, of course - what team doesn't want to do as well as possible? But my point is expectations are built up around the England team, often unrealistically. Just get a bunch of good players, turn them out on the pitch, and ask them to do the best they can.

 

Crass and obvious, I know, but all the unrealistic expectations hurt England's players.

[rebel11]

You can blame Jimmy Hill for that, he managed to abolish the cap for players in the 60's, Johnny Haynes became the first player to earn £100 per week.

 

Incredibly low odds for a country with players earning £300k a week!!! Maybe they aren't quite worth it.

 

(I do know that's not for playing for their country but you see my point)?

[rebel11]

Don't worry the Site Team are in control, if I didn't think we stood a very good chance of winning, I wouldn't of started the thread.

So for you it must be even more worrying that this thread was started without the aid of alcohol.

 

Looks like site team been on the POP again,drunk in charge of a forum

 

lets hope they don't ban themselves by mistake

 

And yes England will Never ever win the world cup again with a bunch of millionaires paying

[rebel11]

The big thing is to play to your strengths, too often teams concentrate on how to nullify the opposition and forget their own strengths. Here I give you an example, I have chosen Liverpool randomly to demonstrate. This season Liverpool score goals easily but they do concede goals. The order of the day is to concentrate on their strengths, attack, it doesn't mean they are not going to defend. The big thing for the manager is to win football matches, they are doing that, that's what England need to do.

 

yes, i know what you mean re pundits.

 

imo, we can be 'world beaters' given our potential attack. the signs were there when we beat spain recently, and did well v brazil. albeit friendlies. thing is getting the balance right, and going for it. do what we do best, and not try to outplay what we can't outplay. if you see what i mean

thats something for roy to address. which i'm dubious about. imo, hoddle s/b there. but, will stand by roy.

eg the italians, they usually play defensive boring footy and usually get to the quarters at least. can eng do that? imo, no. in cf. i think we should go for it, the attacking players are there imo, although mostly young. the heat might be a factor though.

[porkyp1g]

Hodgeson is not clever enough to out think other top coaches that will be in this tournament. Our coaching staff will let us down and we will get out done tactically, I think. And if he plays Danny welbeck one more time........the man is bloody useless.

[rebel11]

Hodgson shouldn't be underated, but can be frustrating at times, using subs for him is problematic if he doesn't think the subs couldn't influence the game, everyone's shouting, 'do something' and he does nothing.

 

Hodgeson is not clever enough to out think other top coaches that will be in this tournament. Our coaching staff will let us down and we will get out done tactically, I think. And if he plays Danny welbeck one more time........the man is bloody useless.

[porkyp1g]

I hate the man, but I am biased, I had to watch him ruin Liverpool for 6 months, a complete buffoon.