World Cup 2010

[Langdale Wolf]

Oh, my predictions are rubbish, I'll happily admit that.

So in this instance, when we fail I won't be sad, and if we win (which we won't) I'll be ecstatic.

[eFestivals]

agreed - do you not think as well whats hurt him is that he was never a 'winger' until he joined your club? he was playing as a centre forward at soton.

that's not strictly accurate - he was certainly played on the wing for some of his few first team games at soton.

[ampersand]

And some people don't know much about realism.

[Cardboard Box City]

And some people don't know much about realism.

[eFestivals]

Intelligent use of the ball and ball retention also play a major major major part in winning games, especially in dictating tempo. If the opponent can't get the ball off your team, then it's pretty hard for them to score too. It's not always the best option to go straight for goal.

edit: oh, and I do think it improves players. Better to have more strings in your bow, know which is the right decision to take etc, becomes less predictable etc etc.

Oh, I don't disagree with any of that as a generalisation.

But I'm not sure that getting involved in overall gameplay like that gets the best out of certain players - as a different example, Rooney tracks back far too often when he'd be more effective overall if he stayed up field.

TGT suggested that Walcott doesn't have a footballing brain, and perhaps he's right. In which case, just let him do what he does best, because you'll get more out of him that way.

(just so it's clear, I'm not suggesting that Rooney does what he does cos he doesn't have a footballing brain - Rooney is a footballing natural in a way that very few players are).

[eFestivals]

I really don't get the bit in bold. Why won't you be sad if we manage to f**k it all up and go home before the last 16?

I wouldn't be sad because I wouldn't feel they'd failed, as you would.

[Langdale Wolf]

I wouldn't be sad because I wouldn't feel they'd failed, as you would.

[Tugger2k]

I wouldn't be sad because I wouldn't feel they'd failed, as you would.

[eFestivals]

Yeah, thats negativity in football supporting terms. Every negative non-supporter claims to be a realist, when supporting a team is allowing yourself to believe things might just happen.

No it's not.

I support Aldershot. I could dream of them winning the Prem, but that would be just stupid.

I support Aldershot. I could dream of them getting promoted to League One, but if it happened I know more than enough to realise that it would be very temporary.

I support Aldershot. I know what their limits are.

Why is so wrong to recognise no less the limits with England?

[ampersand]

Yeah, thats negativity in football supporting terms. Every negative non-supporter claims to be a realist, when supporting a team is allowing yourself to believe things might just happen.

[ampersand]

You wouldn't think that elimination from the group stages would be a failure?

[oafc0000]

I wouldn't be sad because I wouldn't feel they'd failed, as you would.

[Cardboard Box City]

Why is so wrong to recognise no less the limits with England?

[Tugger2k]

if scotland were in englands shoes right now, even i'd be gutted at us not making the last 16!

[eFestivals]

You wouldn't think that elimination from the group stages would be a failure?

It's only a failure if you have an expectation of them getting further than the groups.

While I think that they should on paper get out of the groups, I don't fully expect them to. Just as you say "if everything goes right we could win it", much the same idea applies all-round - if things go right for Algeria, they can beat England, etc, etc.

England are a team that finds it very hard to raise their game. If they're going to do that, then I expect that they'll do it as they always do (if they do), in the later stages of a tournament - but unfortunately, it's always the case that we're playing a team that is on-paper better than us (as a team, not necessarily as individuals), and they tend to have raised their game too. So we still lose.

[Langdale Wolf]

It's only a failure if you have an expectation of them getting further than the groups.

While I think that they should on paper get out of the groups, I don't fully expect them to. Just as you say "if everything goes right we could win it", much the same idea applies all-round - if things go right for Algeria, they can beat England, etc, etc.

England are a team that finds it very hard to raise their game. If they're going to do that, then I expect that they'll do it as they always do (if they do), in the later stages of a tournament - but unfortunately, it's always the case that we're playing a team that is on-paper better than us (as a team, not necessarily as individuals), and they tend to have raised their game too. So we still lose.

[Snufflebutt]

youd be in a parallel universe where the scots understood what winning, anything, was. as opposed to being perennial losers, at everything they turn their hand to

[ampersand]

youd be in a parallel universe where the scots understood what winning, anything, was. as opposed to being perennial losers, at everything they turn their hand to

[Tugger2k]

It doesnt help having a population an eighth the size of England. There would be something far wrong with England if we were better than them.

Scotland punches anything that moves - and has produced a number of world class drinkers

[ampersand]

[Tugger2k]

i'm sorry who was your best player in the early 90's? was is it a lean, mean picture of health? no wait, it was that alcoholic wife beater

[eFestivals]

yep, that was one of our players, not our entire nation!!

[Cardboard Box City]

i'm sorry who was your best player in the early 90's? was is it a lean, mean picture of health? no wait, it was that alcoholic wife beater

[ralph250]

But I'm not sure that getting involved in overall gameplay like that gets the best out of certain players

[Tugger2k]

given that we find out today if barry is fit or not (and imo he's a lynchpin of the side)

and that we (im amking a big assumption here that most of us can agree on this) dont think carrick is up to the job

and that if those 2 are the case, that Don Fabio should line up (at least in the 1st half) with something close to his south african starting XI - how and who do think will play if barry doesnt make it?

Edited May 25, 2010 by Tugger2k