World Cup 2010

[ampersand]

You only think that because your expectations of England are greater than the gap is.

[Cardboard Box City]

For you to have the proof, you've have to be perhaps 20 years older than you are.

If you can't manage to do that, oh well. You've not proven me wrong, and I don't care enough to put in the work to prove me right.

Believe it's a guaranteed win if you like. In fact, if it's all so guaranteed, why are we bothering going at all? That was how England used to pretend to be the best when they weren't, and it came as a mighty shock to find out that we weren't by a VERY long way.

You might be getting a similar shock soonish.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Cardboard Box City

[Langdale Wolf]

You only think that because your expectations of England are greater than the gap is.

[eFestivals]

what world class players do usa have? what world class players to scotland have?

more to the point, England supposedly have lots yet they're still shit.

It's a team game. The sum of the whole can be greater than the parts.

would it be crazy to suggest that the gap between england/usa and england/scotland is about the same?

Without any knowledge of where each's FIFA ranking is - yep, I'd say so

And <goes all welsh for a moment> it's not unusual </welsh > for Scotland to beat England. And it's not a shock when they do.

So why is the USA different?

[eFestivals]

All you have to do to prove your non-existent point is to show any sort of proof that they have done well against us in the past, the habit of beating us having already gone out the window, and you can do this by showing match reports or something similar.

so show me the reams of net content that goes back 20-ish years for me to search thru for reports of the time, and I will.

Which is the exact reason why I'd previously said I wouldn't be bothering trying to prove it. If you don't wanna believe it, fair enough. I don't care.

Meanwhile, in just a few weeks we'll have the thing of proper relevance. We're see how wrong I am then and not before.

[eFestivals]

No, I think that because of the favourable form/results we've shown against similar/better opposition to the other 3 teams in our group, as well as the recent form of the US and Algeria who I've been keeping an eye on.

Wasn't it you who posted something on Monday about it being a meaningless friendly?

As the saying goes, there's no easy games in the world cup finals.

Unless the opposition is Scotland, of course.

Coupled with seeing some of the best players from those countries fail to impress in the Premier League, and I'd say it's a fairly accurate summary that there is a fairly big gap between England and the rest of group C.

what you're forgetting here is that the games will be played in their natural style and not in the style of the Prem.

But - football being as it is - that is not a 100% certain bye into the knock out stages. But if we don't, that would be a shock.

If we don't, that would be a shock caused by over-expectations.

It might be mildly surprising, but not a shock. It would only be a shock if England never lost, and if England always got out of the groups.

[beLIEveR]

They might not finish top, they're not guaranteed to win any given game, and it's not impossible that they won't qualify. But only a moron, or a Scottish person (the majority of whom are not morons) would actually predict England to go out after three games given the group they're in.

The smart money before a ball has been kicked would be on an England exit in the Second round. I think we'll do much better, but if you're a Celt hoping to profit from English misery, bet on that.

Edited May 26, 2010 by beLIEveR

[ampersand]

more to the point, England supposedly have lots yet they're still shit.

It's a team game. The sum of the whole can be greater than the parts.

[eFestivals]

please don't tell me you actually pay attention to the fifa rankings? especially for a team like usa who are unjustly up high cos they play a lot of tosh all the time.

I don't credit them with too much accuracy, and I don't pay attention to them - which is why I don't know where the USA fall within them (I think Scotland are somewhere around 35th, but I could be wrong .... when the rankings are updated I normally read something which says where all the home nations are).

of course it would be a shock if we beat england. the scottish pundits would all predict a loss, or a draw at best. and if we were to win, it would be a shock. can't see how you can say otherwise. are you saying it wasn't a shock when we beat france twice? cos i was bloody shocked!

Someone posted the stats of England/Scotland games yesterday - which show that a Scottish win defo isn't a shock!

Of course, those results are skewed because playing England is Scotland's world cup finals (I don't mean that nastily, but for the games you get to play, the ones against England are up there with your biggest) .... and of course we're playing the likes of the USA in the W.C.F's too. Which is why rankings don't get to count for too much.

[ampersand]

Someone posted the stats of England/Scotland games yesterday - which show that a Scottish win defo isn't a shock!

Of course, those results are skewed because playing England is Scotland's world cup finals (I don't mean that nastily, but for the games you get to play, the ones against England are up there with your biggest) .... and of course we're playing the likes of the USA in the W.C.F's too. Which is why rankings don't get to count for too much.

Edited May 27, 2010 by ampersand

[eFestivals]

yeah over 60 years it's not. but right now, we have two top quality players in our side (gordon and fletcher) and the rest are either good or average. the same can't be said for england. so in 2010, if we played tomorrow with full strength squads, it would be a shock if we won. itt wouldn't be the same shock if andorra or san marino beat you, but it would still be a shock.

but yeah i get your point about scotland seeing england as a big game. and would you not say it's one of our biggest cos it's a chance to cos an upset against our rivals?

It depends how you're viewing "an upset".

Yes, on paper, Scotland should never win - and likewise a top team such as Man Utd should just about never lose. But results in the real world get to show that 'on paper' doesn't mean very much, cos any team can win or lose any game.

So it's only an 'upset' from the 'on paper' view, but it's not from a real-world view. It's perhaps a mild surprise that results didn't go as expected, but not an 'upset' or 'shock' when two teams are within a decent range of each other.

I accept that teams at the very bottom of the pile - the likes of Luxembourg or San Marino from within UEFA - beating a 'top team' like England would be a shock, because a result like that almost never happens, but there's a huge gulf between teams there, very different to the far smaller gulf between England and USA or Algeria.

The gulf is more like the difference between England and Brazil or Spain. It would be mildly surprising if we beat those - but not a shock. People like you and Langdale aren't saying "it will be a shock if England win the WC", yet if it would be a shock for England to not get out the groups it would be no less of a shock if England won.

[ampersand]

It depends how you're viewing "an upset".

Yes, on paper, Scotland should never win - and likewise a top team such as Man Utd should just about never lose. But results in the real world get to show that 'on paper' doesn't mean very much, cos any team can win or lose any game.

So it's only an 'upset' from the 'on paper' view, but it's not from a real-world view. It's perhaps a mild surprise that results didn't go as expected, but not an 'upset' or 'shock' when two teams are within a decent range of each other.

I accept that teams at the very bottom of the pile - the likes of Luxembourg or San Marino from within UEFA - beating a 'top team' like England would be a shock, because a result like that almost never happens, but there's a huge gulf between teams there, very different to the far smaller gulf between England and USA or Algeria.

The gulf is more like the difference between England and Brazil or Spain. It would be mildly surprising if we beat those - but not a shock. People like you and Langdale aren't saying "it will be a shock if England win the WC", yet if it would be a shock for England to not get out the groups it would be no less of a shock if England won.

[Langdale Wolf]

The gulf is more like the difference between England and Brazil or Spain. It would be mildly surprising if we beat those - but not a shock. People like you and Langdale aren't saying "it will be a shock if England win the WC", yet if it would be a shock for England to not get out the groups it would be no less of a shock if England won.

[eFestivals]

I have absolutely no idea where you're trying to go with this

I'm not trying to go anywhere with it - I'm simply standing behind what I've said previously.

And from the rest of what you said there, that's showing a better consistency than your earlier dreams of England being in with a chance. So against that consistency, I apologise for suggesting you weren't being - but without that dreaming I wouldn't have thought you weren't being inconsistent.

[oafc0000]

The only conclusion I can come to is to discount Neil's opinion on anything football related

[eFestivals]

The only conclusion I can come to is to discount Neil's opinion on anything football related

probably wise - I'm defo crap at predictions.

[ampersand]

probably wise - I'm defo crap at predictions.

[Langdale Wolf]

I'm not trying to go anywhere with it - I'm simply standing behind what I've said previously.

And from the rest of what you said there, that's showing a better consistency than your earlier dreams of England being in with a chance. So against that consistency, I apologise for suggesting you weren't being - but without that dreaming I wouldn't have thought you weren't being inconsistent.

[eFestivals]

You see - as an optimist - even the word 'hopeless' has hope in it.

yeah, but I'm guy who makes England lose, remember?

[Langdale Wolf]

yeah, but I'm guy who makes England lose, remember?

[ampersand]

I think that when it comes to football, and particular Wolves and England, I'm more positive than negative, but I like to think that overall I'm reasonably realistic.

[Langdale Wolf]

you think? you were something like 5 points from safety with about 4 games to go and you were still panicking

[eFestivals]

Yeah - did the name give it away?

It always makes me laugh when Agbonlahor gets described as a Brummie - while I know he is, it's not like his name is a traditional midlands name, so it seems wrong to call him a local when it doesn't sound like he possibly could be from traditional angles.

Give it another 50 years and I guess no one will blink at any name, cos the domination of the smiths and jones and suchlike will be far less.

(Note: in none of that am I thinking any of it is a bad thing, just to be clear. ).

[Langdale Wolf]

It always makes me laugh when Agbonlahor gets described as a Brummie - while I know he is, it's not like his name is a traditional midlands name, so it seems wrong to call him a local when it doesn't sound like he possibly could be from traditional angles.

Give it another 50 years and I guess no one will blink at any name, cos the domination of the smiths and jones and suchlike will be far less.

(Note: in none of that am I thinking any of it is a bad thing, just to be clear. ).

[ampersand]

It always makes me laugh when Agbonlahor gets described as a Brummie - while I know he is, it's not like his name is a traditional midlands name, so it seems wrong to call him a local when it doesn't sound like he possibly could be from traditional angles.

Give it another 50 years and I guess no one will blink at any name, cos the domination of the smiths and jones and suchlike will be far less.

(Note: in none of that am I thinking any of it is a bad thing, just to be clear. ).