Options

[World Cup] Yes, France is still terrible

1568101163

Posts

  • Options
    HorusHorus Los AngelesRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Can someone give me all the scenarios possible that will result in US to go into round of 16?
    US wins against Algeria and Eng ties with Slovania?

    Horus on
    “You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...”
    ― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Cabezone wrote: »
    nameless wrote: »
    USA: all offense, no defense since 1775.

    We can't help it it's our environment. We're surrounded by vast oceans and harmless countries.

    To our north they just try to out polite us and the national past time of Mexico is siestas!

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    GnomeTankGnomeTank What the what? Portland, OregonRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    In terms of England, what do you Brits think about the theory that the English team is so terrible in the World Cup because all your best players are so worn down from the Premiere League season?

    I've heard that brought up a lot.
    Britain isn't England, there are some fellows in Wales and Scotland who would not appreciate such talk, good sir!

    There are EPL players in most of the teams in the world cup, so I don't think that argument is fair at all. This group of England players hasn't been good under three different managers so far, I think that is more to do with it than anything; the quality isn't there.

    Except the quality is there? The English team has some of the best players, at their positions, in the world, this was pointed out earlier. It's not a quality issue, I don't think.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Horus wrote: »
    Can someone give me all the scenarios possible that will result in US to go into round of 16?
    US wins against Algeria and Eng ties with Slovania?

    -Win and US are in. Win and E-S tie, and possibly as #1 depending on if the US wins by more than 1 or if E-S is 1-1 or 0-0
    -Tie they are in only if E-S is 0-0 or 1-1

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    JastJast Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    All the U.S has to do is win the next game and they advance. Even if England wins also both teams have 5 points each, Slovenia has 4, and Algeria has 1.

    Jast on
    Jast39.png
  • Options
    815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Except the quality is there? The English team has some of the best players, at their positions, in the world, this was pointed out earlier. It's not a quality issue, I don't think.
    How do we measure how good these players are in comparison to those from other countries? Because playing against each other in football matches has not worked out too well for England. :(

    815165 on
  • Options
    GnomeTankGnomeTank What the what? Portland, OregonRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    Horus wrote: »
    Can someone give me all the scenarios possible that will result in US to go into round of 16?
    US wins against Algeria and Eng ties with Slovania?

    -Win and US are in. Win and E-S tie, and possibly as #1 depending on if the US wins by more than 1 or if E-S is 1-1 or 0-0
    -Tie they are in only if E-S is 0-0 or 1-1

    Actually it depends on what the U-A tie is. If it's like, 4-4, than even an E-S 1-1 or 2-2 tie wouldn't give England the goal differential.

    Essentially the US controls it's own destiny, entirely.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • Options
    Wet BanditWet Bandit Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    If the US had not been screwed, the only way they wouldn't have advanced through would have been by losing to Algeria by at least two goals.

    Actually, scratch that. There's a way the US could have gone through even with a blowout loss to Algeria.

    Wet Bandit on
  • Options
    GnomeTankGnomeTank What the what? Portland, OregonRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Except the quality is there? The English team has some of the best players, at their positions, in the world, this was pointed out earlier. It's not a quality issue, I don't think.
    How do we measure how good these players are in comparison to those from other countries? Because playing against each other in football matches has not worked out too well for England. :(

    I guess you have a point.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • Options
    The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Our best players are all midfielders and don't go well together. We refuse to drop any, so constantly switch between tortured formations. Our players are getting older, but are always fallen back on in the face of bad results/play, preventing newer/younger players from getting a proper look in.

    The Fourth Estate on
  • Options
    WMain00WMain00 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    At the rate England are going I wouldn't be surprised if they lost next game.

    WMain00 on
  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2010
    Jesus Fucking Christ that was utterly woeful.

    Bogart on
  • Options
    CommunistCowCommunistCow Abstract Metal ThingyRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Essentially the US controls it's own destiny, entirely.

    Outside of fuckwit refs.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Options
    815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Our best players are all midfielders and don't go well together. We refuse to drop any, so constantly switch between tortured formations. Our players are getting older, but are always fallen back on in the face of bad results/play, preventing newer/younger players from getting a proper look in.
    The midfield has always been a huge problem for England. The way I see it there are only three true world beaters in England right now (Rooney, Gerrard, Joe Cole) and for some reason England refuses to play two wingers at the same time, even if it means leaving out Cole. Lampard has to be included just in case you need someone who can't do anything as well as Gerrard in the middle.

    815165 on
  • Options
    TlexTlex Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Except the quality is there? The English team has some of the best players, at their positions, in the world, this was pointed out earlier. It's not a quality issue, I don't think.
    How do we measure how good these players are in comparison to those from other countries? Because playing against each other in football matches has not worked out too well for England. :(

    Because they're some of the highest scorers and are consistently ranked amongst the best players in one of the best leagues(if not the best) in the world? Because many of the England squad play in Champions League semi's and finals on a regular basis. The quality of individual players cannot be disputed, but once you put them together in a team, oh man.

    Tlex on
  • Options
    mynameisguidomynameisguido Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Essentially the US controls it's own destiny, entirely.

    Outside of fuckwit refs.

    The fuckwit ref wouldn't have mattered that much if we hadn't played such shit defense in the first half.

    Doesn't excuse the error, though, obviously.

    mynameisguido on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    Wet BanditWet Bandit Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Essentially the US controls it's own destiny, entirely.

    Outside of fuckwit refs.

    lol

    Wet Bandit on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ref from US-Slovenia is officially refusing comment btw

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Cabezone wrote: »
    nameless wrote: »
    USA: all offense, no defense since 1775.

    We can't help it it's our environment. We're surrounded by vast oceans and harmless countries.
    Canada wrote:
    Hey, it's mostly harmless.

    lowlylowlycook on
    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • Options
    namelessnameless Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Frankly, I find our first half ineptitude rather charming right now. Every game is a goddamned Hollywood comeback.

    nameless on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    DarklyreDarklyre Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Darklyre wrote: »
    I'm still for the rule that you get 0 points if you have a nil-nil draw because both teams suck and deserve to lose.

    I am a strong proponent of the TF2 stalemate rule.

    Which is?

    A TF2 match that ends in a stalemate results in the announcer saying "You've failed! Stalemate!" with a friendly message to all players stating "You're all losers!"

    Darklyre on
  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2010
    I mean for fuck's sake seeing Gerard trying to lay the ball off when he has a clear shot on goal was just gobsmacking. Utterly pathetic.

    Bogart on
  • Options
    The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    Our best players are all midfielders and don't go well together. We refuse to drop any, so constantly switch between tortured formations. Our players are getting older, but are always fallen back on in the face of bad results/play, preventing newer/younger players from getting a proper look in.
    The midfield has always been a huge problem for England. The way I see it there are only three true world beaters in England right now (Rooney, Gerrard, Joe Cole) and for some reason England refuses to play two wingers at the same time, even if it means leaving out Cole. Lampard has to be included just in case you need someone who can't do anything as well as Gerrard in the middle.

    Pretty much. Lampard also always gets to have the offensive midfield spot, never Gerrard.

    The Fourth Estate on
  • Options
    815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Tlex wrote: »
    Because they're some of the highest scorers and are consistently ranked amongst the best players in one of the best leagues(if not the best) in the world? Because many of the England squad play in Champions League semi's and finals on a regular basis. The quality of individual players cannot be disputed, but once you put them together in a team, oh man.
    Champion's League success has largely been the result of economics, rather than the ability of English players, EPL teams do well in Europe because they can afford the best players from all over the world; and very few of these are English. :(

    815165 on
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    WMain00 wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    In terms of England, what do you Brits think about the theory that the English team is so terrible in the World Cup because all your best players are so worn down from the Premiere League season?

    I've heard that brought up a lot.

    I more put it down to them just being terrible, but hey!

    They're paid obscene amounts of money purely to be in peak shape and give their all for 90 measly minutes. If they're tired from the Premier League then they can go fuck themselves. At least Green doesn't feel too bad alone anymore.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    TlexTlex Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lampard is a fantastic player, with a better scoring record than 90% of strikers....he's just shit in combination with Gerrard.

    edit: to thefouthestate, Gerrard was the catalyst for Liverpool's 2005 champions league win, and Lampard the catalyst for all of Chelsea's titles, the same could be said of Rooney.

    Tlex on
  • Options
    The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Tlex wrote: »
    Lampard is a fantastic finisher, with a better scoring record than 90% of strikers....he's just shit in combination with Gerrard.

    Gerrard is the far superior all round player.

    EDIT: To Tlex. Gerrard has been much, much more motivated then Lampard in the England team. Lampard might be a catalyst for his club, but he doesn't bring it with him to the national side.

    The Fourth Estate on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Mission accomplished. The call is being called "The Phantom Foul."

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Tlex wrote: »
    Lampard is a fantastic player, with a better scoring record than 90% of strikers....he's just shit in combination with Gerrard.
    What does he do better than Gerrard, though? His strike record for England is nearly identical. Neither of them are good off the ball so you need a holding player in the middle to play with either. I've never understood why England even bothered attempting to play them together, let alone waste years on it and sideline top players to fit them in.

    815165 on
  • Options
    The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    Tlex wrote: »
    Lampard is a fantastic player, with a better scoring record than 90% of strikers....he's just shit in combination with Gerrard.
    What does he do better than Gerrard, though? His strike record for England is nearly identical. Neither of them are good off the ball so you need a holding player in the middle to play with either. I've never understood why England even bothered attempting to play them together, let alone waste years on it and sideline top players to fit them in.

    Gerrard also has better chemistry with England's holding midfielders, especially Barry.

    The Fourth Estate on
  • Options
    Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I'm happy with any England game which doesn't end with Rooney eating one of Crouch's limbs.

    Low standards are the key to watching England.

    Space Coyote on
  • Options
    CommunistCowCommunistCow Abstract Metal ThingyRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Essentially the US controls it's own destiny, entirely.

    Outside of fuckwit refs.

    The fuckwit ref wouldn't have mattered that much if we hadn't played such shit defense in the first half.

    Doesn't excuse the error, though, obviously.

    True but football games have such close scores that you can't count on blowing out the other team every time to nullify hooooorrrible calls by refs.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Options
    TlexTlex Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Gerrard is undisputably the better player in almost every way, he's one of the best attacking midfielders in the world, but Lampard is still exceptional(except for England!).

    Tlex on
  • Options
    TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I'm happy with any England game which doesn't end with Rooney eating one of Crouch's limbs.

    Low standards are the key to watching England.

    Well ... it has kept you guys believing for over 40 years that you can win another world cup ... sometime. So there is that.

    TheBigEasy on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think Gerrard is the superior player but then I support Liverpool

    Who will play central defense for England? Upson with Terry?

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    I'm happy with any England game which doesn't end with Rooney eating one of Crouch's limbs.

    Low standards are the key to watching England.

    Well ... it has kept you guys believing for over 40 years that you can win another world cup ... sometime. So there is that.

    No, no, that's our entitlement complex.

    The Fourth Estate on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I tried to work out what will happen if England draw with Slovenia and the USA beat Algeria. It is pretty complicated. USA and Slovenia go through, but the 1st/2nd progression is messy. Could come down to lots!

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I love how Charlotte Richards on Radio 5 always talks to defeated (..drawn) English players as though their mum has just died. "How are you feeling?"
    PantsB wrote: »
    I think Gerrard is the superior player but then I support Liverpool

    Who will play central defense for England? Upson with Terry?

    Two months ago Upson was 2nd choice. Presumably he'll play, making him now 5th choice!

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    I'm happy with any England game which doesn't end with Rooney eating one of Crouch's limbs.

    Low standards are the key to watching England.

    Well ... it has kept you guys believing for over 40 years that you can win another world cup ... sometime. So there is that.

    No, no, that's our entitlement complex.

    At least you guys prepare a victory party in case you all of a sudden DO win the cup ... with us (Germans) its always a crapload of pessimism up front, when in fact Germany is the team with the most finals participation (we played in 7 finals games, winning 3) of all ...

    Then again, watching Podolski waste all those chances and a fucking penalty kick today can make a pessimist out of the cheeriest fellow ... :(

    TheBigEasy on
  • Options
    815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    At least you guys prepare a victory party in case you all of a sudden DO win the cup ... with us (Germans) its always a crapload of pessimism up front, when in fact Germany is the team with the most finals participation (we played in 7 finals games, winning 3) of all ...

    Then again, watching Podolski waste all those chances and a fucking penalty kick today can make a pessimist out of the cheeriest fellow ... :(
    Podolski was terrible today, are you sure he's not English? Like the Queen and that.

    815165 on
Sign In or Register to comment.