Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I watched that Arsenal Spurs game in the Foresters Arms (now the Bishop) and there was one Spurs fan still celebrating hard after the final whistle (after Spurs late equalizer) and eventually he looked back up at the big screen and gasped in astonishment, 'have arsenal won the league' then marched out in a huff...

If England win the World Cup it'll be because likes of Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Holland, Italy, France have seriously underperformed. England simply aren't good enough. Over the last 18 months they've been defeated every time they've played a top nation - only match I can think where they have delivered (result wise) is drawing 2-2 with Holland.


Watching some of the Russia game yesterday and the passing and technique throughout the team was so far ahead of England. The only way England's style can defeat the top teams is if they can play a very high tempo - and then it goes back to are they capable of putting together a string of such performances in the knockout stages.

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No need dear boy. It's fully attached in the

> memory bank as I was there unlike your good self.



True I wasn't there, but then again if I were a Spuds fan I'm not sure I would have wanted to be there when the mighty Arsenal win the title (AGAIN) in your backyard. 61 never again, or alternatively 48 years and counting. And people have the audacity to give us stick!!

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not really sure what the point was yesterday.


Let's put a positive spin on it, at least (we hope) the journos now won't whip up a campaign bordering on mass hysteria about how England are going to win the WC. Had we beaten Brazil we would never had heard the last of it.

I still think England with our strongest 11 are capable of doing well, with a lucky draw and no major injuries maybe as far as the semis. Like any cup competition the best team on paper doesn't necessarily always win it...

2 or 3....


This was the Italy team that won the World Cup - yes they played poorly but I reckon there'd have been more Italians than England players. What England players do you think would have made it onto the pitch?


Buffon, Zambrotta, Cannavaro, Materazzi, Grosso, Camoranesi (Del Piero 86), Pirlo, Gattuso, Perrotta (Iaquinta 61), Totti (De Rossi 61), Toni.

Subs Not Used: Amelia, Barone, Barzagli, Gilardino, Inzaghi, Nesta, Oddo, Peruzzi, Zaccardo.

Couldn't see Campbell getting in ahead of Cannavaro, or Hargreaves ahead of Guttuso - and don't forget Cup Final hero Steven Gerrard!


The most important reason for England's failure imo is their style of football in not being able to play from the back. The England back 4 (who ever plays) often look like a pack of lame donkeys down at the beach and until they have technicians bringing the ball out I think they will always come unstuck. England on their day when they're firing on all cylinders can beat anyone BUT, and it's a big but, they can not sustain the tempo required with quick fire matches in a short space of time needed to actually win World Cup.

Gerrard - apologies...the hurt was too much!!


I think Cole and Ferdinand (of 2006) can bring it out. I get your point and it's a valid one but going back overtime we've not been far off a few times and with a bit of luck who knows.


1982 - out without losing, Absolutetly slaughtered France looked formidable until the very stupid and complex 2nd groups stage where a more scared looking team plus defensive Germany and Spain meant we dropped out unbeaten after two draws


1986 - that was a World Cup up for the grabs. Beaten, just, by the brilliance and cheating of Maradonna


1990 - Those pesky penalties after being far better than germany, we would have beaten Argentina


1998 - I think we had a great team at this tournament. Again penalties in a game we looked the better team. France were formidable but we deserved to progress further.


2002 - Typical Sven, cautious and out.


2006 - see above, plus poor squad selection

1982 - England went into this World Cup singing, 'This time more than any other time blah blah blah' but they can be thankful they kept their dignity having not had to play Brazil.


1986 - I think this was a poor England team who only progressed because of Linekar.


1990 - England played one great game and they lost it. Let us not forget they stuggled against Egypt, Ireland, Belgium and Cameroon and were a little fortunate to reach the semi finals.


I think a lot of it also comes down to the location of the World Cup - make no bones about it England suffer more than others when it's hot and humid. With it being winter in South Africa maybe it'll help England.

Atila, I personally think that Brazil and Holland were better than France in '98. Look how France progressed through the tournament, it hardly set the world on fire, then they played a final where Brazil were not themselves, and Zidane had a good game.


Don't worry mate, I'm not having a dig at Henry, or any other Arsenal player. In fact, the best bit of skill in that tournament was from your very own Dennis.

I have to agree with Atila on this one - France got stronger as the tournament progressed and were worthy winners.


Wondering what happened at the end of the Ireland v France qualifier on Saturday, all has been revealed. According to the Daily Mail, Diarra said to Ireland's Keith Andrews at the final whistle, '**** off, Irish p****. You are out.' So having taken the moral high ground and use it as a legitimate tool to motivate themselves in Paris, Keith Andrews has now responded in the cold light of day by saying, 'It was a disrespectful comment which typifies them' ... which effectively also now does a team talk for the French! Unbelievable!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1228111/Republic-Ireland-0-France-1-Irish-rage-Lassana-Diarra-slur-head-make-break-Paris-World-Cup-play-match.html

kpc Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The description of Richard Dunne "...his eyes

> bulging, his biceps and enormous hands ready to

> maim".



Is this the same Richard Dunne that, according to Mick Mac, was gonna have Henry in his pocket? You've got to smile haven't you?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • These have reduced over the years, are "perfect" lives Round Robins being replaced by "perfect" lives Instagram posts where we see all year round how people portray their perfect lives ?    The point of this thread is that for the last few years, due to issues at the mail offices, we had delays to post over Christmas. Not really been flagged as an issue this year but I am still betting on the odd card, posted well before Christmas, arriving late January. 
    • Two subjects here.  Xmas cards,  We receive and send less of them.  One reason is that the cost of postage - although interestingly not as much as I thought say compared to 10 years ago (a little more than inflation).  Fun fact when inflation was double digits in the 70s cost of postage almost doubled in one year.  Postage is not a good indication of general inflation fluctuating a fair bit.  The huge rise in international postage that for a 20g Christmas card to Europe (no longer a 20g price, now have to do up to 100g), or a cheapskate 10g card to the 'States (again have to go up to the 100g price) , both around a quid in 2015, and now has more than doubled in real terms.  Cards exchanged with the US last year were arriving in the New Year.  Funnily enough they came much quicker this year.  So all my cards abroad were by email this year. The other reason we send less cards is that it was once a good opportunity to keep in touch with news.  I still personalise many cards with a news and for some a letter, and am a bit grumpy when I get a single line back,  Or worse a round robin about their perfect lives and families.  But most of us now communicate I expect primarily by WhatApp, email, FB etc.  No need for lightweight airmail envelope and paper in one.    The other subject is the mail as a whole. Privitisation appears to have done it no favours and the opening up of competition with restrictions on competing for parcel post with the new entrants.  Clearly unless you do special delivery there is a good chance that first class will not be delivered in a day as was expected in the past.   Should we have kept a public owned service subsidised by the tax payer?  You could also question how much lead on innovation was lost following the hiving off of the national telecommunications and mail network.
    • Why have I got a feeling there was also a connection with the beehive in Brixton on that road next to the gym
    • Ah, thanks,  it all comes flooding back. I've actually been to the Hastings shop, I'd forgotten all about it, along with her name! Didn't she (in between?)  take over what  was then The Magnolia, previously The Magdala, now The Lordship, with her then partner? Or is that some figment of my imagination?  In fact, didn't they transform it from The Magdala (much missed) to The Magnolia? With flowery wallpaper covering the front of the bar? Which reminds me of the pub's brief period after The Magnolia  as the ill-conceived and ill-fated The Patch.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...