Official Football Thread
- Thread starter national acrobat
- Start date
Albie
Keeping an open eye on the Weeping Angels.
The English feel the same when they play Germany or Argentina. These "friendlies" are rarely played as such due to the history between England and either of the two mentioned. A perfect example was the last time England played Argentina in a friendly in Switzerland before the last World Cup - England won 3-2 in a game that neither team wanted to loose.Forostar said:I know what you mean by saying "for competition matches", but I can't resist to say the following, if you don't mind.
A friendly match vs Germany is not competitive, aye?
In the Netherlands we have always seen matches vs Germany as VERY competitive ones with at least as much motivation as in any other competition.
We English are constantly put through the mill by our national team, so if you can somehow feel the same tension that we feel, then you may understand why we are always left heartbroken.Forostar said:
That is about right - as it stands at the moment. But we can really say that only Germany and Italy are the major forces in European football, year in year out, and their record speaks for itself. To some degree, the Dutch have a good record at major tournaments, but for all their effort they have only won the Euro's once - in '88 - and never the World Cup. This inspite of their many appearances in the final.Onhell said:
As of France, we only need to go back to prior to France '98 (and to a lesser extent Euro '96) to see how consistently poor they were - after Platini and before Zidane.
Spain always cock it up, Portugal have had a reasonable run of it of late and England never get passed a penalty shoot out in the last eight.
I do agree with most of the above and yes, we do have our fair share of foreigners, but most of the English squad is picked from the best teams in the Premiership (Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, etc.). And what makes the Premiership attractive is not only down to the foreigners (Rooney, Beckham, Gerrard, etc.), a lot is the history that the teams have carved out for themselves in Europe as well.Forostar said:With all respect, the last semi-final England reached was 11 years ago, so I wouldn't put them in the Big Three.
(I warn you, the following you won't see on the BBC): English football is famous for their attractive competition, where many foreigners play. The competition doesn't resemble their national team in any way, nor vice versa. That's an understatement. Two totally different worlds. In this way, one could even say that, the term English football is the most paradoxal term in the history of football. Sorry to say, Albie (& national acrobat, if I'm not mistaken) but this is really what I think of it. You can pay me back if England comes far next year!
One of our main problems of translating the domestic game to the national side (there are other issues), is either they don't play as well in an England shirt (Lampard) or they are picked to play alongside a similar player (i.e. Gerrard and Lampard should never play together). So I'm guess I'm saying Lampard should be dropped.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Albie said:
And there you see again what's wrong with Germany. Everybody else considers Germany one of the best football nations on the planet, but the Germans always act like it's the first snow in their life when Germany reaches the semi-finals... which happens nearly every cup.
porcnoz
Trooper
Albie said:One of our main problems of translating the domestic game to the national side (there are other issues), is either they don't play as well in an England shirt (Lampard) or they are picked to play alongside a similar player (i.e. Gerrard and Lampard should never play together). So I'm guess I'm saying Lampard should be dropped.
I don't understand why England has Lampard and Gerrard, who are quite similar players, and not more than M. Owen and W. Rooney to score ! I know I didn't mention P. Crouch, but it seems that S. McClaren will have some difficulties with that for the next qualifing match, as far as W. Rooney and M. Owen won't be able to play it...
Albie said:
There were good players, like E. Cantona, but it's true a single player doesn't make a team. It's also said France didn't manage to integrate young players to Platini's team, in order to make a proper transition.
Albie said:
France does too for England. Maybe there can't be any real friendly match between : England, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, France and maybe Spain and Portugal.
Perun said:
When will Germany manage to build a new real great team ?
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Perun, I also get a bit sick of all the fake-complaining about football, lately (not much on this forum, though). Especially at my work they pretend to know it all better. But when you ask further its clear they don't follow it that well, so they can't judge well either.
Everyone (even people who hardly watch) pretend to know that the national team is playing bad. "Van Basten can't make Holland play attractive football".
People are sometimes just like parrots, only reading things from papers, hearing things in the train or bus and not watching matches themselves or not completely, stating "Ahh, I switched channels after 20 minutes because it was a bad match".
All the time the same criticism as well. It's never good enough. The game should be more attractive, this player was bad, that player made a blunder. In the end the result doesn't seem to count anymore.
A lot of people I know said that Greece didn't deserve to win in 2004 (they already shouted this before the final had started). Greece doesn't play attractive football, the Portugese were better, better technique etc. They forget that hard working and good defending is at least important to get a good result.
Now let's take France. What's the use to complain about how bad they were between 1984 and 1996. We did that 11 years ago.
Everyone (even people who hardly watch) pretend to know that the national team is playing bad. "Van Basten can't make Holland play attractive football".
People are sometimes just like parrots, only reading things from papers, hearing things in the train or bus and not watching matches themselves or not completely, stating "Ahh, I switched channels after 20 minutes because it was a bad match".
All the time the same criticism as well. It's never good enough. The game should be more attractive, this player was bad, that player made a blunder. In the end the result doesn't seem to count anymore.
A lot of people I know said that Greece didn't deserve to win in 2004 (they already shouted this before the final had started). Greece doesn't play attractive football, the Portugese were better, better technique etc. They forget that hard working and good defending is at least important to get a good result.
Now let's take France. What's the use to complain about how bad they were between 1984 and 1996. We did that 11 years ago.
Albie
Keeping an open eye on the Weeping Angels.
Tell these folk that Greece deserved to win because they beat the Portuguese in the final. Not only did they get to the final, but they won it as well - how more deserving can you get.Forostar said:
You can be as pretty as you like, but it's balls in the back of the net that count.
We English still have a big soft spot for Cantona (unless you really do have that much hatred for Man U - or you're a Leeds fan - which covers both angles).porcnoz said:
I have to admit and from an English point of view, when it comes to football, England v France does not come anywhere near the passion and rivalry that an England v France rugby match can.porcnoz said:
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Forostar said:
I was not thrilled with a Greece win, but I don't think I used the words "didn't deserve". That's just my two cents.
Albie said:
Except that Greece did not put that many balls in the back of the net.
porcnoz said:
Usually England, Italy, Germany, France and Spain are the seeded teams from that group. The Spaniards tend to be the "perennial underachievers" as I've heard them called on a number of occasions. Usually the Dutch and lately the Portugese out-perform them.
Forostar said:
I was 9 then. I loved that World Cup and cheered for Argentina while my father cheered for Germany. It left a big impression on me. Next World Cup, I cheered for the Germans though because I was a little older and learned to respect their work ethic.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Genghis Khan said:Except that Greece did not put that many balls in the back of the net.
Well, they did put more balls in the back of the net than their opponents did.
Actually, for me intensity in a match is the most important when it comes to entertainment. Of course it is nice to see a heel-flick or some good dribbling, and precise passing, and good control of the ball. But this doesn't guarantee a good match. In terms of entertainment, nothing beats a big derby match between two good sides. Even though the quality in such matches is often low in terms of finesse, these games are intense with lot of emotions. And I think that's what football is all about.
Then sympathy and antipathy are also emotions. During Euro 2004, some had sympathy with the Greeks while other despised them for their defensive and cynical style of play. Personally, I supported Greece in the final because I have more respect for hard-working players than the Portuguese primadonnas. I mean, my general impression of the Portuguese players (clubs AND national team) is that they whine more, go down easier and cheat more than most other European teams. I have some memories of rather ridiculous diving from Portuguese players:
UEFA cup, 2003: Benfica playing against Rosenborg at Lerkendal. The Benfica goalkeeper collides with another player and goes down, seemingly in great pain. After some time on the grass, he realizes the ball lies on the ground besides him. He gets on his feet, takes the ball and kicks it into row Y, before going down to the grass again.
Champions League, 2005: Benfica vs Man United in Lisbon. United have a corner, the ball goes to Paul Scholes who stands with his back towards the goal and tries an overhead kick. Unfortunately, he misses the ball and hits a Benfica player in the chest. The player next to the one who was hit goes to the ground as if he'd been shot
Sure, Portugal has produced some fine footballers, some of them are very entertaining to watch, but there is a dark side as well.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Forostar said:
Portugal-Holland ... ahh, the memories. The match between the two in the 2006 World cup was some of the most insane I've seen of international football. It was like a war without guns. I don't recall the 2004 match very well, but Portugal delaying the game doesn't surprise much. All teams will use more time when they are in the lead, but not to the same manner as the Portuguese and some Eastern Europe teams. The match between Norway and Yugoslavia (now Serbia) in Euro 2000 still increases my blood pressure when I think about it. After they got the lead after a few minutes, they never tried to play decent football ... I was very pleased when your team hammered them 6-1 later in the tournament
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Eddies Wingman said:Personally, I supported Greece in the final because I have more respect for hard-working players than the Portuguese primadonnas. I mean, my general impression of the Portuguese players (clubs AND national team) is that they whine more, go down easier and cheat more than most other European teams. I have some memories of rather ridiculous diving from Portuguese players:
UEFA cup, 2003: Benfica playing against Rosenborg at Lerkendal. The Benfica goalkeeper collides with another player and goes down, seemingly in great pain. After some time on the grass, he realizes the ball lies on the ground besides him. He gets on his feet, takes the ball and kicks it into row Y, before going down to the grass again.
Champions League, 2005: Benfica vs Man United in Lisbon. United have a corner, the ball goes to Paul Scholes who stands with his back towards the goal and tries an overhead kick. Unfortunately, he misses the ball and hits a Benfica player in the chest. The player next to the one who was hit goes to the ground as if he'd been shot
Sure, Portugal has produced some fine footballers, some of them are very entertaining to watch, but there is a dark side as well.
Albie, I and some others had a discussion about faking it on the pitch. It is the most disgusting aspect of football. FIFA really ought to do something -- like fine those players. The problem is determining exactly where to draw the line.
porcnoz
Trooper
Albie said:
That's for sure and quite logical for rugby, England and France are the two best teams in Europe. I couldn't believe what happened in 1/2 final this year. England was said dead until they lost versus South Africa (0 - 36) and goes to the final...
I saw a documentary about rivalry between these two teams, and both were jalous of the other team's main quality (imagination for France and pragmatism for England).
Genghis Khan said:
Spaniards made me lauh so much during last World Cup. France meeted them for 1/8 final, and what we heard from them was "We"re sorry for Zidane, we love him, but his career will stop just after this match", that's what players of the national team were saying before. The price for being so pretentious : go back hom ! That's what France did too in final...
Their slogan for 2006 World Cup "España. Un país, una ilusión". A big illusion I would say !
Eddies Wingman said:
I didn't exactly remember that match until I saw this statistical : 16 yellow cards (9 for Portugal) and 4 red cards (2 each other).
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Guys, regarding the Eng vs Cro issue;
Both England and Russia hold close ties to Serbia, England because of mutual royal history, and Russia because of orthodox church. That doesn't mean they're against Croatia. Serbia isn't against Croatia, some Serbs may be, and some Croats may be on the opposite side, but that's stupid brainwash propaganda issue.
Both England and Russia have played a positive role in the 90's civil war here. Russia especially, in Bosnian situation.
Yugoslavia had an "informbiro dissolution" period, when Tito openly said "no" to Stalin, and JNA (yugoslav people's army) was one step before fighting the mighty Red Army on the Hungarian and Bulgarian border. However, things loosened down, and after Stalin died, Yugoslavia had equal trade, political and military cooperation with Soviet Union and United States.
Nowadays, Russia is among the biggest trade and cultural partners of Croatia, with big stocks in industry, military, tourism, and alike. Just like England, but on the bit different domains.
So this whole prelude points out, that we don't have a "friendlier" state there. With both, we have a healthy bilatteral relationship. However, some people wouldn't like to see England qualify, because of harsh and unprofessional critique that their tabloids (The Sun, primarily) released after the match in Zagreb (that England lost 2-0). Especially regarding statements about our coach.
But that's just some people. Id like to see Croatia win, not because i don't like England, i like British people. I just want my team to win, always.
And that's the opinion of both the coach and the players. Go there and try to win. We've already qualified, and we could look at this match as an early preparation stage. You know, those that qualify always play a couple of friendly matches before the tournament, for preparations. Well, this is going to be the best preparation match, because the stakes are high for the home team, and it's not going to be a "friendly match" mood on the pitch. A real intro to the EC2008.
So, three hours and counting, and may the best team win!
P.S. I'm sure that England will enjoy referee support. Like it or not, football is about the money today, and it's more attractive to see England on the championship, than Russia. More attractive, more spectators, more money.
Both England and Russia hold close ties to Serbia, England because of mutual royal history, and Russia because of orthodox church. That doesn't mean they're against Croatia. Serbia isn't against Croatia, some Serbs may be, and some Croats may be on the opposite side, but that's stupid brainwash propaganda issue.
Both England and Russia have played a positive role in the 90's civil war here. Russia especially, in Bosnian situation.
Yugoslavia had an "informbiro dissolution" period, when Tito openly said "no" to Stalin, and JNA (yugoslav people's army) was one step before fighting the mighty Red Army on the Hungarian and Bulgarian border. However, things loosened down, and after Stalin died, Yugoslavia had equal trade, political and military cooperation with Soviet Union and United States.
Nowadays, Russia is among the biggest trade and cultural partners of Croatia, with big stocks in industry, military, tourism, and alike. Just like England, but on the bit different domains.
So this whole prelude points out, that we don't have a "friendlier" state there. With both, we have a healthy bilatteral relationship. However, some people wouldn't like to see England qualify, because of harsh and unprofessional critique that their tabloids (The Sun, primarily) released after the match in Zagreb (that England lost 2-0). Especially regarding statements about our coach.
But that's just some people. Id like to see Croatia win, not because i don't like England, i like British people. I just want my team to win, always.
And that's the opinion of both the coach and the players. Go there and try to win. We've already qualified, and we could look at this match as an early preparation stage. You know, those that qualify always play a couple of friendly matches before the tournament, for preparations. Well, this is going to be the best preparation match, because the stakes are high for the home team, and it's not going to be a "friendly match" mood on the pitch. A real intro to the EC2008.
So, three hours and counting, and may the best team win!
P.S. I'm sure that England will enjoy referee support. Like it or not, football is about the money today, and it's more attractive to see England on the championship, than Russia. More attractive, more spectators, more money.
Zare said:
That makes me sad that the refs could be that biased. I mean, when I watch hockey I occasionally complain, and it's occasionally terrible (72 Summit Series Game 6?)...nevertheless, I certainly hope this is just cynical...