Wholley wrote:Calm down ladies.
I have the biggest handbag so you wouldn't want me to get involved.
It's a farking game.
You lost(Again)
It's not like Baseball after all,
now that would be serious
Just to add, 'World Series'?? Yea....right.
Doesn't count if it's just played in one country. Now, I must go forth and return to the 'World Series' of taking a dump.
AJ
"First with your head and then with your heart. Don't stop."
Wholley wrote:Calm down ladies.
I have the biggest handbag so you wouldn't want me to get involved.
It's a farking game.
You lost(Again)
It's not like Baseball after all,
now that would be serious
Just to add, 'World Series'?? Yea....right.
Doesn't count if it's just played in one country. Now, I must go forth and return to the 'World Series' of taking a dump.
world series in baseball lol i played baseball in junior school it was called rounders!!! american sports make me laugh sometimes football i tried watching it everytime a player got the ball and was tackled play was stoped! at least with ice hockey its a mans game as you ca tell i play ice hockey!!!
ex nod was diagnosed with chronic compartment syndrome rejoining eventually.
currently in australia as im traveling the world before i rejoin the marines.
[quote="ADDiction"]Dangermouse, how can you defend McClaren?/quote]
I'm not saying McClaren is a good manager - he had something like 39% success rates at Middlesbrough. All i'm saying is that it can not be put down to one man, especially since every manager of recent is blamed for England's lack of success, from Talyor to McClaren, including Eriksson who was quite good (although for a time people decided to blame David Seaman). this is without saying that if Croatia didn't score that third goal then McClaren would probably still be manager and England would be in the final.
I hear it all the time - 'England are potentially the best, 'they have some of the best players in the world' (which to me is bollocks - maybe three or four brillient players, but not enough for a strong full squad), the Premiership is the best league in the world, etc. Potential means nothing when practice dictates otherwise - England are simply not a great team, and have not been for a while.
All i'm saying is that people need to realise that England are not the great team and do not have the best players as they otherwise claim. England has got a lot of work to do, yes, but the expectations of fans seems to be unjustified given their form over recent years. I would even go so far as to say that the patriotism of a lot of fans clouds their judgement - to some it is af is england have a divine right to be in a competition.
But every year its the same - armchair managers telling people how England should have played, what the manager should have done, why the players don't live upto their expectations. England are a poor team because of much more deep-rooted problems, primarily, in my opinion, the failure to harbour a large pool of talented youngsters.
England have not got the potental to be a good team at the moment. The problem is that they would have the potential if problems external to the squad and manager themselves were dealt with. I can't believe that England did not qualify because of the 'lack of spirit' by the players, their wages, or because of managerial tactics, or even because the FA appointed the wrong man (which I accept is true - it should have went to O'Neil or Big Sam). England have some sort of belief that its only a matter of appointing the right manager - as if Martin O'Neil or Jose Mourinho could themselves make England a World Cup or European Cup winning squad. Every year you get the media bithing about one or two particular players.
I'm not saying England should be winning because its got a population of about 50million (that means f@#k all). What I am saying is that England has a huge number of good, young footballers. If England wants to develop into a good team, and remain as a good team, a lot more work needs to be done other than simply blaming inidividuals and hoping the FA will rotate the staff around a bit in the blind hope that it will emply a winning combination.
Take Brazil for example - a team that you always expect to be up there ahead of the rest. Brazil aren't successful because they have the best managers, but because they have a consistantly good pool of players to chose from, and the reasns for that are more societal than the insitutions of Brazilian football.
But then again take Greece - a team of quite mediocre players winning the European Cup. Thats not because they had a good manager, nor is it becasue Greece has an available pool of good players - Greece is not a consistantly good side. If anything, their success was an anonomly.
It as to be asked - what do England want to be like? A team that can win the odd trophy like Greece, or a team that evokes pride and is consistant like Brazil? At the moment, I'd say England are probably as good as Sweden at best.
Even Mourinho as manager would not make England a great team. England need to face the test of time, instead of their current predicament were the team does not seem to represent England as a nation. I don't even think England has a potential winnable selection of players at present. As for the players themselves, why do they play poorly as a team (why do they 'lack spirit' if you prefer? I can't believe its because of their wages, as if England players are a bunch of mercenaries - becasue they are not. I think the expectations of the fans itself has an adverse effect on the teams performance.
Pound for pound, I'd go as far as saying Wales are better than England. (though that might be baised because i'm currently in Wales).
Those are my opinions anyway, not like they mean anything.
