• Hello Guest, You'll need to login or signup to be able to post on here.

England and the Euros

It hasn't been the best tournament, but it has been alright, but when there's been other things to be concerned about, it shouldn't be much of a surprise.

As for England, it isn't the end of the world for England, while finishing top would look ideal for England, there probably isn't too much difference between first and second in group B, given what the potential opponents would be in each position.

I'll go with the as it stands at this moment in time. 1st place of Group B, i.e. Wales will face either of Albania, Northern Ireland or Czech Republic. 2nd place of Group B, i.e. England will face anyone from Iceland, Hungary, Portugal or Austria, none of them are gimmes and it would be the same if it was role reversal, but if you have a look at the potential opponents for group winners and runners up of other groups (see for yourself, I won't bother explaining) it doesn't look too bad for England with the way it's shaping out.

That said, England need to take their chances against teams where they've had more chances against. Look at Wales, they scored 5 against against Russia and Slovakia, England have scored 1. I don't know how Wales performed against Russia, but anyone that has watched the England games will know where I'm coming from.
 
matthew james hardy said:
Think we've got some very talented players but definitely have a woeful manager in Roy
Click to expand...

In fairness he can do little once the players have take to the field. He has no control over woeful crosses and poor finishing. Not convinced the players are under instruction to play as much negative sideways passing or to fail to beat the defender on the near post at corners either ;)
We always overestimate our capabilities as a squad of players and this tournament is no different. We qualified unbeaten in runners-up spot, that's enough to be going on with :D
 
Was mainly questioning his squad decision leaving the likes of Drinkwater and Townsend at home and taking Wilshere who had only played 1 game for Arsenal all least season and Raheem Sterling who had a very poor season at Man City.
 
It was poor from England, but let's give Iceland some very well deserved credit. They were the better team throughout the game and had a clear system that their players understood. England on the other hand, I wasn't too sure what they wanted to do, or were trying to do, but there were some things that were questionable, such as Kane taking set pieces for example, fair enough if it's a free kick from 25 yards out, but corners and tight free kicks don't make sense.

I'm going to waffle onto something else that I don't get, but have seen it on social media quite a bit now. I don't get this whole population thing that a lot of people that a lot of people have mentioned e.g. England lost to a team that had a population of Leicester/smaller than Cheshire West. Too me, population isn't as big an impact as some people seem to think it is. Uruguay won world cups with under 3 million and got a semi 4 years ago. In rugby, Samoa have been fairly successful, being a pain in the backside for the best sides in the world, yet have a population of under 200,000 people. Why are Iceland any different?
 
Of course you have to give Iceland credit it's just embarassing to be English beaten by a population the size of Leicester that says it all really
 
matthew james hardy said:
Of course you have to give Iceland credit it's just embarassing to be English beaten by a population the size of Leicester that says it all really
Click to expand...

You saw what I was saying about population in my last post before right?

If it was all down to population, why aren't China and India contesting world cup finals, battering the Olympics, rugby, any sport there is out there at this moment in time?

In fact, whilst we're at it, if we compared the England's population in relation to population ranking in a world cup for example, we wouldn't even get out the group stages, as would France and Germany. The Philippines, The Democratic Republic of the dance move and Ethiopia, would be in the last 16. Bangladesh and Pakistan would be in the quarter finals and Indonesia and the USA would reach the semi finals, but not Brazil. How many of those countries would you say have been truly successful at world cups. How many of them haven't reached a world cup rather? (I know Indonesia have by the way).

I know I'm exaggerating here, but I'm reiterating my point of not understanding why there seems to be population comparisons between countries, when they aren't the reason for success or failures.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely disgraceful a team allegedly worth hundreds of millions getting beat by a team who's best player can't get in Cardiff city's team
And there 2nd best getting relegated from the championship with charlton and the rest paying subs on a Sunday morning pathetic
 
Well at least the England team accepted the result of the Brexit vote and took us straight out of Europe.
Same old England, doubt it will ever change.
 
Atticus Finch said:
I think that Engerland have had a great tournament, similar to those in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014!!
Click to expand...
At least it was better than Scotland! Not by much though!

Streety needs to put his name in the hat. Would do a lot better than some of those in the betting.
 
I think the idea of populations also links to that individual country. Football is our national sport where millions of people play it. Icelands national sport is Handball and the resources contributed to football is next to nothing. The teams that Icelands players start with and are coached by are part-time and the players will be aiming to make a living out of football and just to play outside of Iceland
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top