I personally think it’s belguim or Frances to win now as their teams are just better and I’m confident enough it’ll show pretty clearly if they meet. England have dominated weak teams but very nearly slipped up against the first decent side they’ve faced. How can one deny that? World Cup fever is amazing for a country and I’m not trying to take anything away from getting to a semi final, it doesn’t really matter who you beat if you win it out anyway!
The "England have had it easy" narrative
- Thread starter Alex99
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I personally think it’s belguim or Frances to win now as their teams are just better and I’m confident enough it’ll show pretty clearly if they meet. England have dominated weak teams but very nearly slipped up against the first decent side they’ve faced. How can one deny that? World Cup fever is amazing for a country and I’m not trying to take anything away from getting to a semi final, it doesn’t really matter who you beat if you win it out anyway!
Not sure about "easy", but the route to get this far has not been as difficult as it has been for others.
Belgium had to beat Brazil to get to the semifinal. England had to beat Sweden to get to the semifinal. Of the 8 quarterfinalists, Russia and England were the weakest teams. Every game was a home game for Russia, who proved to be very tough for Croatia to beat. As we expected.
But if England do go on to lift the World Cup trophy, there can be complaints about how easy the road was getting there. England have to beat a very good Croatia and whoever they face in the final, well, will be very tough to beat.
Belgium had to beat Brazil to get to the semifinal. England had to beat Sweden to get to the semifinal. Of the 8 quarterfinalists, Russia and England were the weakest teams. Every game was a home game for Russia, who proved to be very tough for Croatia to beat. As we expected.
But if England do go on to lift the World Cup trophy, there can be complaints about how easy the road was getting there. England have to beat a very good Croatia and whoever they face in the final, well, will be very tough to beat.
honestly they've had one of the easier routes.
I imagine they are saying the same on croatian messageboards.
I imagine they are saying the same on croatian messageboards.
true. if it was played on paper then it would have been easier to organize it so england didnt have such an easy route
That's not what he said.
Perhaps a more objective way of looking at things is by comparing the latest FIFA rankings of the teams faced (I know some people think these are complete horseshit).
Interestingly, if you take the average of the rankings of the sides faced - then England are only behind France in terms of average quality of the opposition. Very surprised by that.
England:
Belgium (3)
Tunisia (21)
Panama (55)
Columbia (16)
Sweden (24)
Average ranking of teams faced: 23.8
Belgium:
England (12)
Tunisia (21)
Panama (55)
Japan (61)
Brazil (2)
Average ranking of teams faced: 30.2
Croatia:
Argentina (5)
Nigeria (48)
Iceland (22)
Denmark (12)
Russia (70)
Average ranking of teams faced: 31.4
France:
Denmark (12)
Peru (11)
Australia (36)
Argentina (5)
Uruguay (14)
Average ranking of teams faced: 15.6
Interestingly, if you take the average of the rankings of the sides faced - then England are only behind France in terms of average quality of the opposition. Very surprised by that.
England:
Belgium (3)
Tunisia (21)
Panama (55)
Columbia (16)
Sweden (24)
Average ranking of teams faced: 23.8
Belgium:
England (12)
Tunisia (21)
Panama (55)
Japan (61)
Brazil (2)
Average ranking of teams faced: 30.2
Croatia:
Argentina (5)
Nigeria (48)
Iceland (22)
Denmark (12)
Russia (70)
Average ranking of teams faced: 31.4
France:
Denmark (12)
Peru (11)
Australia (36)
Argentina (5)
Uruguay (14)
Average ranking of teams faced: 15.6
Because he is a very good referee, I guess. Yes, he harshly sent Nani off and that cost us the game, but that doesn't mean much 5 years later, a time when he has consistently been one of the top referees in Europe. I mean, if you look at the best UEFA refs I guess that him, Mazic, Kuipers and Skomina are the best (I really don't like Byrch). I fully expect one of them to officiate the final (likely Kuipers) but they are all top referees.
Argentina are worse than Colombia and Sweden though. They have been bloody awful in this world Cup and were extremely lucky to pass the group stage in a group which had 2 meh teams.
I think Colombia was a very tough game to come through, Sweden can be awkward but we dispatched of them easily enough but yes the group was a doddle.
Whoever said if England win their next two matches then they really do deserve it is spot on. The next two matches are against top sides. I think they’ll fall just a little short but it all bodes pretty well for the future. You’d all have taken semi finals at the start with a young team and the under age setup thriving. I actually hope they win it and I’m Irish and I know we will never hear the end of it. I Have money on Belguim and France though.
You'd still rather play Argentina than Sweden in a knockout game though wouldn't you?
I mean, if we're talking about an Argentina side that scraped qualification for the tournament itself in the final game, then progressed through their group with a late goal from Marcos Rojo after drawing with Iceland and getting tonked by Croatia, and the Sweden side that beat France and finished ahead of Netherlands during qualification, beat Italy in the play-offs, then topped a group containing Germany after beating South Korea and Mexico, the latter 3-0, then I'd suggest there's not as much between them as people are trying to make out.
Like, every argument for England having an easy route boils down to the gut-feeling that, on paper, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and Italy are better than Sweden, Colombia and Croatia, based on nothing more than the former being more glamorous, historically significant footballing nations than the latter.
This Argentina who were awful and barely managed to qualify both in World Cup (where they finished below Colombia) and group stages? Compared to Sweden who eliminated Netherlands and Italy to come here, then topped a very difficult group and eliminated a strong Switzerland? Undoubtedly, I would have rather played Argentina than any of them (although Colombia without James aren't that good). I mean Argentina being called Argentina doesn't make it a good team. They were dogshit and Croatia could have embarrassed them even more than just 3-0 (which by the way was the third heaviest defeat in this world cup).
I actually am dubious if people actually watched the game or are just 'ah Sweden are shit, Argentina are great, Germany are great, Russia are shit.'
Sorry lads, gotta disagree. Argentina were woeful, but you'd choose to play Argentina over Sweden in a knockout game, regardless of qualification form and tournament form,
You're overrating Argentina if you think they would have been any more of a threat than Sweden. Can't remember when they were last considered to be a threat to anyone (other than themselves, of course).
The fact that numerous people mentioned an absolutely arse Netherlands side as an "elite" side that England have been lucky to avoid, a Netherlands side that as well as failing to even reach the qualification play-offs for this World Cup, couldn't even qualify for Euro 2016 when 3rd in their 6 team group would have secured them an automatic spot, would suggest to me that no, a lot of these people haven't actually watched much of the football, but feel comfortable declaring that a certain list of teams are very good, and other teams are actually not good.
Nah they are still pretty good as they showed for most of the game against Senegal. Loved to have seen Japan's keeper handle Trippier's corners.
Most definitely.
Nope, based on the form in this tournament, and for some teams the form shown before, I'd have taken any of Argentina, Spain, Portugal and Germany. Actually wanted England to go for it against Belgium rather than resting players so they could take momentum into facing a Brazil side that I felt weren't actually all they were cracked up to be.
What I've learned from this thread is that England are hated because of the hype surrounding their big names. When those big names have failed in the past, the ABEs shouted that England didn't deserve anything based on reputations and that their fans were arrogant to think otherwise.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. Spain, Germany, Italy, et al have failed despite having big names with big reputations. And the reaction from some of the same ABEs is one of projection and extreme arrogance: belittling the 'smaller' teams in the knockout stages, despite them being there on merit.
The irony.
It seems the complaints about arrogance were psychological projections at their very worst. Some of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish posters on here never actually cared about English arrogance. They were just jealous they never had the opportunity to be arrogant in return... until now.
The bottom line is that if Germany are better than Sweden, it's up to them to prove it. If they can't, England are playing the tougher opponent.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. Spain, Germany, Italy, et al have failed despite having big names with big reputations. And the reaction from some of the same ABEs is one of projection and extreme arrogance: belittling the 'smaller' teams in the knockout stages, despite them being there on merit.
The irony.
It seems the complaints about arrogance were psychological projections at their very worst. Some of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish posters on here never actually cared about English arrogance. They were just jealous they never had the opportunity to be arrogant in return... until now.
The bottom line is that if Germany are better than Sweden, it's up to them to prove it. If they can't, England are playing the tougher opponent.
Obviously OP does not agree
Looks like that is not enough. There is always some element of luck and rub of the green with the draws that is needed in a WC or probably any cup tournament. It is the same for England or Brazil or Spain.
But people are not satisfied. Want the all conquering, best of the best ever tag as well.
Oh noes poor England everyone is anti England with all these agendas. Booo hooo. Nah, shoutout to the 3 or 4 snowflakes in here, people in here are pointing out something that is factual. No overrating of Sweden or Colombia will change that. Can’t wait to see how some of these snowflakes react if England lose to Croatia. Most are already in full meltdown mode 
I see nothing but false pride in many posts. It is not a sin or shameful to get an easy route. This is a feckin WC. You pull out all legal tricks to have the best shot at winning it. Winning it is all it matters.
I'm not sure why some of you are getting so defensive. My mother is English and I'm supporting them. I think they've done well and the country is damn right to be proud of them. Just because people disagree with the strength of their tournament route doesn't mean there's an anti-England agenda.
Defensive for the reputations of Sweden, Colombia and Croatia. Not England.
The Croatia semi is evens, and I've voted for Frnace to win the final.
Then why the ABE rant then?
I love when posters get called out for bullshit and wildly change the goalposts. Now people care about the reputations of Colombia and Sweden. You couldn’t mske this shit up
I make the same kinds posts about hypocrisy across the CE forum, player performance forum, United forum, etc.
I'm a Cartesian. Where I see conclusions predicating hypotheses, I call it out.
It's been an easy path, but it's not their fault other big teams didn't deliver.
Then what the feck is wrong with youse?
Is that a way of saying 'I don't know but lol...'
In all honesty, this thread is a shitshow.
It's pretty simple. Imagine all your preconceptions are wrong. Wipe them clean. Without the burden or prior bias, would you come to the same conclusion starting from a clean slate?
The cognitive dissonance in the hatred surrounding England doesn't pass that test.
FWIW, I think the same holds true for some of the conspiracy theories postulated about United. It bullshit I have a problem with, regardless of whether it's pro/anti United or England.
I hope you can find affection in your life one day.
Yeah, I believe so. I'm supporting England, I have no reason to be biased against them. I'm not so invested in the team that I won't be objective about it either. I imagine you are very invested in England, could it be preconceptions? Wipe them clean, lose the burden and prior bias, and think about your conclusion my friend.
I'm not an especially big England fan for 46 out of 48 months. I rarely even watch them outside of tournaments.
Rather than parroting back my point at me, why not come up with something original?
I was repeating it back to you in the hope you'd realise how silly it was.
"I know you are but what am I?" is stupidest thing you could have posted.
If you have the courage of your convictions, make a decent point.