Columbia with and without James is a different proposition. Take kane out of England and its a different team
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.
Columbia with and without James is a different proposition. Take kane out of England and its a different team
Well that Saudi example is strange, Russia was great against them, Uruguay - not. Anyway Saudi is a very weak team, literally any draw would be hard for them.
Lets take Sweden, was their group actually hard? On paper sure. Germany, Mexico and S Korea. But in reality, Sweden were not really playing that well and topped this group, so in reality it was actually easier and better for them than many other seemingly "easier" draw, like if they went into the last group with Japan, Senegal etc.
Not eating chutney for a week now, Ffs man
I mean there is universal consensus on this right? That England had a easy run in? We are not absolutely nutters like rotten chutney and Alex?
I think it was a tough group. They beat korea with a var penalty that was key to sending them through. Lost to Germany as expected and had their best performance against Mexico. Would the Germany since labelled rubbish have made the last 16 if they were in Belgium's place? Absolutely in my opinion. And at worst would have come second to england who would funnily have then been on the tough side of the draw. No matter what way you look at it england had a lucky draw
We could discuss the nitty gritty and intricacies of every individual games and all of the mitigating factors but ultimately this thread was started and is raging on because many have the hardly controversial belief that england have had an easy/comfortable/etc run, and somewhere among a difference of opinion one group decided the other was sad bitter and anti English
Hey man, there's a reason I'm kept in a fridge. It's to prevent scandalous accusations of rotteness!
Have we all managed to understand the difference between the words "easy" and "easier"?
The route:
England's route is easier than it could have been, but it is not easy. Pretty simple really.
Football is won by performance on the pitches, not on paper. The best performing teams in the competition advanced to the knockouts, making them more difficult to beat than nations who performed poorly. One half of the draw is easier than the other, which is almost always the case. It doesn't make them easy matches though.
So let's all repeat the above together. And slowly.
England's route is easier than it could have been, but it is not easy.
The route:
- Tunisia - Highest ranked team in Africa, and more difficult than many other African nations
- Panama - League 1 standard team
- Belgium - Their B Team
- Colombia - Finished ahead of the current Copa America champions in qualifying and won 2 World Cup matches
- Sweden - Prevented Italy and the Netherlands from qualifying, finished above Germany in their group, and won 3 Word Cup matches
- Croatia - Have 2 or 3 outstanding players and have won 5 World Cup matches in a row
England's route is easier than it could have been, but it is not easy. Pretty simple really.
Football is won by performance on the pitches, not on paper. The best performing teams in the competition advanced to the knockouts, making them more difficult to beat than nations who performed poorly. One half of the draw is easier than the other, which is almost always the case. It doesn't make them easy matches though.
So let's all repeat the above together. And slowly.
England's route is easier than it could have been, but it is not easy.
Poll should be added
yes it is
32 teams qualified. 4 are left. That's the long and short of it. France are favourites, we are really proud of our team. End of story.
You must have been easy to parent
compared to the england route i was quite difficult
You'd be the equivalent of playing the 1970s Brazil team 7 times in a row with a fatigued and low on confidence Panama team. No offence.
It was much "tougher" on the paper than it was on the pitch.
Doubtful. I don't see how Tunisia is worse than Korea and they've lost that one, England would have been a tougher opponent than Mexico. Panama is obviously a pub team, that England got lucky with.
If Germany would have won their group, playing as they have, would they actually be any harder than Sweden? Doubt it.
Lorserland.. That's what's up with you all.
Don't call us losers. We're top four !!
Who cares? World Cup winners don't have an asterisk next to them in the history books that states *had an easy run to the semi-final.
No one will care about it, like no one cares about Italy's path to the semis in 2006.
World champions are world champions, end of.
No one will care about it, like no one cares about Italy's path to the semis in 2006.
World champions are world champions, end of.
Bayern only just lost by two minutes
Chelsea only lost by a Terry slip.
So we really only won one European cup. We were losers
Chelsea only lost by a Terry slip.
So we really only won one European cup. We were losers
IMO, it's not as simple as that. There are numerous occasions that a good team just needed a time gelled and got better as the tournament goes. If Germany was lucky enough to go out of the group maybe they will get their shit together and goes all the way. Or maybe not.
The way I see it, many of the better nations are playing way below standard due to numerous reasons. Argentina had a shit coach and their star player couldn't even bother turning up. Germany was strolling around expecting to win except in the last 10 minutes against Sweden. I also think Germany was at the end of the cycle and would need to revamp their national team from top to bottom. Brazil was the second most talented team in the tournament, but wasn't consistent enough. Spain was even more ridiculous, they fired the head coach one day before the tournament start and expect the players to keep playing well. They definitely have good players, but they didn't play well enough as a team to overcome teams with lesser talent who are more determined and work together better. Ironically, this is exactly why England was so bad in the last decade. Off field drama, believing the hype, etc, was England downfall. Now the first time they managed to pull together as a team, they are in the SF of a World Cup with less talented player as previous England teams. .
In Italia 90, to reach the semi final, we played:
Thank god the internet wasn't around for endless discussions about their easy route.
Worth watching.
- Ireland
- Netherlands
- Egypt
- Belgium
- Cameroon
Thank god the internet wasn't around for endless discussions about their easy route.
Worth watching.
Doesn’t get any easier than that, especially when you consider the fact that game against Belgium was essentially a dead rubber and had no bearing on chances of coming out from the group.
However, you can only beat what’s in front of you. Fair play and enjoy the moment guys.
However, you can only beat what’s in front of you. Fair play and enjoy the moment guys.
I guess all of this is a separate and hypothetical situation. I see what you mean though, but these discussions could last forever based on small details. Eg very often the world champion has grown into the tournament, i actually think Germany played well in spells versus sweden etc. I think spain will regret sacking their manager for a long time. He had them playing well, unbeaten in 20 and think theyd have strolled this side of the draw without the chaos and lack of manager. Its another little detail that favoured that side of draw.
The broader discussion is anout englands route and to be fair as the thread has progressed its clear there are only a small number of extremists who are hypersensitive about comments made about englands path.
Id imagine absolutely everybody would agree with this. Its natural for things to be discussed during a tournament that wont be afterwards. For some reason it has really wound some people up despite nothing controversial or 'anti england' being said.
Doesn't sound like there's ever an easy way to reach the final and win it?
Were these routes to the final easy or part of an unbeatable achievement?
Italy 2006
- Ghana
- Czech Republic
- USA
- Australia
- Ukraine
- China
- Costa Rica
- Belgium
- England
- Turkey
Stop being a hypersensitive extremist!
What a stretch. Desperation. Go for a walk or something
Considering youve gone digging through my posts to god knows when i dont understand why youve brought this one up?
The above routes are clearly nice routes to the final i dont think anybody would argue it, and if England win it im certain nothing will top that for those players and they will likely never do it again or have the chance to and it may be generations before their country does it again. All of what i said is absolutely true, i have no idea why my assertion that they had an easy run to the semi final is so so troubling for some- youre not the first poster to trawl my post history to find some obscure incriminating contradiction. Its bizarre. The post you quoted is true.
It is also true that i think its been a gift of a run to the semi - why does that bother some so deeply?! Its hardly a singular or controversial opinion
Last edited:
That was hilarious
The response will be along the lines of "I stand by what I said, the World Cup is an unbeatable achievement due to the stature of the competition, but some winners have had more difficult routes than others. It doesn't mean England don't have an easy route." I think he/she will refrain from using the extremist accusation, or going off topic, although I wouldn't bet against it...
Right on cue...
Some of you have descended to a parody of yourselves. Look at the lengths some are going to to contradict some people's opinions that it was an easy run. Ask yourself, why does it bother you so much? Its unsettling. Its a fair position even if you disagree.
Posts of biblical length complete with hypothetical draws
The averaging of the dubious fifa rankings
Poster history searched for contradiction
Calling people sad bitter or anti English
Its like theres an angry little terrorist group at work because some posters think it was a bloody easy run
absolute meltdown levelThe absolute state of you posting in cahoots and pre empting replies like teenage girls bevause i had the nerve to say it was an easy run. Pathetic
Last edited:
Someone's being a bit hypersensitive now aren't they?Some of you have descended to a parody of yourselves. Look at the lengths some are going to to contradict some people's opinions that it was an easy run. Ask yourself, why does it bother you so much? Its unsettling. Its a fair position even if you disagree.
Posts of biblical length complete with hypothetical draws
The averaging of the dubious fifa rankings
Poster history searched for contradiction
Calling people sad bitter or anti English
Its like theres an angry little terrorist group at work because some posters think it was a bloody easy run
The absolute state of you posting in cahoots and pre empting replies like teenage girls bevause i had the nerve to say it was an easy run. Pathetic
Someone's being a bit hypersensitive now aren't they?
No. Calling somebody sad, bitter or anti england for having a different opinion is hypersensitive. As is doing any of the things i mentioned rather than agreeing to disagree. My most recent post in response to juvenile, petty anti intellectual posting was entirely proportionate.
Read the thread without your angry glasses on. You and a couple of others are in a complete minority even among england supporters and are posting like hypersensitive extremists.
Im imagining your comrade trawling my posts and thinking 'gotcha!' Only to have to quote an old post with some desperate extracted link that at a massive push still doesnt come close to a contradiction. Then pairing up with his pal to pre empt my reply to cover all bases. Its absurd
Last edited:
Everyone on here is entitled to debate their case. If people with two opposing viewpoints debate something for the same length of time, your question could be asked to both, not just the person you disagree with.
Users are entitled to post lengthy replies if they wish, to back up their point of view. The forum actually encourages it.
You're posting on a public forum. Other users are entitled to call you out on previous posts if it forms part of their case.
It's quite obvious who is having the meltdown.
That's not very nice.
That's not very nice.
You did. And some people disagree and are entitled to explain why they disagree.
By the way, you didn't actually directly answer my questions in the post above, so I'll ask them again.
You said they were nice routes. I'm asking you a very simple question. Are they "easy" routes?
You replied saying "im certain nothing will top that for those players and they will likely never do it again or have the chance to and it may be generations before their country does it again"
Would it be fair to say then, in a roundabout way, you're saying it would be unbeatable and not easy?
Everyone on here is entitled to debate their case. If people with two opposing viewpoints debate something for the same length of time, your question could be asked to both, not just the person you disagree with.
Users are entitled to post lengthy posts if these wish, to back up their point of view. The forum actually encourages it.
You're posting on a public forum. Other users are entitled to call you out on previous posts if it forms part of their case.
It's quite obvious who is having the meltdown.
That's not very nice.
That's not very nice.
You did. And some people disagree and are entitled to explain why they disagree.
By the way, you didn't actually directly answer my questions in the post above, so I'll ask them again.
You said they were nice routes. I'm asking you a very simple question. Are they "easy" routes?
You replied saying "im certain nothing will top that for those players and they will likely never do it again or have the chance to and it may be generations before their country does it again"
Would it be fair to say then, in a roundabout way, you're saying it would be unbeatable and not easy?
Italy had an easy run. (Then beat the two best teams) Brazil didn't. England had an easy run to the semi final. Youre asking me a question about how englands run would be seen should they win the world cuo from here. You just keep ignoring that ive been explicitly clear on that point- because of my opinion on their run to the semi final. Its absolutely insane to be so wilfully selective just to continue to pursue something that has
gotten under your skin so much. Something harmless too, just an opinion.
Im going to be the adult and step away from this thread, the stench of hypocrisy and selective interpretation is overwhelming. I have never criticised england unduly, never willed them to lose, equated croatias run to the semi with theirs, pointed out that an easy run is not unprecedented, said if they win it from here they will be worthy winners.
I had the audacity to vocalise an opinion shared by many and you and your mini band of lunatics went apeshit despite the huge balance of my posts throughout and i mistakenly engaged in a dialogue.
Take your cyber balaclava and baseball bat and go find somebody else who dares to think that tunisia panana colombia and sweden is an easy run to the semi. A standalone opinion. Shared by huge numbers.
Last edited:
Panama drew with USA and Mexico in qualifying as well as beating Costa Rica. They also drew with USA in the gold cup last year.
Now, if they are a pub team imagine how shit the USA must be. Not only have they drawn with the pub team twice budget also failed to come out if the same qualifying system.
Now, if they are a pub team imagine how shit the USA must be. Not only have they drawn with the pub team twice budget also failed to come out if the same qualifying system.
Thank you for answering the question the second time around.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and that's fine. You're in the "easy" camp, I'm in the "easier but not easy" camp.
Ok.
Really?
Ok.
Nice chatting. Look forward to debating some United issues in the future.
Has it been menitoned yet that England had it easy so far?