England v Panama, 24th June, 1pm(GMT)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SALTIRE

Slàinte mhath!
Messages
14,542
Likes
3,032
Location
Speyside
Supports
A guid dram
As I said, I'm a football fan and enjoy the World Cup, however we do not have to hear about Saint Southgate's side every 30 seconds.
 

SF_

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,330
Likes
2,452
Supports
Preston North End
The term Holland is incorrect - stop using it.

And as for 'the present' Italy didn't qualify for the current World Cup but had a far better Euros where they knocked out Spain and were only put out by Germany on penalties.

So they are of course better than England (in addition to beating them and finishing ahead of them in the last world cup).

But if you narrow the definition of present to this tournament only then not only are England better than Italy, but so are Panama and Saudi Arabia. And then you are just being ridiculous.

Italy and the Netherlands have a better historical and recent record than England. As do Portugal. Two of these are far smaller nations than England - why are they so much better than you? It's the equivalent of Latvia or Kosovo being consistently better than Scotland given the huge population disparity.

As for your last paragraph, this is what you think - I don't agree. I came on to congratulate England on one of their best ever results in an international tournament since 1966. It wasn't me who brought up Scotland.



I've said before, the home nations should have different coverage. You don't see Dutch football being broadcast to Germans, for example.

The cost would be minimal (they don't even have to be based in Russia, there is no reason for Lineker to be there) and with Pat Nevin being more prominent the pundits would be far better.

As a side point, it's an absolute certainty that if one home nation were to qualify for a competition and it wasn't England, we would still be subject to (at least) Shearer and Lineker. They won't leave for decades to come.

Of course, with the internet, soon you will be able to choose your coverage anyway.



And, you know, the point of the World Cup is to win it. Therefore everyone who doesn't win it can't have a successful world cup?

Nope, for some teams being there is good (Iceland). For some reaching the knockout phase is good (Saudi Arabia) and for some reaching the QF is good (England).

So unless you believe you can't have a good world cup without winning it, you can't also believe you can't have a good qualifying campaign without qualifying.

Teams like Latvia who I have mentioned before may never reach a World Cup, in your mind everything they do will be unsucessful even if, as 6th seeds, they finish third.

It's a very nihilistic view of the world.
Again, show me where I've claimed we're better than any of the nations you mention, historically.

You can't because its something you came up with to try and argue that Scotland aren't shit, which they are.

Ps. Holland, it just rolls off the tongue.
 
Last edited:

Pagnell

Pick Up The Gun
Messages
7,013
Likes
2,294
Supports
.
And, you know, the point of the World Cup is to win it. Therefore everyone who doesn't win it can't have a successful world cup?
If you seriously can't see the difference between a WC qualifying campaign (you either qualify or you don't) and the World Cup competition itself (there are various stages teams can reach short of winning the competition that, depending on their quality, dictate how well they have done), then this debate was doomed from the start. I suspect however you're being deliberately disingenuous. I hope for your sake you are, anyway.
 

Pagnell

Pick Up The Gun
Messages
7,013
Likes
2,294
Supports
.
As I said, I'm a football fan and enjoy the World Cup, however we do not have to hear about Saint Southgate's side every 30 seconds.
That is worded perfectly. You don't as there are numerous methods you can use to avoid the coverage you so lament.
 

Bobbin'

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,872
Likes
2,676
Supports
Charlton
As a side point, it's an absolute certainty that if one home nation were to qualify for a competition and it wasn't England, we would still be subject to (at least) Shearer and Lineker. They won't leave for decades to come.
We get the Mirror up here, but although its meant to be a 'Scottish' version, its not, so very anglocentric. I agree about TalkSport, but I was in the car awaiting a family member come out of hospital so just had it on, but its nothing but drivel and ads at the best of times (Murdoch backed so tells you all). Online I like to read the BBC and Guardian sites, but since the Beeb spends all that money getting the World Cup, they are going to plaster as much coverage of it - and especially Engerland - as they can get. The Guardian tends to be less biased, and covers more stuff, but even just now, its not great. SSN is a load of shite now, fully of dolly-burd presenters, Jim fucking White, and telling you what some vapid footballer put on Instagram or Twitter. Its got worse and worse this past decade.
Just catering for the masses lads.

England has a much larger population. Scotland only has a population of 5million so I’m told.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
14,971
Messages
927,880
Members
5,127
Latest member
TonyDart