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

[St. Juste]

Iceland are qualifying and competing now which is all that matters.

Costa Rica may be in an easier qualifying section but you've still never beaten them.

Uruguay, Denmark and Croatia absolutely smash Scotland out of the water.

I doubt football is even the main sport in some of the countries listed above, nor do they have clubs that compare in size to the likes of Celtic and Rangers.

How are we doing worse than the countries you have listed? we've qualified from our group in the world cup, while teams like Holland and Italy didn't even make the tournament.

Can we now agree that Scotland are just shit?

Well, it's not all that matters. If your statement is that Iceland are a better footballing nation than Scotland you have to ignore 150 years of history. Theoretically, given an infinite amasse of time, even Andorra may eventually have a squad good enough to win the World Cup. It means nothing, I'd be shocked if Icelands success is sustainable.

We've only played Costa Rica twice so the head to head record is pretty irrelevant.

Funnily enough, we actually hammer Denmark head to head over 16 games (not 2) and against Croatia we've drawn twice and won three times in our five games against them.

So yeah "smash out the water".

This would be very relevant if I claimed Scotland were leading their peer group in football. I don't, and we're not. Our glory days are decades back and now we're a middling European team of 5 mil people. Very much where we should be to be honest. We could be doing better and we could be doing worse (look at Hungary). We absolutely should be learning from the likes of Croatia, Uruguay and Denmark and I hope we are - even if their domestic leagues pale in comparison. However, football is absolutely the main sport in all three - I'm shocked you don't realise this.

As for England claiming to be better than Italy or the Netherlands (not Holland) purely based on qualifying alone. Have you lived in a tree for the last 30 years? These nations have significantly overperformed England over time, and recently. They are doing far better than you. Not qualifying for one World Cup doesn't change this.

You can think what you want. Scotland are doing okay for a nation of 5 million people. England justify their failures by saying they are better than Scotland, which is silly. I wasn't the one that brought it up, I don't know why Scotland are being discussed.

This thread should be celebrating one of the all time greatest results for the England football team. One of the very best in a tournament since 1966. Quite astonishing - you all should be very proud.

 

[blademan89]

Why don't you all just ignore the bitter jock, he's not even worthy of being involved in this thread. Fuck talking about scotland and talk about things that matter lads.

 

[SF_]

Well, it's not all that matters. If your statement is that Iceland are a better footballing nation than Scotland you have to ignore 150 years of history. Theoretically, given an infinite amasse of time, even Andorra may eventually have a squad good enough to win the World Cup. It means nothing, I'd be shocked if Icelands success is sustainable.



We've only played Costa Rica twice so the head to head record is pretty irrelevant.

Funnily enough, we actually hammer Denmark head to head over 16 games (not 2) and against Croatia we've drawn twice and won three times in our five games against them.

So yeah "smash out the water".

This would be very relevant if I claimed Scotland were leading their peer group in football. I don't, and we're not. Our glory days are decades back and now we're a middling European team of 5 mil people. Very much where we should be to be honest. We could be doing better and we could be doing worse (look at Hungary). We absolutely should be learning from the likes of Croatia, Uruguay and Denmark and I hope we are - even if their domestic leagues pale in comparison. However, football is absolutely the main sport in all three - I'm shocked you don't realise this.

As for England claiming to be better than Italy or the Netherlands (not Holland) purely based on qualifying alone. Have you lived in a tree for the last 30 years? These nations have significantly overperformed England over time, and recently. They are doing far better than you. Not qualifying for one World Cup doesn't change this.

You can think what you want. Scotland are doing okay for a nation of 5 million people. England justify their failures by saying they are better than Scotland, which is silly. I wasn't the one that brought it up, I don't know why Scotland are being discussed.

This thread should be celebrating one of the all time greatest results for the England football team. One of the very best in a tournament since 1966. Quite astonishing - you all should be very proud.

It's a stretch to class Scotland as a middling European nation when you've not qualified for a tournament for twenty years. My assessment of being shit is more accurate.

As for Holland, I think we've qualified for more tournaments than them, they have one European Championship, we have one world Cup. That's not significantly outperforming anyone.

Colombia certainly haven't outperformed us over the years, they've only played in 5 world cups I think.

Portugal's record in the European Championships is great, not so much the world cup. Uruguay have a great record in world cups and France, Spain and Italy are obviously great and piss on England historically.

No one has claimed we're better than anyone, you said 'we're doing worse' than those teams which suggests present tense, we're clearly not doing worse than them.

And I bring up Scotland because you're a Scotsman who is obsessed by England, I don't see fans of other nations in here having a pop. Thank you for being a massive stereotype.

 

[SF_]

Why don't you all just ignore the bitter jock, he's not even worthy of being involved in this thread. Fuck talking about scotland and talk about things that matter lads.

It's something to do that's isn't work.

 

[Pagnell]

Right, so when we didn't finish ahead of then World Cup Finalists France and Italy that was a complete failure of a campaign?

You really are shit at this, aren't you? No wonder people consistently point and laugh. Your argument is questionable so the first thing you do is either exaggerate the opposition's point for effect or outright fabricate an argument they're not even making. It's tragic.

At what point did I mention the words "complete failure"? I didn't. My point was even Scotland can't fail to qualify and view it as having been, and I quote, "a good qualifying campaign".

 

[Leo]

If I was Scottish I'd be on a summer break somewhere, drinking my iron bru (genuinely love that stuff) ignoring all things football.

Fuck off.........it's shite since they changed the original (secret) formula many years ago. Better with a few glasses of Morgan's spiced & diet coke mate.

 

[St. Juste]

It's a stretch to class Scotland as a middling European nation when you've not qualified for a tournament for twenty years. My assessment of being shit is more accurate.

As for Holland, I think we've qualified for more tournaments than them, they have one European Championship, we have one world Cup. That's not significantly outperforming anyone.

Colombia certainly haven't outperformed us over the years, they've only played in 5 world cups I think.

Portugal's record in the European Championships is great, not so much the world cup. Uruguay have a great record in world cups and France, Spain and Italy are obviously great and piss on England historically.

No one has claimed we're better than anyone, you said 'we're doing worse' than those teams which suggests present tense, we're clearly not doing worse than them.

And I bring up Scotland because you're a Scotsman who is obsessed by England, I don't see fans of other nations in here having a pop. Thank you for being a massive stereotype.

Well, fine. That's your assessment, but not mine. We will qualify for more Euros going forward, than not qualify.

The Netherlands (not Holland, stop getting it wrong) were in a WC Final 8 years ago. England have made one semi final in the past 50 years. In that time the Netherlands have been in three. They are a much stronger footballing nation in you in the World Cup as well as the Euros. And a lot smaller too. Portugal have absolutely outperformed England too.

So there's a strong list of nations of similar (or much smaller) doing better than England. England are footballs greatest underachievers, given their history and their population. The record of their national team is dire. Do people really not recognise this? It's empirically based on fact, not much debate to be had on it.

You really are shit at this, aren't you? No wonder people consistently point and laugh. Your argument is questionable so the first thing you do is either exaggerate the opposition's point for effect or outright fabricate an argument they're not even making. It's tragic.

At what point did I mention the words "complete failure"? I didn't. My point was even Scotland can't fail to qualify and view it as having been, and I quote, "a good qualifying campaign".

So, finishing ahead of WC QFs (at the time) Ukraine, and beating France twice did not constitute a "good qualifying campaign"?

A simple yes or no will suffice. Would be interesting to hear your reflections on Bradford reaching a League Cup Final - not a successful campaign because they didn't win, right?

The danger of the theory you are proposing, and one that Scotland fans fall for all the time, is demanding drastic action after failing to qualify. In response to the 2008 campaign, objectively a good qualifying campaign given the factors above, people will scream failure, demand managers are sacked / players are dropped and youth set ups ripped up and started again.

If people don't recognise that you can have a good campaign, not qualify, but build on the positives rather than reactively destroying everything and starting again you are destined to repeat your failure.

 

[SALTIRE]

I genuinely believe we’ll win it. I know me just posting that comment will give that weird Scottish fella material for the next six months but who gives a fuck. When you’ve got a striker that can score goals you’re always in for a chance. I’m also sick of being reserved just because of those people. If I didn’t think we had a chance then what’s the point, we may as well just pack up and go home.

Deluded.

 

[SF_]

Well, fine. That's your assessment, but not mine. We will qualify for more Euros going forward, than not qualify.

The Netherlands (not Holland, stop getting it wrong) were in a WC Final 8 years ago. England have made one semi final in the past 50 years. In that time the Netherlands have been in three. They are a much stronger footballing nation in you in the World Cup as well as the Euros. And a lot smaller too. Portugal have absolutely outperformed England too.

So there's a strong list of nations of similar (or much smaller) doing better than England. England are footballs greatest underachievers, given their history and their population. The record of their national team is dire. Do people really not recognise this? It's empirically based on fact, not much debate to be had on it.

Again, point out where I said we've been historically better than any of those nations (even Holland)... i'll save you a job, I haven't. It was just your attempt at deflecting.

I'm talking about the present, which is clearly more interesting to an England fan than it is a Scottish one.

Can we just agree that Scotland are shit, you're obsessed with England and you're very bitter that we're actually enjoying a tournament without any real expectations.

 

[SALTIRE]

If I was Scottish I'd be on a summer break somewhere, drinking my iron bru (genuinely love that stuff) ignoring all things football.

I love the World Cup and watch 80 pc of the matches. Just coz England aren't fucking it up as usual and looking slightly decent for once, doesn't put me off, even if we get it shoved down our throats constantly every waking minute, until the inevitable happens.

 

[SF_]

I love the World Cup and watch 80 pc of the matches. Just coz England aren't fucking it up as usual and looking slightly decent for once, doesn't put me off, even if we get it shoved down our throats constantly every waking minute, until the inevitable happens.

By who? I don't read tabloids and I don't follow nob heads on Twitter.

It's quite easy to avoid if you're not looking for it.

 

[SALTIRE]

By who? I don't read tabloids and I don't follow nob heads on Twitter.

It's quite easy to avoid if you're not looking for it.

Blimey you must live in a bubble if you can't see just how much the news is dominated by it! At the top of the hour and on the half hour on SSN you'll get 10 minutes of England talk, no matter what happened in other matches (including the top sides) before they move on to the other matches, or talk of something else in the World Cup or other sports; the papers are full of it both on the front and back pages, with probably half a dozen (at least) pages devoted to nothing but England; online with even the BBC looking biased totally towards coverage of them, you have to scroll down even if there was a top match played after glorious Harry Kane bagged a few pens. On TalkSport yesterday, all you got was non-stop England talk even when they were supposed to be building up to the other games yesterday.

You can't avoid it, its like something state TV in North Korea would have, constantly droning the message of how glorious it all is, and how inferior everything else is. That is what is like for a neutral, and that is why we laugh all the more when you do fail.

 

[PuB]

Posting on a football forum, on a thread about an England game, hardly constitutes having it pushed down your throat.

 

[Nilsson]

....At the top of the hour and on the half hour on SSN you'll get 10 minutes of England talk........the papers are full of it both on the front and back pages.......online with even the BBC looking biased totally towards coverage of them.......On TalkSport yesterday, all you got was non-stop England talk.......

This is hilarious. I think you're subconsciously obsessed with the English national football team. You're even spending a vast amount of your time talking about the team on the internet.

 

[SF_]

Blimey you must live in a bubble if you can't see just how much the news is dominated by it! At the top of the hour and on the half hour on SSN you'll get 10 minutes of England talk, no matter what happened in other matches (including the top sides) before they move on to the other matches, or talk of something else in the World Cup or other sports; the papers are full of it both on the front and back pages, with probably half a dozen (at least) pages devoted to nothing but England; online with even the BBC looking biased totally towards coverage of them, you have to scroll down even if there was a top match played after glorious Harry Kane bagged a few pens. On TalkSport yesterday, all you got was non-stop England talk even when they were supposed to be building up to the other games yesterday.

You can't avoid it, its like something state TV in North Korea would have, constantly droning the message of how glorious it all is, and how inferior everything else is. That is what is like for a neutral, and that is why we laugh all the more when you do fail.

TalkSport is bollocks so don't listen to that and haven't watched SSN for years, I get my footy news off the internet. Never bought a newspaper in my life.

SSN & Talksport are English based media outlets though, it's no surprise they heavily cover the England team. I personally couldn't give a shit what is going on in the Morocco squad tbh.

Are you also reading the English papers? again, you might find stuff related to England. I've no idea what the alternatives are in Scotland but I imagine if you live in Portugal then the national media might talk about the Portugal team.

 

[G.B]

British television covering the only British side competing at the WC. Fucking monsters Salty mate. I wonder who Spanish TV are predominantly covering, or Brazilian TV. Stop being a lunatic mate, you're making yourself look silly.

 

[Pagnell]

So, finishing ahead of WC QFs (at the time) Ukraine, and beating France twice did not constitute a "good qualifying campaign"?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

No. You know, given that the point of a qualifying campaign is to qualify. If that doesn't happen, it can't, by definition, be defined as good. Even for Scotland. And a few unexpected wins doesn't change that.

EDIT - by the way, that doesn't mean positives can't be taken from it. I suspect that is where your confusion stems.

 

[rudebwoyben]

Blimey you must live in a bubble if you can't see just how much the news is dominated by it! At the top of the hour and on the half hour on SSN you'll get 10 minutes of England talk, no matter what happened in other matches (including the top sides) before they move on to the other matches, or talk of something else in the World Cup or other sports; the papers are full of it both on the front and back pages, with probably half a dozen (at least) pages devoted to nothing but England; online with even the BBC looking biased totally towards coverage of them, you have to scroll down even if there was a top match played after glorious Harry Kane bagged a few pens. On TalkSport yesterday, all you got was non-stop England talk even when they were supposed to be building up to the other games yesterday.

You can't avoid it, its like something state TV in North Korea would have, constantly droning the message of how glorious it all is, and how inferior everything else is. That is what is like for a neutral, and that is why we laugh all the more when you do fail.

That's where your problem is. Why on earth are you bothering with those two media outlets?

 

[Gassy]

People aint gonna buy the paper to read about which formation Saudi Arabia are gonna play are they?

I also like when people say until the inevitable happens. You realise only 1 team can win it right? Its inevitable that 31 teams will also not win the World Cup.

 

[St. Juste]

Again, point out where I said we've been historically better than any of those nations (even Holland)... i'll save you a job, I haven't. It was just your attempt at deflecting.

I'm talking about the present, which is clearly more interesting to an England fan than it is a Scottish one.

Can we just agree that Scotland are shit, you're obsessed with England and you're very bitter that we're actually enjoying a tournament without any real expectations.

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.

British television covering the only British side competing at the WC. Fucking monsters Salty mate. I wonder who Spanish TV are predominantly covering, or Brazilian TV. Stop being a lunatic mate, you're making yourself look silly.

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.

No. You know, given that the point of a qualifying campaign is to qualify. If that doesn't happen, it can't, by definition, be defined as good. Even for Scotland. And a few unexpected wins doesn't change that.

EDIT - by the way, that doesn't mean positives can't be taken from it. I suspect that is where your confusion stems.

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.

 

[St. Juste]

People aint gonna buy the paper to read about which formation Saudi Arabia are gonna play are they?

I also like when people say until the inevitable happens. You realise only 1 team can win it right? Its inevitable that 31 teams will also not win the World Cup.

The best WC journalism (by far) I can find is below:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...018-complete-guide-players-ratings-goals-caps

They did it for the Euros as well and it is fantastic, all teams getting equal coverage and some great insights.

 

[Leo]

Oh my fucking God.....getting knickers in a twist because someone has the temerity to use the word Holland ? Get a fucking life for fucks sake!!!

 

[St. Juste]

Oh my fucking God.....getting knickers in a twist because someone has the temerity to use the word Holland ? Get a fucking life for fucks sake!!!

I won't lose over sleep over it, but helpful to correct people when they have got something wrong (3 times).

If you're not spreading knowledge you're spreading ignorance.

 

[PuB]

We don't need separate coverage for the home nations, none of you other fuckers bothered to qualify.

 

[Stevencc]

I won't lose over sleep over it, but helpful to correct people when they have got something wrong (3 times).

If you're not spreading knowledge you're spreading ignorance.

You never thanked me for teaching you how to spell Gascoigne, I did my bit for the eradication of ignorance on that day.

 

[Leo]

I won't lose over sleep over it, but helpful to correct people when they have got something wrong (3 times).

If you're not spreading knowledge you're spreading ignorance.

you may not lose sleep but you have bothered to 'point it out' to whatever poster at least twice (sad as fuck imo). For years and years the nation was known as Holland and it has continued moreso in the football world. Does it really make a difference to how they play or not? Only to you in your sad fucking world mate. As I said....get a fucking life!

 

[Skinner]

1FF members need to wear some kind of symbol so we can identify each other in chance meetings. Imagine how random if you're getting smashed in Benidorm and someone comes up to ask if you post on 1ff.

Ha just seen this. In some cases you’ll know who to avoid

 

[SALTIRE]

TalkSport is bollocks so don't listen to that and haven't watched SSN for years, I get my footy news off the internet. Never bought a newspaper in my life.

SSN & Talksport are English based media outlets though, it's no surprise they heavily cover the England team. I personally couldn't give a shit what is going on in the Morocco squad tbh.

Are you also reading the English papers? again, you might find stuff related to England. I've no idea what the alternatives are in Scotland but I imagine if you live in Portugal then the national media might talk about the Portugal team.

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.

 

[SALTIRE]

British television covering the only British side competing at the WC. Fucking monsters Salty mate. I wonder who Spanish TV are predominantly covering, or Brazilian TV. Stop being a lunatic mate, you're making yourself look silly.

Why does Sky need to cover it then? They don't get the games, and they put fingers in their ears for the CL and EL games when they are on until the final rounds, when they HAVE to show progress on it, especially if an English side is going far.

There is covering an event, and then there is showing 9 out of 10 minutes dedicated to one side out of 32, there is a difference.

 

[SALTIRE]

I won't lose over sleep over it, but helpful to correct people when they have got something wrong (3 times).

If you're not spreading knowledge you're spreading ignorance.

Your being pedantic, the news channels still refer to Bangkok in Thailand, even though its not been called that in centuries; or the Richter scale for seismology even when its an obsolete metric for that.