Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What's wrong with you? Seriously. I ask seriously and sincerely, what's wrong with you? I make THIS post:"Everyone does that with Italy though.
What have they ever done on the pitch, in recent memory?
-AC"
Then this one:
"6 years ago.
I said in recent memory. Anyway, England won the World Cup in 1966 and for some reason, every team since then has been praised as having an excellent chance to win it, on the basis of "We won it once."
So I'm having to narrow it down to recent memory.
-AC"
Yet, you still find it appropriate and relevant to name Italy's achievements, the most recent being 1994. Ergo, not recent.
So I'll say it again, in recent memory.
-AC
Thats right I did mention Italys recent achievement, they beat Germnay 4-1 but then again since you constantly argue over little things.
Heres a better question, why would England winning the World Cup in 1966 have a special meaning anyway? Why would you say every team has a chance at winning it after England did? Why not after France or Brazil or Uruguay or Germany or Agrentina won it? Like Deano said, no team has done anything recent and I even admited it yet you still become all uptight about it. Typical AC
Originally posted by El_NINO
Thats right I did mention Italys recent achievement, they beat Germnay 4-1 but then again since you constantly argue over little things.
So why is Italy beating Germany 4-1, when they've got arguably their worst (though not necessarily bad) team in years, a feat worthy of calling them a great team? England beat Argentina, Chile have pulled out a win against Brazil before. It doesn't mean Chile now deserve to be called a great team. They had a decent run many years ago, now they continually fail and yet people still rate them, purely because they are conditioned to.
Originally posted by El_NINO
Heres a better question, why would England winning the World Cup in 1966 have a special meaning anyway? Why would you say every team has a chance at winning it after England did? Why not after France or Brazil or Uruguay or Germany or Agrentina won it? Like Deano said, no team has done anything recent and I even admited it yet you still become all uptight about it. Typical AC
I don't know, why would it? You tell me, because that's exactly what I've been trying to figure out. I never said it was special, I said people act like it was.
I never said every team has a chance at winning it after England, what on Earth are you babbling about? You just descended into rather incomprehensible ranting there didn't you? Yes. Idiot.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So why is Italy beating Germany 4-1, when they've got arguably their worst (though not necessarily bad) team in years, a feat worthy of calling them a great team? England beat Argentina, Chile have pulled out a win against Brazil before. It doesn't mean Chile now deserve to be called a great team. They had a decent run many years ago, now they continually fail and yet people still rate them, purely because they are conditioned to.-AC
Again all I said was they beat Germany which was what you asked "in recent memory"
Originally posted by El_NINO
Heres a better question, why would England winning the World Cup in 1966 have a special meaning anyway? Why would you say every team has a chance at winning it after England did? Why not after France or Brazil or Uruguay or Germany or Agrentina won it? Like Deano said, no team has done anything recent and I even admited it yet you still become all uptight about it. Typical AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't know, why would it? You tell me, because that's exactly what I've been trying to figure out. I never said it was special, I said people act like it was.I never said every team has a chance at winning it after England, what on Earth are you babbling about? You just descended into rather incomprehensible ranting there didn't you? Yes. Idiot.
-AC
Dude seriously did you not say this:
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
6 years ago.I said in recent memory. Anyway, England won the World Cup in 1966 and for some reason, every team since then has been praised as having an excellent chance to win it, on the basis of "We won it once."
-AC
Sorry but Im no idiot. If anything your the fool, careful what you say next time.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't know about you, but I'd say it matters if we're discussing who is CURRENTLY good.About Greece, exactly. They've achieved one accolade of note, which is why rating them as good would be stupid, because they got rather lucky. Greece have achieved more than Italy though, in the past however many years.
Hence why continuing to rate Italy as a great team just because they achieved SOMETHING way back in the day, is stupid logic. Live in the now. The same applies to ANY team.
Being good on paper means nothing. It's like forming a band on paper with the technical best on each instrument, they could still put out a remarkably shit album, musically. Just like Italy, for all the stats and hype...get nothing done.
-AC
So let me get this straight. Going by this logic the only teams that should be considered good are the teams that have achieved high accolades in recent memory. So, a team that is an underdog and perhaps has never won a major competition should ever be pegged by someone that "sees" something no one else sees. That is a very narrow scope. So we should all just roll over and accept that football is a sport for France (who narrowly won their qualifying group thanks to the return of Zidane and other aging stars), Brazil (always stacked with talent, but is notorious for falling short when so stacked). I really do not understand your dislike for teams that do not win every time they take the pitch. I am not the biggest Italy fan but they have as good a chance as France or England or Germany. Their draw is not that tough when you look at it. Peter Nedved is not playing for Czech Rep. and USA got beat by F*****G Morocco. Italy is dangerous and to dismiss them because they have not won a World Cup or a Euro Cup is foolish. It is very difficult for a team to win either of these competitions, Italy has as good a shot as anyone not named Brazil or Argentina.
Originally posted by BuzzKiller
So let me get this straight. Going by this logic the only teams that should be considered good are the teams that have achieved high accolades in recent memory. So, a team that is an underdog and perhaps has never won a major competition should ever be pegged by someone that "sees" something no one else sees. That is a very narrow scope. So we should all just roll over and accept that football is a sport for France (who narrowly won their qualifying group thanks to the return of Zidane and other aging stars), Brazil (always stacked with talent, but is notorious for falling short when so stacked). I really do not understand your dislike for teams that do not win every time they take the pitch. I am not the biggest Italy fan but they have as good a chance as France or England or Germany. Their draw is not that tough when you look at it. Peter Nedved is not playing for Czech Rep. and USA got beat by F*****G Morocco. Italy is dangerous and to dismiss them because they have not won a World Cup or a Euro Cup is foolish. It is very difficult for a team to win either of these competitions, Italy has as good a shot as anyone not named Brazil or Argentina.
Just to correct you Nedved is playing for the Czechs and Italy has won 3 world cups.
Originally posted by El_NINO
Just to correct you Nedved is playing for the Czechs and Italy has won 3 world cups.
Thanks for the corrections. I meant that Italy has won very little recently, in the same way as England, Portugal, and Spain. Being so hyped and talented and always coming up short.
I misread an article and have since gone back and seen my mistake thanks.
Italy may play shit football, but they are a good squad and could fall into a very good World Cup showing. If they win the group that is, if they finish second hey will get spanked by Brazil.
Originally posted by El_NINO
Again all I said was they beat Germany which was what you asked "in recent memory"
Exactly. Not enough to go rating them highly in my opinion.
Originally posted by El_NINO
Dude seriously did you not say this:Sorry but Im no idiot. If anything your the fool, careful what you say next time.
Yes, every ENGLAND team since then. Read the context of the quote you cretinous lump.
Originally posted by Buzzkiller
Going by this logic the only teams that should be considered good are the teams that have achieved high accolades in recent memory.
Yes, that's exactly right. Call them good if they've proven themselves to be good. Don't call them good on unproven hype, or worse, past hype.
I never said ONCE that I dislike teams that don't win every time they play, and I'm honestly not sure from where you derived that nugget of information.
I think everybody is largely in Italy and Spain's collective scrotums purely because they ARE Italy and Spain. When I ask what they've done, people go "Erm...on paper though" "On paper what? On the pitch, what?" "True...but on paper" etc.
-AC
I can't wait, this should shape up to be an exciting World Cup and one of the most diverse to come along in awhile. We have teams being represented from all over the world including the Caribbean and even the oceanic region after 32 yrs of absence. Not to mention the amount of talented teams that will be competing.
The defending champs Brazil are coming back as strong as ever, Germany who finished 2nd last year now has the home field, both the Czechs and the Dutch come in with equally talented squads after having a good showing in the Euro Cup, England comes in with possibly there best squad in a very long time, Italy comes in with a very skilled and talented squad as well as there trademark stingy defense, Portugal is another skilled team that had a nice showing at the Euro Cup, and for France Zizo is back! And let's not forget the rest of the squads, Sheva hoping to lead his country to a WC victory, 4 new African teams that play with speed, courage and heart, and let's not count out the Asian teams either Japan and South Korea are out to prove that they're showing in 2002 wasn't a fluke, even the yanks come in with one of their best and most complete squads in years. Like I said should be an exiting WC!
Assuming everyone's healthy it should be a great spectacle to watch. Speaking of health, anyone know if Toti is healthy and ready to play?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, that's exactly right. Call them good if they've proven themselves to be good. Don't call them good on unproven hype, or worse, past hype.I never said ONCE that I dislike teams that don't win every time they play, and I'm honestly not sure from where you derived that nugget of information.
I think everybody is largely in Italy and Spain's collective scrotums purely because they ARE Italy and Spain. When I ask what they've done, people go "Erm...on paper though" "On paper what? On the pitch, what?" "True...but on paper" etc.
-AC
Well, to be fair to them, they didn't just beat Germany, they absolutely tore them apart. More so than England did five years ago.
You keep talking about what they've done in recent memory, you seem to be forgetting that when it comes to the World Cup, history means jack. Think of all the teams in the past who have come from nothing to win, or do well. Nobody expected West Germany to win in '54, nobody expected Sweden to make the final and France to finish third in '58, nobody expected Italy to win in '82, nobody expected Bulgaria and Sweden to be semi-finalists in '94, nobody expected Croatia to finish third in '98, and certainly nobody expected South Korea and Turkey to reach the semis in '02, Germany to reach the final. None of these teams had proven themselves before the World Cup (or certainly not enough for them to be considered a force).
Brazil are consistent in the World Cup not because of their legacy, but because they continually produce the best players in the world. Regardless of what Brazil do around the World Cup, they are always contenders. So I see no reason not to count Italy amongst the teams with a chance. Sure, they could do a Spain and completely screw it up by the second round, but this is one of the most unpredictable tournaments in sport, who's to say? They've got the players, they've got the confidence, they may suprise a few teams with their new approach, and they were excellent in their last game together, which was without their best player anyway.
I don't think many people are in Spain's uhh...''collective scrotum''. They are good on paper, but, well, you know Spain. I think they subconsciously enjoy the humiliation of early exits.
BBC World Cup Guidelines for commentary team.
1 -Within 1 minute of kick off in the opening match (Germany v Costa Rica), the commentator must mention England.
2 - Regardless of what two teams are contesting the final, England have to be mentioned within the first minute.
3 - The commentator shall refer to the Falkland Isles in passing at some point in the match if England play Argentina.
4 - Whenever a hat trick is scored, comparisons with Geoff Hurst will be made within seconds of the third goal hitting the net.
5 - Should England wear their red jerseys, then '1966' should be mentioned approximately 20 times.
6 - 1966 will be mentioned approximately 10 times a match, or only on 4 or 5 occasions for matches not involving England.
7 - Prior to the captain of the winning team lifting the trophy, the commentator will mention Bobby Moore. And 1966.
8 - When Germany are playing, they must be referred to as being arrogant by the commentator on at least 14 occasions. This must refer to their style, their passing, their haircuts and their general footballing ability.
9 - Should England play Germany, mentions of Winston Churchill, Dambusters, The Luftwaffe and Adolf Hitler will be compulsory. And 1966.
10 - All Scottish members of our commentary team must continue to refer to England as "we" and "us".
11 - We must ensure that nationlistic stereotypes are adhered to. Of course, the Germans are arrogant. The Spanish are bottlers, The Ivory Coast are fast but bad at defending, The Angolans are disorganised, The Argentinians are cheats and the French are only good because their best players play in England.
12 - For matches not involving England, we must only discuss the players that are playing in England. (eg - Holland v Argentina should be referred to as Van Nistelroy v Crespo).
13 - The mythical "bulldog spirit" phrase should be used as often as possible.
14 - Each match involving England should begin with the phrase "England Expects."
15 - Should any player be involved in an injury that involves the loss of teeth, then references to Nobby Stiles and 1966 are compulsory.
16 - Praise all of the stunning new stadiums in Germany but emphasise that they lack the presence of Wembley, the spiritual home of football since 1966.
17 - Commentators should feel free to imitate the style of Kenneth Wolstenholme, the hero of 1966.
18 - Should any team feature brothers playing together, then Jackie and Bobby Charlton should be mentioned.
19 - If in doubt, mention 1966.
Originally posted by Deathblow
You keep talking about what they've done in recent memory, you seem to be forgetting that when it comes to the World Cup, history means jack. Think of all the teams in the past who have come from nothing to win, or do well. Nobody expected West Germany to win in '54, nobody expected Sweden to make the final and France to finish third in '58, nobody expected Italy to win in '82, nobody expected Bulgaria and Sweden to be semi-finalists in '94, nobody expected Croatia to finish third in '98, and certainly nobody expected South Korea and Turkey to reach the semis in '02, Germany to reach the final. None of these teams had proven themselves before the World Cup (or certainly not enough for them to be considered a force).
Why do I have to keep reiterating that those teams came forward and PROVED themselves from then on, to be great teams. They were praised in the moments deservedly. They didn't make a fat legacy out of being good ONCE and achieving a bit now and then. Italy have, Spain have. South Korea aren't a good team, they got where they did because of the home advantage. Greece aren't good either. In knockout tournaments anything can happen because if you manage to slyly score a goal and hold a lead, that's it. It doesn't matter how you played or what happened, you win. If it were a consistent league, Greece and South Korea would be rock bottom.
Originally posted by Deathblow
Brazil are consistent in the World Cup not because of their legacy, but because they continually produce the best players in the world. Regardless of what Brazil do around the World Cup, they are always contenders. So I see no reason not to count Italy amongst the teams with a chance. Sure, they could do a Spain and completely screw it up by the second round, but this is one of the most unpredictable tournaments in sport, who's to say? They've got the players, they've got the confidence, they may suprise a few teams with their new approach, and they were excellent in their last game together, which was without their best player anyway.
Precisely, but Italy or Spain winning but surprise and luck via a good knockout stages game doesn't mean that they are a good team. As I said above, Chile could beat Brazil in a knockout game, even if Brazil deserved to win it.
People are rating these teams by name not by what they have done that's worth rating.
Originally posted by Deathblow
I don't think many people are in Spain's uhh...''collective scrotum''. They are good on paper, but, well, you know Spain. I think they subconsciously enjoy the humiliation of early exits.
Exactly. Look at what good it did them.
-AC
Originally posted by Deano
well if sven decides to play 3 in the centre of midfield..beckham holding, gerrard and lampard. then you can play lennon on the wings
Exactly, how simple is that idea?
The problem is that Sven is simpler, and won't do that. Because he's an idiot. I don't even support England, but I appreciate good players wherever, and it's such a shame that Lennon, Bent, Walcott etc probably won't get a look in this year.
Bent definitely not.
-AC