Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Based on what? The best we've seen of England was 1966, and Germany weren't at their best then, but if they were (Lehmann, Ballack etc) then it'd be a different story.When someone picks at your argument close enough, you can't reply because you're forced to realise that you base it on nothing and hope that nobody thinks to question.
He's been the better player in the tournament, yes. Not overall.
Just like Germany have been better this tournament, but have also been better overall, as I just proved with that massive list of facts.
You're arguing out of desperation, with nothing more than one of those cartoon napkins wrapped around a stick. If it makes you feel better inside, keep telling yourself England are better, keep telling yourself that anyone who disagrees is stupid.
Everyone here can see you nor Mattomic make any sense. That "If England did everything right..." comment was the icing on the cake.
-AC
your judging things from 40 years ago.
im on about now. you havent proved anything. you said that germany have played better than england in this world cup. i agree.
did england play to there potential? no. if they did they would be one of the best teams in the world. you know as well as anyone sven as destroyed englands golden generation.
Originally posted by T.M
... what?you are kidding right.
i can see what AC means.
hargreaves played with passion and led the team. ran ragged, stopped attacks, bombed forward on occasions and never gave up.
no one else did that. but i dont think he should be handed the captaincy after just one great game. he has to prove he can do it regulary. im sure he can though
Originally posted by Deano
your judging things from 40 years ago.
im on about now. you havent proved anything. you said that germany have played better than england in this world cup. i agree.
did england play to there potential? no. if they did they would be one of the best teams in the world. you know as well as anyone sven as destroyed englands golden generation.
What is England's potential then? Give me an example of when you believe England played to their best...or are you imagining what their best might be like, and then saying they've not reached it? Because that would be stupid.
I've proven why Germany are consistently the more successful team, because they're better. You've not proven why you believe they are better.
All you can say is "If they did this...", "If they did everything right...". Yes, if, if, if. They never do and they haven't done since 1966. Every single year it's "We can do it! COME ON ENGERLAND!" and they flop.
The reason they don't live up to their "best" is because their best is something England fans wish they were as good as. They're not as good as everyone would like to believe. You have nothing besides "If", I have facts, and I posted such, shall I do so again?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How is Carrick better than Hargreaves, consistently? He never plays consistently.-AC
i think Carrick is a better player than Hargreaves, but Hargreaves played brilliantly against Portugal, and reasonably when he played before that.
Carrick is a different sort of holding midfield player though, he doesnt tackle as much, but connects midfield and defence well, larger range of passing etc.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What is England's potential then? Give me an example of when you believe England played to their best...or are you imagining what their best might be like, and then saying they've not reached it? Because that would be stupid.I've proven why Germany are consistently the more successful team, because they're better. You've not proven why you believe they are better.
All you can say is "If they did this...", "If they did everything right...". Yes, if, if, if. They never do and they haven't done since 1966. Every single year it's "We can do it! COME ON ENGERLAND!" and they flop.
The reason they don't live up to their "best" is because their best is something England fans wish they were as good as. They're not as good as everyone would like to believe. You have nothing besides "If", I have facts, and I posted such, shall I do so again?
-AC
with the players they have, how can you say the potential isnt there? they need a manager who knows what he is doing. you know how bad sven was. he was the main cause and you know it. if germany messed up tactics and were unmotivated, do you think they would of gotten far? stop dodging these points.
my final say is this..germany played better because they had everything spot on. engand played poor because of the managers crapness in every area. in my opinion, an england squad at there best would beat germany at there best.
you have no facts. i dont want facts from the past. im on about now. the only thing you stand on is ''well germany have played better, they are the better team, its true because they have won the world cup more times''
ridiculous, you are the one complaining that england fans live in the past.
maniche will always be a better player than ronaldinho because he had a better tournament.
germany hardly played brilliantly in games before the world cup, even in euro 2004, what happened to them? i remember england getting futher dont you? england must be better then.
🙄
Originally posted by Df02
i think Carrick is a better player than Hargreaves, but Hargreaves played brilliantly against Portugal, and reasonably when he played before that.Carrick is a different sort of holding midfield player though, he doesnt tackle as much, but connects midfield and defence well, larger range of passing etc.
id rather have a tackling defensive midfielder who runs himself ragged. england have lampard and gerrard to do the passing.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I only go by how good they actually play, when they play. If Carrick isn't playing as good as Hargreaves now, which he isn't, then I don't think he should be there.Sol Campbell messed up Arsenal's defense for the longest time off the back of "He was good then".
-AC
but if he doesnt get a game how do we judge? by previous performances.
Carrick played for England and did well, closed play down and had good passing play... media praised him... then Hargreaves played next game.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Mattomic, this is for you, since you're so chicken shit to post your opinions and back them up:[b]England International Honours:
WC Participations: 11 (1950, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1998, 2002).
WC Honours: World Champions (1966).
Continental Titles: None.
Germany International Honours:
WC Participations: 15 (1934, 1938, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002).
WC Honours: Three Times World Champions (1954, 1974, 1990). Possibly a fourth.
Continental Titles: Three Times European Champions (1972, 1980, 1996).
Not to mention how many finals they've been in.
Go home, go to bed, come back when you have shit to back yourself up with.
2006 World Cup? England are out, again. Germany have to beat Italy to reach the finals, then France or Portugal. They played better, by your admission, by Deano's admission, the were written off. As opposed to England who were overhyped.
-AC [/B]
Keep insulting me all you like with names like "chicken shit"!!!
You're so far up your own arse, you can't agree to just let someone air their thoughts and opinion without some kind of comment, I stopped talking to you, or even showing opinions in regards to you, but then you came looking for me, I do not wish to speak to you about anything anymore, because you have shown me no respect, infact it's fair to say you're not worth my time or energy
I do not have to justify myself to you, I have an opinion and i'm sticking with it, and call it stupid, crappy, or whatever you wish, but I ain't changing my mind and conforming to you and your "i'm always right and smart" attitude
Show me all the damn history you want, it means nothing for what today holds, now go annoy someone else with your constant bullcrap
I have been Mattomic, and you AC......have been a waste of time
Originally posted by T.M
Who do you guys think should be the new captain.. ?
I've gotta say Steven Gerrard, but ofcourse with that being said I am not against the idea of JT taking it on
They are both fantastic players with so much passion for the national team, and are both good leaders/motivators, so primarily i'd want those two
I know alot of people have said Gary Neville, but he's not gonna be a long term solution, so it's better to not go down that road
Originally posted by Deano
im glad hargreaves played against portugal. showed more energy and desire than carrick ever would of done imo.
I totally agree with that, Hargreaves really shown with his actions and his performance how much it meant to him to be there and representing his country, and i'm happy for the guy, I always said he was a good player, and it showed in that game and the Sweden one too
Plus, he did no wrong in the game against Ecuador either