Originally posted by Deano
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.
Potential is potential for a reason. As in they could POTENTIALLY be something, but they're not. That's why it's called potential, Deano.
It's not about what WOULD happen or wouldn't have happened, that's what you're dodging. What DOES happen is this: Germany have proven to be the consistently better, more successful team and England have proven they can only be relied on to get knocked out.
Originally posted by Deano
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''
I asked you to define what is England at their best, so do it. Oh...they haven't been at their best in your opinion have they? Because the only place it exists is in your head. You have this mental image of how good England should/could be, never stopping to think that they might not be that good in actuality.
No, they played better, they've progressed further. They did it this time and they did it last time. England have played shit, because they have a shit TEAM, TEAM. They have some amazing individual players, Lennon (as discussed today) is one of the best wingers on Earth. They just aren't a better TEAM.
Originally posted by Deano
ridiculous, you are the one complaining that england fans live in the past.
Those facts were for Mattomic, not you. He's the one saying England are better at everything, ever. I proved they aren't.
Originally posted by Deano
maniche will always be a better player than ronaldinho because he had a better tournament.
You're saying that, not me. You're twisting my words because you've come unstuck.
Ronaldinho has proven himself to be a consistently better player than Maniche, but in this instance, Maniche had a better tournament. Germany have had a better tournament too, they've also had a better international history.
Originally posted by Deano
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.
🙄
England had a better tournament, like Maniche did. However, Germany have the consistent proof of being a better team, like now. Similar to Ronaldinho.
-AC
Originally posted by Mattomic
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
It's my right, I have the right to do so. If you don't like it, leave. Anyone here has the right to comment on mine, I have the right to comment on anyone elses. If you don't like it, leave it. All you've done is spout your opinion, that's it. You haven't backed it up, and yes, in a debate you do have to.
Originally posted by Mattomic
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
Yes, in a debate where you are making claims in contrary to me, you have to back yourself up.
You ask for respect, you say you know your shit, but you continually dodge a chance to prove it. I always thought you knew nothing, but then you posted and removed all doubt.
I'm not asking you to agree with me, Matt. I'm asking you to give reasons to back up your opinion and you are scared to do so because you know you're chatting bull.
Originally posted by Mattomic
Show me all the damn history you want, it means nothing for what today holds, now go annoy someone else with your constant bullcrap
It does, especially when you are saying "England are better!!! They have a better reputation!!!". They don't, proven by facts.
Originally posted by Mattomic
I have been Mattomic, and you AC......have been a waste of time
Why are you so afraid?
-AC
Originally posted by Df02
well Sven does choose Beckham, so hopefully McClaren will drop him if he doesnt play well.the sheer fact he's stepping down as captain as Sven gets fired shows the sway Sven had in regards to him
Do you think we should still start with Beckham though?? My thinking is that if we unleash Lennon on the opposition (whoever they maybe) about an hour or so in, he'll have a much more effective performance, they'll all be tiring by then
If we play him from the start, i'm thinking he'll run himself into the ground, but if we bring him in later on into a game, he'll have easier pickings getting past the left back and into the box
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriEngland had a better tournament, like Maniche did. However, Germany have the consistent proof of being a better team, like now. Similar to Ronaldinho.
-AC
so england must of been better than germany then, and overall. but now they are not because germany are further in this cup. theres no logic in that.
recently before the world cup, germany have been average. thats why they wasnt favourites. argentina played better than germany and have played the best football in the world cup, but they still lost, and the are out. thats football. germany got to the final in 2002, they avoided germany, that was a bit of luck. you gotta take these things into consideration.