THOSE FUCKING ENGLAND FLAGS!

there was certainly mention of 1967 LAST NIGHT when larrson scored...

Yes, but I work for an insurance company and always forget to renew my car tax.

Not so much with Holland as they actually underachieved, especially in the 70s.

julio, that sentence makes no sense...

Steve, I live in London, I talk to English people every day! That last sentence does not necessarily follow of course...

Aye, Charlie N1cholas and Derek J0hnstone both get a page each to demonstrate why former footballers have no place in journalism.

Unless the FIFA ranking ignore friendlies (and they might) then this is a bit unfair. The USA play lots of European/South America teams and do OK against them too (a draw with Denmark and a win over Poland this year - is that right, Ben?). Besides, they did reach the last eight of the 2002 WC.

http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/rank/procedures/0,2540,3,00.html

friendlies count, but nowhere near as much as qualifying or continental champs matches (is there an oceania continental championship?)

I presume we're behind the USA because our record in friendlies (which have a multiplication factor of 1.0x, vs 1.5x for EC/WC qualifiers, 1.75x for EC finals and 2.0x for WC finals) is quite poor and perhaps something to do with the absurd privileging for the Confederation Cup (also 1.75x). Hey, it's FIFA's baby, they can do what they want.

eng 1990 was a good draw, '96 was home advantage. In either case nobody could be bothered with penalties. don't know abt '82 and '86 tho'.

Portugal are really overrated. Midfield was ok.

'82 we blew it
'86 that fat bloke chucked it in

90? Waddle's hair made him miss

82 - good team, there for the taking, Keegan fucks it. Who can say. We'd have played the French in the semi having already beaten them. Gnash gnash.

86 - Cheating Diego does for us.

All in all, during tournaments in my lifetime, the only time I've thought we didn't have a chance is 2000 - Keegan's team were just clueless. Even 92 was on the back of an unbeaten run in qualfiying - we were in the pot of favourites for that tournament with the French, and there were only 8 teams. in 2002, we went out and you can't complain really - we were outplayed. All others have an element of maybe and what if that makes for the optimism.

2000 is also galling though. The first ten minutes against Porugal showed the potential and I still think Figo's long range effort was a fluke (via Adam's inner thigh). But that doesn't excuse the Romania game.

Can I point out that I am a Celtic fan who supports Scotland? And isn't Irish at all, and don't want to be either? kthanxbye...(though I'm not a nutcase, which may have some bearing on this).

And while we're at it:

feel like a total prude saying this, but sports fans in Britain really do take soccer beyond a game. They'll turn anything into an excuse to get pissed and spout vitriol at other countries.

...Excuse me, sports fans in ENGLAND

Er, no, SCotland too (no experience of Welsh or Northern Irish fans with regard to this). Part of the fun of tournaments where Scotland aren't involved is the temporary re-allocation of affection for whoever England are playing. This isn't big or clever, but it's no worse than wanting Man U/Germany/Rangers to lose just because you don't like them.

And the "Celtic fans don't talk about 1967 much" is bollocks. They have been trotted out at least twice this season at Parkhead (on the oh-so-significant 37th anniversary of the Cup win), and won the vote for the name of the new stand over Fergus McCann, a man who actually deserved to have the stand named after him.

Which leads me to conclude Dadaismus hasn't got a clue since he left the country he seems to love so much.

Substitute 'every bit as bad as' for 'no worse than'

Fuck, why bother going into competition with other people if you want everyone to win?