THOSE FUCKING ENGLAND FLAGS!

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1323 of them)
For the record (ha!) - there have been 38 Evening Times articles in 2004 matching both 'Celtic' & '1967'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:46 (twenty years ago) link

and Holland underacheiving in the seventies for example? 1974 was their first major tournament and they got to the final, which , yes, they should have won, but instead were overconfident and blew it completely. In 78 they weren't at all the same team they had been in 74 and yet they still got to the final. That's pretty good going really. In the early eighties they didn't qualify again, and then had a crop of talent which won them the euros in 88. so they've underacheived in the late 90's basically (mainly due to a lack of consistency and terrible team morale) not at all like England

chris (chris), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:47 (twenty years ago) link

Shhh Chris, don't mention '78!

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:48 (twenty years ago) link

The point is, there are too many bloody major footballing nations and not enough cups to go around. Long may it remain so.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:49 (twenty years ago) link

Nick, that's them trying too hard, over-compensating for their decades of slavish devotion to Castle Greyskull (Ibrox Park)

Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:49 (twenty years ago) link

Mexico, the USA and Iran only play decent teams every other year

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.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:50 (twenty years ago) link

ha ha 78, that's a good one, that was on tv the other night. And Scotland proved how far Holland had declined since 74!

chris (chris), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:50 (twenty years ago) link

Holland in '78 was feckin' good team!

Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:51 (twenty years ago) link

Portugal are becoming the new Holland aren't they? I've heard the phrase "Golden Generation" so many times over the past couple of weeks, usually in conjunction with "failed to win any trophies"? Also Figo and Deco handbags at dawn is very reminiscent of the Dutch.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:53 (twenty years ago) link

mike, because i know you want to know:

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?)

CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:54 (twenty years ago) link

Well Portugal and Holland are currently vying for the position of my two least favourite teams in the tournament. (What - below England??!??!?)

Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:55 (twenty years ago) link

dada, not nearly as good as in 74 though (esp. as they were Cruyffless) they admit it themselves.

chris (chris), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:57 (twenty years ago) link

Well of course chris but still preety damn good

Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:58 (twenty years ago) link

Ha, I was just reading that page of my accord! Thanks, anyway.

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.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:59 (twenty years ago) link

I've enjoyed Holland's football far more than england's so I've always thought they deserved a world cup plus that euro championship. But yes, its a team sport sport etc etc.

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.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:59 (twenty years ago) link

Wasn't Cruyff omitted in '78 because of something to do with his wife?

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

Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:16 (twenty years ago) link

Cruyff made himself unavailable (word has it that his Mrs put her foot down after allegations of a pool party nature were made after the 74 finals)

90? Waddle's hair made him miss

chris (chris), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:17 (twenty years ago) link

Julio - Try the interweb, which tells you all about 82 and 86. All you need to know is:

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.

Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:18 (twenty years ago) link

82 is possibly the most galling, we really could have won that.

chris (chris), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:19 (twenty years ago) link

For the record, England haven't lost a 'competetive' match by more than one goal since Holland beat them 2-0 in Rotterdam back in October 1993. NINETY THREE!

stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:20 (twenty years ago) link

Get this football filth off this thread!

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:20 (twenty years ago) link

I have just had to ask if the work outing planned for next Thursday is likely to be finished/winding down by 7.45pm :-/

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:23 (twenty years ago) link

unless you count England 1-3 Brazil in the Umbro Cup, 1995

stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:28 (twenty years ago) link

ha, england worse than exeter, proved by science ;)

CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:29 (twenty years ago) link

to be fair tho i can't remember the last time Spain, Italy or France lost by 2 in a 'COMPETETIVE' match either - sorry for derailment

stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:33 (twenty years ago) link

Denmark 2 - 0 France
World Cup 2002

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:35 (twenty years ago) link

Hurrah - we're better than France!

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:35 (twenty years ago) link

no, just harder to beat comprehensively, statistically. it's important, i'm sure.

stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:37 (twenty years ago) link

I agree with Dave B about 2000. A really poor squad. Amazingly, Germany were even worse than us.

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.

Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 14:40 (twenty years ago) link

Most of the potential and actual nutcases in Scotland are Rangers or Celtic fans and therefore have no interest in following the Scottish national side, considering themselves either too a) British or b) Irish to indulge in such an activity.

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.

ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 16:08 (twenty years ago) link

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.

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

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 20:58 (twenty years ago) link

Why? You seriously trying to say you don't get some sense of satisfaction at seeing a rival do badly? As I said, it's not big and it's not clever, but it's life.

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

ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:02 (twenty years ago) link

(ignore me, I am tired and tetchy and had a supremely crap day at work)

ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:04 (twenty years ago) link

I don't want everyone to win, I want England to win. But I don't hate teams that beat us. I don't see why hating should be such a fun pastime for such a lot of fans.

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:06 (twenty years ago) link

Yeah, I can't be as airy-fairy as Madchen, but I just wish you would be the big guy and get over hating England in the first place. But I guess that's unrealistic.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:07 (twenty years ago) link

If it's any consolation to paranoid England fans, I also laugh when Holland and Germany get beat as I don't like them either.

Also, if you notice, I actually said "temporary re-allocation of affection for whoever England are playing" which is not the same as saying I hate England. Neither is "because you don't like them". But hey, if it makes you feel better, I'll capitulate to the wishes of the rest of the world and wish you all the best for this, and every other, tournament.

Unless you're playing us.

ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:12 (twenty years ago) link

in my head all three of you are sat round the same computer taking turns to write stuff :)

CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:16 (twenty years ago) link

Yes, Scotland can only support one computer.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:19 (twenty years ago) link

Does it use magnetic cores? Powered by North Sea Oil?

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:20 (twenty years ago) link

Yes. I have to go now - the finance minister wants a turn.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:23 (twenty years ago) link

Also the interweb has taken over our lives so much that we can't even speak to each other when we are in the same rooms.

I should have taken my laptop to the pub on Friday rather than attempt real conversations with people.

ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:25 (twenty years ago) link

ailsa otm. i understand why british-but-not-english want england to lose. by and large tho england attract support from other nationalities presumably because of the love for the premiership and beckham (in recent years at least).

stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 21:55 (twenty years ago) link

is it out of sticking up for the small guy perhaps, this hating on big bad England?

dog latin (dog latin), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 23:47 (twenty years ago) link

At least now yob drivers will make themselves much easier to identify with a cheap plastic flag pinned to their cars... before cutting you up and giving you the tattooed finger.

If they could do this all year round, please?

Herve Villechaize, Wednesday, 16 June 2004 01:25 (twenty years ago) link

So much lost potential in this thread. It's a shame. I just wanted to requote Koogs' quote from up there, coz I liked it:

there's too much effort put into competing. we'd accomplish / produce more if we put the same effort into collaborating.

Apostrophe Catastrophe (kate), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 07:18 (twenty years ago) link

hippies

*shakes head*

chris (chris), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 07:27 (twenty years ago) link

You are of course aware that a major international sporting event, like the Euro Championships or the Olympics, is as much a collaborative effort as a competetive one, Kate?

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 07:28 (twenty years ago) link

And what exactly is a team if not an excercise in collaboration?

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 07:29 (twenty years ago) link

also, take away competition and what point is there in striving for anything. Why bother? If nothing good can happen to you (winning) and there is no chance to avoid something bad happening (losing) then life becomes rather pointless and grey.

MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 07:31 (twenty years ago) link

In any case, its a silly dichotomy to draw - you can't separate one from the other - competition always has to have an element of collaboration and vice versa. You're sounding suspiciously like one of them there socialists, Kate ;)

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 16 June 2004 07:43 (twenty years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.