Yossarian wrote:I think most people knew it was a 50/50 really. There’s no harm in dreaming a bit.
Matt_82 wrote:Yossarian wrote:I think most people knew it was a 50/50 really. There’s no harm in dreaming a bit.
I think most people did, probably. But the media is the visible bit and a lot of the time their 'dreaming' crossed the line into disrespect. I think so, anyway.
It's a long running joke up here that after a couple of good games in the group stages, the commentators/pundits are wondering who England will be playing in the final. It's a joke that became less relevant in recent World Cups because the team had no chance of winning.
The team's chances changed, and the joke became relevant again. Some of the reporting has been laughable and pretty disrespectful to the opponents. I've even seen a few stories that suggested that players were joining in. One story on the BBC (that I can't find at the moment) had a headline claiming that Southgate said the celebrations would be bigger than 1966 if they won. Maybe it was a bullshit headline, maybe it was a manager getting conned into saying something he shouldn't.
I remember Celtic's run in the UEFA Cup in 2003. We played Blackburn and Liverpool on the way and didn't play particularly well in the first leg of either. We won both away legs 2-0. On both occasions, the Celtic players cited the fact that they'd been written off after the first leg as part of the inspiration of the performances in the second. These things affect players. That sentiment stuck with me and I saw it in overwhelming volumes during this world cup.
I think England were pretty good in this WC and far better to watch than in the past when they had arguably better teams at their disposal. I've quite enjoyed watching some of you guys getting excited about the games. But maybe the main lesson to learn from this tournament is to not write off your opponents.
Paul the sparky wrote:I didn't say you did, although you did chuck a sneaky edit in there after your first sentence.
Paul the sparky wrote:I mean, where are the press links to other countries to compare? Matt, where are your Twitter links to a takedown of the Belgian media etc? Or is it just an England thing?
Matt_82 wrote:Paul the sparky wrote:I mean, where are the press links to other countries to compare? Matt, where are your Twitter links to a takedown of the Belgian media etc? Or is it just an England thing?
I don't speak the language, sorry. Maybe their media wrote off their opponents, too.
I dunno. Alls I'm saying is that I thought a lot of the stuff banded about was disrespectful and probably came back to bite people in the ass. You can disagree.
Dinostar77 wrote:Any team that relies on setpieces for its main supply of goals shouldn't be in a final.
Dinostar77 wrote:Any team that relies on setpieces for its main supply of goals shouldn't be in a final. An average England team got found out in the end. No plan B and not enough quality on the pitch. As good as they've been lingaard, stones, trippier, aren't starters for their clubs first XI. Hendersen isn't a holding midfielder as Liverpool have been crying out for one for years. Belgium v France should have been the final. Best two teams in the competition.
Yossarian wrote:The front pages today all seem incredibly positive towards the team. No worries on that front.
Olimite wrote:What Croatia have had to endure to make the final is incredibly impressive. To look fitter than us after two penalty shootouts and ET says a lot.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!