Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Supras has gone affa quiet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Supras has gone affa quiet... Unfortunately I just have far too much going on to repeatedly destroy you. I did it earlier on this thread, I did it after your Ukraine disaster. Frankly, either others need to step in or we'll just let you make a tit of yourself unaided. The bit in bold is the main point. Had they not repeatedly bombed out of tournaments, or went on extended poor runs (just this year they had a 5 match sequence where they didn't even score a goal) they wouldn't end up in groups with Spain. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that England have achieved more internationally overall than France (because we haven't), or even that we have better individuals (I don't think we do, although the number of Newcastle players in France's team says something about where they are right now). I'm just showing why Supras' very specific assertion that France have a "vastly superior record over 5 years" is complete nonsense, and that he doesn't know what he's on about. Unless his definition of vast superiority is having a poorer win rate, losing twice as many matches, winning fewer games in tournaments, getting knocked out earlier in tournaments, and finishing below England when they're actually drawn together in a group. I guess to be fair, it might be, his grasp of logic doesn't seem the most secure. That's a blatant lie. You have been flogging this dead horse all thread, and have already been comprehensively beaten on it. Yup, hands up, I got that one wrong. They surprised me by actually being competent. I'm addressing the one point which is actually relevant to what I've been saying, and which is actually the crux of my argument. Right, lets actually look at those 4 tournaments. Euro 2008: Fair play, they actually qualified while England didn't. When they actually got there though, they managed zero wins and a solitary goal, and humiliatingly finished bottom of a group that included Romania World Cup 2010: Needed extra-time and a hand-ball to overcome mighty Ireland in a play-off to qualify (England qualified automatically). Once they got there they repeated the trick of the Euros, registering zero wins, one goal, and actually went on strike on their way to finishing bottom of the group, again. They were one of the worst teams at the entire tournament, and performed so disgracefully that the head of the FFF felt the need to resign, and several of the players received suspensions. England went through from the groups unbeaten, before being thumped by Germany in the last 16. Euro 2012: Hallelujah, France actually win a match at a tournament! Unfortunately, they also finish well behind England in the group, before being comfortably dispatched by Spain in the quarter-finals. England also go out in the quarters on penalties to Italy. World Cup 2014: Scrape past Ukraine in a play-off after losing the first leg 2-0. England qualify automatically. Just for the sake of completeness, the records of France and England since 2008: France- W: 38 D: 19 L: 20 Win percentage: 49% England- W: 41 D: 16 L: 10 Win percentage: 61% If you still think that France's record over the last 5 years is 'vastly superior' then you're delusional. The superior record relates to them qualifying for three tournaments compared to two - by far the most important metric. Still, at least you have totally surrendered on the every other time period put forward. So please continue to make a tit of yourself to your hearts contempt, I don't need to be here for all of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Unfortunately I just have far too much going on to repeatedly destroy you. I did it earlier on this thread, I did it after your Ukraine disaster. Frankly, either others need to step in or we'll just let you make a tit of yourself unaided. Supras: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 There is no draw. You said England were better than France and have been utterly ridiculed on this point throughout the thread. And to top it all off you gloated about France being knocked out of the World Cup playoffs hours before they qualified. It's been a fucking horror show from your point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 The superior record relates to them qualifying for three tournaments compared to two - by far the most important metric. Hang on, you're saying that qualifying for tournaments is a more important measure than what you actually do when you get there? That's odd... So, the Netherlands reach the final of the 2010 World Cup - something England haven't managed in 47 years, and yet you think England are better than them because they qualified for more tournaments? FWIW, I didn't and don't think we're better than the Dutch, just showing that you are incapable of arguing a point without constantly moving the goalposts. I've been entirely consistent in what I've said the whole time, and held my hands up the times I've got things wrong. You've repeatedly shifted goalposts, deliberately misinterpereted or completely ignored my points, and occasionally just made things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 England have done nothing when they have qualified for tournaments, though - besides being utterly underwhelming. If they had reached a world cup final, or a European final, then yes it would eclipse more qualifications. But they didn't, and it doesn't. If that is the level of desperation you are prepared to go too then I think even you accept you were wrong, and are now just going through the motions. England are footballs greatest underachievers, and their delusional fans make their relentless failures even more hilarious. Yes, I'm sure France fans wish they actually supported England Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Dreadful day of football for the English National side. With Walker, Cleverley and Ferdinand all utterly vile and out of their depth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Dreadful day of football for the English National side. With Walker, Cleverley and Ferdinand all utterly vile and out of their depth Patrice Evra and Hugo Lloris really covered themselves in glory as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hampden Diehard Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 And Arsenal have several English players that are first team regulars. Thought that I'd look this one up. Trusty Wikipedia has 5 of the 32 signed Arsenal players as English. They've made 30 starts between them in the first 12 games, so that's an average of 2 and a half English players per start. Take away Gibbs and the four others have clocked up a grand total of 18 starts in the 12 games. "Several" is stretching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Thought that I'd look this one up. Trusty Wikipedia has 5 of the 32 signed Arsenal players as English. They've made 30 starts between them in the first 12 games, so that's an average of 2 and a half English players per start. Take away Gibbs and the four others have clocked up a grand total of 18 starts in the 12 games. "Several" is stretching it. Theo Walcott is a certain starter - he's just been injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Thought that I'd look this one up. Trusty Wikipedia has 5 of the 32 signed Arsenal players as English. They've made 30 starts between them in the first 12 games, so that's an average of 2 and a half English players per start. Take away Gibbs and the four others have clocked up a grand total of 18 starts in the 12 games. "Several" is stretching it. Gibbs, Wilshere and Walcott generally start when they're fit. Even Oxlade-Chamberlain made 33 appearances in all competitions last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 If that is the level of desperation you are prepared to go too... This coming from someone that used the argument that France beat England 2-1 in a friendly over three years ago. If they are so much better, why have they won fewer games than England (despite playing 10 more) and lost twice as many in the period in question? And why did they finish well behind England in the group in the Euros? And why did they fail to win a single game in their group in the last World Cup? Be very specific (that means answering my points, rather than bringing up totally irrelevant things that you imagine I've said). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 This coming from someone that used the argument that France beat England 2-1 in a friendly over three years ago. If they are so much better, why have they won fewer games than England (despite playing 10 more) and lost twice as many in the period in question? And why did they finish well behind England in the group in the Euros? And why did they fail to win a single game in their group in the last World Cup? Be very specific (that means answering my points, rather than bringing up totally irrelevant things that you imagine I've said). Er, when comparing two nations directly you think results between those sides shouldn't come into it They finished below England in the Euros because Sweden played pretty well against them. But I've already addressed these points, they qualified for three tournaments and England qualified for two. That's specific, and utterly damning I'm afraid. But still, I'm sure most French fans wish they supported England, right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Er, when comparing two nations directly you think results between those sides shouldn't come into it They finished below England in the Euros because Sweden played pretty well against them. But I've already addressed these points, they qualified for three tournaments and England qualified for two. That's specific, and utterly damning I'm afraid. But still, I'm sure most French fans wish they supported England, right I don't think friendlies should come into it (unless one side wins 8-0 or something ridiculous) no, otherwise I would think that England are better than Italy, Brazil, and Spain, as we've beaten all of them since that France game. I'd also think that France are worse than Belarus and China, because they've lost to those countries in recent years as well. The thing is though, I don't believe any of those things because I don't use your ridiculous logic. That would be the same Sweden that England beat? And you didn't address any of the points, you ignored them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Oh, I almost forgot this wee beauty: To critiicise Scotlands record in international tournaments you brought up Denmark and Croatia - we have qualified for more international tournaments then either of these sides. The argument that Scotland have achieved more than Croatia and Denmark is a baffling one, but hey, we all have our little delusions. The superior record relates to them qualifying for three tournaments compared to two - by far the most important metric. Well, you're consistent in your argument at least, I can't fault you on that...But hang on, what's this? England have done nothing when they have qualified for tournaments, though - besides being utterly underwhelming.If they had reached a world cup final, or a European final, then yes it would eclipse more qualifications. Croatia finished 3rd at a World Cup, and Denmark were the f*cking European Champions you mentalist Do you not get dizzy with all these U-turns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Really though, I do admire your ability to continue this onslaught in spite of reasoned debate, logic, common sense, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's the kind of attitude that made Britain great. You'd have made a tremendous WWI military commander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Patrice Evra and Hugo Lloris really covered themselves in glory as well. Aye but I didn't want to mock France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Aye but I didn't want to mock France Fair enough, I agree that Walker and Cleverly are crap anwyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 3 posts in a row? This guy is pretty rattled. I feel bad for how out his depth he is. I don't think friendlies should come into it (unless one side wins 8-0 or something ridiculous) no, otherwise I would think that England are better than Italy, Brazil, and Spain, as we've beaten all of them since that France game. I'd also think that France are worse than Belarus and China, because they've lost to those countries in recent years as well. The thing is though, I don't believe any of those things because I don't use your ridiculous logic.That would be the same Sweden that England beat?And you didn't address any of the points, you ignored them. I never suggested that France were better than England solely because of a friendly result, that is an utter lie I'm afraid. It was merely one of the points I put forward amongst many others as to why France such a demonstrably superior national team who have achieved significantly more than England. Uh, yes, it is the same Sweden that England managed to beat 3-2. Just like France beat Ukraine whereas England couldn't. Oh, I almost forgot this wee beauty: The argument that Scotland have achieved more than Croatia and Denmark is a baffling one, but hey, we all have our little delusions. Well, you're consistent in your argument at least, I can't fault you on that...But hang on, what's this? Croatia finished 3rd at a World Cup, and Denmark were the f*cking European Champions you mentalist Do you not get dizzy with all these U-turns? There is nothing baffling about it, Scotland won over 50 British Home Championships, even though the odds were massively stacked against them in every single one of them. They have been better than Denmark for virtually all of footballing history, and Croatia getting third in the World Cup once isn't even close to what Scotland have achieved. It's funny, because I've utterly won this argument so often. Carl Cort is as out of his depth as some loser like Tryfield saying the war on drugs is a good idea. I just know so much more about this topic than my opponent, it's not really a good use of my time. Really though, I do admire your ability to continue this onslaught in spite of reasoned debate, logic, common sense, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's the kind of attitude that made Britain great. You'd have made a tremendous WWI military commander. Overwhelming evidence that England are a better side than France over the past 5, 8 and 15 year periods? Yeah, must have missed all that. I know you may trying to be running (as fast as possible) away from getting the England France result in 2012 wrong and gloating about France going out the world cup hours before they qualified but I'm afraid you are just filling the void with even more embarrassing moments. The inexperienced ones never know when they're beaten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 England have done nothing when they have qualified for tournaments, though - besides being utterly underwhelming. If they had reached a world cup final, or a European final, then yes it would eclipse more qualifications. But they didn't, and it doesn't. If that is the level of desperation you are prepared to go too then I think even you accept you were wrong, and are now just going through the motions. England are footballs greatest underachievers, and their delusional fans make their relentless failures even more hilarious. Yes, I'm sure France fans wish they actually supported England TBF they did probably have the best side around 02-04. The 02 match against Brazil was the real final that year, and it could have gone either way that day. All I will say is thank god Ronaldo rediscovered his old form after years of injuries. Euro 2004 had some of the weakest teams I can remember, and the fact Greece won it. Showed what a f**k up England made of it. Its going to be a long time (if ever) before we witness them having a group of players that good again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.