Why England will win Euro 2008 - BBC 2003

[Supras]

The real final? Um, no, it was a Quarter Final that happened to involve the winners

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

3 posts in a row? This guy is pretty rattled. I feel bad for how out his depth he is.

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.

You made a grand total of two points that actually support your argument. One was that they beat us in a friendly 3 years ago, the other was that they qualified for Euro 2008 when we didn't.

And England didn't need to beat Ukraine. We still finished above them in the group.

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.

Jesus, and I thought us English were bad for mentioning 1966 And 17 of your titles were shared. Anyway, the Home Championship was clearly an irrelevance post-1950, when British teams started to go to the World Cup and saw how far behind the rest of the World we had fallen, so I'd suggest the 12 Scotland won after that are pretty meaningless in the context of global football. You can keep celebrating them though if they mean that much to you...

Incidentally, in the early days of the game the Danes were actually pretty good, but failure to embrace the professional era set them back decades. Once they allowed a professional national team and league, they overtook Scotland fairly rapidly. They've also won the European Championship in the modern era, the Confederations Cup, and have been past the 1st round of the World Cup 3 times. Meanwhile Croatia in 20 years of footballing existence have managed more victories at major tournaments than Scotland have ever, have finished 3rd at a World Cup, have been to more European Championships than Scotland have ever, and have made the quarter finals twice. They also completely disprove your assertion that no country of 5 million can qualify regularly.

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

I've posted why we've been better in the last 5 years yes. The only person that has repeatedly brought up the last 8 and 15 years is you. In fact, in several posts I've actually agreed that France have a better record over those periods, and made clear that I'm referring to 2008 to the present day. I can't help if you're a fantasist who demands evidence for arguments that I haven't made.

And I haven't run away from anything? On the England v France score, I corrected myself and apologised almost immediately. Ditto with the play-off result where I admitted I got it wrong. Again, fantasist. Although on the subject of admitting mistakes, I never saw a correction from when you incorrectly said England have only outperformed the Dutch once at tournaments in the last 15 years, or when you incorrectly said that countries of 5 million can't regularly qualify, or when you incorrectly said that Scotland have qualified for more international tournaments than Denmark, or when you incorrectly claimed just now that Scotland have won over 50 Home Championships...

Anyway, to sum up your arguments on this thread:

• When comparing the recent records of England and France, the most important measure is how regularly they qualify, not how they actually perform at tournaments, or their overall record in games.
• However, when comparing the all-time records of England and France, how they actually perform at tournaments trumps qualification records.
• Although when comparing Scotland and Croatia, how you actually do at a tournament isn't important, and it's how many times you've qualified overall that counts.
• But when comparing Scotland and Denmark, number of qualifications and overall tournament victories don't matter, it's the number of British Championship wins that is the best measure.

Have I got that right?

[RandomGuy.]

[wingsoverperthshire]

Personally I think England are overpriced, available at 33/1.

[Supras]

You made a grand total of two points that actually support your argument. One was that they beat us in a friendly 3 years ago, the other was that they qualified for Euro 2008 when we didn't.

And England didn't need to beat Ukraine. We still finished above them in the group.

Jesus, and I thought us English were bad for mentioning 1966 And 17 of your titles were shared. Anyway, the Home Championship was clearly an irrelevance post-1950, when British teams started to go to the World Cup and saw how far behind the rest of the World we had fallen, so I'd suggest the 12 Scotland won after that are pretty meaningless in the context of global football. You can keep celebrating them though if they mean that much to you...

Anyway, to sum up your arguments on this thread:

Is this guy for real?

But anyway, trying to degregate the importance British Home Championship shows a complete lack of understanding of footballing history. This is a fairly simple point, and I'm not going to bother going into more depth until you show significantly more knowledge. I recommend google. They got less important after World War Two, at least you got that right but they were the pre-eminent international footballing competition before the 1930s.

I have provided several points in relation to why England are better than France over the times periods I've discussed. Lie if you want, the record is all over this thread.

Incidentally, in the early days of the game the Danes were actually pretty good, but failure to embrace the professional era set them back decades. Once they allowed a professional national team and league, they overtook Scotland fairly rapidly

Good god

They also completely disprove your assertion that no country of 5 million can qualify regularly.

Nope, they don't. They will if Croatia manage to maintain this qualification record for the next few decades. I highly doubt they will, especially under the current qualifying conditions for European nations going to the World Cup. They will repeatedly qualify for the expanded Euros - and so will Scotland.

• When comparing the recent records of England and France, the most important measure is how regularly they qualify, not how they actually perform at tournaments, or their overall record in games.
• However, when comparing the all-time records of England and France, how they actually perform at tournaments trumps qualification records.
• Although when comparing Scotland and Croatia, how you actually do at a tournament isn't important, and it's how many times you've qualified overall that counts.
• But when comparing Scotland and Denmark, number of qualifications and overall tournament victories don't matter, it's the number of British Championship wins that is the best measure

Your last two points are total lies, obviously, and the second one is just idiotic but regarding the first there is a very simple reason this is the case.

England haven't done noticeably better than France in the two tournaments they actually qualified - remember they qualified for one less? It's an enormously important point even for the narrow time period you gave. They reached exactly the same stage in the Euros and England reached one stage further in the World Cup - where they played dreadfully and were destroyed by Germany. But that's it, one stage further in one tournament compared to actually qualifying for a tournament? Again, the delusions of England fans make their repeated failure even more hilarious.

TBF this BBC article sums it up pretty well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25060954

They are a nation who, repeatedly, embarrass themselves and have firmly established their position as footballs greatest underachievers. The first nation to show they are antiquated? Well, have a look.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

In that impressive dissection of my post, I think you accidentally missed a bit:

Although on the subject of admitting mistakes, I never saw a correction from when you incorrectly said England have only outperformed the Dutch once at tournaments in the last 15 years, or when you incorrectly said that countries of 5 million can't regularly qualify, or when you incorrectly said that Scotland have qualified for more international tournaments than Denmark, or when you incorrectly claimed just now that Scotland have won over 50 Home Championships...

[Supras]

I directly referenced points two and three, and Scotland won over 40 Home Championships, which was nothing more than a typo, and hardly getting a result totally wrong.

That leaves the Netherlands point, it looks like you've just made that up. This seems to be my post on the matter:

England is more than three times the size of the Netherlands, and yet even they have a superior recent record qualifying for Euro 2008, reaching the world cup final in 2010 and the only tournament England have done better than them in is one stage further in Euro 2012.

So, do you disagree that England are footballs greatest underachievers?

Do you think that France supporters really wish they supported England?

Will you address any of the points in my post? Ignoring posts you don't like seems to be your MO.

Will you ever concede and drift off? I have a limited time in my life, and there's only so many times I can beat you before it gets tedious.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I directly referenced points two and three, and Scotland won over 40 Home Championships, which was nothing more than a typo, and hardly getting a result totally wrong.

That leaves the Netherlands point, it looks like you've just made that up. This seems to be my post on the matter:

So, do you disagree that England are footballs greatest underachievers?

Do you think that France supporters really wish they supported England?

Will you address any of the points in my post? Ignoring posts you don't like seems to be your MO.

Will you ever concede and drift off? I have a limited time in my life, and there's only so many times I can beat you before it gets tedious.

I was using this as the quote on the Netherlands, where you seemed to be using the last 15 years as your standard point for comparison. Unless of course you shift the goalposts as to what constitutes 'recent' depending on your argument:

Similarly, France have two major international wins in the last 15 years, in addition to another World Cup final.

England is more than three times the size of the Netherlands, and yet even they have a superior recent record qualifying for Euro 2008, reaching the world cup final in 2010 and the only tournament England have done better than them in is one stage further in Euro 2012.

[/qoute]

And no I don't think England are football's greatest underachievers.

And no I don't think French folk wished they supported England. In the same way I don't wish I supported Celtic, or you don't wish you supported England.

[Supras]

Learn to quote better. And, no, as you can clearly see I discuss 15 years with relation to France but never, in any sense, with relation to the Netherlands.

So, yeah, bare faced lying will get you no where I'm afraid:

said England have only outperformed the Dutch once at tournaments in the last 15 years

^^^

Never happened.

Similarly, I don't seem to mention the word "recent" either but rather brought up specific examples to embellish my pertinent points. Cause I'm good at this thing, clearly.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Similarly, France have two major international wins in the last 15 years, in addition to another World Cup final.

England is more than three times the size of the Netherlands, and yet even they have a superior recent record qualifying for Euro 2008, reaching the world cup final in 2010 and the only tournament England have done better than them in is one stage further in Euro 2012.

^ That is the Netherlands quote, where it seems that the last 15 years is your standard timepoint, unless you just move the goalposts arbitrarily to suit your argument

I directly referenced points two and three, and Scotland won over 40 Home Championships, which was nothing more than a typo, and hardly getting a result totally wrong.

That leaves the Netherlands point, it looks like you've just made that up. This seems to be my post on the matter:

So, do you disagree that England are footballs greatest underachievers?

Do you think that France supporters really wish they supported England?

Will you address any of the points in my post? Ignoring posts you don't like seems to be your MO.

Will you ever concede and drift off? I have a limited time in my life, and there's only so many times I can beat you before it gets tedious.

On your Croatia point, all their qualifications have come under current conditions. Scotland have managed 1 World Cup since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Croatia have clearly been better than Scotland for their entire existence as a footballing entity. My point about Denmark overtaking Scotland is true. They didn't have any professionals in their national team until 1971. They didn't have a professional league until 1978. They didn't have a professional national manager until 1979. By 1984 they had reached the semi-finals of the European Championships. By 1986 they had reached the last 16 of a World Cup, further than Scotland have ever reached, and by 1992 they were European Champions. In 2 decades, Danish football went from being entirely amateur to being champions of Europe.

And no I don't think England are football's greatest underachievers.

And no I don't think French folk wished they supported England. In the same way I don't wish I supported Celtic, or you don't wish you supported England.

There, that's better

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Similarly, I don't seem to mention the word "recent" either but rather brought up specific examples to embellish my pertinent points. Cause I'm good at this thing, clearly.

WHAT?!!

England is more than three times the size of the Netherlands, and yet even they have a superior recent record

[Supras]

^ That is the Netherlands quote, where it seems that the last 15 years is your standard timepoint, unless you just move the goalposts arbitrarily to suit your argument

On your Croatia point, all their qualifications have come under current conditions. Scotland have managed 1 World Cup since the collapse of the Soviet Union.. My point about Denmark overtaking Scotland is true.

There, that's better

So you are seriously not going to admit to your lie? Right then, I'll guess I'll just keep referencing it until you do.

said England have only outperformed the Dutch once at tournaments in the last 15 years

^^^

Never happened.

^^^ still never happened.

Croatia have clearly been better than Scotland for their entire existence as a footballing entity

You've totally lost it now.

They didn't have any professionals in their national team until 1971. They didn't have a professional league until 1978. They didn't have a professional national manager until 1979. By 1984 they had reached the semi-finals of the European Championships. By 1986 they had reached the last 16 of a World Cup, further than Scotland have ever reached, and by 1992 they were European Champions. In 2 decades, Danish football went from being entirely amateur to being champions of Europe.

Their amateur status isn't relevant. I don't know why you think it is.

[Supras]

And no I don't think England are football's greatest underachievers.

Then who is?

Given his dreadful form in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if he says something stupid like China

England is more than three times the size of the Netherlands, and yet even they have a superior recentrecord

Er, yes, but not with relation to France in that post...that was the fucking point

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

You've totally lost it now.

The first tournament that both Scotland and Croatia could enter was Euro 96. You were knocked out in the 1st round. They reached the quarter-finals. The second was France 98. You were knocked out in the first round. They finished 3rd overall. Since then, Croatia have qualified for a further 6 major championships. Scotland haven't managed any.

Then who is?

Russia/USSR

[Supras]

The first tournament that both Scotland and Croatia could enter was Euro 96. You were knocked out in the 1st round. They reached the quarter-finals. The second was France 98. You were knocked out in the first round. They finished 3rd overall. Since then, Croatia have qualified for a further 6 major championships. Scotland haven't managed any.


Russia/USSR

I'm not disputing that it's factually true, I'm saying that it's not relevant to my original claim that Scotland have achieved significantly more than Croatia as a footballing nation. Who cares if they've done better over what is, to us, a tiny portion of our footballing history? It won't last, it never has done for such a small nation in Europe.

Football has never been the clear number 1 sport in Russia, and wasn't even close in the USSR. They have never hosted a world cup - the only way England could ever win it. Their record in the European Championship is quite a bit better, and they reached a semi final only 5 years (that one England never qualified for). Just a number of contributory factors as to why you are incorrect. But still, any other candidates to put forward? Be specific.

At least you've abandoned the rest of your points / blatant lies.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Football has never been the clear number 1 sport in Russia, and wasn't even close in the USSR. They have never hosted a world cup - the only way England could ever win it. Their record in the European Championship is quite a bit better, and they reached a semi final only 5 years (that one England never qualified for). Just a number of contributory factors as to why you are incorrect. But still, any other candidates to put forward? Be specific.

Are you really, genuinely trying to argue that Russia, a country that haven't got past the 2nd round of a World Cup in over 30 years, haven't got past the 1st round in over 20 years, were last at a World Cup in 2002, have a population of over 140 million (and the USSR had almost 300 million people to pick from), one of the biggest countries on Earth where football is hugely popular, a country that have done worse than England at 8 of the last 10 tournaments, that they have achieved more in football than England?

FFS, the one major title they've ever won was 63 years ago, where Italy, West Germany and England didn't even enter, and they didn't even have to qualify for the tournament proper because Spain didn't turn up

[Supras]

Are you really, genuinely trying to argue that Russia, a country that haven't got past the 2nd round of a World Cup in over 30 years, haven't got past the 1st round in over 20 years, were last at a World Cup in 2002, have a population of over 140 million (and the USSR had almost 300 million people to pick from), one of the biggest countries on Earth where football is hugely popular, a country that have done worse than England at 8 of the last 10 tournaments, that they have achieved more in football than England?

FFS, the one major title they've ever won was 63 years ago, where Italy, West Germany and England didn't even enter, and they didn't even have to qualify for the tournament proper because Spain didn't turn up

I've never suggested in any sense they have achieved more in football than England, I merely said they weren't footballs greatest underachievers and outlined a specific set of reasons why:

Football has never been the clear number 1 sport in Russia, and wasn't even close in the USSR. They have never hosted a world cup - the only way England could ever win it. Their record in the European Championship is quite a bit better, and they reached a semi final only 5 years (that one England never qualified for). Just a number of contributory factors as to why you are incorrect. But still, any other candidates to put forward? Be specific.

Remember? It's the list you couldn't counter so made up an entirely new discussion. To be even more specific, football in the USSR was significantly hampered by a regime focus on Olympic sports - read up on it if you weren't aware of that. Even now football jockeys with Ice Hockey as its premier sport, it is not fair to compare it so bluntly with any nation that has football as a number 1 sport - for example, every large Western European nation.

New depths and all that...

I still welcome other candidates by the way. It was just another question you ignored because it was inconvenient.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

To be even more specific, football in the USSR was significantly hampered by a regime focus on Olympic sports - read up on it if you weren't aware of that. Even now football jockeys with Ice Hockey as its premier sport, it is not fair to compare it so bluntly with any nation that has football as a number 1 sport - for example, every large Western European nation.

Significantly hampered, they had 300 million people to pick from! :lol:

And even you admit it's at worst the joint most populat sport, and they're almost three times the size of England.

They haven't been past the 1st round in a World Cup in 27 years. They've got past the 1st round of the Euros once in 24 years. Not only do they do badly when they get to tournaments, next summer will be the first time they've even qualified for a World Cup in over a decade. Taking into account their footballing heritage, their record in international football is absolutely pathetic, and they are easily the most underachieving nation in European football. In terms of global football, possibly only Egypt, with their astonishing ability not to qualify for World Cups while hoovering up African titles, can match them for failing to perform when it counts.

[Supras]

Significantly hampered, they had 300 million people to pick from! :lol:

And even you admit it's at worst the joint most populat sport, and they're almost three times the size of England.

They haven't been past the 1st round in a World Cup in 27 years. They've got past the 1st round of the Euros once in 24 years. Not only do they do badly when they get to tournaments, next summer will be the first time they've even qualified for a World Cup in over a decade. Taking into account their footballing heritage, their record in international football is absolutely pathetic, and they are easily the most underachieving nation in European football. In terms of global football, possibly only Egypt, with their astonishing ability not to qualify for World Cups while hoovering up African titles, can match them for failing to perform when it counts.

Er, they were operating in the USSR where the focus was overwhelming on Olympic Sport. Do you know anything of the USSR regime? Why don't you start by looking at the history of their most popular teams, maybe was CSKA stands for? Then you might go some way to understand why they are not a fair comparison with any large Western European nation.

And I never said it was their joint most popular sport, I actually think Ice Hockey has always been the most popular sport in Russia. It may have got a bit closer recently, which is why I didn't state it out right. I tend not to say things unless I know they are right. That's where me and you differ massively, you will come out with nonsense like the above even though you - clearly - don't have the knowledge to back it up.

I thought your Russian comparison was bad until I saw the Egypt one

Tell me about Egyptian football. Or Russian footballing heritage, for that matter.

We can deduce from this response that England are, demonstrably, footballs greatest underachievers.

Also I'm getting a bit tired of these repeated history regimes. Read a few books on the history football then come back, please.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Russia also have almost 2 million more registered football players than England, the last time anybody checked.