Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 But you know what, I give up, you win. I can't argue with someone as deranged as you anymore. I conceed all your points: Scotland are better than Croatia Scotland have also achieved more than Denmark, despite Denmark having appeared at more major tournaments and Denmark being former European Champions. A British Championship 100 years ago is a greater indicator of quality than a European title 20 years ago Countries of 5 million can't be expected to qualify for tournaments regularly. When they do, it's just a temporary blip, even if in Croatia's case that blip has lasted almost 20 years in the most competitive period of European football history. France have been brilliant and vastly superior to England in the last 5 years. France qualifying for Euro 2008 and then finishing bottom of the group, while England failed to qualify is evidence of this France winning an early season friendly 2-1 3 years ago is further proof France getting humiliated in the 1st round of the 2010 World Cup, while England navigated the groups unbeaten before losing in the 2nd round proves nothing England finishing above France when they were actually drawn together also proves nothing France losing twice as many matches as England in that period, and winning fewer especially proves nothing England's World Cup win doesn't count because we were at home The USSR/Russia are actually plucky wee upstarts in footballing terms, and they're constant failure to do anything other than fail to qualify or get humped at major tournaments isn't their fault. They're basically the equivalent of the USA at the rugby World Cup, and when they've contrived to finish behind countries a fraction of the size of them at tournaments, like Belgium, or Cameroon, or Sweden, or Romania, or Scotland , that's really just them performing to their potential. Castigating England fans for being delusional and expecting too much, while laughing at me and BerwickMad for thinking our recent tournament record has been acceptable is an entirely logical stance, and not totally contradictory in the slightest. Finally, Egypt's repeated failure to actually reach a world cup, despite their numerous African titles, and the quality at their disposal isn't embarrassing in the slightest. This is in stark contrast to England making at least the last 16 in 8 of the last 12 major tournaments, which is undeniable prove of our sh*tness and status as the biggest underachievers in the history of football. All of the above is obviously true, and I don't know how I ever could have thought otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heedthebaa Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 But you know what, I give up, you win. I can't argue with someone as deranged as you anymore.finally the penny has dropped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Russia also have almost 2 million more registered football players than England, the last time anybody checked. Source? But you know what, I give up, you win. I can't argue with someone as deranged as you anymore. I conceed all your points: Scotland are better than Croatia Scotland have also achieved more than Denmark, despite Denmark having appeared at more major tournaments and Denmark being former European Champions. A British Championship 100 years ago is a greater indicator of quality than a European title 20 years ago Countries of 5 million can't be expected to qualify for tournaments regularly. When they do, it's just a temporary blip, even if in Croatia's case that blip has lasted almost 20 years in the most competitive period of European football history. France have been brilliant and vastly superior to England in the last 5 years. France qualifying for Euro 2008 and then finishing bottom of the group, while England failed to qualify is evidence of this France winning an early season friendly 2-1 3 years ago is further proof France getting humiliated in the 1st round of the 2010 World Cup, while England navigated the groups unbeaten before losing in the 2nd round proves nothing England finishing above France when they were actually drawn together also proves nothing France losing twice as many matches as England in that period, and winning fewer especially proves nothing England's World Cup win doesn't count because we were at home The USSR/Russia are actually plucky wee upstarts in footballing terms, and they're constant failure to do anything other than fail to qualify or get humped at major tournaments isn't their fault. They're basically the equivalent of the USA at the rugby World Cup, and when they've contrived to finish behind countries a fraction of the size of them at tournaments, like Belgium, or Cameroon, or Sweden, or Romania, or Scotland , that's really just them performing to their potential. Castigating England fans for being delusional and expecting too much, while laughing at me and BerwickMad for thinking our recent tournament record has been acceptable is an entirely logical stance, and not totally contradictory in the slightest. Finally, Egypt's repeated failure to actually reach a world cup, despite their numerous African titles, and the quality at their disposal isn't embarrassing in the slightest. This is in stark contrast to England making at least the last 16 in 8 of the last 12 major tournaments, which is undeniable prove of our sh*tness and status as the biggest underachievers in the history of football. All of the above is obviously true, and I don't know how I ever could have thought otherwise. Terrible concession. You've just made this up, it's another blatant lie from Carl Cort. Anyone with any actual interest feel free to read the exchange, you will fully understand why he's ran enough, but won't know why it took him so long. At least he has the backing of a man in his 40s who needs his wife to do everything for him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 But you know what, I give up, you win. I can't argue with someone as deranged as you anymore. I conceed all your points: Scotland are better than Croatia Scotland have also achieved more than Denmark, despite Denmark having appeared at more major tournaments and Denmark being former European Champions. A British Championship 100 years ago is a greater indicator of quality than a European title 20 years ago Countries of 5 million can't be expected to qualify for tournaments regularly. When they do, it's just a temporary blip, even if in Croatia's case that blip has lasted almost 20 years in the most competitive period of European football history. France have been brilliant and vastly superior to England in the last 5 years. France qualifying for Euro 2008 and then finishing bottom of the group, while England failed to qualify is evidence of this France winning an early season friendly 2-1 3 years ago is further proof France getting humiliated in the 1st round of the 2010 World Cup, while England navigated the groups unbeaten before losing in the 2nd round proves nothing England finishing above France when they were actually drawn together also proves nothing France losing twice as many matches as England in that period, and winning fewer especially proves nothing England's World Cup win doesn't count because we were at homeThe USSR/Russia are actually plucky wee upstarts in footballing terms, and they're constant failure to do anything other than fail to qualify or get humped at major tournaments isn't their fault. They're basically the equivalent of the USA at the rugby World Cup, and when they've contrived to finish behind countries a fraction of the size of them at tournaments, like Belgium, or Cameroon, or Sweden, or Romania, or Scotland , that's really just them performing to their potential. Castigating England fans for being delusional and expecting too much, while laughing at me and BerwickMad for thinking our recent tournament record has been acceptable is an entirely logical stance, and not totally contradictory in the slightest. Finally, Egypt's repeated failure to actually reach a world cup, despite their numerous African titles, and the quality at their disposal isn't embarrassing in the slightest. This is in stark contrast to England making at least the last 16 in 8 of the last 12 major tournaments, which is undeniable prove of our sh*tness and status as the biggest underachievers in the history of football. All of the above is obviously true, and I don't know how I ever could have thought otherwise. Brilliant! That about sums it all up. Poor Supras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 Isn't it funny how the only people on this site who think England are a better team than France are deluded, bitter England fans? Are you all as utterly pathetic in your personal life as heedtheba, as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 After reading through this ( it's been painful but I couldn't stop for whatever reason ) I 100% agree with Supras and think people are just trying to wind him up with their responses. Let's face it, Scotland have been pretty awful the past 15 years, one good campaign but apart from that we haven't been good. However I can see this changing pretty soon we have been through the worst of it I genuinely feel. A lot of good youngsters and good changes being made throughout our whole approach. England for the size of them have been fucking awful to be honest, always had pretty good players but they just can't compare to the top nations which they should realistically be doing considering the size of the country and money being pumped into their game. I think they are their own worst enemy to be honest, to many clubs with to much money buying the best of talent from all over the planet instead of letting the young English lads get a game. It's exactly the opposite up here. For what it's worth I reckon England have got a chance ( very very slim chance ) considering this is the first time their media don't seem to have too much undeserved hype/expectations. They have some decent players so depends on the day. I do however reckon they will finish 2nd/3rd in their group and go out pretty early on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 You're as stupid as him then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heedthebaa Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Isn't it funny how the only people on this site who think England are a better team than France are deluded, bitter England fans? Are you all as utterly pathetic in your personal life as heedtheba, as well? how's the lecturing going at the LSE mate ha ha ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Scotland reached the last 16 of the 1954 World Cup. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Scotland reached the last 16 of the 1954 World Cup. Just sayin'. I always find it remarkable we've never qualified out of the group stages, seems a record that is surprising but not surprising aswell. For what its worth we weren't even the worst team in 1954, we were only the second worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 I always find it remarkable we've never qualified out of the group stages, seems a record that is surprising but not surprising aswell. For what its worth we weren't even the worst team in 1954, we were only the second worst We've undwrperformed horribly at a few world cups, no doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Scotland reached the last 16 of the 1954 World Cup. Just sayin'. We reached the last 16 of the World Cup on four different occasions (1954, 1958, 1974 & 1978). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 We reached the last 8 of the 1992 Euros! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 You're as stupid as him then. how's the lecturing going at the LSE mate ha ha ha ha ^^^ Seething bitters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I came across this thread by accident (trying to google a different BBC page that I'm sure I've seen, where similar wild claims were made about World Cup 2010. Has anyone seen this? Did I dream it?), but anyway... So, as I see it, when this squabble was going on about whether England were better than France, we were 6 months from a World Cup in which France were narrowly knocked out in the Quarter Finals 1-0 by the eventual champions, Germany. England finished bottom of their group with one point. Call me mean bringing this up, but it seems a tad unlikely to me that England actually were "better" than France at that point after all. Supras ain't about to argue his point, any of the other combatants honest enough to admit they were talking shite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.