Why England will win Euro 2008 - BBC 2003

[BerwickMad]

England are bigger than Argentina even by your made up figures!

I didn't suggest any different. I said Argentina were one of the bigger American nations, of which they are.

[Latino Lover]

I sincerely apologise for my population error, it was a typo but you're just deflecting from being caught out on your tiresome population argument. Likewise I'm not bragging about being better than holland, just pointing out more flaws in your vandetta. I don't particularly care about England, having never bothered my arse to go and watch them in my 31 years, even when they have played on my doorstep. Denmark and Croatia have achieved far more than Scotland ever have, or will by actually making impacts in tournaments rather than meekly bowing out after 2/3 games. Indeed Scotland have failed to make as much of an impact in tournaments than any other uk nation or Ireland by embarrassingly been horsed out at the first opportunity every single time, sure they have qualified more often than Wales & the irelands but crucially have been a constant whipping boy upon arrival.

[BerwickMad]

I sincerely apologise for my population error, it was a typo but you're just deflecting from being caught out on your tiresome population argument. Likewise I'm not bragging about being better than holland, just pointing out more flaws in your vandetta. I don't particularly care about England, having never bothered my arse to go and watch them in my 31 years, even when they have played on my doorstep. Denmark and Croatia have achieved far more than Scotland ever have, or will by actually making impacts in tournaments rather than meekly bowing out after 2/3 games. Indeed Scotland have failed to make as much of an impact in tournaments than any other uk nation or Ireland by embarrassingly been horsed out at the first opportunity every single time, sure they have qualified more often than Wales & the irelands but crucially have been a constant whipping boy upon arrival.

He's embarrassing himself once again.

The population be all and end all argument he uses is pathetic. How does it explain the rise of Belgium from mid to lower ranked European team, to one of the favorites for World Cup? Have they had some kind of massive population increase or something? Or are there other factors.

As for Croatia compared to Scotland. Scotland does have a larger population, but on the other hand you would expect Croatia to benefit from a better climate, better diet, and more of their kids are probably out playing football all year round as opposed to sitting in the house stuffing their faces whilst playing GTA, before Friday night down the park with a bottle of bucky.

As for Holland compared to England. Facilities in Holland are far better at the grass routes and the parents are usually prepared to pay for their coaching. You can tell with the exchange trips organised between Berwick and Zewolde. Its like night and day. It's no suprise Holland are pretty successful on the international stage despite their population because of the culture over there.

His shit argument ignores so many other factors and he can't be taken seriously.

[Supras]

Oh no! It's the seething Berwick brothers justifying each others shit.

Typical Supras, change the rules back and forward to suit your argument.

I got my England population figures from Wikipedia. And I did factor the same in other nations which is why for example I say, Italy (5-10 million more people) as opposed to an exact figure. Rough guess, but doubt I would be far out if I actually checked.

You can't have it two ways. Moan about England expecting too much on one hand, then moaning when an England fan considers last 8 as a success. I consider your expectations for the English national team unrealistic.

And as for heroic underachievement, or 'glorious failure', it's what Scotland are best at. They're known for it.

Very embarrassing for you here as usual.

The population of England is 53.5 million people according to the ONS - http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/mid-2011-and-mid-2012/index.html

Although, to be fair, you could work this out from wikipedia. The UK has around 60 million people, Scotland has around 5, so if England has 43 million that'd leave Wales and Northern Ireland with 12 million combined. Erm, FFS, how could anyone be that stupid?

I can have it both ways, the overwhelming majority of England fans expect too much and one (you) set ludicrously low expectations. It's simple really. And it'd need to be given your embarrassing gaffe above.

I didn't suggest any different. I said Argentina were one of the bigger American nations, of which they are.

This is gold even by BM standards.

I sincerely apologise for my population error, it was a typo but you're just deflecting from being caught out on your tiresome population argument. Likewise I'm not bragging about being better than holland, just pointing out more flaws in your vandetta. I don't particularly care about England, having never bothered my arse to go and watch them in my 31 years, even when they have played on my doorstep. Denmark and Croatia have achieved far more than Scotland ever have, or will by actually making impacts in tournaments rather than meekly bowing out after 2/3 games. Indeed Scotland have failed to make as much of an impact in tournaments than any other uk nation or Ireland by embarrassingly been horsed out at the first opportunity every single time, sure they have qualified more often than Wales & the irelands but crucially have been a constant whipping boy upon arrival.

Caught out on it? The two people debating against me have made blatant, factual errors.

Vandetta? Vandetta? That brings back good memories

Croatia have not achieved anything even close to what Scotland have in world football, anyone who claims otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the history of football.

Scotland have not been constant whipping boys, this is the fourth factual error on your post. I even think "Vandetta" tips this from BMs post. Well done, I guess.

Never has victory been so swift, and so utterly comprehensive.

He's embarrassing himself once again.

Couldn't even read the rest after this.

[Latino Lover]

Point scoring due to autocorrect errors = a new low even for you. Rose tinted spectacles re Scotland Croatia debate. Croatia have achieved more as an independent nation in little over 20 years than Scotland have in their entire World Cup or euro championship history, fact.

Morocco, Costa Rica, Iran. I'll give you Peru were a good team and a larger footballing nation. Constant was probably overstepping the mark too as Scotland are now largely resigned to the annuls of 20th century World Cup history along with Dutch East Indies, zaire and Haiti.

[Supras]

Point scoring due to autocorrect errors = a new low even for you. Rose tinted spectacles re Scotland Croatia debate. Croatia have achieved more as an independent nation in little over 20 years than Scotland have in their entire World Cup or euro championship history, fact.

Morocco, Costa Rica, Iran. I'll give you Peru were a good team and a larger footballing nation. Constant was probably overstepping the mark too as Scotland are now largely resigned to the annuls of 20th century World Cup history along with Dutch East Indies, zaire and Haiti.

Where is the auto correct error, exactly? Again, if you only consider those tournaments you have no knowledge of footballing history. Fair enough if you want to admit that.

f**k knows why you are mentioning those nations but you're right in the sense the largest nations are often the ones who qualify from their associations.

Scotland have had several good qualifying campaigns since 1998, we're doing pretty well on the whole to be honest.

[sonofjenova]

If only they'd left John Terry on the bench...who knows what could have been.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

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? In the last three years, are you seriously suggesting England have a better record? You mention Croatia, England is more than three times the size of the Netherlands, why are you worse than them?

And France has two major international tournament wins in the last 15 years compared to 0 tournament, 0 tournament semi finals for England. Their records are poles apart, France are much better international side. They have even qualified for more tournaments recently than England.

FYI Western Europe has never included Russia. The facts are black and white, who has had a better record in the last 15 years, England or France?

They don't? Scotland have qualified for more world cups than both of those sides. And Serbia is around 50% bigger than Scotland, there is nothing slight about that enormous advantage.

Croatia has more than 4 million people. Please do not make factual errors in your post.

I don't even think the Netherlands is a great example for England, heaven knows why you'd brag about being better than a nation you are three times bigger than, but their performance in the last 5 years is, yes, much much better than Englands.

Wow, you have ludicrously low expectations for such an enormous nation. I suppose Newcastle fans are used to heroic underachievement. Fair play to you, can't be easy supporting two bona fide losers of world football.

It's difficult to follow when you shift the goalposts around this much but I'll give it a go:

I didn't say we're better than the Netherlands, I was pointing out that you were incorrect when you said we'd only outperformed them once recently. Also, the last 3 years doesn't actually include the last World Cup, so in the last 3 years, yes England do have a better record. I don't think we're actually better than them, but I was pointing out that your facts were either incredibly selective, or just wrong. As for why they're so good, they have a great footballing heritage and take youth coaching extremely seriously. Also, I genuinely don't know this, do they have any sports which would match the popularity of rugby in competing with football?

My whole point about France is that in the recent past, they've been demonstrably worse than England. What they did 15 years ago is just as irrelevant as if I had mentioned our semi-final in Euro-96. It has no bearing on where the countries are now. I mentioned Russia because you keep going on about the size of countries as if that's the be all and end all (while ignoring the fact that Germany has a huge population advantage over England). France also has a large population advantage over England, but of course this doesn't matter in your World.

Of course Scotland have qualified more times than Croatia and Serbia, the countries only became independent recently, but Croatia have finished 3rd in a World Cup, which I'd say is some achievement. And don't give me that bollocks about not being able to brag about beating smaller nations. If you beat say, Uruaguay in a World Cup you'd all be going bananas.

[BerwickMad]

The population of England is 53.5 million people according to the ONS - http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/mid-2011-and-mid-2012/index.html

Although, to be fair, you could work this out from wikipedia. The UK has around 60 million people, Scotland has around 5, so if England has 43 million that'd leave Wales and Northern Ireland with 12 million combined. Erm, FFS, how could anyone be that stupid?

I can have it both ways, the overwhelming majority of England fans expect too much and one (you) set ludicrously low expectations. It's simple really. And it'd need to be given your embarrassing gaffe above.

This is gold even by BM standards.

Caught out on it? The two people debating against me have made blatant, factual errors.

I quoted before the figure of 53 million before you fuckin nugget!! I DID work it out from wikipedia. I also state that about only 44 million of these were born in England. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England

I think we can all see who's being stupid here Supras.

So the vast majority of England fans expect too much, but my expectations are 'ludicrously low'? I expect last 16 and with a bit of luck last 8. I wouldn't consider this as ludicrously low. I doubt the vast majority of England fans have expectations beyond that, never mind there being a massive gulf in my expectations and your average fan.

Give up Supras.

p.s. I know you won't. You'll continue to dig, whilst I 'seethe' at my nation being fairly successful at football.

[LinkinFighter]

"fairly successful at football"

[heedthebaa]

Scotland have had several good qualifying campaigns since 1998, we're doing pretty well on the whole to be honest.

you're in my top ten best posters list coz of shit like this, never leave this site bud

[BerwickMad]

"fairly successful at football"

Out of interest, what would you consider as success for England?

[LinkinFighter]

Out of interest, what would you consider as success for England?

Regular semi finals and the odd final every 20 years or so. It's got to be that given the amount of money they pump into the game down there.

[BerwickMad]

Fair enough. Regular would be a bit optimistic I'd say, although we were only penalty shootouts away from getting to that stage in 4 of the last 6 tournaments. I would say last 8 for a country like England is pretty successful tbh.

I don't think the FA do a great job at directing their money to the correct areas personally. They moan about the lack of high level coaches compared to other countries, then increase the cost of taking the course from about £200 to £1000 since building St Georges Park.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I'd say apart from Euros 2004 and 2008, in recent years we've achieved roughly what I'd expect with the quality available.

[pandarilla]

One of the things to consider here is the way the team have performed - rather than just how far they progressed.

Its not statistical but generally football fans know when a team is in with a shout or nowhere near.

e.g

By and large the English national team haven't threatened to win a tournament (probably since Euro 96). Since then they've got to the Q/F stages at times but they've usually left on a downer - and that's why the media and fans generally resort to the 'rip it up and start again' approach.

Compare that to the Dutch in 2010, who looked immense at times, or Russia in 2008, Germany 2006 (and more recent tournaments). These teams were definite contenders and anyone who watched the tournaments could see that.

As I said - England haven't looked like serious contenders since Euro 96 I reckon, and most folk know that.

Sometimes stats can be used to back up all sorts of weird arguments.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

One of the things to consider here is the way the team have performed - rather than just how far they progressed.

Its not statistical but generally football fans know when a team is in with a shout or nowhere near.

e.g

By and large the English national team haven't threatened to win a tournament (probably since Euro 96). Since then they've got to the Q/F stages at times but they've usually left on a downer - and that's why the media and fans generally resort to the 'rip it up and start again' approach.

Compare that to the Dutch in 2010, who looked immense at times, or Russia in 2008, Germany 2006 (and more recent tournaments). These teams were definite contenders and anyone who watched the tournaments could see that.

As I said - England haven't looked like serious contenders since Euro 96 I reckon, and most folk know that.

Sometimes stats can be used to back up all sorts of weird arguments.

I'd say Euro 2004 was England's last big chance. We had a team with several genuinely World Class players, most of whom were in their prime. We also played some superb football during the group stage. We failed not because we had inadequate players, but because Sven insisted on shoehorning them all into a system which didn't work properly. It was a testament to how good those players actually were that we did play well despite us having no real tactics or balance to the team.

Apart from that, I pretty much agree with you.

[BerwickMad]

I commend Supras for giving up on a lost argument for the first time in PnB history.

[chris123]

I presume everyone's aware that that article is quite clearly tongue-in-cheek?

[Supras]

I commend Supras for giving up on a lost argument for the first time in PnB history.

I have a job that's far too important to waste time posting on PnB, it's clear that is not the same for you.

It's difficult to follow when you shift the goalposts around this much but I'll give it a go:

I didn't say we're better than the Netherlands, I was pointing out that you were incorrect when you said we'd only outperformed them once recently. so in the last 3 years, yes England do have a better record. I don't think we're actually better than them, but I was pointing out that your facts were either incredibly selective, or just wrong. As for why they're so good, they have a great footballing heritage and take youth coaching extremely seriously.

Shift the goal posts? You said England were actually quite good and listed three examples - Netherlands, Italy and France.

- > You then totally retreat from Netherlands and Italy and admit they are both better teams.

- > You still claim England are better than France, despite doing significantly worse than them in the last 15 years. They last reached a World Cup Final in 2006 - and you'd think a side that is supposedly much better than them would have, um, beaten them in Euro 2012. Or not lost to them at home in the most recent friendly. Ooops, think another retreat is in order.

Also, the last 3 years doesn't actually include the last World Cup,

The most desperate post on this thread - by far. It's actually laughable, really.

I mentioned Russia because you keep going on about the size of countries as if that's the be all and end all (while ignoring the fact that Germany has a huge population advantage over England).

It is a hugely significant factor. Obviously not the only one, I've repeatedly asserted every single time in the hundreds of times I've had this discussion that population is absolutely never the only factor to be considered. Anyone who claims otherwise is shamelessly lying.

And I have never ignored the fact Germany is a significantly larger nation, why on earth did you make this up? Of course Germany is bigger, and that's why they're better - and that's why they're the best in Western Europe over the last century. And that's why Italy are the second best over that time period.