"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
"Unbelievable England pays Capello 10 million when he so clearly has no idea what he is doing. How can you play with 2 strikers and 2 wingers, and then play Lampard and Gerrard as defensive midfielders? It's horribly bad. They just played kick and rush at some point. They should've just played with Rooney as striker, 2 wingers, 1 attacking midfielder and 2 defensive midfielders".
"Unbelievable England pays Capello 10 million when he so clearly has no idea what he is doing. How can you play with 2 strikers and 2 wingers, and then play Lampard and Gerrard as defensive midfielders? It's horribly bad. They just played kick and rush at some point. They should've just played with Rooney as striker, 2 wingers, 1 attacking midfielder and 2 defensive midfielders".
ruben wrote:
2 strikers and 2 wingers, and then play Lampard and Gerrard as defensive midfielders?
Few things are funnier than professional analists who fail to understand how a team's playing system actually works.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Steven Gerrard:
'It was a difficult game and the most important thing was to try and win it, but we've given a poor goal away. It's one of those freak things that happens - plenty of people have been talking about the ball this week. It shocked us a bit, but we'll get behind Robert.'
England are desperately used to getting howler goalkeepers, and it'll be hard for England to make it up every time
Edited by Whatsup on 12-06-2010 21:44
Well I thought England played pretty well, then again I certainly do not rate my national team as highly as others do. I am pretty positive they will beat Slovenia and Algeria and still have a great chance of progressing far.
Far far better than France last night but perhaps not as good as Argentina earlier (who were certainly not faultless).
People in my own country look down on teams like US, South Korea and Mexico but I would place them as equals to Germany, Holland and England in terms of chances of success at the world cup. Brazil, Spain and perhaps Argentina stand out for me at the moment.
Smowz wrote:
Far far better than France last night but perhaps not as good as Argentina earlier (who were certainly not faultless).
It'd sound France are the butt of your jokes! England did not play better than France did; England are frankly faaar away from Argentina; And according to the USA-England match, it will not be really easy for England to beat Slovenia and Algeria. So, just breathe in and breathe out slowly, have a beer and sweet dreams
Whatsup wrote:
It'd sound France are the butt of your jokes! England did not play better than France did; England are frankly faaar away from Argentina; And according to the USA-England match, it will not be really easy for England to beat Slovenia and Algeria. So, just breathe in and breathe out slowly, have a beer and sweet dreams
Not the butt of my jokes at all, I believe the US are a much better team than Uraguay, who other than Forlan are painfully limited. France wasted an oppurtuinty to beat what I would suggest is the weakest team in their group.
I agree it will not be easy for England to beat Algeria and Slovenia, but the performance yesterday was no better or no worse than I expected. England were in my opinion the better side against a team I would say would make the second round. The 'easier' games are to come in this group for them.
