Top and bottom of it is

[frankiegth]

We (England) are now in a proper cup competion. I believe up until now we have been fortunate, had we had the same company as Argentina in our group we'd be on our way home with the performances we've put in. However we weren't and we now find ourselves playing Equador in the second round, Yipeeee, Surely we've enough to put them away.

The quarter finals (should we get there) see us playing Argentina, Holland or portugal.

Can we pick our game up enough?

Being an enthusiastic supporter says yes we will,but can we?

What do you fellow "Tinpot terracers" think.

[coops]

Meh.

[ambersalamander]

You say we wouldn't have survived a harder group.

Maybe so, but don't you think the team would have raised their game a bit for a team like Argentina? I do.

Those two wins and a draw were all we needed to be the best team in the group- the performances weren't dazzling by any means, but I'm reserving judgement until I see England playing against a good team that they have to beat.

[pies]

Again i agree with Sal, England did what they needed to do against the teams they played, and would probably raise themselves for games against 'tougher' opponents, case in point being the performance against Argentina in November.

However i hope England do not end up playing Portugal, although it could be third time lucky against Scolari.

[Col ISIHAC.]

I can't get to grips with this idea that a team of professionals, in the World Cup, get to choose whether they pootle along and do "Just enough" as opposed to going out with the intention of playing at the top of their game, and winning every game - as you need to in a competition like this.

If we had defended like we did against Sweden, against either of the otehr teams we have played already, then we could well have been on the way home by now. As a result of trying to do just enough to scrape by

Tis the height of arrogance to suggest that we would have raised our game against, say, Argentina, if w had met them in the group stages. Either that, or blind faith!

Neither of which is going to win the Cup... Is it boys and girls?


Time to play properly, or get realistic about the prospects.

[DJhinckley]

If we defended like this or if we had played this team? It's all ifs and buts, hypothetical situations created to suit your viewpoint.

what actually has happened is we have played 3 matches and not lost 1, topping the group since the first match and putting in our best group performance since 1982. No ifs and no buts.

I gave my opinion in the other thread, you couldn't hack it and deleted it, so I'm not going to bother again.

If we go out in the second round, then you are correct and I shall say no more. However when we progress further I shall come back and remind you of what I said.

[Col ISIHAC.]

Neither Amber, or myself were going to actually do so in public, as it were, prefering to sort these things via PM, but I can assure you that NEITHER of us - and we are the only two with the power to do so, have deleted one of your posts.

NEITHER of us would consider abusing our position as administrators of this board by deleting something just because we did not agree with the viewpoint.

And, more to the point, having discussed it between the two of us, NEITHER of us has the fiantest idea as to which post you are referring to.

Should England get to the QFs, I'll be with a few fellow TT users in Stamford, watching the game somewhere. Your comments, as ever, will be welcome and wil be read upon my return.

[ambersalamander]

admin said:

Tis the height of arrogance to suggest that we would have raised our game against, say, Argentina, if w had met them in the group stages. Either that, or blind faith!

I disagree, my old love.

As Kevin Keegan once said, "A hell of a lot of football is about psychology." It's a fact that if you're playing a match against a team you know is better than you, then you will play harder than you did against an average team, even if you were playing as hard as you could against them.

Look at Sutton United if you want further proof! Last season, people like weston-super-mare were saying we were rubbish (which quite frankly we were against them) while Weymouth, the league champions, said that we were the best team they'd played all season. We lost to Hayes, who were second from bottom; we couldn't beat carsh*ton who did finish bottom. We only won twelve league games all season, but we beat five of the top seven teams. And only three of the bottom seven! Obviously this is a silly way to demonstrate a point, because if one always beat the good teams and lost to the poor teams then carshiton would've won the league ;D But you know what I mean. It's not arrogance, it's true that a team will work harder against stronger opposition.

Anyway, leaving all that for the moment- "ifs" are not going to win England the World Cup; nor is speculation, whinging, worrying, lack of faith or even too much faith. Whatever happens is going to happen anyway, and as I said elsewhere, all we can do is wait and see what that might be.

[frankiegth]

That's the thing about footie, it is unpredictable and that's part of its attraction.

They do say if you can win while playing bad that's the sign of a good side. In that case dust down the very sparsely populated trophy cabinate at Soho square and "Arise Sir Sven" ;D

[ambersalamander]

True, but there is always a certain amount of luck. It depends on a hundred other factors, such as who you're playing against, which tactics they're using and which you're using, the weather, fitness of players on both sides, and sheer luck of what happens at any given moment.

On the other hand, no team could get this far on just luck!

[Col ISIHAC.]

The jury's still out I'm afraid.
After tonight's offerings, you have to say that, for 45 minutes Brazil raised their game against inferior opposition. Why; given the arguments raised here, would they bother.

And, Amber darling, Kevin Keegan is to footballing psychology what Bernard Manning is to racial harmony.

The biggest irony is that, of the games I've seen so far, the most enjoyable was one which meant absolutely fack all in real terms to either team - Ivory coast v Serbia & Montenegro. Why, when all is said & done, would they bother either??

(That's including tonight's other rather splendid offering involving Oz, Croatia and Graham Poll! )

[ambersalamander]

The Keegan comment was tongue in cheek ...some of the stuff he comes out with is hilarious!

[ojiveojive]

I have been fortunate (?) enough to work with many top international sportsmen and I can say categorically that one of the most annoying things about all of them is that they strive to be the best at everything they do, often making them difficult and arrogant and I've come to the conclusion that if they didn't have that overwhelming drive, they would not have achieved as much as they did. I have never once come across a single one of them that only did what was necessary, indeed they have often been furious with themselves or their team colleagues when they have 'scraped through'.

In my humble opinion Sven is tactically naive and this is showing in the way the team don't appear to raise their game above mediocre. These men are all top class players yet Sven seems to be unable to bring out their undoubted qualities.

And to really put a spanner into the works I laid a small bet on Ecuador at the beginning of the competition at 250-1.