Face it

[russelldust]

scream you arse bandit you don't even bother to read other people's messages before responding.

 

Calm down, get an iq and read what Kev and I have said, watch the games again and you might possibly understand what us adults are going on about...

 

if you can't cope with it then go back to your pram and your rattle.

[Guest Kev]

QUOTE (Scream @ Jun 25 2004, 12:29)

not talkin shite at all, the fact the whole tournement was shit, the level of play from all the big teams was poor, so balancing it out England weren't playing to bad. Get it into perspective!! LOL

It doesn't in any way make me feel any better knowing that Italy and Spain went out. Just because they were playing like a bunch of camels with Arabs riding them it dont make up for the fact that Portugal Vs England is like Manchester Utd playing Yeovil.

[Phil rr]

if we'd won, the ref would have been great, we would have played not great but good enough, and portugal would have been a bunch of (haha) lovely person.

[russelldust]

QUOTE (Phil rr @ Jun 25 2004, 16:12)

if we'd won, the ref would have been great, we would have played not great but good enough, and portugal would have been a bunch of (haha) lovely person.

no Philrrraaaa that is what the ignoramus sun brigade would have thought... the rest of us would have said we were lucky etc...

[Phil rr]

QUOTE (russelldust @ Jun 25 2004, 16:24)

QUOTE (Phil rr @ Jun 25 2004, 16:12) if we'd won, the ref would have been great, we would have played not great but good enough, and portugal would have been a bunch of (haha) lovely person. no Philrrraaaa that is what the ignoramus sun brigade would have thought... the rest of us would have said we were lucky etc... a ) i'm not a football fan and therefore not an ignoramous   b ) if we could only win because we're lucky, that either makes football pointless, or it makes football fans morons.

Edited June 25, 2004 by Phil rr

[russelldust]

look up the word 'logic' phil...

 

What I was saying was.

 

1. We were not very good.

2. We didn't win.

3. We had a goal which may or may not have been good disallowed.

4. Had we won that would have been great but undeserved.

5. We were not relying on luck, we simply played badly and would, therefore be lucky to have won.

 

When you have learnt some command of the English language please feel free to participate in discussions.

[Phil rr]

QUOTE (russelldust @ Jun 25 2004, 16:38)

look up the word 'logic' phil... What I was saying was. 1. We were not very good. 2. We didn't win. 3. We had a goal which may or may not have been good disallowed. 4. Had we won that would have been great but undeserved. 5. We were not relying on luck, we simply played badly and would, therefore be lucky to have won. When you have learnt some command of the English language please feel free to participate in discussions.

I'm not getting into an analytical conversation about football, ever.

[Lisa]

QUOTE (russelldust @ Jun 25 2004, 16:38)

When you have learnt some command of the English language please feel free to participate in discussions.

who put you in charge of who could & couldnt join in disscussions eh??

[tronicz]

QUOTE (Scream @ Jun 25 2004, 12:29)

not talkin shite at all, the fact the whole tournement was shit, the level of play from all the big teams was poor,

reckon that`s due to the weaker teams getting stronger............and for the record england got what they deserved from the tournament.f**k all

[russelldust]

QUOTE (tronicz @ Jun 25 2004, 16:44)

QUOTE (Scream @ Jun 25 2004, 12:29) not talkin shite at all, the fact the whole tournement was shit, the level of play from all the big teams was poor, reckon that`s due to the weaker teams getting stronger............and for the record england got what they deserved from the tournament.f**k all spot on. Exactly.

[Ikon]

QUOTE (James @ Jun 25 2004, 00:00)

they had possession 85% of the game (at least)

It dont matter!

 

The name of the game is to score more gaols than your opponent in the 90 mins, which we did!

 

We were robbed of glory and that's all there is to it!

[LTM]

QUOTE (russelldust @ Jun 25 2004, 00:05)

agreed. It is actually quite nice to not feel aggrieved for going out. The best team won by miles. We were pants. I just wish we weren't all going to wake up to the carnage of Lisbon though...

Who cares. The point of the game is to score more goals then the opposing team and we rightfully scored two goals but was fucked over by a c*nt. Total crap.

[tronicz]

QUOTE (Ikon @ Jun 25 2004, 17:47)

QUOTE (James @ Jun 25 2004, 00:00) they had possession 85% of the game (at least) It dont matter!   The name of the game is to score more gaols than your opponent in the 90 mins, which we did!   We were robbed of glory and that's all there is to it! yeah the glory of one game..playin shite football and allowing the opposing teams to attack you all game will not win you any tournaments...if portugal hadnt beat us the next team would have..you simply cant sustain that pressure like we did against france and portugal and expect to win trophies.it will never happen.....the do all and end all is we aint good enough to win tournaments....

[LTM]

They didn't have 85% of the possesion the final figure over the matches was 58% to them. Also, when you go down a goal it is usually the way to not sit back and fight for the equaliser, their pressure was immense and they got the goal. Then England got there act together because it was them who needed the goal to win and we looked more likely in the last few minutes of the 90 mins and when we got our 2nd goal. So sorry I just think you're talking out of your arse. If Portugal had scored first that we'd of seen a totally different performance by England.

Edited June 27, 2004 by LTM

[Phil rr]

i agree with absolutely everything said here. totally. yup