English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

hearing about it in 40 f*cking years?

example: 1966

2006-06-18 17:00:13 · 15 answers · asked by theresanangelatmytable 3 in Sports Football English Football

15 answers

Of course, now that the Empire is gone, all they have to cling to is the fact that they invented a sport that they quickly became mediocre at compared to the rest of the world. I mean, when that is your only accomplishment, winning the World Cup SHOULD be talked about 300-400 years later.

Give those sorry saps a break!

2006-06-18 18:05:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The only time a World Cup match took place without any opposition was Scotland v Estonia 9 Oct 1996. Scotland fielded their best 11 players but Estonia failed to turn up. Nevertheless, Scotland kicked off without a single opponent on the pitch yet, Scotland still FAILED to win - they didn't even score a goal against no opposition. I can guarantee the Scots will not be taking about that in 40 years in fact they have forgotten already after only10 years. The sad thing is they have deteriorated since those heady days!

2006-06-18 20:13:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

England are not any further a proper team. Their record is generic for a rustic of their inhabitants, economic prosperity and global journey. best chum that to their problems with training (primitive lengthy ball and shortage of emphasis on technique) and myopic existence variety (very few English gamers depart England and journey different footballing cultures lately) and it turns into glaring that they are doing properly to get to quarter-finals. in reality, in accordance to the e book 'Why England Lose', which executed statistical calculations over England's heritage, England easily carry out on the point it really is to be envisioned from them. they don't look a proper team, one semi and one trophy (on homestead turf) in international Cup heritage proves no longer some thing. human beings say they have underachieved, yet when it really is actual then what the hell have Argentina, Holland and Spain (until eventually this 3 hundred and sixty 5 days) been doing for the in simple terms precise 20-30 years (20 in Argentina's case)? they have all had more effective positive gamers and communities than England in that element period. i imagine England do properly to provide communities like Brazil and Germany (no longer this 3 hundred and sixty 5 days) a recreation at tournaments. inspite of if there are variances contained in the three factors said contained in the first paragraph, those communities must have executed a lot more effective positive with the gamers at their disposal. of direction, my answer will probable obtain a good number of thumbs downs, because I easily have easily research this intimately, particularly than in simple terms going through emotions and tribal bias. And allow's no longer ignore that lots of the chavs on the following comprehend more effective positive than economists and football historians. 'ermm your math seems a touch off, you've reported 4 communities above and suggested england are the worst. through your calculations that makes 5 international locations in europe? that can make for a relaxing packed championship wouldnt it!' He suggested proper eu communities. the in undemanding words omission from his record from Europe which qualifies as a proper team is Holland. perchance Portugal if we are being lenient.

2016-11-14 23:14:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

a bizarre question really. I am sure that Argentina are still talking about their wins especially Maradona's wonder goal of 86 (not the cheating hand of satan goal).
If England win, sure the media will be full of it but , if they do, judging from the competition, they'll deserve it, so why are you so anti?
Is this question based in prejudice? Are you someone desperate for England to be beaten or just having a bit of a laugh?

2006-06-19 21:39:48 · answer #4 · answered by frankobserver 3 · 0 0

No they won't. Everyone would agree they should - but either, their star player gets wrongly red-carded or their star striker gets a foot injury, or their dumb manager leaves his star strikers on the bench (as supersubs), or they get eliminated with the best defence but unfortunate zero strike rate, or a short argentinian uses his hand to cheat, or invisible aliens are helping the opposition or it's a huge conspiracy or __________(fill in the blanks, yourself).
Whatever IT IS, it's NEVER England's fault...they're just an unfortunate, talented footballing country that's never done anything wrong of course....

2006-06-18 19:08:00 · answer #5 · answered by reihall5 1 · 0 0

If England won this tournament, we'd only hear about it forever if there was another 40 year drought of winning!

2006-06-19 17:40:37 · answer #6 · answered by Rachel O 7 · 0 0

Hope England wins because if English folks happen to feel lucky by mistake and type failure in Google........you will definitely be joined at the hip for 40 yrs!

(loved that thing your found out....thanks ! I will pass it on ..if you don't mind!)

2006-06-19 05:00:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

god of course we would they have even got a bus ready to tour England when they come back with the cup no joke they do

2006-06-18 17:39:13 · answer #8 · answered by scotts_girl6 2 · 0 0

prolly. But we'd win by default since all the other teams were wiped out....and that would be a lame way to win. ;)

2006-06-18 18:46:28 · answer #9 · answered by Grrrl Sets Fire 2 · 0 0

Yes...get over it.

I'm guessing you are Scottish, in which case you lot are still going on about stuff which happened 400 years ago.....

2006-06-18 17:50:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers