exileinleeds All England games are being moved to Gay Adult TV next week, as the *site of 11 arseholes getting hammered is too much for the BBC.
*sight
by jumpers for goalposts » 19 Jun 2010 17:59
exileinleeds All England games are being moved to Gay Adult TV next week, as the *site of 11 arseholes getting hammered is too much for the BBC.
by ScottishRoyal » 19 Jun 2010 18:07
The whole year innSchards#2 Jesus, what a tool
I'm, sorry, but what SB has alluded to is totally true. England fans are a bunch of misfits
Any vendetta you and your wife have, move on. Lets leave the internet bullying to the teenagers
by Victor Meldrew » 19 Jun 2010 18:10
by ScottishRoyal » 19 Jun 2010 18:13
RoyalBlue2 world wars, 1 world cup Hold on.
This *was* Algeria's cup final.
They put a million men behind the ball, closed everything down, had forty men man-marking Rooney and didn't have a single meaningful shot on goal.
First of all, you are being just as arrogant as Gerrard with your dismissive comments about Algeria. They didn't just sit back and defend. They did attack us and, when they did, looked pretty threatening. Several of their players looked far more skilful than ours and they certainly played far more attractive football. They alo looked like they cared and, when things weren't going as well for them, looked to do something about it.
by Norfolk Royal » 19 Jun 2010 18:23
by LUX » 19 Jun 2010 18:28
by Maguire » 19 Jun 2010 18:32
Norfolk Royal I can't believe we drew against such a shit team. I'm ashamed to call myself an Algerian.
by Royal Lady » 19 Jun 2010 18:34
by Norfolk Royal » 19 Jun 2010 18:37
by Norfolk Royal » 19 Jun 2010 18:38
MaguireNorfolk Royal I can't believe we drew against such a shit team. I'm ashamed to call myself an Algerian.
100,000 Facebook statuses this morning ^^
by Maguire » 19 Jun 2010 18:41
Man FridayCORRECT AGAIN.MaguireMan Friday I didn't say they SHOULD have won 2-0. I said "it could have been 2-0 to them" (if they had taken their couple of half-chances). It could have been 2-2 if we had also taken our two half-chances.
Or presumably 2-0 to us if we'd taken a couple and they hadn't CORRECT - YOU CATCH ON FAST Genius.
It was 0-0. Neither side looked like scoring. Atrocious game. We are bringing nothing to this world cup.
All I was saying is that (a) they outplayed us and (b) they could gave won 2-0 (whilst accepting that we also could have won 2-0 - it's just that they would have deserved to more than us based on overall play).
by Royal Lady » 19 Jun 2010 18:43
by Urinal Mint » 19 Jun 2010 18:56
Kitson12 Rooney, you stupid boy. On the bench for the next game please Capello.
NR_Royal ----------------------------James---------------------------
---Johnson-------Upson-------Terry-------A Cole---
---Lennon------Barry-------Lampard-------J.Cole---
---------------------------Gerrard-------------------------
---------------------------Rooney--------------------------
oxf*rd THIS 4-4-2. For once I agreed with pretty much everything the ITV guys said.
by Royal Rother » 19 Jun 2010 19:09
by ScottishRoyal » 19 Jun 2010 19:18
Royal Lady I didn't rubbish Uruguay. I'M not being arrogant either - I'm merely pointing out facts. If you think we didn't have one of the easier groups that's up to you, personally, I think we did and when England play at their best should have got a few more points than we currently have. If I was offered Germany or Uruguay in the quarter finals prior to this tournament, I'd have taken Uruguay. How is that being arrogant? It's stating my belief and I really don't think I'm alone in the country in thinking this either.
by Schards#2 » 19 Jun 2010 19:24
ScottishRoyalThe whole year innSchards#2 Jesus, what a tool
I'm, sorry, but what SB has alluded to is totally true. England fans are a bunch of misfits
Any vendetta you and your wife have, move on. Lets leave the internet bullying to the teenagers
I've got to say I agree with the others, Englands rep is not great and it's because of comments like Royal Lady's 'easiest route to the semi-finals'. England have not been ranked by FIFA as a top four team for many years and the last time they reached the semi's was in 1990. Surely getting that far would be passing expectations not reaching them, that's what comes across as arrogant, not the ambition to go that far but the expectation which is alluded to by that statement. As a seeded team England can expect to win their group but why does Royal Lady rubbish Uruguay? Is it because they have two of the highest rated and in-form strikers in Europe or is it because she hasn't heard of any of their players so naturally assumes they're not up to much?
What England could do with now is someone like Owen Hargreaves, an honest and affable guy that has the tackle to get on the ball and make something happen like he did in Germany 2006.
by Rev Algenon Stickleback H » 19 Jun 2010 19:35
Royal Rother Apparently Heskey made his first successful pass to a team mate in the 24th minute yesterday.
by ScottishRoyal » 19 Jun 2010 20:04
Schards#2 England have a chance to get to the semi finals without playing a single team ranked in the first 13 of the FIFA rankings. To state that this represents the easiest route to the semi finals in years, is not arrogant, it is simply stating fact. Slovenia also have the opportunity to exploit this unusual scenario. Or are you seriously suggesting that this is a difficult path compared to the alternatives?
Schards#2 I spend a bit of time in Scotland and am amused by the desperate need for scots to paint the english as an arrogant bunch who assume they are going to win the world cup when, in fact, this has no basis in reality. I think it partly relates to their embarrasement over Ally's Tarten Army who actually did believe they would win and, secondly, justifying their dislike of England on the grounds that they are arrogant sounds better than just a plain, rather ugly jealousy.
Can't account for the odd english gimp who likes to perpetuate the same myth though.
by Compo's Hat » 19 Jun 2010 20:41
by Man Friday » 19 Jun 2010 21:21
Users browsing this forum: belgrove123, Orion1871 and 84 guests