CastleBromVilla Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 It's hardly being arrogant to say that England will qualify comfortably. I'd say that was quite an arrogant attitude, yes. Just confident. I'm confident too. But i'm not presumptious. :yawn: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 i hope the USA game is hard, i dont get this attitude of absolutely pissing the group and as Darren Gough said on TS this afternoon being disappointed if we dont get a goal difference of at least +7 thats how we piss it up the wall, id rather we laboured in the group and got better rather than start on fire and fade, 1 things for sure we wont be shit hot for 7 games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davies4England Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Exactly, usually the slow starting teams end up winning the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Exactly, usually the slow starting teams end up winning the competition. I don't mean to sound pedantic but that is such a myth. I will start from italia 90 and work forward because I don't know much beofre then 1990: Germany won their first two games 4-1 against a good yugoslavia team and 5-1 against UAE. Their last last group they were already guaranteed top spot and so put all the old guys (littbarski) or the young up and coming players (andreas moller). In the 2nd round they comfortably beat pre tournament favourites Holland. If anything they started brightly and finished poorly. Not a slow start 1994: Brazil won their opening two games against Russia and Cameroon 3-0 and 2-0 and drew their 3rd group game v Sweden. Not a slow start 1998: France won all 3 group games comfortably geting 9 points and scoring 9 goals. Not a slow start 2002: Brazil won all 3 group games scoring 11 goals and only conceding 3. Not a slow start 2006: This may be the only example of a slow start, a 1-1 draw with USA but they did in their opening game against Ghana. They were very fortunate against australia in the 2nd round though. Not really a slow start, but maybe the worst start of all the winners from 1990 to 2006 Teams are likely to start well and win games with comfortable scorelines in the groupstage because the teams are not as good. Whereas in the latter stages, quarter finals to the final, the teams are of a higher quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davies4England Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 Exactly, usually the slow starting teams end up winning the competition. I don't mean to sound pedantic but that is such a myth. I will start from italia 90 and work forward because I don't know much beofre then 1990: Germany won their first two games 4-1 against a good yugoslavia team and 5-1 against UAE. Their last last group they were already guaranteed top spot and so put all the old guys (littbarski) or the young up and coming players (andreas moller). In the 2nd round they comfortably beat pre tournament favourites Holland. If anything they started brightly and finished poorly. Not a slow start 1994: Brazil won their opening two games against Russia and Cameroon 3-0 and 2-0 and drew their 3rd group game v Sweden. Not a slow start 1998: France won all 3 group games comfortably geting 9 points and scoring 9 goals. Not a slow start 2002: Brazil won all 3 group games scoring 11 goals and only conceding 3. Not a slow start 2006: This may be the only example of a slow start, a 1-1 draw with USA but they did in their opening game against Ghana. They were very fortunate against australia in the 2nd round though. Not really a slow start, but maybe the worst start of all the winners from 1990 to 2006 Teams are likely to start well and win games with comfortable scorelines in the groupstage because the teams are not as good. Whereas in the latter stages, quarter finals to the final, the teams are of a higher quality. :oops: Dunno why I thought that then, fair enough. Italy seem to have clouded my judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-dub Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Someone who is not a football fan asked me today if England has any players from "that team you follow". I said yes, and mentioned the names James Milner and Stephen Warnock. 10 minutes later I realized I had forgotten about Heskey. I think that pretty much sums up the season he had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted June 11, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2010 This is for the Stamp Act! “The Star Spangled Banner” will ring out Saturday in Rustenburg, South Africa. Its words will be softly sung or mouthed by millions across the world. And we can be sure that its message will reach its intended audience. Our ode to American perseverance against the British will be sung to the ears of the countless English watching across the globe. Their team and fans will stand there, on land the British Empire once ruled, outnumbered by former colonists, subjected to the poetry of British defeat. What will go through their heads is unclear. For most, it may be brash confidence, the sort of misguided English swagger that surrounds their perpetually-falling-short national soccer team. They did, after all, invent the sport, something they’re loath to let anyone forget. But I hope that in some, there is a twinge of fear rattling in behind that façade of imperial superiority. I hope that for one second, the words “Nineteen Fifty” creep into the fringe of their minds. Soccer fan or not, the World Cup, which starts Friday, is probably on your radar by this point. The amount of media coverage, time devoted on ESPN, and presence of commercials has been ratcheted up this time. For whatever reason, though, soccer provokes a surprisingly strong response from its detractors. That's unfortunate, as there are so few opportunities for a common nationwide experience, and they are most often catastrophic like 9/11 or JFK’s assassination. The World Cup seems like a perfect, and harmless, opportunity. As opposed to the fragmented Olympics, with dozens of ongoing events, there is only a single team to get behind, each match able to receive undivided attention. A passive watcher can choose to get close to the consistent cast of characters, or take the long view, treat the players as a monolith bearing the U.S. flag, and watch the little guys in red, white, and blue run around. For a whole host of reasons—detailed in books like Andrei Markovits’ Offside: Soccer and American Exceptionalism—soccer has never fully caught on here, constantly being viewed as an invading alien entity. And, unfortunately, the hype propagated by soccer fans in this country isn’t all that appealing. If you’re not presented with the right story, you not only won’t be compelled to watch, you may turn against it altogether. And you’re getting the wrong story. The dirty secret is that despite looking like a great advantage, the scope of the event—and of world soccer—actually works against its current popularity. Look, if you follow any sports at all (and even if you don’t), you’ve been inundated with certain images about soccer. When I watch commercials like ESPN’s epic “United” promo, I get chills. But I’ve already bought in. If I hadn’t, I might hear the universally annoying Bono going on a self-righteous rant about how soccer is the one global language—the subtext being “If you aren’t part of it, you’re out of touch.” Now, couple that ad with Nike’s “Write the Future” spot, which showcases the way several countries react to their superstar making—hypothetical—World Cup history. I’ve watched it a thousand times to get excited. But really, if you’re not a soccer fan, it just drives the image of a bunch of foreigners you’ve never heard of—not one American star. Even a truly fantastic, must-read article like Spencer Hall’s declaration that the World Cup is the last remaining outpost of utopia hammers home the one, globalized world ideal. But sports are supposed to be a release, a means to get away from the heady anxieties of globalization, not bury ourselves with it. Soccer is a world where America is just another nation competing—a mediocre one at that. It’s governed by ludicrous international bureaucracies of the sort that Americans can’t stand (just read Hall’s take on FIFA’s president). The world is passing, your job is getting shipped overseas, and to top it all off, they’re making you like their sports, too. I get it. Soccer is a surrender of sovereignty to the rest of the world. The “one world” crap, as much as I like the commercials, isn’t the way they talk about it anywhere else, and shouldn’t be the way you hear about it here. Soccer is not some universal language, it’s a provincial tongue. It’s about your beefs and histories, not some global harmony bullshit. It’s about rooting against Germany because of World Wars I and II. It’s about rooting against North Korea because of right now. It’s about rooting against France because of the French. And it’s about rooting against England because they tried to oppress us a long time ago, we owned them when we used to fight wars, and we don’t get to bring those up all that often (plus, you know losing to us would drive them crazy). On June 29, 1950, the universally-accepted greatest upset in the history of sports occurred.The heavily-favored English, the creators of the sport, somehow lost 1-0 to a ragtag crew of semi-professionals from the U.S.A. This was so stunning that newspapers assumed the 1-0 was a typo and declared England the victor 10-0 or 10-1. The English didn’t even make it out of the first round. If you feel like soccer is somehow foreign, know that the U.S. has a firm place in soccer lore. Know that the U.S. was one of the first places to play soccer outside England and has since the 1880s. This Saturday, the U.S. team gets another chance at the history books, another chance to remind England, “Don’t tread on me.” Be there. Be a part of what could be a major moment, a turning point in U.S. sports. And, God willing, at the end of a glorious U.S. victory, you’ll be able to hear, faintly, thousands of people chanting, “Nine-teen fif-ty!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 This is for the Stamp Act! On June 29, 1950, the universally-accepted greatest upset in the history of sports occurred.The heavily-favored English, the creators of the sport, somehow lost 1-0 to a ragtag crew of semi-professionals from the U.S.A. Getting a wee bit carried away there methinks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Especially seeing as it was our first ever World Cup. Our record against the US is currently: Played 9, won 7, drew 0, lost 2, scored 38, conceeded 8. An average of over 4 goals a game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Especially seeing as it was our first ever World Cup. but at the time England thought they would go to Brazil and walk away with the trophy. They even printed stories back home saying it was 10-1 as they thought it was a misprint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Exactly, usually the slow starting teams end up winning the competition. I don't mean to sound pedantic but that is such a myth. I will start from italia 90 and work forward because I don't know much beofre then 1990: Germany won their first two games 4-1 against a good yugoslavia team and 5-1 against UAE. Their last last group they were already guaranteed top spot and so put all the old guys (littbarski) or the young up and coming players (andreas moller). In the 2nd round they comfortably beat pre tournament favourites Holland. If anything they started brightly and finished poorly. Not a slow start 1994: Brazil won their opening two games against Russia and Cameroon 3-0 and 2-0 and drew their 3rd group game v Sweden. Not a slow start 1998: France won all 3 group games comfortably geting 9 points and scoring 9 goals. Not a slow start 2002: Brazil won all 3 group games scoring 11 goals and only conceding 3. Not a slow start 2006: This may be the only example of a slow start, a 1-1 draw with USA but they did in their opening game against Ghana. They were very fortunate against australia in the 2nd round though. Not really a slow start, but maybe the worst start of all the winners from 1990 to 2006 Teams are likely to start well and win games with comfortable scorelines in the groupstage because the teams are not as good. Whereas in the latter stages, quarter finals to the final, the teams are of a higher quality. :oops: Dunno why I thought that then, fair enough. Italy seem to have clouded my judgement. Italy just start slow in general like in 1982 as well they drew all group games and won the tournament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 11, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2010 Aston Villa's biggest-ever defeat was losing 8-1 to Blackburn Rovers in the FA Cup on 2 March 1889. Do you think that when Villa line up against Rovers the words 'Eighteen Eighty Nine' "creep into the fringes of the players' minds"? That's about likely as the current England team worrying about 1950. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 11, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2010 Soooooooooooooooo, I'm holding my hands up and saying I'm missing the England game tomorrow out of choice. There's a method to my madness though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Aston Villa's biggest-ever defeat was losing 8-1 to Blackburn Rovers in the FA Cup on 2 March 1889. Do you think that when Villa line up against Rovers the words 'Eighteen Eighty Nine' "creep into the fringes of the players' minds"? That's about likely as the current England team worrying about 1950. when we went 2-0 down in the Carling Cup semi-final it might have been Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Aston Villa's biggest-ever defeat was losing 8-1 to Blackburn Rovers in the FA Cup on 2 March 1889. Do you think that when Villa line up against Rovers the words 'Eighteen Eighty Nine' "creep into the fringes of the players' minds"? That's about likely as the current England team worrying about 1950. when we went 2-0 down in the Carling Cup semi-final it might have been Gabby's a keen follower of 19th century football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 What really happened in training... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 11, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2010 Is that a real photo?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Is that a real photo?! Yes leaked from paparazzi who managed to get close to last Fridays training session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 That's definitely shopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Are you sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts