But the whole point of our game is to put the little white round thing between the tall sticks at either end of the pitch. England didn't do that very well and I can't remember them even having many attempts to do so brilliantly saved by the Iceland 'keeper, or cleared off the line. I suppose they were marginally better at pressing forward than Iceland (although not much) but then you might expect that as Iceland were in front and happy to sit on their lead, trying to pinch another on the break. Had Iceland been behind for more than thirty seconds I'd have expected them to have seen more possession.
Probably was just as well that the cossetted little darlings did not go to Thiepval (TAGFC comment above) or heaven only knows how crap/unlucky they would have ended up being.
Discounting the argument about luck, Iceland displayed far greater effort, application, togetherness and determination than a disinterested England team. Those four attributes will very often beat a supposedly more talented team.
The Crazy Gang in the 80s were a prime example of pure effort and togetherness regularly beating the top sides. Luck was not involved there Chris.
Sigh, luck is always involved. Its just one of the facts of life. Other things are involved too, it's not all down to luck.
The longer a period of time (a season, ten seasons rather than in an individual game) the less an impact individual elements of chance within matches have. But then there are still big events which happen by chance which have an ongoing influence - people meeting in toilets (if the MO'N origin story is to be believed), career ending injuries of key players etc etc
I don't believe the England players weren't interested in winning. It's (as I've said before in this thread) a lazy narrative - if every team in the competition tries their hardest, still only one team can win. It happened that on this particular day, Iceland beat England, because of a combination of factors.
When England beat Wales, was it because Wales weren't trying hard enough?
When England beat Wales, was it because Wales weren't trying hard enough?
No, it's because they played better than Wales on that day. They absolutely, categorically did not play better than Iceland though. They were utter shit from start to finish. Apart from Rashford, who in a five minute cameo made more effort and had more ideas than the rest of the team put together over the previous 85 minutes. If you have no ideas and can't pass the ball to a team mate, you are not unlucky.
I think England lacked a bit of directness all tournament. All a bit sideways and meaningless, and some of the set piece delivery would be have been disappointing in League 2.
I still think England were the better side in each of their games though. Funny how people see things differently.
@Chris The ladder reference is from a Keith Lemon Sketch Show piece where Mick Hucknall thinks his ladder has been stolen. I found it funny and it's stuck with me.
'That's my ladder !!'
Nice side step on the better team question. You might have started climbing that ladder
And the strange thing is what I said was actually a compliment after so many passionless posts. It's pretty clear we're never going to get along isn't it. The olive branch repeatedly thrown in my face. Oh well.
Comments
But the whole point of our game is to put the little white round thing between the tall sticks at either end of the pitch. England didn't do that very well and I can't remember them even having many attempts to do so brilliantly saved by the Iceland 'keeper, or cleared off the line. I suppose they were marginally better at pressing forward than Iceland (although not much) but then you might expect that as Iceland were in front and happy to sit on their lead, trying to pinch another on the break. Had Iceland been behind for more than thirty seconds I'd have expected them to have seen more possession.
Probably was just as well that the cossetted little darlings did not go to Thiepval (TAGFC comment above) or heaven only knows how crap/unlucky they would have ended up being.
Discounting the argument about luck, Iceland displayed far greater effort, application, togetherness and determination than a disinterested England team. Those four attributes will very often beat a supposedly more talented team.
The Crazy Gang in the 80s were a prime example of pure effort and togetherness regularly beating the top sides. Luck was not involved there Chris.
Sigh, luck is always involved. Its just one of the facts of life. Other things are involved too, it's not all down to luck.
The longer a period of time (a season, ten seasons rather than in an individual game) the less an impact individual elements of chance within matches have. But then there are still big events which happen by chance which have an ongoing influence - people meeting in toilets (if the MO'N origin story is to be believed), career ending injuries of key players etc etc
I don't believe the England players weren't interested in winning. It's (as I've said before in this thread) a lazy narrative - if every team in the competition tries their hardest, still only one team can win. It happened that on this particular day, Iceland beat England, because of a combination of factors.
When England beat Wales, was it because Wales weren't trying hard enough?
The Crazy Gang often also lost to top sides. Why was that?
No, it's because they played better than Wales on that day. They absolutely, categorically did not play better than Iceland though. They were utter shit from start to finish. Apart from Rashford, who in a five minute cameo made more effort and had more ideas than the rest of the team put together over the previous 85 minutes. If you have no ideas and can't pass the ball to a team mate, you are not unlucky.
It really is that simple
I think England lacked a bit of directness all tournament. All a bit sideways and meaningless, and some of the set piece delivery would be have been disappointing in League 2.
I still think England were the better side in each of their games though. Funny how people see things differently.
The more I practise the luckier I get. Arnold Palmer
Thought it was Gary Player that said this?
@mooneyman I believe it was indeed Mr Player.
"England were the better team v Iceland" would be perfect for the 'defend the indefensible' round on Fighting Talk
About as defensible as WMD's in Iraq!
Big question of this morning. Who does Chris think was the better team last night?
Not much in it for me.
Oh and what was the Simply Red ladder thing about?
@Chris The ladder reference is from a Keith Lemon Sketch Show piece where Mick Hucknall thinks his ladder has been stolen. I found it funny and it's stuck with me.
'That's my ladder !!'
Nice side step on the better team question. You might have started climbing that ladder
Keith Lemon and funny all in one sentence without a single negative. Remarkable.
DevC talking about an emotion. Remarkable.
RITM resorting to personal abuse - not remarkable at all.
Thread finally descending into a domestic between Dev and RITM as usual
It must be love.
And the strange thing is what I said was actually a compliment after so many passionless posts. It's pretty clear we're never going to get along isn't it. The olive branch repeatedly thrown in my face. Oh well.
Aren't the Euro's over now anyway?
It only finishes on Sunday after I've decided who the rightful winners are, based on their average level of performance over the competition.
Can't wait Chris. I don't suppose you'd give a sneak preview on your thinking so far.
If it was up to me it would be a Germany Italy final.
Whoever wins the final will be lucky!
Too right.
Bit lucky.
Who won Chris?
Morally, Germany.