English press is guilty for that. You press is still in ancient past. Only 5 nations play football( including england). Others are second class. Because of them other nations think that you are arrogant.
The "England have had it easy" narrative
- Thread starter Alex99
- Start date
England didn't top their group either!
ThisChrist !
It's been one of the easiest routes to a world semi final in the competition history. Just be grateful that you've made it this far(In fairness most England fans are).
I think it is debatable, especially as a number of the big teams just haven't performed, so the easy route is based entirely on reputation. Brazil weren't particularly great, Argentina were awful. If we were in a group with Germany and they bombed out in the same way, would it still be an "easy route" because they were shite, or would the perception change because Germany were great 4 years ago?
It's cup football. Pressure is on the big teams, the lesser teams raise their game. Even the lower ranked teams rarely get blown away over the course of the competition. England sides with better players on paper have crashed out of equally "easy" groups and knockouts. England have succeeded, so far, in not being embarrassed like usual.
We have Croatia next, and they've been among the best performers overall, Colombia are a good side but they decided to play like a Tony Pulis side, and we were grouped with one of the favourites but that game turned out to not be decisive so both team rotated. I guess a bit of luck with the latter, but we lost anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether we played a strong or rotated Belgium side.
I think England fans are defensive about it because it seems to be used as means to discredit England's progress through this tournament, which is a little unfair.
It's cup football. Pressure is on the big teams, the lesser teams raise their game. Even the lower ranked teams rarely get blown away over the course of the competition. England sides with better players on paper have crashed out of equally "easy" groups and knockouts. England have succeeded, so far, in not being embarrassed like usual.
We have Croatia next, and they've been among the best performers overall, Colombia are a good side but they decided to play like a Tony Pulis side, and we were grouped with one of the favourites but that game turned out to not be decisive so both team rotated. I guess a bit of luck with the latter, but we lost anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether we played a strong or rotated Belgium side.
I think England fans are defensive about it because it seems to be used as means to discredit England's progress through this tournament, which is a little unfair.
No Croatia are a good team and difficult for any team to beat. But compared to what you might expect in a semi final it’s as good as it gets.
feck em. It's coming home
Where have I complained about the fans? Maybe your perception is the problem and not bitterness on the part of everyone who doesn’t support England.
Lots of people were calling England supporters arrogant in the England discussion thread on here; pretending to see hype when there was nothing other than it's coming home remarks and suggestions that it would be easier to beat Colombia than it would Brazil. I agree with you, by the way.
In England the whole tournament is about England/home nations. And so it bloody should be. It's the national broadcaster that we pay to view.
If you're not comfortable with that then there are other free, non-partisan alternatives to view instead. Russia Today, perhaps.
I have no issue with people who don’t support England. But moaning a UK based TV coverage has an English bias is plan stupid, which is what you did.
This is exactly the sort of weird mental gymnastics I'm on about though. You've named eight teams there that I assume stand out to you as typically the best in the world, yet England have just beaten Sweden very comfortably in the quarter finals, when Sweden have been directly involved in three of those teams not being in the quarter finals. They finished ahead of Holland in the qualifying group, knocked Italy out in the play-offs, and topped Germany's group at the tournament itself. England have now got Croatia in the semi-finals, which is being deemed "easy" when Croatia turned over Argentina 3-0 in the group stage. That's literally enough teams for one half of a quarter final draw being knocked out or beaten by teams that England have faced or have to face.
The logic of "any version of x team" just doesn't stand up, because ultimately, if Germany, Argentina, Italy, Holland, Spain and Portugal aren't actually good enough, other teams are, and in this tournament cycle teams like Sweden and Croatia have stepped up and dispatched typically better opposition. The full extension of that logic sees "Arsenal had a tough draw in the 3rd round of the 2017/18 FA Cup because they came up against two time European Champions, Nottingham Forest" become a valid argument.
This is the crux for me. Apparently England are lucky to not have faced Germany, Argentina, Italy and Holland, but are in fact lucky to be facing the teams that have been better than them.
Portugal had an "easy" run to the 2016 Euros final (they only won one game in 90 minutes!) but that's not discussed. Italy, as you've said, Brazil in 2002 had a group with Turkey, Costa Rica and China, then faced Belgium, England and Turkey on their way to the final, both actually quite celebrated wins.
The point I'm making referring to other teams is that the teams that England are apparently fortunate to not be facing, have all fallen short against "lesser sides" to the point where two of them (three if you include Chile) didn't even qualify for the tournament.
In years gone by England aren't beating Tunisia. It's finishing 1-1. They're not turning over Panama 6-1, it's a scrappy 1-0 after a lacklustre performance. They're not beating Colombia on penalties, they're getting knocked out. They're not comfortably dispatching a group topping Sweden, it's a draw or disappointing defeat. But now they have beaten Tunisia, battered Panama, eliminated Colombia and cast aside Sweden, suddenly there's caveats on every single one of them. This hasn't happened for any other team that's had a favourable draw in years gone by, because it's just been accepted.
I'd obviously much rather have England's route than the one traversed by Belgium/France, but everyone's acting like this is the first time there's been a "strong" half of the draw and a "weak" half when it blatantly isn't true, and it's also not the first time where upsets in other games have presented a team with perhaps a more favourable draw in a later round.
I think a slightly separate issue is that I think this England side absolutely would fancy themselves against Holland and Italy. They would fancy themselves against the Argentina, Germany, Spain and Portugal sides of this World Cup. I believe they'd do themselves proud against the likes of Brazil and Uruguay too, and I'm hoping they get the chance to prove themselves against one of Belgium or France next Sunday, rather than the exhibition-esque affair on the Saturday. But because these sides have fallen short against teams that haven't got the historical pedigree, England's draw is now considered easy.
You have to play what's in front of you.
The likes of Brazil, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and co. have all struggled against the so called lesser teams. Germany had an easy group on paper and came last. There's no easy games.
Fact is, whether people like it or not, we're in the semi finals because we deserve to be there. Hopefully we can go on to win it.
The likes of Brazil, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and co. have all struggled against the so called lesser teams. Germany had an easy group on paper and came last. There's no easy games.
Fact is, whether people like it or not, we're in the semi finals because we deserve to be there. Hopefully we can go on to win it.
Not just easy, absolutely piss easy.
Who cares, let’s just enjoy the fact it’s coming home and ignore everyone else.
So many words for such a poor point. It's obvious that the route to the semi final has been relatively easy.
I’d say an above average team yes. They have looked average their last two games and apart from the midfield, we are Man for man better than them on paper.. which of course means sod all but I’m confident if we play a fast paced game they won’t be able to handle us.
Germany played teams that you'd expect them to beat and they lost to two of them meaning they were eliminated. If they'd beaten them, England could have played them, instead they've had to play a team that was better than them in this tournament (and was also better than both Italy and Holland in qualifying).
Argentina played teams that you'd expect them to beat and they drew with one and lost to another. If they'd beaten them, England could have played them. Instead, Argentina ended up on the other side of the draw and England now come up against the team that beat them 3-0.
Spain played teams that you'd expect them to beat. They managed to beat one, drew with another courtesy of a VAR-assisted, stoppage time equaliser, and ended being eliminated on penalties by the other. If they'd beaten them England could be facing them on Wednesday rather than Croatia.
I just don't get how England have been lucky to come up against sides that have proven themselves better this time around than the likes of Argentina and Germany.
These were all discussed at the time. Germany's route to the final in 2002 was also relatively easy and that was talked about at the time. No one cares about it years later though. Will be the same with England.
Absolutely this all day long
You get to the Semi Finals by beating those infront of you
We've done that, thoroughly deserve to be there
Teams on paper can look easier, but at this level, with pressure that comes with the latter stages of a World Cup, no games are easy
You have had an easy route, though. But in the end, it doesn’t really matter. As has been said a few times, you can only beat what’s in front of you and for this relatively weak England team to have reached the SF is a great achievement no matter how they got there. Even if Croatia has a better midfield, I actually fancy you to get to the final.
If you're ROI supporter, then no offence but htf would you even know?!
Group Stage: Cameroon/Russia/Sweden, R16: USA, QF: Netherlands, SF: Sweden. Group Stage: Ireland, Norway, Mexico. R16: Nigeria, QF: Spain, SF: Bulgaria. These are the opponents Brazil and Italy beat in order to reach the final in 1994 in a tournament similar to this one in terms of how the big boys performed (England were missing then just as Italy failed to qualify for this one among the past winners). This "favourable route" is not even unprecedented to cause such a stir.
They only "luck" England enjoyed is that they spent most part of the last 50 years "creating" a reputation for themselves as notorious bed wetters in big tournaments and now that they actually have a well-functioning gameplan, they might win the damn thing without having faced a single one of the past winners (if Belgium reach the final). It helps not to face Germany at home and France lead by Zidane and Henry (2006) when you have forgotten how it feels to win something. Not England's fault, by any means, but the element of "luck" is pretty obvious to be detected here. Just as Brazil were helped by their easy route in order to lift a curse that was hanging over them for 24 years, England got their rub of the green this time around. It's the same "luck" that had deserted England in 1990 & 1996 when they played better than Germany yet they went out on penalties in both occasions.
Funnily enough, the last time someone won the WC without facing a single one of the previous holders was back in 1974 when West Germany chose to throw away their last group game against East Germany in order to avoid a second group which consisted of Holland, Brazil and Argentina and face Poland (good team like Croatia in this WC), Sweden and Yugoslavia (who only beat Zair in that competition) instead. If England face the much talented but inexperienced at the highest level Belgium in the final, it will be a route very similar to Germany's in 1974. So, good tactics/performances, cynicism and a bit fortunate that many of the other big boys didn't do well or faced each other, it's all happened before. Just enjoy the ride.
They only "luck" England enjoyed is that they spent most part of the last 50 years "creating" a reputation for themselves as notorious bed wetters in big tournaments and now that they actually have a well-functioning gameplan, they might win the damn thing without having faced a single one of the past winners (if Belgium reach the final). It helps not to face Germany at home and France lead by Zidane and Henry (2006) when you have forgotten how it feels to win something. Not England's fault, by any means, but the element of "luck" is pretty obvious to be detected here. Just as Brazil were helped by their easy route in order to lift a curse that was hanging over them for 24 years, England got their rub of the green this time around. It's the same "luck" that had deserted England in 1990 & 1996 when they played better than Germany yet they went out on penalties in both occasions.
Funnily enough, the last time someone won the WC without facing a single one of the previous holders was back in 1974 when West Germany chose to throw away their last group game against East Germany in order to avoid a second group which consisted of Holland, Brazil and Argentina and face Poland (good team like Croatia in this WC), Sweden and Yugoslavia (who only beat Zair in that competition) instead. If England face the much talented but inexperienced at the highest level Belgium in the final, it will be a route very similar to Germany's in 1974. So, good tactics/performances, cynicism and a bit fortunate that many of the other big boys didn't do well or faced each other, it's all happened before. Just enjoy the ride.
You keep refusing to answer if you would enjoy listening to people talk about Liverpool constantly in games not involving them. Perhaps because it would show the hypocrisy. I’ll leave you to it.
But moaning a UK based TV coverage has an English bias is plan stupid, which is what you did.
Who gives a shit? Portugal won the euros by winning a single game in regulation time. It's hardly held against them.
It’s a UK broadcaster that we all pay to view. Not everyone in the UK supports England clearly. I don’t like the assumption everyone watches wants English clubs to do well in Europe either and I doubt I’m the only Man United fan on this forum that thinks that.
Pointing out that one half of the draw is less demanding doesn't make one a hater.
That's not comparable though.
You're complaining about a UK broadcast talking about the only UK side in a tournament. Regardless of whatever game is on, the majority of the UK audience will have some sort of vested interest in the UK side at the tournament, far more so than they have any interest in the other side.
Do you think the French and Belgian broadcasters spent yesterday discussing England, Sweden, Croatia and Russia, or do you think they spent it discussing France and Belgium respectively?
A UK broadcaster discussing Liverpool when Manchester United are playing Chelsea isn't remotely similar. It isn't even similar for them to do so when Burnley and Huddersfield play, because the majority of the audience will not have a vested interest in Liverpool.
It's a weird comparison and you're not proving any hypocrisy by making it.
Exactly my view. Nail on the head.
This forum has suddenly become awash with posters who will call you a 'hater' any time you try and apply some logic or question the sequence of favourable fixtures.
There's nothing wrong with that and it has put England in a tremendous position, but likewise the people who question the lack of quality England have faced are not wrong either.
Because it’s never going to happen so it’s a stupid analogy.
They have had it easy. You can't deny that. Playing Tunisia, Panama, Belgium B, Colombia and Sweden to get to the semi finals is the easiest route ever. England have been expected to win every game so far (apart from Belgium) which they have done so far. But you can only beat what's in front of you and they're doing exactly that so we give them big credit of course.
The same Italy that got beat off sweden?
Or Spain who were humbled by Russia?
Germany got spanked by Mexico and South Korea, and the less said about the Netherlands the better.
Of course England have been on the more favourable side of the draw, but let’s not fail to acknowledge that those teams earned their right to be there. With some of the shite luck in recent years it’s just nice to be in a semi final - and a winnable one at that!!
Stop with all the masochist nonsense ye fannies.
Stop with all the masochist nonsense ye fannies.
England has had it easy.
They have done their job anyway and should be happy about that. Trying to claim they haven't got it easy compared to those on the other side of the brackets...
They have done their job anyway and should be happy about that. Trying to claim they haven't got it easy compared to those on the other side of the brackets...
If Liverpool TV were showings a champions league game not involving them , you're damned right that I would expect to hear them talking about Liverpool. I wouldn't enjoy it but I wouldn't complain about it either.
But that is why I don't watch Liverpool tv.
What bitter comments like this fail to realise is that these are national broadcasters, talking about one of our 4 national teams.
When Wales were smashing the euros, a lot of the focus was on them. If NI made the wc semis, the same would happen. They'd be talking about their potential opponents.
Some people in the UK will actively hays the English team. Some people in England will. Some people in the UK will think football is a complete waste of time and won't believe that they're paying money for others to watch football.
How far do wd have to take everyone into account in your opinion?
'You don't buy into it'...Of course not! Croatia is the first true test and it's come as late as the semi's! So yeah, they have had it easy.
So Sweden, Colombia and Croatia should be thrown out of the competition and replaced by Germany, Chile and Spain?
The message I'm getting from certain posters is that you're only as good as your reputation, not your results.
It's massively arrogant to downplay the achievements of the opponents that England have faced so far. They deserve to be there because they've been better than the so-called big teams that everyone in championing.
England have faced THE BEST opponents they could have possibly faced based on the games that have been played.
The message I'm getting from certain posters is that you're only as good as your reputation, not your results.
It's massively arrogant to downplay the achievements of the opponents that England have faced so far. They deserve to be there because they've been better than the so-called big teams that everyone in championing.
England have faced THE BEST opponents they could have possibly faced based on the games that have been played.
Jealous are we?
That’s horseshit apparently by whom?
Doesn’t mean they are good or that they have not overachieved themselves