Like a few other people on here, I wonder if you're taking a sense of persecution from Twitter and bringing it onto the caf, where you're not actually being persecuted?
You usually get a tonne of different opinions on here, including loads of extreme/weird ones. Despite this, I reckon we'd struggle to find any posts that say a) England are shit or b) all the teams they've played are shit.
The consensus seems to be much more along the lines of England have done very well and exceeded expectations so far (expectations of most England fans too) but they've had a relatively easy draw and been fortunate in getting to a semi-final without playing a single team from the very top tier of international football. You're obviously finding it hard to disagree with any of this, so instead seem to be taking aim at straw men (England are shit, they've only played shit teams) that are either a figment of your imagination, or the ramblings of idiots on Twitter.
I've not seen any criticism on Twitter. It's mostly wrestling twaddle on my feed.
I'll agree that you probably won't find anyone seriously saying "England are shit" or "the teams England have played are shit" but I'm not talking about those specific phrases. I'm exaggerating the general attitude that seems to be prevailing about England. This, to me, is that England are fortunate to have got as far as they are because they have only played poor teams. I've seen very little to suggest that the general consensus is that England have done very well to be in the semi-finals because almost every post from a non-England fan about the subject explicitly refers to England's great fortune at having an easy draw. To me, "doing very well" and "being very lucky" are entirely at odds with each other.
You've said something there that I think is one of the key points here; "the
very top-tier of international football." How many teams belong to the
very top-tier of international football? What are the criteria for being one of the teams belonging to the
very top-tier of international football? And I think most importantly, who are these teams that belong to the
very top-tier of international football?
This is one of the things I've addressed repeatedly. A list of "elite" teams has been dished out a fair few times, with these "elite" teams being the eight of Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. Historically speaking, I'd agree that the these teams have been in and around the top of the game for many a year, but in terms of their quality today, few have proven worthy of the tag.
Italy and Netherlands didn't even qualify for the tournament. Germany finished bottom of their group, losing to both Mexico and South Korea. Spain laboured through their group, and were then knocked out by a heavily unfancied Russia in the first knockout round. Can you really argue for any of those sides being labeled "elite" or belonging to the top-tier of international football?
After them, there's Portugal, who also laboured through the same group as Spain, but were then knocked out by Uruguay in the first knockout round, and Argentina, another who struggled in the group, but were knocked out by France at the same stage. Is a team that achieved only a narrow victory against Morocco and a draw against Iran considered elite? Is a team that, firstly, only just qualified for the tournament, and secondly, failed to beat Iceland and got humiliated by Croatia considered elite? To me, no.
This now leaves us with France and Brazil, the latter of which has had their status as "elite" questioned on this very forum. Allowing Brazil to maintain the status, does this mean that there are just two elite teams? If not, who are the others? Uruguay, who knocked out Portugal? Croatia, who humiliated Argentina? Belgium, who knocked out Brazil? Or are some/all of Portugal, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Netherlands and Italy always considered
If the very top-tier is an exclusive club of few members, then surely it's a fairly common occurrence for teams to reach semi-finals while avoiding the small pool deemed "the best", and not incredibly fortuitous as many have made out? If the very top-tier is a more extended list that includes teams of vastly different quality, then I'm not really sure how it's luck to come up against teams that have objectively outperformed a number of those teams, but are seemingly excluded from that group for no real reason other than being an unglamorous name?
Were Switzerland or Belgium in the very top-tier when Argentina faced them to reach the semi-final in 2014? Mexico or Costa Rica for Netherlands? Chile or Colombia for Brazil?
Were South Korea or Ghana in the very top-tier when Uruguay faced them to reach the semi-final in 2010? Australia or Ukraine for Italy in 2006?
Were Paraguay or USA in the very top-tier when Germany reached the semi-final in 2002? Would Republic of Ireland or South Korea represented the very top-tier had Spain got there? Did Spain even represent the very top tier in 2002? Belgium or England for Brazil? Japan or Senegal for Turkey?
Were Chile or Denmark in the very top-tier for Brazil in 1998? Saudi Arabia or Romania for Sweden in 1994?
Has England's draw been more favourable than it could have been? Possibly, but the in form Germany they could have faced turned out to be crap, so they got a team that proved themselves better. Is this the first time a team not among the tournament favourites as reached the semi-final without having to beat one of the tournament favourites to get there? Absolutely not. In fact it seems to happen for at least one side every World Cup, frequently more, which would make me question why it's such a big talking point when it comes to England this time around, if there is, as claimed, no bitterness, jealousy or resentment from non-England fans about their success so far in the tournament.