More football polluting the TV screens. I never saw this many English flags flying on St George's day. England needs to learn how to be truly patriotic if they're going to try at all, instead of waiting 4 years for some stupid football matches.
I'm indifferent to football itself, but I have a huuuuuge gambling addiction. I sure hope Argentina takes down Nigeria tomorrow and Spain takes down... uhh... whoever they're playing. I have, like, $500 on this. >:
Discarded pizza boxes are an indispensable source of cheese.
The World Cup is awesome - bring it on! Never am i more interested in footy (unless it's a Hereford/Shrewsbury-scumbag derby) than during the World Cup! Surely it's the most watched event in the world, isn't it?
France let me down a bit. I'm blaming Gourcuff, who was shockingly bad - wasted chances, and seemed to get dispossessed every time he touched the ball.
Still, the first game went as planned
I'm really hoping South Korea will beat Greece today (very possible), and ideally Nigeria would beat Argentina (far less likely).
England will probably draw (2-2?) with USA, or perhaps even lose. I only say that, because I think an England-Germany match is inevitable, and for that to happen USA really need to finish top of the group.
Originally Posted by -Adam- More football polluting the TV screens. I never saw this many English flags flying on St George's day. England needs to learn how to be truly patriotic if they're going to try at all, instead of waiting 4 years for some stupid football matches.
stop complaining / being so negative and bringing every one down- what an attitude. if you dont like it no need to rub it into everyone's face how its "polluting". people enjoy soccer - it makes them happy - lets all have fun and a good time, okay?
anyways so far the world cup is awesome- germany won. yay
say is it common in your country if your team won every one will jump straight into their car - get out the flags - drive around and honk all night.
here is a picture ive found on wikipedia about this (on the GERMAN wikipedia- if i switch the language it will just give me the english wiki page for "parade" not exactly what the german page is about so it might not even be such a thing abroad but what do i know)
I'm excited about the world cup and enjoy watching football in general. I just don't talk about it much on the internet because not many people seem to like it online...
Germany were brilliant today, but Australia were pretty poor.
Originally Posted by MasterM Originally Posted by -Adam- More football polluting the TV screens. I never saw this many English flags flying on St George's day. England needs to learn how to be truly patriotic if they're going to try at all, instead of waiting 4 years for some stupid football matches.
stop complaining / being so negative and bringing every one down- what an attitude. if you dont like it no need to rub it into everyone's face how its "polluting". people enjoy soccer - it makes them happy - lets all have fun and a good time, okay?
anyways so far the world cup is awesome- germany won. yay
say is it common in your country if your team won every one will jump straight into their car - get out the flags - drive around and honk all night.
here is a picture ive found on wikipedia about this (on the GERMAN wikipedia- if i switch the language it will just give me the english wiki page for "parade" not exactly what the german page is about so it might not even be such a thing abroad but what do i know)
Good to see you got a life instead of targeting me... oh wait Oh hey, I found that video you made of Duncan Fenn the other day
Yeah, I wouldn't read too much into it - they were facing very weak opposition (a lot worse than they were in '06), who even had a player sent off for no apparent reason (they would have lost anyway, but the margin of victory flattered Germany in the end).
I seem to remember the Aussies got screwed by a bad refereeing decision last World Cup as well, in their game against Italy.
Having said that, Germany are the only team who have looked even slightly convincing so far - England, France and Argentina were all very poor.
There's still Italy, Brazil, Spain, Portugal and Holland to come though... (and I'm still rooting for South Korea).
I would love to see argentina go far in the tournament and shut up all those who say maradona knows more about sniffing coke than football. The man does deserve some respect, and for someone who is in his first real coaching job, he's not doing bad at all.
Brazil will probably win, but if they don't I'd say germany might shock some people. I was surprised to see how they completely destroyed australia today. Spain still has a great team, but overall their form isn't quite as good as it was 2 years ago and some key players such as Torres and fabregas seem to struggling with injuries but nonetheless they are among the biggest contenders.
As for england, they seem to rely way too much on rooney's good form, even without playing well the us managed to grab a draw (yeah well green helped a lot but still) and made sure he was nowhere to be seen.
Holland has great players up front, but their backline is a bit dodgy at times and most players seem to be too inconsistent (in the last euro they destroyed italy and france, and then got eliminated by russia).
France is coached by a complete moron and the team lacks the spark it had with Zidane, Makelele, Thuram and so on. Portugal's coach is equally dumb, and can't get Ronaldo and Deco to perform to their fullest, and now they forced to play without Nani who has been in fantastic form this season
Italy's players are either old and/or under performing, it's hard to expect anything out of ordinary from them.
As for the underdogs, there's always the african teams such as Ivory coast who are in the group of death, but if they can pull it off then they might surpise a lot of people; the others don't really have a great team but neither had Greece and they beat portugal in the euro 2004 final.
Oh and let's make some predictions !
Holland 1-0 Denmark
Spain 2-0 Switzerland
Italy 0-0 Paraguay
Portugal 1-0 Ivory Coast
Brazil 4-0 North Corea
There's nothing wrong with some football-bashing, us football haters are having a hard time. My neighbours are having football-parties (fat guys and loud kids watching tv in the garden and screaming out all the time), there's orange flags and other bull everywhere, my colleagues and students are sent home to watch the match and everybody everywhere keeps asking me "DID YOU WATCH IT?!?!" It's a nightmare. I have no problem with people enjoying the heck out of this, but why does it have to be so big and loud?
I dont think warnings should be given out for swearing, considering about 10 people have been swearing all over the place recently. God knows how you've figured it's fair to single people out or not do your job efficiently.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look I would love to see argentina go far in the tournament and shut up all those who say maradona knows more about sniffing coke than football.
Oh and let's make some predictions !
Holland 1-0 Denmark
Spain 2-0 Switzerland
Italy 0-0 Paraguay
Portugal 1-0 Ivory Coast
Brazil 4-0 North Corea
I can't stand Argentina - very dirty team (and I'm not just talking about Maradonna). Messi is ridicuolously overrated. I think short players often are, just because they tend to have a lot of finesse, so they're entertaining to watch (plus their legs move really quickly so it looks like they are running faster).
If I were a manager though, I'd much rather have players like Drogba, Adebayor, Koller and even Rooney, on my team - not so much Crouch, because he's such a weakling and even can't head the ball.
I like your picks - seem quite realistic.
Don't know if you're a gambler, but the spread on Brazil/North Korea is 2.5-2.7 which seems pretty generous. You win if Brazil beat NK by more than two goals, and I'd expect Brazil to beat South Korea by 2-3 goals, never mind North Korea. Obviously don't anyone take betting tips from me though
Originally Posted by -Adam- considering about 10 people have been swearing all over the place recently.
An admin's note will be posted regardless of who it is until swearing gets back in order.
I apologize for neglecting to enforce this rule in the past.
Like the other day when I pointed out I was called an offensive name and you completely ignored it?
I did not.
If you would have me continue to ignore the rule, then petition to have the rule removed or its interpretation put in concrete. Otherwise, I will try to do it from now on as best I can. Remember that for every removal request, there is another on the opposite side. If I listened to every one that I got, I'd be editing and warning left and right, and everyone would be up in arms again in the post editing debate.
For now, please everyone refrain from using nasty words. It's a simple request.
The topic was football is for retards right? A neighbour has been screaming and honking for 2 hours now because the Netherlands seem to have won something. Fetch me my crossbow.
Originally Posted by Sketchy Yeah, I wouldn't read too much into it - they were facing very weak opposition (a lot worse than they were in '06), who even had a player sent off for no apparent reason (they would have lost anyway, but the margin of victory flattered Germany in the end).
I seem to remember the Aussies got screwed by a bad refereeing decision last World Cup as well, in their game against Italy.
I think they've played better yesterday than in the last cup. They just put up an attacking stance and it bit them back. They'd probably have conceded only one goal if they played ultra defensive, like USA and Uruguay did, but glad they didn't, because it made for a more interesting match. The ref really hit them hard with the undeserved Cahill red card, though.. they wouldn't have won without it, but it's going to hurt in the next match.
It is a really fun tournament to watch with friends, though. Sorry if some of you guys don't enjoy it. I guess it's much worse in football crazed nations like England, Italy, Spain, Netherlands
Also, don't bet on football. You might as well be betting on roulette, lol. It's unpredictable, and it'll trick you into thinking you have good odds. It's been notoriously the least profitable sports in gambling history, because nobody knows the right odds. If you have to bet, betting on the weaker team would almost always earn you money
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Sketchy:I agree with Messi being overrated, I think ronaldo is a much better player in most aspects, though I have to admit that sometimes messi does solve games by himself, but that usually happens when his team isn't playing well, which means the press will be all over him afterwards and start the usual comparisons with maradona. And you do have a point on the players height affecting people's opinion on them. If you see tall players like Crouch playing for example, they looks somewhat clumsy, specially when you compare them to short players such as messi, simao, arshavin and so on.
As for my picks, Holland won 2-0 and Italy is down at 1-0 right now so yeah, I'm glad I don't bet.
I think it's possible that North Corea might end up losing by only one or two goals or even grab a draw with a bit of luck. Of course nobody expects them to reach the elimination rounds, specially with this group (brazil, portugal and ivory coast) but being the underdog of the group is usually very motivating, and honestly from the results I've seen so far (including the pre-tournament matches) nothing surprises me anymore.
Muz: I have a friend who has a bit of an addiction for gambling and I can tell you it has a lot more to do with knowledge than luck in comparison with the roulette for example. The dude tries to find as much info on the team's starting squads as he can, examines each player's recent run of form, takes a look at past results between the teams, and so on. In addition he's a walking football encyclopedia, it's almost impossible to discuss with him when it comes to football, he has always something to say and he's usually the last to shut up.
Tell you what, i was really not surprised we (England) played so crap against the US - i almost kne it as going to happen! Let's just hope that was our 'bad' game of the tournament and from now on we're on fire *fingers crossed*
That's how England always are - they never really dominate games, so it's always torture watching them play.
I know what you mean though. Our keepers have a habit of making really huge mistakes, and I'd much rather it happened against USA, than in a crucial match later on.
eg. Euro 2008 when we failed to qualify as a result of a bad mistake by Carson, or World Cup 2002 when Seaman's blunder against Brazil got us knocked out.
That Brazil game was particularly horrible - we really put up a great fight apart from that lob And oh God Carson..... again, horrible, horrible, horrible!
I used to be a goalkeeper too but I disagree with you. He was well positioned (even though the replays seem to show otherwise because of the angle of the camera), but he left his eyes off the ball for a split second and when he was about to grab it it was too late. I'm guessing he wanted to get the ball rolling as fast as possible and was looking for the next player to pass it to and miscalculated the speed of the ball.
Also, the ball did make an awkward trajectory and given all the complaints from most goalkeepers in the tournament about it being unpredictable I think it might have had something to do with it.
Muz: I have a friend who has a bit of an addiction for gambling and I can tell you it has a lot more to do with knowledge than luck in comparison with the roulette for example. The dude tries to find as much info on the team's starting squads as he can, examines each player's recent run of form, takes a look at past results between the teams, and so on. In addition he's a walking football encyclopedia, it's almost impossible to discuss with him when it comes to football, he has always something to say and he's usually the last to shut up.
Eh, I did a scan for every player's run of form and previous results too. Got 70% of my predictions wrong so far. On the other hand, there's these silly people who thought that newcomers USA could actually draw against title contenders England. They were right. France was held back by Uruguay. Tim Cahill was red carded. Buffon not only conceded against a fairly weak team, he got substituted early. Heck, the Asian teams are winning, not getting draws. There's a lot of very unexpected things going on in this cup Ok, maybe it's not roulette. It's more like blackjack, but that's still not good.
Football has a lot of luck in it anyway. Unlike basketball or well, American football.. you only get a few shots every match. Sometimes really good shots get blocked by someone's ankle. Sometime really good blocks accidentally hit the net. And sometimes you have an impossible to block shot hitting the post.. whether it goes in or bounces off is luck.
Heh, anyway, England's always had a good enough team, just that they've notoriously had horrible goalkeepers in the past few years. I would put money on their defense, midfield or attack, but the keepers make poor mistakes. I recall one English goalkeeper conceding a goal from the opponent keeper's goal kick a few years ago
Yeah, he was right on position, which was why it was so unforgivable! It wasn't one of those killer short ranged German shots. The ball was shot literally right into his hands. Any 2nd div keeper would've been to clutch on to it. He grabbed the ball, it fell from his hands and rolled around him into the goal. It'd be a tough one for me or you to grab on to, but shouldn't be a problem at all for a world class goalkeeper.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
The results you mentioned in particular, were quite widely predicted - USA had recently beaten Spain, so everyone knew they had potential to upset England (esp. without Rio), and similarly everyone knew the French were having all sorts of problems and could easily lose to just about anyone.
Overall though, I'm sure most people know that any form of gambling is probably going to lose you money in the long run (if not he short- and intermediate- run).
Personally, I don't gamble at all - I just find it an entertaining little game to try and beat the odds, without actually placing a bet.
RE: Keepers - I'm wondering who's going to start the next game. I always figured James was generally the better keeper, but he was prone to making the occassional stupid blunder - now Green's shown that he can do that too, why would you keep him in goal? Only thing I can think of is the "lightning never strikes twice" argument...
Is that to win the World Cup, or just beat North Korea?
That's pretty brave if it's to win the whole thing.
Having said that, I'm already ruling out France, Portugal, Argentina, Italy, and Spain (I know they haven't played yet, but they suck) - which really only leaves Brazil, Germany and Holland.
I'm sure it wasn't the point you were trying to make, but now that you mention it, there are quite a few good teams who failed to qualify somehow - Czech Republic, Croatia, Russia...
Were more places allocated to African teams this time, due to it being held in S.Africa, or what?
I know there was a bit of a re-shuffle, because Australia were moved from "Australasia" to "Asia"(?!) for some reason.
Oh, and I've just crossed Brazil off my list of potential winners - it's now just between Germany and Holland.
Originally Posted by Mkingy Being a goalkeeper myself I actually have no sympathy for him. If you don't get your body behind the ball properly then you're asking for trouble.
Horrible for me as an English person/fan, i mean. I was spitting feathers and swearing at him when it happened!
Originally Posted by Johnny Look I used to be a goalkeeper too but I disagree with you. He was well positioned (even though the replays seem to show otherwise because of the angle of the camera), but he left his eyes off the ball for a split second and when he was about to grab it it was too late. I'm guessing he wanted to get the ball rolling as fast as possible and was looking for the next player to pass it to and miscalculated the speed of the ball.
Also, the ball did make an awkward trajectory and given all the complaints from most goalkeepers in the tournament about it being unpredictable I think it might have had something to do with it.
Positioning fine, his technique was wrong. He's gone down on one knee when he should have his entire body behind the ball so if he doesn't gather it properly he doesn't fluff it into the net. Shouldn't have been in a rush anyways, 1-0 up, what's the hurry?
Positioning fine, his technique was wrong. He's gone down on one knee when he should have his entire body behind the ball so if he doesn't gather it properly he doesn't fluff it into the net. Shouldn't have been in a rush anyways, 1-0 up, what's the hurry?
There was nothing wrong with his technique, other than the fact that he misjudged the trajectory of the ball (which is why he didn't have his full body behind the ball). If you look at the replays you can clearly see if the ball was a few inches closer to him he would have gathered it without any problems.
btw they were winning by a very small margin and they were still in the first half, if there was an opportunity to launch a quick counter-attack it wouldn't make sense not to make use of it just for the sake of saving a few seconds (which could later be precious in the case the us tied the game).
Germany lost to Serbia, so I can now cross them off my list of possible contenders (and I'm still not going to put Argentina back on my list, because their goals were all *really* soft, and a half-decent team would still beat them).
So... It looks like Holland have got it in the bag - Sorry Hayo
Suppose I should probably say "Go England!" at this point...
The world cup is finally starting to get interesting. Friday Portugal-Brazil and Germany and England will face each other in the 2nd round. Plus if Spain beats Chile they will face either Portugal or Brazil and there is a high chance of Italy facing the Netherlands.
Yeah, for all the criticism the top teams got for their poor performances, it looks like most will be going through anyway - just no France or Italy.
And England get to play Germany AGAIN. My prediction: 5-1 and even Heskey will score
Well your prediction wasn't that off, except the result was inverted.
However england has reasons to complain about the referee, lampard's shot had clearly crossed the line and if it wasn't for that moronic decision the game would be tied and england could go on and win the game.
Nah, England were outclassed apart from a twenty minute period either side of half-time. Germany deserved their four. Now perhaps we can let the over-rated Lampard, Gerrard and Terry retire from international football before the next big tournament.
In my view, we (the English) need to stop regarding our team as world class, and stop saying that our players "do so well for their clubs". The fact is, that without somebody doing his leg-work (usually the brilliant Alex, and before that Carvalho), Terry is an extremely limited footballer, who is often out of position and slow with it. It is not adequate to simply have "passion". Gerrard is also a player falsely lauded as one of the world's best, but his control is lacking and he makes poor decisions when in control (ie he shoots too much, goes for the wild pass instead of the simple one). Notice whenever Liverpool play a match against a big club how often Gerrard goes 'missing'. The same for Lampard at Chelsea. In fact, the only world class player we have is (potentially) Rooney, and he has been unfit/injured for the past four months. This makes him play badly, and this makes him frustrated, and this in turn exascerbates the problem. An unfit Rooney is worse than useless, he's a liability.
We should follow the lead of the Germans and start looking to the next age; Oezil was fantastic today, as was Mueller. So it's time to drop Lampard, Gerrard, Barry, Terry, James, Ferdinand and Heskey, and replace them with the best of our young talent. While the results might not be great at first, it will be better in the long run.
What the hell I am doing posting this on TDC is anybody's guess, but that's what I'd do.
You could certainly argue that had it been 2-2, then England could have been able to play their own game, instead of being forced to take such risks - the last two goals were unbelievably soft, and came completely as a result of not having defenders back.
Having said that, I don't think England deserved to win at all. They've been very poor in every game of this world cup - even the win over lowly Slovenia.
There's definitely a problem (and has been for a long time) with the English league being filled with foreign players - especially in the "skill position" (midfielders/forwards) - meaning teams aren't bothering to develop young English talent. This may get better as a lot of clubs are in financial difficulties, or it may get worse as more foreign billionaires buy clubs to play "fantasy football".
There's also a problem with the way England play - they've started trying to play through their opponents, like they're Brazil or something. It just doesn't work - even low ranked teams can defend against it (that's what we've been seeing a lot this world cup). Players like Lennon, Wright-Philips, and Joe Cole are useless - we need players who can hit accurate long passes (ie. David Beckham). We then need a forward who can win and hold the ball - like Heskey was trying to do, but a lot better (ie. Alan Shearer). It might be what Beckenbauer calls "kick and rush" but it works.
I think the premier league being over crowded with foreign players is not a bad thing, on the contrary it's a necessity to keep the league highly competitive.
Also I don't think it's the cause for england's recent failures at international level.
The biggest clubs already invest a lot on young players and youth teams but only very few make it into the senior squad, some of them getting loaned out to lower teams (and often settling in) if they are lucky enough.
I think it has a lot more to do with luck and having a good crop of young talent coming in, which is something that seems to be lacking in almost every major international team. Germany is a notorious exception, but they have been struggling with mediocre squads in the last 15 years or so, and if anything the german league has more foreign players now than they used to 15 years ago.
I believe england has another problem that, while it's not exclusive, it's way bigger than in every other country.
The media builds up a huge amount of hype and pressure on the players shoulders. Every failure and every achievement is felt twice as big, and that completely messes up with the players's heads. Usually when I see england play I feel like they either are over confident, or simply lack confidence.
There's little to be done about that, so the solution basically rests in waiting and hoping for some sort of miracle. Things are not looking bright, most finest examples of english talent are in their thirties already, and I don't see any rising stars taking their places any time soon.
English stars have always been greatly overrated. One thing's for certain... if you bet against England, you'd almost certainly make money. USA seems to be quite underrated, interestingly. They've grown a lot over the last 4 years, but still aren't much better than the English team.
England actually did play well in that match, but not enough to match German attacking power. They let their guard down, and Germans just blitzed their way around the defense. If I had to blame anyone, it'd be the head coach. Bad idea to not keep tight at the back. Had England played with the same style as Brazil yesterday, they'd probably have lost only 2-1 (and not had that disqualified goal at all).
I certainly didn't knock Germany off my list after that loss. I'd blame poor refereeing for their loss with Serbia. The referee interrupted the game every 3 minutes for a free kick, not allowing the Germans to get into their fast paced counter-attacking football. The referee was more interested in having a fair game rather than a good one, and a 1-0 loss reflected the poor football quality that day. I'm glad they managed to recover from it; the German team tears large holes in any team which dares to play attacking against them. It's going to be a great one against Argentina.. Argentina doesn't exactly play defensive.
I do agree that England hypes their team like crazy. All talk, no reality. Media seems to either have a deluded "we would've won 5-4 if it wasn't for that disqualified goal" or a critical "everyone played garbage" attitude. They've got to accept that their team's only as good as say, USA or Paraguay and build up from there. They're getting overpressured. They'd probably be better off if they didn't see the tie against Algeria or USA as so unexpected. They probably have more unnecessary pressure on them than any other country, even North Korea, and it'd hurt the way they play.
Rooney's got huge potential, but he's always very tightly marked. Argentina's Messi is always tightly marked too, but the rest of the team is almost as good as him.. he simply distracts the defense, passes the ball, and someone else finishes the job. England just doesn't have as many quality players as Rooney, similar problem with Portugal today.
England's got a long way to go, but first step is to try to fix it rather than laying the blame on everyone. Look at Brazil. They had a World Cup capable team 8 years ago, an aged team (similar to Italy's and France's today) 4 years ago. They replaced their first line up this year with new, low profile players and they have the strongest team yet again. It takes some guts to kick out some of the best players in history, like Ronaldinho and Ronaldo, but they did it, and they're stronger than before.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Yeah, and Holland are going to win for sure! I know you'll be happy about that...
Obviously England are overhyped - they always have been, but they've never played this badly before. Brazil are not stronger for getting rid of Ronaldinho, Ronaldo etc - as we will see when Holland crush them.
The comment about Rooney etc is right - he is always tightly marked. When he plays for Man Utd, there are other threats, but England don't have any other talented strikers. It's easy for teams to take him out of the game, the way the Bengals secondary always smothers the opponents' #1 WR, and forces you to beat them with other players (only OMC will appreciate that comparison).
I think most fans know England were never going to win the World Cup - they're not stupid - but you have to act like they will. Players might not like too much pressure, but I don't think it helps for everyone to think they're just a bunch of losers either.
I still don't rate the Germans at all (sorry if that sounds like bitterness, but it really isn't). They're a good team, but they won't beat decent opponents. They've just had it so easy - soft goals against Australia after they had a man unfairly sent off; more soft goals against England after they were forced to play all-out attacking after a goal was unfairly disallowed; and a loss against Serbia (whatever you say about the game itself).
I wouldn't say USA are under-rated. Most people have rated them quite highly since 2002, if not before.
Paraguay were deep sleepers coming into the tournament, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they go all the way. I had a couple of Paraguayan defenders on my fantasy team (didn't know who they were, but I liked Paraguay's soft group opponents) and they've been awesome - only conceded 1 goal in 4 games, plus Alcarez scored
I think Sketchy, that the way England play is definitely not "trying to play through people". The problems all lie at the back, and specifically the link between defence and midfield. Watch almost any other international team and the defence are happy to keep the ball and can control the ball under pressure from strikers - this eases pressure on the midfield and makes passes easier. England's centre-halves are notoriously poor distributors, because there is a "safety first" approach in the mindset of coaches and managers in England which obviously bears fruit at international level. The result is we have a lot of tall strong footballers who can't pass for shit. The midfield also has a problem with short passing and are in general too impatient; they end up passing too long and too quickly and this makes it impossible for the strikers to find space. The solution would be to encourage more skilful, smaller players to play in midfield, who would hold the ball longer and drag the defence around a bit more. Unfortunately, Joe Cole is the only such player we have.
@Johnny; Foreign players do have an effect on the international team, and usually a bad one. Young players in England very rarely make it to the first team because of the desire for instant success; it is easier to buy Carlos Kickaball from Colombia instead of to invest in youth structure. Your argument that the Premier League is highly competitive doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you consider that the same four teams have occupied the top four places in the league, aside from Spurs last season. As far as I'm aware, the only country to properly adopt laws which enforce the playing of home-grown players is Spain. Their national record recently speaks for itself.
@Muz: England should not have to accept that they're only as good as Paraguay or USA. The amount of money put into the sport here and the amount of players and fans is massive compared to the USA and Paraguay. It is a failure of English football that we are even seen as equals to these teams. I don't accept that England's players have more expectation put on them than other first-class footballing nations, like Brazil, Germany, France, Argentina. In fact, not many English fans were confident of anything beyond a quarter final place, and the reaction to the Germany defeat has been muted - we knew we were going to get beat.
PS, Paraguay will lose 1-0 in the next round and Brazil will win the whole thing.
" it is easier to buy Carlos Kickaball from Colombia instead of to invest in youth structure."
How so ? It's cheaper and therefore less risky to invest in a player from the youth team rather than buy a foreigner who might end up not adapting himself well to the english football and are usually quite expensive, either they are an established player or a promising one.
"Young players in England very rarely make it to the first team because of the desire for instant success"
I have my doubts about that since a lot of them end up being loaned to lower teams in the hope to make it to the first team some day, and if anything I think being ambitious is definitely not a bad thing.
"Your argument that the Premier League is highly competitive doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you consider that the same four teams have occupied the top four places in the league, aside from Spurs last season."
By competitive I don't mean internally, I mean competitive with the other leagues.
For instance, I'm sure that if it wasn't for all the foreign players(such as Ronaldo, Tevez and so on), Man United probably wouldn't have won the Champions league 2 years ago, ironically against another english side with a good share of foreigners (Drogba, Anelka, R.Carvalho, etc).
"As far as I'm aware, the only country to properly adopt laws which enforce the playing of home-grown players is Spain. Their national record recently speaks for itself."
Take a look at the biggest sides in Spain. From the Real Madrid squad only 3 spanish players are usual starters. At Barcelona it's more or less the same, there are usually 4 spanish starters.
The situation with the english teams isn't all that different in that aspect, the difference is, each of them (specially in the case of Barcelona) they are truly exceptional players that would probably have a place in any team in the world.
@Johnny: It isn't cheaper to invest in youth teams - they require large amount of investment put in over years to bear fruit, and even that fruit might not be the best. Consider Wigan's approach - to buy players from Central and South America for moderate prices instead of bringing up players through the youth system. It's easier to buy a Hugo Rodallega, or a Maynor Figueroa than it is to properly give youth players a chance. If it is "cheaper and less risky" to blood youth players, why don't many teams actually do it? It is a fact that English youngsters very very rarely make it to first team football compared with youngsters from Spain, Italy, France etc. It's not because the English youngsters are inherently worse players, it's because they aren't being trained right and they hardly ever get a chance of playing first team football.
Barcelona only have three or four Spanish starters? I count Valdez, Puyol, Pique, Busquets, Iniesta, Xavi, Pedro, Villa. You can add Bojan to that list on occasion too. There's only really Dani Alves, Ibrahimovic, Keita, Messi and Abidal that are foreign. Real Madrid definitely do have a larger amount of foreign players, but they are the exception to the rule in Spain. Take a look at the stats on this page http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6975955.stm - 57% of players in the Premier League are foreign, compared with just 39% in Spain and 30% in Italy.
So Man Utd won the Champions League with a team full of foreign players? So what? What good is that when your country's national team has been knocked out because they couldn't beat Algeria and USA (30th and 14th in the world)?
There are big problems with the way football is run in England, and this obviously affects the national team. There are too many foreign players, too much money floating around and not enough patience.
Absolutely
Patience is a big issue, but that's not really surprising now that football is such big business - time is money after all.
I think a lot of it has to do with the relationship between clubs and managers.
As soon as a team has a bad run of results, the managers are getting sacked. It's pointless - a manager can only do so much with the players available to him, so replacing him isn't going to help. You look at most of the managers in the league, and they've managed maybe 10 or so different teams during their career. It's like they all just keep getting shuffled around every few months, and are never given a chance to build a decent team (which takes time).
Anyway, because of all that, managers are under huge pressure to get results *fast* - and that means buying in cheap (usually foreign) players.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the teams who have dominated the league for the longest (Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool) are the clubs who have made the fewest management changes.
What I find strange, is the way most defenders in the league are English, as are a fair few midfielders, but almost no forwards. It's hardly surprising we get 0-0 and 1-1 draws a lot, is it? Our defenders (when healthy) are up to international standard, but we just can't score goals.
EDIT: Another nice win for Germany today. They did exactly the same thing they did to England - get an early lead, then just defend well, and hit them on the break when they're forced to chase the game.
That's precisely why Lampard's disallowed goal was so important in the England game - as badly as England had started, at 2-2 the game could still go either way; but chasing the game, they didn't stand a chance.
Anyway, it's hard to see that tactic working against a better and more disciplined team like Holland (a Germany-Holland final is pretty much inevitable at this point).
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman<br
England should not have to accept that they're only as good as Paraguay or USA. The amount of money put into the sport here and the amount of players and fans is massive compared to the USA and Paraguay.
Paraguay maybe. USA, certainly not. They've got a far better Premier League than the MLS, but as you point out, it's because of international players. USA does spend a lot of money in their soccer, though it doesn't show because they spend a lot more of it on those other sports.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman
What good is that when your country's national team has been knocked out because they couldn't beat Algeria and USA (30th and 14th in the world)?
I agree with most of your other points, but that's one I disagree with. Ranking doesn't mean anything. Football is a lot of luck, which is why I hate it when a team loses against a weaker team and everyone instantly thinks they're bad. The English Premier League is full of that mentality.. people who judge based on one performance, without giving people time to work. If anything, I'd blame the English fans for being so impatient. USA has built its team slowly after time, with a "It's ok if you lose, we love you anyway" attitude. England gets yelled at for *tying* at a match with an equally strong team.
It's about winning consistently. A strong team doesn't have a 90% chance of winning, it's more like 70%, even against an obviously weaker team. Most of the teams in the Cup seem quite evenly matched anyway. Even with Germany's 4-0 win over Argentina, it's not that Argentina is a weak team. It was a 50-50 game, but Germany's aggression got them a huge margin.
Capello was IMO, a poor choice for manager though, as overrated as the English team himself, and his poor tactics and player chemistry showed during the Cup. I'd support a sacking this time. Only worse manager would've been France. Their world-class players ran around like schoolchildren and had the same professionalism too.
Best manager seems to be the German coach. They've had brilliant chemistry... most of their passes were just fine, and all of their goals were from good teamwork. Watch the goals... about 50% of them was a tactical one. Player could've dribbled around the keeper or placed a tough shot, but instead he passed to an open friend who finished it. Not only that, but he turned players who suck at their club into international superstars. Podolski has more goals for his country than he has for his club, and he's not even playing as a forward this year!
Anyway, I'm going with Netherlands for this match, just to annoy Hayo. And because Uruguay cheated tactically handballed to get this far. Uruguay might actually have the best chance among the top 4 at beating Germany because they play more defensively. We'll see.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
matt: One thing is investing in youth teams, another is investing in an individual player. Youth teams cost money to be maintained, but they also generate revenue, usually more than enough to cover the costs. Each year they produce several players that end up being sold sooner or later. Promoting a young player from the youth/reserve teams to the senior squad costs nothing, buying a promising and/or established player usually cost several millions. Additionally, youth teams have a fixed budget each year that regardless of producing the next messi or not doesn't change.
I already pointed out what I think is the cause for England's bad international form. It's not necessarily that "young english players are inherently worse than spain, france and so on", it's simply that there hasn't been a good crop of highly promising talents in england in recent years. And by highly promising I mean players that could be world class players, or at least players good enough to play in the biggest teams in the premier league. If they existed, believe me, their respective teams wouldn't let them go that easily, either there is a foreign player taking their place in the squad or not.
Another thing, according to you, managers don't bet on national/young players because they lack patient/need immediate results. Judging by the link you provided, Italy, arguably the biggest graveyard for managers in the world, has 70% national players, the biggest rate among the leagues in the page.
Additionally, look at the squad they brought to the world cup. Not only they flopped miserably (not even going past the group stage) most of the squad is over 30 with very few promising talents coming in. The same problem england is facing right now.
On the other hand, Germany has the same exact percentages as England when it comes to national and foreign players, yet they seem to have produced quite a few young and promising players who are definitely among the best performers in this world cup. And ironically, you pointed out Germany as an example for England to follow.
"So Man Utd won the Champions League with a team full of foreign players? So what? What good is that when your country's national team has been knocked out because they couldn't beat Algeria and USA (30th and 14th in the world)?"
Just because england couldn't beat algeria or the US doesn't mean their team is better or even equal. An english team beating what is known as the world's biggest club competition is usually a good indicator of how competitive the english league is, and by extension english players, which is not that far from the same as the english national team winning the world cup.
@Muz; USA does not have the infrastructure and popularity of the game that England has. Absolutely nowhere near. The young kids in America aren't dreaming of becoming the next Landon Donovan, they're dreaming of being the next Brett Favre, Alex Rodriguez or Shaq. The sheer weight of the English footballing pyramid ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_league_system#The_system ) attests to this fact. I'd wager that the number of teams in this pyramid would reach at least 10,000. Compare this with the US's system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_soccer_pyramid ) and you quickly see the difference in sheer volume of players, teams and fans. There may even be more recognised leagues in England than there are teams in the US. This for a nation roughly a quarter the size of the US.
So forgive me when I don't equate the US national team with that of England. They just aren't comparable. There may be eight or so nations with the sheer weight of players that England has (in fact, England has more professional clubs per capita than anywhere in the world). The fact that some people even see the US as equals to England (in football terms) tells its own story about our incompetence in running the game. I live here - I see the often shoddy training grounds, lack of equipment, lack of investment and the impatience of the professional clubs that de facto run the game. Sad but true.
@ Johnny: I'd like to see the evidence for youth teams generating revenue equal or more to the cost of their upkeep. I personally don't believe that, and in fact there's been recent examples of teams downgrading or even getting rid of their youth systems because they didn't make money. Millwall is the most obvious case. Fact is, Chelsea's academy loses an inordinate amount of money every year, as do the academies of most top tier English teams. And your opinion that youth development is down to luck is pure fallacy. Teach the players and they will learn; the quality of a player is directly associated with how good his teachers were. Unfortunately, in England they aren't very good.
The Italy thing is interesting. Their top league is relatively poor aside from the top three or four teams, yet their national team won the World Cup last time around. They have also reached major finals two or three times in the last decade. Whilst their current side might have done pretty poorly, they have a track record of reaching and winning World Cups and Euros. Ditto France. These are countries with less professional players and far less professional teams, but both have far greater qualified coaches than in England. Spain has even more qualified coaches than those two, but even less teams. I also remind you that Italy have produced some of the greatest managers of all time, Capello included. England, in the meanwhile, have to had to resort to hiring their coaches from abroad.
I didn't say that Germany were an example to follow in that respect; I just admired the way they have brought youth through in this World Cup. Oezil, Khedira, Mueller, Badstuber et al were all very inexperienced players at international level, but have proved to be very capable. This proves they are training their players correctly, even if some managers in the Bundesliga suffer from the same paranoia as managers in England. England's youngsters however tend to be overly fast, strong and not very skilful, as evidenced by the likes of Aaron Lennon and Shaun Wright-Phillips. Jack Wilshere seems the only credible playmaker in the current crop of English youth. It is no coincidence he has been raised by a Frenchmen, Arsene Wenger. Where are our Muellers? Nowhere, because we aren't making any. The quality of the training and the unwillingness of English managers to nuture skill above physical attributes is the reason.
It's not that simple, having good trainers can only be good but it's definitely not enough to raise the next big world star. It's mostly up to the player to be up to the task both physically and mentally, be willing to grow as a player and not lose himself along the way. Look at Messi or Ronaldo for example, they were raised for football at a very young age, both were already seen as very promising prospects at the age of 8 or even younger, but their willingness to learn and grow as players made them what they are today.
People are born with certain physical and mental characteristics, how they use it it's up to themselves, be it for football or not, either they develop them or not.
For the supporters it is mostly a matter of luck, that's no fallacy, that's the truth.
You can't ask english trainers to "make" the next mueller, one thing is developing their natural skills, another is create skills and characteristics out of nothing, which simply doesn't happen because it's a waste of time. German players are stronger by nature, perhaps because the alimentation is different or perhaps that's just a genealogical thing, I don't know.
I do think there are other factors that can influence the outcome of the youth teams like good prospecting staff, good training camps and so on, but I don't think that's a major problem in england, at least that's not an excuse for the recent woes of the english national team. In fact, some of the best football academies in the world are in England (arsenal, man utd, chelsea, west ham, aston villa leeds utd and so on).
The point I was trying to make about the youth teams was that if you look at each player that comes out of the academies/youth teams, they always end up being cheaper than buying players from other clubs, foreign or not. If they weren't, what would be the point of academies and youth teams if you could just snatch players others clubs developed through their youth teams for less money and hassle ?
btw when I talked about covering the costs I was talking about each player individually. Example: player X, playing in the chelsea reserves, after leaving the chelsea academy, is sold to leicester from the championship for 2£. There is no way developing that player cost 2 millions to chelsea to develop him individually, so they end up making profit with that particular player.
About Italy and having only 3 or 4 strong teams: the same thing happens in pretty much every other european league including the the spanish and english leagues.
But honestly I don't really understand what point you are trying to make.
Perhaps italian managers are better because they are used to heavy pressure, I don't know. Anyway the italian league has always been like that, and Italy have had good international sides from time to time, even if they never had a killer squad like Brazil seems to bring in every world cup.
I think their successes on the international stage are mostly due to their managers and their infamous tactics such as the "catenaccio", and not so much thanks to the overall quality of their players. IMO, Brazil and Argentina always had the opposite problem, fantastic players, mediocre managers. Even Scolari who won a World Cup with Brazil and lead Portugal to a euro final and world cup 4th place is often criticized of being a mediocre manager, and honestly I agree.
Except for one or another player, Inter didn't have a world class squad yet they won the champions league, beating teams such as Barcelona and Chelsea along the way. The difference lies in the coach, Mourinho, who is, imo, the best manager in the world right now.
About Germany, you praised their ability to raise good young talent and use them effectively in their national squad and said they are an example England should follow, but in the same post you complained about the invasion of foreign players in the english league and pointed that out as the main cause for england's national team recent failures. So, in a way, by posting a link with stats that show that both teams have the same percentages of national/foreign players in the respective leagues you are contradicting yourself. If england is struggling with good young players making it to the national squad while germany is triving in that aspect then I think that's at least a indicator that foreign players aren't the cause of the problem, at least not the biggest one. If anything you can blame Capello for not bringing in enough youngsters, but honestly I don't see that as a problem because, except perhaps for walcott, I don't see any young player good enough for the english squad.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look It's not that simple, having good trainers can only be good but it's definitely not enough to raise the next big world star. It's mostly up to the player to be up to the task both physically and mentally, be willing to grow as a player and not lose himself along the way. Look at Messi or Ronaldo for example, they were raised for football at a very young age, both were already seen as very promising prospects at the age of 8 or even younger, but their willingness to learn and grow as players made them what they are today.
Now that I don't agree at all with. I work with young would-be sportsmen, not particularly in a coaching capacity, but I have spoken to coaches and the like, and what they all agree on is that the amount of time and effort expended on a youth player increases the chance of that player 'making it' massively. Messi and Ronaldo would have been nothing without good coaching. It is NOT luck. If you teach a child to kick with both feet he will be able to kick with both feet his whole life. If you teach a child to control a ball using both sides of his feet, and be comfortable with it (by doing it for long periods of time, and in different situations), surprise surprise, he will become a competent footballer. There are various factors that cannot be 'coached'; height, natural strength, pace, natural co-ordination (a key factor), but the rest can all be learned. Fact is, we often don't train our kids to do these things early enough.
I find it ironic that you say about academies; "If they weren't [cheaper], what would be the point of academies and youth teams if you could just snatch players others clubs developed through their youth teams for less money and hassle?". This is exactly what happens. Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal et al all steal players that other clubs have developed from ages 8-14 and then 'stockpile' them in their own youth teams. Judging by numbers alone, those three youth teams are staggeringly unsuccessful. Arsenal's only prominent youth product has been Ashley Cole. Man Utd's youth used to be good, but numbers reaching Premier League level have dwindled. Chelsea have never had a good youth academy. There are odd nuggets of hope though, Leeds and West Ham indeed do have good youth setups, as well as Crewe Alexandra further down the leagues.
The point I'm trying to make Johnny, before you turned it into 'foreign players in the English league are the only reason why the national team is gash', is that our coaching isn't good enough, we don't give those few youth players that we do create enough of a chance in the first teams, and we focus on the wrong attributes when developing talent (mainly pace and strength above ball control and passing).
And let me clarify, I said about Germany "We should follow the lead of the Germans and start looking to the next age". This means right now, as in 'let's prepare for the next World Cup by utilising whatever talent we have coming through and dropping the older players'. In the same post I didn't complain about about "the invasion of foreign players in the english league and pointed that out as the main cause for england's national team recent failures" either. I've stated what the biggest problem is over and over again. I also said the amount of foreign players has a bad effect, which it does. If you can't understand my point it's because you won't listen.
PS - for every player Chelsea might make that they sell to Leicester for £2m, they will have recruited (the most expensive part), paid, trained, provided equipment, and treated injuries of maybe 50 other players that will never be sold. You would surprised what that cost would add up to. I read a piece once in When Saturday Comes about Chelsea's huge academy losses. Youth academies very very rarely make money. In fact, it's almost never.
I played football in the youth teams of three different clubs, one of them being Lausanne FC (which btw was playing in Swiss top tier back then and formed players such as Lorik Cana and NKufo who was in this very world cup), so I can say I worked with several youth coaches myself.
Coaches won't develop your personal attributes as in "You should learn how to pass better" or "you should learn how to tackle better". Being able to pass well, use both feet, dribble etc.. is something you start learning about when you start playing football, usually even before you enter in a team of any sort and it's something that usually adapts to your physical attributes and limitations. Naturally, you'll be better at one thing than another, you'll probably have things you have to improve, and that's what the coaches are for, to tell you what you are doing wrong and give you advice. Other than that, you're just a pawn in a chess board. You follow the same exact training methods as the rest of the team. The team is built around it's players, not the other way around. Nobody's ever going to tell you "you really should improve your shooting and start playing as a striker because the national team lacks strikers".
There IS luck involved when it comes the national team having good strikers or not for example. No coach will do miracles if nobody wants to play as a striker or if there isn't anybody good at it. There is no such thing as "developing the wrong talents"; like I said, talent can be developed, if the talent doesn't exist or there is a shortage of it, there is nothing the coach can do.
btw believe me, Ronaldo or Messi would still be great players if they didn't have great coaches. Both of them only went to a real youth team at the age of 13 (Ronaldo for example was already followed by teams like liverpool and arsenal when he was 16).
The coaches they had before were probably as good or worse than the ones I had, but still I never got to Man. Utd or Barcelona. Not even close, I gave up football altogether when I was 15.
On youth teams snatching 8-14 year olds from other teams: that's what every club in an important league does. I only reached Lausanne FC because apparently I caught the attention of one of their scouts while playing for my city's regional club (Ecublens) and managed to get a trial with them, I was 9 by then. I don't know of any club with a decent reputation working differently with their youth teams, that's how their recruiting works.
Anyway, that English league pyramid is fricking scary. And I thought that browser games had too many clubs. It's just insane having that many clubs. But the whole "quantity, not quality" comes into mind. I have no idea what they're doing wrong, but there's probably more clubs than there are people to watch them. Those resources might be better off pooled up somewhere. Brazil, Germany, and Italy, all consistent performers in every international game, but doesn't have that many, even with Brazil's higher population.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
You and me Johnny are talking about entirely different types of coaching then. I'm talking about the very early ages of football coaching, where they actually DO teach you how to pass, dribble, shoot etc. 13 is too late.
Your belief that youth talent being down mainly to luck is completely redundant; if it were down to luck, why does Brazil have a disproportionate amount of talented dribblers? They aren't genetically 'made' to dribble; it's an acquired skill.
Germany are out and Spain go through to the final. Kudos to Paul the psychic octopus, who called it.
Spain had obviously learned from watching Germany play England and Argentina - they just didn't commit any players forward at all, so Germany couldn't hit them on the break.
It was a pretty bad game because of that, and Spain still don't look convincing at all.
Holland will beat them comfortably on Sunday.
matt: What do you mean exactly by very early ages ? I started at 8, and I don't remember being taught how to pass or shoot because they would assume I already knew how to do that, even if not proficiently. If I recall correctly by then the training was pretty basic for obvious reasons but I'm pretty sure they do this everywhere, no matter the coach. Also once again the training is the same for all the players, so I believe commitment at this age is what counts the most to avoid being left behind, and when you are 8 it's hard to take anything seriously. Once again coaches will tell you if you are doing something wrong but that's their job, if they can't even tell you kicking a ball with your arms in your pockets is wrong then they shouldn't be coaching in the first place.
btw the fact that brazil has so many good dribblers is due to their football culture which is based around the show off and attractive football. The legend even says in Brazil kids learn to dribble before they even learn how to walk, and the truth is not that far off. Kids dream to be just like their idols, so if they are good at dribbling that's what they'll want to be good at too. Most brazilians stars being great dribblers, you can almost say it's a genetics thing.
sketchy: mark my words Spain is going to win 1-0. And Paul is going to agree with me.
The fact that they didn't tell you how to properly shoot and pass the ball probably was the reason you didn't make it!
And I agree about Brazil, which is exactly what my point all along is. In Brazil, the culture is all about passing and dribbling, and this comes across in the training techniques and the style of football managers prefer - so Brazil makes better dribblers. Nothing to do with luck there.
I knew how to pass and shoot properly or else I wouldnt have made it to the trials of what was a one of the biggest clubs in swiss at the time and passed, specially considering I played mostly as a winger/forward. Like I said, the coaches are there to see if there is something wrong and correct you, but knowing the theory and applying it in a match/training situation are completely different things, the latter is always up to the player. Football theory is quite straight forward actually, just like most sports, I can't imagine a central midfielder for example not knowing how to pass properly even at the age of 8, but that doesn't mean all of them are little Xavis.
As for Brazil and their football culture, I think you missed my point. I'll give you an example: when I moved to portugal I picked up football again but this time I wasn't even a starter because there were better players in the positions I preferred (winger/forward), and I was at a local club that played in the regional championship. I later switched to goalkeeper because the team was lacking in that aspect (and while I did play a few games I gave up football soon after).
It's not like Portugal has bad goalkeeper coaches, it's just that most people here just don't seem to have an interest in goalkeeping. In the other hand, if you asked most people in my team and asked them who is their favourite player they would tell you: Luis Figo, Rui Costa,Simao,Quaresma and so on. Mostly wingers. Portugal always had a goalkeeper problem, but always had many exceptional wingers.
Brazil never really had specific problems, but always had an excess in great dribblers. Coaches have very little to nothing to do with that, it's just that most brazilians have a thing for dribbling, it's part of their culture to learn dribbling before they even learn how to shoot or pass properly. As a matter of fact, in Portugal I met three brazilian players, two of them were in my squad. All of them came to Portugal at a early age, and were all pretty good dribblers (specially one of them who was probably the best at that in the team), even if the positions they played at didn't require dribbling at all (one of them was central defender). The two that were in my team had just arrived, with no previous team experience whatsoever. The fact that they were great dribblers had nothing to do with training methods or anything since my coach was the first one they ever had.
Well deserved win for Spain on Germany, even though it was boring. What I didn't like was how the Spanish don't even bother to score goals after leading... they had plenty of counter-attacking chances, but preferred to just keep the ball away from the Germans, instead of trying to score.
Also, a great high-scoring final game from Germany's substitutes for the 3rd place spot. They've shown to be the most entertaining team the whole cup. Even though they didn't get the trophy, they've earned the most fans and that's a better consolation prize than the 3rd place finish. I would've liked seeing Uruguay win 3rd though. Forlan really deserves the Golden Boot for scoring all those challenging goals. Then again, Spain would probably be out by group stages if they didn't have David Villa
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Oh hey, I found that video you made of Duncan Fenn the other day 
Edited by Ski
)
