Erics Inner Monologue wrote:
Does anyone know the context of this? I don't really know what he's supposed to say if he gets asked if he thinks England can win it. "Nah, we're fucking shit mate. We'll go out to the first decent team we face." It might be true, but he can hardly fucking say it, can he?
Gary Neville made a great point on TV the other day. He said that at Manchester United, they never talked about whether they were going to win things, they just got down to getting on with the job. But when he went away with England, the focus of the questions from the press changed to being all about winning.
Evan Evian wrote:
Bill Nicholson said, "It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low. And we of Spurs have set our sights very high, so high in fact that even failure will have in it an echo of glory."
So you must have been very disappointed with how Craig Levein set your boys out in Prague. Six in defence, four in midfield, and no-one allowed to cross the halfway line, in the hope of nicking a 0-0 draw. And the tactics didn't even change until ten minutes after the Czechs went 1-0 up. It was hilarious to watch.
It strikes me that most Ingerland fans would pro-actively love to win by playing the most ugly, negative and least skill-based football possible,
It strikes me you've not ventured out of Scotland very often.
This Ingerland vision is also implicitly is based upon the notion that anything approaching expansive, creative and half-skillful football was always a false God. A somewhat aesthetically pleasing but utterly morally degenerate form of cheating.
I remember Scotland playing free flowing expansive football in their draws with Liechtenstein.
Beltrano Carpinteiro wrote:
No, really, who's doing him?
Judging by how uptight he sounds, I think it's fair to say that nobody is doing him.
