Permabanned
Arguably we should have had 3 or 4 vs Tunisia, they didn't play the same way against us. Tunisia did not play badly vs England.
Over egging Belgium a bit.
Over egging Belgium a bit.
Arguably we should have had 3 or 4 vs Tunisia, they didn't play the same way against us. Tunisia did not play badly vs England.
Over egging Belgium a bit.
Tunisia were gifted an early penalty, which gave them something to defend, meaning they could sit deeper.
Arguably we should have had 3 or 4 vs Tunisia, they didn't play the same way against us. Tunisia did not play badly vs England.
Belgium will thrash England by 3 or 4 goals. Another brace for Lukaku at least.Arguably we should have had 3 or 4 vs Tunisia, they didn't play the same way against us. Tunisia did not play badly vs England.
Over egging Belgium a bit.
LOL. It's telling that you have to compare Sterling to a pedophile/rapist to make him look good
And yes, the England squad is completely mediocre. They only look semi-decent when surrounded by much better players at their respective clubs.
Sterling, for example, is actually crap. A more useless footballer you could only find in pub leagues.
It's mad to think that Tunisia could still qualify if both Panama and Belgium beat us. I thought Panama would be easy but we made Tunisia look a lot better than Belgium did (apart from the first 20mins of the match).
Fact: for England he missed 90% of his chances or just runs into the opposition and loses possession.
For City 90% of his goals are tap ins. He can run reasonably fast, OK. And so he stands near the goal mouth and waits for someone else to beat their man successfully and pass to him, so he can stick a foot out and get a tap in. Such skills.
I've watched all England matches, including friendlies, for years. Sterling is always ****. I'm far from the only one who believes this.Do you just turn up for the International tournaments?
The whole point is (that you've completely missed)... why should there be wall-to-wall coverage of players who just don't perform on the pitch. The interviews, the product endorsement, the media hype... is all well out of proportion to the results they deliver. Or don't deliver.
They are given air time and status/attention/adulation far exceeding their performances in an England shirt. I personally think they should stay out of the media until they do something useful like reach the semis. And if they don't they should keep a low profile. Then it wouldn't be so irritating seeing these perennial under-achievers talking about how they "made it", or selling body wash.
So yeah... why would I want to watch yet another interview with Southgate or Sterling? What have they done that makes me want to delve into their heads? What can we learn from them? The art of being completely mediocre at a profession that has made them obscenely rich? The art of failing to beat Iceland, a country with fewer inhabitants than your local Aldi supermarket?
You might not like it, but mine (and others) opinions of the whole England setup are as low as they could possibly be. So when I see the attention/adulation lavished on them by the media (shortly before their inevitable early exit), it just makes me angry.
This time next week the media will be back to demonising them for crashing out to Serbia or something. I guess the media love to put them on a pedestal because they also love knocking that pedestal away and watching them fall. But I would love to see them go to a tournament and just do the football as well as they can. No sodding interviews with all the team, the manager, the kit-boy... they don't deserve it until the bring back some results.