Rucksackfranzose

Nice since you failed to mention @Devil-Dick Willie's adopted team won 7-1 in a WC semi against Brazil in Brazil, where almost all forum members said this would be Brazil's time on home soil, which shows they scored more goals against a football giant in 1 semi final on opponent's soil, than England scored in 5 matches against small to medium sized football nations combined during this tournament. Also wasn't it you who said Argentina would win the WC 14 final because no European team could ever win in SA? but hey, why would you mind your yesterday's talk?

Didn't say they can't be good because they couldn't win against Slovenia, said they can't be good if they had to play as defensively as they did against Slovenia for the sake of not losing, which is something completely different! By the way, already mentioned it , the aim of football is to score more goals than the opposing team, not to concede less.

Let's put it that way: It's debatable, whether it's appropriate to call a country not bad at the moment, when more than a seventh-part of the electorate voted for a party as chauvinisticly nationalist as ReformUK.

Interesting view since Reform UK had 14.3 % of the vote, for comparison AFD won 10.4 % last Bundestagswahl (German GE), when almost all news about those elections other than Merkel retiring in English speaking media were about them.

So if you don't get points for losing if you're playing attacking football but for losing playing dull football neither, why did you bring up the first fact? Or are you implying England are more likely to lose in the first case? If so, I don't want to hear any good word from an English forum member about any Premier League club or player anymore, because the qualitiy of these clubs and players can't be that good, if they have to play like they did against Slovenia not to lose. Against players from the mighty Slovenian, Danish, Polish, Swiss, and Austrian leagues.

Feel free to correct me, but you don't get points for games you're losing playing shite as well. Or did I miss a change in rules?

Don't forget it would also mean less seats for the ruling party. You don't expect a political party to give up an advantage of their own for the sake of more fairness, do you? You can't be that naive.

Well, why would a party that got over the half of seats with about a third part of the votes, in this case Labour, agree to getting less seats and having to form a coalition? As long as there's no plebicite demanding it, the ruling party would be stupid introducing it. Regardless whether it's more democratic or not.

To be fair, while England and France are practizing it in this tournaments, that's a much older phenomenom. Thanks for catanaccio Italy!

Agree fully. Although that's true, there's one point that's falling a bit short here: The aim of football is defined as scoring more goals than the opposing team not as conceding less. From this point of view it's debatable whether that sport, granted both France and England, play can still be called football, regardless if it should show to be successful or not.

That's you contradicting your own post a on this very side, when you mentioned Greece and Portugal as an example for a teams not caring what style they were winning with,. Either you use these teams as a reference, but then your arguing you always want to compete is indeed arrogance, or you count England to the teams with long and rich heritage- but then you can't use these both teams, especially Greece, as an excuse.

Well according to British bookies England were top favorites before the tournament, oops! Also point me to a French fan, advocating their style of play the same way English forum members do England's,on this forum and they'll hear the same critizism as you do - probably even harsher.

What the hell makes you so sure England won't have to experience both?

To be fair, the last time England set football standards was the invention of the WM system.

Sorry, but if you can't win with this squad it's definetively time to rethink your position the Premier League would be the best league in the world.

Spain 3-1 France Netherlands 2-0 England

That's a strange way to put it. It's not like UEFA made nominating and playing Ronaldo a condition to partake for Portugal.

Learned UEFA withdrew Morata's yellow card, and therefore his ban from the semis! Without wanting a discussion whether that yellow card was or wasn't deserved/correct, wondering what happened to the holy cow ref's factual decisions on pitch were unchangeable, retrospectively?

If my memory doesn't play tricks on me his conversion rate was never as good as many fans and pundits made it out to be. Perhaps I was seeing more of his failed attempts, still never stroke me as exceptional at it.

Bit premature, England fans should worry about beating Switzerland first, before talking about beating Spain in the final. Since given the previous performances it's Switzerland, who are favorites.

And none of you came on the idea English commentators might be biased against Germany, since English media have a longstanding history of being impartial, whenever German teams, especially the national one, play, I guess.

Conveniently forgetting to mention Quarters exist in Euro since 1996, the Euro 2200 had no host and Belgium in 2000, Austria and Switzerland in 2008, and both Poland and Ukraine in 2012 failed to reach the quarters. Since introduction of quarterfinals only 4 of 9 hosts did better than Germany. Sounds a bit different to your narrative.

You mean like the last WC match Spain won 1-1?

Congrats @Pyfish! and thanks for running it @RandoEFC

Spain 3-3 Germany Portugal 0-1 France England 0-2 Switzerland Netherland 3-1 Turkey