FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > England footballers
England footballers
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Maybe they would if the national anthem was more uplifting instead of the dreadful dirge it is !" Wow please don't go there Love our national anthem! Fills me with pride and passion Iv been known to use it to get me in the mood   | |||
"Maybe they would if the national anthem was more uplifting instead of the dreadful dirge it is ! Wow please don't go there Love our national anthem! Fills me with pride and passion Iv been known to use it to get me in the mood "I am filled with pride and passion for my country and national football team but not the national anthem, never have been but then im not a royalist so i would prefer a anthem that leaves out the queeen bit but fills me with pride for my country (England)  | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I agree. I put myself through it every game Always think why do I watch this shite But non the less I do "yer hardly into it are ya  thread started on here 30 minutes into game.national anthem is shite no passion , look at the Jocks singing flower of Scotland while we pander on to some family of German decendency | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" Good anthem : the cricket commentators seemed agreed that the Sri Lanka one is very good. Different sport but same principle, but which anthem will our latest "British" top 100 tennis player sing? Hint, he represented his country of Slovakia last year. " Jerusalem should be the chosen song for Englands anthem , The jocks and Welsh seem to choose their own and we get stuck with the union shite which is god save the queen  | |||
| |||
" Good anthem : the cricket commentators seemed agreed that the Sri Lanka one is very good. Different sport but same principle, but which anthem will our latest "British" top 100 tennis player sing? Hint, he represented his country of Slovakia last year. Jerusalem should be the chosen song for Englands anthem , The jocks and Welsh seem to choose their own and we get stuck with the union shite which is god save the queen "See, we used to see it the other way - "how arrogant of the English to use the the anthem that's meant to represent the whole of the UK.". Not saying it's right - I certainly don't feel that way anymore! There was definitely that feeling around though. Funny how people's perceptions are different depending on where they are from, I guess. It'd be nice for England if they adopted their own anthem. All constituent parts of the UK would be on an even footing then. Hell, I'd sing along to Jerusalem. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just wish they were better, but that won't happen until they get our lazy Xbox obsessed, wigging youth outside kicking a ball around. When I was a kid you couldn't find a blade or grass free in the local park, now they're deserted." You were two when England last won a major football tournament....seems evident that packed parks wasn't the solution. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just wish they were better, but that won't happen until they get our lazy Xbox obsessed, wigging youth outside kicking a ball around. When I was a kid you couldn't find a blade or grass free in the local park, now they're deserted. You were two when England last won a major football tournament....seems evident that packed parks wasn't the solution." 5 actually, completely disagree. Football is the biggest game in the world fact, Rugby is nothing is comparison, and we're not going to win the world cup at that either and how many do kids you see throwing a rugby ball around in the park, bet you see a few more in New Zealand they shouldn't be able to give us a game with their population. To gather a good international side together to beat the likes of Brazil you need every position to be fought over by a multitude of players. Now one player gets injured the whole team is screwed, if it wasn't already. That means you need a many of youth as possible out there, looking to improve, whenever they have a free moment and wherever they can. Our clubs in the 70's until they got banned in 1984 by the louts who were supporters apparently, were very successful. They were all either English or from the home countries. We failed to qualify in 74 and 78 (I know Scotland did, and underachieved, easily good enough to get through the first stage, I did laugh though), but by the narrowest of margins, indeed under the current system they'd have been easily in, not saying they would have won it, but they'd have done OK. Holland were the best team in both those tournaments and they won neither. | |||
"Just wish they were better, but that won't happen until they get our lazy Xbox obsessed, wigging youth outside kicking a ball around. When I was a kid you couldn't find a blade or grass free in the local park, now they're deserted. You were two when England last won a major football tournament....seems evident that packed parks wasn't the solution. 5 actually, completely disagree. Football is the biggest game in the world fact, Rugby is nothing is comparison, and we're not going to win the world cup at that either and how many do kids you see throwing a rugby ball around in the park, bet you see a few more in New Zealand they shouldn't be able to give us a game with their population. To gather a good international side together to beat the likes of Brazil you need every position to be fought over by a multitude of players. Now one player gets injured the whole team is screwed, if it wasn't already. That means you need a many of youth as possible out there, looking to improve, whenever they have a free moment and wherever they can. Our clubs in the 70's until they got banned in 1984 by the louts who were supporters apparently, were very successful. They were all either English or from the home countries. We failed to qualify in 74 and 78 (I know Scotland did, and underachieved, easily good enough to get through the first stage, I did laugh though), but by the narrowest of margins, indeed under the current system they'd have been easily in, not saying they would have won it, but they'd have done OK. Holland were the best team in both those tournaments and they won neither." You've got more chance of winning the rugby world cup this year than of ever winning the football one.English football players show us every four years how over paid,and shit they are.. And its got nothing to do with kids playing their xboxes,its more parents not letting kids to go out and play... | |||
Its a dirge, and so is Jerusalem. Lets have Land of Hope and Glory if we want an uplifting anthem. | |||
| |||
"God Save The Queen should only be sung when Playing Scotland - and then only the 6th verse! ??
Its a dirge, and so is Jerusalem. Lets have Land of Hope and Glory if we want an uplifting anthem."Ha - and people wonder why the Jocks boo it! In fairness, Flower of Scotland is a dirge with questionable sentiments too! See, I think Jerusalem is a far nicer tune than LOHAG. Also, the latter was written by an Englishmen, but has been sung by all parts of the UK as a celebration of Britishness. Jerusalem is very specific to England and the sentiments are beautiful and much more than simply being about Jesus. I don't really care about nationality anyway anymore, so I don't know why I'm pontificating - I just like nice people wherever they're from. Also - I know heaven exists in England (as theorised on Jerusalem) - I've seen a certain woman from Sheffield who's been wowing the chatrooms this week | |||
"Just wish they were better, but that won't happen until they get our lazy Xbox obsessed, wigging youth outside kicking a ball around. When I was a kid you couldn't find a blade or grass free in the local park, now they're deserted. You were two when England last won a major football tournament....seems evident that packed parks wasn't the solution. 5 actually, completely disagree. Football is the biggest game in the world fact, Rugby is nothing is comparison, and we're not going to win the world cup at that either and how many do kids you see throwing a rugby ball around in the park, bet you see a few more in New Zealand they shouldn't be able to give us a game with their population. To gather a good international side together to beat the likes of Brazil you need every position to be fought over by a multitude of players. Now one player gets injured the whole team is screwed, if it wasn't already. That means you need a many of youth as possible out there, looking to improve, whenever they have a free moment and wherever they can. Our clubs in the 70's until they got banned in 1984 by the louts who were supporters apparently, were very successful. They were all either English or from the home countries. We failed to qualify in 74 and 78 (I know Scotland did, and underachieved, easily good enough to get through the first stage, I did laugh though), but by the narrowest of margins, indeed under the current system they'd have been easily in, not saying they would have won it, but they'd have done OK. Holland were the best team in both those tournaments and they won neither. You've got more chance of winning the rugby world cup this year than of ever winning the football one.English football players show us every four years how over paid,and shit they are.. And its got nothing to do with kids playing their xboxes,its more parents not letting kids to go out and play... " I don't disagree, but relatively few people play rugby round the world, pro rata population we should always be favourites along with France, neither will win. English players are not shit, anybody who gets paid to play football or any sport is not shit, not as good as Spanish, Brazilian but we're talking the depth of a cigarette paper. The standard is so high, high standard require a huge amount of players and effort to get a minuscule amount of success. If you think they're over paid and have Sky cancel it, I don't or will. I don't blame them in the least for taking it. If it is parents not letting them out (I mean during the day) maybe the government should step in, because that is cruelty and risks their health also. I know peodos and the like but everything has to be balanced. | |||
"I would say it's more about the big teams caring more about buying the league by buying all the top players from around the world. English players are not getting enough competition to improve so we have the same choice of player regardless of how good they play. " That is a factor and needs to be looked at, but more players, playing cannot do any harm. | |||
| |||
"Just wish they were better, but that won't happen until they get our lazy Xbox obsessed, wigging youth outside kicking a ball around. When I was a kid you couldn't find a blade or grass free in the local park, now they're deserted. You were two when England last won a major football tournament....seems evident that packed parks wasn't the solution. 5 actually, completely disagree. Football is the biggest game in the world fact, Rugby is nothing is comparison, and we're not going to win the world cup at that either and how many do kids you see throwing a rugby ball around in the park, bet you see a few more in New Zealand they shouldn't be able to give us a game with their population. To gather a good international side together to beat the likes of Brazil you need every position to be fought over by a multitude of players. Now one player gets injured the whole team is screwed, if it wasn't already. That means you need a many of youth as possible out there, looking to improve, whenever they have a free moment and wherever they can. Our clubs in the 70's until they got banned in 1984 by the louts who were supporters apparently, were very successful. They were all either English or from the home countries. We failed to qualify in 74 and 78 (I know Scotland did, and underachieved, easily good enough to get through the first stage, I did laugh though), but by the narrowest of margins, indeed under the current system they'd have been easily in, not saying they would have won it, but they'd have done OK. Holland were the best team in both those tournaments and they won neither." Not sure where I mentioned rugby!..however no matter how you spin it the fact remains we haven't won a major tournament since 1966 do you not think the reasons may be a tad more complex than the advent of Xbox. | |||
| |||
"Just wish they were better, but that won't happen until they get our lazy Xbox obsessed, wigging youth outside kicking a ball around. When I was a kid you couldn't find a blade or grass free in the local park, now they're deserted. You were two when England last won a major football tournament....seems evident that packed parks wasn't the solution. 5 actually, completely disagree. Football is the biggest game in the world fact, Rugby is nothing is comparison, and we're not going to win the world cup at that either and how many do kids you see throwing a rugby ball around in the park, bet you see a few more in New Zealand they shouldn't be able to give us a game with their population. To gather a good international side together to beat the likes of Brazil you need every position to be fought over by a multitude of players. Now one player gets injured the whole team is screwed, if it wasn't already. That means you need a many of youth as possible out there, looking to improve, whenever they have a free moment and wherever they can. Our clubs in the 70's until they got banned in 1984 by the louts who were supporters apparently, were very successful. They were all either English or from the home countries. We failed to qualify in 74 and 78 (I know Scotland did, and underachieved, easily good enough to get through the first stage, I did laugh though), but by the narrowest of margins, indeed under the current system they'd have been easily in, not saying they would have won it, but they'd have done OK. Holland were the best team in both those tournaments and they won neither. Not sure where I mentioned rugby!..however no matter how you spin it the fact remains we haven't won a major tournament since 1966 do you not think the reasons may be a tad more complex than the advent of Xbox." I was answering the comment below yours as well. No the most complex thing is for England to win the world cup we have about 2 billion footballers standing in our way. Hey we could chuck all the Xboxes away and they could all play football all day and every day and win nothing, but we'd have a healthier and maybe happier youth. One hour playing a match, needs thirty honing your skills, players such as Best, Cruyff, Pele, Messi, they might have been born talented, but to succeed at their level takes total dedication, if your a lesser mortal more so. Its just the FA scratch their heads, build academies and forget that really its as Ron Manager said jumpers for goalposts. | |||
"Just wish they were better, but that won't happen until they get our lazy Xbox obsessed, wigging youth outside kicking a ball around. When I was a kid you couldn't find a blade or grass free in the local park, now they're deserted. You were two when England last won a major football tournament....seems evident that packed parks wasn't the solution. 5 actually, completely disagree. Football is the biggest game in the world fact, Rugby is nothing is comparison, and we're not going to win the world cup at that either and how many do kids you see throwing a rugby ball around in the park, bet you see a few more in New Zealand they shouldn't be able to give us a game with their population. To gather a good international side together to beat the likes of Brazil you need every position to be fought over by a multitude of players. Now one player gets injured the whole team is screwed, if it wasn't already. That means you need a many of youth as possible out there, looking to improve, whenever they have a free moment and wherever they can. Our clubs in the 70's until they got banned in 1984 by the louts who were supporters apparently, were very successful. They were all either English or from the home countries. We failed to qualify in 74 and 78 (I know Scotland did, and underachieved, easily good enough to get through the first stage, I did laugh though), but by the narrowest of margins, indeed under the current system they'd have been easily in, not saying they would have won it, but they'd have done OK. Holland were the best team in both those tournaments and they won neither. Not sure where I mentioned rugby!..however no matter how you spin it the fact remains we haven't won a major tournament since 1966 do you not think the reasons may be a tad more complex than the advent of Xbox. I was answering the comment below yours as well. No the most complex thing is for England to win the world cup we have about 2 billion footballers standing in our way. Hey we could chuck all the Xboxes away and they could all play football all day and every day and win nothing, but we'd have a healthier and maybe happier youth. One hour playing a match, needs thirty honing your skills, players such as Best, Cruyff, Pele, Messi, they might have been born talented, but to succeed at their level takes total dedication, if your a lesser mortal more so. Its just the FA scratch their heads, build academies and forget that really its as Ron Manager said jumpers for goalposts. " You have moved the 'jumpers' from your op.....can't see many disagreeing with a healthier nation, but what that has to do with our national football team is misleading....your numbers argument simply doesn't stack up no matter how obvious it may seem. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Maybe they would if the national anthem was more uplifting instead of the dreadful dirge it is !" | |||
"Can anyone name a good anthem? " look at the way the brazilians and chileans sing their national anthem tomorrow in the friendly at the emirates... the way they sang their anthems at last summers world cup made me tingle.... | |||
"Just wish they were better, but that won't happen until they get our lazy Xbox obsessed, wigging youth outside kicking a ball around. When I was a kid you couldn't find a blade or grass free in the local park, now they're deserted. You were two when England last won a major football tournament....seems evident that packed parks wasn't the solution. 5 actually, completely disagree. Football is the biggest game in the world fact, Rugby is nothing is comparison, and we're not going to win the world cup at that either and how many do kids you see throwing a rugby ball around in the park, bet you see a few more in New Zealand they shouldn't be able to give us a game with their population. To gather a good international side together to beat the likes of Brazil you need every position to be fought over by a multitude of players. Now one player gets injured the whole team is screwed, if it wasn't already. That means you need a many of youth as possible out there, looking to improve, whenever they have a free moment and wherever they can. Our clubs in the 70's until they got banned in 1984 by the louts who were supporters apparently, were very successful. They were all either English or from the home countries. We failed to qualify in 74 and 78 (I know Scotland did, and underachieved, easily good enough to get through the first stage, I did laugh though), but by the narrowest of margins, indeed under the current system they'd have been easily in, not saying they would have won it, but they'd have done OK. Holland were the best team in both those tournaments and they won neither. Not sure where I mentioned rugby!..however no matter how you spin it the fact remains we haven't won a major tournament since 1966 do you not think the reasons may be a tad more complex than the advent of Xbox. I was answering the comment below yours as well. No the most complex thing is for England to win the world cup we have about 2 billion footballers standing in our way. Hey we could chuck all the Xboxes away and they could all play football all day and every day and win nothing, but we'd have a healthier and maybe happier youth. One hour playing a match, needs thirty honing your skills, players such as Best, Cruyff, Pele, Messi, they might have been born talented, but to succeed at their level takes total dedication, if your a lesser mortal more so. Its just the FA scratch their heads, build academies and forget that really its as Ron Manager said jumpers for goalposts. You have moved the 'jumpers' from your op.....can't see many disagreeing with a healthier nation, but what that has to do with our national football team is misleading....your numbers argument simply doesn't stack up no matter how obvious it may seem." I don't understand what you're on about numbers, other that is there are only 11 places and ergo you need only 11 players, sorry if I'm being patronising or stupid and not getting your premise. What I mean is simply this you want as much talent going going after those 11 spaces as possible, starting first millions, all with one goal that is to be a good as possible, many will drop out but if you could 10+ player all going for the same spot and would kill their grannie to get it, and you might still not win anything. Quantity has a quality all of its own, goes for rugby too, or any sport for that matter. | |||
| |||
| |||
