The Official World Cup 2010 thread

[JackSwan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

Brian Moore and the rest of the rugby commentators England bias against all countries in the Six Nations.

oh, now i know you're suffering from chip-on-shoulderitis. brian moore? mr non-critical? are you joking or just insane?

[hovis]

Originally Posted by JimB

As I said, the problem seems to be that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales don't have their own specific TV scheduling. If they did, then their presenters would be saying similar things to the likes of Lynam.

The thing is, we do get local presenters presenting the local games. The English don't get to see the NI/Scot/Wal media coverage, but we sure as hell also see the English coverage.

Anyway, Lineker works for the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, that means he's the face of football to the whole Kingdom. Why shouldn't us N Irish get Lineker hosting our matches? I still pay the same money as an Englishman to watch MY premier broadcaster.

[MoreOrLess]

The difference of course is you were the one making an issue out of "stolen" nationality, most english people wouldnt give a fuck is the scottish media blurred the lines between scottish and british.

Still carry on living vivaciously though englands opponants if you want, chances are Scotland are going to carry on achiving fuck all on the pitch while you do though.

[Maipo Valley]

Originally Posted by Peshu

@ Mejicano . Mexico is crap . Good skill , no cojones .

oz is crap no skill no cojones. but you still have cricket

[hovis]

Originally Posted by Maipo Valley

oz is crap no skill no cojones. but you still have cricket

They're crap at that too

[JohnnyFive]

Originally Posted by MoreOrLess

most english people wouldnt give a fuck is the scottish media blurred the lines between scottish and british.

I don't see any blurred lines between Scottish and British in the Scottish media. It is a fact that the majority of people in Scotland identify themselves as Scottish (including Murray by the way).

Originally Posted by MoreOrLess

chances are Scotland are going to carry on achiving fuck all on the pitch while you do though.

That's the thing, we know in Scotland we will never win anything and getting to the World Cup or Euro Championships once in a while is an achievement in itself for any small country.

I think the problem is that England always seem to unrealistically think they are favourites and will win before the tournament or sometimes even before the qualification starts. This sets yourselves up for the soul searching and same questions after a failure instead of enjoying the experience.

[Rigadon]

Originally Posted by MoreOrLess

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tside_Scotland

I hope none of these players were called anything other than mercenarys by the scottish media.

Ultimately I think the hype for the England defeat has gone way too far, our defence had a very poor game its true and the Germans could easy have scored a couple more but we also had a clear goal disallowed, hit the bar twice and forced a couple of exellent saves out of there keeper. You don't see a big national team lose 4-1 very often but you also don't see a game at the WC played in that open fashion(by both sides) very often either.

Besides the old Gerrard/Lampard problem the most pressing concern should surely be the fitness of the team. Not just us but generally the prem has left players in alarmingly poor shape for this WC, Rooney, Barry, Ferdinand, Hargreeves, Drogba, Torres, Essien, Ballack etc all either out of just coming back from injuries.

The old cliche that were simpley not that good and that our kids have the talent beaten out of them just isnt backed up by results, Englands under 17's are currenly european champions and the under 21's reached the final. The problem seems to be what happens to them after that, many of them seem too ready to pickup a big paycheck sitting on the bench when they really should be seeking out quality football, even if its outside the UK. We've had a ton of expereince of it at Palace with players like Routledge and Bostock chasing the money early and damaging there careers though lack of first team football.

Ontop of that I think the big 4's dominance of the champs league spots has held back many of those who are getting first team football. Yes playing in the prem is a challange but your generally facing sides who are more than willing to enguage in the same fast physical game as you. Bringing that same game into european football vs opponants who play a slower passing game as at international level is far from a formality, each of the big 4 struggled for years before they started to impose there own style on european matches.

+1

[mexico86]

Originally Posted by Peshu

Only joking Mejicano . Mexico unfortunate against the Argentinos .

Thanks - It was quite a close match, with a final legitimate score of 2-1 to Argentina, who had the slightly better team it has to be said, but who did benefit from poor refereeing as they have as a general rule in previous world cups. Unfortunately, Mexican football is plagued with corruption and egomaniacs, i.e., all 11 players on the field want to be the hero who wins the match, like Brasil but with a bit less skill.

[Gareth]

God, the Braveheard contingent should just deal with it. Yes, it is the BRITISH Broacasting Corporation, which is why it's commentary supports ALL British sporting sides. It just so happens that England was the only side to qualify in this tournament.

What about club league coverage? Should I be pissed off when the commentary support Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal etc over foreign opposition, or do you lot suggest each locality in the country has its own dedicated coverage?

But I suppose we may take your lives but we'll never take your freedom.

[madjackmcmad]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

I think the problem is that England always seem to unrealistically think they are favourites and will win before the tournament or sometimes even before the qualification starts. This sets yourselves up for the soul searching and same questions after a failure instead of enjoying the experience.

I think thats what a Scotsman likes to think the English think. Whatever you may think of them in the last 20 years they have been to a semi-final, penalty kicks away from another semi final in 2004, penalties away from a final in the WC (1990) and EC (1996).

So not going further than the 2nd round in the World Cup is dissapointing for them. You can't drag everybody down to Scotlands low standards & expectations.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by hovis

The thing is, we do get local presenters presenting the local games. The English don't get to see the NI/Scot/Wal media coverage, but we sure as hell also see the English coverage.

Anyway, Lineker works for the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, that means he's the face of football to the whole Kingdom. Why shouldn't us N Irish get Lineker hosting our matches? I still pay the same money as an Englishman to watch MY premier broadcaster.

Why indeed?

But this is a different discussion to the one that that we started with. Perhaps you should take it up with the BBC.

[madjackmcmad]

Perhaps the bottom line is the English wouldn't be in the least bothered with the BBC commentators talking up and cheering on Scotland because they aren't the ones with the chippy problem?

[JimB]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

That is the problem, it's not the English media is it. The UK is supposed to be a union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The problem is that media and people in general in England tend to substitute British for English and Britain for England on an ad hoc basis.

That means everyone else has to put up with blatant bias.

Like everyone getting asked to "cheer on our boys" etc etc when England are playing football.

Or Gary Lineker only needing 22 seconds into the first programme to mention 1966 and winning the world cup due to North Korea being there.



Or at the other extreme we have the following nonsense where we all know that if he gets knocked out he will become Scottish again!

You're probably too young to remember 1978 and "We're on the march with Ally's army..." as Ally MacLeod's Scotland was the UK's sole representative at the World Cup in Argentina.

As I remember it, the hype and coverage of the Scotland team was, considering the comparative lack of instant media access back then, every bit as all consuming as the hype and coverage of the England team this time around.

That's to say, those of us in England had the Scotland team and discussion of its chances inflicted upon us for weeks and months ahead of and during the World Cup.

The only difference being, we didn't resent it. In the absence of our own team at the World Cup, the vast majority of English people supported Scotland. Compare and contrast to the vast majority of Scots' support for any team that is playing against England!

So much for our supposed chauvinism, eh?

As to the Murray from Surrey stuff, get a sense of humour, fella! Can't you see that that is completely tongue in cheek?

[JimB]

Originally Posted by MoreOrLess

The difference of course is you were the one making an issue out of "stolen" nationality, most english people wouldnt give a fuck is the scottish media blurred the lines between scottish and british.

Still carry on living vivaciously though englands opponants if you want, chances are Scotland are going to carry on achiving fuck all on the pitch while you do though.

Vivaciously or vicariously?

Probably both.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

I don't see any blurred lines between Scottish and British in the Scottish media. It is a fact that the majority of people in Scotland identify themselves as Scottish (including Murray by the way).

That's the thing, we know in Scotland we will never win anything and getting to the World Cup or Euro Championships once in a while is an achievement in itself for any small country.

I think the problem is that England always seem to unrealistically think they are favourites and will win before the tournament or sometimes even before the qualification starts. This sets yourselves up for the soul searching and same questions after a failure instead of enjoying the experience.

Murray is very happy to identify himself as British when it comes to winning the support of a predominantly English crowd at Wimbledon.

Likewise when signing new sponsorship deals. If he identified himself specifically and exclusively as a Scot and deliberately distanced himself from any sense of Britishness, his value to his sponsors would be considerably reduced.

As to your final paragraph, that's the kind of straw man nonsense that strips your argument of any vestige of credibility that it may still have had. Perhaps you could point out to us those who had England down as favourites to win the World Cup?

I don't know of a single person who thought we would get past the semi finals.....let alone win the whole thing.....let alone be favourites to win the whole thing.

It seems suspiciously as though you have allowed your perception of reality to be fatally warped by the weight of that chip on the shoulder that so many Scots seem to carry around with them.

Seriously, fella, let it go. Your life will be a lot better for being thus unburdened.

[hovis]

Originally Posted by JimB

That's to say, those of us in England had the Scotland team and discussion of its chances inflicted upon us for weeks and months ahead of and during the World Cup.

I know we're getting off topic, and I'm no way being anti-english in the least, but you had the above for the 1978 world cup, imagine what it would be like ALL THE TIME (not just football, but everything English)

The only difference being, we didn't resent it. In the absence of our own team at the World Cup, the vast majority of English people supported Scotland. Compare and contrast to the vast majority of Scots' support for any team that is playing against England!

A very good point, I don't agree with the "anyone but England" thing, but hopefully this discussion will have explained a little bit of why it happens.

I'll support any of the British sides equally after my own region.

Now, what were we talking about?

[Chin-Chu-Lin]

Picture exclusive ... England players in bar hours after Germany defeat

[JohnnyFive]

Originally Posted by hovis

I know we're getting off topic, and I'm no way being anti-english in the least, but you had the above for the 1978 world cup, imagine what it would be like ALL THE TIME (not just football, but everything English)



A very good point, I don't agree with the "anyone but England" thing, but hopefully this discussion will have explained a little bit of why it happens.

Exactly and I would bet that that is why the majority of people want England out of a tournament.

[madjackmcmad]

Originally Posted by hovis

I know we're getting off topic, and I'm no way being anti-english in the least, but you had the above for the 1978 world cup, imagine what it would be like ALL THE TIME (not just football, but everything English)

Yes, there would be a huge CGAF factor. When a story involving Scotland comes on the news you think English people get the arse about it?

What you're suggesting is that no English media infiltrate scottish airwaves. Let's have a BBC England then so commentators can talk about their team and fans can get lots of articles on their favourite team without fear of offending some bigoted people.

As has been mentioned about 1978, most English people would have been cheering Scotland on.

[morestoreysplease]

Originally Posted by JimB

You're probably too young to remember 1978 and "We're on the march with Ally's army..." as Ally MacLeod's Scotland was the UK's sole representative at the World Cup in Argentina.

As I remember it, the hype and coverage of the Scotland team was, considering the comparative lack of instant media access back then, every bit as all consuming as the hype and coverage of the England team this time around.

That's to say, those of us in England had the Scotland team and discussion of its chances inflicted upon us for weeks and months ahead of and during the World Cup.

The only difference being, we didn't resent it. In the absence of our own team at the World Cup, the vast majority of English people supported Scotland. Compare and contrast to the vast majority of Scots' support for any team that is playing against England!

So much for our supposed chauvinism, eh?

As to the Murray from Surrey stuff, get a sense of humour, fella! Can't you see that that is completely tongue in cheek?

I very well remember 1978 WC and just about remember 1974. Scotland were the UK's sole team throughout the 70s.
I recall when Archie Gemmell scored "that" goal against the Dutch to make it 3-1 and almost qualify for the next group stage, the whole country was enthralled. And back in 1974 the UK was proud that Scotland (along with Cameroon 1982) are the only unbeaten teams not to qualify for the further stages of the WC based on inferior goal difference.