Mauricio Espinosa talks about his horror World Cup decision.

SBSP_FIFA wrote:In all fairness, Germany's third and fourth goals came from counter-attacks because of England pushing their defenders up. Anyone who says Germany would have just won it 4-2 doesn't know what they're talking about.

Danny B wrote:Fuck Barry, Green and Young tbh.

Walcott should be in there, as well as Hart.

Pick whoever from the likes of Carrick, Huddlestone etc.. to replace Barry

Dan wrote:We'd have had a good chance, but football's too unpredictable to say we'd have won definitely Danny.

Danny B wrote:Fuck Barry, Green and Young tbh.

Walcott should be in there, as well as Hart.

Pick whoever from the likes of Carrick, Huddlestone etc.. to replace Barry

Danny B wrote:

SBSP_FIFA wrote:In all fairness, Germany's third and fourth goals came from counter-attacks because of England pushing their defenders up. Anyone who says Germany would have just won it 4-2 doesn't know what they're talking about.

Exactly. At 2-2 we'd have needed 1 goal, at 1-2 we'd have needed 2. We wouldn't have had to go all out attack, and wouldn't have been caught on the break that badly.

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Danny B wrote:Fuck Barry, Green and Young tbh.

Walcott should be in there, as well as Hart.

Pick whoever from the likes of Carrick, Huddlestone etc.. to replace Barry

Agree with Hart, as of today. But in June, I wouldn't have been too sure, and neither would you guys.

Barry is more defensive minded, so I picked him. But i'd imagine Carrick would be in this final-23 squad too, so change him for Carrick if you wish.

Walcott didn't get called up.

Sean CFC wrote:We'll compromise, maybe the would or maybe they wouldn't. But you'd defiantly have gotten beat by Argentina.
:troll:

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Danny B wrote:

SBSP_FIFA wrote:In all fairness, Germany's third and fourth goals came from counter-attacks because of England pushing their defenders up. Anyone who says Germany would have just won it 4-2 doesn't know what they're talking about.

Exactly. At 2-2 we'd have needed 1 goal, at 1-2 we'd have needed 2. We wouldn't have had to go all out attack, and wouldn't have been caught on the break that badly.

What explains the first two goals than?

Sean CFC wrote:We'll compromise, maybe the would or maybe they wouldn't. But you'd defiantly have gotten beat by Argentina.

Sean CFC wrote:We'll compromise, maybe the would or maybe they wouldn't. But you'd defiantly have gotten beat by Argentina.

























:troll:

Luxz0rz wrote:It would've been 50-50 at half time for sure.

That's all I would've asked for. I'm upset that England lost but more annoyed that (as always) we haven't had a chance to win fairly or lose fairly.

In almost every major tournament recently there's been a decision that has contributed to us losing. When England's full strength side loses fairly I will accept it......but I can't think of many times that has happened......maybe Brazil via Seaman mistake? Maybe one of the Portugal losses......

Sean CFC wrote:

Luxz0rz wrote:It would've been 50-50 at half time for sure.

That's all I would've asked for. I'm upset that England lost but more annoyed that (as always) we haven't had a chance to win fairly or lose fairly.

In almost every major tournament recently there's been a decision that has contributed to us losing. When England's full strength side loses fairly I will accept it......but I can't think of many times that has happened......maybe Brazil via Seaman mistake? Maybe one of the Portugal losses......

2006 World Cup? And don't give me any bullshit that Rooney shouldn't have been sent off.

Danny B wrote:

SBSP_FIFA wrote:In all fairness, Germany's third and fourth goals came from counter-attacks because of England pushing their defenders up. Anyone who says Germany would have just won it 4-2 doesn't know what they're talking about.

Exactly. At 2-2 we'd have needed 1 goal, at 1-2 we'd have needed 2. We wouldn't have had to go all out attack, and wouldn't have been caught on the break that badly.

dena wrote:Thanks for resurrecting the horse so everyone can beat it to death again luke.

Bear wrote:

Danny B wrote:

SBSP_FIFA wrote:In all fairness, Germany's third and fourth goals came from counter-attacks because of England pushing their defenders up. Anyone who says Germany would have just won it 4-2 doesn't know what they're talking about.

Exactly. At 2-2 we'd have needed 1 goal, at 1-2 we'd have needed 2. We wouldn't have had to go all out attack, and wouldn't have been caught on the break that badly.

Erm you practically would have considering Germany would of wiped the floor if it went to penaltys, making Capello attack a bit then caught on the break by another German counter attack

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:We'll compromise, maybe the would or maybe they wouldn't. But you'd defiantly have gotten beat by Argentina.

This is true, seeing as Capello would not have changed the 4-4-2 even if they have beaten Germany somehow. Would've taken a miracle of England to get passed Germany, and I don't think two miracles in a row is likely.

Dan wrote:

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Sean CFC wrote:We'll compromise, maybe the would or maybe they wouldn't. But you'd defiantly have gotten beat by Argentina.

This is true, seeing as Capello would not have changed the 4-4-2 even if they have beaten Germany somehow. Would've taken a miracle of England to get passed Germany, and I don't think two miracles in a row is likely.

Greece? 2004?

Danny B wrote:Even Greece's manager says he has no idea how they won it

Sean CFC wrote:Actually after thinking about it I kinda get what you guys are saying

It's like Liverpool v Milan. At half time they were completely outplayed but a Gerrard header and suddenly momentum started building.