England vs. Germany

[Jibbish]

Ah so Pakistani is a race.

Pakistani is a nationality.

[W00TZEH]

Pakistani is a nationality.

So explain to me how calling someone a **** is racist?

[AlexOC]

So explain to me how calling someone a **** is racist?

Meh, its exactly the same as calling one of us lot a 'Brit'

[CHA!NGANG]

A British person being racist to a fellow British person? Whatever next. :S

So if you're saying that's racist, what about all the Scottish people on SSN earlier laughing when Lampard's 'goal' wasn't given? Are you now going to say SSN is racist?

Is that aimed towards me?

---------- Post added 28-06-2010 at 06:03 PM ----------

And Wootzeh, technically I don't think it is, but Nationalist doesn't really sound right so people just say Racist instead.

[Jibbish]

So explain to me how calling someone a **** is racist?

Technically it isn't, people have grown accustomed to it being a racial slur, because it had been used as a weapon of hatred towards Asians by ignorant fascists.
It just like calling an Australian, Aussie etc...

[Alba]

An Indian guy I know told me that In some villages In India they use the word '****' as a term for 'dirty dog'. Meh.

Anyway, the Wolves fan (lol) who quoted me originally was obviously looking for an arguement, by trying to bait me. Which Is kinda pathetic. Kudos to Camy for noticing It aswell.

[CHA!NGANG]

An Indian guy I know told me that In some villages In India they use the word '****' as a term for 'dirty dog'. Meh.

Anyway, the Wolves fan (lol) who quoted me originally was obviously looking for an arguement, by trying to bait me. Which Is kinda pathetic. Kudos to Camy for noticing It aswell.

Well to be fair, you come on an English forum with a German flag as your avatar and expect not to get an arguement? Most your points were fine, but your opening line is asking for an arguement.

Are you German btw?

[Browney]

What a nice phone.

There's a phone?

Hahaha, people on here are so fickle man. Perfect result. Did anyone mention 66? Nice little goal scored In that minute, eh?

Actually, yes they did.

All In all, England lack players that can be deemed as a playmaker. Everybody says about the England players being great in the Premier League then terrible at international tournaments. This is due to England players being complimented by their foreign teammates at club level. Look at Manchester United, they're a counter-attacking side who get the ball wide and work it in. Look at the wingers, Valencia and Nani. Both foreign with a bit of flair who can take on the full back. The English players are grafters in a certain sense at club level, they work really hard but without the foreign technical players to create chances they're worthless. All international teams at the top level have at least one player who can pull the strings from the midfield or behind the strikers. England have no one who can deliver a killer ball.

Gerrard. Not our fault Capello insists on playing him out left. I'm pretty sure everyone was screaming for

? --- ?
? --- Gerrard --- ?
Rooney

Another thing that makes it hard for Capello is the lack of pace in the side. Any English player with real pace has a lack of technique. Lennon, Walcott, SWP, they can all run but when it comes to delivering a cross, you're lucky to get one out of ten in a good position to be attacked. There is also an over-reliance on one player, i.e. Rooney. Without him playing well there is no attacking threat. Until England get some quick players with a bit of technical skill and a playmaker they will never make it to the latter stages of a major international competition.

Lennon is better than Valencia. You also forget Walcott and Lennon are not finished articles. They're 21 and 22 respectively. Valencia is a good 3/4 years older. And the point about Rooney is very true. But that was always going to happen with a striker as good as him, in as good form with no one really challenging him for the first striker spot. if we don't rely on Rooney, who DO we have? Defoe? Actually, having seen Rooneys form I would've rather seen Defoe start.

An Indian guy I know told me that In some villages In India they use the word '****' as a term for 'dirty dog'. Meh.

Anyway, the Wolves fan (lol) who quoted me originally was obviously looking for an arguement, by trying to bait me. Which Is kinda pathetic. Kudos to Camy for noticing It aswell.

That'll be because Indians and Pakistanis HATE each other.

[JackBuddy]

Lennon is better than Valencia. You also forget Walcott and Lennon are not finished articles. They're 21 and 22 respectively. Valencia is a good 3/4 years older. And the point about Rooney is very true. But that was always going to happen with a striker as good as him, in as good form with no one really challenging him for the first striker spot. if we don't rely on Rooney, who DO we have? Defoe? Actually, having seen Rooneys form I would've rather seen Defoe start.

Defoe should only play if Lennon does- it's no coincidence that Defoe stopped scoring goals once Lennon got injured. Lennon got 10 assists before he was injured in December and Defoe knocked in the vast majority of those. They have a clever understanding of eachother. Defoe can't play up front alone, and Rooney could have got a goal and regained his form/confidence at anytime.

There was no other alternative really, apart from Defoe and Crouch I guess, but I wouldn't have taken the risk in dropping Rooney personally.

[Browney]

I'm not saying upfront alone, I'm saying with Gerrard behind. Like at Liverpool. Gerrard plays behind a pacey finisher. Gerrard behind Rooney probably wouldn't work. Tactically wise, Rooney has a habit of running back. If he ran back with Gerrard behind him, then two things might happen 1. Gerrard could be awake and overlap on Rooney 2. Gerrard and Rooney end up playing too deep. So it'd be a bit hit and miss. So we play Lennon out right, Gerrard behind Defoe, tell Defoe to stay up on the last defender and let Gerrard have the free role.