[s]The Famous Philosopher wrote on 23:51, 16th Jun 2004:
There seems to be a bit of confusion surrounding Greece's group, so i'll clear it up.
Greece are in the QF's - no if's buts or maybe's - they are through. Even if Greece lose they will have 4pts. Even if Sapin and Portugal draw(leaving Portugal on 4pts and Spain on 5pts) Greece qualify because they have beaten Portugal.
Actually, you're wrong. If Portugal win and Greece lose, Greece can still be knocked out. Just leave the clearing up to me philosopher... Prevents confusion.
Home
TheSinner.net
Euro 2004
Re:
by iohannes on Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:34 pm
I doubt Spain will get very far. I know they have good players but they don't have a good team. Large parts of Spain couldn't give a crap about the Spanish national side. Having spent 1998 travelling on a French train to Spain with a load of Catalonians I think it is safe to say that most of Catalonia will be supporting sides other than Spain.
Spain always predicts more than they can produce. A little like Portugal and England. My vote is on Greece and Portugal topping their group purely because Portugal is at home (home sides always do better) and because Greece keep fighting. They may not be the best or the best proficient team, but they keep going.
[hr]That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Spain always predicts more than they can produce. A little like Portugal and England. My vote is on Greece and Portugal topping their group purely because Portugal is at home (home sides always do better) and because Greece keep fighting. They may not be the best or the best proficient team, but they keep going.
[hr]That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
-
iohannes
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 11:22 pm
Re:
by The Famous Philosopher on Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:42 am
[s]Jonny_G wrote on 00:19, 17th Jun 2004:
[s]The Famous Philosopher wrote on 23:51, 16th Jun 2004:[i]
There seems to be a bit of confusion surrounding Greece's group, so i'll clear it up.
Greece are in the QF's - no if's buts or maybe's - they are through. Even if Greece lose they will have 4pts. Even if Sapin and Portugal draw(leaving Portugal on 4pts and Spain on 5pts) Greece qualify because they have beaten Portugal.
Actually, you're wrong. If Portugal win and Greece lose, Greece can still be knocked out. Just leave the clearing up to me philosopher... Prevents confusion.
[/i]
Sorry, your competely right. I was only saying what I heard from the ITV people - I'm a stupid bastard for actually listening to what they say. I do realise that Greece can still be knocked out now. Still unlikely
[hr]
Never buy a midget with learning difficulties, It's not big and it's not clever
[s]The Famous Philosopher wrote on 23:51, 16th Jun 2004:[i]
There seems to be a bit of confusion surrounding Greece's group, so i'll clear it up.
Greece are in the QF's - no if's buts or maybe's - they are through. Even if Greece lose they will have 4pts. Even if Sapin and Portugal draw(leaving Portugal on 4pts and Spain on 5pts) Greece qualify because they have beaten Portugal.
Actually, you're wrong. If Portugal win and Greece lose, Greece can still be knocked out. Just leave the clearing up to me philosopher... Prevents confusion.
[/i]
Sorry, your competely right. I was only saying what I heard from the ITV people - I'm a stupid bastard for actually listening to what they say. I do realise that Greece can still be knocked out now. Still unlikely
[hr]
Never buy a midget with learning difficulties, It's not big and it's not clever
-
The Famous Philosopher
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:09 am
Re:
by Jonny_G on Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:07 am
It's cool.Greece are in a very strong position now.
ITV's normally excellent Premiership and Champion's League coverage just hasn't transferred to Euro 2004 for some reason although they still have superior commentators compared to the BBC, the BBC's studio line up is better (i wish Ian "i'm so funny" Wright would fuck off though) in my opinion
ITV's normally excellent Premiership and Champion's League coverage just hasn't transferred to Euro 2004 for some reason although they still have superior commentators compared to the BBC, the BBC's studio line up is better (i wish Ian "i'm so funny" Wright would fuck off though) in my opinion
-
Jonny_G
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 9:08 pm
Re:
by The Famous Philosopher on Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:33 pm
I really don't think you can compare the coverage on the BBC to that on ITV. It's like comparing a Rolls Royce to a mini. ITV's coverage is utterly shocking. I thought Motson would be completely unbearable with his constant going on about England, but I'd rather listen to him than the arse on ITV. The folk BBC have in the studio are significantly superior to ITV's lot. Schmichel, Hansen, Peter Reid and the legend that is Gordon Strachan offer much more representitive views than the constant England , England , England they feed you on ITV. Ian Wright is still a dick though. They also seem to know there stuff a bit better, although saying that Robbie Earle and Ally McCoist didn't wind me up too badly yesterday.
Anyway prediction for today, England to win 3-0 and France to win 3-0 aswell.
[hr]Never buy a midget with learning difficulties, It's not big and it's not clever
Anyway prediction for today, England to win 3-0 and France to win 3-0 aswell.
[hr]Never buy a midget with learning difficulties, It's not big and it's not clever
-
The Famous Philosopher
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:09 am
3-0
by Humphrey on Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:54 pm
HAHAHAHHAHAHAAH!
We sooooo didnt deserve that
Why are our supporters chanting 'are you Scotland in diguise?, if they were i'd be shitting myself becuse they beat us one nil at Wembley last time we played.
We sooooo didnt deserve that
Why are our supporters chanting 'are you Scotland in diguise?, if they were i'd be shitting myself becuse they beat us one nil at Wembley last time we played.
-
Humphrey
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:29 pm
Croatia 2 France 2
by Humphrey on Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:43 pm
Ok i'm confused, did those Croatians take speed at half time or something?
-
Humphrey
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:29 pm
Re:
by OFD on Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:00 pm
Why does everybody take this so seriously? Today the words I've most heard applied to yesterdays *game* are 'tragedy', 'agony' and 'disaster'. I appreciate that people like football and want their team to do well but nobody died. Lets keep that in perspective.
-
OFD
Re:
by Guest on Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:01 pm
[s]iohannes wrote on 19:31, 14th Jun 2004:
I never suggested that Scots weren't subjected to abuse in England. I was, however, pointing out that kneejerk hatred of England and all things English is *racist* and that until Scotland stops defining itself by the fact that it hates England, stops laying all the blame at the feet of England, it will never be a mature country. Most Scots attitude to the English football team merely highlights it. If my argument is repetitive it's because I have to repeat it because you've spectacularly failed to understand what I was talking about.
Nope, just think your whole argument is one gigantic chip on the shoulder load of shite. And you talk about being mature, pffft. It's bloody football with bloody rivalry. If you can't see that then you have missed the whole point. Congratulations.
Now heads down in front, I'm trying to watch the goddamn football (I'm assuming you all actually remember it is on, what with all the anti-Scottish because of course we all hate English people even though half of them are our mates in St Andrews generalisation crap).
I never suggested that Scots weren't subjected to abuse in England. I was, however, pointing out that kneejerk hatred of England and all things English is *racist* and that until Scotland stops defining itself by the fact that it hates England, stops laying all the blame at the feet of England, it will never be a mature country. Most Scots attitude to the English football team merely highlights it. If my argument is repetitive it's because I have to repeat it because you've spectacularly failed to understand what I was talking about.
Nope, just think your whole argument is one gigantic chip on the shoulder load of shite. And you talk about being mature, pffft. It's bloody football with bloody rivalry. If you can't see that then you have missed the whole point. Congratulations.
Now heads down in front, I'm trying to watch the goddamn football (I'm assuming you all actually remember it is on, what with all the anti-Scottish because of course we all hate English people even though half of them are our mates in St Andrews generalisation crap).
-
Guest
Re:
by Guest on Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:02 pm
[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 15:26, 16th Jun 2004:
Maybe they should fill the matches with reference to all the well known Latvian, Czech, Portugese players etc. because we everyone in Britain knows them!
Most people who are interested in football enough to appreciate comparisons probably do yes.
There was no need for comparisons during the Holland Germany game for example. Both matches were crap in different ways. I shudder to think how many more times England would have been mentioned had they won their match but as the commentators pointed out - England can always beat France in the final. Right then....
Maybe they should fill the matches with reference to all the well known Latvian, Czech, Portugese players etc. because we everyone in Britain knows them!
Most people who are interested in football enough to appreciate comparisons probably do yes.
There was no need for comparisons during the Holland Germany game for example. Both matches were crap in different ways. I shudder to think how many more times England would have been mentioned had they won their match but as the commentators pointed out - England can always beat France in the final. Right then....
-
Guest
Re:
by OFD on Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:02 pm
The evening news is atrocious- they might as well completely abandon any pretense of being concerned with anything other than football. Surely that should be a regional news thing. I know that the UK is predominantly English and all but can we at least pretend that there are things going on in the world beyond (not to mention more important than) whats happening in Portugal?
-
OFD
Re:
by iohannes on Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:08 pm
Scholes was not offside. If watch the replay and read the laws:
http://www.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/laws/ ... 2003_e.pdf
Page 24: "A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position." While you are technically right that Scholes was offside, from the point of the laws he was not commiting the offence of being offside, therefore the goal should stand.
[hr]That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
http://www.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/laws/ ... 2003_e.pdf
Page 24: "A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position." While you are technically right that Scholes was offside, from the point of the laws he was not commiting the offence of being offside, therefore the goal should stand.
[hr]That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
-
iohannes
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 11:22 pm
Re:
by amac on Fri Jun 18, 2004 3:13 pm
[s]iohannes wrote on 14:08, 18th Jun 2004:
Scholes was not offside. If watch the replay and read the laws:
http://www.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/laws/ ... 2003_e.pdf
Page 24: "A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position." While you are technically right that Scholes was offside, from the point of the laws he was not commiting the offence of being offside, therefore the goal should stand.
You could argue that if Scholes wasn't there then the defender inbetween him and Rooney would have been able to do more to prevent the goal (he would only be marking Rooney and not worrying about someone going in behind him). So Scholes would then be interfering with play / an opponent.
[hr]
Look left! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said left you retard
Scholes was not offside. If watch the replay and read the laws:
http://www.fifa.com/fifa/handbook/laws/ ... 2003_e.pdf
Page 24: "A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position." While you are technically right that Scholes was offside, from the point of the laws he was not commiting the offence of being offside, therefore the goal should stand.
You could argue that if Scholes wasn't there then the defender inbetween him and Rooney would have been able to do more to prevent the goal (he would only be marking Rooney and not worrying about someone going in behind him). So Scholes would then be interfering with play / an opponent.
[hr]
Look left! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said left you retard
-
amac
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:32 am
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests