5 hours ago, Audax said:

28 years ago, England played in the 3rd place game and lost, 32 years ago, in 1986, Belgium played in the 3rd place game and lost.

With that time gone by, do people still not care about that match? Just my opinion, I think they should. Something is better than nothing.

 

I understand that we're in a massive minority but I just don't get the apathy to coming 3rd. 

They've invested months of time and effort into preparing for this tournament to achieve the best they can. 

We were all talking about quarters being a fairly good return at one point,  so 3rd place is outstanding compared to that it.

And it would be our best result in over half a century of World Cups.  

The only caveat to that is I feel for the players that have sat on the sideline patiently watching it all happen and playing very little part. Do they maybe deserve a run out on the pitch as way of reward?

BUT,  as the old phrase goes, there's no room for sentiment in competitive sport so I say let's get our best team out there, go all guns blazing and try and finish on a high.

I'd way prefer to come back after a win with 3rd place bagged, rather than trudge back after 2 disappointing losses. 

It's a no brainer surely. 

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

 

Ya, it was hillarious. 2 kids bickering in the playground. Wright copying Keanes accent topped it off, imagine if Keane was from somewhere else though and Wright did that, there would be uproar. Ian wright always looks to me like he is about to cry. Gary Neville sniggering away beside Keane then. Pretty much decided it is easier to side with the bully than go against him. 

 

Neville: "Go on, do your impression!"

Ha ha ha.

You're right tho, if that was an Indian,  then everyone loses their minds.

Keane is always good value.  He's always so grumpy. You would have thought it was his country that had lost. 

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Huge capitulation by England last night. 

And people say the English are overdramatic. 

C'mon,  beaten by a single goal 10 mins from the end of extra time hardly qualifies as a "huge capitulation". 

Calm yourself.

On another note,  what did u think of your boy Roy Keane last night?

With Wrighty.  Had me in stitches. 

2 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

 

The Swedes are confident - Hakan Mild a former top player has this to say about us " They are spoilt kids who earn a lot of money. They don't have the desperation ( hunger ) needed. It couldn't be a better draw ( for Sweden ). They think they are so good but they are not ".

Has anyone else  noticed how much trashtalk other teams engage in recently?

I'm sure a few other teams' associates have done it over last few years. I guess it's  all pathetic attempts to have some sort of effect on our team and unsettle them. 

Doesn't seem to work as far as I can tell. Empty vessels make the most noise and all that. 

It's another reason I like the current England set up. They don't react or retaliate to any of it. Just stick their heads down and get on with their jobs.

I see it as very similar as Rover's domestic campaign. Paul Cook gobbing off like some deranged lunatic, and our lot just ignoring him. 

I'm pretty proud of both setups at the minute. And it's a long, long time since I last said that. Long may it continue.  

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

 

I Don't rate Southgate but regardless of my views on him he will deserve the utmost credit if he becomes only the 2nd English manager apart from Sir Alf to do the business.

 

What credit will he get if we get to a semi and get knocked out?

Genuine question. I'm intrigued. 

Cos you've spent this whole thread talking about how success can only be measured by lifting the trophy. 

Which, of course, I understand is the ultimate aim of any team entering a tournament. 

But the negative nellies keep talking about "realism ".

Well let's get  real, we've won it once only. And got to how many semis? Can't be bothered looking it up. But it can't be many.

So, will Southgate and the team get credit from the NN's if they achieve what very few have over the last century?

Answers on a postcard.  

28 minutes ago, AAK said:

Makes me laugh, bet all the posters who are 'positive' about England, 

I genuinely fail to see how anyone can not be "positive" about England.  That's what makes me laugh.

2 years ago after the Iceland debacle no-one had any hope for the future of England in tournament football.

I guarantee you that if you asked at the time pretty much everyone in the country would have predicted that we wouldn't even get out of the group in the next World Cup. 

Well here we are in the quarter finals with, I would say,  a 50/50 shot of hitting the semis.

Anyone feel free to tell me how that can be anything other than good progress. All with the 3rd youngest team in the tournament too.

Are we world beaters? No. Do we play awesome flowing, attacking football? No. Does our defence look rock solid? No.

Regardless, the team still looks better than it has in decades.

I don't think anyone has a problem with people critiquing the flaws with this squad. They are certainly plentiful. 

But the folk pouring negativety on this current campaign are speaking volumes about there general character IMO.

Let's just say when I'm at a house party, and you guys are in the living room, you'll find me in the kitchen. And visa versa.

Life is full of enough bullshit and misery as it is, so I tend not to associate myself with folk who somehow manage to unearth gloom from what is a rare glimpse of positivity on the sporting front for this country. 

13 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Why? He made a deliberate choice to avoid Brazil in the QF and took the risk of playing a  much harder last 16 tie. If you gave me the same choice again I still Wouldn't do it.

He got away with it just about but having gone down that route has to see the job through now

I think you should start supporting a different country as your hearts clearly not in it. 

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Would you want Southgate in charge of Rovers? I Wouldn't. His only attribute is he is a bland FA yes man who will never say anything controversial or ruffle any feathers and from the FA's point of view was the ideal man to come in and pour oil on troubled waters after the big Sam scandal.

Sorry, but that wasn't a recommendation,  way to avoid the question.

I wasn't in full support when Southgate got the job, but the way he and his team have conducted themselves, both on and off the pitch, over the last few months has won my support in a big way.

Will it fall flat tomorrow night, or over the next few weeks,  well we shall see.

But Southgate has made some big balls decisions, and to still be calling him a yes man at this stage is pretty unfounded.

Here's one for you, I bet if Sam was in charge Rooney would still be on the roster. Sam is the ultimate pleaser of heirachy,  he just unfortunately for him committed the ultimate sin, publicly embarrassing the FA. There's no coming back from that. 

Southgate seems to me like a man playing the cards in front him, i.e. all in and either hero or bust. Whereas Sam would hav still been playing "the percentages " at this point.

Something in this World Cup in particular is not the road to go down. 

9 minutes ago, Husky said:

One for the VAR lovers:

Are you still in love after this shambles?

 

What shambles?

Walkers was a 50/50, unlucky it happens,  and he was in an awful body position. 

One of Kane's he had his arm round the defenders throat too.

The rugby tackle to the ground, yeah was blatant. 

But it's strange how the folk that hate VAR are now the ones wanting every single decision scrutised at length. 

The game generally flowed tonight, wasn't broken up by technology, and we had the odd decision not go our way. Thems still the breaks. Just as it was before. 

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

...... but best of luck to ye anyway 

?

No doubt.  ?

27 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

 

Saudi Arabia were poor physically and fitness wise, but at least they tried to play football. 

I thought they looked all right against Germany other night. Played some nice stuff,  and knocked it about well. 

But wow, today was garbage.

Maybe I was fooled between friendly and competitive.  Personally,  reckoned today would be 0-0 or 1-1 draw.

With some fun gambling due to commence over the next month, good to see me laser accurate as per. 

32 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Not at all, but it just seemed to be a better idea to discuss rather than simply laugh at someone’s post. Note likely to wind people up in my view, especially when it wasn’t intended as a a joke...

Leave him to it Khod.

Him, and the rest of the bitter home nations, can sit in their houses spouting crap like this for the next month:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/sport/soccer/world-cup/duff-englands-players-are-not-as-passionate-as-irelands-36985359.html

I mean FFS Damien, give your head a wobble, chatting about would players "take a bullet".

What a clown.  

38 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Colin Murray a multimillionaire? Really?

Easy.

He started on Radio One in 1999.

2 decades in the top level of tv and radio. 

I think you'd be surprised, multi millionaire is probably a modest description.  

On 11/06/2018 at 11:27, Mattyblue said:

He had a good gig with talksport, yet they didn’t renew his contract.

So, something obviously went on and acting unhinged on social media since isn’t going to get him another one.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/pcc-rejects-complaint-stan-collymore-over-sun-i-only-hit-her-open-hand-story/

I think the issue was Talksport was bought out by the company that owns The Sun newspaper. 

And since he had been in some legal battles with the paper as in the link, clearly his contract was never going to be renewed. 

It's also the reason that Colin Murray quit immediately, because as a Liverpool fan he refused to take paychecks from a company related to The Sun. Which I kind of respect him for, but to be fair, it's a lot easier to be picking and choosing jobs on moral grounds when you're a multi-millionaire. Don't think a lot of the rest of us have that luxury. 

7 hours ago, sympatheticclaret said:

Unfortunately, some on here are about as conversant with a set of accounts as I am with the intricacies of Ball Room dancing ! 

Come on a rival clubs messageboard,  patronise the members by making sweeping statements about their level of business acumen, all whilst also lauding their much maligned owners as some bastions of high level investment that the fans should be eternally grateful for. 

Somehow managing to ignore the gross mismanagement and decade of decline that has occurred, the total lack of communication and disdain shown to the long serving fanbase. A tale of such rank bad ownership that even hacks in the most southern based media organisations - (who generally have their heads so far up their own arses they barely mention clubs outside of the Top 6 or London) - use it as a moniker to describe potential disasters and warnings for other clubs. "Careful what you wish for, let's hope they don't do a Venky's".

Yep, seems like a hotpot of ingredients, well mixed together and served up that is guaranteed to ensure you are met with a warm reception. ?

But perhaps you are the only one that can see the true picture. It must be us Rovers fans and every semi-intelligent neutral in the footballing world that has got things backwards. Hey ho, if only we could all be as "conversant" with things as you. 

18 minutes ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

 

Think I might've posted something similar a few pages back,. so sorry for drowning on about it, but I genuinely dread this becoming a permanent fixture in English football. 

 

I'm not a huge fan of it myself, although I would like to see game deciding clangers eradicated somehow.

But I'm sorry to say it's coming wheher you like it or not. Can't see anyway it can be stopped now.

So, I'm just trying to look at options to make it better,  cos I too worry it could be damaging to the game in it's current form.

Have to say though,  all those people saying they're happy to take bad decisions on the chin - will you still stick to that if we end up getting a howler of a penalty decision in 89th min of playoff final to keep us in League 1 another season?! 

Just now, S8 & Blue said:

... and still it is a subjective decision to even go to the screens - 

That's what I'm trying to solve.

I feel like the refs hav their heads up their arses at moment.

And I don't blame them. For all the stick we give them, fact is refereeing a top level game is a very hard job to do, and now their heads are full of - should I be checking this, should I hav reviewed that? 

It must be a frigging nightmare with everything else they're trying to keep an eye on.

My way leaves them to carry on as normal, and referee the match to the best of their ability, and a couple of times a match their decisions might get contested, and a final decision will be fed to them. 

Just now, Admiral Nelsen said:

....which is that it simply takes all the joy out of the act of scoring,

I totally get this sentiment and I'm with you. Has killed the atmosphere recently.

But with my way with no offsides, a goal could only be challenged for a foul - so maybe a handball before scoring, or a foul in immediate build up of play- and how often do those happen.

And again,  if a manager takes the piss with it, they would be punished.

Not saying it wouldn't occasionally kill the atmosphere of scoring, but still think it would be minimal.

And a perfect example, Henry's goal would have been chalked off and Ireland would have gone to the World Cup. Or was it Euro?

Anyway,  that decision would have took about 15 seconds. 

4 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

 

Unnecessary complication and fanny on for what reason?

To stop managers and armchair fans whinging? Too much money at stake in the big games? Is it for a sponsorship revenue stream? 

 

To stop bad decisions and make the game fairer. 

Particularly game changing decisions.

For all the stick it gets recently it can actually work.  

Was watching an MLS game this last week where a stupid penalty was given by lino flagging. Sliding tackle in box, bounced up off defenders knee onto his hand by accident.  But obviously,  ref had to take linos word.

Went to VAR, took about 30 secs , penalty overturned, game back on. 

Don't we all want errors like that stamped out?

15 hours ago, S8 & Blue said:

 

I’ll take the title of Luddite proudly, I hate VAR with every fibre of my being.

I'm not sure VAR is the issue, it's the incompetent morons in the hierarchy of football that seem incapable of implementing it. 

It's not a popular view, but I would be a fan of giving managers 2 challenges per game (red cards, yellow cards, penalties, goal reviews for fouls - not offsides as it's become a mess. Just stick with lino decisions, you'll win some, lose some. )

This takes it totally out the hands of the officials who are clearly struggling to decide when and when not to use it. And you generally don't get more than 2 contentious decisions against you in a game.

The main  argument I have heard against this is managers abusing it. i.e. Mourinho challenging a blatant yellow in 89th min of game to break up the flow and get to have a sideline chat with players.

Easily resolved for me. Have a Monday panel, and if they decide a manager has abused it VAR challenge privileges revoked for 1 game.  Do it again in a season, revoked for 2 games etc etc.

Once a team has a dodgy penalty and/or red given against them in a game and they're powerless to challenge it, they'll soon learn not to abuse the system. 

Edit- Oh, and after the challenge the VAR makes the decision. None of this ridiculous running to side of pitch to look at a monitor.

Manager challenges, ref signals VAR so fans know. Minute later decision comes back, ref signals it, game moves on.  

The spring Aussie sponsored blubathon is really gathering speed now with Warners press conference.  

It shed a lot of light on the situation and I'm impressed with their forthrightness and honesty now they've been found out. 

Who's idea was it? No answer

Was anyone else involved? No answer

Has it happened before? No answer

Repeats "I'm here to take responsibility for my part in what happened on day three of the Capetown Test" about 35 times. 

Then scurries out the room like a rat deserting a sinking ship. 

Bravo. Really nailed that PR exercise David. 

You know what would actually be taking "full responsibility" for their actions, is for one of these clowns to stop balling for 5 mins and tell everyone the truth. Novel idea I know, but I'm very progressionilist me. 

2 hours ago, dave birch said:

 

It could be said that Smith has been a "fool", and therefore should be penalised less.

 

Don't get me wrong, These guys got what they deserved, 

You're making me dizzy. How about picking a standpoint and sticking to it. 

If you want to try and defend the indefensible,  then grow some balls and crack on. 

Cos at the moment your mealy mouthed fence sitting, and dragging up mainly irrelevant anecdotes from years/decades ago is appearing very weak and contributing nothing to further the debate. 

Just for the record, these are the guys I'm supposed to feeling sorry for right?!

Multi millionaires that drive supercars and live in beachside mansions. 

And no, that's not me being jealous of their wealth. It's the point that with this great wealth comes a certain level of responsibility. That's why you're getting paid the big bucks in the first place.

To play for arguably the most famous cricket team in the World, to be an ambassador for your country, and an example to millions of young kids that idolise you. As well as fulfilling certain obligations to multi-million pound sponsors that help fund the lifestyle you now have the benefit of living. 

So, when all that comes crashing down because of your own stupid actions, then sympathy is not what I feel these fellas really deserve. You've got to take the rough with the smooth in life. And they've been having it very smooth for a very long time. 

Unrelated, the same goes for Ant McPartlin and the outpouring of sympathy that has come out for him in recent weeks. 

Yes, he seems to be having a rough time, both with his family life, and certain addictions. But, after the privileged life he's benefited from over the last few decades, to get in a car and drink drive putting a family and young child's life in danger, is a grave error of judgment that he is going to be rightly severely punished for- both criminally, financially, and reputation wise. And he has no-one to blame but himself for all that. 

Why I should feel sympathy for any of these people is mystifying to me. 

But perhaps I'm not a very caring person in life and need to re-evaluate. It's going to take some convincing for that though. 

37 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Upset at seeing Smith and Bancroft so upset on TV. 

Yeah, me too. 

It's gonna proper ruin my Bank Holiday that! 

That bottle of plonk is going to taste a bit sour.....

Bancroft just been dropped for summer by Somerset too. 

9 minutes ago, den said:

I feel for him on a personal level, yes. 

Lehmann is gone as well now.

Well you'v got a big heart then den, good on you.

Think I'll stick to being a xenophobic, vindictive git thanks.  ?