[Archived] More Passion For England Than Brfc

[RevidgeBlue]

Anyone thinking I am suggesting people should be more reserved for England, or that if you support England more you're not as good a Roveers fan etc is entirely missing the point. What everyone does is entirely up to them.

I was merely observing the level to which people seem to have got frothed up compared to club football.

I am fascinated by Johnny H's academic explanation. Must just be me then.

Nothing would possess me to purchase an England rugby shirt, and sit in the pub watching the rugby world cup because I DON'T LIKE RUGBY. All power to those that do though.

Simple as that. Patriotism doesn't even come into it.

[LeChuck]

Anyone thinking I am suggesting people should be more reserved for England, or that if you support England more you're not as good a Roveers fan etc is entirely missing the point. What everyone does is entirely up to them.

My post wasn't aimed at you if that's what that is referring to.

[JonnyH]

I am fascinated by Johnny H's academic explanation. Must just be me then.

Simple as that. Patriotism doesn't even come into it.

You may mock my "academic response" to your point. I made my point of view known and I make no apologies for my tone. If your an academic basher that's your bag. I however stand by my completely valid view point and it seems to be mirrored by many on this site.

I have no issue with you and your views but I don't expect to be dismissed merely on the fact that many of my points are based in academia rather than a Blackburn lad point of view. I am from Blackburn, I love my team and my country yet you dismiss my argument because I balance my argument with what I've learnt outside b'burn town centre.

And to completely counteract your point, PATRIOTISM has everything to do with it. Please see my earlier post. And I think that I've earnt enough respect not to be patronised like that. I look forward to a reasonable,valid debate in the future.

With respect

JonnyH

PS: I apologise my dismissive sentence of "pointless thread", although I stand by my balanced support theory and my previous posts. It was wrong however to dismiss an argument. (Happy Don? )

[jim mk2]

For once, Revidge is way off beam on this thread.

Perhaps in his own little cocooned RoverWorld, the concept of patriotism and the country desperate for England success after 40 barren years has not reached his consciousness.

[AllRoverAsia]

Rovers is like loving the wife

England is like loving the Monther in Law

MA Hons - Uol SoHD

[78]

Anyone thinking I am suggesting people should be more reserved for England, or that if you support England more you're not as good a Roveers fan etc is entirely missing the point. What everyone does is entirely up to them.

I was merely observing the level to which people seem to have got frothed up compared to club football.

I am fascinated by Johnny H's academic explanation. Must just be me then.

Nothing would possess me to purchase an England rugby shirt, and sit in the pub watching the rugby world cup because I DON'T LIKE RUGBY. All power to those that do though.

Simple as that. Patriotism doesn't even come into it.

Comparing it to you watching rugby isn't the same.

Football is the biggest sport in the world. It's much easier to get into football then it is to watch any other sport, especially rugby or even cricket. The reason is one of the biggest sports in the world is mainly because it's not a complicated sport with complicated rules (excluding the new interpretation of the offside law) and everyone has played it at some stage in life.

My aunt is married to a dutch (and lives in the Netherlands) and shes never spoken about football eventhough she's close friends with Van Der Vaart's family but throughtout the Euro 2004- she's been emailling me and we've spoken a few times and I've been baffled by her knowledge of the game- I definitely underestimated her knowledge in footy. But I wouldn't be surprised after the tourno that she returns to her daily life and most likely wont talk about football until the next tournament.

[dave birch]

A national side, in any sport, winning is good for the national pride whether you follow the sort or not.

Without a doubt, it dose the country good.

Why would you knock the (new) followers? If just a few percent take up following the game, then you've got to be winning.

Edited June 26, 2004 by dave birch

[John]

Dont know why so many of you have time for Sven.

He is slimey pr**k who gets paid far too much. His calm manner must be inspiring for players especially when they are getting tired.

I dont trust the man and it doesnt surprise me that he has cheated on his wife to be Nancy. England should play more attractive football with the players they have got then at least they could go out for tournaments in style.

[sumps]

Dont know why so many of you have time for Sven.

He is slimey pr**k who gets paid far too much. His calm manner must be inspiring for players especially when they are getting tired.

I dont trust the man and it doesnt surprise me that he has cheated on his wife to be Nancy. England should play more attractive football with the players they have got then at least they could go out for tournaments in style.

What has cheating on his wife got to do with anything?

[John]

Can't trust the man. She is not his wife anyway, he will cheat again.

Anyway I would of stuck with Ulrika, her skin colour is not orange.

Edited June 26, 2004 by John

[sumps]

I'd say he's been fairly trustworthy, only three competitive losses, not a bad record. I think he'll have got it right by the next World Cup.

And Ulrika is too thin.

[John]

His record looks good, but England havent actually come that close to winning anything.

Brazil with ten men, an average Portugal team, playing the lad Powell from Charlton.

Probably would of been Chelsea manager if there wasnt a photo of him walking into his house. Secret talks with Chelsea, but mind you the cash he gets paid for the England job I would probably stay for a bit as well.

[sumps]

A 10man Brazil team is still a strong team and even though his tactics for the Portugal game were wrong, you can't account for the referee to be so shocking!

[John]

Terry had his arm on the goalie, doesnt matter if he was looking at the ball.

Referee didnt have his best game, but England just didnt do enough to win the match, they offered no real attacking threat

Fact is he is on a long term lucrative contract, so it is too expensive to get rid of the long ball merchant.

Doesnt he realise that producing a boring team, who struggle to keep the ball is not going to win tournaments.

[RevidgeBlue]

I am fascinated by Johnny H's academic explanation. Must just be me then.

Simple as that. Patriotism doesn't even come into it.

You may mock my "academic response" to your point. I made my point of view known and I make no apologies for my tone. If your an academic basher that's your bag. I however stand by my completely valid view point and it seems to be mirrored by many on this site.

I have no issue with you and your views but I don't expect to be dismissed merely on the fact that many of my points are based in academia rather than a Blackburn lad point of view. I am from Blackburn, I love my team and my country yet you dismiss my argument because I balance my argument with what I've learnt outside b'burn town centre.

And to completely counteract your point, PATRIOTISM has everything to do with it. Please see my earlier post. And I think that I've earnt enough respect not to be patronised like that. I look forward to a reasonable,valid debate in the future.

With respect

JonnyH

PS: I apologise my dismissive sentence of "pointless thread", although I stand by my balanced support theory and my previous posts. It was wrong however to dismiss an argument. (Happy Don? )

What made you think I was mocking your post?

When I said I was "fascinated" by your post I was trying to be complimentary. I said it was an "academic" one as a matter of fact rather than intending it to be in a derogatory way. I thought it was an excellent explanation which answered my original question extremely well.

P.S. I have been to University and ventured outside B/Burn town centre in the dim and distant past myself you know.

I repeat, it must just me be who's at fault here as jim seems to think. I got togged up in a couple of new England tops to watch the games and wanted them to win as much as the next person.

What I couldn't do would be to do the same to watch an England team in a SPORT I DON'T LIKE.

That's why I was wondering originally if all these previous football indifferents must really have some latent interest in the sport which could be tapped to rovers benefit - as DB suggests

[sumps]

There was no link up between the midfield and strikers against Portugal, hence the long ball. I agree we didn't do enough to win the game, but the goal should have stood, the linesman even gave it! How could the referee have seen what was going on, he was on the edge of the area with players in front of him.

[John]

Bad decisions are part and parcel of football.

It wasnt just long ball in the Portugal game, it has been a trademark of Sven's England reign.

[sumps]

Is it not playing to the strengths of some of our best players? Before this tournament, Becks was thought as the best player in the side and so played to his strengths, which is picking out players on the other side of the pitch. Gerrad also has the ability to do this as well. Even though we didn't get through, England have improved under Sven, especially defensively. By 2006 I think we'll be serious contenders for once.

[John]

Wouldnt say Terry convinces me yet, but he will get better.

Also wouldnt say that marking at set pieces is the best. Even though there is only so much Sven can do in this. It is down to players concentration.

Cant just rely on Beckham as the only outlet, the amount of pointless long balls are not going to create much. Still takes a good free kick but thats about it. He is not the player he was, Ferguson realised that over a year ago. Sven would never have the guts to drop him or anyone else who he plays on reputation.

[JonnyH]

What made you think I was mocking your post?

When I said I was "fascinated" by your post I was trying to be complimentary. I said it was an "academic" one as a matter of fact rather than intending it to be in a derogatory way. I thought it was an excellent explanation which answered my original question extremely well.

In that case I apologise. I must have misunderstood your post.

It was 02:55 and I had been on the Carlsberg Export since 7pm. I'm amazed my post wasn't more like Blueboy's legendary efforts. But then again, I've always done my best writing whilst drunk. That's what 4 years at Uni teaches you.

[RevidgeBlue]

But then again, I've always done my best writing whilst drunk. That's what 4 years at Uni teaches you.

Ditto.

Nothing like getting in at 2a.m after a night on the lash and starting an essay to be handed in for 9a.m.

Or I thought so anyway. Many will probably disagree!

[joey_big_nose]

His record looks good, but England havent actually come that close to winning anything.

Brazil with ten men, an average Portugal team, playing the lad Powell from Charlton.

Probably would of been Chelsea manager if there wasnt a photo of him walking into his house. Secret talks with Chelsea, but mind you the cash he gets paid for the England job I would probably stay for a bit as well.

Your being way too hard on Sven IMHO, the guy is cautious but then Keegan was cavalier and he got a kicking. He has formed an excellent side by emphasising those qualities we are world leaders in- work rate, finishing, long range passing. Also he has taken risks, picking rooney was a massive risk due to his lack of club form and low goal tally.

He has a clear idea of how he wants England to play (in stark contrast to some of his predecessors!) and as the four years have worn on since his appointment we have steadily risen in the 'attractiveness' stakes. Some of the passing and link up play against Croatia was sublime, and we looked fairly decent in the first half against portugal.

There were, by common consensus, eight teams at least who could win the tournament at the start. That makes England at best have a one in eight chance of winning it, longer odds once you consider that in terms of personnel at least four of those teams had frankly better players. Even if we were fantastically,brilliant amazing and manged by Jesus Christ we would still never had more than a one in four chance of winning the whole thing. It is a sixteen horse race of a high quality after all.......

Sven needs to now get behind the team and turn them into a side which can dictate a game against top opposition and I believe he will. Naturally a defensive mided man he will of recognised that we now have the quality in the middle of the park to compete with the best sides. Our future essentially depends upon the full backs getting forward, a high defensive line and an attacking passing outlook- and this will be what Sven is aiming to do.

And to finish, who would you get in? McClaren, Bruce, Venables again? None of these would strike me as a definitive step forward.

[John]

I think Sven is not brave enough to change things around and he sometimes picks players on reputation not current form.

England sit back too much when they get into a lead, it is just a matter of time before quality international opposition get and a chance and take it. One thing that really baffles me is a constant use of long ball to give the ball back to the opposition. It is even stranger to deploy that tactic when Heskey is not playing.

As for replacment, I think Curbishley would do an excellent job.

[Paul]

Just catching up this thread. Revidge I understand exactly where you're coming from. Rovers is gut wrenching emotion....that's the difference

[jim mk2]

Just catching up this thread. Revidge I understand exactly where you're coming from. Rovers is gut wrenching emotion....that's the difference

Beaten by two France goals in the last two minutes; the agony and drama of another penalty shoot-out. How much gut-wrenching emotion do you want?

Looking back over the years, I've had far more kick-the-cat moments with England than I have with Rovers.

The problem with England is the hope, because it always promises to be fulfilled but never is. With Rovers, I do not expect to reach the promised land, so I am never disappointed.