You gotta see this!

[dark_horse]

If you have not got a chance to see the comedy displayed by England, you must see this (at track time 1:24). :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

REZILI!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nka7Fl75nzM...hts%20Qualifier

[evalagoal]

I have to say though to Englands defense that Robinson is a damn good goalie...

I felt sorry for that guy because he's damn good...

Now as far as the other "PRe-Madonnas" they are gayer than gay...

BRAVO SWEEDEN

[greekgod690]

as good as it was 2 c england lose i felt sorry for robinson cuz it wasnt his fault the ball skiped right before he was about 2 hit the ball

[TheCity1924]

Kseftila!!! The Brits started out strong under McClaren but they seemed to fade off. What happened to these guys? Maybe the captain isnt doing it for the team.

[DUDE]

Kseftila!!! The Brits started out strong under McClaren but they seemed to fade off. What happened to these guys? Maybe the captain isnt doing it for the team.

They are just showing their true colours! Simple as that. I don't think they did start well. I mean let's just consider their games.

Game 1: Greece at Old Trafford.

Greece really did approach this as a friendly, there was no real intent/passion in the teams play and players like Antzas were in the team and an unfit Dellas. Fyssas was also injured and Seitaridis missing, so a team that relies on its solid defence (backline) had 3 defenders missing and the other unfit! Also, 3 of the 4 goals were Antzas' fault. Now I'm not excusing Greece's performance, I'm merely saying that Greece was not at full strength and approached the game as a friendly (and this while being in a transitional period). On the other hand, it was McClaren's first game in charge and he'd just dropped Beckham (the captain) so ALL the players know their place isn't guarunteed and they have to prove their worth. So England approached it like a full international. Once Kyriakos, Basinas, Amanatidis and Salpi came on and played with a bit more passion what did England do? Of course there's the argument to say at 4-0 up they didnt need to do much more and thats true, but still, we're not just talking of passion, their movement of the ball wasn't good either.

Game 2: Andorra at Old Trafford.

Andorra have won 1 game in 47 international matches!!! What is that? One in 5 years? 10? 15? I don't know but it reflects their ability. Cyprus would smash 5 past these guys so England doing it means nothing.

Game 3: Skopje away.

This is their one good result! 1-0 away is always a good result but they scored a goal that barely crossed the line and offered little else the rest of the game, i.e. they didnt really deserve to win.

Game 4: Skopje at Old Trafford.

They drew 0-0 and should have lost, they were outpassed, out thought, and out fought. Pathetic display.

Game 5: Croatia away.

Lost 2-0 and deserved to lose. The Croats scored both goals in the second half but they should have been at least 2 up in the first too.

England have nothing from a technical level. The English school of football awalys produces good goalkeepers and players who are very fit. They use these attributes well by playing at a high tempo and getting lots of crosses into the box. They are also very good at teaching midfielder to make late surging runs into the box, so they provide a huge threat from that. When they play a disorganised team where its raining crosses they blow them away, hence the reason they batter small teams with poor defences. HOWEVER... when they play a side that can handle crosses, plus they can keep possession (i.e. Portugal) the Portuguese nullify their fitness because the let the ball do the work instead of entering a midfield scrap, hence the reason Portugal always beat England. And it isnt just Portugal, the reason England always go out in the quarters is because its the first time they play a decent side that can keep the ball. MARK MY WORDS... England may not qualify for Euro 2008. They will lose in Russia away and may drop points against any of Croatia, Russia and Israle at home.