England Vs Wales - Your predictions

Post by **Don Carlos** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:10 pm

bag0shite wrote:Unconvincing victory, but 3 points will do nicely.

w3rd

Wales played well
England didnt like being under pressure

Post by **bag0shite** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:23 pm

Go beat the fucking Poles

Post by **horton** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:32 pm

blood.angel wrote:
Pauly wrote:The nation of fatties would thrash you 20-0
So.
The nation of fatties are better than you at the minute and football isnt even in their top three sports played.

no they are ranked higher due to the shitty teams they play against.
let them play in europe and see how well they do against england,spain,italy,portugal,holland,germany,etc

Post by **losCHUNK** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 5:49 pm

not happy but GG wales... wouldve loved to of gone to see it

**looks at DC**

Post by **Grudge** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 5:54 pm

Sweden - Bulgaria: 3-0

Post by **losCHUNK** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 5:58 pm

neg, by the looks of shit england shouldve been up 3+ goals, a lot of the welsh players were no names and for a team which isnt to good at the best of times, england done shit

and at the end of the day... thats all that matters

Post by **seremtan** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:32 pm

blood.angel wrote:
seremtan wrote:i'm not afraid to admit that england are ranked 7th in the world. your definition of shite is an interesting one
Please, the US is ranked higher than England.

which could either be because they play a lot of pants sides or because they are actually quite good. and if 7th out of 200 national teams strikes you as indicative of shiteness then like i said, your definition of shite is interesting

Post by **Don Carlos** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:04 pm

Memphis wrote:Was this really even worth discussing?
Not like the outcome wasn't blatently obvious

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

Post by **blood.angel** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:11 pm

seremtan wrote:
blood.angel wrote:
seremtan wrote:i'm not afraid to admit that england are ranked 7th in the world. your definition of shite is an interesting one
Please, the US is ranked higher than England.
which could either be because they play a lot of pants sides or because they are actually quite good. and if 7th out of 200 national teams strikes you as indicative of shiteness then like i said, your definition of shite is interesting

So wait, you use the 'they are 7th in the rankings nyah' post and then say 'a team that is high in the rankings is either good or played a lot of shit teams' (which coincidentally is why I brought up the US is higher than England to nullify your 7th ranking response and all youve done is pointed out the obvious you fucking retard - you too horton) so you admit that the ranking system and the intial remark about them being 7th isnt worth shit?
Thanks for owning yourself, saved me the trouble.

Post by **Pauly** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:29 pm

blood.angel is such a bitter little irishman. Underneath all that bitterness it's so clearly obvious that he would love to be an American

Come on man, Ireland can't be THAT bad

Post by **seremtan** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:02 pm

blood.angel wrote:
seremtan wrote:
blood.angel wrote: Please, the US is ranked higher than England.
which could either be because they play a lot of pants sides or because they are actually quite good. and if 7th out of 200 national teams strikes you as indicative of shiteness then like i said, your definition of shite is interesting
So wait, you use the 'they are 7th in the rankings nyah' post and then say 'a team that is high in the rankings is either good or played a lot of shit teams' (which coincidentally is why I brought up the US is higher than England to nullify your 7th ranking response and all youve done is pointed out the obvious you fucking retard - you too horton) so you admit that the ranking system and the intial remark about them being 7th isnt worth shit?
Thanks for owning yourself, saved me the trouble.

someone else said the US had played a bunch of shit teams. since i don't actually follow the USA's match schedule i took their word for it.

btw there's nothing wrong with the ranking system. i think we've been thru this before on an earlier thread. you can still rank well even playing less-than-excellent sides, especially if they are competitve games, and since US would be playing those mighty footballing giants canada and mexico along with a bunch of little central american sides, it's not surprising they've climbed high in the rankings. you seem to have decided in advance that the USA are shit (on the basis of zero evidence) therefore if they rank 6th according to FIFA then FIFA must be idiots. remove that assumption and your whole house of potatoes comes crashing down

Post by **Don Carlos** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:15 pm

Memphis wrote:
Don Carlos wrote:
Memphis wrote:Was this really even worth discussing?
Not like the outcome wasn't blatently obvious
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
glad you're so entertained

you trolling little runt

You didn't even understand the point of my post

Again

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Post by **Pauly** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:26 pm

Did you 2 have a falling out or something? If so, keep it in the bedroom.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:43 pm

i played soccer today. we thumped the our brazilian superstar opponents 10-2 :lol:

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:33 am

indeed

so england won 1-0

did anyone see the game?

Post by **seremtan** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:16 am

only people who sucked rupert murdoch's dirty australian cock got to watch the game on TV

Post by **Don Carlos** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:37 am

Memphis wrote:
Pauly wrote:Did you 2 have a falling out or something? If so, keep it in the bedroom.
naa

he's just bitter I took the piss out of his piggy bank

*kiss*