Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 4:10 pm
w3rdbag0shite wrote:Unconvincing victory, but 3 points will do nicely.
Wales played well
England didnt like being under pressure
Your world is waiting...
https://quake3world.com/forum/
w3rdbag0shite wrote:Unconvincing victory, but 3 points will do nicely.
no they are ranked higher due to the shitty teams they play against.blood.angel wrote:So.Pauly wrote:The nation of fatties would thrash you 20-0
The nation of fatties are better than you at the minute and football isnt even in their top three sports played.
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 interestingblood.angel wrote:Please, the US is ranked higher than England.seremtan wrote:i'm not afraid to admit that england are ranked 7th in the world. your definition of shite is an interesting one
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHMemphis wrote:Was this really even worth discussing?
Not like the outcome wasn't blatently obvious
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?seremtan wrote: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 interestingblood.angel wrote:Please, the US is ranked higher than England.seremtan wrote:i'm not afraid to admit that england are ranked 7th in the world. your definition of shite is an interesting one
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.blood.angel wrote: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?seremtan wrote: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 interestingblood.angel wrote: Please, the US is ranked higher than England.
Thanks for owning yourself, saved me the trouble.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHMemphis wrote:glad you're so entertainedDon Carlos wrote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHMemphis wrote:Was this really even worth discussing?
Not like the outcome wasn't blatently obvious
you trolling little runt
You didn't even understand the point of my post
Again
*kiss*Memphis wrote:naaPauly wrote:Did you 2 have a falling out or something? If so, keep it in the bedroom.
he's just bitter I took the piss out of his piggy bank