Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I hope you're right Citizen. A result like that would certainly have me leaping around the living room with joy. Unfortunately I have to work late tonight and will only get home in time for the second half but I still feel that it is potentially the biggest banana skin for us so far in the competition. Basically it's shit or bust so I'll be watching with fingers crossed and buttocks clenched from behind the sofa.
I would have thought England will comfortably get a result tonight. Croatia won't be playing with the handbrake off and the sense of needing a result should mean England's players will be up for it (as opposed to SAYING they are up for it which is what they usually do)

Having watched the first few minutes, I smoked a joint. Have never found a game of football so funny!


Ian Wright got it spot on after the match, England didn't deserve to go through on what they did throughout the campaign. We were handed a chance, that we didn't deserve, on a plate, and still couldn't muster a performance!


I was full of affection for Beckham last night, because his old legs were still trying, and like so many times before, he was one of the only ones that looked like he really really cared!

Thought Croutch could hold his head up too, he even looked okay in the first half, but got nothing from his team mates.

It pains me to say it, but Stevie G was a bit shit.


I refuse to lay the blame with Carson, if it wasn't for him, we would have lost by a landslide. Just hope he comes through this because he's a better keeper than Robinson.

>>Oh well, only a game of footie. Nobody died<<



Tsk! Go and wash your mouth out. :)) As the venerable and wise sage St William of Anfield famously decreed..."Football is not a matter of life and death - it is far more important than that".


I had high hopes of us winning the whole thing had we scraped through last night, on the ground that mediocre teams can win the Euro....see Greece last time out for example. Croatia played better than us in both games. The only bit of real class last night from England was Beckham's cross and Crouch's finish...


Anyway, spilt milk etc...

I predicted this result...well 1-2 actually but wasn't far off was I. Most people when they're sacked get f**k all but McLaren walks away with two and a half million quid for failure. Nice work if you can get it.

I wasn't confident about this match before last night but when I saw the formation we were going to deploy I knew we were doomed.

We're playing home and we need a result and he plays one man up front on his own. Doesn't inspire confidence does it. Lampard & Gerrard can't play together, we've known that for ages. I thought it was Gerrard's worse performance in an England shirt but he wasn't the only one. We were rubbish throughout most of this tournament and got what we deserved. F**k all! Apart from McLaren that is, who has trousered a nice big fat cheque.

What did the FA honestly expect from a manager who was their fourth choice, and was a rubbish club manager. Having said that only Crouch came away with a scrap of credit for the way he performed last night. The others looked less than average. As Jah said, it's a must win game and we play one up front, and that is a guy who, let's face it, would not get into many sides in the prem.

One up front, and you leave the only man with a hope of feeding him on the bench! I know Beckham needed to be fitter, but at least he could have put a cross on Croutches head!


I thought Darren Bent did very very well in making that chance for himself towards the end, I know he didn't score, but most people wouldn't have got a touch on the ball let alone a shot! I know spurs are struggling, but I really do like Bent, and think he may have a future...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • A lovely bit of writing, which perfectly captures that strange world. I know few men undamaged by public boarding school. 
    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...