New away kit?

[forameus]

39 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

If you believe their media sure.  In my lifetime they've always been a quarter final team and always gone out in the quarter finals.  Bang on the money.

Yeah, they've always gone out in the quarter finals.  Except the 15 times in 19 tournaments since 1980 when they didn't.  

In fact, if you bring it further back - because, I assume when you say "your lifetime" that it's quite far back given all those things you've definitely done in said life, like meeting the Pope, going into space, and punching out Ali - since 1950 they've gone out in the quarter finals 7 times (out of 30),  If you're going to generous and include any time they've progressed beyond, then it's only another 3.

In fact, in that time, they've failed to qualify more often (8) than they've gone out in the quarter finals (7), and have failed to reach any knockout match the same amount (7).  So aye, "quarter final team".

[Peppino Impastato]

2 minutes ago, forameus said:

Yeah, they've always gone out in the quarter finals.  Except the 15 times in 19 tournaments since 1980 when they didn't.  

In fact, if you bring it further back - because, I assume when you say "your lifetime" that it's quite far back given all those things you've definitely done in said life, like meeting the Pope, going into space, and punching out Ali - since 1950 they've gone out in the quarter finals 7 times (out of 30),  If you're going to generous and include any time they've progressed beyond, then it's only another 3.

In fact, in that time, they've failed to qualify more often (8) than they've gone out in the quarter finals (7), and have failed to reach any knockout match the same amount (7).  So aye, "quarter final team".

Aye at a push.  Going out in the last sixteen isn't really underachieving either in a lot of cases.  If they're the world's biggest underachievers list the times they've underachieved, there must be quite a few and they must be pretty glaring.

[forameus]

Just now, Peppino Impastato said:

Aye at a push.  Going out in the last sixteen isn't really underachieving either in a lot of cases.  If they're the world's biggest underachievers list the times they've underachieved, there must be quite a few and they must be pretty glaring.

So you're just glossing over you saying something completely incorrect then?  Fair enough, usually you'd try and battle through it to the point of tedium, maybe you're growing up.

They've underachieved.  Maybe not the biggest in world football as stated, but to a considerable degree.  The only reason they were in a position to get ridden by Germany was because of how badly they played in the Group Stage.  They were then even worse in 2014.  In 2008 they didn't qualify, 2012 they probably did about as well as expected, but still weren't great.  2016, like 2010, shouldn't have seen them play Iceland as they should have topped the group.  Their only win was a smash-and-grab against Wales, and I'd imagine they would have preferred to play Northern Ireland rather than Iceland.  

Bottom line, they've underachieved considerably.  You were only partially right in that they should be a consistent quarter final team.  Which they haven't ever been..

[Peppino Impastato]

27 minutes ago, forameus said:

So you're just glossing over you saying something completely incorrect then?  Fair enough, usually you'd try and battle through it to the point of tedium, maybe you're growing up.

They've underachieved.  Maybe not the biggest in world football as stated, but to a considerable degree.  The only reason they were in a position to get ridden by Germany was because of how badly they played in the Group Stage.  They were then even worse in 2014.  In 2008 they didn't qualify, 2012 they probably did about as well as expected, but still weren't great.  2016, like 2010, shouldn't have seen them play Iceland as they should have topped the group.  Their only win was a smash-and-grab against Wales, and I'd imagine they would have preferred to play Northern Ireland rather than Iceland.  

Bottom line, they've underachieved considerably.  You were only partially right in that they should be a consistent quarter final team.  Which they haven't ever been..

You wouldn't make a great lawyer.  You've just given examples of them doing very average.  You'll need to explain why that's underachieving. I would say they've usually been a very average team.  So not underachieving. 

[Peppino Impastato]

I mean you list about five tournaments in a row where they did pretty shit.  Does that not tell you something?  Maybe they're just not very good

[forameus]

6 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

You wouldn't make a great lawyer.  You've just given examples of them doing very average.  You'll need to explain why that's underachieving. I would say they've usually been a very average team.  So not underachieving. 

Maybe I could just pretend I'm a lawyer.  Seems to work for you.

5 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

I mean you list about five tournaments in a row where they did pretty shit.  Does that not tell you something?  Maybe they're just not very good

So which is it?  Are they a nailed on quarter final team (that is, in the top 8 of either the World or Europe) or are they just not very good?  You're all over the place with this.

[The Moonster]

10 minutes ago, forameus said:

You're all over the place with this.

I'd argue he's all over the place with everything tbh.

[Peppino Impastato]

15 minutes ago, forameus said:

Maybe I could just pretend I'm a lawyer.  Seems to work for you.

So which is it?  Are they a nailed on quarter final team (that is, in the top 8 of either the World or Europe) or are they just not very good?  You're all over the place with this.

That is not very good champ.

You say they have massively underachieved, so explain why they should have achieved more.  All ears champ.

[forameus]

5 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

That is not very good champ.

You say they have massively underachieved, so explain why they should have achieved more.  All ears champ.

Champ is reeeeeeally pish patter.

Quote me where I said "massively".  I specifically said that I didn't agree with whoever said they were one of the biggest underachievers in world football, and then said they were considerable underachievers.  A nation of their size, their resources, and with football being as important as it is, should not struggle to reach the knockout stages of every tournament they enter.  And they used to.  For a 20 year spell, they did that at World Cups, with a few poor performances at European Championships mixed in.  I told you the tournaments they underachieved at with examples of why.

As for their ultimate level, they're a side probably just outside of the top tier.  They should consistently make it to the knockout stages of tournaments at a minimum, and with good draws could well reach quarter or semi finals.  So by that definition, they've underachieved at a little under half of the tournaments they've been involved in.  

What is actually your point by the way?  You dived in with "England are a quarter final team", suggesting they're in the top 8 of nations quite literally, and now you're saying they're shite and the poor performance at tournaments I've given you is proof they're exactly where they should be.  

[Peppino Impastato]

9 minutes ago, forameus said:

Champ is reeeeeeally pish patter.

Quote me where I said "massively".  I specifically said that I didn't agree with whoever said they were one of the biggest underachievers in world football, and then said they were considerable underachievers.  A nation of their size, their resources, and with football being as important as it is, should not struggle to reach the knockout stages of every tournament they enter.  And they used to.  For a 20 year spell, they did that at World Cups, with a few poor performances at European Championships mixed in.  I told you the tournaments they underachieved at with examples of why.

As for their ultimate level, they're a side probably just outside of the top tier.  They should consistently make it to the knockout stages of tournaments at a minimum, and with good draws could well reach quarter or semi finals.  So by that definition, they've underachieved at a little under half of the tournaments they've been involved in.  

What is actually your point by the way?  You dived in with "England are a quarter final team", suggesting they're in the top 8 of nations quite literally, and now you're saying they're shite and the poor performance at tournaments I've given you is proof they're exactly where they should be.  

Ypu still havent uttered a single word to even attempt to explain why they underachieve.  When you learn to read something, comprehend it and form a coherent relevant response get back to me.

[forameus]

That really is something...bet you got a tiny wee stauner posting that.

Anyway, moving on to people that aren't thick as mince.  Don't they usually stagger the releases of kits?  They've only just brought out the new home one, so wouldn't expect the away for a while.  They can get far more mileage out of breathless morons talking about pink yet.

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

If you believe their media sure.  In my lifetime they've always been a quarter final team and always gone out in the quarter finals.  Bang on the money.

That sounds somewhat self-fulfilling.

England has done worse than every other large western European country.

It's actually staggering that they've only got as far as the semi-finals in three tournaments, two of them at home.  Compare that to anywhere else comparable, and they come up way short.  It used to be possible to point to something similar with Spain, but the last decade has changed that.  

A massive underachiever, given the size of the population alongside an unrivalled football heritage.  

[Peppino Impastato]

15 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That sounds somewhat self-fulfilling.

England has done worse than every other large western European country.

It's actually staggering that they've only got as far as the semi-finals in three tournaments, two of them at home.  Compare that to anywhere else comparable, and they come up way short.  It used to be possible to point to something similar with Spain, but the last decade has changed that.  

A massive underachiever, given the size of the population alongside an unrivalled football heritage.  

You've still not explained why that's underachieving.  Why does football heritage matter). I thought good players won tournaments not heritage.

[Monkey Tennis]

22 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

You've still not explained why that's underachieving.  Why does football heritage matter). I thought good players won tournaments not heritage.

Countries with a deeply embedded football culture tend to produce good players.

I wouldn't have thought that was difficult to grasp.

[Gordopolis]

Ffs I totally forgot this thread was about kits [emoji23]
Tedious Maximus.

[Peppino Impastato]

25 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Countries with a deeply embedded football culture tend to produce good players.

I wouldn't have thought that was difficult to grasp.

Do they?  Like Scotland?  Or Hungary or Poland or Saudi Arabia or Mexico?  The only way you can possibly make any case is by saying the players they had at any given time should have done better and this happened consistently.  I can't remember too many times myself.

[Monkey Tennis]

30 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

Do they?  Like Scotland?  Or Hungary or Poland or Saudi Arabia or Mexico?  The only way you can possibly make any case is by saying the players they had at any given time should have done better and this happened consistently.  I can't remember too many times myself.

Well yes.

Each of these countries has indeed produced some top players.

England is a large, wealthy country with a hugely successful club game that long predates the EPL circus.  No comparable country has achieved anything like as little.

[Peppino Impastato]

16 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Well yes.

Each of these countries has indeed produced some top players.

England is a large, wealthy country with a hugely successful club game that long predates the EPL circus.  No comparable country has achieved anything like as little.

Maybe that's cause they have generally been not very good.  You still haven't even touched on whether they've underachieved.  Explain why they should have achieved more.

[skippy2015]

Y
Yyyy


T
Tv
Ttttt

[forameus]

2 minutes ago, skippy2015 said:

Y
Yyyy


T
Tv
Ttttt

Still better than Pep's posts.