| This is a great read. 00:44 - Nov 15 with 7589 views | Snipper |
wednesday november 15 2017
INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL
Why friendlies are hurting England’s World Cup hopes
Gareth Southgate’s side face another difficult group because the FA fails to exploit a loophole in Fifa’s ranking system, James Gheerbrant writes
In April 2013, an unsolicited email dropped into the general inbox of the Football Association. The message was from a Romanian computer programmer named Eduard Ranghiuc and it contained a number of dire warnings.
On no account, Ranghiuc urged, should England fulfil their commitment to play two friendly matches against Brazil and Ireland; if they absolutely had to play the matches, they should effectively scupper them by making more than the permitted six substitutions. Naturally, the FA ignored Ranghiuc’s email. Here is the thing, though: they really should not have.
What Ranghiuc had discovered was a loophole in the oft-criticised but nevertheless highly influential Fifa rankings. They work by awarding points to national teams for each match they play, with the number of points dependent on four factors: the result of the match; the strength of the opposing team; the strength of the opponent’s confederation; and crucially, the importance of the match. A friendly win earns you only 40 per cent of the points you get for beating the same team in tournament qualifying.
To rise up the rankings you don’t just have to play well; you have to play the system
As some teams play more matches than others, the ranking is based not on the total points earned, but the average points per match. The upshot, as Ranghiuc realised but the FA did not, is that playing friendlies, even if you win, lowers your average and hurts your ranking. That may not really matter, if it was not for the fact that Fifa uses the rankings to determine the seedings for the World Cup.
With two months to go before the seeds for the 2018 World Cup are decided, the rankings have a perhaps surprising look. Switzerland and Poland lie fourth and fifth respectively, in line to be seeded, while perennial major-tournament contenders France, Spain and Italy are below the waterline in 10th, 11th and 12th. England are one place further back. This inverting of the traditional hierarchy reflects, in part, the excellent recent form of Switzerland and Poland, two improving teams, and the inconsistencies of the traditional powers. But it also rewards and punishes something else entirely. In the past 12 months, Switzerland and Poland have played just one friendly apiece; England have played three, Spain and Italy four, and France five. To rise up the rankings, you do not just have to play well; you have to play the system.
Rewind to 2013. Sure enough, England pressed ahead with the friendlies, drawing with Brazil and Ireland, and subsequently playing another friendly against Scotland, which they won. These results fatefully lowered England’s average by 67 points. Had they not played them, England would have been ranked seventh at the cut-off date for the 2014 World Cup draw, high enough to earn a seeding. Instead they were ranked tenth and pitched into a hellish group from which they never emerged. In a world of marginal gains, this should probably have been enough to induce the blazers to rethink their pre-tournament planning. But, four years on, in the lead-up to next summer’s World Cup, England have once again shot themselves in the foot.
In the past ten months, England have played three friendlies: a 2-2 draw with Spain, a 1-0 defeat by Germany and a 3-2 defeat by France. (The rankings are weighted such that results in the past 12 months have a 100 per cent weighting, those in the previous 12 months have a 50 per cent weighting, then 30 per cent, then 20 per cent.) For these, they collected, respectively, 188.1, 0 and 0 points. It is worth noting, too, that defeats always count for nothing – you get no more credit for a narrow loss to Germany than you do for getting whooped 4-0 by Estonia.
Nothing is as damaging to your ranking as losing matches; and nothing is so unnecessarily damaging as losing friendlies. England’s points average for the past 12 months is 476.85; take out those friendly results and it would be 683.93. (And by the way, 476.85 is bad: England’s performances over the past 12 months have earned them less credit than Iran or the Democratic Republic of Congo.) With those extra 207.08 points, England would be ranked six places higher, in seventh, and in line for a World Cup seeding. Here’s the kicker, though: even if England had won all three of those matches – even if they had routed Spain, thrashed the world champions and humiliated the Euro 2016 runners-up with three consecutive Gary Cahill hat-tricks – their past-12-months average would only be 647.68, worse than if they had simply spent those three match-days sitting on the sofa.
The Fifa rankings reward nothing so much as strategic inactivity, and no-one has mastered the art quite like Switzerland. In the run-up to the 2014 World Cup, they vaulted up the rankings by submitting to a streamlined diet of three friendlies in the 12 months before the seeding cut-off, while hapless England gorged themselves on five. This time, the Swiss have doubled down. A low-key 1-0 win over Belarus in June is set to be their only friendly in the 12-month period before the seeds are determined in October. Likewise Poland, who restricted themselves to a solitary friendly against Slovenia in November last year.
With an overwhelming preponderance of competitive matches, their points averages for the past 12 months are huge: 854.72 and 798.08 respectively. Now let’s say the Swiss FA had decided to test their team with two additional friendlies – for example, against Croatia in November and Austria in March. Say they had beaten Austria and lost to Croatia: they would be 135.16 points worse off and five places lower in the rankings. Or say they had won both matches: they would be 74.44 points worse off, enough to drop them three places. The value of keeping your powder dry is enormous.
For an object lesson in this principle, the FA needs to look no further than just across Offa’s Dyke. In June 2014, after losing a friendly against Holland 2-0, Wales were ranked 41st in the world. Chris Coleman’s team then went 17 months without playing another friendly and jumped all the way up to eighth (earning themselves a top seeding for 2018 World Cup qualifying). Their results in that period were good if not spectacular – five wins and three draws – but a key factor was their calculated avoidance of average-killing friendlies.
Of course, that is an extreme approach and there are obvious benefits to be gained from playing friendlies. They provide managers with an opportunity to experiment with players and systems, and allow teams who do not face any real challenges in their qualifying group – a frequent complaint in England’s case – to test themselves against high-quality opposition before the rigours of a major tournament. For federations, they offer prestige and financial reward. There are good reasons why England may not want to go cold-turkey on friendlies. But with a little bit of planning, it is possible to get around this.
Xherdan Shaqiri and his Switzerland team-mates are on course for a top-seven ranking when the World Cup draw is made
Xherdan Shaqiri and his Switzerland team-mates are on course for a top-seven ranking when the World Cup draw is made
FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
If you want to test yourself against heavyweight opposition, the best time to schedule friendlies is after the seeding cut-off date – this should be easy to arrange, as it is also in the interest of opposing federations. The second-best time to play friendlies is more than 12 months before the cut-off date, when their weighting is halved and they are far less harmful – indeed, Switzerland lost three consecutive friendlies between March and May of last year without significantly damaging their prospects of being seeded. The key is to minimise the number of friendlies in the 12-month ‘red zone’ leading up to the cut-off date. If you have to play one or two just to keep things ticking over, choose your opposition wisely and do not get too experimental – draws and defeats are especially damaging.
Why go to all this trouble? Any aspirant World Cup winner has to beat the best teams anyway, so why worry about seedings? As Roy Hodgson put it bullishly before the 2014 World Cup draw, “I’m more than happy wherever we find ourselves, whatever pot we find ourselves in, whoever we have to play.”
The truth is, though, that getting a seeding is important, because it means you do not have to face one of the other seeded teams in the group stage. Had England been seeded in 2014, they would not have found themselves, having lost their first game against Italy, facing Uruguay in their do-or-die second match; instead they would have faced an unseeded non-European team, like Ivory Coast or South Korea.
Or, as a counter-example, take Spain at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, which they ultimately won. Spain lost their first group match to Switzerland, but because they were seeded, rather than having to face the likes of Brazil or Argentina, their next two games were relatively straightforward, against Chile and Honduras.
It is an incidental oversight, but one that is symptomatic of a cultural malaise in English football’s corridors of power: a lack of attention to detail, a strategic woolliness.
It is hard to imagine British Cycling, for example, with its insatiable appetite for the accumulation of incremental advantages, spurning such an opportunity to influence the team’s destiny.
All is not lost though. With most teams having three qualifying fixtures before the seedings are decided, there is still time for upheaval in the Fifa rankings. And with Poland and Chile having lost in qualifying last week, and Colombia having drawn, those nations will drop points. England’s hopes of being seeded are far from over, but with only the top seven nations enjoying that privilege, the table will still have to turn dramatically. England’s administrators have already missed a major opportunity to tilt it in their direction.
HOW RANKINGS SYSTEM WORKS
Top seeds if World Cup draw was made now
1, Brazil (1,604 points)
2, Germany (1,549)
3, Argentina (1,399)
4, Switzerland (1,329)
5, Poland (1,319)
6, Portugal (1,267)
7, Chile (1,250)
8, Russia (590; seeded as hosts, current ranking is No 62)
13, England (1,051)
How rankings are calculated
A team’s number of points over a four-year period is determined by adding the average number of points gained from matches during the past 12 months to the average number of points gained from matches older than 12 months on a depreciating scale.
P = M x I x T x C
Points earned = Match result x Importance x Team Faced x Confederation
Match result
Teams get 3 for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a defeat
Importance
A friendly is worth 1 point, a qualifier is worth 2.5 points, a confederation-level tournament (European Championship, for example) is 3 points and a World Cup match is 4 points
Team faced
Points are based on rankings, so Brazil (No 1) are weighted at 199, while Germany (No 2) are 198
Confederation
Calculated by results in the past three World Cups. Their values are:
Conmebol 1, Uefa 0.99, AFC/CAF/OFC/
Concacaf 0.85
Let’s say that England beat Brazil, the No 1-ranked team who play in Conmebol, at the World Cup finals next summer
2,388 = 3 x 199 x 4.0 x 1.0
A win against Germany in a friendly, however, would earn significantly fewer points
588.06 = 3 x 198 x 1.0 x 0.99
And if they lose that friendly
0 = 0 x 198 x 1.0 x 0.99
England’s friendlies in the past three seasons
P14 W7 D3 L4
2016-17
June 13: France 3 England 2
March 22: Germany 1 England 0
November 16: England 2 Spain 2
2015-16
June 2: England 1 Portugal 0
May 27: England 2 Australia 1
May 22: England 2 Turkey 1
March 29: England 1 Holland 2
March 26: Germany 2 England 3
November 17: England 2 France 0
November 13: Spain 2 England 0
2014-15
June 7: Ireland 0 England 0
March 31: Italy 1 England 1
November 18: England 3 Scotland
September 3: England 1 Norway 0 [Post edited 15 Nov 2017 0:46]
|  | | |  |
| This is a great read. on 07:58 - Nov 15 with 5860 views | WokingR |
And do you really think that any of the old farts at the FA or Wembley will give a toss about this ?
No, because as always, it will be about the revenue rather than giving the team the best opportunity possible. |  | | |
| This is a great read. on 09:55 - Nov 15 with 5782 views | stevec |
Good spot, fascinating read. Wondered how some tin pot teams get so high up the rankings. |  | | |
| This is a great read. on 10:04 - Nov 15 with 5772 views | Northernr |
More fuel for the "isn't modern football really sht?" fire.
1 - How is that the system? I mean, just how? Why?
2 - Knowing that's the system, our FA ignores it in favour of more money. While they can still persuade 80,000 people to pay actual money to see us draw two meaningless matches 0-0 they won't be giving a single sht about any harm it does to the team's chances. |  | | |
| This is a great read. on 10:21 - Nov 15 with 5754 views | Antti_Heinola |
Wales play the system perfectly in this regard. Just shows what dogsh!t the rankings are. |  |
| |
| This is a great read. on 10:25 - Nov 15 with 5750 views | DanVanDyke |
| This is a great read. on 09:55 - Nov 15 by stevec |
Good spot, fascinating read. Wondered how some tin pot teams get so high up the rankings. |
Tin pot? You've still got to win the matches or you don't get any points. Switzerland are ranked as high by virtue of beating reigning Euro champs Portugal 2-0 in Basel and then winning all bar one of their qualification games. They only played one friendly in that time.
In relation to Clive's, 'isn't football sh1t comment, I actually think this one they have got right, or are on the right lines. Why should a team like France be able to batter São Tomé and Principe 10 - 0 and get more seeding points than Poland narrowly beating Slovenia 1-0 in a qualification game? It theoretically stops the idea of meaningless friendlies with 11 subs at half time. It does go against the big nations that are in demand for friendlies, like England, Brazil, Germany etc, but they don't have to play the friendlies do they?
What's the alternative? Have seedlings based on tournaments won and traditional standing in the game? Wasn't it quite funny that Italy didn't qualify the other night? One of the reasons being they were in a group with Spain! By virtue of not being seeded.
We always get this thrown up before tournaments where fans who love their club football and know loads about the Championship look st the seeding list and go, 'Switzerland and Poland are seeded! How the fcuk?' But for those of us who don't just watch the England game or go shopping during international breaks, the system makes sense! |  | | |
| This is a great read. on 10:42 - Nov 15 with 5702 views | Northernr |
| This is a great read. on 10:25 - Nov 15 by DanVanDyke |
Tin pot? You've still got to win the matches or you don't get any points. Switzerland are ranked as high by virtue of beating reigning Euro champs Portugal 2-0 in Basel and then winning all bar one of their qualification games. They only played one friendly in that time.
In relation to Clive's, 'isn't football sh1t comment, I actually think this one they have got right, or are on the right lines. Why should a team like France be able to batter São Tomé and Principe 10 - 0 and get more seeding points than Poland narrowly beating Slovenia 1-0 in a qualification game? It theoretically stops the idea of meaningless friendlies with 11 subs at half time. It does go against the big nations that are in demand for friendlies, like England, Brazil, Germany etc, but they don't have to play the friendlies do they?
What's the alternative? Have seedlings based on tournaments won and traditional standing in the game? Wasn't it quite funny that Italy didn't qualify the other night? One of the reasons being they were in a group with Spain! By virtue of not being seeded.
We always get this thrown up before tournaments where fans who love their club football and know loads about the Championship look st the seeding list and go, 'Switzerland and Poland are seeded! How the fcuk?' But for those of us who don't just watch the England game or go shopping during international breaks, the system makes sense! |
A system that allows teams to rise artificially high in the rankings by not playing matches is a sht system, end of. | | | |
| This is a great read. on 10:42 - Nov 15 with 5702 views | rbsranger |
| This is a great read. on 10:25 - Nov 15 by DanVanDyke |
Tin pot? You've still got to win the matches or you don't get any points. Switzerland are ranked as high by virtue of beating reigning Euro champs Portugal 2-0 in Basel and then winning all bar one of their qualification games. They only played one friendly in that time.
In relation to Clive's, 'isn't football sh1t comment, I actually think this one they have got right, or are on the right lines. Why should a team like France be able to batter São Tomé and Principe 10 - 0 and get more seeding points than Poland narrowly beating Slovenia 1-0 in a qualification game? It theoretically stops the idea of meaningless friendlies with 11 subs at half time. It does go against the big nations that are in demand for friendlies, like England, Brazil, Germany etc, but they don't have to play the friendlies do they?
What's the alternative? Have seedlings based on tournaments won and traditional standing in the game? Wasn't it quite funny that Italy didn't qualify the other night? One of the reasons being they were in a group with Spain! By virtue of not being seeded.
We always get this thrown up before tournaments where fans who love their club football and know loads about the Championship look st the seeding list and go, 'Switzerland and Poland are seeded! How the fcuk?' But for those of us who don't just watch the England game or go shopping during international breaks, the system makes sense! |
Sorry but it would make sense if it was based on qualification matches only. Getting actively penalised for playing friendlies (even if you win them) is just ridiculous. |  | | |
| This is a great read. on 10:50 - Nov 15 with 5670 views | stevec |
| This is a great read. on 10:25 - Nov 15 by DanVanDyke |
Tin pot? You've still got to win the matches or you don't get any points. Switzerland are ranked as high by virtue of beating reigning Euro champs Portugal 2-0 in Basel and then winning all bar one of their qualification games. They only played one friendly in that time.
In relation to Clive's, 'isn't football sh1t comment, I actually think this one they have got right, or are on the right lines. Why should a team like France be able to batter São Tomé and Principe 10 - 0 and get more seeding points than Poland narrowly beating Slovenia 1-0 in a qualification game? It theoretically stops the idea of meaningless friendlies with 11 subs at half time. It does go against the big nations that are in demand for friendlies, like England, Brazil, Germany etc, but they don't have to play the friendlies do they?
What's the alternative? Have seedlings based on tournaments won and traditional standing in the game? Wasn't it quite funny that Italy didn't qualify the other night? One of the reasons being they were in a group with Spain! By virtue of not being seeded.
We always get this thrown up before tournaments where fans who love their club football and know loads about the Championship look st the seeding list and go, 'Switzerland and Poland are seeded! How the fcuk?' But for those of us who don't just watch the England game or go shopping during international breaks, the system makes sense! |
I watched Switzerland the other night and if they're one of the best 4 clubs in International football then I'll run naked round Loftus Road singing 'Oh Jeremy Corbyn'. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This is a great read. on 10:55 - Nov 15 with 5666 views | Snipper |
| This is a great read. on 10:42 - Nov 15 by Northernr |
A system that allows teams to rise artificially high in the rankings by not playing matches is a sht system, end of. |
Agree 100% with you about that. Also agree 100% about the suits at The FA not caring about it. They'd much rather have 80,000 filling Wembley for meaningless friendlies, than trying to actually help the national team.
It really is a ridiculous system. | | | |
| This is a great read. on 10:55 - Nov 15 with 5666 views | CamberleyR |
| This is a great read. on 10:42 - Nov 15 by rbsranger |
Sorry but it would make sense if it was based on qualification matches only. Getting actively penalised for playing friendlies (even if you win them) is just ridiculous. |
Totally agree. Absolutely ludicrous that friendly results count towards world rankings. It should be competitive games in qualifying and finals tournaments only. If you stuff those up then you can't complain if you get a group like Italy got this time. in the 70s England messed up qualifying for two major tournaments in 74 and 76 so consequently and deservedly got Italy in their group for qualifying in 78.
You shouldn't be penalised for not performing or even more ridiculously winning in a few meaningless friendlies that most people won't remember a week from now. |  |
| |
| This is a great read. on 11:28 - Nov 15 with 5617 views | headhoops |
All the teams should be put in a hat and drawn out randomly, no need for seeding and no idea why this cannot be the case for the World Cup. Make it regional by all means but surely the prospect of being drawn against any team is essentially what a cup knockout is all about.
Memo to oneself. Don't be stupid - how will FIFA, UEFA and the FA be able to makes millions in payola and bribes as well as lucrative friendlies - you don't fill Club Wembley with corporate johnies wanting to go see the Three Lions playing Togo on a wet, cold November night.
Great spot and read by the way. |  |
| |
| This is a great read. on 11:52 - Nov 15 with 5567 views | ozranger |
| This is a great read. on 10:42 - Nov 15 by rbsranger |
Sorry but it would make sense if it was based on qualification matches only. Getting actively penalised for playing friendlies (even if you win them) is just ridiculous. |
I think this is the main point. The reason for the rankings should be for ego and for the calculation of the points per game as per the formula. When it comes to seeding for tournaments an alternate ranking should be used where friendlies are omitted. At the very low end the small countries will more than likely have the same ranking and thus random seeding can be used for them. I am sure FIFA have computers that can do this.
That way friendlies will be worth playing and will not attract penalties when it comes to seeding for tournaments. |  | | |
| This is a great read. on 12:01 - Nov 15 with 5556 views | DanVanDyke |
| This is a great read. on 10:42 - Nov 15 by Northernr |
A system that allows teams to rise artificially high in the rankings by not playing matches is a sht system, end of. |
Not playing meaningless games is the essence of the system rather than rewarding for not actually playing football. It rewards the teams that play competitive matches against higher quality opposition from the top regions. You still get points for friendlies, just not as many as you do for actual competitive football. England don't play the system, that's their choice if they would rather play lots of friendlies to get bums on seats in Wembley.
I get the argument for no points at all for friendlies, but there needs to be a system that recognises that smaller nations can play the big boys and get points if they win. For example, in the run up to the last World Cup, Switzerland played Germany and Brazil (and won both), allied to a strong qualification campaign, they were then seeded in their group. Natural order prevailed, France topped the group and Switzerland finished second and had to play Argentina. Ultimately though, they had stretched and challenged themselves by playing strong opposition in friendlies and gained points for beating them, albeit not as many points as they would have gained by beating them in competitive football.
What's the answer? No points for friendlies? See above. No distinction between competitive and friendly games? You then end up with artificiality (?) by allowing teams to play sh1te opposition, thrash them and gain loads of points. Scrap the lot and pull teams out of hats randomly? There was loads of criticism about the last Euros having teams like Albania, RoI playing negative football to try and scrape through. Imagine having a group of Gibraltar, Andorra, Albania et al together while another has Spain, England, France, Italy in it? That said, they're going down that route with the next Euros!
Points for tournaments won, runners up, 3rd place, 4th place etc? We'd have Italy at the next World Cup and anybody who saw their ageing team fail to break down and score against Sweden would argue they deserve to be there.
I get FIFA are corrupt etc, I'm no fan either, but I can't think of a better system. Switzerland play the system to gain a seeding but the pay off is that the fans and clubs don't have as many friendlies, where Shaqiri only plays 20 mins under instructions from Hughesless.
I obviously have a vested interest in Switzerland but hey, it'll come back and bite me on the Haris (Seferovic) when we're seeded in a group that contains England as second seeds and invariably lose. Maybe some of the bigger nations are playing the system in reverse by having loads of friendlies to get an easier group where they are not actually the seeds? Maybe the FA are ahead of the trend for once? | | | |
| This is a great read. on 12:13 - Nov 15 with 5530 views | makaveli1882 |
It will be changing soon with the Nation league coming up after Russia. |  | | |
| This is a great read. on 13:03 - Nov 15 with 5453 views | danehoop |
I think I read something that the number of meaningless friendlies was something that was tied into paying for the New Wembley Stadium. Might be totally wrong on that, but may explain why the FA seem to be stuck. Might also explain the lack of rotation of England matches around grounds around the country which I thought was a really good thing in getting fans to engage and support the team who might not otherwise have done so.
Anyway, currently feeling Danish at the moment and Parken in Copenhagen is a nicer stadium anyway. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| This is a great read. on 13:17 - Nov 15 with 5419 views | YorkRanger |
Interesting read - thanks Snipper |  | | |
| This is a great read. on 13:41 - Nov 15 with 5378 views | Brightonhoop |
| This is a great read. on 13:03 - Nov 15 by danehoop |
I think I read something that the number of meaningless friendlies was something that was tied into paying for the New Wembley Stadium. Might be totally wrong on that, but may explain why the FA seem to be stuck. Might also explain the lack of rotation of England matches around grounds around the country which I thought was a really good thing in getting fans to engage and support the team who might not otherwise have done so.
Anyway, currently feeling Danish at the moment and Parken in Copenhagen is a nicer stadium anyway. |
Read that somewhere too, that to pay for the Stadium a certain number of games would need to be played each season for a few years to come. So it's likely the FA are boxed in on costs.
The Spanish U21's played 3 times recenty, in Murcia, Malaga and Cartagena, all regional stadiums unlikely to see that calibre of player in those stadiums ordinarily. It's a great idea and would love to see it rolled out in the UK once Wembley is payed for. |  | | |
| This is a great read. on 13:43 - Nov 15 with 5377 views | Antti_Heinola |
| This is a great read. on 10:50 - Nov 15 by stevec |
I watched Switzerland the other night and if they're one of the best 4 clubs in International football then I'll run naked round Loftus Road singing 'Oh Jeremy Corbyn'. |
Belgium, England, Sweden, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal, Uruguay...
I can't be the only one hoping that the slightly unfancied, usually from Europe, underdog that reaches the semi finals of the World Cup might be Switzerland next year now though. Is it a promise Steve? | |
| |
| This is a great read. on 13:56 - Nov 15 with 5349 views | Northernr |
| This is a great read. on 13:03 - Nov 15 by danehoop |
I think I read something that the number of meaningless friendlies was something that was tied into paying for the New Wembley Stadium. Might be totally wrong on that, but may explain why the FA seem to be stuck. Might also explain the lack of rotation of England matches around grounds around the country which I thought was a really good thing in getting fans to engage and support the team who might not otherwise have done so.
Anyway, currently feeling Danish at the moment and Parken in Copenhagen is a nicer stadium anyway. |
Yeh, same reason all these calls to take England friendlies on the road again, or stage the lower division play offs at smaller grounds, or have the Challenge Cup final somewhere else etc etc are all absolutely pointless - they're all paying the stadium bill. | | | |
| This is a great read. on 14:18 - Nov 15 with 5292 views | paulparker |
| This is a great read. on 13:56 - Nov 15 by Northernr |
Yeh, same reason all these calls to take England friendlies on the road again, or stage the lower division play offs at smaller grounds, or have the Challenge Cup final somewhere else etc etc are all absolutely pointless - they're all paying the stadium bill. |
As an England fan I hope this happens, Wembley is like Thorpe park these days with all these screaming brats, its an embarrassment
all I heard last night was high pitch screeching and screaming like a load of girls had seen harry styles walking up the street every time Neymer got the ball , then you had that awful fcuking pukka pies trumpet player playing the same sh1t song over and over
the fans cant even muster up an in -ger-land , in-ger-land chant anymore
its like being at all woman's netball game
surely to god the fa have paid the bill for that monstrosity of a stadium |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| This is a great read. on 14:39 - Nov 15 with 5271 views | DanVanDyke |
| This is a great read. on 13:43 - Nov 15 by Antti_Heinola |
Belgium, England, Sweden, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal, Uruguay...
I can't be the only one hoping that the slightly unfancied, usually from Europe, underdog that reaches the semi finals of the World Cup might be Switzerland next year now though. Is it a promise Steve? |
I would jizz my fcking pants more than I did when Zamora scored at Wembley if the Nati made it that far Antti and would then gladly join Steve! | | | |
| This is a great read. on 14:55 - Nov 15 with 5241 views | Boston |
Great post Snipper, thanks. | |
| |
| This is a great read. on 15:08 - Nov 15 with 5217 views | TacticalR |
| This is a great read. on 14:18 - Nov 15 by paulparker |
As an England fan I hope this happens, Wembley is like Thorpe park these days with all these screaming brats, its an embarrassment
all I heard last night was high pitch screeching and screaming like a load of girls had seen harry styles walking up the street every time Neymer got the ball , then you had that awful fcuking pukka pies trumpet player playing the same sh1t song over and over
the fans cant even muster up an in -ger-land , in-ger-land chant anymore
its like being at all woman's netball game
surely to god the fa have paid the bill for that monstrosity of a stadium |
Like the Olympic stadium it was a lot more expensive than originally planned.
'When Multiplex bid for the job in 2000, the total construction cost was assessed at £326.5m, but by the time the bid had been signed, it had risen to £445m. The stadium should have been completed in 2003, but work did not begin on the site until September 2002. Its completion date was rescheduled to May 2006, for the FA Cup final, and the cost put up to £757m. The saga came to an end a year later, at an overall cost of £900m, in time for the 2007 FA Cup final.'
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/mar/16/construction.wembleystadium |  |
| |
| This is a great read. on 15:36 - Nov 15 with 5191 views | kensalriser |
International football is following the example of Formula 1 - corrupt to the core, run by cnts and cosying up to some of the world's most unsavoury regimes.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2017 15:38]
|  |
| |
| This is a great read. on 15:45 - Nov 15 with 5173 views | Antti_Heinola |
| This is a great read. on 14:18 - Nov 15 by paulparker |
As an England fan I hope this happens, Wembley is like Thorpe park these days with all these screaming brats, its an embarrassment
all I heard last night was high pitch screeching and screaming like a load of girls had seen harry styles walking up the street every time Neymer got the ball , then you had that awful fcuking pukka pies trumpet player playing the same sh1t song over and over
the fans cant even muster up an in -ger-land , in-ger-land chant anymore
its like being at all woman's netball game
surely to god the fa have paid the bill for that monstrosity of a stadium |
kids going to football.
When will this evil end? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
