ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA

[Bomber]

Largest empire in the world

And the only bit that has any significance these days is about the size of Tasmania.

And if so big, you should be top of so many sports. But you aren't.

[God is an Englishman]

Largest empire in the world

And the only bit that has any significance these days is about the size of Tasmania.

And if so big, you should be top of so many sports. But you aren't.

So, australia isn't significant. Canada isn't significant

[Bomber]

Largest empire in the world

And the only bit that has any significance these days is about the size of Tasmania.

And if so big, you should be top of so many sports. But you aren't.

So, australia isn't significant. Canada isn't significant

Each has their own elected leaders and decision makers, so what does it matter? How does this empire crap equate to sport and the discussion at hand anyway? Shying away again?

[Doovde]

Largest empire in the world

being so large, you would think they could find 11 decent footballers

[God is an Englishman]

Each has their own elected leaders and decision makers, so what does it matter? How does this empire crap equate to sport and the discussion at hand anyway? Shying away again?

and both of them have their head of state as the Queen.

How does it equate? Well quite simply the rivalries go beyond sport. You asked when England was ever number 1, you didn't specify sport. So, every question answered.

Any more?

[Bomber]

Each has their own elected leaders and decision makers, so what does it matter? How does this empire crap equate to sport and the discussion at hand anyway? Shying away again?

and both of them have their head of state as the Queen.

How does it equate? Well quite simply the rivalries go beyond sport. You asked when England was ever number 1, you didn't specify sport. So, every question answered.

Any more?

We were talking sport otherwise why answer 2003 for rugby? I notice no such reply when talking about football but when it suits, let's just pick and choose what best gets you out of a corner eg

We're talking football, not rugby

[God is an Englishman]

Each has their own elected leaders and decision makers, so what does it matter? How does this empire crap equate to sport and the discussion at hand anyway? Shying away again?

and both of them have their head of state as the Queen.

How does it equate? Well quite simply the rivalries go beyond sport. You asked when England was ever number 1, you didn't specify sport. So, every question answered.

Any more?

We were talking sport otherwise why answer 2003 for rugby? I notice no such reply when talking about football but when it suits, let's just pick and choose what best gets you out of a corner eg

We're talking football, not rugby

Largest empire ever known - DONE!

Or if you want to talk about sport

1966 - Football - DONE
2003 - Rugby - DONE

All of those more recently than australia and wales. DONE!

In fact, feel free to let me know when either your rugby team and football team were ever/last ranked no 1 in the world.

[Bomber]

So that question was answered but the football team has never been number 1, so "beating those at the top" was a moot point in the context of your original statement.

Why do you want to win the ashes so badly, out of interest?

[God is an Englishman]

So that question was answered but the football team has never been number 1, so "beating those at the top" was a moot point in the context of your original statement.

Why do you want to win the ashes so badly, out of interest?

I would say winning a world cup makes you the number one side

1966 - Football - DONE

I want to win the ashes as I live in australia so it's good to rub it in. As a kid I wanted us to beat the W Indies more than australia.

[Bomber]

I don't. 1966 was a home tournament and even if so, your statement would only be valid if we played you then.

Now, I'm off to the pub so am clocking off.

Beat you again next time.

[N5 1BH]

If Uruguay have won 2 world cups then England have been the No.1 football side for many years

[God is an Englishman]

I don't. 1966 was a home tournament and even if so, your statement would only be valid if we played you then.

Now, I'm off to the pub so am clocking off.

Beat you again next time.

You asked if we'd EVER been number one. Come on, you're better than this.

also,

Well quite simply the rivalries go beyond sport

[God is an Englishman]

Largest empire in the world

being so large, you would think they could find 11 decent footballers

because most of them wouldn't be eligible to play for England.

[Doovde]

I would say winning a world cup makes you the number one side

FIFA doesn't agree

[God is an Englishman]

I would say winning a world cup makes you the number one side

FIFA doesn't agree

FIFA also agrees that taking bribes is OK
FIFA also agrees that playing a world cup in the middle of a middle eastern summer is fine.

I don't judge my opinions on those of FIFA.

[Doovde]

Largest empire in the world

being so large, you would think they could find 11 decent footballers

because most of them wouldn't be eligible to play for England.

Geez, some empire then.

are you suggesting that the best players under British rule are not from England?

[Doovde]

I would say winning a world cup makes you the number one side

FIFA doesn't agree

FIFA also agrees that taking bribes is OK
FIFA also agrees that playing a world cup in the middle of a middle eastern summer is fine.

I don't judge my opinions on those of FIFA.

so you dont recognize FIFA rankings?

Why pit ourselves against a side that is so lowly ranked?

[God is an Englishman]

so you dont recognize FIFA rankings?

Why pit ourselves against a side that is so lowly ranked?

I certainly don't recognise them as a way to decide who is the best team. They can give you an approximation but not a definitive answer.

[God is an Englishman]

because most of them wouldn't be eligible to play for England.

Geez, some empire then.

are you suggesting that the best players under British rule are not from England?

Not at all, I'm only suggesting that most of the empire players wouldn't be eligible.

Take australia as an example, Cahill and Kewell are the only ones I can think of that would have got in the squad and they qualified for England anyway.

[Doovde]

so you dont recognize FIFA rankings?

Why pit ourselves against a side that is so lowly ranked?

I certainly don't recognise them as a way to decide who is the best team. They can give you an approximation but not a definitive answer.

So the team who wins a once in four year tournament is a better representation of who is a better team?

even thought said team would only play a maximum 7 teams out of over 200 teams in the world to get such a title

[God is an Englishman]

Correct

[Doovde]

Correct

Fair enough.

I guess by that logic then, Australia are evenly matched with England, seeing as they finished the tournament in the some position.

although i would think Australia might be slightly ahead, as they did have to play the 2 best teams in the world (At that time)

so would make sense they are playing each other

Good discussion

[Bomber]

I don't. 1966 was a home tournament and even if so, your statement would only be valid if we played you then.

Now, I'm off to the pub so am clocking off.

Beat you again next time.

You asked if we'd EVER been number one. Come on, you're better than this.

also,

Well quite simply the rivalries go beyond sport

Sad part is you're not better than this. Wanting to beat you has nothing to do with "beating those at the top", otherwise we'd be talking about knocking off Spain, Argies or Germany, or in rugby, the All blacks.
Beating you as you think you're shit doesn't stink (as proven by your posts) is merely enough.
Let it sink in

[God is an Englishman]

So why do Aussie have this big rivalry with England when we generally don't care about your lot?

You asked when we have ever been number one, have answered it many time last now.

[God is an Englishman]

Correct

Fair enough.

I guess by that logic then, Australia are evenly matched with England, seeing as they finished the tournament in the some position.

although i would think Australia might be slightly ahead, as they did have to play the 2 best teams in the world (At that time)

so would make sense they are playing each other

Good discussion

I don't recall saying that every ranking could be decided by the World Cup positions as the 2nd best team could lose in the Quarter Finals.

However, if you want to do that then we would be above you as we got a point and you got zero.

[Bomber]

So why do Aussie have this big rivalry with England when we generally don't care about your lot?

You asked when we have ever been number one, have answered it many time last now.

Don't care? I'll ask the Barmy Army next time they're here.

And you're not top, simple

[Doovde]

Correct

Fair enough.

I guess by that logic then, Australia are evenly matched with England, seeing as they finished the tournament in the some position.

although i would think Australia might be slightly ahead, as they did have to play the 2 best teams in the world (At that time)

so would make sense they are playing each other

Good discussion

I don't recall saying that every ranking could be decided by the World Cup positions as the 2nd best team could lose in the Quarter Finals.

However, if you want to do that then we would be above you as we got a point and you got zero.

well by that logic, if the 2nd best team in the world can lose in the quarters, then the best team could also lose. and how do you become the best, if you don't beat the best teams?

But lets say that all somehow makes sense. if England was only 1 point better than Australia, then why do you think Australia is "so lowly ranked"?

[God is an Englishman]

well by that logic, if the 2nd best team in the world can lose in the quarters, then the best team could also lose. and how do you become the best, if you don't beat the best teams?

But lets say that all somehow makes sense. if England was only 1 point better than Australia, then why do you think Australia is "so lowly ranked"?

Not even close, the best team wouldn't lose in the QF because then they wouldn't lose. However, the 2nd best team could lose to the best team.

Australia are so lowly ranked because they're not good enough. England had a harder group, all 4 teams were in the top 15(??) ranked teams in the world. We also had to qualify from our actual home confederation and the highest quality of the confederations.

It's pretty obvious really.

[Doovde]

well by that logic, if the 2nd best team in the world can lose in the quarters, then the best team could also lose. and how do you become the best, if you don't beat the best teams?

But lets say that all somehow makes sense. if England was only 1 point better than Australia, then why do you think Australia is "so lowly ranked"?

Not even close, the best team wouldn't lose in the QF because then they wouldn't lose. However, the 2nd best team could lose to the best team.

Australia are so lowly ranked because they're not good enough. England had a harder group, all 4 teams were in the top 15(??) ranked teams in the world. We also had to qualify from our actual home confederation and the highest quality of the confederations.

It's pretty obvious really.

you make me laugh. England had a harder group? Costa Rica top 15?

Australia actually had 3 teams in the top 15. we played the current Champions (Spain at the time they played held the trophy), the current runner up, and the 2nd ranked team in Americas

i am by no means saying that Australia is a better team that England. im just trying to understand your logic

[God is an Englishman]

well by that logic, if the 2nd best team in the world can lose in the quarters, then the best team could also lose. and how do you become the best, if you don't beat the best teams?

But lets say that all somehow makes sense. if England was only 1 point better than Australia, then why do you think Australia is "so lowly ranked"?

Not even close, the best team wouldn't lose in the QF because then they wouldn't lose. However, the 2nd best team could lose to the best team.

Australia are so lowly ranked because they're not good enough. England had a harder group, all 4 teams were in the top 15(??) ranked teams in the world. We also had to qualify from our actual home confederation and the highest quality of the confederations.

It's pretty obvious really.

you make me laugh. England had a harder group? Costa Rica top 15?

Australia actually had 3 teams in the top 15. we played the current Champions (Spain at the time they played held the trophy), the current runner up, and the 2nd ranked team in Americas

i am by no means saying that Australia is a better team that England. im just trying to understand your logic

Australia's group had Australia in it, there was a weak link. The worst team in England's group were England and they were top 10 ranked. QED.