FootballNews

Bomber wrote:If this draw helps in getting qualified for the WC, I'd rate it alongside a 2-0 home win against the might of Malta.

Happy with the 3 points. You're happy with 1 v Saudi Arabia

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:If this draw helps in getting qualified for the WC, I'd rate it alongside a 2-0 home win against the might of Malta.

Happy with the 3 points. You're happy with 1 v Saudi Arabia

Definitely better than zero against Iceland.

Stuckey wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:If this draw helps in getting qualified for the WC, I'd rate it alongside a 2-0 home win against the might of Malta.

Happy with the 3 points. You're happy with 1 v Saudi Arabia

Definitely better than zero against Iceland.

Iceland also got zero against England.

You may be struggling with the concept here but I wasn't happy with losing to Iceland, people on here seem to be happy with drawing with Saudi Arabia.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Stuckey wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
Happy with the 3 points. You're happy with 1 v Saudi Arabia

Definitely better than zero against Iceland.

Iceland also got zero against England.

You may be struggling with the concept here but I wasn't happy with losing to Iceland, people on here seem to be happy with drawing with Saudi Arabia.

A side that can't beat Iceland and can only manage 2-0 in front of 80k fans at home to Malta should be happy with an away point anywhere.

Content is different to happy. End of the day, if you top a group or even come second and yet drop a few points along the way, you still top a group and/or qualify. Who cares?

Stuckey wrote:A side that can't beat Iceland and can only manage 2-0 in front of 80k fans at home to Malta should be happy with an away point anywhere.

There's the difference between our two footballing nations. We are disappointed with losing to a side ranked 27, you are celebrating a draw with #52. I must admit I thought they were lower than that.

As for the Malta game, you get 3 points for winning 2-0, you get 3 points for winning 8-0. Top of the table and a 100% record. Pretty sure you'd be happy with that.

It's nice to see that your complex is so large though, that you have to bring it back to England.

God is an Englishman wrote:#52. I must admit I thought they were lower than that.

Of course you did.

Stuckey wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:#52. I must admit I thought they were lower than that.

Of course you did.

I also thought you lot were lower than that as well.

Malta #176

Bomber wrote:Malta #176

What's your point?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Stuckey wrote:A side that can't beat Iceland and can only manage 2-0 in front of 80k fans at home to Malta should be happy with an away point anywhere.

There's the difference between our two footballing nations. We are disappointed with losing to a side ranked 27, you are celebrating a draw with #52. I must admit I thought they were lower than that.

As for the Malta game, you get 3 points for winning 2-0, you get 3 points for winning 8-0. Top of the table and a 100% record. Pretty sure you'd be happy with that.

It's nice to see that your complex is so large though, that you have to bring it back to England.

That's what you said leading into the Euro's.... look what happened at the tournament

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Malta #176

What's your point?

You were babbling on about FIFA rankings, so just thought I'd add one you overlooked.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Malta #176

What's your point?

You were babbling on about FIFA rankings, so just thought I'd add one you overlooked.

I overlooked nearly 200 of them.

I don't see the point of naming a side we just beat.

Wayne Kerr wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Stuckey wrote:A side that can't beat Iceland and can only manage 2-0 in front of 80k fans at home to Malta should be happy with an away point anywhere.

There's the difference between our two footballing nations. We are disappointed with losing to a side ranked 27, you are celebrating a draw with #52. I must admit I thought they were lower than that.

As for the Malta game, you get 3 points for winning 2-0, you get 3 points for winning 8-0. Top of the table and a 100% record. Pretty sure you'd be happy with that.

It's nice to see that your complex is so large though, that you have to bring it back to England.

That's what you said leading into the Euro's.... look what happened at the tournament

Good point, I'm disappointed we only have a 100% record and top of the group.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Wayne Kerr wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
There's the difference between our two footballing nations. We are disappointed with losing to a side ranked 27, you are celebrating a draw with #52. I must admit I thought they were lower than that.

As for the Malta game, you get 3 points for winning 2-0, you get 3 points for winning 8-0. Top of the table and a 100% record. Pretty sure you'd be happy with that.

It's nice to see that your complex is so large though, that you have to bring it back to England.

That's what you said leading into the Euro's.... look what happened at the tournament

Good point, I'm disappointed we only have a 100% record and top of the group.

Yet losing to Iceland in the knockout stages, doesn't get a mention......

Wayne Kerr wrote:Yet losing to Iceland in the knockout stages, doesn't get a mention......

What's that got to do with "The road to Moscow"?

Kyūshū Danji wrote:I'm sure Con M will ind something else to moan about.

WTF is your problem, faarkhead? Free yourself from your pretend pseudonym. Tell us who you are.

I'm glad to have lobbied the FFA & the Federal Communication Minister about getting our National Team's World Cup qualifier on free-to-air.

Now three quarters of the population without Lord Murdoch's FoxyTV can get to see our Country play on Channel 9's secondary station Go 9 or whatever it's called.

Stuckey wrote:So the remainder of the qualifiers are to be shown live on 9. Huge move. Let's hope they get a few people who know what they are talking about and not Ken Sutcliffe just bluffing his way through a broadcast.

Hopefully this could be 9 dipping their toe to see if the HAL is worth bidding on. Although I'm not sure why they would want to go for it when they'll have a full summer of cricket to telecast.
I'd rather it stay with Fox if a FTA station isn't going to show every game live.

Yeah, that too about Sutcliffe or one of Ch9's other hacks, Stuckup.

As long as they don't faark up like back awhile when they telecast an Australian X1 versus a FIFA X1 featuring Harry Kewell and they threw to an advert when a corner was taken and a goal scored. What a faarkup!

Stop your moaning.

I didn't get to see all the game but it looked like we had our chances as did they so a draw seems fair. Seems to be some calls now for a midfield shake up. I have to agree. I think Jedinak needs to earn his starting spot. Milligan to me seems far more accomplished in the DM role. I think playing Mooy, Rogic and Luongo in the same midfield doesn't work as well as it could either.
Obviously the side needs to be a little more switched on from the kick off as both games had early goals conceded.
The next game in Novemeber should have us back on top as we play the pointless Thailand while Japan and the Saudis play each other.

Not sure about Juric and Rogic in same side who appear similar type players. A Kruse or a Leckie provides more pace. That first goal (conceded) - very poor by Sainsbury. Draw fair result, but not ideal in the scheme of things.

Con M wrote:

Stuckey wrote:So the remainder of the qualifiers are to be shown live on 9. Huge move. Let's hope they get a few people who know what they are talking about and not Ken Sutcliffe just bluffing his way through a broadcast.

Hopefully this could be 9 dipping their toe to see if the HAL is worth bidding on. Although I'm not sure why they would want to go for it when they'll have a full summer of cricket to telecast.
I'd rather it stay with Fox if a FTA station isn't going to show every game live.

Yeah, that too about Sutcliffe or one of Ch9's other hacks, Stuckup.

As long as they don't faark up like back awhile when they telecast an Australian X1 versus a FIFA X1 featuring Harry Kewell and they threw to an advert when a corner was taken and a goal scored. What a faarkup!

They did that for an England came back in 2002 as well but no goal was scored.

ITV (in England) also did it in 2010 (I think), went to a commercial - came back and England had scored. Apparently, some idiot hit the wrong button.

Bomber wrote:Not sure about Juric and Rogic in same side who appear similar type players. A Kruse or a Leckie provides more pace. That first goal (conceded) - very poor by Sainsbury. Draw fair result, but not ideal in the scheme of things.

Wouldn't play Juric in any team and McGowan is not a fullback doesn't have the leg speed to get up and down the line. Have to agree Sainsbury made a great impression of a tree after he gave the ball away.

Bomber wrote:Not sure about Juric and Rogic in same side who appear similar type players. A Kruse or a Leckie provides more pace. That first goal (conceded) - very poor by Sainsbury. Draw fair result, but not ideal in the scheme of things.

Yeah Bomboff, was surprised Ange didn't initially go with at least one winger in Kruse or Leckie. Thought those two did well in Jeddah getting around the back.

Our midfield passing was way too slow in that first half to actually do anything against a disciplined Japan.

Giannou was a surprise selection, along with McGowan. Milligan hadn't done anything wrong at right-back in Jeddah. Maybe he wanted McGowan & Giannou in for height with an aerial bombardment at set pieces against the skilful but smaller Japanese. And if he wanted that aerial bombardment, then Cahill should have come on much earlier for Juric who is just not up to it.

Kagoshima wrote:Stop your moaning.

Get faarked!

Bomber wrote:Not sure about Juric and Rogic in same side who appear similar type players. A Kruse or a Leckie provides more pace. That first goal (conceded) - very poor by Sainsbury. Draw fair result, but not ideal in the scheme of things.

Giannou was a real surprise choice and really had quirt game, mind you our poor and slow midfield in the first half didn't help. Better second half which picked up more when Kruse came on.

Small point if you think catering is poor at Hindmarsh, try Etihad with 48k crowd, lot worse.

If you want to be fed go to a restaurant.

ozzie owl wrote:

Bomber wrote:Not sure about Juric and Rogic in same side who appear similar type players. A Kruse or a Leckie provides more pace. That first goal (conceded) - very poor by Sainsbury. Draw fair result, but not ideal in the scheme of things.

Giannou was a real surprise choice and really had quirt game, mind you our poor and slow midfield in the first half didn't help. Better second half which picked up more when Kruse came on.

Small point if you think catering is poor at Hindmarsh, try Etihad with 48k crowd, lot worse.

Been there when it's been full of thirsty rugby fans. Never had an issue.

Ōita wrote:If you want to be fed go to a restaurant.

Etihad has restaurants...

God is an Englishman wrote:

ozzie owl wrote:

Bomber wrote:Not sure about Juric and Rogic in same side who appear similar type players. A Kruse or a Leckie provides more pace. That first goal (conceded) - very poor by Sainsbury. Draw fair result, but not ideal in the scheme of things.

Giannou was a real surprise choice and really had quirt game, mind you our poor and slow midfield in the first half didn't help. Better second half which picked up more when Kruse came on.

Small point if you think catering is poor at Hindmarsh, try Etihad with 48k crowd, lot worse.

Been there when it's been full of thirsty rugby fans. Never had an issue.

Same but AFL games. Maybe they have all staff on deck with AFL