NY Times Headline on US-England
in [World Football]
|
From: William Clark on 13 Jun 2010 14:30 In article <MPG.267edf745d7fb8ff98d425(a)news-europe.giganews.com>, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:10:54 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave wrote... > > > Still, why > > let little things like facts get in the way of a good old fashioned > > anti-England rant eh? > > Get serious, FFS. The English media has been FILLED with pundits > whining that the England team should have won... all while managing to > completely disrespect the American team, slagging them off by stating > that England should beat them by 4, 5, or 6 goals. Ah, the "English media". Always a reliable source of informed and unbiased opinion. I think you will find that most other people were a great deal more circumspect about this game than the tabloid press.
From: Manx Gunner on 13 Jun 2010 14:38 On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:30:12 -0400, William Clark wrote... > In article <MPG.267edf745d7fb8ff98d425(a)news-europe.giganews.com>, > Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:10:54 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave wrote... > > > > > Still, why > > > let little things like facts get in the way of a good old fashioned > > > anti-England rant eh? > > > > Get serious, FFS. The English media has been FILLED with pundits > > whining that the England team should have won... all while managing to > > completely disrespect the American team, slagging them off by stating > > that England should beat them by 4, 5, or 6 goals. > > Ah, the "English media". Always a reliable source of informed and > unbiased opinion. I think you will find that most other people were a > great deal more circumspect about this game than the tabloid press. Sky Sports ITV BBC They're not tabloid press.
From: Jellore on 13 Jun 2010 15:30 On Jun 14, 2:13 am, Kaise...(a)gmail.com wrote: > The NY Times headline today (story by Longman) is "Goalkeeper's > Blunder Costs England a Victory." > > To which I reply, bullshit. That sounds like the blunder occurred > in the last minute of the game. England had 86 minutes to score a > second goal,. and they couldn't do it. The US had plenty of chances > and certainly played well enough for a tie. This is really typical of > the way the British press, in particular, covers England. If they > were ever really superior they might actually win a match by more than > a goal once in a while. > > DK I think you need to take a crash course in how the game works.
From: Manx Gunner on 13 Jun 2010 15:36 On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:30:09 -0700 (PDT), Jellore wrote... > I think you need to take a crash course in how the game works. I think you need to stop trying to condescend (as you're really very bad at it) and simply state your points, counterpoints, etc. The USA had numerous chances to win that game last night, and they weren't all due to English mistakes. To pay attention to the more jingoistic, unrealistic, blinkered media outlets and English fans, one would have to conclude that the United States put out 11 amputees who were lucky to be on the pitch at all against such a glorious side as the mighty men wearing the three lions, playing for Bobby, blah blah blah... As I have said before, England have been overrated, and the United States team have been underrated... and that was shown in last night's result when the English got all they could handle and then some.
From: William Clark on 13 Jun 2010 15:46
In article <MPG.267eefc0370579bf98d42e(a)news-europe.giganews.com>, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:30:12 -0400, William Clark wrote... > > > In article <MPG.267edf745d7fb8ff98d425(a)news-europe.giganews.com>, > > Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:10:54 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave wrote... > > > > > > > Still, why > > > > let little things like facts get in the way of a good old fashioned > > > > anti-England rant eh? > > > > > > Get serious, FFS. The English media has been FILLED with pundits > > > whining that the England team should have won... all while managing to > > > completely disrespect the American team, slagging them off by stating > > > that England should beat them by 4, 5, or 6 goals. > > > > Ah, the "English media". Always a reliable source of informed and > > unbiased opinion. I think you will find that most other people were a > > great deal more circumspect about this game than the tabloid press. > > Sky Sports > ITV > BBC > > They're not tabloid press. Sorry, but they are moving pretty much in that direction these days. Especially from this distance. |