From: KaiserD2 on
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
From: William Clark on
In article <ip0a1619mrnun5v98af10vpgrq5hr6o08l(a)4ax.com>,
KaiserD2(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

No, not really. England dominated the play, and had that goal not gone
in, the US would have been forced to press more and more forward in the
second half, and opened up space for Rooney and co. As it was, the US
seemed content to play for the draw in the second half, and England's
witless attack was never likely to score again.
From: Uncle Dave on
On Jun 13, 6:02 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
wrote:
> In article <ip0a1619mrnun5v98af10vpgrq5hr6o...(a)4ax.com>,
>
>  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
>
> No, not really. England dominated the play, and had that goal not gone
> in, the US would have been forced to press more and more forward in the
> second half, and opened up space for Rooney and co. As it was, the US
> seemed content to play for the draw in the second half, and England's
> witless attack was never likely to score again.

Not to mention the fact that in qualifying England beat Croatia -
still 4 places above the USA in the rankings BTW - 4-1 in Croatia and
5-1 at home. Oh, and they won every qualifying game except two
against Ukraine (2-1 and 0-1) by at least two clear goals. Still, why
let little things like facts get in the way of a good old fashioned
anti-England rant eh?

UD
From: Manx Gunner on
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.

From: Uncle Dave on
On Jun 13, 6:29 pm, 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.

Sorry, I thought "NY Times" means New York Times. What does it mean
then - North Yeading? Or did you just not bother to read the original
post?

UD