The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I say 3-1 to England with Terry, Owen and hmmm...Lampard/Crouch scoring for England.
I stand by my comment during the last World Cup that England stand a good chance this time around.
I stand by my comment during the last World Cup that England stand a good chance this time around.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> We didn't use wing-backs, we used full-backs.
Well aren't we Mr. Pedantic today/yesterday.
> We didn't use wing-backs, we used full-backs.
Well aren't we Mr. Pedantic today/yesterday.
Marek Jankulovski. The guy AC Milan have signed to replace Maldini. He's awesome, used to play for Udinese.
Who's their left-back?
Because I'd put Ashley Cole up there with the best of them.
Because I'd put Ashley Cole up there with the best of them.
or†ega!!!!! wrote:
> Argentina are actually ranked
> 4th though in the fifa rankings! Holland and now the czech's have
> jumped aobve them!
--
That's because Argentina aren't better than both of those sides. People laugh at the Czech Republic being so high, but they're not up there because they dominate a weak region, Mexico style. I'd put good money on Czech Republic beating England. I have, actually, got a £10 on it if they meet in the World Cup. Had a sly bet on them to win Euro 2004 as well.
Had an argument about it with a mate, actually. I think the Czechs have a better goalkeeper, a better left-back, an equally strong central defender, a more balanced midfield (but Poborsky is better than Beckham, Nedved better than Lampard and Galasek better than King. Can't really compare Rosicky and Stevie - but they're both awesome) and a striker just as profilic as Mikey.
The Czechs'd beat Argentina, I reckon. Before anyone goes "Waaaa, Riqueleme", Nedved's just as good.
> Argentina are actually ranked
> 4th though in the fifa rankings! Holland and now the czech's have
> jumped aobve them!
--
That's because Argentina aren't better than both of those sides. People laugh at the Czech Republic being so high, but they're not up there because they dominate a weak region, Mexico style. I'd put good money on Czech Republic beating England. I have, actually, got a £10 on it if they meet in the World Cup. Had a sly bet on them to win Euro 2004 as well.
Had an argument about it with a mate, actually. I think the Czechs have a better goalkeeper, a better left-back, an equally strong central defender, a more balanced midfield (but Poborsky is better than Beckham, Nedved better than Lampard and Galasek better than King. Can't really compare Rosicky and Stevie - but they're both awesome) and a striker just as profilic as Mikey.
The Czechs'd beat Argentina, I reckon. Before anyone goes "Waaaa, Riqueleme", Nedved's just as good.
Did we forfeit the Falklands then?
Ashley_90 wrote:
> Crouch is useless.
> Crouch is useless.
Crouch is useless.
Yeah, we all know the rankings are a joke.
Foreman wrote:
> I know it was only a friendly Ortega, but you are going to eat your
> words from 2 months back.
muhaha, c'mon though, it was N.ireland!
-------
Another thing, heard alot of people saying England beat the 2nd best team in the world tonight (not here). Argentina are actually ranked 4th though in the fifa rankings! Holland and now the czech's have jumped aobve them!
Speaking of holland, nice result for Italy beating them 3-1 in the amsterdam arena tonight! Without Totti as well! Holland were missing Van Nist and robben amongst others...but still!
> I know it was only a friendly Ortega, but you are going to eat your
> words from 2 months back.
muhaha, c'mon though, it was N.ireland!
-------
Another thing, heard alot of people saying England beat the 2nd best team in the world tonight (not here). Argentina are actually ranked 4th though in the fifa rankings! Holland and now the czech's have jumped aobve them!
Speaking of holland, nice result for Italy beating them 3-1 in the amsterdam arena tonight! Without Totti as well! Holland were missing Van Nist and robben amongst others...but still!
English_Bloke wrote:
> Our
> wing-backs were pretty much non-existent going forward and being
> turned inside-out while defending.
We didn't use wing-backs, we used full-backs.
> Our
> wing-backs were pretty much non-existent going forward and being
> turned inside-out while defending.
We didn't use wing-backs, we used full-backs.
Page: