The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
England can't really lose on Friday, whatever the result of the match.
Beat Brazil and it will be fantastic for the team, English football, and the nation in general.
Lose, and it won't really matter - because there's no shame in losing to Brazil. I don't think anyone would be overly disappointed - certainly nowhere near as much as they would have if we had lost to Argentina.
I think Brazil are almost unique in the world of football, in that they have immense talent and practically no arrogance.
They have nothing but respect for their opponents, whoever they play. All the comments I've read from them in the media have been extremely fair and level-headed, particularly those comments about the upcoming game against England.
"Beat us and you win the cup," Ronaldo has said. And surely that's what we all think, too? I know I do. Were we playing Argentina at this stage, I'm sure it would be, "You'll never beat us - you're not good enough."
They're expecting a decent game, and are themselves calling it "the game of the tournament". Despite their collective ability, they don't give off any impression that they expect to win, no matter what.
There's none of this petty name-calling like you get from the Argentinians, Germans... or even Denmark, who made some comment about England thinking that all Danish players were "Bolton reserves".
And despite Rivaldo letting the team down recently, there usually isn't any diving or cheating involved in their game.
Others think the England team are arrogant. Arrogant! That's a joke! I ask you, what the hell has the English national team got to be arrogant about?!
But there's none of that with Brazil. They may be an outstanding team, but their feet are firmly on the ground. They may well be better than anyone else, but you don't get the impression that THEY think they're better than anyone.
Which in modern football, is a very good thing. If I was a journalist looking for a catchy heading, I'd probably have to call them "The Gentlemen of Football".
Beat Brazil and it will be fantastic for the team, English football, and the nation in general.
Lose, and it won't really matter - because there's no shame in losing to Brazil. I don't think anyone would be overly disappointed - certainly nowhere near as much as they would have if we had lost to Argentina.
I think Brazil are almost unique in the world of football, in that they have immense talent and practically no arrogance.
They have nothing but respect for their opponents, whoever they play. All the comments I've read from them in the media have been extremely fair and level-headed, particularly those comments about the upcoming game against England.
"Beat us and you win the cup," Ronaldo has said. And surely that's what we all think, too? I know I do. Were we playing Argentina at this stage, I'm sure it would be, "You'll never beat us - you're not good enough."
They're expecting a decent game, and are themselves calling it "the game of the tournament". Despite their collective ability, they don't give off any impression that they expect to win, no matter what.
There's none of this petty name-calling like you get from the Argentinians, Germans... or even Denmark, who made some comment about England thinking that all Danish players were "Bolton reserves".
And despite Rivaldo letting the team down recently, there usually isn't any diving or cheating involved in their game.
Others think the England team are arrogant. Arrogant! That's a joke! I ask you, what the hell has the English national team got to be arrogant about?!
But there's none of that with Brazil. They may be an outstanding team, but their feet are firmly on the ground. They may well be better than anyone else, but you don't get the impression that THEY think they're better than anyone.
Which in modern football, is a very good thing. If I was a journalist looking for a catchy heading, I'd probably have to call them "The Gentlemen of Football".
Page:
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Ariel is a Spanish blokes name. I found it amusing that the lead
> character of "The Little Mermaid" had a blokes name.
--
Or maybe the Spainish blokes have a female mermaids name.
Think about it.
> Ariel is a Spanish blokes name. I found it amusing that the lead
> character of "The Little Mermaid" had a blokes name.
--
Or maybe the Spainish blokes have a female mermaids name.
Think about it.
How do you work out that Spain have won by tommorrow. :D
Too right. Can't agree with you more (although it will be great to win).
Tomorrow morning, we find out who has "won" the world cup...
Tomorrow morning, we find out who has "won" the world cup...
Ariel is a Spanish blokes name. I found it amusing that the lead character of "The Little Mermaid" had a blokes name. There is also a very talented Argentinian DJ who goes by the name of Ariel, and often plays 6 hour(!) sets in and around London...
Insane Bartender wrote:
> > Alfredo Astiz signed an unconditional surrender document without
> firing a single shot...
--
Did he have long hair? And was his middle name Ariel?
While we're on the subject, what kind of name is Ariel? Do you think he has brothers called Daz and Persil?
That'd be funny.
> > Alfredo Astiz signed an unconditional surrender document without
> firing a single shot...
--
Did he have long hair? And was his middle name Ariel?
While we're on the subject, what kind of name is Ariel? Do you think he has brothers called Daz and Persil?
That'd be funny.
Further, I just discovered that the Argies broke their on military code when surrendering:
Argentinian military code article 751 - "A soldier will be condemned to prison for three to five years if, in combat with a foreign enemy, he surrenders without having exhausted his supply of ammunition or without having lost two thirds of the men under his command."
Alfredo Astiz signed an unconditional surrender document without firing a single shot...
Argentinian military code article 751 - "A soldier will be condemned to prison for three to five years if, in combat with a foreign enemy, he surrenders without having exhausted his supply of ammunition or without having lost two thirds of the men under his command."
Alfredo Astiz signed an unconditional surrender document without firing a single shot...
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Why they are so bitter, when we only killed 650 of them in the war, I
> don't know. If they had tried to fight back a little more, their
> casualties would have been much worse...
IB... I like your style! :-)
> Why they are so bitter, when we only killed 650 of them in the war, I
> don't know. If they had tried to fight back a little more, their
> casualties would have been much worse...
IB... I like your style! :-)
The Argentinians refuse to accept tht the Falklands have been under British rule since 1833. We were certainly the first to land on them, in the year 1690, and was claimed for the Crown then. Technically, we have the oldest claim to the islands as a British colony.
The Falkland dispute goes back to the year 1770, when The spanish kicked out the French people on the island, and demanded that the english leave as well.
the reply they got was:
"I have received your letters by the officer, acquainting me that these islands and coasts thereof belong to the King of Spain, your Master. In return I am to acquaint you that the said islands belong to his Brittanic Majesty, My Master, by right of discovery as well as settlement and that the subjects of no other power whatever can have any right to be settled in the said islands without leave from His Brittanic Majesty or taking oaths of allegiance and submitting themselves to His Majesty's Government as subjects of the Crown of Great Britain."
Of course, the Argentinians themselves never occupied the islands until 1828, but the colony was shortlived, as they arrested 3 american fisherboats, so the USA retaliated by destroying the settlement with the warship USS Lexington . Nice, and again for the Argies, unlucky.
Besides, the war in 1982 was a good thing. It discredited the militarian government, and led to the restoration of civilian rule in Argentina the year after the war.
Why they are so bitter, when we only killed 650 of them in the war, I don't know. If they had tried to fight back a little more, their casualties would have been much worse...
The Falkland dispute goes back to the year 1770, when The spanish kicked out the French people on the island, and demanded that the english leave as well.
the reply they got was:
"I have received your letters by the officer, acquainting me that these islands and coasts thereof belong to the King of Spain, your Master. In return I am to acquaint you that the said islands belong to his Brittanic Majesty, My Master, by right of discovery as well as settlement and that the subjects of no other power whatever can have any right to be settled in the said islands without leave from His Brittanic Majesty or taking oaths of allegiance and submitting themselves to His Majesty's Government as subjects of the Crown of Great Britain."
Of course, the Argentinians themselves never occupied the islands until 1828, but the colony was shortlived, as they arrested 3 american fisherboats, so the USA retaliated by destroying the settlement with the warship USS Lexington . Nice, and again for the Argies, unlucky.
Besides, the war in 1982 was a good thing. It discredited the militarian government, and led to the restoration of civilian rule in Argentina the year after the war.
Why they are so bitter, when we only killed 650 of them in the war, I don't know. If they had tried to fight back a little more, their casualties would have been much worse...
Fair enough
Although Thatcher was an evil piece of crap... she gave the order to sink a passenger ship... then your favourite newspaper The Sun's front page said.... " Gotcha ".
Anyway... so football, might get up early and watch the match.
Although Thatcher was an evil piece of crap... she gave the order to sink a passenger ship... then your favourite newspaper The Sun's front page said.... " Gotcha ".
Anyway... so football, might get up early and watch the match.
SHEEPY wrote:
> It's right next to their bloody country... why the fook should we have
> it?
Because we discovered them, and as has always been the way with any nation, we claimed sovreignty.
http://www.geocities.com/little_chay/history.htm
The people living there are British, and want to remain British. And unsurprisingly they don't want to leave their homes.
So the Argies invaded. Thay had eight weeks to dig in while we prepared a response and got the troops there, and we kicked their butts back to the mainland within about six weeks.
Spain want Gibraltar back, too - but I don't see them invading. But then nor do I see them awarding sovreignty of the Canary Islands to Africa!
> It's right next to their bloody country... why the fook should we have
> it?
Because we discovered them, and as has always been the way with any nation, we claimed sovreignty.
http://www.geocities.com/little_chay/history.htm
The people living there are British, and want to remain British. And unsurprisingly they don't want to leave their homes.
So the Argies invaded. Thay had eight weeks to dig in while we prepared a response and got the troops there, and we kicked their butts back to the mainland within about six weeks.
Spain want Gibraltar back, too - but I don't see them invading. But then nor do I see them awarding sovreignty of the Canary Islands to Africa!
Page: