[It's already been pointed out that any fan/follower of football with essentially the SLIGHTEST amount of understanding of the game takes the FIFA NT rankings about as seriously as they do Pele's FIFA 100 list. It's also been pointed and essentially PROVEN that England fans and the British media over-stating England's chances before every major international tournament is essentially nothing more than a MYTH. Yet you (and others) keep re-cycling the same statements in the hope that they will gain some form of legitimacy through mere repetition IMO...]
Well you have to take into the fact that in this era A Barca and Spain were considered among the best teams in history (along with Brazil70 ), and Messi was on par with Pele/Maradona ... so ... England in #3 ranking is not impossible
indeed. but still, they're a huge part of what makes a team overrated or underrated. I don't want to engage anyone in any argument anymore as i think this discussion is just pointless, but i'm just saying.
That they do overstate the chances of England. I fully understand the anti-English sentiments. England has loads of money and yet fail to produce a great amount of top players. Their Premier League destroys the game and are English in name only. At the same time they like to make patronizing comments. Also the media reaction is sometimes disgusting. For example they publish personal data about referees which forces them to retire. They do not condemn the death threats. Or when Liverpool almost lost a place in the 2005-2006 Champions League. The English media portrayed it as a great injustice but the only thing that the English wanted was a fifth spot at the cost of someone else. Hypocritical whining.
[You can be forgiven this one since it isn't your home culture, mate: The Sun is one of the UK's largest and most notorious TABLOID "rags". If you took a flip through that same paper you would probably find articles & features about how (our former PM) John Major was actually a shaved Bigfoot and that Elvis is still alive and that Brittney Spears is going to have his baby. Would you believe the N. American "rag" The National Enquirer if they reported that Fiji or San Marino were the favourites to win the next World Cup? Most English/British/Irish people take The Sun (and its local editions) about as seriously as they do FIFA NT rankings and Pele's FIFA 100... !!]
True, many don't take the Sun seriously. But to compare it to the National Enquirer (which is a magazine, not a daily newspaper, btw) is ridiculous. The Sun has the high circulation of any paper in the UK. National Enquirer is like # 126 in the US. So the Sun, and the opinions expressed within, do have quite a bit more relevance.
[How many links do you want me to post PROVING that The Sun was and still is viewed as a "red top" paper in the UK and the RoI, mate?]
There is no question about The Sun being a tabloid. But your comparison to the National Enquirer was flawed. A lot of people actually read The Sun, very few read the Enquirer. Also, being a publication of very low journalistic quality doesn't mean that people don't at least consider some of the stories as true. Jersey Shore is a piece of ____ compared to many other TV shows, but it still has enjoyed decent social relevance.
[I got what you were trying to say the first time, mate: I just think that you're reaching a tad to make your point. I was also trying to give an idea of the professional standard and the reliability of the publication that "Puck" had scanned an image from since English is not his first language... BTW, I looked at a copy of The Enquirer here at the local market: it's still printed on newspaper stock. In the UK it would still be called/classified as a tabloid PAPER; not as a "glossy" or a "mag". The Enquirer is simply a weekly rather than a daily like The Sun. Perhaps you simply utilise different terminology in the States?]
You may be right that its format is more like that of a newspaper than that of a magazine. Or somewhere in between.
The Sun's editorial content is controlled by an American billionaire. And for the record, it was an easy group. England played like complete and utter turds for three games yet qualified without losing and only conceding one goal. If not for a freak goalkeeping howler it would have been an easy seven points and three clean sheets without even trying. How could a group possibly be any easier?
(1) Murdoch is Australian. (2) What does the nationality of the owner have to do with the content? (3) "England played like complete and utter turds". Agreed.
see this is part of the problem in the first place and gives a good illustration of exactly why england ARE overated. the fact is more often than not england play like "utter turds" in major competitions so it should already be factored in before writing off the rest off the group as EASY. a rundown on england's record & performance since the turn of the century: euro 2000...group exit, looked like utter turds wc 2002....QF, played to their potential euro 2004...QF, played o their potential wc 2006...QF, flattering result..return to turd mode euro 2008...failed to qualify, as turdy as it gets wc 2010...2nd round rout by germany, again with the turd euro 2012...QF, decent result but overall performance fairly average
England's problem is performing at the World Cup. Looking at qualifying, they have the third best record of any European team. Only Germany and Italy have won a higher percentage of their qualifiers, only Germany have a better goals per game rate and only Italy a better goals against rate.
It's funny how England is overrated. If you look through posts on every site and forum you would see people saying that England is rubbish. If the majority thinks England is rubbish, can that team be called overrated?