FootballNews

God is an Englishman wrote:
Would depend on other games

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
Would depend on other games

Snapshot.

Played 2, won 1, lost 1, for 8 against 1 vs
Played 2, won 1, lost 1, for 1 against 8

Who's higher?

Michael wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
Would depend on other games

Snapshot.

Played 2, won 1, lost 1, for 8 against 1 vs
Played 2, won 1, lost 1, for 1 against 8

Who's higher?

Why bother, Eddie?

Matthew is just stirring considering NZ tied with England in the 2019 World cup

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
Would depend on other games

Snapshot.

Played 2, won 1, lost 1, for 8 against 1 vs
Played 2, won 1, lost 1, for 1 against 8

Who's higher?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
Would depend on other games

Snapshot.

Played 2, won 1, lost 1, for 8 against 1 vs
Played 2, won 1, lost 1, for 1 against 8

Who's higher?

Team 1

Who wrote that fixture list?

Cooper wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
Would depend on other games

Are you saying a better team can only be chosen after looking at all games they have ever played together?

Cooper wrote:

Cooper wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
Would depend on other games

Are you saying a better team can only be chosen after looking at all games they have ever played together?

Bomber wrote:
1. Thanks, QED
2. Probably the FFSA or AFL

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
1. Thanks, QED
2. Probably the FFSA or AFL

And what happens if the week after team 1 lose a to team 3 10-0 and team 2 beats team 4 10-0?

A League table doesn't decide the best team until all fixtures have been played.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
1. Thanks, QED
2. Probably the FFSA or AFL

And what happens if the week after team 1 lose a to team 3 10-0 and team 2 beats team 4 10-0?

A League table doesn't decide the best team until all fixtures have been played.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
1. Thanks, QED
2. Probably the FFSA or AFL

And what happens if the week after team 1 lose a to team 3 10-0 and team 2 beats team 4 10-0?

A League table doesn't decide the best team until all fixtures have been played.

You know how WC's work, groups, then finals etc etc, don't you?

Apart from the last men's ODI world cup, when was the last time someone was "lucky" or "not the best team" to win one?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:

Cooper wrote:
Are you saying a better team can only be chosen after looking at all games they have ever played together?

No, but I am saying that you can't base it on one individual game. Especially when it was 1-1 in the last 2 weeks.

God is an Englishman wrote:
The last women's world cup.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
The last women's world cup.

Ranked 1, and won 5 cups. Yeah, they're SO lucky.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
The last women's world cup.

Ranked 1, and won 5 cups. Yeah, they're SO lucky.

Well they were, D/L in a game that had it not got over the line they were out, and didn't have to play England because of the weather.

Almost the definition of luck.

Bomber wrote:
If you want to use luck as any guide, look at the men's last ODI World Cup final.

Or does the "won under the rules of the comp" (ref D/L) not matter now?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
If you want to use luck as any guide, look at the men's last ODI World Cup final.

Or does the "won under the rules of the comp" (ref D/L) not matter now?

It didn't seem to matter to all the aussies who are still crying about us winning.

Australia won under the competition rules, that's a fact. Them being the best team in the tournament isn't. They were lucky, all teams need some luck to win any major tournament.

God is an Englishman wrote:Who wrote that fixture list?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
If you want to use luck as any guide, look at the men's last ODI World Cup final.

Or does the "won under the rules of the comp" (ref D/L) not matter now?

It didn't seem to matter to all the aussies who are still crying about us winning.

Australia won under the competition rules, that's a fact. Them being the best team in the tournament isn't. They were lucky, all teams need some luck to win any major tournament.

Frank Costanza wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
If you want to use luck as any guide, look at the men's last ODI World Cup final.

Or does the "won under the rules of the comp" (ref D/L) not matter now?

It didn't seem to matter to all the aussies who are still crying about us winning.

Australia won under the competition rules, that's a fact. Them being the best team in the tournament isn't. They were lucky, all teams need some luck to win any major tournament.

Exactly right - just like how England won the last men's ODI World Cup even though they weren't the best team in the tournament.
They got lucky and rode their luck to win the tournament

Frank Costanza wrote:They finished 3rd after the group stage.
They were 1-1 v Australia in the tournament.
Lost to Sri Lanka and Pakistan who were both poor in the tournament.
Tied NZ in the final and only won on an obscure countback rule.
India were probably the best team in the tournament until the semi final when they choked.

You said yourself teams have to ride their luck and England certainly did - the extra runs they got in the final when the ball veered off Stokes’ bat and into the boundary (plus the extra run they got on that play when it should have only been 5 runs) is testament to that luck.

I’m not denying they’re the current world champions but your logic that Australia weren’t the best team at the women’s t20 World Cup can be applied to England as well.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Frank Costanza wrote:They finished 3rd after the group stage.
They were 1-1 v Australia in the tournament.
Lost to Sri Lanka and Pakistan who were both poor in the tournament.
Tied NZ in the final and only won on an obscure countback rule.
India were probably the best team in the tournament until the semi final when they choked.

You said yourself teams have to ride their luck and England certainly did - the extra runs they got in the final when the ball veered off Stokes’ bat and into the boundary (plus the extra run they got on that play when it should have only been 5 runs) is testament to that luck.

I’m not denying they’re the current world champions but your logic that Australia weren’t the best team at the women’s t20 World Cup can be applied to England as well.

I completely agree with you and your point proves the case for what I have been saying all along. Thanks.

Michael wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Michael wrote:
Australia made the final, so your comment is invalid, again

How is it in invalid?

australia made the final, and won!
your comment is still invalid.

Michael wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:Despite it being obvious I doubt he will answer and make himself look more of a fool lol

He won't answer, pretty sure of that.

I also believe if he does then he can be shut down quite easily, he nornally is.

Wrong again, and please go ahead and shut me down, u bully

Bomber wrote:
So england were lucky by your own admission. About time you owned up.

God is an Englishman wrote:all teams need some luck to win any major tournament.

Bomber wrote:^ Lucky v "some luck" - I've lapped you already

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:^ Lucky v "some luck" - I've lapped you already

There it is and black and white I'm afraid. To get some luck, you must be lucky.

KEEP UP