Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:17 pm

To be fair to Oasis they exceeded most peoples expectations (including mine)with the way they played against Argentina. However it is their own fault(poor results) that they had to play Argentina and not Holland. My own opinion is however that they would have performed well against Holland but still lost. A good shout from Oasis but ultimately a wrong one.

by **clik** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:36 pm

i fancy klose or crespo but stevie g is a smashing bet id never back against him

by **48-1119859832** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:45 pm

I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders and that's exactly what they were. France went out in the group stage in 2002 does that mean they aren't contenders? Mexico were and are contenders, so I got it right. The fact of the matter is, they are never outclassed, where as a lot of teams are. They were unlucky to go out against Argentina and they were unlucky to lose against Portugal, so no I'm not accepting I'm wrong. Becoz I'm not wrong.

by **JC_81** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:49 pm

0asis wrote:I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders and that's exactly what they were. France went out in the group stage in 2002 does that mean they aren't contenders? Mexico were and are contenders, so I got it right. The fact of the matter is, they are never outclassed, where as a lot of teams are. They were unlucky to go out against Argentina and they were unlucky to lose against Portugal, so no I'm not accepting I'm wrong. Becoz I'm not wrong.

Are you actually Mexican? :laugh:

by **GOAT** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:53 pm

Hope gerrard gets top scorer! Hes in with the top pack anyway. It will possibly be david villa or torres, maybe klose, crespo. ronaldo!?

by **48-1119859832** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:58 pm

john craig wrote:
0asis wrote:I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders and that's exactly what they were. France went out in the group stage in 2002 does that mean they aren't contenders? Mexico were and are contenders, so I got it right. The fact of the matter is, they are never outclassed, where as a lot of teams are. They were unlucky to go out against Argentina and they were unlucky to lose against Portugal, so no I'm not accepting I'm wrong. Becoz I'm not wrong.

Are you actually Mexican?

My father is Mexican yes, however I don't consider myself Mexican. That's beside the point, Mexico are and will always challengers. And to say that Marquez is Mexico's only "world class" player is utter s.*i*e, he's probably the most known Mexico player to Europeans but I can assure you ppl like Pardo, Sanchez, Osorio and Salcido are all top quality players. And as I said Argentina won't get a more stern test than Mexico. Mexico were unlucky that's all. It happens in football you win some, you lose some.

by **Ace Ventura** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:01 pm

0asis wrote:I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders and that's exactly what they were. France went out in the group stage in 2002 does that mean they aren't contenders? Mexico were and are contenders, so I got it right. The fact of the matter is, they are never outclassed, where as a lot of teams are. They were unlucky to go out against Argentina and they were unlucky to lose against Portugal, so no I'm not accepting I'm wrong. Becoz I'm not wrong.

What about drawing with Angola :laugh:

Their group was imo as easy as ours and they hardly set the world alight.

To be fair they were decent, but never contenders, France the example you gave were contenders before the tournament started due to the fact they were the holders. Mexico have never even been close to being champions and the fact that they went out to the best team of the tournament so far is irrelavant really, they still went out in the second round. Your dark horse has gome home early as i predicted and expected.
If you still believe they were ever 'contenders' then i am shocked.

by **48-1119859832** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:17 pm

Ace Ventura wrote:
0asis wrote:I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders and that's exactly what they were. France went out in the group stage in 2002 does that mean they aren't contenders? Mexico were and are contenders, so I got it right. The fact of the matter is, they are never outclassed, where as a lot of teams are. They were unlucky to go out against Argentina and they were unlucky to lose against Portugal, so no I'm not accepting I'm wrong. Becoz I'm not wrong.

What about drawing with Angola
Their group was imo as easy as ours and they hardly set the world alight.

To be fair they were decent, but never contenders, France the example you gave were contenders before the tournament started due to the fact they were the holders. Mexico have never even been close to being champions and the fact that they went out to the best team of the tournament so far is irrelavant really, they still went out in the second round. Your dark horse has gome home early as i predicted and expected.
If you still believe they were ever 'contenders' then i am shocked.

What about drawing with Angola? There have been a few unexpected tales in this WC. For instance England being such high favourites as well as not scoring more goals in their group, Trinidad & Tabago's draw with Sweden and Ghana beating Czech Republic.

There group was easy, as was France's and England and yet these two teams didn't light up the group phase and neither did Brazil until their 4-1 win against Japan.

Mexico were more than decent, they upset Argentina, despite Argentina winning they only just won, had the decisions gone against Argentina they would of been on the plane home, nevermind Mexico. They went out yes and you got your prediction correct, well done. Mexico going out to the best team in the tournement has relevance, of course it does, if Mexico had Ecuador, then I'm sure they would be into the QF as well. Mexico are geniune contenders, just like England & the others.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:18 pm

Well Portugal are drawn along Iran and Angola, so there's goals to be had there for Pauleta, altho he might struggle against (the team I think will win the World Cup) Mexico.

I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders

Oasis?

by **JC_81** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:18 pm

0asis wrote:
john craig wrote:
0asis wrote:I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders and that's exactly what they were. France went out in the group stage in 2002 does that mean they aren't contenders? Mexico were and are contenders, so I got it right. The fact of the matter is, they are never outclassed, where as a lot of teams are. They were unlucky to go out against Argentina and they were unlucky to lose against Portugal, so no I'm not accepting I'm wrong. Becoz I'm not wrong.

Are you actually Mexican?

My father is Mexican yes, however I don't consider myself Mexican. That's beside the point, Mexico are and will always challengers. And to say that Marquez is Mexico's only "world class" player is utter s.*i*e, he's probably the most known Mexico player to Europeans but I can assure you ppl like Pardo, Sanchez, Osorio and Salcido are all top quality players. And as I said Argentina won't get a more stern test than Mexico. Mexico were unlucky that's all. It happens in football you win some, you lose some.

If you're father is indeed Mexican then at least I now understand you're just biased rather than daft :laugh:

To say Mexico are and always will be challengers is nonsense mate. Check the stats - NO TEAM IN HISTORY HAS LOST MORE WORLD CUP GAMES THAN MEXICO - so that tells you something about their pedigree.

They're a decent side as I've said before, but none of those players apart from Marquez is good enough to play for a top European club. FFS the 'legendary' striker Borgetti has been kept out of the Bolton team by Kevin Davies all season :laugh:

So don't lecture me on which Mexican players are world class mate, the facts speak for themselves, best of luck for 2010...

by **48-1119859832** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:23 pm

s@int wrote:
Well Portugal are drawn along Iran and Angola, so there's goals to be had there for Pauleta, altho he might struggle against (the team I think will win the World Cup) Mexico.

I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders

Oasis?

Yeah I had a wild guess, so what? They were just as good as anyone else and the fact they have beaten the likes of Argentina and Brazil in recent times and their impressive Confederations cup run and their run in the WC qualifiers. However it doesn't matter now does it? England are going further so I will back them now, altho I'll be interested to see if England can perform better than Mexico against Portugal.

by **Ace Ventura** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:23 pm

s@int wrote:
Well Portugal are drawn along Iran and Angola, so there's goals to be had there for Pauleta, altho he might struggle against (the team I think will win the World Cup) Mexico.

I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders

Oasis?

Ha thats brilliant, they didnt really struggle against your tip for the tournament did they mate, they won 2-1 after resting 4 or 5 of there best players.
Infact the mighty Mexicans won 1 out of 4 games, England who you are comparing them with have won 3 out 4.

by **48-1119859832** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:26 pm

Ace Ventura wrote:
s@int wrote:
Well Portugal are drawn along Iran and Angola, so there's goals to be had there for Pauleta, altho he might struggle against (the team I think will win the World Cup) Mexico.

I wasn't wrong as I didn't say they would get to the final, I said they were contenders

Oasis?

Ha thats brilliant, they didnt really struggle against your tip for the tournament did they mate, they won 2-1 after resting 4 or 5 of there best players.
Infact the mighty Mexicans won 1 out of 4 games, England who you are comparing them with have won 3 out 4.

That's very true, Ace. However at least Mexico were entertaining and played wonderful football. They were just unlucky against Angola, Portugal and Argentina, it seems as tho England have stolen Mexico's luck.

As I said Mexico have been knocked out and England will be playing against Portugal, so England will get my full support.

by **Ace Ventura** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:31 pm

0asis wrote:That's very true, Ace. However at least Mexico were entertaining and played wonderful football. They were just unlucky against Angola, Portugal and Argentina, it seems as tho England have stolen Mexico's luck.

Unluky in 3 out of 4 games the manager must of ran over several black cats.
I would rather England were playing breathtaking football and entertaining the world and they havent yet, but give me the option of winning ugly or going out whilst playing good football i know what i will take.

by **48-1119859832** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:34 pm

Ace Ventura wrote:
0asis wrote:That's very true, Ace. However at least Mexico were entertaining and played wonderful football. They were just unlucky against Angola, Portugal and Argentina, it seems as tho England have stolen Mexico's luck.

Unluky in 3 out of 4 games the manager must of ran over several black cats.
I would rather England were playing breathtaking football and entertaining the world and they havent yet, but give me the option of winning ugly or going out whilst playing good football i know what i will take.

Then you do not appreciate good football when you see it. England have to be ashamed of the way they've played. For a team that is supposed to be one of the top favourites, they've been poor and very uninteresting to watch. But as someone said it's a results tournement and England are getting the results, but they are painful to watch, always have been, always will be.

Liverpool FC Forum

Golden boot winner - Who will be the top scorer

Who is online