The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Did England really fail?!?!

I was just thinking, why is there such a furore about England's World Cup so far? There wasn't any expectation of them doing well anyway, yet they've played decently enough, (more Italy game than Uruguay), so what is really p'ing people off? Is it the false hope that we had after the first game that they'd just demolish Uruguay or...?

Realistically and in hindsight, England were never favorites to go through in this group. Italy have the experience and know-how, and they're incredibly consistent.

Uruguay are blessed with two worldy strikers in Cavani and Suarez.

We have none of that...

Scroll to see replies

They can still go through if we finish third, and a team in second or first in the table drops out for whatever reason .

It's not over yet !
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 2
Avatar for Drewski
Drewski
19
Yes.

Whether or not they were 'supposed' to qualify from the group, they failed to do so. So yes, saying they failed is perfectly legitimate.
Original post by Drewski
Yes.

Whether or not they were 'supposed' to qualify from the group, they failed to do so. So yes, saying they failed is perfectly legitimate.


Failure is relative
Reply 4
Avatar for Drewski
Drewski
19
Original post by hello101010
Failure is relative


It's pretty absolute in this sense. The team failed to qualify from the group. You think that's debatable?
Original post by Drewski
It's pretty absolute in this sense. The team failed to qualify from the group. You think that's debatable?


But then if we went out in the round of 16 we failed to reach the quarters. If we went out in the quarters we failed to reach the semis etc etc. So apart from the winners, every team 'fails' if you look at it the way you are. But it depends on other factors whether it should actually be considered failure.
Reply 6
Avatar for Drewski
Drewski
19
Original post by hello101010
But then if we went out in the round of 16 we failed to reach the quarters. If we went out in the quarters we failed to reach the semis etc etc. So apart from the winners, every team 'fails' if you look at it the way you are.


Correct. That's what sport is. Only 1 winner, every other position is a loser.


Are one of these people that says everyone's a winner for taking part? Because you know that that's BS, right?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Drewski
Correct. That's what sport is. Only 1 winner, every other position is a loser.


Are one of these people that says everyone's a winner for taking part? Because you know that that's BS, right?


Nope, I'm not one of them. I'm one of the people that say winning is better than 2nd which is better than 3rd which is better than 4th and so on. Not winning is better than 2nd which is the same as 3rd and 4th and so on. Because you know that's BS, right?
Yes, we did fail.

Apparently, the media was telling me that this was meant to be one of the best teams in the World.
wE SHOULD have got rhough
Original post by hello101010
Nope, I'm not one of them. I'm one of the people that say winning is better than 2nd which is better than 3rd which is better than 4th and so on. Not winning is better than 2nd which is the same as 3rd and 4th and so on. Because you know that's BS, right?


Doesn't change the fact that entering a competition and not winning it is a failure. Because it is. Whether or not you actually stood a chance of winning it is irrelevant.

England failed. They failed to qualify. They failed to match up to previous results, they failed to match up to expectations. They failed.

Nothing at all wrong with saying that when it's true. Pretending the campaign has been anything other than a failure (because even a failure can have positives) is also untrue.
Original post by hello101010
Failure is relative


Yes ... relative to the England football teams performance in world cup tournaments dating back decades this has been the worst. From THAT we can make pretty reasonable statements about this being a FAILURE.

My GOD. Just because something is 'relative' it doesn't mean that meaningful statements can't be made about it.

They FAILED firstly because they have zero chance of winning this tournament, and it has been made an even greater failure due to the fact that the national team hasn't done this badly in decades.
(edited 9 years ago)
I'd say they did as expected :dontknow:

Nobody would bat an eyelid if this were another nation of England's calibre, they aren't a top tier side and haven't been for a long time. As soon as the draw was made, expectations were realistic and the general consensus was we'd be lucky to make it out of the group. However as soon as the tournament arrives, the team is hyped up to such a ridiculous extent that anything less than winning the tournament will be classed as a failure.

England can't cope when put under pressure, have no technical ability in their squad, limited tactical knowledge/flexibility and limited international experience. They have a good collection of players but nobody on the level of Pirlo/Cavani/Suarez, as well a system that doesn't work and a manager with little/no tactical sense. They've lost to two teams who are better than they are, plain and simple.

If they lose to Costa Rica it's a failure. Otherwise, no.
(edited 9 years ago)
http://bbc.com.sundaytimesdaily.com/england-get-second-chance-as-ref-is-charged-with-match-fixing-offences/r/24906
Original post by sr90
I'd say they did as expected :dontknow:

Nobody would bat an eyelid if this were another nation of England's calibre, they aren't a top tier side and haven't been for a long time. As soon as the draw was made, expectations were realistic and the general consensus was we'd be lucky to make it out of the group. However as soon as the tournament arrives, the team is hyped up to such a ridiculous extent that anything less than winning the tournament will be classed as a failure.

England can't cope when put under pressure, have no technical ability in their squad, limited tactical knowledge/flexibility and limited international experience. They have a good collection of players but nobody on the level of Pirlo/Cavani/Suarez, as well a system that doesn't work and a manager with little/no tactical sense. They've lost to two teams who are better than they are, plain and simple.

If they lose to Costa Rica it's a failure. Otherwise, no.

Couldn't put it better. It would be disappointing to see England not bag at least a single point.
Original post by sr90
I'd say they did as expected :dontknow:


They did. But they were expected to fail. Ergo, they failed.
Original post by Drewski
Doesn't change the fact that entering a competition and not winning it is a failure. Because it is. Whether or not you actually stood a chance of winning it is irrelevant.

England failed. They failed to qualify. They failed to match up to previous results, they failed to match up to expectations. They failed.

Nothing at all wrong with saying that when it's true. Pretending the campaign has been anything other than a failure (because even a failure can have positives) is also untrue.


I agree that in this particular case, England failed. But I was saying failure is relative because of your simplistic view of 'not qualifying from the group = failure'.

The bolded reason is the only good one.

You can say anyone failed. Man City won the league but failed to win every game. So there's failure there, but it's an acceptable level of failure. And it's the same in every case. If Iran reach the final, they'll have failed to win but they won't consider their campaign a failure as it's an acceptable level of failure.
Original post by Drewski
Doesn't change the fact that entering a competition and not winning it is a failure. Because it is. Whether or not you actually stood a chance of winning it is irrelevant.

England failed. They failed to qualify. They failed to match up to previous results, they failed to match up to expectations. They failed.

Nothing at all wrong with saying that when it's true. Pretending the campaign has been anything other than a failure (because even a failure can have positives) is also untrue.


What were the expectations though? From what I saw before the tournament, England weren't expected to do well, and like sr90 said, they were not expected to get out of their group, so did they not match expectations?
Original post by hello101010
You can say anyone failed. Man City won the league but failed to win every game. So there's failure there, but it's an acceptable level of failure. And it's the same in every case. If Iran reach the final, they'll have failed to win but they won't consider their campaign a failure as it's an acceptable level of failure.


But it's still a failure. Whether or not they've achieved something along the way or won something in spite of a failure, there's still an inherent failure. Why's that such a bad thing to point out?

No matter what someone or something does, you should always, but always, be aiming for perfection. You know you're not going to get there because there's no such thing, but trying to be perfect means looking for where you've failed so you can try to correct that in the future.

So yes, it was a failure.
Original post by DanyalAmeriKhan
What were the expectations though? From what I saw before the tournament, England weren't expected to do well, and like sr90 said, they were not expected to get out of their group, so did they not match expectations?


See #16.

And no, most people did not expect that. The team themselves did not expect that.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you