What a load of rubbish. Yes, there is. A bit of luck can turn a terrible result in to a good one.
That will be because of tiredness or poor defending. Many would say Bayern were unlucky in 1999 final but how about Beckham's classy corners or the substitutions Fergie made in the end. There's no luck in football. When opportunity meets a well-prepared team, the losing team uses tough luck as an excuse.
We aren't a good enough team to sail through purely on skill, I agree but if you actually watched both games you can quite clearly see we were very unfortunate to lose both games, it was also the result of a lack of experience and some naive tactics, not being "Not good enough."
How were we unfortunate? Rooney missed about 3-4 clear cut chances a player of his calibre should be scoring. That's not down to luck, that's just poor performance.
No luck in football eh? Seriously, of course there is. Chelsea had heaps of it on the way to their champions league win for one.
Chelsea won that competition cos they defended ever so well & when they conceded goals, they were brave enough to go to the other end of the pitch to score.
I don't see what you're trying to get at with this. I'm not saying its only luck holding us back from winning the thing. I'm saying we were a bit unlucky in the group stages and didn't really deserve to go out on the basis of our play. Also; I'm talking purely about this tournament, not about England since 1966. We haven't been good enough to win it since then (Apart from maybe a couple of teams who were good enough) and that's not down to luck. Of course we haven't done as well as we should have, that's not my point whatsoever. I'm talking about here and now.
What do you mean by on the basis of our play? Games are determined by the number of goals you score not how pretty you play. On the basis of beauty, Arsenal & Swansea should be winning the Premier League every season. Of what essence is pretty football without scoring?
Uruguay were better overall?! Did you even watch the game? First person I've seen say this and it sounds ridiculous. We were easily the better team. They had 2 shots on target the entire match, a world-class clinical striker took their two only real chances of the game. We had all the play otherwise, they were not better overall by any means. We lacked the experience and clinical play needed to win the game, that's all. Not the "skill". Uruguay could barely pass the ball most of the time, they weren't skilful they were hard-working and hard to beat. Against Italy, it was a more even match but we took the game to a very good side which we haven't done in a tournament in a long while, had plenty of chances and tactical naivety cost us. We were certainly unlucky not to get a point.
Uruguay were better overall. They had a plan & their tactics worked a trick. They put a man-marker each on Gerrard & Rooney and England's creative hub was neutralised. It was always going to be down to fine margins - individual brilliance in front of goal. Suarez & Rooney had 4 chances each. Suarez converted 2 of them and Rooney could only score one of his chances.
2 is greater than 1, no?
The media overhyping mediocre players? I've barely seen the media hype up anyone. They've been pretty flat with this side since the World Cup if I'm honest, as has everyone else. Nobody thinks this side are world-beaters anymore. Most actually underrate the side and bash it more than necessary if anything.
Yes, they overhyped England before the tourney. A cursory glance at Guardian Sports would see various articles hyping Gerrard as the messiah that would take England to the promised land. The hype raises expectations & it puts enormous pressure on the players. The outcome is always horrible.