England vs Kazakhstan

Kelvin

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
21,342
gb-eng.gif
vs
kz.gif


World Cup 2010 qualifying Group Six: England v Kazakhstan
Venue: Wembley Date: Saturday, 11 October Kick-off: 1715 BST Coverage: BBC Radio 5 Live, BBC Sport website. Live on ITV1
 
Some overly optimistic predictions!

As long as we play well as a team, and get the 3 points, I'll be happy. Hopefully Rooney and Heskey will play up front (If the latter gets fit in time). Capello should stick Gerrard or Lampard on the bench, and not play them both together. I myself would opt for Lampard.

Should be a comfortable game, and if we can get a couple of early goals, the rest of the match will be a walk in the park.

England 3 - 0 Kazakhstan.
 
For those interested and who live in America, an England match is finally live on FSC, and not on Pay-per-view for 25 dollars as is usually the case!
 
Gazza said:
I'm surprised you passed on that Brad. Couldn't you have taped England?
Click to expand...

Rule 1 of football watching: It must be live

Why would I be so desperate to see Sweden vs Portugal? I just went to see Sweden against Hungary. Should I have gone to watch Ronaldo play?!?!

I missed the Croatia game due to Swe vs Hun (England weren't televised anyway), don't intend to do that again
 
Brad said:
Rule 1 of football watching: It must be live

Why would I be so desperate to see Sweden vs Portugal? I just went to see Sweden against Hungary. Should I have gone to watch Ronaldo play?!?!

I missed the Croatia game due to Swe vs Hun (England weren't televised anyway), don't intend to do that again
Click to expand...

Watching live is only important if everyone in your sphere is gonna be talking about the match or if you have to wait a day or so to watch it.

I dunno, live football, especially with some class footballers playing, just seems more appealing to me.

But your choice, I wasn't having a go!
 
England 2-1 Kazakhstan

Ali-G - 24
Borat - 36
Ali-G - 45

Half-time show: Bruno Interview
 
Gazza said:
Watching live is only important if everyone in your sphere is gonna be talking about the match or if you have to wait a day or so to watch it.

I dunno, live football, especially with some class footballers playing, just seems more appealing to me.

But your choice, I wasn't having a go!
Click to expand...

Ok, I've confused matters with my use of the word 'live' I think. Curse the English language

I prefer live in both senses. I prefer to actually be seeing the game in person, and I prefer to be watching the game as it happens. The difference is, whilst not the same, its still good to watch a game on TV as it happens. But what I really don't like doing is watching a game 'as live'. Which is what you suggested with your TV recording idea

Of course I do still watch games as live. But that's just because there's something wrong with me. But it's just not the same at all
 
Brad said:
Ok, I've confused matters with my use of the word 'live' I think. Curse the English language

I prefer live in both senses. I prefer to actually be seeing the game in person, and I prefer to be watching the game as it happens. The difference is, whilst not the same, its still good to watch a game on TV as it happens. But what I really don't like doing is watching a game 'as live'. Which is what you suggested with your TV recording idea

Of course I do still watch games as live. But that's just because there's something wrong with me. But it's just not the same at all
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we're both a bit confused with our use of the word 'live'. Perhaps we should both just back out with our dignity in tact?
 
Oh and at some point, Plech should arrive to tell us the English language isn't the pile of horseshit we all think it is, that there is a very good meaning for the double meaning of the word 'live' (actually it has more, consider for example 'a place to live'), and that if we weren't such Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime we'd use each variation in its appropriate context thus making it clearly distinguishable as to which specific usage of the word 'live' we were pertaining too

And he'd probably take a cheap shot at how incredibly passionate, yet incredibly wrong I was about my theory of not liking anything other than 'live' (as opposed to 'as live') football matches, just to rub it in :smirk:
 
Brad said:
Oh and at some point, Plech should arrive to tell us the English language isn't the pile of horseshit we all think it is, that there is a very good meaning for the double meaning of the word 'live' (actually it has more, consider for example 'a place to live'), and that if we weren't such Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime we'd use each variation in its appropriate context thus making it clearly distinguishable as to which specific usage of the word 'live' we were pertaining too

And he'd probably take a cheap shot at how incredibly passionate, yet incredibly wrong I was about my theory of not liking anything other than 'live' (as opposed to 'as live') football matches, just to rub it in :smirk:
Click to expand...

I'm hoping Feeding Seagulls doesn't see this thread :nervous:
 
Switching to 4-3-3 to incorporate Gerrard is a backwards step imo. Capello says this will make England more attacking, but what you'll get is 3 attacking players, Barry holding and Gerrard and Lampard fecking about, not knowing when to attack, then the three attackers will turn to two when Rooney has to go and bail them out.

The 4-2-3-1 Capello has been favouring allows at least 4 attacking players most of the time, as would a 4-4-2 with wingers. However, he has to try and include Stevie Me
 
I know, have been a few times (Community Shield the latest), it sure is expensive....

....hehe, I thought of doing that :nervous:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.