You are not logged in. Please register or login.

#1 Re: The Garden » EURO 2021 Thread » 10 weeks ago

AtariLegend wrote:

I thought the final night of group games in F livened things. It was the night France played Portugal, Germany played Hungary.

It was not compelling before that night. Since then it was more hit than miss.

Yes good point they were two good games. For long enough that night it looked like it would be England v Hungary in the last 16.

AtariLegend wrote:

Congrats APE on getting to the final, you have your best chance in over 50 years of a trophy, regardless of the route.

I'd be happy, but let's be honest Denmark were screwed. Sterling dived and the ref should have went to the monitor. Nevermind the lazer pen and 2 balls being on the pitch. It's beyond hypocritical to see the pundits pretend otherwise (more bbc than itv). Denmark were hard done by. Had 10 players on the pitch for half of extra time and were clearly knackered (their long travel throughout Europe for games didn't help), nevermind Erickson.

Thanks, no doubt, have to be in it to win it as they say. I think if we got through Germany in 96 we probably go on to win it, maybe the same in 90 as well given the relative calibre of finalists on both occasions. Nevertheless they didn't and this team have made it.

Can't agree that they were screwed. Was it a soft pen? Yes. Do you see them given all the time? Also yes. It was about as soft as the free kick that was awarded to Denmark for their goal. I think the one on Kane in normal time was more of a pen tbh but the ref said no for that one. I guarantee if the same scenario had presented to a Danish player or an Italian tomorrow they do exactly the same thing as Sterling.

From 60 mins onward the Danes were spent and rolled the dice on subbing half the team to freshen it up and it didn't work. In a game where they were allowed to make 6 subs in total and still ended up with 10 men for the last 15 mins isn't unlucky, it's poor management.

AtariLegend wrote:

It's the best England team in my lifetime. 2002 had better players, but the system/tactics weren't there. In 2016 when I mentioned the Iceland thing the squad wasn't that good, it's different now.

I personally think the 2004 team was the best squad (on paper at least). Only David James was a downgrade really, add in a red hot Wayne Rooney and I think it beats the 02 team. As you say though tactically poor and Eriksson wasn't brave enough to either change his shape to accommodate the players or change the players to accommodate the shape and we suffered as a result.   

AtariLegend wrote:

Still a good chance Italy win though. They're pretty good and it'll be very different/harder than anything so far. If they beat Italy, they're deserved winners. If they fail, then it's business as usual and I'm not sure where England rank in europe amongst the big teams. Germany were a jeckle and hyde team than England on paper should beat , Italy aren't.

I'm disappointed in France most in terms of the teams. They had the best players, yet chose to play all their games like they were exhibitions and never really kicked into gear, it backfired. They'll be back in 2022 probably.

Portugal done what England did in the early 2000s imo. Try to fit your star players unto the field, rather than stick to a system and put people on the bench (Bruno Fernandes upset the teams balance imo). Very good squad, bad system. Like fitting Steven Gerrard/Lampard into the same midfield instead of just benching one.

I think Italy are favourites and I'm expecting them to win tbh. I think it will be close but I can see an Italy win. They did seem to tire against Spain though which might also work in our favour.

I'm glad we are playing a proper classical team in the final, if we win it will have been deserved. Agree, not sure if we lose quite where we sit among Europe's best but if nothing else it will have been a fun few weeks.

#2 Re: The Garden » EURO 2021 Thread » 10 weeks ago

Been really quiet on here.....

Anyway what have people made of tournament? I thought the group stage was bit meh but came alive in the knockouts (as is often the case), the Spain v Croatia game seemed to really spark it all in to life. I don't like the multiple cities format, a tournament needs a host country and I think it's suffered as a consequence, although certainly not helped by covid restrictions either.

England making the final still feels a bit surreal, we usually got a nosebleed in the quarters in the last 20 years. I just hope we don't get overawed by the occasion and die wondering.

#3 Re: The Garden » EURO 2021 Thread » 15 weeks ago

AtariLegend wrote:

Belgium have an agining defence and DeBruyne might not be fit. Hazard has been a disaster at Madrid sadly so far. They might go deep, but I don't see them getting past the semis.

Spain don't have a great squad and depth (don't get why Nacho/Marco Assenio of Real Madrid weren't taken). I reckon if England made it to the quarters against Spain they'd beat them.

France have the best squad and easily should win this... except the favourites rarely do sweep all. I would not fancy England against them.

Portugal are much better than when they won it, both as a team and squad. Maybe 2nd favourites they should be? They would be a good test for England.

As for Germany, it's Low's last try. They do have a good squad, just bad form. However they do play the group in Berlin. Them vs. England in the last 16 will be interesting.

Italy have had really great form since they failed to get to 2018. They've lost only 1 competitive game (against Portugal) and been really good. It's not the Italy 2006 squad, but they should be good for going deep.

England with some luck can go to Semi's, but the last 16 is going to be really hard. ...And like last time, unless you count the penalty win over Spain in 96... England's euro knockout record is horrendous. I don't think they ever beat a team past the group. ...But you have a much better squad now than in the past. Alot of really good young players playing abroad, the future is bright regardless of 2021 or Qatar next year.

There are certainly questions over Belgium's key players this time but if they can get KDB, Hazard and Lukaku on the pitch and in any kind of form they'll be difficult to stop.

I think Spain are missing a David Villa/Fernando Torres type to give them the needed cutting edge up front. They're still a match for anyone on their day though.

It's hard to see past France, the quality and depth they have is incredible. However as you say favourites rarely win but there is reasonable precedent for the last world cup winners to then go on and win the next euros so we'll see. The most likely team to beat France is themselves.

Italy are a good shout, nobody is really talking about them which is generally when they are most dangerous. Just quietly building momentum.

England's record in the euros is sketchy full stop. It's not a tournament we routinely do well in by any stretch. To be fair though most of our knockout games we've gone out on penalties. You can't dismiss the Spain win because it was on pens then say our knockout record is horrendous when all but one of those defeats (in my lifetime) have been on pens as well. There's only the Iceland game I think where we lost 'normally'. I'm also not sure if it's relevant, I don't think this squad is scarred by the continuous failings that seemed to haunt previous generations (there is still time for that). Most of this team have won on pens, won a knockout game in normal time and reached a world cup semi final together. I don't know if that's relevant either but has to be more so than how we did in the 90's?

With all that said I think this is an exciting squad. While this tournament and Qatar could be a bit soon, if their development continues, players like Foden, Mount, Sancho, Bellingham could form a core of a really top international side in the future. In the here and now I'm not sure we are good enough defensively and we seem to struggle to link play effectively between defence and our forward line.

I'd be very impressed with another SF appearance.

#4 Re: The Garden » EURO 2021 Thread » 15 weeks ago

Thanks for that reminder. Can you link to the world cup 2018 thread at all?

England have a decent squad but no way are they favourites (which they are with some bookies) I know home advantage is big but I don’t see us beating any of France/Spain/Belgium/Portugal. I wouldn’t be that surprised if we don’t make it out of the group.

Hoping all the home nationa do well to be honest.

Think it’ll be France or Belgium that wins it.

#5 Re: The Garden » Covid 19 » 16 weeks ago

Had mine on Saturday. Got given Pfizer, wasn't offered a choice but I'd have probably gone for that even if I was.

Had an aching arm for 36 hours after but other than that all good.

#6 Re: The Garden » Covid 19 » 17 weeks ago

In the UK the standard is 10-12 weeks between first and second jab, both with Pfizer and AZ. I think the data is quite strong for a substantial gap (couple of months) between 1st and 2nd dose.

Got my first one booked for Saturday morning.

#7 Re: The Garden » Covid 19 » 23 weeks ago

misterID wrote:
James wrote:

Either roll the dice on the virus or the vaccine. Both just as likely to kill you.

I don't think this is fair. From how I read it, he was saying you don't know how either will effect you.

Well no, ‘both just as likely to kill you’ is not the same thing as ‘you don’t know how either will effect you’. The latter statement is true and also true of any type of medication you take for the first time by the way. ‘Both being as likely to kill you’ is demonstrably untrue.

My partner tested positive last weekend. Only did a test as we were meant to be visiting her parents and her Dad is quite high risk. Anyway came back positive, lost her taste and smell this week but it’s returning now. I’ve tested negative all week but find it hard to be believe I’ve not had it having spent so much time in close proximity.

#8 Re: The Garden » Covid 19 » 42 weeks ago

monkeychow wrote:
AtariLegend wrote:

Alot of questions being asked about the Oxford vaccine.

Seems like they need to restart the trials. Questions around doses and how people over 55/in risk groups were actually tested.

So as I understand it with the oxford one:

- 90% effective when given with a 1/2 dose followed by a full dose.
- 62% effective when given with two full doses.

However it turns out that the half dose system above was only tested on people below 55.

Other interesting thing is that apparently the half dose tests were actually an accident - but when they realised they got approval to continue studying at that dosage and seem to have discovered that it's actually a better dose (pending what the next test shows).

I don't think these results are cause for alarm though - just grounds to keep looking into it - as given older people respond less well to vaccine generally it might be that the half dose system would not be as effective for them. So we might end up with something where you take more if you are older and get a lesser effect, while people who are younger need to take less and get a stronger effect from it.

But obviously we need to know. But it's good that so far it's been free from too many worrying side effects.

Just another in a long line of scientific and medical advancements/discoveries that have been made by accident.

I think initially the hope was for a vaccine to be somewhere in the region of 60-80% effective. The idea of 90%+ efficacy was a dreamland type scenario. The regular seasonal flu jab is only around 50% effective on average and that has a huge beneficial impact each winter. I don't think it was expected that Covid was ever completely eradicated (although it could be possible if 90% vaccines is the reality) through vaccination. More control infection levels to a point that it becomes a low level risk in society to the elderly or very vulnerable but in such a way that they aren't pouring in to hospitals in waves of thousands a day.

The other point is tht even lower or poor efficacy in the elderly is not a disaster. It's not ideal but doesn't mean a vaccine doesn't have merit. On the assumption the vaccine prevents you from spreading it rather than just dulling symptoms then there is still a knock on benefit to the elderly. If it's effective in younger people then their interactions with the elderly become less risky by default.

It's also good that the first 3 vaccines to complete phase 3 trials have shown that they do, in principle, work. It's highly likely more will work as well and the more vaccines available the less chance of a bottleneck in supply and it keeps prices down as well.

Neemo wrote:

I dont know...rushing vaccines doesn't seem like a good long do these things normally take to fully vet?

Depends on the disease and also the man power to an extent. This is the largest vaccination development programme in human history. The more people you have working on it and the more volunteers/patients you have the easier and faster you can get significant data.

Also worth pointing out the blueprint or skeleton for these vaccines was already in existence way before Covid. Work began on this type of vaccine to treat SARS 15 years ago but never completed trials as they managed to stop the spread of SARS among the human population anyway, same with MERS several years later. 75% of the vaccine has been completed for years they just needed the unknown next corona virus candidate to come along in order to add the relevant genetic material from the virus to the vaccine.

#9 Re: The Garden » Current Events Thread » 46 weeks ago

They’re reporting in the UK he has the most votes of any presidential candidate ever.

Although Trump has also picked up 3 million more votes than he did in 2016.

#10 Re: The Garden » The United Kingdom General Election, 2nd May 2024 » 46 weeks ago

Why? I mean you’re probably right re 2024 but not because they suspended Corbyn.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB