Womens euros 2022 thread

[bcubed]

Massively OTT, and didn't they all get MBEs or something? Ridiculous.

But if the parade was well attended and gave a nice feel good factor for a short while who are we to moan I guess?

It's probably an age thing where you and Dirk seem to be in the same camp as me.
As you say, if it makes people happy then why not and put it down to people nowadays ,desperately needing that sense of belonging and a requirement for a feelgood fix which maybe they don't get from their own lives, with an element of National pride thrown in.

There may well be a political dimension to it, also, This was not too long after Blair had his Britpop-inspired Downing St receptions etc - probably just another facet of trying to big up Britain as a "brand".

Don’t have a problem with celebrating the 2005 Ashes in a big way.

For the previous 15 or 16 years we hadn’t had a look in.

Extracted this from Wikipedia -
Before the 1989, the win–loss ratio was pretty even with 87 test wins for Australia to England's 86.
Between 1989 and the start of the 2005 series, Australia had won a further 28 times, England 7 times, with 8 draws. And only one England victory had come in a match in which the Ashes were still at stake.

So the history leading up to 2005 was not surprisingly doom and gloom. And even after the first Test it looked like the same old story. The manner of victory in the following games was astounding so why wouldn’t you celebrate in a big way? We’d recovered the Ashes after a long period of total domination by the Aussies and in the most exciting way.

As for being awarded honours, well I couldn’t give a stuff about them in any circumstances.

[Loafer]

It's probably an age thing where you and Dirk seem to be in the same camp as me.
As you say, if it makes people happy then why not and put it down to people nowadays ,desperately needing that sense of belonging and a requirement for a feelgood fix which maybe they don't get from their own lives, with an element of National pride thrown in.

There may well be a political dimension to it, also, This was not too long after Blair had his Britpop-inspired Downing St receptions etc - probably just another facet of trying to big up Britain as a "brand".

Don’t have a problem with celebrating the 2005 Ashes in a big way.

For the previous 15 or 16 years we hadn’t had a look in.

Extracted this from Wikipedia -
Before the 1989, the win–loss ratio was pretty even with 87 test wins for Australia to England's 86.
Between 1989 and the start of the 2005 series, Australia had won a further 28 times, England 7 times, with 8 draws. And only one England victory had come in a match in which the Ashes were still at stake.

So the history leading up to 2005 was not surprisingly doom and gloom. And even after the first Test it looked like the same old story. The manner of victory in the following games was astounding so why wouldn’t you celebrate in a big way? We’d recovered the Ashes after a long period of total domination by the Aussies and in the most exciting way.

As for being awarded honours, well I couldn’t give a stuff about them in any circumstances.

Same when we won the rwc in 2002. Didn't they all get honors?

[South Coast Royal]

It's probably an age thing where you and Dirk seem to be in the same camp as me.
As you say, if it makes people happy then why not and put it down to people nowadays ,desperately needing that sense of belonging and a requirement for a feelgood fix which maybe they don't get from their own lives, with an element of National pride thrown in.

There may well be a political dimension to it, also, This was not too long after Blair had his Britpop-inspired Downing St receptions etc - probably just another facet of trying to big up Britain as a "brand".

Don’t have a problem with celebrating the 2005 Ashes in a big way.

For the previous 15 or 16 years we hadn’t had a look in.

Extracted this from Wikipedia -
Before the 1989, the win–loss ratio was pretty even with 87 test wins for Australia to England's 86.
Between 1989 and the start of the 2005 series, Australia had won a further 28 times, England 7 times, with 8 draws. And only one England victory had come in a match in which the Ashes were still at stake.

So the history leading up to 2005 was not surprisingly doom and gloom. And even after the first Test it looked like the same old story. The manner of victory in the following games was astounding so why wouldn’t you celebrate in a big way? We’d recovered the Ashes after a long period of total domination by the Aussies and in the most exciting way.

As for being awarded honours, well I couldn’t give a stuff about them in any circumstances.

Yes, a cracking series but just another series in 2 year cycles between just 2 countries-it wasn't a world cup or a sporting competition where the rest of Europe was involved and was far from being a first so, like Dirk, I feel that it was all a bit OTT.

[bcubed]

There may well be a political dimension to it, also, This was not too long after Blair had his Britpop-inspired Downing St receptions etc - probably just another facet of trying to big up Britain as a "brand".

Don’t have a problem with celebrating the 2005 Ashes in a big way.

For the previous 15 or 16 years we hadn’t had a look in.

Extracted this from Wikipedia -
Before the 1989, the win–loss ratio was pretty even with 87 test wins for Australia to England's 86.
Between 1989 and the start of the 2005 series, Australia had won a further 28 times, England 7 times, with 8 draws. And only one England victory had come in a match in which the Ashes were still at stake.

So the history leading up to 2005 was not surprisingly doom and gloom. And even after the first Test it looked like the same old story. The manner of victory in the following games was astounding so why wouldn’t you celebrate in a big way? We’d recovered the Ashes after a long period of total domination by the Aussies and in the most exciting way.

As for being awarded honours, well I couldn’t give a stuff about them in any circumstances.

Yes, a cracking series but just another series in 2 year cycles between just 2 countries-it wasn't a world cup or a sporting competition where the rest of Europe was involved and was far from being a first so, like Dirk, I feel that it was all a bit OTT.

I won't labour it, but it wasn't just another series, because of the previous 15 years of defeats and the prevailing despondency about the Ashes. And you can say no-one else is involved. They re not, but in cricket terms it's massively important. And all of a sudden people who werent cricket fans were following the game. I'm totally fine with the fanfare that series victory received

[Sanguine]

Yes, a cracking series but just another series in 2 year cycles between just 2 countries-it wasn't a world cup or a sporting competition where the rest of Europe was involved and was far from being a first so, like Dirk, I feel that it was all a bit OTT.

Honours can be though. One might compare what Sir Tom Moore did (brilliant though it was) with the efforts of others who have worked in the charity sector for decades, and suggest his award was somewhat over-blown.

[bcubed]

Yes, a cracking series but just another series in 2 year cycles between just 2 countries-it wasn't a world cup or a sporting competition where the rest of Europe was involved and was far from being a first so, like Dirk, I feel that it was all a bit OTT.

Honours can be though. One might compare what Sir Tom Moore did (brilliant though it was) with the efforts of others who have worked in the charity sector for decades, and suggest his award was somewhat over-blown.

Honours wise yes but personally couldn't give a stuff about such an outdated and flawed system, your example being a good one. I was more commenting on the public/media reaction.

[SouthDownsRoyal]

Don’t have a problem with celebrating the 2005 Ashes in a big way.

For the previous 15 or 16 years we hadn’t had a look in.

Extracted this from Wikipedia -
Before the 1989, the win–loss ratio was pretty even with 87 test wins for Australia to England's 86.
Between 1989 and the start of the 2005 series, Australia had won a further 28 times, England 7 times, with 8 draws. And only one England victory had come in a match in which the Ashes were still at stake.

So the history leading up to 2005 was not surprisingly doom and gloom. And even after the first Test it looked like the same old story. The manner of victory in the following games was astounding so why wouldn’t you celebrate in a big way? We’d recovered the Ashes after a long period of total domination by the Aussies and in the most exciting way.

As for being awarded honours, well I couldn’t give a stuff about them in any circumstances.

Yes, a cracking series but just another series in 2 year cycles between just 2 countries-it wasn't a world cup or a sporting competition where the rest of Europe was involved and was far from being a first so, like Dirk, I feel that it was all a bit OTT.

I won't labour it, but it wasn't just another series, because of the previous 15 years of defeats and the prevailing despondency about the Ashes. And you can say no-one else is involved. They re not, but in cricket terms it's massively important. And all of a sudden people who werent cricket fans were following the game. I'm totally fine with the fanfare that series victory received

The 2005 ashes was an unbelievable series and should have been celebrated

[Royal Rother]

On the BBC football pages there are 20 or so updates re Weigman's press conference - all positive, mildly informative in the usual way of pressers - nothing remotely controversial.

Every single one has more thumbs down than thumbs up, except for the one about Scott and White retiring.

Looks like the sexist neanderthals are alive and well in football circles.

Shame.

[Silver Fox]

Welcome to the internet

[Royal Rother]

Looking at the Women’s WC Qualifiers tonight, most games finished but if you take the winning team versus the losing team I think the aggregate scoreline is currently 102-3

A 15-0, an 8-0, 5 x 7-0 (2 of those, including England still with 30 mins left).

Hell, even Scotland won 6-0.

[From Despair To Where?]

Cracking stuff in the Latvia - N Ireland game. Latvia take a shock lead only for the Latvia keeper to punch a corner into her own net to make it 1-1. 5 minutes to go, she punches another corner onto the back of a defender's head and into the net to make it 2-1 to N Ireland and then punches another into her own net in injury time to make it 3-1.

[Royal Rother]

Cracking stuff in the Latvia - N Ireland game. Latvia take a shock lead only for the Latvia keeper to punch a corner into her own net to make it 1-1. 5 minutes to go, she punches another corner onto the back of a defender's head and into the net to make it 2-1 to N Ireland and then punches another into her own net in injury time to make it 3-1.

[Royal Rother]

England’s qualifying group was pretty decent.

80 for.

0 against.

[From Despair To Where?]

The disparity between the haves and the have nots in the Women's games is startling. The Top 6 are way ahead of the next 6 who in turn are streets ahead of everyone else.

Its obviously down to funding and domestic structure so not really sure what the answer is unless FIFA are prepared to plough millions into development.

[LUX]

ok, we lost ten nil .

Just you wait till we get you back to fortress Luxembourg.

[Stranded]

ok, we lost ten nil .

Just you wait till we get you back to fortress Luxembourg.

That also finished 10-0.

England's results are ridiculous really.

v Luxembourg H 10-0, A 10-0
v Latvia H 20-0, A 10-0
v Austria H 1-0, A 2-0
v N.Ireland H 4-0, A 5-0
v N.Macedonia H 8-0, A 10-0

They won half their games by double figures and N.Macedonia and Latvia let in 125 goals between them.

You really have to think that there needs to be a staggered qualifying tournament here as these scorelines do not allow for development of the smaller nations - what do Latvia learn losing 20-0?