colshy18 0 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Would Walcott take that accolade if Sven brings him on? i believe so. but uynsure of the ages. whiteside was 17 as is walcott. don`t know the days though. maybe you could supply us stewarty? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I am sure I read commentary in one of England's warm up games saying Walcott couldn't beat whiteside's record 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colshy18 0 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I am sure I read commentary in one of England's warm up games saying Walcott couldn't beat whiteside's record yeah i heard that too. think it was in the first group game. but he must be getting close to whitesides record now cause that was 2 weeks ago. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,878 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 i believe so. but uynsure of the ages. whiteside was 17 as is walcott. don`t know the days though. maybe you could supply us stewarty? He was born 16th March 1989. If Sven plays him on Saturday then he'll be 17y 106d (if my dodgy maths is correct) Whiteside was 17y and 42d so the answer to my own question is.....no 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 yeah i heard that too. think it was in the first group game. but he must be getting close to whitesides record now cause that was 2 weeks ago. Eh ?? If he couldn't beat Whiteside's record as youngest player then what would an additional 2 weeks do to mean he can beat the record ? If he was already older than Whiteside was then he still will be if he plays on Sat.... What am I missing ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,878 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Eh ?? If he couldn't beat Whiteside's record as youngest player then what would an additional 2 weeks do to mean he can beat the record ? If he was already older than Whiteside was then he still will be if he plays on Sat.... What am I missing ? Colshy's missing his marbles methinks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colshy18 0 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Eh ?? If he couldn't beat Whiteside's record as youngest player then what would an additional 2 weeks do to mean he can beat the record ? If he was already older than Whiteside was then he still will be if he plays on Sat.... What am I missing ? no, i just thought he was near to the 17 years and 42 days and so i thought if he had played him on saturday it may have beaten it. i didn`t realise he was so far over the 42 days. he`s quite far out from the record 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Maradona could have equalled Matthaus if he hadn't been nabbed for being a cokehead He would of beat it! He should of been included in the 78 team but was left out after a disagreement with the coach and went to the youth WC instead which he won single handedly. He would of also got more caps in 94 if he never scared that camera man against Greece. He should of got near 28 apprearances. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 did you know that in italys first world cup final victory being played at home, italy are alleged to have paid off players and referees to assist them in the title. benito mussolini wanted italy to be known as the world champions and paid for it.....therefore, czechoslavakia may well be more deserved of that world cup. did you know that in germanys first world cup final victory in 1954 the germans are alleged to have paid off a referee who done hungary out of many decisions and a perfectly good goal. ....therefore, hungary may be more deserved of that world cup. did you know, that in argentinas 1978 campaign at home they paid off a argentine born peruvian keeper to concede six goals in order that argentina got an easier run to the final. also, the argentine military which was in charge of the country at the time made sure their president made `visits` to the opposition dressing room prior to games in which it`s alleged that `money and/or threats took place. .....therefore, holland may be more deserved of that world cup. if the above actually was taken into consideration and everything had been done fairly, then the list would look like this today... world cup winners- brazil(5) germany(2) italy(2) uruguay(2) argentina(1) france(1) england(1) holland(1) czechoslovakia(1) hungary(1) Colshy you forgot about 1974 when Yugoslavia put Scotland out on goal difference by beating Zaire 9-0 - the Zaire Manager just happened to be... Yugoslavian. Scotland had a great team that year and had already put out one of the favourites in Czechoslavakia. They had also played Germany off the park in a friendly, soundly beaten England in the home nations and were unlucky to only draw with Brasil. They were the only unbeaten team in those finals and had a very good chance of winning it. So... brazil(5) italy(2) uruguay(2) argentina(1) czechoslovakia(1) england(1) france(1) germany(1) holland(1) hungary(1) scotland(1) However without the dodgy linesman it should have been Germany in 66 making it: brazil(5) germany(2) italy(2) uruguay(2) argentina(1) czechoslovakia(1) france(1) holland(1) hungary(1) scotland(1) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colshy18 0 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Colshy you forgot about 1974 when Yugoslavia put Scotland out on goal difference by beating Zaire 9-0 - the Zaire Manager just happened to be... Yugoslavian. Scotland had a great team that year and had already put out one of the favourites in Czechoslavakia. They had also played Germany off the park in a friendly, soundly beaten England in the home nations and were unlucky to only draw with Brasil. They were the only unbeaten team in those finals and had a very good chance of winning it. So... brazil(5) italy(2) uruguay(2) argentina(1) czechoslovakia(1) england(1) france(1) germany(1) holland(1) hungary(1) scotland(1) However without the dodgy linesman it should have been Germany in 66 making it: brazil(5) germany(2) italy(2) uruguay(2) argentina(1) czechoslovakia(1) france(1) holland(1) hungary(1) scotland(1) good one calscot. never knew that about zaire though must admit 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.