++ [ originally posted by Karlberg ] ++
I know I said something else. But I just had to comment on this bit... Yes, you had some progress from 94' to 98'... you got further the second time. But then you got knocked out of the first round in Euro 2000... that's downhill... not much but it's not progress. Then you didn't qualify for WC 2002, which we all agree is another step down the ladder... right? Which leeds us back to my point. Not much progress!
I know I said something else. But I just had to comment on this bit... Yes, you had some progress from 94' to 98'... you got further the second time. But then you got knocked out of the first round in Euro 2000... that's downhill... not much but it's not progress. Then you didn't qualify for WC 2002, which we all agree is another step down the ladder... right? Which leeds us back to my point. Not much progress!
We didn't qualify for the WC, but probably will for the EC. Our form is a bit unstabile, it doesn't matter, as the point is we're at a point were can qualify for big things, something that's never been the case before.
Let's get back to the point. I said that Denmark and Sweden are better teams. Then you replied (a bit harshly!) and brought the style of play and the progress bit into the discussion. Cool, but I don't see how your arguments proves that Norway are a better team than the neighbours.
The results, the progress... Both teams have done better than Norway in that department... and also in "the style of play" department.
The results, the progress... Both teams have done better than Norway in that department... and also in "the style of play" department.
And I don't see your argumentation for Denmark or Sweden being better. You say you're the better team, when we're currently tied in our group if I'm not mistaking.
