(I put no.1 as I feel the mods will see fit to create a new one once this hits 20 or 25 pages ;) )

I know the WC is still quite far away, but I'm really starting to feel the tingle now! Nothing stands up to the world cup in the sporting world. I just can't wait for it! You can feel everywhere starting ot get abuzz with it.

As a warm-up for the major discussions, I'm going to run down on the 10 teams I think have the best chance to win the world cup. Please anyone do the same or pick mine apart :D , it's all good for the discussion.

Argentina - Some quality play-makers, mixed in with some lethal forwards brewed together with the old fashioned Argie dirty, slimy, cheat-a-win style, makes the Dego's a team to be feared this WC. I just wonder if your Riquelme's and Veron's will be interested in fighting when the chips are down...
Leo Messi will be the star.

Brazil - The red hot favourites, and it's easy to see why! Ronaldinho, Kaka, Adriano, Juninho Pernambucano, Ronaldo (on his day) et al, these are all players with absolutely breathtaking ability. If these guys click and play their flowing, attacking football, I can't see any other finish to this WC than another Brazil win.
Ronaldinho will pull all the strings.

The Czech's - Strong, physical, no-nonsense, 'av it! style football. I laaarve it. I really like the Czechs as a team. They also mix some silky skills and good teamwork in with their physical nature. Perhaps these are the team to knock Brazil out for the rest of the teams? I think they have the ingredients to do it. Their strikers have a great record on the international stage as well. Great team these! Just maybe a couple of world class midfielders short of going all the way...
Tomas Rosicky operates their game from the midfield.

England - Strong keeper, strong defense, strong midfield, strong up front (pending Mr. Owens fitness). On paper, we should have a great chance. Unfortunately, the British media big us up and big us up until the players themselves seem think they hardly need to bother. Mix this in with an inept passionless manager making substitutions only he can explain, and this makes England the eternal chokers. This time around though, there is a real feel we can make things happen. In past WC's we've always had a decent side, but with a few players who weren't up to scratch. This time, we have quality allover. If we click, we can play great football and anything can happen.
Rooney is essential to any potential success. A big game player if I ever saw one.

France - They have the worlds greatest all-round striker in Henry, the worlds greatest goal-line poacher in Trezeguet and the worlds 2 greatest defensive midfielders. Fortunately, their defense leaves a lot to be desired. If you can get at the Frogs, they'll fold. Maybe...
Henry must find his club form.

Germany - Always crap on paper. Always not much of a chance. A few semi-good players, the rest average at best. Always manage to pull something out of the hat and make something of the tournament. Who has the balls to dismiss ther Gerries WC chances on home turf? I definitely haven't...
Ballack , 30 goals in 60 something appearances from the midfield. Stats speak louder than words. That's a phenominal record. If her doesn't play well, Germany will bomb. But he always does.

Holland - Blitzed the qualifyin. Great players. Internal strife usually lets this team down. But when you look at the squad of the players they have to choose from, especially attacking players, they really have to be considered as candidates. Maybe a Terry or a Samuel short at the back... we'll see.
Robben is the key here. If he starts being a mardy so-and-so like he is for Chelsea, he can more of a hindrance than a help. But if he turns it on, he can win football matches.

Italy - A great chance tis time around. They've managed to turf out dead wood like Vieri and got in a real goalscorer like Luca Toni. That can make all the difference. Especially when you have players like ADP, Gattuso, Pirlo et al hanging around the party, and the meanest defense in world football. Keep an eye out!
They will rely on Luca Toni finding the net regularly.

Spain - Probably worse than England at flattering only to decieve. They have some superb individuals (but also some donkeys). If they play well, they're capable of beating anyone with their great passing game. It's a question of whether or not they can do it...
Joaquin can run rings around teams when he wants to. Unfortunately, he's quite astonishingly hit and miss.

Ukraine (surprise package!) - THey qualified really well and have some fantastic players! Not to mentiona certain Mr. Andriy Shevchenko has the quality to turn a match on it's head on his own. I think these guys can really upset a few people.
Obvious one, Shevchenko will be essential. But he will be trying his heart out as this is his one (and probably only) world cup.

Other teams perhaps worthy of note are Portugal, Sweden and the Ivory Coast, all good teams in their own right, but I don't think they'll quite have enough...

It's not that far away. Only a few weeks really. The big question is really whether England can repeat 1966. Although it still only seems like yesterday (due to the constant dredging of stories from '66 in English newspapers), eventually there willl come a time when the 1966 heroes will all be dead and then it will seem like a long long time ago.

But the basic rule for betting on the soccer World Cup is to back whoever Harbourboy doesn't as I always come last in soccer World Cup picking contests. The year I backed the Netherlands, they were useless, and the year I backed France, they were hopeless, and the year I backed Brazil, their best players all fell asleep.

So who wants my kiss of death this year?

Oh man, it's WC time again already? So us Americans are going to have the WC shoved down our throat by all sports media outlets whether we want to hear about it or not? (And most of us couldn't care less about the WC.)

HB, I have a suggestion that should make everyone happy. If you don't have a problem backing a country that is an extreme longshot to begin with, pick the U.S. No one here will be upset if the U.S. team loses every single game, and that way you don't have to give the kiss of death to another nation that actually cares about soccer. Now, if you believe that you are obligated to select a team that actually has a realistic chance to win the WC, then I can't help you.

It's a similar kind of situatuon whenever the Superbowl comes around again for the 100 millionth time.
At least the rest of the world cares about the WC! ;)

Actually, I think the disinterest here comes from the fact that we suck when it comes to men's soccer. It's hard to get excited about an international sporting event when the most likely outcome is yet another ass-whipping.

Of course, that doesn't explain the disinterest in female soccer, in which the U.S. team has frequently been on the other side of the ass kicking equation. Then again, there's a general disinterest in practically all female sports. Even female sports that have some level of popularity in the U.S., like women's tennis, the interest is generally less than on the men's side. So maybe the fact that they're good isn't enough to offset the fact that most people have a lower level of interest when it comes to female sports. Of course, that doesn't make sense either, because most people in the U.S. look at soccer as a sissy sport to begin with, so you'd think most people would find it appropriate that our women were good at it. *note: extreme sarcasm* :D

That's where Britain and US differ. Women here don't do sports. They're too busy binge drinking and getting knocked up.

'Soccer' is growing in America all the time (or so I am told). And, believe it or not, America has a pretty good youth side. The problem is that the MLS is of a very poor standard and its rules are pretty bizarre. It's run completely differently to most other football leagues in the world. That, together with no cup competitions in the area for them. Then you've got the FIFA rule that no under 18's from N. America or S. America can move to Europe and you'll see why the US football scene is quite held back. More and more MLS players are moving into Europe once they hit their early 20's now though. The problem is that not many clubs are willing to take a risk on them.

Being fair though, the US national team isn't *that* bad. Probably in the top 25 teams in the world. A problem they seem to be getting at the minute though is over-confidence. They are ranked about 5th or 6th in the FIFA world rankings, which are COMPLETELY flawed. Because of this, they seem to think they are actually a top team. They aren't. I don't like their chances in the WC either. They have Italy, Czech Republic and Ghana to get past if they are to even get out of the group stage... can't see it myself.

'Soccer' is growing in America all the time (or so I am told). And, believe it or not, America has a pretty good youth side. The only problem with this statement is that they have been making it since I was a kid playing in soccer leagues. I remember when I was a kid, that people were saying, "Wait another 10-20 years, when this generation of American kids grow up and then the U.S. will be competitive in world class soccer." It hasn't happened yet, and I have no reason to believe it will happen any time soon.

They have Italy, Czech Republic and Ghana to get past if they are to even get out of the group stage... can't see it myself. And that can hardly be considered a "power" bracket. It's not like one of the teams is Brazil, or France, or Germany, or really any other of the super powers in the soccer world. Italy is good, but you don't have to finish first to get out of the bracket - second will do. If you believe the FIFA rankings, then the U.S. should certainly be at least the second best team in that group, but chances are, they aren't.

Actually, I think the disinterest here comes from the fact that we suck when it comes to men's soccer. I think part of the problem is that USA does not get excited about international team sports at all. They are much more interested in their internal club competitions. For example, basketball is a top sport but hardly any Americans care about the USA national basketball team (which finished lower than New Zealand in the World Championships a few years ago). On the contrary, in NZ, international sport is our favourite thing, supporting NZ teams in whatever sport they represent our country in (even the ones we suck at, like soccer).

Aldeth - The Czechs and the Italians are awesome. Ghana are proably a similar level to the USA ;) .

I wouldn't bet any money on Spain. They suck at big tournaments because most of their players don't have much practical experience. Too many foreign players in the primera division.

The dutch team has no real chances, too. But that's traditional. ;) By the way, I think they won't reach the last sixteen. Argentina and Serbia will make it.


Our team has the one big advantage: It's usually a real team, even if most of the players are very young. If they work together they can offset any disadvantages the individual players may have. The team did already show that it works.


IMO, following teams have a real chance on the title:

Brazil: That's a no-brainer. The only thing that can break their necks is the traditionally bad defense.

Argentina: Main favourite for me. The team is more complete than Brazil and the Argentineans can fight if they have to.

Czech Republic: As Barmy wrote, they have a team that works well together, as well as quite a few individuals that can turn any game alone.

England: Yeah, well. What shall I say? Always a good team, but to cocky most of the time. They lacked spirit in the past few years (and luck before that). If they put the allures of, they have a chance.

Italy: Third favourite in my book, after Argentina and Brazil. They don't use the Catenaggio anymore. Not much at least. That means pleasing and efficient forward oriented football. The only thing that can stop the team from reaching the semi finals is a bad referee. ;)

Germany: Additional to what I wrote above, our team plays at home. That should be a big moral boost. If Ballack does not get injured and Kahn is not nominated by Klinsmann, they can go far. If they survive the round of sixteen. (Italy or the Czechs. :mommy:

if you care, Aldeth, U.S. is being grouped under group E,

Italy
Ghana
USA
Czech Republic

Each team play against another once in the group stage, win gets 3 pts, tie gets 1 pt, lose gets none and the highest points of two of any group get to advance into "playoff" stage. goal difference is the tie breaker.

So, group E is not a comfortable place to be in. Italy will surely advance unless God intervened. The rest (u.s., czech and ghana ) is more of less fair game. The big match, in all group events for that matter, would be U.S vs Czech. Whoever wins this one gets 99.99% of the chance to get into playoff. Pay attention to the broadcast of this match, this is the must watch match at this moment.

Unless Ghana turn out to be the surprise package of the tournament (there's always one big surprise team - which neutral nations like NZ love to support - last time it was South Korea)

come on, you ain't helping, you see, i am trying to make an American watch football.

The Czechs and the Italians are awesome My apologies to the Czechs. :o I had no idea they were one of the premier teams. I did say that the Italians were good though. If you asked me for a list of the best soccer teams in the world, the Czechs wouldn't have made my short list. If I were to make a list of the best teams, I'd say Brazil and Argentina would be among the best, and the Brits, French, Germans, Dutch and Italians have historically always fielded very solid teams as well. Of course, this is coming from an American who only knows slightly more than the average American concerning soccer. Of course, considering the average American knows nothing, that doesn't speak well to my knowledge base.

come on, you ain't helping, you see, i am trying to make an American watch football.While the U.S. may not get into international sports as much as most other countries, I will say that the WC has a bigger following than most other soccer events. The reason for this is that currently, no major TV network broadcasts pro soccer matches, but the WC will be broadcast. So there is at least the opportunity to see some of the WC games, whereas you have no chance of seeing most pro matches.

If you want to watch pro soccer you have two options - if you have a satellite dish, you can purschase the league pass. It costs something like $120 for the year, but with that investment you can watch any and all the pro soccer games you want to. Your only other option is to purchase individual matches on pay-per-view. With the sport being not too popular, most Americans are not going to fork over money for a sport they aren't that interested in. Oh, I suppose there is a chance of a third option - you may be able to get a live feed over the internet, but I don't know for sure.

So the main problem with getting Americans to watch soccer is that it isn't readily available to them. The pay-per-views are a total ripoff. If you have any interest in watching more than a few matches, you're much better off purchasing the package instead of purchasing individual events. The problem there is, not everyone has a satellite dish, and not many people are willing to fork out $120 for soccer. And I fall into that category. I will gladly pay $200 per year to purchase the NFL Sunday Ticket, which lets me watch all the American football I want. I cannot, however, justify the $120 for soccer.

Keep an eye out for Ivory Coast, their frontline with Kalou, Drogba, and Kone is awesome, and can give any team's defense one hell of a night.

The Brits? :lol:
Us English have a strong team, but the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish are very poor.

Come on Barmy, show some egotism! I know that Great Britain refers to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (along with the other little islands that are not part of the island proper), but trust me, when us Americans refer to Britain, we aren't talking about Wales, Scotland or N. Ireland. If we were, we'd mention them specifically. When we say Britain, we are specifically referring to the English. You guys are the only ones over there that really matter to us.

Awww, how sweet!

In the words of the great George W Bush "You're from Wales? What state is that in?"

Nice thread Barmy! To bad that Denmark didn't qualify this time... I would put my money on Italy, or perhaps Brasil. I think Brasil have too many winners to make it, but still, they said, they would go for a win in Europe.

The dutch are the best attacking side. we have 15 star attackers, but alas a defense made of butter. ans as always ego first, teamplay last. I am ducth and so sick and tired of seeing them fail every time when the going gets though. We are the champions of the friendly matches.

example: A simple header, high, and a long underway before it reaches the defender. He has time to read the comics in the paper. No one nearby, 6 players with the same color shirt around, one not. Guess to which player he heads it?

We will get to the 1/8 or 1/4 finals and f*** up like we always do. We have never won in overtime. we have won once with penalties. (1/4 euro 2004)But still, once they came trough in 1988.

I pray for one thing, please(add deity of choice), please not the Germans.

I pray for one thing, please(add deity of choice), please not the Germans. Don't worry. Only with luck we will make it to the quarterfinals. There is simply not enough potential. One Michael Ballack is not enough.

Don't worry. Only with luck we will make it to the quarterfinals. There is simply not enough potential. One Michael Ballack is not enough.Ey, don't get depressed beforehand. The only unbeatable team we'll get in the round of sixteen is Italy. The other three from group E should be manageable.

I'm late to the party eh? I guess me and Barmy will have 85% of all posts like the last World Cup threads. :p

Ey, don't get depressed beforehand. The only unbeatable team we'll get in the round of sixteen is Italy. The other three from group E should be manageable.Czech is hard, but Germany have been shaping up lately and on home advantage they should be able to beat them.

If you meet Italy? Good luck, you'll need it. Italy doesn't loose against the good teams, that's a fact. If we face Poland in the playoff though, my team is going to have a quick ride home. :(

Don't worry. Only with luck we will make it to the quarterfinals. There is simply not enough potential. One Michael Ballack is not enough.Maybe, Germany does NOT play bad in World Cups. Other than 94, and to some extent 98, they have been a steady threat to EVERYONE who face them.

tsk, everyone's dumping on Germany :p wonder why, iirc ddin't they come in 2nd only to Brazil the last time? :confused:

As I mentioned in another thread: imo, Brazil's going to take it again. I always root for the underdog though :p

Slightly :yot: question folks. How exactly do the groups get selected, is it random draw? Secondly, how do you qualify for the tournament? I imagine they have a certain amount of groups, and a certain amount of countries that qualify for the tournament. How does the selection process work?

They were drawn out of big bowls, four to be exact. Category A,B,C, and D, depending on which rank on the FIFA list they are. We were ranked B category, only because we failed to qualify for the last worldcup, but we currently are third overall in the FIFA rankings. Those rankings don't make much sense though mind you, the Czechs are in second, but we beat them twice with 2-0 last year, so why they are ranked higher than us is beyond me.

The groups are semi-random selection. Their are 4 'pots' with the teams in, and a team is selected from each pot to comprise the group. It's usually a case of Pot A being the best teams, Pot B being the next best, Pot C being the dodgy teams and Pot D being the fodder. But, FIFA being as lame as it is, often a lot of the more dangerous teams come into group B or C, so you get a 'group of death' each time around. Last WC England were in the group of death (Argentina, Sweden, Nigeria).

Qualification is done with groups made up from the teams in your area. Therefore, it's tough for a lot of European teams to qualify, but the USA and Mexico get a free ticket to the WC each time because they play crap like Ecuador in the qualifiers.

Yeah, i'm in favour of randomizing the qualifying rounds too, to hell with the current set up. We should be able to play China, Kenia, New Zealand, or whatever nation competes for the WC. It should make up for some interseting matchups. I mean we've played somewhat 125 official matches against Belgium now, and it's getting kinda tiresome really.

Ok my predictions are

A - Germany, Poland
B - Engalnd, Sweden
C - Holland, Argentina
D - Mexico, Portugal
E - Czech, Italy
F - Brazil, Croatia
G - France, Switzerland
H - Ukraine, SPain

Second Round
Germany v Sweden
Holland v Portugal
England v Poland
Mexico v Argentina
Italy v Croatia
France v Ukraine
Brazil v Czech
Spain v Switzerland

Quarter-finals
Germany v Holland
Italy v France
England v Argentina
Brazil v Spain

Semi-finals
Holland V France
Brazil V England

Final
Holland V England

Winner
England

England winning, beating Argentina, Brazil and Holland along the way...

Looks pretty good to me, mate ;) .

Hey if you want to win do it the toughest way possible :grin:

if you want to have a random pool for qualifying rounds, might as well make it "brazil and agentina vs europe" cup. To be realistic, given the history, leagues and investment in football in europe, there isn't really any space at all for other countries, i.e. african, asian and even aus+nz. If you want to make it World Cup, at least give other parts of the world something to cheer for, or cry for.

I completely agree Teekc, that way we can finally get rid of that ridiculous system where the Championsleague starts off with 5 Spanish, 4 Italian and English, and 3 French teams, just to give an example. We need to go back to the setup where a CL seed is a reward for becoming champion of your national league, not ta gathering for the rich and shameless. And away with the "protected seeds" as well, i vote for randomized drawings where Real Madrid can draw AC Milan in the first round, and not just in the semis or something. The group stage is also an ugly beast, i liked it much better when there was a "do or die" set up, two matches, one at home, one away, winner moves on to the next round. In it's current setup, the CL will almost every year have a winner from a small select group of teams, the ones with all the money.

So away with the numers 2,3,4, and even 5 of the big European leagues, and replace them with the Champions of Brazil, argentina, Japan, Ghana, and all other nations where football really matters. A Champions World League so to speak.

Okay, my predictions in an organized way:

A - Germany, Poland
B - England, Sweden
C - Argentina, Serbia & Montenegro
D - Portugal, Mexico
E - Italy, Czech
F - Brazil, Japan
G - France, Korea
H - Ukraine, Spain

Second Round
Germany v Sweden
Argentia v Mexico
England v Poland
Portugal v Serbia & Montenegro
Italy v Japan
France v Ukraine
Brazil v Czech
Spain v Korea

Quarter-finals
Germany v Argentina
Italy v Ukraine
England v Portugal
Czech v Spain

Semi-finals
Argentina V Italy
Czech V England

Third Place
Italy v England --> Italy

Final
Argentina V Czech

Winner
Argentina

Qualification is done with groups made up from the teams in your area. Therefore, it's tough for a lot of European teams to qualify, but the USA and Mexico get a free ticket to the WC each time because they play crap like Ecuador in the qualifiers. Well, that doesn't seem very fair. For one, it seems only logical that you would want to world's best teams in the competition. Secondly, while it's true that the U.S. is closer to Ecuador than say, Brazil, it's not THAT much closer. That's like claiming that France is a LOT further away from the U.S. compared to England.

England in the semis? Must be joking. They're like the Tim Henman of football.

Quiz time: Who will get the red card for England at the worst possible moment?

A) Beckham
B) Rooney
C) Beckham AND Rooney

I'm not sure how those qualifying games work, because New Zealand seems to end up having to play teams like Iran and Israel to get through and it would be a bit of stretch to say that they were part of Oceania. Mind you, it was 24 years ago that we last managed to qualify so the rules might have changed since then.

@Bion: :lol: So true... (please, take no offence, England fans) Same happens with Spain, and after Italia 90, same with Argentina...
...that's why I don't see our team in the finals; as long as Crespo, Veron and all those 'veteran-already-well-payed' players are in the team, we can only dream with the third cup; I mean, we have a lot of young, local-league, very good players to chose from.

I, like people said, would like to see sometime some random pick up teams for the groups.
Pre world cup qualification is ok, I think; in South America, the first 3 teams get into the WC, the fourth, plays against, usualy, Australia to get the chance to get into the WC; Central and North America gets only 2 or 3 teams, I think; but seeing that Europe can have lots more teams it seems that is unfair but you got to see that Europe has lots of more countries. Also, of course you can't have teams that aren't that good of football (I don't know why San Marino even bothers to play qualification rounds because every other team seem to play "who will score more goals to that team, so teams in that group gets an easy win always).
The other thing about draws, is that FIFA always will get very famous teams in the finals, because if not, they lose a lot of money, same happens in other championships like tennis, the seeded players never get to play in the first 2 rounds between them.
So imagine that for some luck case, we get Argentina, Brazil, England and France in one group; 2 of the 'popular teams' will get a ticket to home in just the first week, that's mean less money for the country the event is, less money for television, less money for... everybody.
And nowadays, we know, that money makes the world-cup go round...

oh come on, it's the world cup, it comes only once in four years, i don't mind who is playing who, it's world cup! once every FOUR years! For sure there is a price difference between broadcast of group level Arg vs Eng and, say...., group level Cambodia vs Luxemburg, but it is world cup, once every four years. The price difference, i thnk, wouldn't be a whole damn lot.

If we european sides play against mostly against european sides we can call it something like the european cup, and that is held also every four years. To play the exotic teams from africa and south america is part of the charm. And those teams are not much worse than the european sides that did not make it. The africa cup is not to be underestimated, as is the americas cup.

Half the countries are european, and that is enough. 1/4 american-pacific, 1/4 african-asian. This sounds good to me. For the weaker countries getting there is the triumph.

Those weaker sides still have one or two talents that can show the world what they can do. That way new talent is also viewed. It also promotes the sport into newly developed soccer-areas to make it even bigger. Sorry, north americans, but "soccer" is bigger than baseball, football, ice hockey and basketball put togheter. It is the national pastime of the world.(Even for a fieldhockey player like me who cannot shoot a football straight)

Weaker teams? Looking through the medal results since the very beginning, South American teams bagged almost 1/3 of the top 4 showings. That's far better than their less than 1/4 representation would allow. And it even suggests that given an equal number of teams from Europe and South America, that South American teams would win more games.

Or in 2002, the top 4 results would have either been 1 showing for Europe, 1 showing for the Americas/Pacifica, and 2 showings for Asia/Africa. Even making the "Turkey is European" argument, you end up with 1/2 European, 1/4 Americas/Pacifica, and 1/4 Asia/Africa, exactly the distribution you suggest. But this doesn't make an optimal distribution, it only shows that regions will perform according to the number of chances given them. Add more teams from outside Europe, and Europe will be less dominant.

So FIFA is basically protectionist in favor of European teams in selecting teams for the World Cup. Of course, there's a good reason for this, as Europe spends the most money on football.

Aldeth - It's not really worked out geographically I don't think. But the USA and Mexico have a REALLY poor qualifying section (N.C. America and Caribbean).

Bion - However funny that statement might be, it's cow **** ;). We've never had such a good squad as we have now, and never such a good chance.

Then explain to me why the English are always yelling "Keep the Faith!" at the TV. Like for the English to win would be a miracle or something...

:pope:

What else would you shout? "Come on lads, we're going to win anyway, so no big deal"

:lol:

I tell you what, as you seem to think you know a lot about football - list out the English first eleven of the last two world cups, and compare it to our team now.

as for the south american nations, only Brasil has a big change. argentina is an outsider. for europe we haver at least four serious contenders for the title and at least 4 outsiders so the balance is right. If more not european countries do better on teh long term fifia will adapt.

Actually, it shouldn't really matter with the qualification process. Even if Europe was disporportionately under-represented (and that claim is dubious), if they couldn't even get out of the qualifying rounds, then clearly they aren't the best team. Even if Europe only was allowed a handful of teams in the WC - like say only 4 European teams made it - if you weren't among those 4 teams, then chances are you aren't the best team in the world if you aren't the best team on your continent.

I don't understand what you mean, Aldeth.
This is about certain qualifying sections being far superior to others. So you get clown teams at nearly every world cup, and good teams who miss out a lot of the time.

Some people think the WC should be all the worlds best teams together to slog it out. As it is now, you get most of the good teams, but a few donkeys (Tunisia, USA etc.).

It should be mixed up more. You just have to look at Ukraine and Australia only this year making their first world cup, yet other worse teams get a free ticket each time.

This isn't Australia's first World Cup. It's just their first for about 30 years. For some reason, for such an amazing sporting nation like Australia, the Socceroos have usually been pretty weak. And when they don't make it through, sometimes it's because they lose to New Zealand in qualifying (who then go on to lose to someone like Vanuatu).

So here's (http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/w/team/index.html) a map where you can see detailed locations.
What team you think shouldn't be there and which one should be there?

I think that the problem of this type of qualification rounds, it that some teams get out of the WC because 'politically' there should be another, why? I think that Chile is better team than Saudi Arabian; Trinida and Tobago didn't play its chances in South America zone even that Trinidad & Tobago IS in South America (http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/t/zone/sam.html) .

So, if you check the European (http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/t/group/index.html?zone=eur) zone, there a lot of countries that maybe should be in the final WC, much more than another teams from other continents/areas.

What?! England's first eleven from the last 3 world cup teams? Is this a pub quiz?

I'm not that much of a zealot... but as I recall, England didn't seem to get much out of their forwards in 2002, and I remember being particularly unimpressed by Heskey (?). I'm almost always underwhelmed by Beckham; don't understand the hype there. Scholes seemed to make more happen. Owen was impressive, and in 1998, but he was playing injured in 2002, right? Rio Ferdinand was really, really impressive. Seamen seemed a bit past it, kindof soldiering on.

I don't even know the 2006 side. But from Euro 2004, Rooney was a sparkplug, though I'd guess his performance is a bit uneven. Terry seemed really solid. Can't say I've been following it more than that, so hey, maybe they're more solid this time around.

I'll admit though, that while 2002 might not have worked out so well in the end, at least you had the 5-1 against Germany...

From the past 2 world cups I can name idiots who wouldn't get anywhere near our team now, who got in.

Heskey
Seasman
Sinclair
Butt
Mills
Fowler
Brown
Keown
Sheringham
Southgate
etc. etc.

These have been replaced by the likes of Terry,
Rooney and Lampard. Also, our 'old guard' players such as Ferdinand, Gerrard, Beckham, Owen etc. are far more mature and technically sound now than they were. All round, our team has improved so much. It's all a question of whether or not they can make it happen.
It's rare that the team with the players win the world cup. It's more down to luck, form, injury's, teamwork, then more luck.

This is about certain qualifying sections being far superior to others. I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that the most important thing is that a deserving team wins the WC. You're saying some lesser teams that have no chance of winning get in when more deserving teams don't. My point is that regardless of whether or not these other teams are more deserving or not, they had no real chance of winning either, as they couldn't beat the better teams in the qualifying rounds. All I'm saying is if you argue the 40th best team in the world made it, while the 30th best team in the world didn't, it doesn't really matter, because the 30th best team or 40th best team will both be squashed by superior competition anyway. The lesser teams still get no glory, and the best teams still get an easy opponent - in the bigger picture, it makes no difference.

This whole debate is useless, do i really need to remind you all of what happened in Portugal 2 years ago ?

This whole debate is useless, do i really need to remind you all of what happened in Portugal 2 years ago ? Well, maybe not everyone, but you could remind me. The last notable thing that happened for Portugal (in my mind) is the colonization of Brazil 500+ years ago.

Bacalau. Bacalau is pretty notable.

Greece won. A freak fluke. Won't happen again for a long, long time.

Can you be so sure of that ? Is there any logic in football at all ? The need of trainingcamps appears to be highly overrated as well, as was proven by Denmark winning the European championship in 1992. Because Yugoslavia was torn apart by the war, they couldn't compete, so Denmark, as the number 2 in the qualifying group, became their succesors. The Danish players were completely unprepared, in fact, they were all celebrating their summer holidays, on beaches all across Europe when they received a call to report for duty. No other team that was so unprepared has ever come up with such an accomplishment as the Danes did.

So again i ask you....is there any logic in football ? The answer obviously is...no, there isn't. On any given day, a team of amateurs can beat a professional team. It's a chance of one in a million, but it's possible. History has often proved us that the best team doesn't always win. Don't be surprised if this time someone completely unexpected turns out to be the next worldchampions.

Aldeth, the point is that the 35th best team in the world could win the entire thing during the right circumstances. There is a rather large segment of teams like Greece, Sweden, Denmark, Ukraine and so forth which have a hellish hard task just to qualify for the final round but given the right circumstances could (which has been proven by both Greece and Denmark winning the EC, sure no Brazil or Argentina but in general the EC is about as hard to win as the WC). Thus giving teams in the same segment (US and Mexico) free tickets and teams vastly inferior to this segment chances to qualify (Trinidad, Bahrain, Angola and so on) in a way which albeit is long and ardous still dont reflect the quality they have played compared to South American and European countries. My main peeve atm is the fact that Mexico and the US has free tickets in the middle/north American qualifying group. One big group, two direct qualifications which are always taken by the US and Mexico as they are vastly superiour to the other teams and then another spot which allows for further qualification. This could be simply remedied by just allowing the team finishing first in the group a direct ticket to the WC while the secnod and third has to go through further qualification. This would hopefully knock out one more blueberry team considering Mexico/US should easily defeat most teams they could cmoe up against while stile allowing teams a small chance to reach the final stage. Sure the small countries add flavour and are fun but when a team like Trinidad and Tobago is in the World Cup instead of teams like Denmark or Russia then I find it a bit odd. Is like a neighbourhood team in American football could qualify for the Superbowl while playing other neighbourhood teams while the other team has to qualify by playing other pro teams. The neighbourhood team might have to play more qualification games but it still doesnt compare to what the other team is up against.

I see what you're saying, but to me it is only delaying the inevitable. If teams like Russia or Greece cannot compete against the top European teams, then it doesn't matter if they lose to them in the qualifying rounds or in the final rounds. They still aren't the best team. Using your logic, we could just as easily say the USA isn't invited to the tournament either, because their odds of winning the whole thing are about a million to one as well. Just have the WC be a single elimination tournament of the top 8 teams in the world and be done with it.

If the qualifying rounds eliminated a top 10 team that would be a tragic injustice, but from what Barmy is saying that doesn't happen. We're talking about teams that are ranked 30th and lower. While I cannot discount the possibility that a lower ranked team could win the WC, the odds are so long as to be virtually negligible. Besides, this happens in all sports leagues. You have a regular season, in which certain teams qualify for the playoffs and others don't. While we cannot discount the possibility that a team that did not qualify for the playoffs could theoretically beat some of the playoff teams, they are still not permitted to compete. The WC basically works the same way, with the qualifying rounds determining which teams make it to the playoffs, with the playoffs in this case being the actual WC tournament.

Yes, but the big mistake in your thinking is that if a team knows it hasn't got a chance in hell of winning the WC, they're not bothered about going.

The WC is the holy grail for all football players. It's an honour for players to play in the WC, whether they get knocked out in the first round, reach the semi-final or win the whole damn thing. They just want to be there. And when good players have to sit out and watch from afar whilst the likes of Donovan, McBride and Cherundolo get a free ticket each time, it's not really fair on them.

Imagine, this is Andriy Shevchenko's first WC. Mental. This guy is one of the best strikers in world football and has been for the last 5 years or more. He hasn't missed out because the Ukraine are a lot worse than USA, Mexico, Angola and T&T, he's missed out because Ukraine face a harder qualifying group. Do you see? Or have you just got a different mindset about things like this? (I'm not being funny with you when I say that).

Perhaps we do have a different mindset (and I'm being serious too). It just seems that we have this in all types of world competitions, and more generally all sports.

I'll handle the two separately, because they are two totally different things:

1. In regards to the WC being the holy grail for football players, there's a "holy grail" in every sport. In baseball, it's the World Series. In (American) football it's the Super Bowl. In hockey, it's the Stanley Cup. etc. etc. etc. I'm sure every sport is like this. I'm sure there's some type of Championship in cricket, although hell if I know what it's called. And yes, in those sports it's considered an honor to get to play in the big event, even if you don't win. However, sporting events confined to one particular country (or two if you include things like the NHL in hockey) sometimes do not translate well to the world stage in which you have different countries competing, which bring us to:

2. World events, like the WC. The best comparison I can come up with here are the Olympics. Like the WC, it's considered an honor just to be able to go to the Olympics. But just because you play a sport doesn't mean that you automatically get to go, even if you have a good team. If you want a real life example, look at baseball. The U.S. baseball team FAILED to qualify for the 2004 summer Olympics. Now are you trying to tell me that the U.S. is not one of the best baseball teams in the world? That there weren't other teams that weren't as good that did qualify? Why did we fail to qualify? Because like the WC, qualifying is done regionally, and it just so happens that baseball is extremely popular in the Carribbean nations, and some of the best players in the world are from those countries. Since there are only a couple of accepted entries from each region, the U.S. missed the cut. But we didn't whine about it. The attitude was if our team isn't good enough to beat Cuba, then Cuba deserves to go and we don't. If we can't beat Cuba, we're not the best team.

I was serious too when I mentioned the mindset thing ;) .

In 2. would you say that both USA AND Cuba are both better than a few other teams who did manage to qualify for the Olympics? If so, shouldn't the Olympics be a competition between the best of the best, rather than the best of selected areas? It should be either a completely random group selection, or a series of completely random play-offs. That way, you do get only the best going and competing and nobody can grumble about having it tough. It doesn't matter that the USA weren't good enough to beat Cuba, if some other donkeys got in the Olympics purely on the basis of having it easy in qualifying. Whether or not the US had a whine about it or not, it's still a bad way to go about things IMO.

It's obviously difficult to compare the WC and the Olympics, but I see it being pretty similar. The WC is a more 'important' competition I guess though, well, in Europe anyway.

Aldeth, top10 nations has failed to qualify to World Cups. I am pretty sure both England and France failed to qualify for the 1994 WC (roughly top10 teams) and I think Holland failed to qualify for a pretty recent tournament as well. Of course it is their own fault that they fail and maybe they arent top10 if they fail to qualify but the fact still remains some teams have a much easier qualifications. I do understand the reason for this even if I am not sure I agree with them. FIFA wants the WC to be a *world* cup with teams from everywhere even if they lack the ability to field a good enough team. It would be boring if it had been a competetion between Europe and South America but then again it wouldnt even if according to me and Barmy. Teams like USA (which have about as good a chance to take it home as Sweden or the Ukraine imo very small but existing), Japan, South Korea, quite a few African nations should be in the World Cup, they are more than good enough but I cannot be convinced that a team like Trinidad and Tobago should be there, they faced off against Bahrain in a play off and that is just sad. Their greatest star is an old has been who once were great but now is not so great and really has a tenous relation to T&T at best which goes for pretty much their entire team. A bunch of Brits whose parents or even grandparents (or any relative at all it seems) moved to the UK and whose sons now play somewhere in the tangle of British football.

I would also like to add that this same argument goes for Baseball, it is not right that the US is not in the Olympics if some country from Europe might have gotten in or something. Regional play-offs is a ***** in all sports. I still cant fully advocate non-regional play-offs, first many of the smaller countries simply dont have the money to send a team half way around the world several times a year and secondly it would take too much time and I doubt the clubs the players play for normally would be happy if they have to let go of their players for twice as many days as now. They are grumpy enough as it is.

@ joacqin and Barmy:

While I do not remember the exact field for which countries made it and which didn't make it for baseball in the 2004 Olympics, since both Cuba and the U.S. are considered to be among the best in the world, I would have to say that, yes, there were teams in the Olympics that weren't as good as either Cuba or the U.S. I can't site specific examples, but if the field included more than say, 8 teams, then there had to be teams worse than both Cuba and the U.S., as there aren't 8 teams in the world that are better than both those countries.

@ joacqin: If top 10 teams failed to qualify, that is an injustice. However, given what happened to the U.S. in baseball (and the U.S. is certainly top 10 in baseball), it does seem that such a thing is possible.

I guess what we really need to come up with is some type of alternative. Complaining about the current system when there is no alternate is kind of pointless. So here's my suggestion. First of all it should be noted that I don't know how many teams qualify for the WC. 30? 60? I honestly don't know.

Anyway, for arguements sake, lets say 64 teams make it (and I stand to be corrected). I'm picking 64 because it seems like it would have to be a multiple of 2, so 32 or 64 seems like the most logical options. Here's my proposal. If it's 64 say the top 20 teams in the world based on FIFA rankings get automatic bids to the WC. Teams outside of the top 20 have to compete to get in. If it's only 32, then say the top 10 get automatic bids. Here's the key to my proposal though - the geographic locations of those top 10 or 20 teams should be irrelevant in deciding where the other teams can come from. For example, say England, France, Germany, and Italy are all top 20 teams and therefore get automatic bids. Other European countries should not be penalized for Europe already sending these 4 teams to the WC. The flip side of this arguement is that because we're giving automatic bids, the number of countries we take from specific geographic areas have to be reduced. For example, instead of north and central america getting 2 bids, now they may only get 1. If Africa used to get 4 bids, now they only get 2. Or something like that. You can preserve the idea of it being a "World" Cup, and yet ensure that you get the best teams.

The problem there is that nothing can be based on the FIFA rankings. They are even moire flawed than the qualifying sections. Nobody takes the seriously (except for the Mexicans and the Yanks!)

True Barmy, but no matter what ranking system you go by (even if you chose a method other than FIFA) there's going to be arguements regarding who's better than who. I mean, if you take the top 20 according to the rankings, can we really be sure that the 20th ranked team is better than the 21st ranked team? Of course not. But at least with a method similar to this, we would avoid the most grevious errors in the current system. There's no perfect fix out there, but if the goal is to maximize the number of good teams in the Cup chase, while still maintaining its international and intercontinental flavor, this compromise appears to be as good as any.

The ranking is based on the results over a certain period of time. The Netherlands is currently ranked third, because we went through our qualifying rounds undefeated. We also won most of our friendly matches over the past two years, so that would explain our high ranking.

In second place, is the Czech republic. People who don't understand the system would probably imagine that that means that the Czechs are a better team than ours, but we had them in our qualifying group, and on both occasions we beat them with 2-0, so that theory doesn't fly. The only reason why they outrank us, is that they have played more matches than us over the same period of time and had better results, which is also hard to imagine seeing that they had at least three defeats in the last 12 months. Two against us, and one against Romania.

So you see, it's kind of a complicated system, and doesn't make much sense to even the ones that do understand how the system works. :shake: The only ranking that's without any doubts is Brazil, but they are usually ranked first, so that's nothing out of the ordinary.

OK, so my system seems to be flawed. Soooo, if the current system is as bad as it seems, what recommendations do others have for a better system?

Complaining is easy, coming up with constructive alternatives is hard.

I'm not complaining, why should i ? The system ranks us third, although i personally feel that's a little overrated. I'm not tapping myself on the chest because of our position neither, because i fully realise the meaning of the FIFA ranking system and what it's worth.

You can't blame me for having a good laugh now can you ?

England Manager - Is Martin O'Neill going to get it?

Hope so. I wanted for Scolari to get it, but I've changed my mind after how he's acted. I hope MON gets it now.

You need a traditionalist after Goran's wild ways. I say let Harry Redknapp get the job!

The Curse of England strikes again!

Rooney likely to miss World Cup, Owen injured again after his comeback, and Terry picked up an injury yesterday.

That damn metatarsal again!

Just like the NZ cricket team. Goes to show that a champion side needs to have some depth in the whole squad.

Okay, England's down.

Which team's next? ;)

Bah, I never rated Michael Owen as a player anyway. And plus he's a smug bstrd. I think Sam Allardyce should get the England job

Theo Walcott included in the England squad!

He's not even started a game for Arsenal yet, and Sven's included him.

Could be a master stroke. He's an unbelievably talented player.

keep the faith England. It takes weeks to complete the first round so Rooney has time enough to make the second round.

I only hope that the referee's do their job properly and give advantage to the attacking teams. Offside for instance. Sometimes it looks that the men in black are afraid to go against favorites, or as in englands case in portugal, the homeside.

I just hope we get some goals this year. I seem to remember far too many nil all draws last time I watched soccer.

With those attackers that Eriksson put up for England, I reckon Sweden won't be letting in any goals against England, that's for sure.

It's almost as if Eriksson were pissed for getting fired and going "haha who's laughing when you have 0-3 in win/losses after the world cup?"

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3678511a1823,00.html

A big test for how well prepared Brazil are for this World Cup will come on June 4 when they come up against the mighty New Zealand All Whites. Expect New Zealand to put up a stern challenge and possibly keep Brazil to less than 20 goals.

Unfortunately, New Zealand are currently in a 'rebuilding' phase so will not be attending the actual World Cup finals themselves, this year.

Poor Rooney, I saw a few images of him whit his foot in some restraint. What can I say? But I still think he will make the second round. (To be sure we will fire up the old altar and sacrifice something.)

The first friendlies are being played, or have been. Van Nistelrooy just scored so his time on the Manchester bench seems to have made him fresh and hungry for a new contract.

We'll miss him badly without a doubt. We're very one-dimensional without the worlds best young player.

Can't wait for it now. Even though we're likely to get knocked out in the quarters (if we get that far).

Rooney is good, but i wouldn't want to call him the world's best young player. When i compare him with Lionel Messi, i'd have to say that the Argentinian is much more allround than rooney is today.

And what would you class as a weakness that Rooney has, John? He's fast, very strong, agile, has a great shot from anywhere, great finisher, his vision is unbelievable, he can dribble and take players on and he just relishes the big occasion.

Messi is good, but he's not as good shooting outside the box and he's not as strong. They are both the 2 worlds best young players, but Rooney is better than Messi for me, because he has no weaknesses.

No, Rooney is better for you because he's an Englishman. :p You'd probably say Messi was the better player if he was English. :D

I can't really think of any weaknesses Rooney might have, it's just that Messi seems the better ballhandler to me. In some ways he even reminds me of Maradona in his younger years. I heard some British comments in which they even compared Rooney with Pele, but that's a completely ridiculous statement if you ask me. Let him prove what he's worth for a few years on the highest level before making bold statements like that. I recall the same British enthousiasm with Gascoigne, and we all know what a big poof he turned out to be.

No, Rooney is just better than Messi ;) . As I say, you can look at Messi and pick one or two weaknesses, you can't do that with Rooney really. Although they are quite similar players.

To be honest, whenever a half decent player comes along he gets compared to Pelé, it's stupid but that's British press for you. Cocks, the lot of them.

I don't think I've ever seen a better English striker than Rooney as long as I've lived. He's just exceptional. A match winner, pure and simple. He carries the Man Utd team and the England team, both of which are nowhere near as good without the Roonster.

He's 2nd only to Steven Gerrard in the list of best English players I've seen play (so far!) and will only get better.

Just trying to make you extra nervous mate. :D

By now you should know that once my fellow countrymen don't deliver, England is my favourite team. Personally i don't think England has to worry all that much. Sure, they'll miss Rooney, but there's plenty of talent left to go a long way. Keep the faith mate. ;)

Oooh, Brazil only beat Lucerne by 8-0. Can't wait for their big clash against New Zealand. Not sure how much worse we are then Lucerne, (but probably much worse).

Yeah, probably. :D

Hey, New Zealand just beat Georgia 3-1 and drew 1-1 with Estonia. Those teams must be better than Lucerne, surely. I bet Ronaldo is quaking in his golden boots now! Bring on Brazil!

We just beat Mexico, with a B squad. :D

Well, many countries are envy at our b squad.

Crouchinho just got a hattrick for England as we beat Jamaica 6-0 in the last game before the world cup. Go Crouchy!

They were garbage though.

What was that stupid robot dance he kept doing? What a clown.

Ooh, only 7 hours to the big New Zealand vs Brazil clash!! The irrestible force meets the, um, bunch of amateurs. Go the All Whites! Ronaldinho who? Those Brazilians don't even have second names.

He did it at Beckhams pre-WC party, and the press got pictured of it and took the piss in the papers. So it was for their benefit.

I won't mind if I a lot more of it during the World Cup, no matter how stupid it is!

Only minutes to go before kick-off! NZ's 3rd ever game against Brazil. We lost 4-0 and 2-0 the other two times. I'll be impressed if we keep them to less than 10 today.

It'll be about 4-0 I guess.

10 minutes in and still 0-0. Although, it is a bit like watching the Harlem Globetrotters playing, really. NZ are a bit star struck, I think. We can't get near them. At least you don't get any of those silly fake dives in friendly games like this.

Shame that our best player can't be there (Ryan Nelsen who plays for Blackburn Rovers).

Ryan Nelson surely isn't your best player? Must have some better than him.

What's the score now?

To goals for Brazil :) There's still way to go for to more goals :p

Edit: Now its four-nil. Next time it must be a draw or a won game for New Zealand

[ June 04, 2006, 19:57: Message edited by: Shaitan ]

And what did I predict? Remind me?

One day, you must all bow to my ultimate sports knowledge, I'll show you enlightenment :lol:

But did you make any bets?? :D

I have my bets placed for the WC, and I'm not divulging them ;) .

Not gone mad this year - mainly because I'm pretty broke at the moment :lol: .

4-0! Wow, what a result. Our goalie, Moss had a pretty good game, but I'm surprised they didn't beat us by more.

Ryan Nelsen would easily be our best current player. He's easily the most successful, having a reasonable record with Blackburn. Hardly any of our other players are good enough to play in the Premiership.

Mate, you lost 4-0, lol.

Got to aim higher than that! Even if football is the 3rd most popular sport in Kiwiland ;) .

Look at the Aussies, they're not a bad little side these days!

3rd? Try 5th or 6th. Come on, that was BRAZIL! One of the best sports teams in the world (for any sport). They are ranked number one and we are ranked about number 100. Our players are virtually amateurs. I'd expect us to lose a match against a 3rd division Premiership team.

A 3rd division Premiership team? Come on, at least make sense! ;)

What would you class at the 4 sports ahead of football? Rudby union/league, cricket, then what?

Not gone mad this year - mainly because I'm pretty broke at the moment :lol: I like to place my bets on WC, it tends to give my a little plus :roll:

Can't beat a little bet to make things more interesting ;) .

da'da da daaa
da'da da da da
da'da da daaa
da'da da da da da
daa
da'da'da
da'da'da
da da da da da daaaaaa

it's the final countdown!

I wonder if the NZ goalkeeper will get picked up by any semi-kindof-half decent clubs (well, at least ones that pay their players actual money) after his useful man of the match performance against Brazil.

Ok, I'll make some predictions for the opening group games. I think I've got them all!

Group A
Germany vs Costa Rica
Normally I might be tempted to predict an upset for the curtain raiser, but this is the Germans. Efficient to last. Germany'll put tricky customers these away 2-0.

Group A
Poland vs Ecuador
Poland to be the best team here, but still be forced to work for a 2-1 victory.

Group B
England vs Paraguay
After a period of anxiousness, England settle down and take a 2-0 lead without ever really having to come out of 2nd gear. Then concede a sloppy goal late on to make the final score 2-1.

Group B
Trinidad and Tobago vs Sweden
Proper mauling on the cards here. 4-0 to Sweden, if not more.

Group C
Argentina vs Ivory Coast
The daygo's will struggle against a hard working Ivory Coast team, maybe underestimate them a little. This'll be a shock to the system for the Argies, I predict a 2-2 draw.

Group C
Serbia & Montenegro vs Holland
Another tight affair. The Dutch could be upset by Serbia, no mistake. I think they will have just a bit too much for them though and will nick the only goal of the game to win 1-0.

Group D
Mexico vs Iran
No problems for Mexico here. 3-0 to the Mexi's

Group D
Angola vs Portugal
Portugal to give these guys a thrashing, 3-0 Portu.

Group F
Australia vs Japan
Australia produce a tidy little performance to get their campaign off to a promising start, only to concede their 1-0 lead late on. 1-1 final score.

Group E
USA vs Czech Rep
The US will push the Czechs all the way in a tight affair that isn't really reflected in the scoreline. The Czech combo of Rosicky, Koller, Baros and Nedved is just too much for a dodgy US defence though as they concede a few sloppy goals. 3-0 final score, but the US feel they might have gotten more out of it.

Group E
Italy vs Ghana
Italy to stroll in, shoulders wagging, brushing their hair and correcting their make-up, but soon realise that they are actually have to work for this one. A very tight affair ends in a 1-0 Italy victory.

Group G
Korean Republic vs Togo
Meh. Korea I guess. I can't name one Togo player, so it has to be Korea, although they are minnows as well.

Group G
France vs Switzerland
France to take this one in 2nd gear. The Swiss work hard, but a few classy French moments take a 2-1 victory.

Group F
Brazil vs Croatia
Brazil don't really get the chance to turn on the style against a gritty, young, and determined, Croatian side. A 2-0 Brazil isn't totally convincing.

Group H
Spain vs Ukraine
Intruiging. Spain will have to roll up the sleeves and get stuck in to get maximum points here. Can they do it? I'm not sure. They have the better squad though, so I'll plump for a 3-2 win. Plenty of goals here.

Group H
Tunisia vs Saudi Arabia
Tunisia have too much for Saudi. 2-0 Tunisia.

Those picks seem fairly reasonable, except for the fact that there is always a completely shocking upset (but, by definition, it's impossible to pick which one that will be!)

Some of those minor games could go either way. It will be interesting to see how well Japan and Korea do this time around with all that home advantage they had last time.

Some disagreements here, Barmy:

Group A
Poland vs Ecuador
Poland to be the best team here, but still be forced to work for a 2-1 victory.Ecuador has shown that the team can be an unconvenient opponent, as the Dutch can tell. 1-1 or 0-0.

Group B
England vs Paraguay
After a period of anxiousness, England settle down and take a 2-0 lead without ever really having to come out of 2nd gear. Then concede a sloppy goal late on to make the final score 2-1.You remember that the Paraquayos have a strong defense? Another tie here. 0-0

Group F
Australia vs Japan
Australia produce a tidy little performance to get their campaign off to a promising start, only to concede their 1-0 lead late on. 1-1 final score.Japan is not that weak. If the Aussies don't push them over (literally), they will win this one 2-0 or 3-0.

Group G
France vs Switzerland
France to take this one in 2nd gear. The Swiss work hard, but a few classy French moments take a 2-1 victory.I don't know. In the qualification rounds, both matches ended in a tie. I think it will happen again. 1-1.

Group H
Spain vs Ukraine
Intruiging. Spain will have to roll up the sleeves and get stuck in to get maximum points here. Can they do it? I'm not sure. They have the better squad though, so I'll plump for a 3-2 win. Plenty of goals here.The Ukraine will win, by pure determination. 2-1 or 2-0.


Also, I was convinced that Serbia-Montenegro would win against the Netherlands. After Montenegro declared independet recently, there could be a schism within the team. But I hope not.

da'da da daaa:doh:

do you realize how much is on the stake for Germany? how important is opening match for them?

1 - new coach, Klinsmann. If they lose this first match, everything is gone, including his position. i like Klinsmann, it would be something if he could lift the trophy as coach. Remember euro cup '96? Germany lose every player and they had to give goal keeper field player jersey. and klinsmann suffer a sudden injury during the final. and Sammer had to tackle every tackle possible including those are not possible to be tackled.

2 - no old players. Klinsmann as player, gone. Matthaus, gone. Ziege, gone. Babbel, gone. Even Hamann, gone gone gone. yes, you have Khan, but he is wouldn't be playing, and if he is playing, they are close to losing.

2 - no old players. Klinsmann as player, gone. Matthaus, gone. Ziege, gone. Babbel, gone. Even Hamann, gone gone gone. yes, you have Khan, but he is wouldn't be playing, and if he is playing, they are close to losing.Lehmann is 38, and we also have Nowotny, who is 32 years old, and Schneider, who 30 or 31.

But the team is rather young, though I think it is wiser to look forward to 2010. I fear the team is not yet ready to win this one. Especially as chances are high that we will have to play versus Argentina in the quarter finals.

Dear Everyone,

please do not post any world cup match result as title (for example, Spain 152 - Barzil 0) because i will be watch recorded match most of the time.

sincerely,
teekc

You're having a laugh aren't you? Everyone will mention the scores!

not in the title, please.

Or the first three lines of the message, which show up under the title anyway?

not in the title, please. What title? All talk about the WC will be in this thread and the scores will be mentioned loads of times dude!

I would just not enter this thread if you don't want to know any scores ;) .

3 hours until I jump into the car and head for Germany! Wish me luck!

Kewl! Hope you enjoy your stay.

Have a great time!

Btw, you dont need no stinkin' luck. It's save enough here, it is. ;)

Finally the 9th of june has arrived, Oh man I can't wait to see germany take a loss to Costa Rica.

@Barmy

I'll finally experience first hand how it is to watch football with complete England football freak. Met a guy here in South Korea who knows even more than you, gonna watch every game at his place, except the big games which I will see in a bar or in the park on the big screen.

In the park? Isn't it the middle of winter? Why not stay in your warm and cosy house with the beer fridge close at hand for ALL the games?

@ Rutkowski

Best of luck, mate! Except when Sweden play England, then I wish you the worst of luck :shake: :thumb: .

@ Apeman

Hope you enjoy it ;) . Go with the flow on the booze and you'll have a scream ;) .

@ Harbs

It's the middle of summer you backwards colonial! :shake: I don't think I'd ever get used to switched seasons :bad: .

It's the middle of summer :doh:

Oh well, lots of goals in that first game. Not good news for my German goalkeeper and defender though but at least I got my 2 goal margin right.

Not much happening in this Poland v Ecuador game so far though.

Seriously Poland.... the Paralympics are in 2008 :p

Good first game between Germany and Costa Rica. The Germans will have to sort that defence out though if they are serious about winning this competition. The defenders in Chesterfield league are less static than that! Good teams will take advantage. Good attacking football though.

Poland and Ecuador is a bit of a shock so far. Fancy Ecuador taking the lead! But they're well in charge to be hones, as well!

Go Ecuador!

does this mean ballack is not essential for Germany and he can pack and go home already?

Go Torsten Frings. He was my captain for the game and he scored. Double points for me!

i knew it! i knew you would say that!

Germany has some serious defensive issues, but offensively they look surprisingly good. I guess all they can do is charge blindly and try to outscore every opponent, I mean 6-5 is also a win, no ?

I'm glad they won though, Germany should go a long way on their own turf. I'm pretty sure that somewhere along the way the German team manages to grow and rise to the occasion, they always do.

I calculated the outcome according to FIFA rankings in order to put things in perspective.

Groups (Rankings)
Group A: Germany (19) and Costa Rica (26)
Group B: England (10) and Sweden (16)
Group C: Netherlands (3) and Argentina (9)
Group D: Mexico (4) and Portugal (7)
Group E: Czech (2) and USA (5) (Italy is out being ranked 13)
Group F: Brazil (1) and Japan (18)
Group G: France (8) and Korea (29)
Group H: Spain (6) and Tunisia (21)

Final 16:
Sweden beats Germany
Netherlands beats Mexico
England beats Costa Rica
Mexico beats Argentina
Czech beats Japan
France beats Tunisia
Brazil beats USA
Spain beats Korea

Quarterfinals:
Netherlands beats France
Czech beats Sweden
Mexico beats Spain
Brazil beats England

Semifinals:
Czech beats Mexico
Brazil beats Netherlands

Final:
Brazil beats Czech

Bronze game:
Netherlands beats Mexico


Will someone post the odds for a few of the more "interesting" results above, please!

Screw the odds Earl, both you, I and Rutkowski knows who will be the winner of this cup...

Yeah, long live Italy!

Also, I must tell you guys, watching Germany - Costa Rica in a church where beer, smokes, grill, and 100 drunk Germans were located was ESTATHIC.

England are going to cruise home against Paraguay. That early goal was a blessing for them and Paraguay have looked pretty flaky ever since.

U.S. tv commetary, former team U.S. player, starts the England Paraguay game with "we have Ashley Cole and Lampard running up and down the side and beckham and gerrard in the middle"

And Peter Crouch breakdancing on the touch line. What's the weird shadow on the middle of the field?

EDIT: Bah, Paraguay are rubbish. I'm going to bed.

[ June 10, 2006, 16:30: Message edited by: Harbourboy ]

The only reason why England will most likely come away with a win today, is because Paraguay are even worse than they are. It's because of matches like this that i sometimes wonder why i even bother watching at all.

The English didn't score, yet they won.
Weird referee, man. Guess he isn't too fond of the English.

I was very disappointed with the English team. I expected that they would spread the scoreboard on the second half, but instead they retreat to their own half and made no real attempt to finish the game once and for all. Off course Paraguai was really pathetic. They were completely incapable to create even the smallest threat during the whole game.

Well, I don't agree with thaat fully. Valdez created some nice opportunities.

You are right; I did exaggerated a little bit. ;)
I was only pushing a little far to make my point that Paraguay lacked of creative quality to create real opportunities to their forwards. Valdez was the only player who was trying to make some good out of it. Did anyone hear the name Santa Cruz during the game?

I thought you might have exaggerated it, but after I posted my thing. :s
But I agree with most of you that the match wasn't too interesting.
I hope 'Orange' (The Dutch team) will be more fun to watch, tomorrow.

Here's what i don't get. You play against Trinidad and Tobago, who are also playing with one man less because of a red card, and you play with just one deep targetman, and you constantly keep 4 players behind to guard T&T's two strikers. I don't know, but Sweden's coach must be the biggest coward on the face of the planet. With a gameplan like that, you'll never win anything.

The first surprise of the World Cup. :eek:
I had bet that Sweden would win 3 x 0, and now I own a friend, who doesn’t even like football, a pack full of beers. :(

have you heard of a chinese saying, "new born calf not afraid of tiger"?

US TV commentary is terrible. Someone put Dave O'Brien out of his misery...

No comments from Sweden because we have all committed suicide after the Trinidad and Tobago game. I'm the last one to go...

U.S. commentary again.

After Drogba's goal "a game that has been controlled by Argentina has now turned 360 degree"

this has nothing to do with football, your high school trig. will tell you when you turn 360 degree, you go back to the same point!

I thought the first surprise of the World Cup was the Ecuador win. A 0-0 draw isn't a surprise. I said at that start that my main problem with soccer generally is there seem to be too many 0-0 draws. Anyway, great thing about the Soccer World Cup is that if you pick all the expected results, you'll never get them all right because there are always a few interesting ones you'd never pick. I bet none of you have got 100%, and there have only been 5 games.

Lol, and I thought that some Brazilians commentators where bad.... :D

@ Harbourboy I don’t think that Ecuador win over Poland was a surprise, they are roughly at the same level. Sweden, on the other hand, have better players than Trindad and Tobago in every position of the pitch. I have to agree with you, predictions in football games are very hard to make, but it only serves to give the game an extra flavor.

We were crap. But at the end of the day, we won the match.

I have a killer hangover ffs :( . I'm never having beer again.

To be fair, the first half performance wasn't bad against a Paraguay team who are no mugs. The 2nd half performance was crap. Although to be fair, Robinson didn't really have much work to do. I think the heat played a factor to be honest. It was red hot out there, the lads drunk 75 litres of water between them. Sapped it out of them.

Oh, and the ref was garbage.

Worst player, toss up between Lampard and Ashley Cole. Lampard did nothing except take a few pot shots and Coley still looks a little bit off the pace. Best player was Joey Cole. He's been England's best player for the last 12 months. Owen's not very sharp either.

And that goal should be given to Beckham. Brilliant precision from the freekick and it was going in before it clipped that kids head. FIFA are going to 'look at it'. Just give it to him!

And what was that 'video box' about? Not only did it cast a stupid shadow on the pitch, it's low enough to be hit by the ball. Stupid stadium design...

Headache :(

[ June 11, 2006, 01:04: Message edited by: Barmy Army ]

Oh, and the ref was garbage. That comment holds no weight, because you ALWAYS think the ref (or umpire) is rubbish, no matter what sport you're commenting on. You've got this mass hallucination thing going whereby you always think the ref is being unfair to your team.

That comment holds no weight FINALLY a person with common sense common with me!

In his defense, and mine as well, he had a lot of beer :beer:

That comment holds no weight, because you ALWAYS think the ref (or umpire) is rubbish, no matter what sport you're commenting on. You've got this mass hallucination thing going whereby you always think the ref is being unfair to your team.He was poor for both teams, he didn't have a clue what he was doing.

Well, it could be worse, like the one who lead the Argentina-Ivory Coast game last night.

That was a brilliant match that was.
Argentina are looking pretty good and look like they mean business.
Ivory Coast impressed me greatly aswell. Really fit side.
Sweden should have beaten T&T but hey, good on 'em! I love to see the underdog do well. Fair play, about half a dozen of their players might have got sent off, but still! Great result for them!

Now it's just a win vs T&T and we've qualified, a professional, solid performance will secure that victory. Then so long as we don't lose to Sweden, we've won this group without coming out of second gear. We'll need to up our game against the good teams though. Big time.

Overperforming underdogs are exactly what the neutral observer (like me) wants to see.

We play Austrtalia in about half an hour or more, that'll be interesting to see how we do. If we don't play Van Gisbergen and Olly Barkley today I think I might scream. If we don't turn in a good performance it's time for Robinson to walk the plank. The bloke is a bloody plank!!
We have two brilliant try-scorers in Josh Lewsey and Mark Cueto, yet they never see the ball, it's a travesty and the blame can only go to Charlie bloody Hodgson and clown-Robinson.

Edit - Woops I put this in the wrong thread.

[ June 11, 2006, 11:29: Message edited by: Barmy Army ]

:wail: :wail: :wail: :wail: :wail:

We *have* to beat England now, and Paraguay. We had like 20 shots at the goal in the game, and none went in...

:wail:

Booooooring.

Second half was dreadful, it almost seemed like everyone didn't feel like playing football very much. Well, like England, at least we got off with the 3 points, and in the end that's the only thing people will remember.

And what's with those friggin shadows on the pitch, whenever the ball is in that section, i can hardly see anything.

I didn't think it was a bad game. If Serbia could actually put a decent cross into the box, they might've got a goal with that big forward. But the balls in were terrible.

Robben had a good game and made trouble whenever he got the ball. The other games in this group will be interesting now.

I agree Barmy. We're desperately lacking some creative flair in midfield. Can we borrow Beckham? Or Gerrard? :p

Deserved win for Holland, but apart from Robben who we couldn't stop, I wasn't that impressed with anybody. I wonder how they'll fare against the much faster Ivorians...

Not bad. Not at all bad. I wouldn't even think of playing with these temperatures.
Slightly chaotic game every now and then. Lots of minor mistakes etc.
Robben was good. Van Persie was a sneak in the second half, seemed he wasn't even touched by his oponent, but he gained a free kick. :nono:

Deserved win for Holland, but apart from Robben who we couldn't stop, I wasn't that impressed with anybody. I wonder how they'll fare against the much faster Ivorians...Same way as we dealt with Cameroun two weeks ago, we simply score on goal more than they do. :grin: If we stay focussed in defense, i don't forsee too much trouble, Ivory coast sometimes plays completely chaotic and are completely depending on Drogba, or so it seems. Guard him well, and they're pretty helpless. I was more worried about Serbia up front, since they hardly got any goals against them in the qualifying rounds, but then i remembered you were playing Spain and Belgium, not the best teams when it comes to scoring. And besides, we're making a habit out of beating Serbia, no matter if it was a difficult game, like in 1998 or today, or a complete walkover, like in 2000, we always come out victorious. :p

I thought Mexico looked pretty handy, even if they were only playing Iran.

They're a bit ropey at the back though, Marquez can't do all the work himself. As soon as they meet a decent side, they'll get out-gunned.

@teekc: someone somewhere must be making a compilation of all the stupid things O'Brien says. Really unbelievable: armed with only a dossier of useless trivia about the players and no understanding of the game, he manages a non-stop stream of inannities....

I'm never having beer again.Now *that's* something I'd place a bet on. Did you even make it 24 hrs, BA?

I wish I had $1 for all the times I've said I'm never drinking again.

conservatism plague all matches except the first one. Score one early => walk around aimlessly early and sub out stars early.

someone somewhere must be making a compilation of all the stupid things O'Brien says. Really unbelievable: armed with only a dossier of useless trivia about the players and no understanding of the game, he manages a non-stop stream of inannities.... There is a book with many weird quotes of Johan Cruijff. The man has a good knowledge it seems about the players, but he sais so many weird, stupid or obvious things that they made a compilation. Quite a fun thing to read.

I wish Portugal would get another goal. Bring on Nuno Gomes!

From the POR - ANG game on ESPN2, i confirmed my theory,
football tv commentary must have a Scottish or Irish accent to be enjoyable

@ Bion - No, I lasted until 2pm today when the Holland game started and I was drinking again! But, let's face it... football without beer is football not worth having. They go hand in hand!

Angola were garbage just now. Portugal aren't doing anything in this WC, I can tell you that for nothing. Angola were rubbish! They were all too slow, they took about 2 seconds too long on the ball all the time before they used it. They built nothing and consequentially kept having to take pot shots which were all way off. Awful. Still, it's still a win for Portugal I guess

Ooh, Australia v Japan tonight. Might have to get up for that one. Should actually be more interesting than watching some of the boring tactics that the big teams play. Both teams will be going all out and there has been plenty of pre-game banter with the Japanese accusing the Socceroos of dirty tactics.

Ooh, Australia v Japan this morning. Might have to get up early for that one.

Catastrophe! What an abysmal performance by Sweden. Times like this I wish Uday Hussein was still alive and we could have gotten him sent to Sweden to motivate the lads.

Nah, the swedes weren't that bad. TNT's (I love it :D ) goalie was just too good.

Hislop did a solid performance but he didnt do any "impossible" saves. He took everything he should take and didnt do any mistakes.

Why does the Dutch team's uniforms look like they're impersonating a Cremecicle? I know that Orange is the country's colour and all, but come on, all orange? You can't even make the trim a different colour?

Heresy! "Total Football" demands totally orange uniforms! :p
What is a Cremecicle, btw? A goldfish?

It's a kind of popsicle...

Heh the Aussies was robbed...

This Australia v Japan game is great. Viduka is having a blinder so far. Controversial goal by Japan.

EDIT: What a comeback by Australia. 3 goals in the time it took me to make a cup of tea!!

[ June 12, 2006, 16:49: Message edited by: Harbourboy ]

That game is now rivalling the opening game for the best game this cup.

However, I was in a full church with drunk Germans during the first game, so if I say that it was anything but the best, they'll lynch me.

Really, they will. ;_; You should've seen the eyes of them when I told them I'm more of a cider person than a beer person.

EDIT: Stupid ****ing German keyboards with their messed up keysetting.

[ June 12, 2006, 19:01: Message edited by: Rutkowski ]

Australia look lethal, really lethal, heavy and tenacious. They may lack a bit of technical skill in some areas but they make up for it with strength, will and power. Very very impressive.

It's a kind of popsicle... An orange one to be more precise. It just struck me as odd that the Dutch uniforms were entirely one colour. Most uniforms are mostly one colour, but the trim is a different colour. At least if it was a colour appealing to the eye it would be one thing, but orange on orange is actually difficult to look at for a prolonged period of time.

Wow, Japan just folded...

Actually, the Dutch uniforms were pretty good for watching the game online... the compression algorithm rendered the Dutch uniforms as a solid orange blob. Way to cut down on bandwidth Holland! :thumb:

Australia look lethal, really lethal, heavy and tenacious. They may lack a bit of technical skill in some areas but they make up for it with strength, will and power. Very very impressive.Agreed. I think they'll defeat Croatia, and maybe even tie against a Brazil with a very weak middle defense, while Australia has a very good middle attack.

Ugh, the way the large Portugese community in the suburb that I live in were party last night you would think that it was the second coming of Christ and not a poorly played victory over Angola.

I would hate to see what they would do if Portugal actually won the World Cup.

The Czech's just gave the US a masterclass in how to play football. Rosicky and Nedved are pure class.

I'll watch Australia later on, I was at work so I missed it.

and it seems the US could use all the schooling they can get...

To be fair, the Czechs have just gone right up there with the best performances so far in this cup. They look like they are really fit guys, with a nice touch and have the class to create a goal out of nothing. They are in with a big chance of lifting the cup if they build on that performance. Koller will be missed now though.

Cool, did Rosicky have a good game. He's in my fantasy team. Wish I'd had Cahill now.

Come on Luca!

Rosicky is a class act, a real Rolls Royce player.

Cool - 17 points for me from Rosicky today!

Why does the Dutch team's uniforms look like they're impersonating a Cremecicle? I know that Orange is the country's colour and all, but come on, all orange? You can't even make the trim a different colour?The original outfit was an orange shirt and white shorts, but there was some sort of sponsor confict between Nike and Adidas, and this is the result of it. At least that's what i heard about it. To me it also came as a total surprise, we always have either white or black shorts, and i don't like this option very much, but when sponsors start *****ing, strange things can happen.

i miss world cup 02. this world cup is not fun, not surprising.

That Australia v Japan game was fun.

Are you joking? It's been a great world cup so far! Some terrific football being played and the 'smaller' teams giving up a right fight. Much better than Japorea '02. We've had 25+ goals in 10 games already.

The Ghana - Italy match was supposed to be a good, especially with Ghana's upstart attitude.
It was Italy's Maffioso show that destroyed all the fun in the game, some tackles definitaly deserved a red card, but the referee did not see that... *of course* :rolleyes: Either he was blind, or he was paid.

02 started with a shocker. neutral audience like shocker. In 02, you don't get much of those "score one early, sub out star early" attitude. Even when England was defending their 1-0 lead aganist Argentina, they were defending with urgency, not slackyness.

However, this England vs Praguay match was much boring, score one, everyone do walk around till the end.

edit.
portugal match was like that. Argentina match was like that. between a walk around 1-0 match and a hard fought 0-0 match, i prefer later.

[ June 13, 2006, 02:12: Message edited by: teekc ]

Oh yeah, England v Paraguay was a bit dull, but some of the other games have been good. I enjoyed Poland v Ecuador and Australia v Japan.

It was Italy's Maffioso show that destroyed all the fun in the game, some tackles definitaly deserved a red card, but the referee did not see that... *of course* Either he was blind, or he was paid.True, but the same can be said about Ghana. Some of there tackles and pushes were unacceptable as well.
Ref was a bit inconsistant in giving his cards. He gave yellows for minor faults, but did nothing when he should have pulled the red ones.
Can't remember all the cards, but I guess most of them were by the book. Fifa is gettin