Less Than A Month To Go - It's TODAY

[Radovan's Caravan]

Well from 1986 onwards they have reached 3 quarter finals, a semi-final and a round of 16 with only one 'failure' when we didn't qualify in 94. 3 of their 5 knock outs were by penalty shoot out. Probably a bit more relevant to the present state of English football. Signs are that we are an improving football nation learning from our mistakes, who are consistantly competitive if not world beating.

It's a favorable record to all but the big 4; Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Italy. As well as latterly France who fell upon the most gifted player of a generation (Argentina's record is also inflated by the presence of one player) (There is admittedly a gap between these 5 and the rest, they have each won a world cup and played in at least one other final in the time period. No other side has reached a final or more than a single semi. England's under achievement is shared by Holland, Portugal, Spain, Russia and any other country you care to mention)

The facts show just what most sensible English football fans think. That we are a consistently somewhere between the 5th and 10th best nation in the world and that we need something extra if we are to move forwards. That maybe more awareness of the tactical nuances of the game, like the Italians, Argentines and Germans, or the production of a singular special player as has helped the Argentines and The French. There is hope, probably not stretching to a belief, that the combination of increased sophistication of our top clubs under foreign leadership and the presence of a top class manager may give us the former.

Holland have played in two World Cup finals and were cheated out of both. And neither they nor Portugal nor Russia have ever hosted the World Cup.

Your post is a thoughtful one Tricky Trev and I do not demur entirely from your analysis. But you've had your great players too (Hoddle, Gascoigne, Rooney - even the fearless Owen in '98 could have been considered 'world class'). England are consistent alright, consistently MEDIOCRE and HIDEOUS to watch (a sentiment shared by an English Championship coach known affectionately by referees as 'Colin').

England's consistently modest record in the World Cup is to do principally with FIFA's quota system that favours European nations (as Woody Allen might say, 13 out of 32 ain't bad). Then there is the seeding issue. Nobody seems to be sure exactly what the formula was for 2010 (a witches brew of past performance, outright qualification and current FIFA ranking). France has definitely been punished for Henry's indiscretion and Portugal could feel peeved at being overlooked. I can't help wondering whether England's wholly unmerited seeding is a quid pro quo for the 2018 bid?

As for your debt ridden top four clubs - their success is due mainly to their foreign stars. Their overhyped English team mates are strictly 'B' list.

Inconvenient World Cup Truths (No 2): England has never beaten any team that has reached a World Cup final in the knock out stages of a World Cup held on foreign soil.

[The Doctor]

But it'll be England Australia instead.

nah. you won't out do the germans. you'll be playing the USA who'll win the group b drawing with england and winning their remaining 2 while england will slip up and concede a last minute equalizer against the slovenians.

[Father Ted]

nah. you won't out do the germans. you'll be playing the USA who'll win the group b drawing with england and winning their remaining 2 while england will slip up and concede a last minute equalizer against the slovenians.

You don't half chat bollocks.

[The Doctor]

You don't half chat bollocks.

this coming from someone who thinks serbia can do better than the aussies and ghana.

[purpleronnie]

TBH I think the USA have a real chance (surprise eh?), they can on their day be extremely dangerous just ask Spain.

[Brainy]

Australia aren't a bad side, but they don't stand a chance with Serbia, Ghana and Germany.

USA won't win group B, nor will they win group C. Whoever wins the match between England/USA will win the group. Time to remove your blue-tinted spectacles and realise that England are far superior to you jocks, sweetheart.

[shen]

TBH I think the USA have a real chance (surprise eh?), they can on their day be extremely dangerous just ask Spain.

They can also be extremely poor on another

[Radovan's Caravan]

this coming from someone who thinks serbia can do better than the aussies and ghana.

You forget that Serbia won their qualification group - one that contained the WC 2006 runner up. You forget also, imprecise mechanism though it is, that Serbia are currently ranked by FIFA ahead of both Australia (no way near good enough) and Ghana (currently suffering from the 'African' disease - mysterious loss of form due to local officials witholding their match fees, pinching their clothes etc etc).

In pure footballing terms Serbia's open play is on a par with the best European national sides and we are certainly higher quality than the Krauts (whose pimply arses we very much look forward to thrashing just as much as Ingermongs').

Problem is that 'pure football' only gets you a little bit further than rampant hoofery and generalised trundling - but at least we don't bore the pants off everybody.

[dandannieldanok]

but at least we don't bore the pants off everybody.

Exactly right.............because nobody watches or cares about Serbia, apart from Serbians themselves and the occasional wind-up merchant like yourself.

[Radovan's Caravan]

Exactly right.............because nobody watches or cares about Serbia, apart from Serbians themselves and the occasional wind-up merchant like yourself.

Only Serbs 'care' about Serbia. Serbians 'care' for the general filth on our borders that is aided and abetted by the scum in London.

Only Ingermongs 'care' about Ingerland. You see, 99% of neutrals would 'care' a great deal about Serbia in any match with Ingerland.

Their 'care' would take the form of being honourary Serbs for 90 minutes and deriving great pleasure from your footballing humiliation.

Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 3): The highest ranked team that England has ever defeated in the knock out phase of a World Cup held on foreign soil is - you'll love this - BELGIUM!

[shen]

England's consistently modest record in the World Cup is to do principally with FIFA's quota system that favours European nations (as Woody Allen might say, 13 out of 32 ain't bad). Then there is the seeding issue. Nobody seems to be sure exactly what the formula was for 2010 (a witches brew of past performance, outright qualification and current FIFA ranking). France has definitely been punished for Henry's indiscretion and Portugal could feel peeved at being overlooked. I can't help wondering whether England's wholly unmerited seeding is a quid pro quo for the 2018 bid?

Inconvenient World Cup Truths (No 2): England has never beaten any team that has reached a World Cup final in the knock out stages of a World Cup held on foreign soil.

They announced that the seeding (for pot 1 only I assume) would be solely based on the October Fifa Rankings. And those are based on the performances over the last four years, but I'm sure you know all that. But had the seeding been like previous World Cups, France would definitely have been seeded due to their superior record at the past three World Cups. It seems indeed they figured out a clever way to punish France for 'that' goal...

However, on current form I would agree that England should be seeded above Portugal as they have simply been poor for the past couple of years...

[Guest ttfn]

I ended up with tickets for:

Argentina v South Korea

Brazil v Ivory Coast

and...

USA v Algeria

[Ford Super Sunday]

Are we really going to have 6 months of this shit?

Wish I could close the fvcking thread as i'm reading this at the moment.

[Radovan's Caravan]

They announced that the seeding (for pot 1 only I assume) would be solely based on the October Fifa Rankings. And those are based on the performances over the last four years, but I'm sure you know all that. But had the seeding been like previous World Cups, France would definitely have been seeded due to their superior record at the past three World Cups. It seems indeed they figured out a clever way to punish France for 'that' goal...

However, on current form I would agree that England should be seeded above Portugal as they have simply been poor for the past couple of years...

Which means that the criteria here was qualification form - what a novel idea! So the seeding criterion applied in England's case is any ad hoc formula that ensures they avoid the teams with World Cup pedigree so that they can progress to the knock out phase. Basically, it's a stitch up.

However, this will only serve to up the schadenfreude when they exit the tournament at the group phase (serve them damn right too for disrespecting and underestimating their opponents - a couple of whom could really embarrass them in the technique department).

Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 4): England has only ever succeeded ONCE in gaining maximum points in the group phase in ANY World Cup - and that was in 1982

[shen]

Which means that the criteria here was qualification form - what a novel idea! So the seeding criterion applied in England's case is any ad hoc formula that ensures they avoid the teams with World Cup pedigree so that they can progress to the knock out phase. Basically, it's a stitch up.

However, this will only serve to up the schadenfreude when they exit the tournament at the group phase (serve them damn right too for disrespecting and underestimating their opponents - a couple of whom could really embarrass them in the technique department).

Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 4): England has only ever succeeded ONCE in gaining maximum points in the group phase in ANY World Cup - and that was in 1982

I don't disagree with you on that at all. But on recent (i.e. nearly 2 years now) form, England deserve to be ahead of Portugal. And even looking at the past three World Cups, England's record is arguably superior to Portugal's: Two quarterfinals and a second round exit vs. a semifinal, a group exit and a failed qualification.

[AmericanScott]

Guess i'm fooked then.

I seriously don't know who to choose. I was praying that this didn't happen.

Here's my scenarios:

England Beats USA- I get stick

Draw- I get stick but not as bad unless England fail to qualify and it's the USA's fault

USA wins: I'll go into hiding.

[Radovan's Caravan]

I don't disagree with you on that at all. But on recent (i.e. nearly 2 years now) form, England deserve to be ahead of Portugal. And even looking at the past three World Cups, England's record is arguably superior to Portugal's: Two quarterfinals and a second round exit vs. a semifinal, a group exit and a failed qualification.

And the head to head record? What about the Euro's - don't they count for anything?

Sorry is that FIFA's next get out clause (or should that read 'get in'?) for Ingerland in 2014 (seeding clinched via QF exit at hands of Finland in Euro 2012)?

Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 5): England's 4 - 3 victory over Belgium (aet) in the 1954 World Cup is the only time that they have scored more than 3 goals in the tournament when it has been held on foreign soil (that's 50 games against the likes of Trinidad & Tobago, Kuwait, Iran...you get the picture)

[Radovan's Caravan]

I don't disagree with you on that at all. But on recent (i.e. nearly 2 years now) form, England deserve to be ahead of Portugal. And even looking at the past three World Cups, England's record is arguably superior to Portugal's: Two quarterfinals and a second round exit vs. a semifinal, a group exit and a failed qualification.

And the head to head record? What about the Euro's - don't they count for anything?

Sorry is that FIFA's next get out clause (or should that read 'get in'?) for Ingerland in 2014 (seeding clinched via QF exit at hands of Finland in Euro 2012)?

Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 5): England's 4 - 3 victory over Belgium (aet) in the 1954 World Cup is the only time that they have scored more than 3 goals in the tournament when it has been held on foreign soil (that's 50 games against the likes of Trinidad & Tobago, Kuwait, Iran...you get the picture)

[Finnegan]

You see, 99% of neutrals would 'care' a great deal about Serbia in any match with Ingerland.

Their 'care' would take the form of being honourary Serbs for 90 minutes and deriving great pleasure from your footballing humiliation.

Have to say, he's not wrong there. Come the last sixteen I'll happily be Rhisovan Finnervic.

[Radovan's Caravan]

Have to say, he's not wrong there. Come the last sixteen I'll happily be Rhisovan Finnervic.

Seems like 'The Principality' is making overtures.

Well, if the filth next door can be internationally recognised as a nation...

[Finnegan]

Seems like 'The Principality' is making overtures.

Well, if the filth next door can be internationally recognised as a nation...

Yes, a bit of sporting banter is generally considered tantamount to instigation of rebellion.

[BoneDog]

I will love it if the Serbs beat the Germans at the World Cup.

But who are these 'filth' I keep hearing about? Is this Bosnia? Just wondering like

[Head Honcho]

Just booked off the last 3 weeks in June so I'll catch almost every qualifying round match.

Looks like I'll be in NYC for the England v USA game too.

.....................and as much as I'd like to be like most jocks and support any team that plays England I just can't.

[Father Ted]

I will love it if the Serbs beat the Germans at the World Cup.

But who are these 'filth' I keep hearing about? Is this Bosnia? Just wondering like

Not Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia...

Keep guessing.

I for one certainly don't recognise it as an independent state.

[shen]

And the head to head record? What about the Euro's - don't they count for anything?

Sorry is that FIFA's next get out clause (or should that read 'get in'?) for Ingerland in 2014 (seeding clinched via QF exit at hands of Finland in Euro 2012)?

Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 5): England's 4 - 3 victory over Belgium (aet) in the 1954 World Cup is the only time that they have scored more than 3 goals in the tournament when it has been held on foreign soil (that's 50 games against the likes of Trinidad & Tobago, Kuwait, Iran...you get the picture)

The Euros count in the general FIFA ranking (with a great amount of bias, which actually aids Portugal a lot!), but have never counted directly in the World Cup seeding process. Portugal and England have been subjected to the same ranking formula, so there's no bias towards England here. As for the head-to-head record, this is the stats I've found in ENGLANDS favour: 9 wins, 10 draws and 3 defeats, with a goal difference of +20!

So in conclusion, stop whining about Portugal, one of the greatest underachievers in football history. France's case is different however...

ps. I'm not trying to defend FIFAs ranking or seeding system - just that a bias against Portugal here is non-existant