shen Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 Have to say, he's not wrong there. Come the last sixteen I'll happily be Rhisovan Finnervic. Yeah, but wouldn't that be the case for any nation pitched against a perceived favourite? Despite that, I know a lot of Scandinavians who'll be rooting for the 'WW2 liberators' rather than those 'seedy Slavs' who are 'constantly warring'.
Guest Bilo Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 My predictions anyway; England 3-1 USA England 2-0 Algeria England 2-0 Slovenia USA to finish second in the group. As for our opponents in the second round, can't help thinking some people are quick to underrate the Aussies and Ghana, as well as take it as read that Germany will progress. The Serbs will probably win the group and Germany will have a tough time finishing second, 'winning mentality' or not; they look like they could struggle to progress from such a group.
Finnegan Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 I for one certainly don't recognise it as an independent state. Good job the rest of the world think your government are a bunch of warmongering tits hanging on desperately to their ever-splitting territory, then, really. Yeah, but wouldn't that be the case for any nation pitched against a perceived favourite? Despite that, I know a lot of Scandinavians who'll be rooting for the 'WW2 liberators' rather than those 'seedy Slavs' who are 'constantly warring'. It's, apparently, so I'm told, the massive chip on my shoulder - it supports whoever the English are playing.
Radovan's Caravan Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 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 I can think of at least four defeats that Ingerland have suffered at the hands of the Selaccao in recent major tournaments - World Cups in 1986 & 2006 & Euro's 2000 & 2004. England have only beaten Portugal once in a major tournament - the 1966 World Cup. Any neutral footie buff knows that England are technically inferior to them and are a poorer tournament team. Just because your mob snatched top spot from Portugal in the 2010 qualifiers doesn't make England the better side (if you substituted England for Sweden or Hungary they wouldn't have even made the play offs - that was probably the hardest qualifying group in the world). Denmark are also (currently) a stronger side than England (BELIEVE Shen ) If the Portugeezers sported three lions on their tits the recent tournament data would have been manipulated to produce a very different seeding outcome. The right one. Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 5): England's foreign World Cup record if translated into league points averages just 1.46 points per game (Played 50, Won 20, Drawn 13, Lost 17, Pts 73). That average equates to a mid table finish in the Premier League. So is it Stoke or Birmingham for the title then?
Matt Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 5): England's foreign World Cup record if translated into league points averages just !.46 points per game (Played 50, Won 20, Drawn 13, Lost 17, Pts 73). That average equates to a mid table finish in the Premier League. So is it Stoke or Birmingham for the title then? You're on Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 6) by the way. You've already post No 5 Once, Twice if you include the double post for No 5. Personally if you're struggling at counting past 5, I'd quit while you're ahead.
Radovan's Caravan Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 You're on Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 6) by the way. You've already post No 5 Once, Twice if you include the double post for No 5. Personally if you're struggling at counting past 5, I'd quit while you're ahead. Good to know someone's reading them And, of course, the more 'truths' there are the worse it looks for you know who...
Sparky Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 Good to know someone's reading them And, of course, the more 'truths' there are the worse it looks for you know who... Im eagally waiting the next one, ive used a couple down the pub already
Sly Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 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. Are to eloborate on that a bit more? If they are in the final, surely no one has beaten them? I do agree with your comment on the seeding though. Personally I think they should just scrap the seeding altogether and spliut the pots into continents and takje it from their.
Radovan's Caravan Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 Are to eloborate on that a bit more? If they are in the final, surely no one has beaten them? I do agree with your comment on the seeding though. Personally I think they should just scrap the seeding altogether and spliut the pots into continents and takje it from their. England have never beaten in the knock out stages of a World Cup tournament held on foreign soil any of the ten (other) teams that have contested a World Cup final: Uruguay, Argentina, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Brazil, W Germany, Sweden, Holland and France Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No7) - England have lost all three penalty shoot outs they have contested in the World Cup -the highest failure rate of any team.
Leicester Rule! Posted 6 December 2009 Posted 6 December 2009 Anyone else on this forum heading over to SA next summer ....?
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 Anyone else on this forum heading over to SA next summer ....?
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 this coming from someone who thinks serbia can do better than the aussies and ghana. Every one jump on the Aussies bandwagon hey we will probably get flogged 3 nil every game but we will still show up in our thousands and get pissed at all the games.............and our only forward looks like Jesus
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 Fuck the Serbs. With Timmy Cahill's penis hopefully
leicesterfox86 Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 Typical that the day after the WC draw, two English players miss penalties. This football blog on the World Cup talks about Defoe and Lampard's penalty misses and, quite rightly, states how it hopefully won't come to this again next summer. Maybe we should ask if Rooney can talk all of them it it comes down to it? Oh and on another note...Baddiel and Skinner are doing another England football song?!
purpleronnie Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 Lets hope they get it out of their system. The one thing that worries me about our national side is those big moments we have a tendacy to fail.
shen Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 I can think of at least four defeats that Ingerland have suffered at the hands of the Selaccao in recent major tournaments - World Cups in 1986 & 2006 & Euro's 2000 & 2004. England have only beaten Portugal once in a major tournament - the 1966 World Cup. Any neutral footie buff knows that England are technically inferior to them and are a poorer tournament team.Just because your mob snatched top spot from Portugal in the 2010 qualifiers doesn't make England the better side (if you substituted England for Sweden or Hungary they wouldn't have even made the play offs - that was probably the hardest qualifying group in the world). Denmark are also (currently) a stronger side than England (BELIEVE Shen ) If the Portugeezers sported three lions on their tits the recent tournament data would have been manipulated to produce a very different seeding outcome. The right one. Technically their penalty defeats in 2004 and 2006 would be classified as draws, but even having it your way, Englands overall record is superior. It might be that England choke often at big moments, but that doesn't necessarily correllate with a lack of technical proficiency. Just ask the Spaniards and their record in major tournaments. I don't know why you keep banging on about the Portuguese, who despite having had some great talents in football history have only just qualified for their fifth World Cup and have only qualified for five Euros, one of which was for being the host. Their technical football ranks among the best, yet they've failed to win anything EVEN on home ground. I'll just reiterate that even IF seeding was done like previous WCs, Portugal would've ended up with the shorter straw. It's the results that count, nothing else. And to be honest, if you watched Portugal and their opposition during the qualifiers, you'd know just as well as me that they should've walked that group. Their profligacy in front of goal and their overall arrogance led to their own downfall, exemplified by their embarrassing 3-2 defeat at home to an injury-ravaged Danish side. They were only extremely fortunate that the most impotent Swedish side in recent history didn't pip them to the playoff spot. England on the other hand, crushed what is a superior technical team to any of Portugals opponents during qualifying. Twice! They won all but their last game which was meaningless anyway, even ending up as the qualification top scorers. In contrast, Portugal failed to score three games in a row(!) and struggled heavily TWICE against the minnows of Albania. It would be easy to make a case for France, but Portugal don't deserve to be seeded simply on the basis that they're a 'technical' side, that has been a bogey team for England (specifically) in major tournaments On Denmark, if we keep our best players injury-free, then I can start believing
Sly Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 1): England's victory over Paraguay in 'The round of sixteen' in the 1986 World Cup (Mexico) was their first win EVER in the knock out phase of a World Cup held on foreign soil. Can't see as this matters that much. So we didn't win a knockout game on foreign soil in the previous eight tournaments, we didn't qualify for one. The world cup doesn't revolve around the knock out stages, you've got to be good enough to qualify in the first place, which we did. 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. 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! Again, can't see why this matters, we've beaten these teams in the group stages and other games in the past. Most teams England have gone out to in major tournaments, have gone on to the final so we at least went out to a big team. 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 How many other teams have? 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) This game actually finished 4-4 and it's not 50 games against the nations you suggest, we have played a lot of good teams in that period as well. Just because we didn't batter anyone doesn't make us a bad team, you've got to defend as well and I'm happy as long as we get one more than the opposition. It wins us the game, we're happy! We've scored three a few times, Denmark 3-0 in 2002, 3-2 against Cameroon in 1990, 3-0 Vs Poland and Paraguay in 1986, 3-1 Vs France in 1982, 3-1 Vs Argentina in 1962. Incidentally, other than the 3-1 defeat to Brazil in 1962 and the 4-2 drumming by Uruguay in 1954 we haven't conceded more than 2 in any given game in the period you mention. Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No 6): England's foreign World Cup record if translated into league points averages just 1.46 points per game (Played 50, Won 20, Drawn 13, Lost 17, Pts 73). That average equates to a mid table finish in the Premier League. So is it Stoke or Birmingham for the title then? This is daft. By the same formula, once you reach the knockout stage of a tournament, you are playing the cream of world football. So this is like Manchester United (Brazil) playing Chelsea (England) every week. You’re bound to drop points. Look at it another way, Chelsea are one of the best teams in world football but have failed to win a Champions League. The world cup is a knockout, you don't need to be consistent, you just have to turn up on the day. Inconvenient World Cup Truth (No7) - England have lost all three penalty shoot outs they have contested in the World Cup -the highest failure rate of any team. Correctly not true, Italy has also lost three. A penalty shootout is a lottery. We lost, it happens. The question I ask you is, should we have been in all the penalty shootouts we lost in the first place? ----- Incidentally, we do hold a few world cup records: 1. Most goals scored by one player in a final - Geoff Hurst - 3 1966. 2. Oldest captain - Peter Shilton - 40 years old, 1990. 3. Latest goal from kickoff - Geoff Hurst - 120th Minute - 1966 4. Highest scoring game - England Vs Belgium 4-4 - 1954 (AET) 5. Most clean sheets - Shilton - 10 6. Oldest referee - George Reader - 1950 Not that any of the above really matters, it's all history. England do have a chance of winning the world cup in 2010, then again so does every other team in the finals. Do I think England will win it, no if I'm honest. I think that accolade will go to the Spanish, it's their generation and they have the best squad of players in world football.
StanSP Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 Yesterday's penalty misses have no bearing whatsoever on the WC next summer.
Father Ted Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 Fuck the Serbs. So would it be acceptable for me to say: 'Fuck the English'? I don't think so but if I said it, the mods would swarm all over me.
shen Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 So would it be acceptable for me to say: 'Fuck the English'?I don't think so but if I said it, the mods would swarm all over me. Don't lose your breath over a WUM who clearly found the wrong forum
lavrentis Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 Not Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia...Keep guessing. I for one certainly don't recognise it as an independent state. Macedonia shouldn't be recognised as a single state.
Finnegan Posted 7 December 2009 Posted 7 December 2009 So would it be acceptable for me to say: 'Fuck the English'?I don't think so but if I said it, the mods would swarm all over me. Er, what? FUCK THE ENGLISH.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.