England XI To Stop Group Stage Exit

[Alexikokopops]

Anusfield.

You've just confirmed what everyone was thinking. HI CHANDLER!

[Guest NGoloMode]

pfft! england wont concede a goal in their 3 group games.

I doubt that.. We havent kept a clean sheet in a while. I definately think we will get 9 points though.

[Fosse Fox]

I doubt that.. We havent kept a clean sheet in a while. I definately think we will get 9 points though.

History suggests that they won't - England have only ever got maximum points in the group phase once (1982) in twelve attempts.

Group C is deceptive as all of England's competitors there are capable of beating them on neutral ground, particularly the Yanks (the sum of whose modest parts are greater than the whole). Remember that the Algerians beat the current African champions Egypt to qualify and that the Slovenes beat the Russkies.

England will do well to get 7 points but are more likely to go through with fewer. Fosse Bookies are offering the following odds:

9 points 10/1

7 points 4/1

6 points 3/1

5 points 5/2

4 points 7/2

3 points 5/1

2 points 10/1

1 point 20/1

0 points 50/1

[Uncle Albert]

I think Capello will get his starting eleven from these two warm-up games against Mexico and Japan, next week, so can't see Barry making the starting eleven and possibly not the 23.

Think it will be..

Green

Johnson Terry Ferdinand © A Cole

Lennon Lampard Gerrard J Cole

Rooney Heskey

My pick for Joe Cole is more hopeful and can see him shining for England like the last World Cup.

[shen]

I'm not sure how much Johnson's meteroic rise has been down to clever (and desperate) Boro PR and being naturally left sided. Needs to do more fthan a single curler for the MOTD cameras to persuade me that he's not another Steve Gibson con trick (eg Stuart Downing) - Real Madrid target my arse!

Although Lampard's goal/games ratio at international level looks good (20/77) particularly for a midfielder when you scrutinise his record you will notice that he hasn't scored in a tournament for six years or on foreign soil for over 5 years. Lampard's goal stats at Chelsea are good because he has free rein to shoot on sight ( a lot!) and he is surrounded by under rated foreign stars whose hype is inversely proportionate to his own.

Gerrard may not quite carry Liverpool to the extent that our Brit obsessed media make out (Liverpool's loss of Xavi Alonso pricked that little balloon) but he is undoubtedly the main man at Anusfield. He is technically superior and physically more powerful than Lampard and is more highly regarded by his England colleagues.

Darren Bent's 65% strike rate at club level is impressive particularly considering that he nudged aside the excellent Kenwynne Jones to achieve this. However, he has still not done enough to shake off his profligate tag. He has a tendency to slash wildly when he has time and wastes far too many opportunities that more composed, clinical strikers will convert. He is also selfish on the ball when he is in advanced positions and will not release it to team mates better placed to finish.

I hate to admit this though, but even with my first choices in I have a horrible feeling that a team like Denmark would probably get the better of them under tournament conditions.

Adam Johnson has produced 8 assists in 16 appearances for Man City, even though a few of these were set pieces. His meteoric rise has been supported by his excellent performances at City. Along with Bale and Malouda I'd say he's been the best winger this year in the Prem. The level of consistency of his deliveries and performances in general seem far superior to Walcott, who besides a brief cameo performance against Barcelona, has failed to do much of not. That said, Walcott's pace and directness is a great weapon to have on the bench.

I wasn't aware of those Lampard stats, those are indeed telling if they're correct. If Capello opts for a 3-5-2 formation though, Lampard would be a decent choice 'in the hole' as he's great at making those runs into the box and finding space. I'm still swaying towards Lampard though, as he's often a lot more composed on the ball and doesn't lose his discipline as much as Gerrard. That said I can see why you'd go for Gerrard as Cole's sidekick as he would get stuck in more often and offer a greater physical presence than Lampard.

As for Bent, he's had a decent strike rate wherever he's been. He may be a bit of a numpty but his raw power combined with his pace and sense of positioning would worry most defenses. He's got similar physical attributes to Rooney, something which none of the other strike options have, and his directness can definitely be used as an advantage. He's a must on the bench for me.

I don't see why a team like Denmark would get the better of them. Unless there is serious underestimation and complacency involved, a draw would be the best USA, Slovenia or Algeria could hope for...

[Fosse Fox]

Adam Johnson has produced 8 assists in 16 appearances for Man City, even though a few of these were set pieces. His meteoric rise has been supported by his excellent performances at City. Along with Bale and Malouda I'd say he's been the best winger this year in the Prem. The level of consistency of his deliveries and performances in general seem far superior to Walcott, who besides a brief cameo performance against Barcelona, has failed to do much of not. That said, Walcott's pace and directness is a great weapon to have on the bench.

I wasn't aware of those Lampard stats, those are indeed telling if they're correct. If Capello opts for a 3-5-2 formation though, Lampard would be a decent choice 'in the hole' as he's great at making those runs into the box and finding space. I'm still swaying towards Lampard though, as he's often a lot more composed on the ball and doesn't lose his discipline as much as Gerrard. That said I can see why you'd go for Gerrard as Cole's sidekick as he would get stuck in more often and offer a greater physical presence than Lampard.

As for Bent, he's had a decent strike rate wherever he's been. He may be a bit of a numpty but his raw power combined with his pace and sense of positioning would worry most defenses. He's got similar physical attributes to Rooney, something which none of the other strike options have, and his directness can definitely be used as an advantage. He's a must on the bench for me.

I don't see why a team like Denmark would get the better of them. Unless there is serious underestimation and complacency involved, a draw would be the best USA, Slovenia or Algeria could hope for...

Sorry, I mistook you for a Norseman! But if you want to be reminded, Denmark topped a qualification group containing both Portugal and Sweden (and beat both of them away) - teams that England traditionally struggle against.

As for England's group stage opponents, remember that England are not at Wembley and are playing in conditions that they have not experienced before (why on earth did the FA not take them on a familiarisation tour last year?). Again, remember, the USA reached the Confed Cup Final in South Africa in 2009 and that probably half their starters next month will have Premier League experience.

Although on the balance of probabilities England are unlikely to lose against Algeria or Slovenia they could conceivably drop points against either or both. Algeria will be kicking on their own continent (they play a lot of football away against sub Saharan opposition) and Slovenia's defence is a mean one (they conceded fewer goals than England in a qualification group at least equal in strength to England's).

England's World Cup record among the major footballing nations is a poor one. Englands' fans' expectations are unrealistic and are founded on a folk memory of a 'home win' more than two generations ago that is stoked up remorselessly by commercial interests. I think England's natural level in tournament football (depending on the draw) is somewhere between 'the round of 16' and the QF's.

Despite their seemingly favourable group there is no evidence to suggest that England are likely to out-perform in South Africa (altitude will erase any climatic advantage) - more than half the players likely to start against the USA were regulars in the last THREE unspectacular campaigns (funny how the Euro 2008 qualifiers have been airbrushed out of the collective fan psyche) and, if nothing else, I think that we can safely agree that no 'must-go-wunderkids' have emerged to fill dead players' boots this time round.

And if these inconvenient truths aren't enough to lower expectations then springle on the Scholes snub (he 'knows' we're not going to do owt, Fergie bung or no Fergie bung), add a soupcon of uncertainty about Fabio's future (he's really fired up to fire up) and stir in all that 2018 baloney (got a hosting bid in have we? - er no one told me...).

What I find particularly frustrating about England is how other countries perceived to be in the footballing doldrums regularly outperform them - Germany is a case in point. The conveyor belt of German talent dried up about 15 years ago (with precious little second generation immmigrant /mixed race talent to fill the 'Aryan' gap!) and the Bundeslegia has only just woken up after a near decade long snooze, yet during their depression the Krauts have still managed a World Cup Final (2002) a World Cup SF (2006) and a Euro Final (2008).

All that when, for much of this period, England enjoyed a higher FIFA ranking than Germany.

[Koke]

So our wingers are Aaron Lennon, Theo Walcott, Adam Johnson and SWP.

Walcott should be bottom of that pecking order. In fact, he should stay at his proxy home in Hampshire and shouldn't be on the plane. Apart from a hattrick in Croatia and a mazy ridiculous defence splitting run against Liverpool, he has done absolute fuck all else. He's woeful. He can rarely beat his man, he can't cross for shit, he goes missing when the pressure is on. Adam Johnson has done more in 6 months at Man City than Walcott has done in donkeys years at Arsenal. Aaron Lennon was absolute unstoppable for Spurs before he got injured - beating players for fun, putting in exquisite crosses [his crossings have improved ten fold, Walcott should take note]. I'm 50/50 on SWP, but he's still better than Walcott.

Wenger should cut his losses and get rid of him. Terrible terrible player.

[Uncle Albert]

I'm a fan of Theo Walcott, not as a starter but certainly coming on as an impact player, imagine a full backs thoughts if they sore Theo Walcott stripping off to come on for the last 15 minutes of a match, they would be shitting it, his pace is electric and one ball in behind for him then the chances of a fullback catching him are pretty remote.

I can see why people wouldnt want Walcott to start because his delivery is pretty poor in truth but I think that can change with time but he should certainly be going to the World Cup and deffinetly should be ahead of Wright-Phillips!

[shen]

[/b]

Sorry, I mistook you for a Norseman! But if you want to be reminded, Denmark topped a qualification group containing both Portugal and Sweden (and beat both of them away) - teams that England traditionally struggle against.

As for England's group stage opponents, remember that England are not at Wembley and are playing in conditions that they have not experienced before (why on earth did the FA not take them on a familiarisation tour last year?). Again, remember, the USA reached the Confed Cup Final in South Africa in 2009 and that probably half their starters next month will have Premier League experience.

Although on the balance of probabilities England are unlikely to lose against Algeria or Slovenia they could conceivably drop points against either or both. Algeria will be kicking on their own continent (they play a lot of football away against sub Saharan opposition) and Slovenia's defence is a mean one (they conceded fewer goals than England in a qualification group at least equal in strength to England's).

England's World Cup record among the major footballing nations is a poor one. Englands' fans' expectations are unrealistic and are founded on a folk memory of a 'home win' more than two generations ago that is stoked up remorselessly by commercial interests. I think England's natural level in tournament football (depending on the draw) is somewhere between 'the round of 16' and the QF's.

Despite their seemingly favourable group there is no evidence to suggest that England are likely to out-perform in South Africa (altitude will erase any climatic advantage) - more than half the players likely to start against the USA were regulars in the last THREE unspectacular campaigns (funny how the Euro 2008 qualifiers have been airbrushed out of the collective fan psyche) and, if nothing else, I think that we can safely agree that no 'must-go-wunderkids' have emerged to fill dead players' boots this time round.

And if these inconvenient truths aren't enough to lower expectations then springle on the Scholes snub (he 'knows' we're not going to do owt, Fergie bung or no Fergie bung), add a soupcon of uncertainty about Fabio's future (he's really fired up to fire up) and stir in all that 2018 baloney (got a hosting bid in have we? - er no one told me...).

What I find particularly frustrating about England is how other countries perceived to be in the footballing doldrums regularly outperform them - Germany is a case in point. The conveyor belt of German talent dried up about 15 years ago (with precious little second generation immmigrant /mixed race talent to fill the 'Aryan' gap!) and the Bundeslegia has only just woken up after a near decade long snooze, yet during their depression the Krauts have still managed a World Cup Final (2002) a World Cup SF (2006) and a Euro Final (2008).

All that when, for much of this period, England enjoyed a higher FIFA ranking than Germany.

If you had seen those games you would've rubbed your eyes in disbelief as to how Denmark won them. Not to take anything away from the Danish team; after all you have to earn your luck. But if it wasn't for the arrogance and profligacy of the Portuguese (Danny missing an open goal at 1-0, and thinking the job was done after Deco's peno to make it 2-1) and the poor and overly Zlatan-dependent Swedes, Denmark wouldn't have come close.

If the English team approach their group games professionally and without complacency, they WILL be too big a handful for any of the teams in their group. USAs achievements at the Confed Cup were remarkable, but again they went into the game against Spain as huge underdogs after their unimpressive performances in their group. If anything, their performance should serve as the perfect warning for England if they don't give the US team the respect they deserve. The same applies to Slovenia and Algeria. I believe Capello is a man who doesn't underestimate his opponents and as such I THINK that England will go through without too much fuss.

[Uncle Albert]

[/b]

Sorry, I mistook you for a Norseman! But if you want to be reminded, Denmark topped a qualification group containing both Portugal and Sweden (and beat both of them away) - teams that England traditionally struggle against.

As for England's group stage opponents, remember that England are not at Wembley and are playing in conditions that they have not experienced before (why on earth did the FA not take them on a familiarisation tour last year?). Again, remember, the USA reached the Confed Cup Final in South Africa in 2009 and that probably half their starters next month will have Premier League experience.

Although on the balance of probabilities England are unlikely to lose against Algeria or Slovenia they could conceivably drop points against either or both. Algeria will be kicking on their own continent (they play a lot of football away against sub Saharan opposition) and Slovenia's defence is a mean one (they conceded fewer goals than England in a qualification group at least equal in strength to England's).

England's World Cup record among the major footballing nations is a poor one. Englands' fans' expectations are unrealistic and are founded on a folk memory of a 'home win' more than two generations ago that is stoked up remorselessly by commercial interests. I think England's natural level in tournament football (depending on the draw) is somewhere between 'the round of 16' and the QF's.

Despite their seemingly favourable group there is no evidence to suggest that England are likely to out-perform in South Africa (altitude will erase any climatic advantage) - more than half the players likely to start against the USA were regulars in the last THREE unspectacular campaigns (funny how the Euro 2008 qualifiers have been airbrushed out of the collective fan psyche) and, if nothing else, I think that we can safely agree that no 'must-go-wunderkids' have emerged to fill dead players' boots this time round.

And if these inconvenient truths aren't enough to lower expectations then springle on the Scholes snub (he 'knows' we're not going to do owt, Fergie bung or no Fergie bung), add a soupcon of uncertainty about Fabio's future (he's really fired up to fire up) and stir in all that 2018 baloney (got a hosting bid in have we? - er no one told me...).

What I find particularly frustrating about England is how other countries perceived to be in the footballing doldrums regularly outperform them - Germany is a case in point. The conveyor belt of German talent dried up about 15 years ago (with precious little second generation immmigrant /mixed race talent to fill the 'Aryan' gap!) and the Bundeslegia has only just woken up after a near decade long snooze, yet during their depression the Krauts have still managed a World Cup Final (2002) a World Cup SF (2006) and a Euro Final (2008).

All that when, for much of this period, England enjoyed a higher FIFA ranking than Germany.

Oh my God, do you actually think about what your saying first because you are coming up with some of the biggest load of crap ever.

You clearly have a problem with England as well as Liverpool which is fair enough but you really don't know what your talking about, do you? Well you clearly don't if you have to make up words like 'Anusfield' to try and win a debate.

Some of your reasoning's in this post are the most rediculous things I have ever read on this site, you think Algeria will give England a good game because "Algeria are kicking on their own continent" that has no difference what so bloody ever, so how your going about it is then all the African teams will do well because "their kicking on their own continent".. Have a day off, Algeria are a weak team, their best player is Belhadj and if you seriously think he can cause England serious problems then yet again you are more of a fool than I already thought you were.

Your reasoning for Slovenia is nearlly as laughable as the Algeria reasoning, they only conceded four goals in their qualifying group, so bloody what? Did they win their group? No. They were playing in a group alot weaker than England's for a start, San Marino, Poland, Northen Ireland, a very weak Czech Republic side and Slovakia, who are hardly the greatest either who won their group. I bet you didnt see England play Slovenia last year did you? England may have only won 2-1 but in 90 minutes they put half the amount of goals past Slovenia than they conceded in qualification, what does that tell you about their group? But like you say there group was equal, yet they didnt win the group.

One last thing, I like it how you have failed to mention in your 'facts' that England were the highest scoring European qualifying team to progress to the World Cup, whatever.

[Fosse Fox]

.

[purpleronnie]

I don't think I've ever dreaded a match so much. If the yanks beat us I will never hear the end of it. I just hope we beat them, but I've got a bad feeling about it.

I mean they still talk about beating england in the 50's....I'll have to move back home.

[Manwell Pablo]

Radovan does make a good point. The Yanks may be weak on paper but I wouldn't underestimate them. You know what their like with that winning mentality instilled into them from a young age.

I've been saying for years, give them a couple of decades and they will become a force in the footballing world. Their progress has been steady and always improving.

The sport may not me the most popular on their shores but it's growing year on year and with such a big population they will soon be breeding talent left right and centre. The main reason is NIKE the worlds biggest sports manufacturer pump millions into the development of the game which makes Englands academies look third world.

Obviously this year they aren't likely to cause to many shocks but give them time and they will soon overtake England in years to come.

All three have performed to a level where they need to be taken seriously, even Algeria denied the African nations cup winners Egypt a spot at the World Cup.

Yanks are by far the most dangerous though, not many stand out players but a competent team who wont be playing with the expectation of an entire country resting on their shoulders which has always been our biggest problem.

[Fosse Fox]

Oh my God, do you actually think about what your saying first because you are coming up with some of the biggest load of crap ever.

You clearly have a problem with England as well as Liverpool which is fair enough but you really don't know what your talking about, do you? Well you clearly don't if you have to make up words like 'Anusfield' to try and win a debate.

Some of your reasoning's in this post are the most rediculous things I have ever read on this site, you think Algeria will give England a good game because "Algeria are kicking on their own continent" that has no difference what so bloody ever, so how your going about it is then all the African teams will do well because "their kicking on their own continent".. Have a day off, Algeria are a weak team, their best player is Belhadj and if you seriously think he can cause England serious problems then yet again you are more of a fool than I already thought you were.

Your reasoning for Slovenia is nearlly as laughable as the Algeria reasoning, they only conceded four goals in their qualifying group, so bloody what? Did they win their group? No. They were playing in a group alot weaker than England's for a start, San Marino, Poland, Northen Ireland, a very weak Czech Republic side and Slovakia, who are hardly the greatest either who won their group. I bet you didnt see England play Slovenia last year did you? England may have only won 2-1 but in 90 minutes they put half the amount of goals past Slovenia than they conceded in qualification, what does that tell you about their group? But like you say there group was equal, yet they didnt win the group.

One last thing, I like it how you have failed to mention in your 'facts' that England were the highest scoring European qualifying team to progress to the World Cup, whatever.

Mr Aquilani,

Have you ever been dignosed with any of the following; AD/HD, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Oppositional Defiance Disorder? Have you ever been prescribed Ritalin or any other impulse control medication? I ask because you seem to have a BIG problem with reasoning (you don't seem to know when you are agreeing or disagreeing with someone), semantics and (uncomfortable) facts. OK, let's pick our way through your clunking syntax shall we?

Yes, being in the position of 'kicking on your own continent' could well be a bit of a leveller, particularly in a one off situation where an unpredictable outfit like Algeria are concerned. (who according to you are just a 'weak team' and whose best player is Pompey's lesser Algerian loanee - gimmee strength). OK so what has this 'weak team' done recently?

Well they only went and beat Cote d'Ivoire (who, on the balance of probabilities, would gain at least a draw against England playing outside Africa) in the QF of the African Nations earlier this year - would you describe the Ivorians as a 'weak team' (particularly when 'kicking on their own continent') hmm? I notice that 'Les Elephants' are a lot of people's 'roughies' for 2010 (couldn't be anything to do with 'kicking on their own continent' could it?), though not mine (for non footballing reasons).

Algeria's current FIFA ranking is 31 although six months ago it was as high as 26. Nothing remarkable in that you may say - but they lie only a couple of places below the Ukraine who gave us a bit of a kicking in the qualifiers I seem to recall. And Algeria are only going to get stronger. Their steady rise has been due to a change in the law that allows French born Algerians to re register as Algerian nationals (for footballing purposes only) and eleven current pro's have taken advantage (or disadvantage depending on your point of view) of this ruling.

Bet you didn't know any of that you glory seeking red shite 'Little Englander' (I have my doubts as to whether you get this insult) did you? However, not only are you a pig ignorant xenophobe you also appear to have amnesia. You don't happen to remember who wrote this do you?

"... so how your going about it is then all the African teams will do well because "their kicking on their own continent"..."

Could it have been the same person who also posted this?

Who's your Roughie? Ghana.

It would appear then that whilst subconsciously you acknowlege that teams 'kicking on their own continent' may enjoy a slight psychological advantage you are too hot headed and thoughtless to consciously recognise this. Moreover, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that your OTT rant was provoked by a prediciton that Algeria would turn England over. What I actually wrote was this:

Although on the balance of probabilities England are unlikely to lose against Algeria or Slovenia they could conceivably drop points against either or both

More embarrassingly still for you is that your roughies for 2010 are weaker than the weaklings of Algeria according to the current FIFA rankings (32 v 31). OK let's move on to those other feeble bodied qualifiers, the Slovenes.

According to FIFA data the current average ranking of England's group opponents is 87 and those of Slovenia 75 (this partly explains England's impressive group goal tally). Factor in Slovenia's play off opponents Russia and the overral ranking of their qualifying opposition comes down to 66. So my remark that: Slovenia's group was at least 'equal in strength' to that of England is backed up by the stats. You provide nothing to support your claim that England's group was the stronger in your irrational girlie period, menopausal, post hysterectomy tirade.

More ill advisedly still, you brought up that narrow England victory in that Wembley friendly (where the Slovenes more than held their own ). Slovenia will be even more of a handful under tournament conditions on foreign soil. Their current FIFA ranking is 23 which does not do justice to their technical prowess (they are a more gifted team than the US who are ranked nine places above them) which should come to the fore against any side trying to hoof their way out of trouble.

The whole thrust of my argument about England is that they have big problems in tournaments hosted on foreign soil. The stats don't lie. In 60 years England have only ever won 5 knock out phase matches on foreign soil in the World Cup Finals out of a possible 50+ - (a > 90% failure rate)? Yet despite this and other uncomfortable truths (let's not talk about England's 100% failure rate in World Cup penalty shoot-outs) and the fact that Wayne Rooney is the only genuine world class English talent that has emerged since Nippon 2002, you still have England down to win 2010.

Like the unrealistic expectations of so many England fans your hopes are based on nothing more than hype and a colossal ignorance of foreign teams, their stars and, all too often, their technical superiority over English players. But what can else can you expect from someone who waxes lyrical about a third rate international stopper like Carragher (why he got the call ahead of Campbell is a query only Fabio can answer) and touts the frustratingly reluctant retiring Gerrard as the man most likely too in June. Now, only a glory seeking ANUSFIELDER with his head up his own fundament could possibly post drivel like that.

I sincerely hope that for all our sakes your ill considered, jingoistic remarks do not come back to haunt you...

[dandannieldanok]

I can't be arsed to read through all of that but I see you suggest Algeria are making major strides in their own continent. I suggest you take a look at recent results and re-evaluate your stance. They had a lucky run in WC qualifying, in 2010 they're back to losing to the likes of Libya and Malawi.

[shen]

<rant>

Since when do you use the FIFA Rankings to back up your arguments? You've previously called them 'a joke'

Oh and on a side note, what do you make of Ronaldinho, Ronaldo and Adriano missing out on the tournament?

[Fosse Fox]

Since when do you use the FIFA Rankings to back up your arguments? You've previously called them 'a joke'

Oh and on a side note, what do you make of Ronaldinho, Ronaldo and Adriano missing out on the tournament?

You must be thinking of somebody else. However...

FIFA rankings are an imperfect meaure of competence for a very volatile and unpredictable sport where a true test of excellence comes rarely (eg Euro and WC finals). There is no doubt that the current formula of assessment favours certain teams over others and that this approach can be manipulated (eg teams playing a large number of friendlies at home against lower ranked opposition). I suspect that England's ranking is slightly inflated (and that this in part is fuelling unrealistic expectations for South Africa 2010) but we shall see.

My use of the FIFA rankings was necessitated by Aquilani's dismissal of Algeria and Slovenia as 'weak teams' when they both fall within the top 15% of teams in the world. Now, in this instance, as a broad measure of ability, the FIFA rankings are OK. The problems come when you try (a) to be more specific both at the very top (the leading 10%) and at the very bottom and (b) in the assessment of the non European nations (particularly African teams who are discriminated against by FIFA in several ways including the restrictive quota for World Cup qualification, hosting rights etc).

As for your other point I have already expressed my view on this matter in the missing players thread

[FoxyPV]

I can't really see anyone challenging England for top spot (although I hope I am proven wrong).

I'd love to see a group exit but it'll probably be another boring 2nd round/QF penalty shoot out exit.

[shen]

You must be thinking of somebody else. However...

FIFA rankings are an imperfect meaure of competence for a very volatile and unpredictable sport where a true test of excellence comes rarely (eg Euro and WC finals). There is no doubt that the current formula of assessment favours certain teams over others and that this approach can be manipulated (eg teams playing a large number of friendlies at home against lower ranked opposition). I suspect that England's ranking is slightly inflated (and that this in part is fuelling unrealistic expectations for South Africa 2010) but we shall see.

My use of the FIFA rankings was necessitated by Aquilani's dismissal of Algeria and Slovenia as 'weak teams' when they both fall within the top 15% of teams in the world. Now, in this instance, as a broad measure of ability, the FIFA rankings are OK. The problems come when you try (a) to be more specific both at the very top (the leading 10%) and at the very bottom and (b) in the assessment of the non European nations (particularly African teams who are discriminated against by FIFA in several ways including the restrictive quota for World Cup qualification, hosting rights etc).

As for your other point I have already expressed my view on this matter in the missing players thread

I could've sworn you two were the same...! Radovan must have a twin brother (or a trailer) then

While I don't agree with UAs comments, calling Algeria and Slovenia 'weak' is surely a relative thing. The difference between a top class side ranking in the top 5, e.g. Brazil or Spain, and a team like Algeria (ranking of 30ish) is huge, probably as big as the difference between Algeria and a team like Burundi (ranking 145). So it makes little sense to compare across rankings using averages as the they are not a linear representation of teams' abilities. Simply acknowledging that Algeria and Slovenia are within the 'top 15% in the world', a quite arbitrary cut off point, doesn't take into account that the top 5% are way ahead of the rest

[Fosse Fox]

I could've sworn you two were the same...! Radovan must have a twin brother (or a trailer) then

While I don't agree with UAs comments, calling Algeria and Slovenia 'weak' is surely a relative thing. The difference between a top class side ranking in the top 5, e.g. Brazil or Spain, and a team like Algeria (ranking of 30ish) is huge, probably as big as the difference between Algeria and a team like Burundi (ranking 145). So it makes little sense to compare across rankings using averages as the they are not a linear representation of teams' abilities. Simply acknowledging that Algeria and Slovenia are within the 'top 15% in the world', a quite arbitrary cut off point, doesn't take into account that the top 5% are way ahead of the rest

I haven't been on here long enough to know who your doppelganger is/was or whether you have one at all...

I don't necessarily agree that the difference between a top 5 team (or do you mean a top 5% team?) and the likes of Algeria etc is wider than the latter and an outfit like Burundi. Cote d'Ivoire are an unlikely 27 but would be a stiff test for anyone under tournament conditions. Les Elephants modest ranking is to do with consistency (which, in Africa, often has non football related causes) rather than quality.

England are technically within the 'arbitrary(!)' top 5% but one suspects that the gap between them and the more highly ranked teams in this band is greater than between England and the likes of Algeria. History suggests that in the knock out phase of the World Cup England would struggle against all the sides ranked above them. However a number of sides currently ranked below England might stand a better chance in the same situation (France and, if they had qualified, Czech Republic, Sweden and Croatia).

Although I don't like comparing International teams to club sides England remind me an awful lot of Aston Villa. Not only do you sense that they will never win the Premier League but you also feel they will never qualify for the Champions League either. And that is in large part due to the fact that of the top eight sides they are the most Anglicised, with the most English style of play. Not only is this what is holding them back but MON appears blind to to this fact.

And so it is with England...

[shen]

I haven't been on here long enough to know who your doppelganger is/was or whether you have one at all...

I don't necessarily agree that the difference between a top 5 team (or do you mean a top 5% team?) and the likes of Algeria etc is wider than the latter and an outfit like Burundi. Cote d'Ivoire are an unlikely 27 but would be a stiff test for anyone under tournament conditions. Les Elephants modest ranking is to do with consistency (which, in Africa, often has non football related causes) rather than quality.

England are technically within the 'arbitrary(!)' top 5% but one suspects that the gap between them and the more highly ranked teams in this band is greater than between England and the likes of Algeria. History suggests that in the knock out phase of the World Cup England would struggle against all the sides ranked above them. However a number of sides currently ranked below England might stand a better chance in the same situation (France and, if they had qualified, Czech Republic, Sweden and Croatia).

Although I don't like comparing International teams to club sides England remind me an awful lot of Aston Villa. Not only do you sense that they will never win the Premier League but you also feel they will never qualify for the Champions League either. And that is in large part due to the fact that of the top eight sides they are the most Anglicised, with the most English style of play. Not only is this what is holding them back but MON appears blind to to this fact.

And so it is with England...

Why change your moniker RC? Not that it matters at all...

The correct analogy to draw between England and the Premier League would be to compare them say to a side like Aston Villa

Your example of Cote d'Ivoire acknowledges that the rankings do not mean much at all. Using them as an argument is extremely dubious at best. And surely you wouldn't say that Algeria would prove a 'stiff test' for anyone under tournament conditions, seeing as they beat Cote d'Ivoire at the ACN and rank just four places lower than them? As you previously said, the rankings are problematic when gauging the relative strengths of the teams in the top 30 or so.

[Fosse Fox]

Why change your moniker RC? Not that it matters at all...

Your example of Cote d'Ivoire acknowledges that the rankings do not mean much at all. Using them as an argument is extremely dubious at best. And surely you wouldn't say that Algeria would prove a 'stiff test' for anyone under tournament conditions, seeing as they beat Cote d'Ivoire at the ACN and rank just four places lower than them? As you previously said, the rankings are problematic when gauging the relative strengths of the teams in the top 30 or so.

You may recall that I did say that one area where the FIFA rankings are unreliable is in the assessment of non European sides - particularly African teams (none in the top ten and just four in the top 30).

And FIFA ranking notwithstanding, any team capable of beating in form sides like Cote d'Ivoire and multiple (and current) African Champions, Egypt, should not be taken lightly by habitual tournament also rans like England.

[The Doctor]

Yes, being in the position of 'kicking on your own continent' could well be a bit of a leveller, particularly in a one off situation where an unpredictable outfit like Algeria are concerned. (who according to you are just a 'weak team' and whose best player is Pompey's lesser Algerian loanee - gimmee strength). OK so what has this 'weak team' done recently?

Well they only went and beat Cote d'Ivoire (who, on the balance of probabilities, would gain at least a draw against England playing outside Africa) in the QF of the African Nations earlier this year - would you describe the Ivorians as a 'weak team' (particularly when 'kicking on their own continent') hmm? I notice that 'Les Elephants' are a lot of people's 'roughies' for 2010 (couldn't be anything to do with 'kicking on their own continent' could it?), though not mine (for non footballing reasons).

Algeria's current FIFA ranking is 31 although six months ago it was as high as 26. Nothing remarkable in that you may say - but they lie only a couple of places below the Ukraine who gave us a bit of a kicking in the qualifiers I seem to recall. And Algeria are only going to get stronger. Their steady rise has been due to a change in the law that allows French born Algerians to re register as Algerian nationals (for footballing purposes only) and eleven current pro's have taken advantage (or disadvantage depending on your point of view) of this ruling.

Bet you didn't know any of that you glory seeking red shite 'Little Englander' (I have my doubts as to whether you get this insult) did you? However, not only are you a pig ignorant xenophobe you also appear to have amnesia. You don't happen to remember who wrote this do you?

"... so how your going about it is then all the African teams will do well because "their kicking on their own continent"..."

Could it have been the same person who also posted this?

Who's your Roughie? Ghana.

It would appear then that whilst subconsciously you acknowlege that teams 'kicking on their own continent' may enjoy a slight psychological advantage you are too hot headed and thoughtless to consciously recognise this. Moreover, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that your OTT rant was provoked by a prediciton that Algeria would turn England over. What I actually wrote was this:

Although on the balance of probabilities England are unlikely to lose against Algeria or Slovenia they could conceivably drop points against either or both

More embarrassingly still for you is that your roughies for 2010 are weaker than the weaklings of Algeria according to the current FIFA rankings (32 v 31). OK let's move on to those other feeble bodied qualifiers, the Slovenes.

According to FIFA data the current average ranking of England's group opponents is 87 and those of Slovenia 75 (this partly explains England's impressive group goal tally). Factor in Slovenia's play off opponents Russia and the overral ranking of their qualifying opposition comes down to 66. So my remark that: Slovenia's group was at least 'equal in strength' to that of England is backed up by the stats. You provide nothing to support your claim that England's group was the stronger in your irrational girlie period, menopausal, post hysterectomy tirade.

More ill advisedly still, you brought up that narrow England victory in that Wembley friendly (where the Slovenes more than held their own ). Slovenia will be even more of a handful under tournament conditions on foreign soil. Their current FIFA ranking is 23 which does not do justice to their technical prowess (they are a more gifted team than the US who are ranked nine places above them) which should come to the fore against any side trying to hoof their way out of trouble.

The whole thrust of my argument about England is that they have big problems in tournaments hosted on foreign soil. The stats don't lie. In 60 years England have only ever won 5 knock out phase matches on foreign soil in the World Cup Finals out of a possible 50+ - (a > 90% failure rate)? Yet despite this and other uncomfortable truths (let's not talk about England's 100% failure rate in World Cup penalty shoot-outs) and the fact that Wayne Rooney is the only genuine world class English talent that has emerged since Nippon 2002, you still have England down to win 2010.

Like the unrealistic expectations of so many England fans your hopes are based on nothing more than hype and a colossal ignorance of foreign teams, their stars and, all too often, their technical superiority over English players. But what can else can you expect from someone who waxes lyrical about a third rate international stopper like Carragher (why he got the call ahead of Campbell is a query only Fabio can answer) and touts the frustratingly reluctant retiring Gerrard as the man most likely too in June. Now, only a glory seeking ANUSFIELDER with his head up his own fundament could possibly post drivel like that.

You don't half talk BS.

If you look at a map you'll find Algeria is well up in the north of africa while south africa (as the name suggests) is as southernly as it could possibly be without no longer being on mainland africa. Also From Algiers to Cape Town is almost a 5000 mile journey (4979 to be exact) - Do you not think that that might some how negate the effects of being on their own continent?

Not to mention that England, Spain, Holland and other european nations all struggled in Germany 06 - A nation much closer to their own than Algeria is to South Africa.

Also Algeria are a weak team - their best player is by far Belhadj. Have you considered that possibly their victory over the Ivory Coast was more to do with luck than ability? People pick Ivory Coast and Ghana as their "roughies" not because they're playing on their own continent but because they have several top level players (Drogba, Kalou, Kieta, Toure etc - Ivory Coast, Essien, Muntari etc. Ghana)

Meanwhile you justify your arguement by using FIFA world rankings which are a complete joke - Remeber these are the ones that a couple of years back ranked USA & Mexico as the 3rd and 4th Best nations in the world - Which means they must have been ahead of all but two of - Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Italy, France, Portugal, Holland, Germany & England all of which (although i dislike saying it about england) are much better than USA or Mexico.

And then you bring up qualifying groups to suggest that Sloviena will somehow cause problems while england faced Croatia & Ukraine as the best of the rest in their group while the best of the rest in Slovenia's group was Czech Republic (over the hill) - The two lists hardly deserve comparison.

Edit: oh and don't say i'm some sort of blinkered, foolish patriot - if i was then i'd be agreeing with what you said

[shen]

You may recall that I did say that one area where the FIFA rankings are unreliable is in the assessment of non European sides - particularly African teams (none in the top ten and just four in the top 30).

And FIFA ranking notwithstanding, any team capable of beating in form sides like Cote d'Ivoire and multiple (and current) African Champions, Egypt, should not be taken lightly by habitual tournament also rans like England.

But the rankings are also pretty unreliable when assessing European sides I agree that the rankings are biased against African teams in particular. And I did say that England should not be complacent or they will get punished. But if taken seriously they should see off 'weak' teams like Algeria

[Fosse Fox]

You don't half talk BS.

If you look at a map you'll find Algeria is well up in the north of africa while south africa (as the name suggests) is as southernly as it could possibly be without no longer being on mainland africa. Also From Algiers to Cape Town is almost a 5000 mile journey (4979 to be exact) - Do you not think that that might some how negate the effects of being on their own continent?

Not to mention that England, Spain, Holland and other european nations all struggled in Germany 06 - A nation much closer to their own than Algeria is to South Africa.

Also Algeria are a weak team - their best player is by far Belhadj. Have you considered that possibly their victory over the Ivory Coast was more to do with luck than ability? People pick Ivory Coast and Ghana as their "roughies" not because they're playing on their own continent but because they have several top level players (Drogba, Kalou, Kieta, Toure etc - Ivory Coast, Essien, Muntari etc. Ghana)

Meanwhile you justify your arguement by using FIFA world rankings which are a complete joke - Remeber these are the ones that a couple of years back ranked USA & Mexico as the 3rd and 4th Best nations in the world - Which means they must have been ahead of all but two of - Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Italy, France, Portugal, Holland, Germany & England all of which (although i dislike saying it about england) are much better than USA or Mexico.

And then you bring up qualifying groups to suggest that Sloviena will somehow cause problems while england faced Croatia & Ukraine as the best of the rest in their group while the best of the rest in Slovenia's group was Czech Republic (over the hill) - The two lists hardly deserve comparison.

Edit: oh and don't say i'm some sort of blinkered, foolish patriot - if i was then i'd be agreeing with what you said

I think that you have come down with a severe dose of the Aquilani's Fat AL - one of the worst cases of literal mindedness I've come across in a long, long time.

My metaphor 'kicking on one's own continent' was meant to convey a sense of familiarity not one of proximity. The Maghreb may be a long way from the Cape but the Algerian national team are well used to the sights, sounds and smells of black Africa as they play most of their football there (friendlies, African Nations/World Cup qualifiers and finals). Whether this experience really does give them an edge is a moot point. It's rather like a quack remedy: if you believe in it enough it will work.

Fortune may have smiled upon them in their encounter with Coted'Ivoire and possibly too in their play-off with Egypt. But fortune, as they say, favours the brave and contrary to what lame brain Aquilani would have us believe you don't qualify for World Cups because of luck alone.

Your statements that the Desert Foxes are a weak team and that Belhadj is their stellar talent are based largely on ignorance. Well over half the Algerian squad will be drawn from the top flight in England, France, Germany and Italy and that fact alone should be enough to get the warning lights flashing. Many of the national squad have had more settled careers and/or played for more prestigious clubs than Belhadj. Karim Ziani (Wolfsberg) is widely acclaimed as Algeria's best player though in time he may well be superceded by 'Le Petit Zidane' Mourad Meghni (Lazio) - do you get the picture?

There is no doubt that until recently FIFA ranking criteria disproportionately benefitted North American/Caribbean national sides. I was under the impression that the values given for success in CONCACAF/CONFED by FIFA were subsequently adjusted (I suspect that the USA's current ranking would be higher under the old rules given their relative success last year but I might be wrong). I still think that nations in this neck of the planet are favoured at the expense of other confederations and that this is largely political and driven by FIFA's commercial priorities.

Re. the Cote and other African teams, lets get one thing straight - they wouldn't be anybody's roughies if they weren't 'kicking on their own continent'. Period. And anyone who says otherwise is a disingenuous mendacious bastard.

A final word about Algeria (and I really do mean that folks). If England do well against the USA (ie performance and result) they will be more likely to do well against Algeria. However if they have a bad day down the mine in Rustenburg, Les Fennecs may sense weakness. And that could leave England in a similar kind of situation with Slovenia to the one they faced against Poland in '86.

On the balance of probabilities though I don't think that 'Wazzer' will be faced with the prospect of having to do a 'Gary'.