[Archived] So Are You Involved In The World Cup?

[Hypo-Luxa]

This draws makes me sick and pleases me greatly all at once. First of all, the USA has been placed in arguably the hardest Group of all, while Germany get the absolute EASIEST draw. I've never really liked Germany at all (thanks to Olly Kahn) and after last World Cup after Frings' hand ball save I now abhor them and to see them get such an easy draw, hosts or not, makes me sick. They were mediocre in last World Cup and they'll be mediocre again and advance easily. I'm not saying they'll breeze through, but only Serbia&Montenegro instead of Poland would have made it easier for them.

As for the Americans , after my initial stomach dropping to the depths of my bowels reaction after I saw US's draw, I realized that this IS the stage to establish legitmacy. A poster said above that we have to beat some real competition once in awhile to be considered in the top 10 in the world and I agree 100%. While the CONCACAF is not anything as easy as Oceania, it is not nearly as tough as Europe, S America or Africa so in order to gain the respect that all of us here in the States so desperately want we have to win on the big stage. I am praying to God, Allah, Buddha and Vishnu that we gain promotion to the second round or else we'll have put up with more "over-rated" talk for another 4 years (and deservedly so, unfortunately).

The one thing that gives me absolute delight is that Angola and Togo, the two complete surprises of the Cup have both drawn their former colonizers. Would be great to see them "stick it to the man" in a worldwide competition. If only Namibia could have qualified and Germany could have drawn them...

[Oklahoma]

Im sure the Portuguese will think they are going through.

That will do us a world of good. Let them underestimate Iran and Angola...

366225[/snapback]

Actually, after what happened in the last WC with Portugal (beaten by USA and South Korea), people are happy with the result but still careful.

in the WC, all teams will want to show their best.

[AussieinUk]

I don't think South Korea will go to Australia. ....The clubs are not happy about it and want it reduced. Can't see them going to Australia as well.

366217[/snapback]

Your right KJ - We are playing a Home game in May against Greece.

We are also playing our two Asian qualifiers on Feb 22 and March 1. We could be playing you guys:

"The draw for that tournament takes place in Kuala Lumpur on January 4, and Australia could face a tough assignment because, as a newcomer to the region, they have been placed in pot four, with the weakest group of teams. They could, in theory, be drawn against nations like Japan, China or Iran (top seeds), South Korea, Iraq or Saudi Arabia (second seeds) and United Arab Emirates, Syria and Lebanon (third seeds).

The first two of the six qualifying matches will take place on February 22 and March 1 - SMH

[Rovermatt]

As for the Americans , after my initial stomach dropping to the depths of my bowels reaction after I saw US's draw, I realized that this IS the stage to establish legitmacy.  A poster said above that we have to beat some real competition once in awhile to be considered in the top 10 in the world and I agree 100%.  While the CONCACAF is not anything as easy as Oceania, it is not nearly as tough as Europe, S America or Africa so in order to gain the respect that all of us here in the States so desperately want we have to win on the big stage.  I am praying to God, Allah, Buddha and Vishnu that we gain promotion to the second round or else we'll have put up with more "over-rated" talk for another 4 years (and deservedly so, unfortunately). 

366284[/snapback]

The US will be lucky to get out of that group. Yes they did quite well in Japan and Korea, but the Czechs and the Italians are a completely different kettle of fish to the listless Portuguese side the US defeated four years ago. The Americans need consistent competition against the top sides in Europe and South America to sharpen their considerable potential.

From a petty point of view, I have no wish for nation to do well in the World Cup when the vast majority of its citizens couldn't give a toss about the greatest sporting event in the world.

[tcj_jones]

Looking at the odds for the world cup winners, I'd have to say that the Czech Republic are looking pretty good at 34/1.

Looking at the structure of the draw, I have them down as playing Brazil in the second round of the competition, but if they can get through that match, I'd say that they have a fair chance.

Personally I think either Brazil or Argentina will win it and my predictions are for a Brazil - Argentina final.

I think England will make it to the quarter finals. My predictions have us against Poland in the second round and then Holland in the quarter finals. I do not think we will beat them.

[Eddie]

The US will be lucky to get out of that group. Yes they did quite well in Japan and Korea, but the Czechs and the Italians are a completely different kettle of fish to the listless Portuguese side the US defeated four years ago. The Americans need consistent competition against the top sides in Europe and South America to sharpen their considerable potential.

From a petty point of view, I have no wish for nation to do well in the World Cup when the vast majority of its citizens couldn't give a toss about the greatest sporting event in the world.

366385[/snapback]

More the reason why I'm finding it difficult to see how the USA can get out of that group is the lack of a world class player in their side. As long as they don't have any injuries they will field a good starting eleven, certainly one of the best 12/15 in the world and the sort that makes them a difficult prospect for any side, but in an even game against another quality team I fail to see where that moment of inspiration will come from. It's for these same reasons that England can't afford to lose the likes of Rooney, Lampard or Gerrard, all player who can turn a game in a single instant.

Several sides will go into this tournament feeling that they have a good chance of winning it. In the end the winner may well be decided by the team who's "special" players turn up and play well for those 7 games.

[joey_big_nose]

For me England's chances hinge on getting the system sorted by the world cup, so the friendlies are absolutely vital.

We posess six players who can cause real attacking damage- (In descending order of importance IMHO) Rooney, Gerrard, Owen, Lampard, Beckham, Ashley Cole. Joe Cole is playing well too but I will be suprised if he starts if all the others are fit.

The issues are:

1. Finding the workhorse who can get the best out of these players by sitting infront of the defence and letting them get forward. The choice seem to be between Carrick and King, but don't bet against Parker making a late run.

2. Finding the right combination- essentially how the three attacking midfielders (Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham) spread themselves across the field and how they interact with each other so we are not left exposed on the counter attack. If we can arrange it so we get the best out of them going forward we have a real chance.

3. Instigating the best playing style- Owen is problamatic because he is primarily a finisher and does not get too involved in build up play. Plus we have no 'winger' (although SWP does provide this possibility from the bench) as such and our forwards lack height. Passing the ball well on the ground, exceptionally quick and intelligent movement and looking for the through ball to Owen are all crucial. If Rooney is going to come deep as he often does then Gerrard or Lampard need to go beyond him regularly to provide more options. Fortunately they are both good at this.

4. Getting Ashley Cole more involved. He is a world class player and is consistently devastating for Arsenal. If he can take this across to the international game he will give us width and a whole new dimension. The question is covering his runs so we are not exposed on the counter.

We have the players, it is getting the system RIGHT! Come on Sven....

I reckon quaters are an absolute minimum. Semis would be acceptable but really we should be looking to the final. Brazil are the only team with (albeit substantially) better quality than us.

[Rovermatt]

I reckon quaters are an absolute minimum. Semis would be acceptable but really we should be looking to the final. Brazil are the only team with (albeit substantially) better quality than us.

366397[/snapback]

You're having a laugh.

The Dutch, Spanish, Italians, Argies, Czechs and Portuguese all have squads capable of winning the thing. Each has as good a chance as England.

Yes Sven has good players at his disposal but to place them second only to Brazil is pretty deluded.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Rovermatt

[neekoy]

I wouldn't be thinking so far as the semi's already, you guys have to get through the group stage.

Paraguay and Sweden are no pushovers.

Rovermatt, you left out the French and the Germans, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Ukraine pulling some upsets.

England struggled against some very weak opposition in the qualifiers and all of a sudden they are being rated finalists?

Edited December 12, 2005 by neekoy

[joey_big_nose]

You're having a laugh.

The Dutch, Spanish, Italians, Argies, Czechs and Portuguese all have squads capable of winning the thing. Each has as good a chance as England.

Yes Sven has good players at his disposal but to place them second only to Brazil is pretty deluded.

366545[/snapback]

I would say you could put the Germans in there too, as they have home advantage. I did not say England were better than those other teams, just that the only team with more quality is Brazil.

Ultimately the teams that go the furthest will be the ones who get the most out of their players, Sven needs to do that.

Quarters are a minimum because that is the last eight and we are certainly not the ninth best team in the tounament. We have to look to the final becuase we are certainly good enough to get there. Aim high!

This is a better England side than the one that got to the semis of 1990, indeed it is, in terms of individal talent, the best I have ever seen.

[tcj_jones]

Rovermatt, I agree, but England have been placed as second favourites to win the compeition. I don't think it is deluded so much as misplaced confidence.

[Eddie]

I wouldn't be thinking so far as the semi's already, you guys have to get through the group stage.

Paraguay and Sweden are no pushovers.

Rovermatt, you left out the French and the Germans, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Ukraine pulling some upsets.

England struggled against some very weak opposition in the qualifiers and all of a sudden they are being rated finalists?

366575[/snapback]

They may have struggled but they finished with the second best record of any European qualifier, so obviously everyone else struggled that bit more.

The French and Germans are in with a shot but both are much weaker sides then the top nations going into the tournament. They will need their entire team to turn up and play out of their skins and on top of that have a bit of luck if they are to stand a chance of winning it.

[Radagast]

Without Scotland, Wales or either Ireland, I would have been supporting Sweden at this tournament anyway, so the fact they are playing England is really just an added bonus.

There seems to be quite a few substandard sides in the tournament this time around. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong on that one.

[Lathund]

I like it how both most Swedes and most Englishmen seem delighted to have drawn eachother I don't necessarily think England are worse than any of the other teams in the first pool (Well, bar Brazil and perhaps Argentina), but I do think we have a better chance against them than any of the other teams. Partly because of history, and partly because I fear very quick and technical teams more than the kind of football both England and ourselves play.

My prediction for the group is Sweden and England on 7 points, England topping the group on goal difference. Though Paraguay are by no means a pushover, they can ruin the "expected" outcome for both of our countries.

[pg]

This is a better England side than the one that got to the semis of 1990, indeed it is, in terms of individal talent, the best I have ever seen.

366576[/snapback]

Lineker-Beardlsey-Platt-Barnes-Waddle-Gascoigne?!?!

versus Owen-Rooney-Beckham-Lampard-Gerrard??

Your team in 1990 had wingers. Your current team doesn't. The 1990 team had a truly world-class finisher... your current team doesn't.

England will do fine in the upcoming world cup becaue they have a decent squad. In addition, a lot of the European teams (e.g. Holland, Germany, Italy) are playing no-where near there best.. or a moving through a transition phase.. arguments with the coach... whatever. Sven still doesn't know what his best formation is but there is enough talent in the team to get to the quarters at least.

England will probably lose to Sweden but win the rest of their qualifying matches.

Actually.. Brazil aside... it is probably one of the most open World Cups in years.

[Nate]

I knew we would end up with Brazil

Japanese are nippy (no pun intended) little beggars. So we should use our physical presence to our advantage there to secure a win.

Croatia, who knows what to expect really.

[joey_big_nose]

Lineker-Beardlsey-Platt-Barnes-Waddle-Gascoigne?!?! 

versus Owen-Rooney-Beckham-Lampard-Gerrard??

Your team in 1990 had wingers.  Your current team doesn't.  The 1990 team had a truly world-class finisher... your current team doesn't.

England will do fine in the upcoming world cup becaue they have a decent squad.  In addition, a lot of the European teams (e.g. Holland, Germany, Italy) are playing no-where near there best.. or a moving through a transition phase.. arguments with the coach... whatever.  Sven still doesn't know what his best formation is but there is enough talent in the team to get to the quarters at least.

England will probably lose to Sweden but win the rest of their qualifying matches.

Actually.. Brazil aside... it is probably one of the most open World Cups in years.

366601[/snapback]

I am not sure what your point is. Gazza and Lineker were exceptional players but no better than Rooney and Owen. Waddle is a personal favourite of mine but he was not operating at the standard of Gerrard or Lampard are at the moment. How can you say Owen is not a world class finisher? 35 goals in 75 appearences is just under a goal every other game. Lineker's record was 48 in 80 so he has a slightly better return, but I don't think that precludes Owen from being considered world class.

The winger problem is an issue but we can get over it if we adapt our style of play. Arsenal played extremely well (still do to an extent) without wingers as did the French team that won 1998. It can be done.

Oh, and don't forget that when we went into 1990 everybody thought we were going to be crap. RObson for the sack and all that. Sound familiar?

I do recognise that in all probability things will go wrong, but we DO have the players unlike we have the last two times round. It would be criminal not to have certain expectations.

[pg]

Owen is a superb player, no doubt about that. But if he was truly 'world-class' he would have cemented a place at Real Madrid.

I think the current England team lacks the 'flair' and 'spark' that several players in the '90 squad could deliver.

Only Rooney IMO is able to have that ability to make 'something from nothing'. Gerrard and Lampard are class...but their strengths lie in other areas.

To make it all the way in a World Cup (or very close to it), you need a player, who on his day, can win the game off his own boot. Think back to USA '94, and the efforts of Baggio in the knockout games. And Stoitckov's efforts for Bulgaria. Likewise, Zidane's efforts for France four years later.

Rooney showed glimpes of that 'extra' ability in Euro 2004.. but we also know he's a spoilt immature numpty who is almost as likely to get a straight red card as he is to score a goal of pure genius.

Edited December 13, 2005 by pg

[Rovermatt]

I did leave out the French. I knew I'd missed something.

[herbergeehh]

In my opinion, Parker should definitely get that deep role in midfield. Carrick is a great passer of the ball, but I think Parker is the best of the two defensively, he's really a great battler and can cover large areas.

As for the tournament, I have a soft spot for Italy and hope either them or Spain can overcome their problems with the championships. The problem is that they've made themselves so dependant of Totti's brilliance. (which really should be unneeded, considering the likes of Pirlo, Luca Toni, Gilardino, Cassano, Camoranesi etc. in the side)

Totti is definitely capable of securing a trophy for Italy, but he also has his bad days - which the European Championship showed - and when Italy's tactics are so dependant of him, it can blow up in their faces. That being said, if Totti has the championship he is capable of having, I think Italy can be a major competitor for the title.

[RoyRover]

Rovermatt, I agree, but England have been placed as second favourites to win the compeition.  I don't think it is deluded so much as misplaced confidence.

366577[/snapback]

England getting seeded second was a joke. There was a high possibility that they weren't going to get seeded at all, because of past performances in competitions and the fact that they had a less than impressive qualifing campaign. I would say that they do deserve to be seeded, but second? Not a chance. And for people to think that Brazil are the only team with better quality than England, then it smacks of serious over confidence and lack of respect for the likes of Argentina, France, Czech Republic and Italy. England are no better than any of these teams.

[FourLaneBlue]

Owen is a superb player, no doubt about that.  But if he was truly 'world-class' he would have cemented a place at Real Madrid.

366604[/snapback]

That's a bit unfair. Owen was battling for a place alongside Ronaldo, Raul, Morientes (until sold) and still managed to have the best goals per game ratio. With Robinho coming in as well it was about time he left. Not that I think he is a world class player necessarily as his all-round game is nothing special. World class player...no but his finishing (at least when on form) is pretty damn clinical.

England...joint second favourites with a host of other teams. We need to top the group really and even then are likely to end up with Argentina in the quarters. Sweden are certainly beatable but then again, so are we.

On an optimistic note I will predict England losing to Brazil in the semis. Oh and for Rovermatt and RoyRover to whinge about us all the way through. 'Arrogant', 'overconfidence', 'lack of respect' etc etc etc. They've started early this time!

RoyRover - England had the second best qualifying record in Europe so " the fact that they had a less than impressive qualifing campaign" is in fact a fallacy. The seedings were based on records not subjective opinions.

[philipl]

Some clarifications are in order although I know some of you guys hate facts:

- the seeding came out of a weighting system pulled together by FIFA. So joke or not, there was a combination of past performances that made England second best,

- England played three or four abysmally bad games (including Belfast) but in fact have a cracking record overall since the last World Cup. We also won a Qualifying Group in which the second placed country (Poland) did well enough to get automatic qualification as well. So relative to all other European countries we qualified better than all of them except Sweden.

And there's the rub- I just don't get all this we got an easy World Cup Group rubbish. We have drawn the third best South Americans (who will know howto handle themselves) and a Sweden side which is the strongest that country has produced since 1958 and which is capable of destroying any opposition with bursts of utterly sublime football. The thought of Ibramovich one-on-one with Ferdinand should be giving every England supporter nightmares.

On the other hand, if England do the hard stuff well and win their Group (don't rely on goal difference- Sweden banged 8 past Malta so could do that to T&T as well), the route to the semi-finals looks pretty easy assuming the Germans don't come second in their Group (and they will have to be rubbish to do that and so not be much of a threat if we do meet in the last 16).

Could be a very exciting summer!

Edited December 13, 2005 by philipl

[andy82]

Lineker-Beardlsey-Platt-Barnes-Waddle-Gascoigne?!?! 

versus Owen-Rooney-Beckham-Lampard-Gerrard??

Your team in 1990 had wingers.  Your current team doesn't.  The 1990 team had a truly world-class finisher... your current team doesn't.

England will do fine in the upcoming world cup becaue they have a decent squad.  In addition, a lot of the European teams (e.g. Holland, Germany, Italy) are playing no-where near there best.. or a moving through a transition phase.. arguments with the coach... whatever.  Sven still doesn't know what his best formation is but there is enough talent in the team to get to the quarters at least.

England will probably lose to Sweden but win the rest of their qualifying matches.

Actually.. Brazil aside... it is probably one of the most open World Cups in years.

366601[/snapback]

Agree with you on everything but the strength of the England team compared to 1990. I don'y think we would be able to beat this England side even with Mattaus, Voller and Klinnsmann a la 1990. Barnes was awful for England and i don't remember Waddle being much cop either. England have a chance providing they don't rely on Beckham.

I am very scared that the swedes will beat the English, the English heavily underestimte Scandinavians - that would leave us with the liklihood of a DE/ENG tie in the last 16 yes? Dont see us getting through that even if we had the whole of Germany in the ground.

[Rovermatt]

On an optimistic note I will predict England losing to Brazil in the semis. Oh and for Rovermatt and RoyRover to whinge about us all the way through. 'Arrogant', 'overconfidence', 'lack of respect' etc etc etc. They've started early this time! 

366640[/snapback]

So the hysteria that is displayed on these pages every other year carries not a hint of any of those things?

I prefer to say nothing when/if England go out.