World Cup Finals Draw

[cmonurz]

Well who do you put ahead of England and Brazil (on paper and on form?) Italy maybe. France aren't looking too clever, Argentina are woefully inconsistent under Maradona. Holland just as likely to capitulate in the big game as England.

[soggy biscuit]

Well who do you put ahead of England?

Spain
Italy
Germany
Netherlands
Brazil
France

I would also say that Portugal, Ivory Coast, Serbia, Chile & Paraguay would give England a good run for their money, too hard to call on those right now.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Yes, all those teams. But my biggest point is that England are shorter than Brazil.

[Thaumagurist*]

Pfffft, I wouldn't put France ahead of England. They needed a handball to help them qualify. I'd hardly call them in form.

[soggy biscuit]

Pfffft, I wouldn't put France ahead of England. They needed a handball to help them qualify. I'd hardly call them in form.

Form means f**k all in going into a big tournament, see Germany in 2002 for evidence.

[Thaumagurist*]

.

[papereyes]

Saw some W Hill prices whilst nosing the blokes paper next to me on train this morning.
Spain 9/2
England 5/1 <<<
Brazil 11/2 <<<

Just LOL.

Isn't it also a function of LOADS of thick people putting money on now?

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Saw some W Hill prices whilst nosing the blokes paper next to me on train this morning.
Spain 9/2
England 5/1 <<<
Brazil 11/2 <<<

Just LOL.

Isn't it also a function of LOADS of thick people putting money on now?

Yes, basically. your modern day media determined supporter means bookies can actually make England shorter than a team that gave them the run around recently. And give us the run around every time come to think of it.

11/2 is a good price for Brazil, they WILL be shorter than that come June.

[papereyes]

I'm going to put my cynical hat on now and suggest England will valiantly fall to a controversial defeat in either the Quarter finals or the semi finals to a side that can pass the ball better.

[soggy biscuit]

I am guessing England will lose out to one of a handful of teams that are better at football than they are.

fat blokes in pubs wearing replica shirts will get angry and pretty quickly a scapegoat will be decided as it is much easier to do this than accept their team is not as good as others.

Ref - 2/1
Linesman - 5/2
Ashley Cole - 5/2
Cappello - 8/1

England fans will then continue to use the phase 'x years of hurt' when talking about not winning something rather than just saying 'x years of not really being good enough and blaming others for our failures'

[1960]

I dispute that some of these teams are better than us.

Euro 96 - England had beaten Scotland and blown Holland away; played Germany and were a post and a Gascoigne half a leg form winning on a Golden Goal and Germany won on pens.
World Cup 98 - Beckham felled from behind, cynically and viciously. Should have been a mandatory red card. He (foolishly) merely taps Simeone back and is off. Even then they couldn't beat 10 men and had to rely on penalties.
World Cup 2002 - lost to Brazil deservedly, but then so did Germany - just that they got to the final, being in the other half of the draw after being seeded ahead of England although England had consigned them to the play-offs.
Euro 2004 Rooney was tearing teams apart until a Portuguese injured him by treading on his foot. Penalties.
World Cup 2006. Rooney was hacked on the calf three times ("surprisingly" unnoticed by the referee) before losing having had enough and hacking one of them back. Even then the Portuguese couldn't score in an hour of football against 10 men. Penalties.

I amit our penalties are crap, but that doesn't mean we are intrinsically a worse team than the others. In all those matches we were as good as the opposition with the exception of Brazil. And all of those could only beat us on penalties, even when we only had 10 men. So which countries are superior to England?

[Royalee]

Well who do you put ahead of England?

Spain
Italy
Germany
Netherlands
Brazil
France

I would also say that Portugal, Ivory Coast, Serbia, Chile & Paraguay would give England a good run for their money, too hard to call on those right now.

France are shit, Holland are crap at the back and won't be able to rely on Van Nistelrooy much longer for goals, Germany are no great shakes, Italy are nowhere near as good as they were 4 years ago. I'll give you Brazil and Spain.

[Baines]

Well who do you put ahead of England?

Spain
Italy
Germany
Netherlands
Brazil
France

I would also say that Portugal, Ivory Coast, Serbia, Chile & Paraguay would give England a good run for their money, too hard to call on those right now.

France are shit, Holland are crap at the back and won't be able to rely on Van Nistelrooy much longer for goals, Germany are no great shakes, Italy are nowhere near as good as they were 4 years ago. I'll give you Brazil and Spain.

LOL

Agreed with soggy, although I wonder whether Paraguay will be much cop outside of South America.

[rhroyal]

Jonathan Pearce's reasoning as to why we should definitely beat the US:

"Watford's Jay Demerit and West Ham's Jonathan Spector can't possibly play as well as they did in the summer."

If they can raise their game above their normal level for the Confederations Cup, they can most certainly do it for the World Cup. I can't stand bad reporting.

[soggy biscuit]

Euro 96 - England had beaten Scotland and blown Holland away; played Germany and were a post and a Gascoigne half a leg form winning on a Golden Goal and Germany won on pens

So apart from missing the goal and in one incident not even kicking the ball when it rolled accross the goalline England would have won? Cracking logic. Loads of teams would have won games had they scored instead of missing.

World Cup 98 - Beckham felled from behind, cynically and viciously. Should have been a mandatory red card. He (foolishly) merely taps Simeone back and is off. Even then they couldn't beat 10 men and had to rely on penalties.

Keeping your cool, focussing on the match and red & yellow cards are all part of the game, England showed they couldn't do this and were punished by having a man correctly sent off. Rely on penalties? the same penalties England could have relied on.......but even then failed to kick the ball in the net from 12 yards out.

lost to Brazil deservedly.

yep

World Cup 2006. Rooney was hacked on the calf three times ("surprisingly" unnoticed by the referee) before losing having had enough and hacking one of them back. Even then the Portuguese couldn't score in an hour of football against 10 men. Penalties.

Rooney stamped on an opponents testicles and was correctly sent off.

Portugal were given the same penalty chances as England.......yet England couldn't handle the occasion once again.

Oh well, it was probably all Ronaldo's fault eh......

[rhroyal]

Euro 96 - England had beaten Scotland and blown Holland away; played Germany and were a post and a Gascoigne half a leg form winning on a Golden Goal and Germany won on pens

So apart from missing the goal and in one incident not even kicking the ball when it rolled accross the goalline England would have won? Cracking logic. Loads of teams would have won games had they scored instead of missing.

World Cup 98 - Beckham felled from behind, cynically and viciously. Should have been a mandatory red card. He (foolishly) merely taps Simeone back and is off. Even then they couldn't beat 10 men and had to rely on penalties.

Keeping your cool, focussing on the match and red & yellow cards are all part of the game, England showed they couldn't do this and were punished by having a man correctly sent off. Rely on penalties? the same penalties England could have relied on.......but even then failed to kick the ball in the net from 12 yards out.

lost to Brazil deservedly.

yep

World Cup 2006. Rooney was hacked on the calf three times ("surprisingly" unnoticed by the referee) before losing having had enough and hacking one of them back. Even then the Portuguese couldn't score in an hour of football against 10 men. Penalties.

Rooney stamped on an opponents testicles and was correctly sent off.

Portugal were given the same penalty chances as England.......yet England couldn't handle the occasion once again.

Oh well, it was probably all Ronaldo's fault eh......

Agreed with all apart from Euro 96 - Germany were more than a tad lucky to get past us there.

[soggy biscuit]

Agreed with all apart from Euro 96 - Germany were more than a tad lucky to get past us there.

Agree that we played well and looked the better team but looking the better team doesn't win you games. Never understood people that churn out the old 'but on the balance play we should have won'. Since when did teams win on the balance of play? sport is won on hard work and taking your opportunities.

If a team misses by hitting the inside of the post or misses by shooting 30 yards wide then they still missed.

[Ginger Ninjas]

Agreed with all apart from Euro 96 - Germany were more than a tad lucky to get past us there.

Agree that we played well and looked the better team but looking the better team doesn't win you games. Never understood people that churn out the old 'but on the balance play we should have won'. Since when did teams win on the balance of play? sport is won on hard work and taking your opportunities.

If a team misses by hitting the inside of the post or misses by shooting 30 yards wide then they still missed.

I remember Euro 96 fondly, but when you actually look at how England performed, it's not that great:

Switzerland - struggled to a dire draw
Scotland - one moment of Gazza magic
Holland - excellent performance
Spain - awful game, won on penalties
Germany - decent match, either side could have won, though England probably had the better chances

[Ginger Ninjas]

Oh, and a LOOK AT ME post. Matches I've got tickets for next summer...

Holland vs Cameroon

1D vs 2C (c'mon England, screw up your group)

1H vs 2G (Spain vs Brazil, please)

[Thaumagurist*]

I dispute that some of these teams are better than us.

Euro 96 - England had beaten Scotland and blown Holland away; played Germany and were a post and a Gascoigne half a leg form winning on a Golden Goal and Germany won on pens.
World Cup 98 - Beckham felled from behind, cynically and viciously. Should have been a mandatory red card. He (foolishly) merely taps Simeone back and is off. Even then they couldn't beat 10 men and had to rely on penalties.
World Cup 2002 - lost to Brazil deservedly, but then so did Germany - just that they got to the final, being in the other half of the draw after being seeded ahead of England although England had consigned them to the play-offs.
Euro 2004 Rooney was tearing teams apart until a Portuguese injured him by treading on his foot. Penalties.
World Cup 2006. Rooney was hacked on the calf three times ("surprisingly" unnoticed by the referee) before losing having had enough and hacking one of them back. Even then the Portuguese couldn't score in an hour of football against 10 men. Penalties.

I amit our penalties are crap, but that doesn't mean we are intrinsically a worse team than the others. In all those matches we were as good as the opposition with the exception of Brazil. And all of those could only beat us on penalties, even when we only had 10 men. So which countries are superior to England?

Spot on with all of that and not forgetting that we had a legitmate goal against Portugal in 2004 disallowed because the keeper jumped into Terry.

England showed they couldn't do this and were punished by having a man correctly sent off.

Rooney stamped on an opponents testicles and was correctly sent off.

You're still avoiding the issue that both Beckham and Rooney were fouled prior to their sending off. Are you saying the referee was correct to ignore the players who did the fouling?