Endland to win World Cup

Nuttzz

Yes, less than 24 hours after the draw the english media is talking about who they will meet in the second road and how if they finished second in the group they could probably avoid Brazil until the final... 2 world wars and 1 world cup et al...I'm looking forward to Paragauy catching them on the hop and stuffing them 2-3 nil and they needing a victory against Svens home country only to draw again...

Lemlin

Let them talk away. It always happens. Just ignore it. To be fair, our media would probably be assessing our chances of making the second round and wondering who we'd get if we were going.

county

england have a great chance in my eyes,we have the players they just need to gel on the big stage

KdjaCL

They just need a manager with the balls to play the best 11 to win a match and not the best 11 on paper.

Seen Paraguay twice once vs Brazil they shat themsleves and defended and lost 4-0. But Vs Argentina they tried to win and played fairly well.


kdjac

WhiteWashMan

Nuttzz wrote:

Yes, less than 24 hours after the draw the english media is talking about who they will meet in the second road and how if they finished second in the group they could probably avoid Brazil until the final... 2 world wars and 1 world cup et al...I'm looking forward to Paragauy catching them on the hop and stuffing them 2-3 nil and they needing a victory against Svens home country only to draw again...

yes, less than 24 hours after the english media do their usual thing, someone comes on boards.ie whinging about it.
england are currently ranked 2nd in the world at the moment. why shouldnt they have a good chance at winning?

RuggieBear

TBH, it's always funny to see the mass delusion occur every time England make a finals.

I was in college in Leicester during the last world cup (2002) and most of my class mates were convinced they'd win the bloody thing. Felt sorry for them when they went out so spinelessly to Brazil.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

england are currently ranked 2nd in the world at the moment.

Really? Where it state that?

therecklessone

Nuttzz wrote:

Yes, less than 24 hours after the draw the english media is talking about who they will meet in the second road and how if they finished second in the group they could probably avoid Brazil until the final

Irish Independant.
Irish Times.
The Examiner.
Sunday Independant.
Sunday Business Post.
The Tribune.
Sunday World.

RTE1 Radio.
2FM.
Today FM.
Newstalk 106.

RTE1 TV.
RTE2 TV.
TV3
TG4.

Don't like what the English media has to say? There's your answer.

therecklessone

WhiteWashMan wrote:

england are currently ranked 2nd in the world at the moment. why shouldnt they have a good chance at winning?

Came 2nd in the seedings table for the World Cup:

Brazil 64
England 51
Spain 50
Germany 48
Mexico 47
France 46
Argentina 44
Italy 44

9th in the FIFA World Rankings:

1 Brazil 0 841 1
2 Czech Republic 1 796 13
3 Netherlands -1 791 -6
4 Argentina 0 774 -4
5 France 0 772 -4
6 Spain 2 771 7
7 Mexico -1 768 -1
8 USA -1 766 -2
9 England 0 757 3
10 Portugal -1 754 0

WhiteWashMan

sorry, did indeed mean seedings. still doesnt change anything.
they have a 1 billion % better chance of winning it than ireland do.

or is it just we are going to get a huge backlash irish bitterness once again.

dont get me wrong, im nt a fan of the english national team, and i wont be supporting them, and id much prefer ireland be there, but a sense or perspective is actually needed sometimes by people here.

honestly, youd think that supporting your own team is a crime here sometimes.


media : come on england
irish fan: i hope you all die in a matt busby style plane crash.

smackbunnybaby

strange how in the pre build up it was all
"oh we really want to avoid australia and x and y, they would be difficult ties"

sure dont you have to play the best to be the best?
if your ambition is win , why be scared of the best team from pot 2?
pot 2 is pot 2 for a reason....

now the draw has been made it seems that matches against para, t+t and sweden are great and they can win it overall.....

RuggieBear

Oh ...that's fair enough. Brazil really are miles ahead tho.

Tbh, i will be rooting for england to do well....i just don't think they are capable of beating Brazil, Argentina and Germany in the same tournie. One off's yep but i don't think they can rise for a couple of big games in a row.

They'll probably go out on penalties again having not played well nor lost a game is my bet...and sadly, i'll quite enjoy the resignation of the english populace once their team under performs once again.

eirebhoy

WhiteWashMan wrote:

england are currently ranked 2nd in the world at the moment. why shouldnt they have a good chance at winning?

Because they have Sven in charge. People are probably fed up with me saying it so I'll just say two word: "holding midfielder". If he doesn't play one I can't see them beating either Paraguay or Sweden, if he does they'll most likely go far. FFS, look at the attacking players Brazil have, it doesn't mean their going to leave either Emerson or Gilberto on the bench so they can fit Robinho in. That is something Sven would no doubt do.

btw - A lot of people were picking Australia as the toughest team England could face from their pot. I think Paraguay are better.

Lemlin

England have no bother fielding 11 great players, with some world class performers included but they can't perform as a team.

RuggieBear

eirebhoy wrote:

I think Paraguay are better.

i agree. they've being doing quite well at underage level recently and that talent is emerging into the senior team now

considering the size of the country (5m'ish) they are more than holding their own in S america.

therecklessone

eirebhoy wrote:

Because they have Sven in charge. People are probably fed up with me saying it so I'll just say two word: "holding midfielder".

I'm not fed up...;)

Has to be Michael Carrick or Scott Parker, definitely not Ledley King.

Nuttzz

WhiteWashMan wrote:

media : come on england
irish fan: i hope you all die in a matt busby style plane crash.

Actually wouldnt like to see them die in a busby style crash however the names are just out of the pot and bang "here's how we'd met Brazil in the final after defeating germany in the second round" as they were predicting on sky this morning.

englands recent results are not stellar either, a poor draw in vienna, an ambush in belfast and yet the overhype begins

eirebhoy

There is a lot of anti-Englishness for the sake of it but nobody can disagree with Nuttzz's post. Half the English media think they're into the quarters already. I'm always backing England's opposition but this just makes it worse on them and is inevitably going to make me want them to fail more.

We had a decent world cup by our standard's, it doesn't mean we all packed our bags for Euro 2004 when we were top seeds in the Q's and got what people said was an easy group.

Lemlin

eirebhoy wrote:

There is a lot of anti-Englishness for the sake of it but nobody can disagree with Nuttzz's post. Half the English media think they're into the quarters already. I'm always backing England's opposition but this just makes it worse on them and is inevitably going to make me want them fail more.

I honestly can't see how they can justify being second seeds anyway, based on their results. They struggled through the easiest qualifying group in Europe.

eirebhoy

Lemlin wrote:

I honestly can't see how they can justify being second seeds anyway, based on their results. They struggled through the easiest qualifying group in Europe.

They're 2nd seeds for the Euro 2008 qualifiers, not the world cup. Their performances were woeful (Austria x2, N.Ireland away, Azerbaijan away, Wales away) but they still racked up a decent amount of points. The World cup seeds is 50% on past WC performances and 50% on FIFA ranking.

therecklessone

Lemlin wrote:

I honestly can't see how they can justify being second seeds anyway, based on their results. They struggled through the easiest qualifying group in Europe.

FIFA's new formula based seeds half on the last two World Cups, with 2002 given twice the weight of 1998, and half on each team's FIFA ranking in 2003, 2004 and 2005, with each weighted equally.

Only Germany and Brazil of the top seeds went further in 2002, England reached the 2nd round in 1998 and have been pretty consistent in their ranking position over the last three years.

Lemlin

eirebhoy wrote:

They're 2nd seeds for the Euro 2008 qualifiers, not the world cup. Their performances were woeful (Austria x2, N.Ireland away, Azerbaijan away, Wales away) but they still racked up a decent amount of points. The World cup seeds is 50% on past WC performances and 50% on FIFA ranking.

Read the posts above and I saw it on Sky Sports too, they are 2nd seeds. Can't see how, their performances at previous World Cups have hardly set the world alight. They didn't qualify in '94, reached the last 16 in '98 and the last 8 in 2002. Hardly as good as some other teams.

therecklessone

eirebhoy wrote:

They're 2nd seeds for the Euro 2008 qualifiers, not the world cup. Their performances were woeful (Austria x2, N.Ireland away, Azerbaijan away, Wales away) but they still racked up a decent amount of points. The World cup seeds is 50% on past WC performances and 50% on FIFA ranking.

Reposted for effect:

Ranking of top seeds

Brazil 64
England 51
Spain 50
Germany 48
Mexico 47
France 46
Argentina 44
Italy 44

therecklessone

Lemlin wrote:

Read the posts above and I saw it on Sky Sports too, they are 2nd seeds. Can't see how, their performances at previous World Cups have hardly set the world alight. They didn't qualify in '94, reached the last 16 in '98 and the last 8 in 2002. Hardly as good as some other teams.

Read post #20.

mchurl

i think that they have a decent chance of winning the world cup but they will have to beat brazil along the way and they will have to be at the top of their game and the brazilians will have to be having an off

mike65

eirebhoy wrote:

A lot of people were picking Australia as the toughest team England could face from their pot. I think Paraguay are better.

The last time England played Paraguay they thumped them 4-0.

As for the hype, big deal it'll die down soon enough before rebuilding as soon as the last Prem match day ends.

England can't assume that they and Germany will top thier respective groups.

Mike.

eirebhoy

mike65 wrote:

The last time England played Paraguay they thumped them 4-0.

And Ireland beat Denmark 3-0 around the same time. I wouldn't be confident playing Denmark now. Paraguay would be regarded as a better team than Uruguay, Australia didn't seem any better than Uruguay last month. Its the fact that Sven said he'd be happy as long as they don't draw Holland and Australia that I'm bringing this up. I feel Paraguay are a better team than Australia. Paraguay played Brazil and Argentina twice each in the qualifiers and only Brazil managed to beat them in Brazil. They beat Argentina at home. We all know about Sweden. Its just not as easy a group as is been made out.

In saying that, if it was been called the group of death I'd be giving them stick too.

Pigman II

After we beat N.Ireland (yes mighty NornIron!) 3-0 in 1993 there was plenty of talk of us actually WINNING the world Cup (this was with about 7 QUALIFIERS still to play bear in mind) so we're just as bad (if not worse) given the occasion.

Personally I think every single one of the 32 teams that is there now should be talking about winning the tournament. If I was playing for Trinidad now and one of my teammates didn't believe we could do it I'd kick his white arse off the pitch.

Look at Liverpool or Greece last year. On paper you'd never have given either a chance but fortunately football is (usually) played on grass.

therecklessone

eirebhoy wrote:

Its the fact that Sven said he'd be happy as long as they don't draw Holland and Australia that I'm bringing this up. I feel Paraguay are a better team than Australia. Paraguay played Brazil and Argentina twice each in the qualifiers and only Brazil managed to beat them in Brazil. They beat Argentina at home. We all know about Sweden. Its just not as easy a group as is been made out.

Sven is a clown, I think we've all established that.

His point regarding Australia and the USA was that as English-speaking they were more likely to raise their game against England...:rolleyes:

Sven Goran Erection wrote:

"The English speaking countries are desperate to beat England in a big tournament, which is why I don't want to play against Australia or the United States," said Eriksson.

"But there is is a wider aspect to Australia.

"There is a sporting rivalry between the two countries. What I saw during the summer when England won the cricket was amazing.

"If I had known all about the rivalry, I would never have played that friendly against them.

"It was far from a friendly game. They wanted to beat us, and they did."

mike65

I think in his awkwa
rd fashion he was refering to the way 'the colonies' raise thier game to beat thier old masters!

Mike.

jank

Do you speak for all of us WWM??

eirebhoy

He didn't really mean the USA though, he just agreed that he'd want to avoid them when asked.

“It could have been worse. What I said was to avoid Holland and Australia and we did that."

Anyway, Italy and Brazil to win their groups and meet each other in the final.

MisterAnarchy

england are currently ranked 2nd in the world at the moment. why shouldnt they have a good chance at winning?

Because the Fifa Rankings are seriously flawed and because England do not have the players or the manager good enough to win the World Cup.
I would like to see England do well but the amount of pressure and hype they place upon their National team is ridiculous.

county

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I would like to see England do well but the amount of pressure and hype they place upon their National team is ridiculous.

you have to perform under pressure,thats life,thats why they get paid 90 grand a week and if they do not deliver they have to take the abuse the media throws at them

Seaneh

I'll tell you all why England won't win the wrld cup.
Sven Goran Erikson is affriad of upsetting the english media so uch that instead of playing the eleven best players for a set system he plays the eleven best players in the squad, this is the cardinal sin of coaching.

Fact is Lampard and Gerrard cannot work together as a midfeild two, you NEED a mucker in beside them and the only player eriskon has tried for that role (besides beckham) is King, who is nothing more than an avrage centre half.

He needs to realise that if he wants Lampard and Gerrard in the same team he needs a Kevin Nolan or a Michael Carrick in there to do thier share of the defending.

Even if england were to play four men in midefild Sven needs to decide who adds more to the team as an individual, Gerrard of Lampard, and while I think Lampard is a better player than gerrard, I think Gerrard does more for the players around him, he doesn't need as much sacraficed for him to play at his best.
Lampard is belssed with chelsea because he has Makelele and Essien doing his donkey work, likewise at liverpool Gerrard has Alonso and Hamman, but he still tracks back and helps the defense which lampard is not good at, because of this I think he'd have to (in a 4-4-2) drop Lampard and play carrick or nolan beside gerrard.

put simpley England won't win the world cup because the English media won't allow Erikson drop a player like Lampard/Gerrard/Beckham even if it is for the good of the team.

Guy:Incognito

RuggieBear wrote:

TBH, it's always funny to see the mass delusion occur every time England make a finals.

I was in college in Leicester during the last world cup (2002) and most of my class mates were convinced they'd win the bloody thing. Felt sorry for them when they went out so spinelessly to Brazil.?

In fairness to them the last world cup was terrible. If circumstances hadnt gone the way they did for us, I reckon we'd have had a good shot at it. Add to that , that England have a better team than us and it sentirely understandable.As Kdjac said, a decent manager and they'd be more than worthy contenders in my eyes.

Hopefully they'll pick up a couple of injuries in the right areas (Lampard or Gerrard) that will force Ericssons hand and result in the right team playing.

eirebhoy

Seaneh wrote:

put simpley England won't win the world cup because the English media won't allow Erikson drop a player like Lampard/Gerrard/Beckham even if it is for the good of the team.

I don't really think he has to drop any of those 3. The team he played against Argentina had all 3 and that the type of system he should be playing in competitives. Every time he does it it's successful but he reverts back to old. The fact that Cole came on and played well against Argentina I think he'll start Cole in the next match.

evad_lhorg

dont care what people say but im backing england in this world cup. hope they do well. also id like to see brazil get knocked out nice and early. probably wont happen though.

Jivin Turkey

smackbunnybaby wrote:

sure dont you have to play the best to be the best? if your ambition is win , why be scared of the best team from pot 2?
pot 2 is pot 2 for a reason....

You're dead right!

Pot two is made up of teams from Africa, South America and Oceania. Outside the top seeds the pots are not done on rankings. It's done in order to seperate teams from different geographical regions.

eirebhoy wrote:

A lot of people were picking Australia as the toughest team England could face from their pot. I think Paraguay are better.

I think it was more a case of not wanting to get Australia because of the HUGE rivalry between them. Ask any Aussie who they like to beat and they will say the English. It's as bad if not worse as our rivalry with them.

Add to that, they are not a bad side who have beaten England at home recently.

Nuttzz wrote:

englands recent results are not stellar either, a poor draw in vienna, an ambush in belfast and yet the overhype begins

You also seem to be forgetting a win on neutral soil against Argentina. A team that many around here are tipping for the trophy, yet apparently England don't even have a chance?

They also beat Poland, a team that could very easily make the last 16 of the actual tournament.

Lemlin wrote:

I honestly can't see how they can justify being second seeds anyway, based on their results. They struggled through the easiest qualifying group in Europe.

If "stuggling" is winning eight out of ten qualifying matches, drawing one and losing one, I hope Ireland start "struggling" in the qualifying campaigns.

If you take six points off the teams who topped the groups with seven teams, in order to disregard the fact that there was a whipping boy in their groups, only one team got more points than England in the qualifiers.

Seaneh wrote:

He needs to realise that if he wants Lampard and Gerrard in the same team he needs a Kevin Nolan or a Michael Carrick in there to do thier share of the defending.

I wouldn't have classed Kevin Nolan as a holding midfielder. In fact I would say that he is a very similar type of player to Gerrard.

therecklessone wrote:

His point regarding Australia and the USA was that as English-speaking they were more likely to raise their game against England...:rolleyes:

As I said, their is huge rivalry between the Aussies and the English, that's why they wanted to avoid them. You also might want to edit your post, people who hold grudges might consider what you said personal abuse, and given the fact that you yourself are actively supportive of reporting posts you might get yourself a weeks holiday.

PHB

The teams who I think are the favorites are

Brazil
Argentina
Holland
England
Italy

Out of that group, I think England have a fantastic chance. I wouldn't put them as my favorites, but there is no way you can write them off.
Personally I will be supporting Holland in this world cup cause of Van Nist, but also hope England win it

Ruskie4Rent

If England have anyone to blame for there lack of success in recent finals, it should never be the manager. And it shouldn't be Sven should England underachieve next year.
The tabloid media go mental every time there's a tournament on and the put an unbelievable amount of pressure on everyone involved with the team. They overhype every good performance (v.Argentina '02 is an example), they over hype every bad performance (David Beckam has been overly criticised in my opinion).
I can't wait to see what will be the new 'beckhams kick on Simione' or 'swiz ref's mistake', that the media try to overhype beyond belief to justify their exit. I hope england exit for hooliganism, or something like that, so that the tabloids would be able to blame someone else....their own customers.

besty

In my opinion, England have the players to win the world cup, but it all rests on the formation they deploy and Sven's tactical decisions on the pitch when he is put up against it. I think this (or a similar formation) could set the team up in such a way as to make them very hard to beat

---

Robinson

---

Neville----Terry

---

Ferdinand----Cole

---

Carrick

---

---

Beckham

---

Gerrard

---

---

Lampard

---

---

Rooney

---

---

Owen

---

This side obviously lacks width in attack, but if a good defensive system was established, Gerrard could cover one full back and Carrick the other when they move forward....Looks a good side to me. The major problems being Carrick unproven at international level and the lack of width.

therecklessone

Jivin Turkey wrote:

You also might want to edit your post, people who hold grudges might consider what you said personal abuse, and given the fact that you yourself are actively supportive of reporting posts you might get yourself a weeks holiday.

Suggestion noted, post remains unedited. If somebody wants to report my post they're welcome to.

Nuttzz

Jivin Turkey wrote:

You also seem to be forgetting a win on neutral soil against Argentina. A team that many around here are tipping for the trophy, yet apparently England don't even have a chance?

They also beat Poland, a team that could very easily make the last 16 of the actual tournament.

They beat the argies in a nothing game and poland dont have thew same caliber of players available that england do, that said they only beat poland by a point with a worse goal difference

Jivin Turkey

Nuttzz wrote:

They beat the argies in a nothing game

The game was a very competitive one despite being a friendly, and a far better indication of how England will fair in the WC than a game played against Austria over a year ago.

Nuttzz wrote:

and poland dont have thew same caliber of players available that england do

I know Poland don't have the same calibre of player as England, that still doesn't make them a bad side.

Nuttzz wrote:

that said they only beat poland by a point with a worse goal difference

As I said, only one team had a better record than England in the qualifiers. They beat their main rival home and away.

You don't qualify for the WC based on how well or passionately you play unfortunately. The only thing that matters is results, and they couldn't have done much better.

Also Poland's superior goal difference is only so because of a freakish 8-0 win over Azerbaijan.

Nuttzz

they could, or should have, walked away with that group tbh not finish a point ahead of poland

Jivin Turkey

Nuttzz wrote:

they could, or should have, walked away with that group tbh not finish a point ahead of poland

They picked up 25/30 points.

How good or bad England are/were has no influence on how well Poland do in their other games. England took six points off Poland.

applehunter

England look odds on to get through the group and I hope after that they fall flat on their asses.

eirebhoy

In fairness Jivin, England were really poor in the qualifiers. The fact that they got the points was down to luck in 3 or 4 of the games as 3 or 4 of the games they won were undeserved.

They will go far if they play Carrick or Parker. I'm certain they'll be rubbish without one.

Jivin Turkey

eirebhoy wrote:

In fairness Jivin, England were really poor in the qualifiers. The fact that they got the points was down to luck in 3 or 4 of the games as 3 or 4 of the games they won were undeserved.

I never said they played well. But they got the results. They hardly stuggled to qualify which some people here (and have before) are claiming.

If Holland or Italy qualified with a similar record, and having not played well according to reports, people would be scared what they could do once they turn it on.

PHB

When luck is constant its not luck.
People used to say that Milan were always lucky, but the simple fact of the matter is that when you are always lucky, its not luck, its skill.
its just were not able to explain it as easily, so we call it luck

eirebhoy

PHB wrote:

its just were not able to explain it as easily, so we call it luck

Its easy to explain really, England were lucky not to concede after they scored against Azerbaijan, Wales and Austria. Just like Ireland were lucky to win against Cyprus after such a bad performance, Cyprus deserved something.