England Qualifying

Lex Luthor

SO what was the reason in England able to qualify for finals becuase of result of Holland match against Czechs?

Is there an automatic place for the highest point scoring runner up in all the groups?

IS this really a fair system seeing as Englands group had 7 teams and therefore had a potential to get 6 more pts than say a team in Irelands group????

Dub13

the top two runner ups go straight through

MisterAnarchy

IS this really a fair system seeing as Englands group had 7 teams and therefore had a potential to get 6 more pts than say a team in Irelands group

Englands group has only six teams.
I think the best runner up is calculated on results against the top 5 teams in each group.

Pigman II

The two best runners up qualify automatically. This is based on results against the top 4 teams in your group not all 6 or 7 so everyones score is based on just 6 games played not 10 or 12 so in that respect it doesn't matter whether you were in a 6 or 7 team group.

England current record against their own top four is P=5 W=3 D=1 L=1 which comfortably guarentees them an auto place. Compare it to our own dismal record of P=5 W=0 D=4 L=1 and it should be seen that we cannot begrudge them their qualification.

BTW England are in a 6 team group not a 7.

Memnoch

England had a MUCH easier group compared to Ireland though, I mean come on... wales.... and Northern Ireland? Replace France and Switzerland with these two teams and see how well England do and how well the Irish do.

Jivin Turkey

Memnoch wrote:

England had a MUCH easier group compared to Ireland though, I mean come on... wales.... and Northern Ireland? Replace France and Switzerland with these two teams and see how well England do and how well the Irish do.

That is not comparing like with like. You should be comparing Poland and Austria to France and Switzerland, and even at that it is still not comparing like with like.

England are first seeds they are bound to get an easier group than us, who were third seeds.

Look at it from France's point of view (they are also first seeds), who would you prefer? Poland and Austria or Switzerland and Ireland? There is not that much of a difference to be honest.

Well done England, despite some very poor performances they managed to crawl across the line. I still expect them to top the group.

tuxy

Memnoch wrote:

England had a MUCH easier group compared to Ireland though, I mean come on... wales.... and Northern Ireland? Replace France and Switzerland with these two teams and see how well England do and how well the Irish do.

well thats the luck of the draw.
after watching the cyprus game, I think Ireland possibly would have struggled against the likes of Wales and N. Ireland.

congrats england

RuggieBear

This is part of an article published in the observer today

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/theobserver/story/0,10541,1588114,00.html

He makes a good case for the ease of the English group...altho as said above, tis all the luck of the draw

No game is easy - unless you're England

It has been made so easy for England to qualify for next year's World Cup finals that they might as well have been handed an invitation from the corporate sponsors after the draw and saved people from much needless fretting.

First, England were, mirabile dictu, placed in the easiest group. A subjective assertion, perhaps, but one that is royally buttressed by the objective - and disregarded at your peril - Fifa rankings. Adding together the rankings of the top four teams before kick-off yesterday produces the following level of difficulty (highest-ranked team in brackets): Group One (Holland), 78; Group Two (Turkey), 85; Group Four (France) 109; Group Eight (Sweden) 145; Group Three (Portugal) 147; Group Seven (Spain) 170; Group Five (Italy) 176; Group Six (England) 208.

To put it into words, England's group is nearly three times easier than the one containing Holland, Czech Republic, Romania and Finland and nearly twice as easy as the one with France, Switzerland, Republic of Ireland and Israel. Which sounds about right.

Secondly, if winning the easiest group proved beyond England, being so placed ensured they were the major beneficiaries of the rule that allowed the two best second-placed teams automatic qualification. Superficially this seems a meritocratic measure, but a moment's consideration shows it to be fundamentally flawed. A large gap between the second and third-placed teams is more likely to be indicative of weakness of the group than the strength of the second-placed side. It is no coincidence that the groups that will benefit [one, six and eight] are those in which the gap between the second and third team's ranking is the largest. And of those three, England's group, with a whopping 62 ranking places between Poland and Austria, has a gap nearly three times as great as the other two.

Thirdly, if even this tilting of the playing field failed to allow England to roll into the finals, there is always the play-offs, with all their inherent chicanery.

We should congratulate England, obviously, when they qualify, but without wishing to rid their magnificent achievement of too much gloss, it was pretty much inevitable once all the balls were drawn and before a single one was kicked.

Pigman II

Measuring teams quality based on the FIFA rankings shows how that is a flawed argument to begin with but ignoring that that article doesn't seem to address the point that if a team is doing badly in qualifying then they will rather quickly become a lowly ranked team in the FIFA rankings. Note how he used the FIFA rankings from 'yesterday' rather than two years ago.

Essentially what that article is saying is 'England got an easy draw because they beat all the teams in their group.'

RuggieBear

Pigman II wrote:

Measuring teams quality based on the FIFA rankings shows how that is a flawed argument to begin with but ignoring that that article doesn't seem to address the point that if a team is doing badly in qualifying then they will rather quickly become a lowly ranked team in the FIFA rankings. Note how he used the FIFA rankings from 'yesterday' rather than two years ago.

Essentially what that article is saying is 'England got an easy draw because they beat all the teams in their group.'

lol

good dissection. tbh, i didn't really think about it too hard.

Guy:Incognito

I think the best thing to come out of Englands game on saturday (bar the three points and qualification) was that Gerrard is out of the Poland game, and thus will force Sven to chage his ****ty selection. Gerrard and Lampard just dont work together. Lampard needs Makalele/ an english makalele to do his ball winning and defensive work, as does Gerrard. They are both too attack minded to work together. If only Beckham hadnt got booked in the first place , we may havegot to see the best ENgland team play as opposed to the best individual 11 english players.

Lex Luthor

Mistake on my part.....Eng in a 6 team group alright.

But I agree, they do need a Makele type player....do they have one good enough?

Spider_Baby!

Yeah, i think the gerrard injury is a blessing in disguise. Only question is, who to put in! SWP on the right, no doubt, and probably Ledley in front of Terry and Rio in that "maka" position??

Guy:Incognito

Lex Luthor wrote:

Mistake on my part.....Eng in a 6 team group alright.

But I agree, they do need a Makele type player....do they have one good enough?

Carrick, carrick carrick.


Just in case you missed that Sven , I said CARRICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also Sven, Beckham is not a holding central midfielder.


Carra has been known to play there for Liverpool in the past. Not a bad player if your stuck.

Vokes

Parker, by a country mile tbh. He's playing excellent at the moment. Otherwise Carrick.

Wasn't really suprised when Eriksson :rolleyes: picked Smith (as a midfielder) ahead of Murphy & Parker & Carrick.

His team will be ripped to shreds next summer if he doesnt sort it out pronto. And im not talking just about Holland or Brazil. One of the newer teams like Angola or Togo have nothing to lose by just going at England who'll have acres of space in front of there defense.

20 Times 20 Times

Stekelly wrote:

Also Sven, Beckham is not a holding central midfielder.


.

but beckham is picking the team , so it seems

Jivin Turkey

Carrick is too lightweight IMO to make the step up to the next level yet, and his other attributes are not good enough to compensate for this.

Id personally definitely have Parker in there, I cant believe Smith is there as a midfielder ahead of that aforementioned three.

Spider_Baby!

I thought carrick was still injured.

Guy:Incognito

SofaKing wrote:

Parker, by a country mile tbh. He's playing excellent at the moment. Otherwise Carrick.

Wasn't really suprised when Eriksson :rolleyes: picked Smith (as a midfielder) ahead of Murphy & Parker & Carrick.

His team will be ripped to shreds next summer if he doesnt sort it out pronto. And im not talking just about Holland or Brazil. One of the newer teams like Angola or Togo have nothing to lose by just going at England who'll have acres of space in front of there defense.

Its not a nice thing to say, but hopefully they will get a few strategic injuries and take some of the team selection out of Svens control. The less he has to pick, the less he can fook up.

I know its a great honour to play for your country but I'd like to think that if I was Gerrard or Lampard I'd be man enough to stand up and say that the two of us just dont work in the middle, and take one for the team.

Sven is the biggest "pick the best 11 players rather than the best team" merchant I have ever seen.

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Carrick is too lightweight IMO to make the step up to the next level yet, and his other attributes are not good enough to compensate for this.

Id personally definitely have Parker in there, I cant believe Smith is there as a midfielder ahead of that aforementioned three.

I actually forgot about Parker. I think his nightmare time at Chelsea kind of put him down the list and he has to work twice as hard to make up now.

Lemlin

Interesting though that Mourinho was willing to pay €35 million or so for Gerrard. I couldn't see him dropping Lampard or Makele so where exactly did he plan to play him?

RuggieBear

Lemlin wrote:

Interesting though that Mourinho was willing to pay €35 million or so for Gerrard. I couldn't see him dropping Lampard or Makele so where exactly did he plan to play him?

Goalie!!!

eirebhoy

Lemlin wrote:

Interesting though that Mourinho was willing to pay €35 million or so for Gerrard. I couldn't see him dropping Lampard or Makele so where exactly did he plan to play him?

Where Essien is played.

Dublin's Finest

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Look at it from France's point of view (they are also first seeds), who would you prefer? Poland and Austria or Switzerland and Ireland? There is not that much of a difference to be honest.QUOTE]

It pains me to say that you're right. We're an average team that can win against the best and lose against the worst. Top seed teams don't quake in their boots when they hear our name drawn in their group.

Lex Luthor

Lemlin wrote:

Interesting though that Mourinho was willing to pay €35 million or so for Gerrard. I couldn't see him dropping Lampard or Makele so where exactly did he plan to play him?

He wouldn't drop either....once you have Makele, it doesn't matter.
He would play where Essien is...simple

Lemlin

So why was he chasing both at the same time? Alright he intensified his headhunting for Essien once Gerrard had signed a new contract but he had made bids for both at the same times earlier in the Summer.

IMO he was after both.

Guy:Incognito

Lemlin wrote:

So why was he chasing both at the same time? Alright he intensified his headhunting for Essien once Gerrard had signed a new contract but he had made bids for both at the same times earlier in the Summer.

IMO he was after both.

He had to make sure he signed one of them. What if the Gerrard deal had of gone down to the wire like last year? That would have left about an hour to take up interest in Essien, agree terms with Lyon, agree personal terms with essien and get him signed.


Benitez was linked with about 4 centre-halfs at the same time during the summer, he wasnt going to sign all four though.

Lemlin

I still think he would fo went for both. When you have an endless money pit, why not?

Yes, Benitez was linked. I think Liverpool were linked with my toaster over the Summer they made that many back pages! Did he ever actually make concrete offers though? Mourinho did for both.