World Cup 2014 - Group F: Preview & Analysis

Discussion in 'Group F: Argentina, Bosnia, Iran, Nigeria' started by jimmi_moh, Dec 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    #1776 grandinquisitor28, Apr 24, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2014
    I would actually agree, to a certain extent that the last three cups changed things. I think the primary quibble teams in general, and European squads in particular had with the tournament was how it congested the hell out of a schedule already overloaded with qualifying for the Euro's in post-WC years, Euro the following, and then WC qualifying the next. Add to that the fact that Europe host's the vast bulk of the worlds best players on club teams that typically play July-May seasons, and you can see why European squads by and large weren't terribly interested. The schedule was already insane, particularly with Champions/Europa Leagues, various Cups, and then the normal league games, to the tune of 64 games in total for Barcelona in '11-'12, international duty can lift those game total to 74-80 depending upon whats happening.

    It's insane, which is why they decided to strip out numerous fifa dates that used to be open.

    I think from 1997-2003 European teams outright, by and large, didn't value the tournament, although France was able to win it in '01 and '03, I think they were helped a great deal by the quality of their side and the corresponding weakness of the field in those years (for instance, in the '01 edition Concacaf sent Canada to the competition, which underlines how poorly both the Gold Cup, and the Confed Cup were respected at the time: Canada didn't even make it to the hex for the region in 2001, 2005, 2009 or 2013, so that underlines how poor a rep that was. Check out the '99 and you can see the sheer quality of the group in Mexico's host field (Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, and Egypt), in other words, Mexico + the team responsible for the worlst performance in modern World Cup history, a team that hasn't come within 2-3 places of even qualifying for a World Cup playoff in Conmebol in twenty years, and a side that hasn't made the World Cup since 1990. A group of life of such scale, that screams of "rigged" would probably be responded to by a forced "redraw" by Fifa.

    I've simply never come across a European fan anywhere, that really cared about the Confed Cup title, none, not a French fan, not a bitter Spain fan, not a German fan (hell they lost to the US twice in 1999 and couldn't care less about either loss), nobody. At the end of the day, they simply didn't regard it as anywhere near as important as the Euro's and the WC, period, because the Euro's for them, are far more difficult than both the Confed Cup and the World Cup, and the World Cup is far more presitigious, so why should they care for the international equivalent of a poor man's Europa Cup? It's an imitation after all.

    You do have a point with 2005, 2009, and 2013, and I've acknowledged that. I think universally the Confed Cup began to be taken far more seriously when it was shifted into a T Minus 1 Year till the World Cup preview tournament. Bob Bradley was fired from the US team for surrendering a 2-0 lead to Mexico in the Gold Cup Final, and that Prize Winners ticket to the Confed Cup after all. I think all teams value the tournament today because of the fact that it gives you a chance to get situation in the host country, get a feel for the the country and the facilities, and lastly, to play in a tournament that matches the design of the Cup on a micro-level and offers an opportunity to play international sides that are typically impossible to schedule consistently for friendlies when it matters. So now, it does have genuine value.

    Do European sides take it as seriously as say Brazil, Argentina, or teams from CAF, Concacaf or the AFC? I don't think that is remotely true, even now. European teams play in the Euro's a tournament infinitely more difficult than any other major tournament to win other than the World Cup which is either harder (according to most European Club and International coaches) or easier (according to fans of international sides from outside of Europe). Since UEFA teams are already tested by the sides that present the biggest threat to them at a WC, other than Brazil and Argentina, I'm fairly certain they value that experience as a prep far more than they do the Confed Cup. At the end of the day the Euro's are deep with great teams, typically any given group in the Euro's will feature 2 sides in the top 5-10 in the world, 5-15 at worst, and another team typically ranked between 8th-20th, and a 4th team ranked 8th-35th or thereabouts. That's infinitely tougher and deeper than any major tournament in the world outside of the Copa America, and the Copa America had an erratic history of seriousness due to guest passes, and overscheduling of it.

    So why take the Confed Cup seriously? I think the answer is obvious. They havent, until recently. And only have begun to take it with a reasonable degree of seriousness since it began to be seen as a once a cycle WC Preview with genuine value for scouting facilities, the country itself, and getting a feel with potential quality sides from around the world that might be an opponent in a KO round, plus a free shot at playing against one of the worlds best sides in tournament caliber conditions (supposedly) (play well and typically you'll get a tournament match against a top 5-6 team in the world at least twice).

    As for the World Cup itself, I don't think it trumps the Euro's in terms of quality, and I don't think there's any reasonable way of arguing that it does beyond the extra knockout round factor. Too many ghastly sides from Concacaf, AFC, and CAF qualify and water down the tourney, plus the UEFA sides that would get clubbed to death in the Euro's and likely finish last, get a primo spot in groups to water down potential knockout round games (See Slovakia in '10, Ukraine and Switzerland in '06 etc). I like it this way, btw, as we get to see teams from the world over that have never gotten a chance to play various sides. Togo playing France, South Korea and Switzerland, as bad as Togo was, was enjoyable to watch (if for their goal scoring celebration alone). It's just a more enjoyable tournament to me.

    The question in terms of competition is whether the extra stage of knockout games makes it tougher than a Euro which is top heavy with elite teams? The sole argument I think the World Cup has, to toughness, is what that extra stage creates, which is a winnowing process, allowing the surpise sides and upset squads to eventually go a bridge (stage) to far, and be asked to simply beat too many elite teams. Because of the rigged seeding process, historically the powers have had a massive advantage in the World Cup that they haven't had in the Euro's. In the Euro's you're immediately funneled into two win or go home games, win them and you made the final, HURRAH, lose them in your out. I think this explains how a team like Greece, or even a good Denmark team in '92 could win the tourney. All that team needs is to get on a little bit of a run, and then win 2 knockout games and they're in the Final. Without that extra knockout game, it's one fewer opportunity for a powerhouse to end that run (a la Germany finally putting the wood to S. Korea after S. Korea barely escaped Italy, and got a little help in beating Spain, and what knocked aside Uruguay in '10, Croatia in '98, Bulgaria and Sweden in '94, Cameroon/England in '90, Belgium in '86, Poland before them etc).

    I think that explains why the World Cup, in the modern era, has only had a handful of genuine contenders, Germany ('66-'74, '82-'90, '02-Present), Italy ('82, '90-'94, '06), Brazil ('70-'78, '94-'02), France ('82-'86, '98, '06), Spain ('02-Present) and Argentina ('78-'94), whereas the Copa America, and the Euro's has a wide and extensive variety of winners. At the end of the day, to win the World Cup, you've got to contend with an extra round of knockout games which typically means, one more game against one of these elite sides, plus the risk of a banana peel game (S. Korea beating Italy in '02 for example). European coaches and players will say the Euro's are tougher because there are almost no easy outs, whereas the World Cup typically is loaded with at least 8-9 weak sister punching bags from AFC/CAF/Concacaf, + possibly one from Conmebol, plus the Euro equivalent of a second tier European side or two or three that will make a complete mess of their tournament. They're right. So at that point the debate is, what makes for a tougher tournament? Greater depth of quality, or greater risk of losing through quantity+presence of Brazil+Argentina.

    I think the recent development that the AFC's top tier, the cream of concacaf, and the burdgeoning but still unproductive CAF, combined with Conmebol's quality in depth, has made what used to be a tournament with plenty of chaff, much deeper and challenging than it used to be. The sheer fact that all of Conmebol's squads+ the entire cream of Concacaf/AFC advanced to the knockouts in 2010 is a testament to the challenge, add in that day in the future when African potential yields present results, and you'll have a tournament that is fundamentally more challenging than the World Cup period. We're still not there yet though, and that's why it's still argued.
     
  2. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    #1777 vancity eagle, Apr 24, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2014
    Sorry but the Euro can in no way be described as a tougher or more prestigious tournament than the worldcup, Greece and Denmark have something to say about that.

    If u want to claim that the average euro group is tougher than the average WC Group, then fine I'll give u that, but anything else , no way.


    Even the last Euro had an absolute cupcake group with Russia, Poland, Czech Rep, and Greece. When was the last time any of these teams made the knockout stages ? 1990 I believe.

    Even groups like Spain, Italy, Croatia, Ireland
    England, Sweden, France, Ukraine

    Are they any tougher than

    Argentina, England, Sweden, Nigeria
    France, Denmark, Senegal, Uruguay
    Argentina, Holland, Ivory Coast, Serbia
    Germany, Portugal, Ghana, USA
    Italy, Czech R, Ghana, USA

    I don't think so. The same at best , in many cases the WC groups are tougher IMO.

    If the quality of 16 euro teams was so much better, then more than 7 euro sides would have made the knockout rounds in 2010. Even with the cream of the crop UEFA sides in a 16 team tournament which u r comparing to 32 teams, there are still tougher groups in a WC, than the Euros. This Euro is better is a myth, and again all that I will concede is that the average group in a euro is tougher, but that fails to consider u are comparing 16 teams to 32.
     
  3. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    looks like carlos wants messi hospitalized early on.:D
     
    Scythian repped this.
  4. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    ...and he still continues. these bosnians here lol.
     
  5. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006

    Yes it seems rather odd that they are preparing for that. It's as if the coach knows their defence will be not up to standard and they are just preparing to park the bus.
     
  6. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    #1781 Iranian Monitor, Apr 24, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2014
    I have made the same argument many times. Where we may disagree is the import of this fact.

    The simple fact is that until recently at least, Iran's results within the AFC were those of a quintessential league winner that has failed in the tournament format, often in a manner that showed what Iran missed wasn't quality so much, but what I have referred to in the past as the "championship metal". Otherwise, Japan aside, you won't find any team in Asia that is tougher to beat than Iran. Our over all record in Asia (measured by our typical ranking) is better than how we have finished, comparatively speaking, in tournaments.

    But I have to also admit this particular Iranian team under Queiros doesn't actually fit the mold. Or at least it didn't in the last qualifiers. We were the opposite of all the trends which we had created for almost 2 decades. Whereas we almost always would start very strong but mess up at the worst time towards the end, this time it was exactly the opposite. This year, we finished top of our group despite 2 losses in the final qualifiers because we won our last 3 games. Last time for the 2010 World Cup, we finished 4th out of 5 teams in the final qualifiers despite only 1 loss in the final and preliminary qualifiers combined, with neither team that qualified from our group having actually beat Iran. Indeed, North Korea even lost to Iran. Somewhat similarly, in 2002, we failed to qualify after one loss in the Asian qualfiiers, our last game against an already eliminated team, with the side that qualified ahead of us a team we had beat (Saudi Arabia). In the Asian Cup, Iran has far fewer losses on average than say South Korea or Saudi Arabia, whether historically or recently and tops the overall standings in wins/points. But we used to meet Saudi Arabia regularly at the semifinals (1984, 1988, 1996) and always lose to them, twice on penalties in games we should have won. And since 1996, we have always met South Korea at the quarterfinals. If the match has had a winner in regulation (1996 and 2004), it has been in Iran. If it has gone to overtime or penalties (3 times, 2000, 2007, 2011), South Korea has won. In almost of all these games, Iran has met South Korea having won its group while S.Korea was the runner up team at the group stage.

    As for league format somehow showing Bosnia better than Iran, I beg to differ. The fact is Iran and Bosnia are simply not in the same league! You play in UEFA and we play in the AFC. The league format v tournament format doesn't say really provide any clues to compare our teams. In general, reviewing Bosnia's results, I noticed those results were not stellar but showed Bosnia has graduated to be a 2nd tier UEFA side which, unlike more experienced 2nd tier UEFA teams, has nonetheless been unable to pull the occasional result against elite teams. All in all, truth be told, Bosnia's results looked very much like the kind of results Iran would get but hard to compare due to the lack of common competitive matches.[/user]
     
  7. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    There is really nothing interesting or to learn from these kind of scrimmages except whatever the coach was trying to test and learn. The friendlies that do have some clues are international A friendlies where they are pitting 2 full squad teams in an environment that simulates a competitive game with plenty of fans in the stands. Those are the friendlies that I have talked about, not a practice scrimmage where you are rotating domestic players to weed out and using weird formations that (I hope) don't mean a thing.

    On the latter, however, let me say one thing that I am concerned about. Genuinely concerned based on these latest friendlies. In the first half against Guinea (which was a legitimate full squad match of sorts, even if not in a real full squad environment), unlike our previous matches under Queiroz or his predecessors, Queiroz used a central defender in a fullback spot, reducing the overall ability of our team and hence our ability to stretch the field and properly expose an opponent. We looked "stale" in that match, until at the break, when Queiroz took out one of these central defenders and put in a proper fullback with speed and overlap ability.

    In this scrimmage against the Orlando Pirates (leaving aside the players being rotated), Queiroz seems to have also done the same as well. He started with central defenders in our fullback positions. Using that kind of formation not only doesn't help your offense, but actually hurts your defense as well. I hope Queiroz doesn't think the way to counter Messi and company is to replace a fullback with a central defender because if he does that, than I would not bet on Iran doing anything but get embarrassed.
     
  8. HowSpeak?

    HowSpeak? New Member

    Apr 23, 2014
    Club:
    --other--
  9. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    Then you'd get into a hefty argument with quite a few very smart football managers around Europe who are much smarter than you are I. I'm not about to quibble with you with regards to groups of death, there have been plenty over the years, but the Euro's have had plenty just as tough.
    There are innumerable, top of the heap managers of the very best sides in the world, much smarter than either of us that would disagree with you.

    And for the record, there are innumerable groups of death that could be shown from the Euro's as well, what about:

    France
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Netherlands

    in 2000. All four of those sides were coming off fantastic tournaments in '96, '98, or both,

    as if that wasn't frightening enough, 2000 also offered:

    Portugal-Euro '00 semi-finalist, and better than France in that defeat according to many.
    Germany-WC '02 Finalist
    England-WC '02 Quarterfinalist (and close loser to Brazil)
    Romania

    How about in '04:

    Sweden, Italy, Denmark, Bulgaria

    or
    Czech, Netherlands, Germany and Latvia.

    How about what followed in '08 with:

    France, Netherlands, Italy and Romania

    That was 3 of the top 5-7 teams in the world in one group.

    and '12 gave us:
    Portugal, Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.

    The bulk of those groups easily stand up to the toughest you ever see in the World Cup and more. Even worse, if your a second tier or third tier European squad, and you make it, typically you have a 1 in 4 to 1 in 2 chance of landing in such a hellish groups.

    In a typical World Cup there are 1-2 groups of death tops, out of 8, in the Euro there are usually 1 to 2, out of 4.

    It's not close.

    If there is an argument for the World Cup, it's in the fact that the knockout rounds last for four matches, rather than three, if you're to win a title, and to a lesser extent, after having had only one international team of relevance for decades, and only 2 from about 1978-1994, today the ranks have filled with far more teams, and while none have reached the heights of Brazil and Argentina in tangible long term quality, they have comfortably ensconced themselves as legit top 12-30 sides in the world, capable of playing with the bulk of Europe's second tier, and the first, on a good day.

    That's a fair pair of arguments, but beyond that, I think the Euro's have far tougher groups, on average, and in the particular, and the only reason it isn't tougher than the World Cup, if it isn't, is largely because its shorter, leaving more room for error, and those aforementioned banana peel games.
     
    Bosnian Diamond repped this.
  10. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    As I've said before, I'd be with you and more willing to accept the arguments for Iran, if they hadn't had such an overwhelming and in my view inexplicable tournament history in general, with regards to both qualifications, and tourney performance in the rare instances in which they do (and to be fair, in that regard, small sample size could be in play, although, also, none of those groups were groups of death, so that leaves out one element that might explain it). When it comes to Iran, obviously I don't buy the pro-Iran line that you guys have argued in this thread, but to be fair, I'm also flummoxed, because to some extent, I do buy a portion of it. I do honestly believe Iran is a top 3 side in the region historically, quite firmly. The frustrating thing, especially for you guys, is that for whatever reason, that caliber of strength they have has rarely come through when it mattered most in qualification campaigns, and over the past decade+ even the Asian Cup. Iran should have made the '94, and the '02 Cups especially, and to a lesser extent the '10, and it's really weird that they haven't. Reminiscent of Mexico's inexplicable performance this cycle, except it happens far more frequently than with Mexico.

    Anyway, I do buy the argument that tournaments are small sample size, and thus not necessarily reasonable means of argument, especially considering one off tournaments, rather than a collection of them, however, they remain what all teams aim for, in the international game, so it is, inevitably the barometer, and secondly, the qualification campaigns do offer another means of evaluating relative strength as they aren't nearly so small in sample size.

    But that's a whole 'nother can of worms....

    Weird question but I am curious. Do you think political issues may have exacerbated difficulties for the national team in terms of consistency? Considering the back and forth of occasional sanctions over various issues, the acrimonious relationship with the US in recent decades, and the unusual changes wrought since the Iraq-Iran war in the eighties, and everything that's transpired over the past 25 years or so, could it have played a role in diminishing returns for the national team? Instability has largely been the root of many of the problems afflicting CAF powers, and we saw what it did to Colombia in '94, essentially drug dealers and mobsters derailed that team (death threats to families of players, players, coaches etc), could many of the issues in recent decades really simply have outright hamstrung attempts to build a fundamentally strong Persian national side and developmental system?
     
  11. Mustafa Filipovic

    Dec 11, 2013
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Right after I said that:
    Like I said, Persian fans divert from discussing players and league football right away. They go right back into disusing some national team results from 1984 or 1996. haha

    Do you really think that some NT result from 1996 or 2011 can have a greater impact at the world cup than players who currently play for Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Schalke, or Roma?
     
  12. Safarigirl

    Safarigirl Member

    Jan 13, 2014
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    People be talking like their National Teams are only going to the World Cup to face Messi.
    When the tournament starts, most will realise that Messi is the least of their worries, it's not that difficult to lock him down anyway.

    The Nigerian football Federation and the NT coach were supposed to release a 38-man list for the World Cup 2 days ago, but after the long wait, we were told the coach had submitted the list, but they had to go over it first, it will be officially released on May 10th.

    The story going round though is that the coach has his list ready and is only using delay tacticsjust so opposing teams don't find out the players and study their club performances....dunno how true this is, but it sounds logical to some extent....but they could just watch the performances on youtube.

    Anyway, we can't wait to see the team that will unleash terror on Messi, Aguero, Pastore, Higuain, Di Maria, pjanic, dzeko and their likes, dunno bout the rest of y'all, but Nigeria is going to the World Cup to play Argentina, Bosnia and Iran, not Messi
     
  13. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    safariboy then: dont listen to him... according to him.. nobody will score.. not emeniky.. not messi.. only guciaodhiasdqw-0e1w=04e34-023-402342342kfjsdlfjsdofisjdfsodjasdjasdjasdjasd

    safariboy now: messi will not do anything in the world cup

    you asked for advice on how to become a lawyer, well here is one... start by identifying basic logic.
     
  14. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    do you really think when dzeko has the ball he will be like 'manchester city is who i play for' and the footballing gods will immediately strike down the opponents, leaving him an open trail to the opponents goal? do you really think where individual players play automatically matches how they link up and perform as a team? names and numbers dont mean anything come crunch time. club names and transfermarkt values go out the window once the whistle is blown. the world cup is a different beast. heck, national football is a different beast from club competitions. i am confident in my analysis and predictions. i still extend an open hand to you.. the bet is on the table. you can demonstrate your confidence in your competence by accepting it, or you can accept that you are posting emotional fanboy stuff by not accepting.
     
  15. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    #1790 persianfootball, Apr 25, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2014
    obviously. Iran dominated asia in the 70s. had political conditions not affected, we would definitely be ahead of japan as the undisputed number 1 in asia, just like we are in futsal, and we would be a top 15 team in the world. this is because we have more passion for football than japanese, and we are just naturally better at football, and have a richer footballing history. we cant even get proper friendly games now, while teams like japan and south korea play teams like brazil at least 10 times a year. its surprisingly how weak they are despite their huge advantage in resources.
     
  16. Mustafa Filipovic

    Dec 11, 2013
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    I don't bet, especially not with trolls such as you.
     
  17. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    mate, all you have been saying is how dzeko>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the world 10 times over yet you are calling other people trolls? wow. i wont even argue dude.. your posts speak for yourself. everyone can see. nothing to prove. good luck to bosnia in the world cup.
     
  18. Mani

    Mani BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 1, 2004
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    #1793 Mani, Apr 25, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2014
    There are several reasons behind what is being called Iran's lack of consistency. Mismanagement is one factor. Being typically unlucky at crucial moments is another. And the most important factor, in my opinion, is Iran's unique geo-political standing in Western Asia and AFC.

    Luck was the reason behind Iran's failure in 1994 WCQ with Iran's star player, who happened to be Iran's goalkeeper getting injured and his replacement proving to be Iran's weakest point. The reason behind Iran's 2010 WCQ failure was mismanagement and nepotism, which led to the selection of an unqualified local manager who basically screwed us with his lack of experience. However, the reason behind Iran undeservingly getting screwed at 1996 and 2004 Asian Cups despite being arguably the best team of those two tournaments and 2002 World Cup Qualification, have to do with Iran being in AFC , which is run by a mafia of Arab officials and Sheikhs who fix matches, collaborate with one another or even at times with non-Arab federations like China to screw the non-Arab Iran for geo-political reasons. In 1996, an Arab referee screwed Iran in the semi-final match against the Saudis, another Arab referee who was later banned for life in his own country for fixing matches, screwed Iran in 2004 against China. And 2002 was a blatant case of match-fixing/collaboration between the Bahraini FA and Saudi FA to screw Iran, so blatant that the Bahraini players celebrated with Saudi flags after beating Iran. So many of Iran's misfortunes over the years have to do with Iran living in a sea of hostile Arabs in Middle East than anything else.
     
    persia1378, AsanoAram and Scythian repped this.
  19. Scythian

    Scythian Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #1794 Scythian, Apr 25, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2014
    I don't say we were the best team in 2004. Japan and South Korea both had good teams as well, but I am 100% with you in 1996. It was so obvious, even I saw a video on Youtube that Saudi players didn't believe they defeated Iran in penalties, and they were so scared of Iran after Iran beat them 3-0 at group stage. They admitted Iranian team was invincible. If you remember in that match (semifinal) Iran scored a goal by Azizi but the referee did not accept it and he also failed to take an obvious penalty for Iran.

    Generally speaking our problem with Arab governments (not people) started after 1979 when Khomeini asked for people to overthrow the Arab governments (Kings and dictators) and even meddle in some countries. That brought the disastrous war (Iran-Iraq war), and hostility of Arab countries and Western blocks upon us. Iranian current regime still working on the same agenda and will experience the same backlashes. Apart from that I agree that many Arab countries have used their power to cause trouble for Iranians and Iranian football team at every level. The only Arab countries that have been playing fair were Oman, Iraq (post 2003), and Syria (Iran's ally).

    We should consider the local mismanagement and corruption as our strongest obstacle in football. Whenever we tackle this issue we can perform at same level of some European teams. Iranians have a lot of passion for football in such level that only football crazed countries such as Brazil can pass.
     
  20. Safarigirl

    Safarigirl Member

    Jan 13, 2014
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    First off, you need to stop referring to me as 'safariboy'...I'm female, it would be nice if you didn't display chauvinism online.

    Secondly, yes, I do believe Messi won't score anyway, at least not against Nigeria, I don't know about the rest of you
     
  21. Safarigirl

    Safarigirl Member

    Jan 13, 2014
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nigeria's second choice goalie- Austin Ejide seems to have picked up an injury. It's doubtful he'll make it for the World Cup, the NFF and the coach are looking into replacing him with Carl Ikeme of Wolverhampton(I think that's his club)

    I do hope Ejide pulls through, he's one of the best goalies out there
     
  22. Scythian

    Scythian Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think Messi will be different this time. I expect him to score many goals in Brazil.
     
  23. AsanoAram

    AsanoAram Member

    Apr 14, 2005
    I read the same thing in the Iranian press, but they were saying Keshi is hiding the list because he fears certain Nigerian FA members will force their own players into the squad somehow!
     
  24. Sunset

    Sunset Member

    Oct 29, 2013
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Nigeria
    That's nothing new wrt our FA........

    A lot of them are good friends/acquaintances with the agents of some of these players.
     
  25. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    How is it your business what she calls herself? She doesn't post like a male, BTW, she posts like a person, that may be either male or female. A better question is, why are you going our of your way to antagonize people here with your personal slurs? You derailed this thread a couple of pages back by going after me, and now it looks as though you're going for the same result with her.
     
    Bosnian Diamond, Safarigirl and Mani repped this.

Share This Page