What teams should be disappointed at not winning the Cup?

[Auriaprottu]

...that is, what teams have the talent and/or game to honestly be able to say, "We match up at least evenly against anyone we play", period. Not any given day, but every given day. Teams that cannot be happy just to make the final, cannot say "Hey, we had a good run" if they lose.

I don't think Brasil alone has the talent to feel this way. I'd put Argentina, Holland and Italy in this category. Anyone else?

[ForeverRed]

england of course, they have the best team on paper. with all their potential, they should go a long way, if not all the way.

[Colm]

Togo will be pissed if they don't win the world cup.

[jules101]

Every teams objective is to win so every team shld be disappointed not to win the world cup

[spoonman]

So the objective of Trinidad and Tobago is winning the Worldcup?

[Latin Pride]

no offence but this is a stupid question

EVERY team should be dissapointed if they dont win it

[leg_breaker]

I don't think that Costa Rica or Trinidad and Tobago will come home in shame if they only make the quarter finals.

The teams who will be disappointed if they don't win it are Brazil, Italy, Holland and England. I think Germany know they don't have the quality.

[Auriaprottu]

no offence but this is a stupid question

EVERY team should be dissapointed if they dont win it

Uh, every team should be trying to win every match, and should be disappointed when they are eliminated.

Look- I'm not talking about some nation that hasn't won the Cup recently or perhaps ever, getting to the semis, losing and then finding the gall to say, "Geez, we should have beaten Argentina/Brasil/Italy". I'm not talking about how Clint Mathis responded to a question about how he expected the USNT to do in 2002 (for those who don't know, he said they'd win it all)- he was fooling no one but himself, if that.

There are nations for whom making the second round is a great run, and others for whom the semis or final is a good run. Then there are nations that can and should expect to beat anyone they play, not because of some Barney-esque "belief" thing, but because they are good enough to do it. I'm talking about the third group.

[Auriaprottu]

I don't think that Costa Rica or Trinidad and Tobago will come home in shame if they only make the quarter finals.

The teams who will be disappointed if they don't win it are Brazil, Italy, Holland and England. I think Germany know they don't have the quality.

Thank you for understanding what so many here apparently could not.

But what makes you think England deserves to be included in this group? Just curious.

[Sagy]

...that is, what teams have the talent and/or game to honestly be able to say, "We match up at least evenly against anyone we play", period. Not any given day, but every given day. Teams that cannot be happy just to make the final, cannot say "Hey, we had a good run" if they lose.

I don't think Brasil alone has the talent to feel this way. I'd put Argentina, Holland and Italy in this category. Anyone else?
I would add England and Germany to this list.

With a "world class" GK, England will be one of the big time favorites to win it all. They have talented field players at almost every position. The weakness at goal will probably cost them the WC, problems with the manager don't help either, but I still feel that they will be disappointed at not winning the WC.

If the WC was at any other location I would not have Germany as part of this group. However, considering their history (winning or making it to the finals when "no one" expected it) and the fact that they have the home field advantage, I think that they will also be disappointed at not winning the WC.

Other than these six, I think that every other team will consider a Semi-Final appearance as a successful WC. The players of these teams are sure to be disappointed with a Semi-Final loss, and the fans will say the same for the next few days. But history will mark it as a successful campaign for such a team (e.g. Turkey, South Korea, Croatia, Sweden, Bulgaria)

[almango]

Other than these six, I think that every other team will consider a Semi-Final appearance as a successful WC.

I would consider 3rd in our group a success.

[TheBaRoN]

Thank you for understanding what so many here apparently could not.

But what makes you think England deserves to be included in this group? Just curious.

Fact that we beat Argentina twice in 4 years and have far better players than Italy,Germany and the Dutch.

;)

[leg_breaker]

But what makes you think England deserves to be included in this group? Just curious.

There is no 'deserve', if England don't win it they will be disappointed, whether they have a realistic chance or not. We have skillful players all over the pitch, players who've won trophies.

We have the same quality as Argentina, Holland and Italy, and have as much chance of winning as any of them.

[leg_breaker]

With a "world class" GK, England will be one of the big time favorites to win it all. They have talented field players at almost every position. The weakness at goal will probably cost them the WC

Robinson is a good keeper. The things that will cost us are the non-functioning of the midfield and the inability to keep possession (the two are probably linked).

We've gone 1-0 up early on against France, Portugal and Brazil in the last two tournaments, and lost all three games. All three defeats were the result of not being able to control the game because we could do nothing but hump long balls up the pitch.

[spoonman]

Plus I think the England bench could become a problem, who replaces Rooney or Owen if one of them is out?

[eurodad]

Robinson is a good keeper. The things that will cost us are the non-functioning of the midfield and the inability to keep possession (the two are probably linked).

We've gone 1-0 up early on against France, Portugal and Brazil in the last two tournaments, and lost all three games. All three defeats were the result of not being able to control the game because we could do nothing but hump long balls up the pitch.

Great post. Right on the money !!!!

[leg_breaker]

Plus I think the England bench could become a problem, who replaces Rooney or Owen if one of them is out?

Defoe and Lampard.

[TheBaRoN]

Defoe and Lampard.

Lampard starts and defoe is more an Owen replacement.

I'd say Vassell offers pace once the other team is shattered he runs rings round them.Hargreaves is totally underrated because sven always plays him out of place.I'd take him over the likes of King in Midfield but not Parker.

[Auriaprottu]

Robinson is a good keeper. The things that will cost us are the non-functioning of the midfield and the inability to keep possession (the two are probably linked).

You managed to keep possession against the teams you beat in '02, and in the European Championships. That's fair enough.

We've gone 1-0 up early on against France, Portugal and Brazil in the last two tournaments, and lost all three games. All three defeats were the result of not being able to control the game because we could do nothing but hump long balls up the pitch.

Not trying to hijack my own thread, but my belief is that England should have been able to keep even possession against France ('04 Euros) and Portugal (same tourney), but for some reason did not. I didn't see either of those matches -heard 'em on the Webcast- so maybe you can explain what went wrong. I know about Heskey's blunder, but England seemed to be deliberately playing several behind the ball for most of the second half against both Portugal and France.

IMO, England seems not to believe in their ability to hold possession AND a lead, so they drop back and defend while the opponent keeps the ball. I don't understand that strategy at all. If you simply maintain possession, you'll likely not give the opponent as many chances to score.