Something that will still make you happy even if your team out?

[Zeppelin]

For me personally, if Brasil is kicked out of the tournament before reaching the final. What's yours ?

[leg_breaker]

Brazil being knocked out by an unskilled team of hackers and hoofers, with Ronaldo spitting his dummy out, and Nike's marketing team left in tears.

Germany not getting out of the first round.

Australia doing well, and increasing the popularity of the game in that country.

Holland battering Argentina.

Mexico not getting out of the first round.

America winning their group.

[GRBomber]

For me it would be some team that never won, winning it all (except for Netherlands and Spain).

[Kbulldog3]

As a USA fan...Mexico going out, argentina losing to more physical teams like serbia and montenegro and ivory coast, and the two most overrated teams, france and spain not advancing

[tomwilhelm]

Costa Rica advancing.
T&T stealing a point.
A new champion.

[Caesar]

A new champion.
Definitely. New finalists, even.

If it's a good tournament with exciting football, I'll be happy. The last thing I want is a repeat of 1990. 2002 was pretty ho-hum as well.

[boniek1982]

My wish list:
1. A pair of new finalists that play offensive-minded football.
2. Preferably a final with Holland in the mix, to give Van Basten the WC title he missed out on when he was a player.
3. Also no major international superstars miss out due to injury.
4. One African team in the semi-finals.

[Metropolitan]

Well, personally, I think the total opposite. I would be happy if the winner was a veteran and not a newbie.

The World Cup is not like any other sport competition, it's a legend. There is something magic in it and if Iran or Australia would win it, it would destroy a myth. The Euro 2004 which was already won by a crappy Greece playing in a crappy way has been a real shame. I certainly don't want this to be repeated in the most magical competition on earth.

Once again, if the Netherlands would win it in playing magnificently, that wouldn't be a trouble, but an underdog winning it all in playing defensively, that would be the worst shame.

[Caesar]

Well, personally, I think the total opposite. I would be happy if the winner was a veteran and not a newbie. Mmmkay. So I bet you were devastated in 1998, right? :rolleyes:

The World Cup is not like any other sport competition, it's a legend. There is something magic in it and if Iran or Australia would win it, it would destroy a myth. The Euro 2004 which was already won by a crappy Greece playing in a crappy way has been a real shame. I certainly don't want this to be repeated in the most magical competition on earth.

Once again, if the Netherlands would win it in playing magnificently, that wouldn't be a trouble, but an underdog winning it all in playing defensively, that would be the worst shame. What a load of crap. You're being romantic - there are a lot of 'underdog' teams that play 'nicer' than sides that have bunkered down and won the title in the past. Germany in 1990 were absolutely horrible after the group stages, while Cameroon set the world on fire. More often than not, the team that plays the most attractive football doesn't win the tournament.

'Veterans' have no more monopoly on 'beautiful' football than anyone else - not that it really matters anyway. The World Cup is about the team that wins matches and earns the trophy. As horrible, negative football Germany played in an absolute dog of a tournament, they did it the hard way - grinding out results against excellent teams like the Netherlands, Argentina and England. They were worthy winners - and it didn't 'destroy the myth' or any other rubbish you want to call it either. Neither did France breaking the hold of the 'old guard' in 1998 - if anything, it was a positive.

[Metropolitan]

Well, that may be crap to you but Greece winning the Euro in playing the way they did is a shame to me. Not necessarily a shame to Greece which well deserves its title as it has won it on the pitch, but actually a shame to the other teams which weren't able to stop them. Greece litteraly played anti-football and even if they've done so with a lot of courage and stamina, I will remain extremely sad that a more technical side such as Portugal or Czech Republic didn't manage to win the whole thing.

It's a matter of opinion you know. And as for Cameroon in 1990, I wouldn't have minded to see them going further actually !

Finally, about your comments on what you call the "veterans", well, I think that there's a good reason why it's always the same team playing World Cup finals and raising the trophy and I've realized that only in 1998.

When our country has never won any world cup, we tend to believe that this priviledge is exclusive to a small snobby elite and even if that somewhere infuriates us, we have no other choice than to accept our team doesn't play in the same category. As a result, we are satisfied when our team goes far in the competition, even if secretly we would have hoped it would have gone further, it's still great they succeeded to achieve what they've achieved. The France I've grown up with was the one of the legendary Platini's team, they've reached only the semis, twice, but that was still great.

Everything has changed once France have won the World Cup. That kind of thing tends to become very fastly an extremely addicting drug. In 2002 World Cup, the only objective that I dreamed of was to see Zidane raising for a second time the trophy, a semi wouldn't have satisfied me. That's the reason why the debacle has been so atrocious to live. I know that France's team today isn't as strong as it was during the 1997-2000 era, but I still dream of another victory for France in 2006, even if I know it will be very hard, and once again, I wouldn't consider a quarter or a semi as a good achievement... more honourable than the 2002 debacle, but not something to remember.

If you look closely World Cup History, you'll notice two things. First, only 7 nations became world champion on 17 World Cups. Secondly, among those 7 winners, 5 of them won their first world cup at home (Germany won their second world cup at home and Brazil never won it at home). I believe those figures aren't at random, and that tells a lot about the psychological aspect of that competition.

If you look at it closely, all those 7 nations are now die hard addicted to World Cup victories, and none, not even Uruguay, can imagine they won't win it again. That gives to those teams a psychological advantage making them very tough to beat, an advantage which is even more decisive during the playoffs after the group stage.

[Caesar]

Well, that may be crap to you but Greece winning the Euro in playing the way they did is a shame to me. Not necessarily a shame to Greece which well deserves its title as it has won it on the pitch, but actually a shame to the other teams which weren't able to stop them. Greece litteraly played anti-football and even if they've done so with a lot of courage and stamina, I will remain extremely sad that a more technical side such as Portugal or Czech Republic didn't manage to win the whole thing.

It's a matter of opinion you know. And as for Cameroon in 1990, I wouldn't have minded to see them going further actually ! I can understand being disappointed that Greece won Euro2004 because of the style of football they played, but your logic in saying that you prefer 'veterans' to win because of this is still rather bewildering. Germany is one of the most successful nations in the world, but they played some disgusting football at the same tournament as well.

You seem to be saying "historically successful teams = most 'beautiful' football", which can certainly be true, but it can equally be false on occassions. Similarly, not having a storied history is no barrier to playing attractive football. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Finally, about your comments on what you call the "veterans", well, I think that there's a good reason why it's always the same team playing World Cup finals and raising the trophy and I've realized that only in 1998.

When our country has never won any world cup, we tend to believe that this priviledge is exclusive to a small snobby elite and even if that somewhere infuriates us, we have no other choice than to accept our team doesn't play in the same category. As a result, we are satisfied when our team goes far in the competition, even if secretly we would have hoped it would have gone further, it's still great they succeeded to achieve what they've achieved. The France I've grown up with was the one of the legendary Platini's team, they've reached only the semis, twice, but that was still great.

Everything has changed once France have won the World Cup. That kind of thing tends to become very fastly an extremely addicting drug. In 2002 World Cup, the only objective that I dreamed of was to see Zidane raising for a second time the trophy, a semi wouldn't have satisfied me. That's the reason why the debacle has been so atrocious to live. I know that France's team today isn't as strong as it was during the 1997-2000 era, but I still dream of another victory for France in 2006, even if I know it will be very hard, and once again, I wouldn't consider a quarter or a semi as a good achievement... more honourable than the 2002 debacle, but not something to remember.

If you look closely World Cup History, you'll notice two things. First, only 7 nations became world champion on 17 World Cups. Secondly, among those 7 winners, 5 of them won their first world cup at home (Germany won their second world cup at home and Brazil never won it at home). I believe those figures aren't at random, and that tells a lot about the psychological aspect of that competition.

If you look at it closely, all those 7 nations are now die hard addicted to World Cup victories, and none, not even Uruguay, can imagine they won't win it again. That gives to those teams a psychological advantage making them very tough to beat, an advantage which is even more decisive during the playoffs after the group stage. Well that's all very well, and it might explain why 'veterans' tend to win repeatedly. But it does exactly zero to explain why you consider them more deserving than other countries.

All and all I'm having difficulty seeing why you think that a veteran playing defensive football is a more deserving winner than a new nation playing defensive football.

[Metropolitan]

Well that's all very well, and it might explain why 'veterans' tend to win repeatedly. But it does exactly zero to explain why you consider them more deserving than other countries.Sorry Caesar but if I've told I didn't wish an underdog to win the World Cup, it's because I had in mind the victory of Greece at the Euro 2004. That's not what I would like to see being repeated.

At the limit, it would really be painful for me to see Germany winning it in playing awfully, but I would prefer that to let's say Ecuador winning it in playing awfully. That's not a matter of being veterans of anything, but Germany is still more legendary as it will always remain the team of Gerd Müller or Franz Beckenbauer. :rolleyes:

This being said, don't believe that's the scenario I dream about. What I would love to see before everything are teams making my eyes wet, just like did Barcelona against Chelsea or Milan :o.

And finally, I would also love to see winning a team that I believe actually deserves it. That could be a challenger I wouldn't care as long as I would feel it deserves it and turned out indeed to be the best team in the world.

[Caesar]

At the limit, it would really be painful for me to see Germany winning it in playing awfully, but I would prefer that to let's say Ecuador winning it in playing awfully. That's not a matter of being veterans of anything, but Germany is still more legendary as it will always remain the team of Gerd Müller or Franz Beckenbauer. :rolleyes:
To me that makes no sense at all, and merely reeks of snobbishness and exclusivity.

[Metropolitan]

To me that makes no sense at all, and merely reeks of snobbishness and exclusivity.Fine, then I'm a snob which believes teams with a great History still deserve some respect, even if they are called Germany (which obviously you despise more than any other thing on earth). After all, they've achieved what my country didn't succeed to achieve... and it's at least a matter of politeness to recognize this. If I want my team to be as much respected as I respect them, then it has to repeat what those "elite veterans" did first.

There's the reality of the field, that's obvious. But between two teams playing as much pathetically one then the other, I would support the team with the best History. Accept it or not, it will always always be more stylish to reach the final after having beaten Argentina in 1/8 finals, Italy in quarters and Germany in semis than in having beaten Trinidad & Tobago in 1/8 finals, Iran in quarters and Ghana in semis.

It's the same everywhere actually. Why Lyon isn't considered as a great European team despite reaching the quarters of the Champion's league for the 3rd or 4th time in a row ? Simply because it has always done so in beating PSV Eindhoven or Werder Bremen, not in beating AC Milan or Barcelona. To join the big names, you have to beat them first. It's really the same everywhere.

[eu sou eu]

wow, everyone wants us out...anywayz i suppose that will make everyone happy...but i guess...I would want to see a South American team win it, even if it is Argentina, just so that i know even if we do get knocked out the the cup will come to SA cuz we are the best!

leg-breaker ur killing me lol...

[Caesar]

Fine, then I'm a snob which believes teams with a great History still deserve some respect, even if they are called Germany (which obviously you despise more than any other thing on earth). I have nothing against Germany. Along with the Netherlands, I am probably better-disposed towards them than any other national team that I'm a 'neutral' of. My favourite WC final is the Miracle of Bern. It's just a fact that during their history in addition to some great football, they've played some horrible football as well. That's no less true for Argentina, England, Uruguay, Italy... which is kind of my point.

Of course they deserve respect for their history and tradition. I don't consider that it makes them any more deserving of titles in the current day than any other team in the world, however.

But between two teams playing as much pathetically one then the other, I would support the team with the best History. Accept it or not, it will always always be more stylish to reach the final after having beaten Argentina in 1/8 finals, Italy in quarters and Germany in semis than in having beaten Trinidad & Tobago in 1/8 finals, Iran in quarters and Ghana in semis. Again... I agree, but I don't really see what has to do with anything. Are you saying Greece didn't beat some of the best teams at Euro2004? Are you saying that nations with storied histories never coast through tournaments by the luck of the draw?

Your objection seems to be primarily that you don't like teams that play 'ugly' football winning tournaments. This I can understand. But then you say that if two teams play horrible football, one is more 'justified' in winning a tournament than the other if it has a richer football history.

This is like saying that of two people of equal intelligence and ability standing for the Presidency of the Republic of France, candidate A is more worthy if he comes from a better family. How unrepublican of you. ;)

[Sinter]

Italy winning it all...

Mexico out in round 1...

That's about it... not too keen on France either so if they get knocked out early again... cool.

[Seaside Mafia]

Brazil being knocked out by an unskilled team of hackers and hoofers, with Ronaldo spitting his dummy out, and Nike's marketing team left in tears.

Germany not getting out of the first round.

Australia doing well, and increasing the popularity of the game in that country.

Holland battering Argentina.

Mexico not getting out of the first round.

America winning their group.

You're not English are you? If you were, Australia doing well would be the last thing you want, and you wouldn't give a feck about what Mexico or the US do.

[Seaside Mafia]

My wish list:
1. A pair of new finalists that play offensive-minded football.
2. Preferably a final with Holland in the mix, to give Van Basten the WC title he missed out on when he was a player.
3. Also no major international superstars miss out due to injury.
4. One African team in the semi-finals.

1. Don't care if they're new, but agree with the need for attacking football.
2. Agreed
3. Also agree, but too late.
4. Nope. Don't care which part of the world they're from so long as 1 applies.

[Pints]

1.) My TV doesn't die on me.
2.) I properly set my recordings
3.) My daughter is mellow and enjoys napping from 9-11am, 12-2pm, and 3-5pm:D
4.) My work doesn't call me on a daily basis as my paternity leave starts the week prior to and finishes the week after the competition.


Other than that I don't care really, it's just great this competition has come around again, and it couldn't have been at a better time.