Uh... I'd take Sterling and Sturridge, and maybe Baines. Wayne Rooney over Brad Davis but.... Fabian >>> Glen Bradley and Jones >>>>>> Gerrard/Lampard all day everyday. Besler and Gonzalez/Cameron >> Cahill, Jagielka Bekerman >Henderson Gerrard should have been Donovan'd for Carrick.
England perpetually underperform, but it's not because they have poor talent. And we don't routinely handle Costa Rica. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
Is FIFA announcing a best XI for the World Cup? The Wikipedia page is going by the Castrol Index, which has the following best XI that doesn't cohere into an actual formation: Neuer; de Vrij, Silva, Hummels, Rojo; Rodriguez, Lahm, Kroos, Oscar; Robben, Mueller. I'm rather indifferent to the Castrol index, but I know there are some diehard adherents to it on this forum. Of note is that Dempsey is rated the best American player and that he and Bradley are the only two rated above 8.
It's interesting, a discussion of England in CONCACAF, that always brings in the natural reverse argument, what about a CONCACAF team, say the USA in UEFA. When you have some European powers who once in a while miss the World Cup, Netherlands in 2002 after a golden generation retired, England in 1994, France in 1994, Belgium returning for the first time since 2002, Belgium for the record has gone to 12 World Cups vs. 10 for Netherlands actually, likewise some big countries missing a Euro now and then, I'm not sure we can be confident that the USA would routinely go to the World Cup if it qualified out of Europe, let alone Mexico and Costa Rica. It is easy to say the USA would qualify vs. groups with the likes of Albania, Iceland, Ireland, Scotland, Kazakhstan, Estonia or whomever but again, that is just talk. Italy and Germany are virtually the only European teams that have gone to all of the World Cups they have competed in the qualifications for. Their misses are footnotes to the tournament, Italy missed in 1958, West or East Germany, partitioned Germany apparently was banned from the 1950 tournament. I wasn't aware of that. Cold War days. Looks like Spain missed in '74 and '78. Still a very good record making 14 of the 20 tournaments.
Could I get a working definition of "routinely"? 50%? 66% 75%? 100%, I agree, not a chance. The day will come where we don't qualify out of CONCACAF (ponder if Mexico had to qualify for Brazil against Uruguay rather than New Zealand...). However...here are a couple of groups used foe the Euro 2016 draw: Pot 2: Ukraine, Croatia, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland Pot 3: Serbia, Turkey, Slovenia, Israel, Norway, Slovakia, Romania, Austria, Poland We'd be in one of those two groups, I think. Which would give us a fighting chance of at least getting to the playoffs...don't forget, we get five home games, too...
Routinely, 75% of the time might be routine however, since 1998, we are at 100%, host in '94 and of course as we all know, qualified in '90. What is interesting in those 2 pots you posted is that all of the teams practically have had their moments. Most of those countries have put out strong competitive teams at one time. Let's just go through a few of these countries' noteworthy accomplishments. Ukraine, did get to the quarterfinals in 2006, is a relatively new nation and from what I know, perhaps Ukraine fielded a few of the players that made the old USSR team good at times. Croatia, 3rd place 1998 Sweden, 3rd place 1994, overall, a rather successful team especially in qualifications I'd say. Denmark, Euro 1992 winner, have made the World and Euro Cup ever so often, had a potent squad dubbed Danish dynamite. Slovenia is a young nation but we know about them, Turkey, 3rd place 2002, might have even been hard-done in the semi-finals vs. Brazil. Romania with Hagi was good and were at Euro 2008 at least, I remember, one of the Balkans countries seems to always put out a good team. Israel nonetheless has made a World Cup and has often played competitively, Slovakia, another young nation advanced out of the group stage in 2010, their Marek Hamsik has been a big player for Napoli in Serie A. I guess Austria's and Hungary's glory days go way back. Norway seems to do fairly well, were at USA 1994, Serbia, well, the old Yugoslavian teams were good. Poland of course did well in '74 and '82.
England lost to Uruguay Uruguay lost to Colombia Colombia lost to Brazil Brazil lost to Germany 7-1 So by that logic England would've lost to Germany by 12 goals Group D had two draws in the knockout stage and no wins. Group G was the toughest To add to that the last place team in group g drew Germany, I guess Ghana could have won the World Cup.[emoji12]
True but that's virtually the one and only case you have to make . Group D is a bit of a wash anyway because of what happened in the Suarez situation. You have Uruguay without one of the best players in the world versus not just Colombia but against Costa Rica as well. Yet, with Suarez, Uruguay has 2 wins though to me, the win vs. Italy is very iffy. Without Suarez, Uruguay are 0-2. If there is one breakdown in this World Cup, it does look like Brazil was treated with kid gloves, gift penalty vs. Croatia who really got hosed and had to win their 3rd match while Mexico could play for a draw, there is a scuffle that sees a Brazilian Press Officer suspended after the investigation of the incident at the halftime of the Brazil Chile game. Imagine if the opposition team had an officer that allegedly hit an American player at the half time of their match. Gary Lineker said if Brazil won the World Cup, they would be the worse team to have won it, he said that after the match between Colombia and Brazil. Even if one discounts saying "well, that is just Gary Lineker saying that", FIFA came out with a statement after that game that they did not instruct a referee to be lenient in giving out cards in this tournament. So, personally I'd toss out the Colombia Brazil result, it's a wash as well. That was more of a rugby match. Many people including on this forum thought that game was badly officiated. James Rodriguez is crying after that game and in a later interview claims the referee was not doing much. I agree. That match is very questionable among what is a generally good tournament. Colombia did get a very bad deal.
Most European teams except San Marino seem to be able to play competently. Luxembourg defeated Switzerland a few years ago, Switzerland was one of the few losses Brazil had in the preceding 2-3 years of this last tournament. Not that long ago, Lithuania made a run and were FIFA top 30.
Sorry you don't have a response. This is a forum, I'm sorry you think you are one to give out orders. EDIT: I'm glad they have a button where you don't have to read some posts.
Not recommended for those susceptible to epileptic fits caused by Manga animation -- but otherwise.. A pretty cool rapid-fire stop-motion still image review of the whole cup in like 2 minutes. http://www.theguardian.com/football...rld-cup-2014-90-seconds-stop-motion-animation
When Diego Maradona was kicked out of the 1994 World Cup, there was talk that he was simply an illegal player and changing the results that occurred as automatic wins by the opposition. Suarez was close to that kind of status, doesn't take a rocket science degree to practically nix Uruguay's wins vs. Italy and England. Edit on, Suarez is clearly guilty of a major act of bad sportsmanship. Yes, Zidane was in '06 too. England only lost to a team with a player who got banned from the tournament, Italy's loss as said is extremely questionable.
Suarez's act of bad sportsmanship did not illegitimately affect the results of the matches Uruguay achieved in the World Cup, and Uruguay was effectively punished by losing their best player in the knockout rounds. What would we achieve by retroactively pretending some results were different after the World Cup has already ended?
No way will I accept that Suarez does his bite in the 79th minute and Uruguay then scores a minute later did not effect that result. Fact #2: England loses to a Uruguay only through the stellar performance of a player banned from the tournament. Doesn't have to be retroactive punishment. It is nonetheless true.
Furthermore, if the logic is so extreme, all the logic says is if someone is denigrating a team because Costa Rica won the division, gee. Costa Rica drew with Holland as well, official result, 120 minutes and had some great chances right at the end of that one. If that bit of logic that Costa Rica was good enough to draw Netherlands is too much for people, I'm sorry, that's the way the Tournament happened. Costa Rica drawing Netherlands, one of the semi-finalists speaks well for the strength of Group D for someone trying to denigrate the teams of that group. Likewise, for someone saying Costa Rica is better than England, gee. I'm so sorry to Raza Rebel for merely posting the result that showed against each other, there was only a draw. I'll know better next time, that actual results shouldn't be mentioned. I wasn't saying because England drew Costa Rica, England would draw Netherlands. I was just showing what the results were. I guess the next time someone says one team is better than another, head to head results are out of the equation! Who would have figured.
Are there two parallel universes intersecting here or something? Because I really have no idea how your response relates to his post.
I'm rather curious myself. A lot was inferred from the image I posted. And for a while, I agreed with what he was saying.
That and WTF was ARgentina doing subbing out Lavezzi at halftime? He was causing Germany fits with his speed.
When I saw Kun replacing Lavezzi I said to my friend that if the German back-line was uncomfortable with Lavezzi then Kun would probably score because he probably recovered from his muscle injury vs Nigeria. I was proved wrong as he looked like a player who had missed two matches and was rushed back into the line-up. They should have stayed with Lavezzi.
Even if Kun was 100% healthy I would have left in Lavezzi. He was only Argentine player causing problems in 1st half. Seriously think that is being overlooked as a huge tactical mistake in this match.