Why do people rate England? They lost to Northern Ireland in the qualifiers drew with Poland and lost 4-1 to Denmark in a friendly recently. They were in a very week group too. There is more chance that Trinidad and Tobago knock them out then them beating Brazil. They are nothing but reputation and what reputation? 1 win in 1966 that clearly wasnt a win but a refereeing error. If somebody has the game to beat the brazilians it will have to be an african side like Cote d'ivoire who attack and can unsettle them at their own game. Italy dont have the game to beat Brazil fullstop. Not that Cote d'ivoire are better than these teams its just they can pull off an upset i think against them because their style can make it happen unlike Italy and especially England. I can sense a first time winner this time but i dont know who?
take away the refering error england still won the match 3-2. people rate england because they have worldclass players
Mexico beat Brazil in confederations Cup..They are not unbeateable..the only NT who has bet them in this year has been mexico:
Not exactly. Italy had a few players such as Totti and Vieri missing and Holland fielded a relatively young lineup.
I just hope Pele wont say that Brazil is the favorite. However, I can be pretty sure he wont say that, because despite being brazilian, I dont understand this guy, he is always against us! Never trusted his own country!! And I dont even want him to say Brazil, because everything he says is ******** Remeber 94- "my favorites to win the WC is Colombia" knocked off at 1phase 90's- "before 2002 an african nation will be world champions" 98- "my favorites is spain" - knocked off at 1phase 2002- "argentina is really difficult to beat" - knocked off at 1phase..... 2002- "brazil doenst have a chance" - well, PENTACAMPEOES!! hahaha
I think, for one reason or another, that more open playing teams like Holland, Portugal and Czech Republic have more change to kick some samba-ass this Worldcup
That whole 66 WC was a scam put in place to save England's reputation after their poor showing in previous WCs. England's win is not a one-play thing. What do you make of the unsanctioned aggressions on Pelé which took 2-time defending champions Brazil out? And the quarter-final game against Argentina, also decided by referees? Also, if you take away England's 3rd goal in the final, the whole momentum changes (for one, Germany doesn't have to push as much for an equaliser; also, English fans don't jump on the field to celebrate with one minute left when Hurst scores - goal that should've been disallowed for crowd trouble). Still, granted, England is a good team. But it has won nothing except a gift from FIFA. In the knockout round, it usually beats good medium teams (Denmark in 02, Belgium and overexcited, referee-disadvantaged Cameroon in 90, Paraguay in 86) and loses to the first real tough team it meets (Brazil in '02, Argentina in 98 and 86, Germany in 90 and 82). Basically, it's simple: they win when they're the favorites and lose when they're the underdogs. Sometimes, they also lose when they're huge favourites, like when Norway eliminated them in the 94 preliminaries. So, in 06, they should defeat Iran or Ecuador in the first knockout round before losing to a first-class team in the quarter-finals. IMO, Brazil could be eliminated by Holland, Italy, an African side or Argentina, but forget about England.
Yes they lost to Argentina. But the point still stands that they are not unbeatable, they have lost to Mexico and Argentina
you fail to mention all those matches were extremly close and could of gone either way, 2 penalty shootouts, a cheated goal, to dismiss englands chances is stupid
Sorry to say, but that's exactly my point: England has never won the big close games over the last 40 years. I'm not dismissing their chances. I just feel they're overrated. They can't be compared to teams like Italy, France, Germany or Argentina. They're not in the same class. A tough opponent, nonetheless, but so are Romania, Sweden, Denmark and Norway (all teams that have beaten England over the years).
You are correct, Except the finals in 70, 74, 78, 86, 98, 02, That's more than 3/4 of the worldcup championship matches I have in memory.
Played in the first-ever game, 3-time semi-finalists, 1-time champions, 12 participations, I think the French compare well to the 1-time champion, 1-time semi-finalist English team. France also has 2 European championship trophies. The numbers speak for themselves.
Ive never heard so much crap. Forget the past believe me i have , this 06 W.C so England's chances are high but i think the only team to knockout Brazil will be themselves if they play badly. Of course they are favourites to win but they can have an off day just like everyone else does . I can't predict who they will play because if i could i would have quite a bit of money on it, unbeatable no someone will do it to them.
After the draw, we'll have a better idea of who Brazil might face on the road to the final. I just don't see England beating them. England has great individualities, but they never seem to get it right. And recently they sure haven't convinced me they can change that. They had the easiest of qualifying groups in Europe, yet they managed to lose in Belfast, where even the Faroe Islands can go get a draw these days. They also had problems with Austria, whose last good team dates back to 1982. Sure, they beat Poland twice, but they always beat Poland since 1986. It's just not very impressive. They might prove me wrong, who knows, but it doesn't seem likely given their current form.
6 months is still a long way for a team to improve. Remember, Brazil were considered out even before the 02 world cup started. How would Ronaldo play? Do they have the depth? etc etc. It was all Argentina and France. I think we can say the same with England. Although they did lose to Northern Ireland, they really picked it up in the last few qualifying games. And, that win over Argentina was pretty good as well. I think England's team is better this time around than in 02...and if they pick the right friendlies and avoid major injuries, they should be well-prepared for a good cup. But of course, this all depends on their draw, although they were able to survive a tough draw in the last World Cup...
you failed to mention that england beat france 3-1 in 1982 and france had a very weak 2nd phase group with N Ireland, austria. Compared to england who had to play spain(hosts) and germany, and were unbeaten.
HE HE what about the team that has beaten them three times since the WC twice in 03 and again in 05...........MEXICO!!! dont laugh that hard It can happen!
Not only Mexico but any team in the tournament can beat them, you just never know. Ecuador beat Brazil too, but in the World Cup it's a competely different game and I don't really see any team stopping them from capturing their 6th World Cup. To me they're just too good of a team, but we'll see.
I don't get why people are so high on mexico. What have they ever won?? Same with the US.... Why are these teams ranked so high... Mexico is a tough team no question, but at some point you have to win a tourney.