Games: England-sweden 3-2 England-paraguay 1-2 England-trinidad 4-0 Sweden- Paraguay 2-1 Sweden-trinidad 3-0 paraguay-trinidad 4-0 Table: England paraguay sweden trinidad
Your ignorance is laughable to say the least.... Do we really need to compare England's starting eleven to Swedens? I really don't think you want to go there...
Yeah, and we haven't even got to Lampard and Gerrard yet... Oh, and a Capt. named Beckham... Don't get me wrong, Sweden has a good team, but it's Englands time.....
Sweden has better balance in their side, that's the problem for England. Although I think it's 50/50 between a draw or an England win by 1 goal. Paraguay are good team, but I just don't seem them getting anything other than two narrow defeats against England and Sweden, with a good win over Trinidad and Tobago. I think T+T will play very well against England, as they have so many England based players who will want to make an impression, not only for pride but for possible transfers as well. Teams like that always play above their usual level.
no doubt any player from england with any trace of trinidad blood will suddenly come out of the woodwork . Jay lloyd samuel suddenly decided that he was loyal to trinidad the moment it looked like they were heading to the WC.
Yeah i don't think T & T will be as easy as it looks, they'll be playing out of there skins and desperate to pull and upset. But we should still have enough to beat them with no worries.
I can't help thinking this thread is rather disregarding Paraguay unjustifiably - look at some of their qualification results: drew with Brazil at home (OK, lost 4-1 away ), drew with Argentina in Buenos Aires and beat them at home. Don't get too complacent when it comes to the likelihood of England and Sweden beating them!
They will be very competitive for sure, however the South American teams outside Brazil and Argentina are rarely impressive, least of all for a tournament being held in Europe. You are missing out some of Paraguay's other results - losing to Bolivia, Columbia (at home), 4-1 to Peru and only drawing 1-1 with them at home, Ecuador by 5-2 and also to Uruguay. Doesn't exactly say a great current defensive record, despite the comments about them. Although they have a talented young striker in Santa Cruz, he is not a world class match-winning talent in the mold of Rooney or Ibrahimovic. Cardozo his striker partner will be 35 at the world cup.
I don't think this is an easy group, but it's definetely easier than 2002, Nigeria-Sweden-Argentina-England. Oh and who qualified from that? Sweden and England. Sweden have a great team, and always have one or two players awkward players that can win the game for them. Paraguay is a decent team and if this WC was played in Korea or South America then it would be even harder. But European conditions favour England, and I expect England to win, although definetely can't garantee it. Trinidad & Tobago won't be any easy game, but if England don't win that game then there is no excuse. I expect all three teams to beat Trinidad and Tobago. Which is why I think this group is harder than other people might think. Because if England even draw against Trinidad & Tobago, chances are Paraguay and Sweden have 3 already. So if Trinidad and Tobago lose all games that means Paraguay, Sweden, and England have three points in the bag. England should beat Paraguay IMO. I have a feeling that Sweden will draw against Paraguay. So that's 4 points for Sweden and Paraguay and 6 for England. So then it comes down to England v Sweden. Sweden is England bogey team, England like we all know haven't beaten them in 38 years, no other team comes close except Romania for being Englands bogey team. This could be down to two things 1.) Sven favourite quote "dat is futbol....for sure" or more likely 2.) Sweden has a playing style that goes against England style of play. I don't think England will beat Sweden. I think it will be a draw or England lose. So I see this group going two ways...... England 7 Sweden 5 Paraguay 4 Trinidad 0 OR (most likely) Sweden 7 England 6 Paraguay 4 Trinidad 0 Aslong as England qualify I'm happy, I have a feeling Germany aren't going to win their group.
Paraguay made the Round of 16 in 1998 and it took home team and eventual champions France 115 minutes to score on them and win 1-0. And Laurent Blanc had to come up from defense to do it. Paraguay also made the Round of 16 in Korea and went about 85 scoreless minutes with Germany until Neuville gave the Germans the 1-0 win. Paraguay aren't the typical South American team. They're good in the air, play long balls and crosses well, and defend stoutly. From experience and organizational standpoints, I think Paraguay were the toughest team to come out of Pot 2.
In both games against France and Germany, Paraguay were outplayed with 10 players behind the ball, never threatening to win and were defensively a lot stronger than they are now, a team which leaked 9 goals in 2 games against Boliva and Peru. I expect them to only go down by 1 goal when they lose in this group, but I can only see them winning against Trinidad and Tobago. They just don't have enough quality to get ahead of Sweden and England. Santa Cruz is their big name, but he is clearly not on the same level as Ibrahimovic and Rooney, the other players have an even bigger talent gap.
I think a healthy Santa Cruz can rival Ibrahamovic and Rooney. However, that's IF he's healthy. Their entire match strategy was dashed when he went down against Germany in the first 10 minutes in 2002. Paraguay's strategies only work in the knockout stage, and even that is debatable. Yeah, getting draws is fine in the knock-out stage because you can go to PKs. However, three draws in the group stage will get you nowhere. For South America's sake, I'd like Paraguay to go on. To be honest, looking at it from a confederation standpoint, things dont look too good. Ecuador and Paraguay probably won't go on. Argentina can, but they got a really tough group again.
It is very interesting to look at the goals for and goals against statistics for the three sides in qualifying. SWE 10 matches 30 goals for 4 goals against. ENG 10 matches 17 goals for 5 goals against. PAR 18 matches 23 goals for 23 goals against. Sweden really has very good statistics here. We are still very solid in defense but manage to score more goals than any team in qualifications except Portugal. England are also solid on defense but they have not scored as many goals. Paraguay on the other hand lets in as many goals as it scores. In 8 more matches they still did not manange as many goals as Sweden. This shows that Paraguays defense certainly is not as solid as stated earlier. I don't think that Paraguays defense will be up to par in defending against the likes of Ibrahimovic, Rooney, Owen, or Larsson for that matter. I doubt their attack will be good enough either. The last game between Sweden and England certainly will be interesting
At first glance it looks promising for England and Sweden. But I just hope this doesnt happen: (or some variation of) England - Paraguay Draw England - Sweden Draw England - T&T Eng Win (3-2) Sweden - Paraguay Draw Sweden - T&T Swe Win (3-0) Paraguay - T&T Para Win (2-0) So Eng/Para/Swe get 5 points T&T get 0 points Then England go out of goal difference....bad...doesnt seem so unlikely.
I really think the key team in this group is going to be Paraguay. They have talent with Santa Cruz, but their defense as others have said is just not up to par. Now yes, they advanced last time around, but barely (1 more goals for than South Africa) and played just an OK game against the Germans. Having said all that though, they still have a talented bunch of players and did pull off some very nice results in the group stage. It really depends on which Paraguay team shows up. The thing is they're too inconsistent, which is why I only see them obtaining 4 points. Also, if Sweden and England both could get out of a group with Argentina and Nigeria in 2002, it's hard to say they won't get out of a group with Paraguay and T&T. T&T will most likely make their games close, but I can't see them doing much of anything. Basically, England and Sweden are just a step above Paraguay and T&T IMO. Much more depth, lots more talent overall and just more experience generally speaking. Not sure which one will finish first, but I'd give it around a 90% chance they both advance. Here are my final standings: England 7 Sweden 5 Paraguay 4 T&T 0
Hmmm... A promising draw. The SWE-ENG game will indeed be key, and very difficult to win for us. That statistic of England not beating us for X years is meaningless, however. It will not make me sleep easier at night. Player by player, the only spots where Sweden has players of equal or better class than England is keeper (Isaksson) and forward (Ibrahimovic). Fortunately for us, this is still a team sport , and I give 0.3/0.4/0.3 odds for a win/draw/loss.
A big problem for the english players will also be the imense preasure they will be under during the WC. England has a good chance of winning this WC if they start playing as a real team. They are far from favourites but it is possible. England and Sweden will go through.
Easy draw for England. Even better is that their last game is against Sweden (close 2nd best in the group), which means England could very well wrapped up their spot for the Rnd of 16. I can't imagine England losing points to T&T, and Paraguay is not that strong when playing outside their own country. Sweden is a tough adversary, but in all likelyhood England probably only needed a draw to ensure going through as Group B winner. So... fantastic draw for England.
No way. I saw Santa cruz earlier this year in champions league, and he wasn't even a starter for Bayern while Ibrahimovic is always the starter and star of Juventus. Juventus is also arguably a better team than bayern. Zlatan > Santa
Lets be honest Sweden has never had a group of world-class players but what we do have is work ethic and teamology beyond anything the "great lions" can portray. I have lived in the UK for 5 years and you English never stop to amaze me, England this England that, it’s an unhealthy amount of gullibility within your borders which always will affect your performances. Look at Rugby, Cricket, Football (although everybody knows that it was the Scots who invented the way football is played nowadays) all sports you invented but that you are far from dominating (fair enough you won the Rugby world cup with Johnny and the boys, but everybody knows that the NZ All blacks are the true champions of the world). The problem for England is not when you play the likes of Spain, Brazil, Italy, Germany etc; you have a top draw team which will perform in these games. The constant issue for you lot is when you play teams who are far from "glamorous" but have a work ethic that you would only dream to have. You always fail in big tournaments because you always consider yourself better than most teams; it’s a constant problem which is spread from supporters, journalists to players. Everybody in this country automatically consider the domestic players to be the best in the world just because they are born English or they play in the Premiership. England have Wayne Rooney, Spain has Fernando Torres, Brazil has Robinho and Diego etc.. There are many teams with "Rooney's"...... Rooney is not a 30+ Striker yet so what is so fearful, has he been the player who turned United into a champion’s league winning side? Rooney is a young very talented kid who still has to show that he can be consistent on the world stage (you know as well as I know that the kid has some serious personal issues which easily can put him in familiar Best and Gascoigne role).... I have no doubt regarding Rooney’s potential as one of the world’s best players, but every time the kid meets top draw defender does he come out victorious? no, the kid still has to learn and that England rely so much on Rooney to produce is for me only the proof of your weakness, look at Euro2004 as soon as Rooney got injured you became mediocre. Teams who relies on the squad more than a player will always win in the end, this is the one reason why England never managed to win over Sweden since 1968. The friendly draw in 2001 when the Owen’s and the Beckham’s played the likes of Hakan Mild and his Allsvenskan team-mates only proves my theory, as well as your humiliating defeat of Denmark and Northern Ireland.
A rather one-sided rant. You forget England are the Rugby World Champions and won the Ashes. You also have the usual mistaken impression that everybody in England thinks our players are the best and are favourites, this is complete rubbish. Nobody critises the talent of the players and the likely success of the team more than the domestic fans and media. It is only idiots who read selective tabloid articles and listen to overthetop comments from americans like "three lions" who claim otherwise. Do England have a significant number of players of a high quality? Yes, just look at the Fifa and European player awards. Do England have a team which should win this group and make good progress into the knockout stages, barring luck and avoiding Brazil? Yes. Are England better than the likes of Sweden? Yes, on paper, which is all we can discuss right now. Sweden have better balance and consistency, and more often play to their potential, however that potential is smaller than Englands with the players they have. With all due respect to the likes of Linderoth and Mellberg, they are not on the same level as Gerrard and Terry. Lets run through the other players as well eh? As for Rooney, his wonderful performances at Euro 2004 and for England speak for themselves. As do many of his one-man performances in a belowpar Man United side. You are criticising him for not winning every game, that is a utterly ridiculous, no player can do that. Certainly I'd much rather him than anyone on the Swedish team, with all due respect to them. England do lose a considerable amount without him, any team would, however that was only 2/3 of a game in Euro 2004 against the host country which had a lot to do with bad tactical decisions by the manager.