Well... common sense have to place USA and England as clear favourites. Slovenia hasn't a chance in hell... they are arguably the weakest team at the World Cup (along with New Zealand and North Korea). Algeria doesn't look good enough, but well... Ok, ok. Slovenia eliminated RUssia, while Algeria beat Egypt. But I see that a bit of a fluke. Slovenia should be rock bottom, Algeria has an outside chance, but USA and England should go through.
I saw Slovenia play all the elimination games in the Polish group. They are a very weak team and would get whooped in most other groups. Lucky for them they have a relatively easy group, but still... If they manage a win I will be surprised.
Oh please, don't be silly. Slovenia's qualifying group didn't have a traditional powerhouse #1 seed, but it had quite a bit of quality in terms of depth. Then they got a tough draw for the playoff. Slovenia isn't even close to the weakest team in the World Cup. They probably would've won their qualifying group if not for a snowstorm in Poland which gifted Slovakia a goal and a 0-1 win on the last match-day, but of course you already know that as you followed that group so closely. I know Russia wishes that Slovenia would've won their group. 1) England 2/3) USA/Slovenia (its a toss-up really) 4) Algeria
Dude... I'm Polish. And Poland and Czech Rep. played the worst football I can ever remember them playing (both teams are in total crisis)... apart from that they had Slovakia and Northern Ireland... Even New Zealand could win this group. Slovenia will be bottom of the group and each point they get will be deemed an enormous success. That said you are right - Slovakia is an even worse team and the fact that they actually overtook Slovenia just shows how weak in general the group was. I predict 1 point in total between Slovenia and Slovakia in the 6 matches they play. And placig Slovenia above Algeria and on par with the US (miles more talented and better team) is just ridiculous. Especially the one with putting Slovenia on par with the US (wtf?). It's like saying Slovakia is on par with Paraguay. I guess people have a tendency of overestimating European sides, but really... these are probably the weakest European teams at the World Cup i history... save maybe Slovenia and Poland in 2002.
Well, lets see how NZ does against Slovakia in the world cup. I know who my money is on. When talking about third or fourth-tier UEFA clubs so much depends on current form. Slovenia didn't win their group because of a slow start. But they are undefeated in their last 7-8 matches. Meanwhile Algeria is the very definition of inconsistency. That's why Slovenia are solid favorites to beat them.
England wins this group, USA runners up. Algeria comes in third, Slovenia last. The strange thing is that I see the USA beating or drawing England, and beating Algeria, but losing to Slovenia. The USA struggle against European teams, but for some reason they also come out very strong against "Big" UEFA teams.
i think it's not easy as it seems ,algeria will show the other squads that it's a respectful team ,it's hard to predect but i think england 1st and algeria second.
The US has historically not (with very few exceptions) done particularly well against any European side, good or bad; and particularly against Eastern European teams for some reason, which is why I think the Slovenia game could be a tough one for the US, even though on paper the US should win. Algeria...meh. I think the African teams are always overrated; great players, not always so great teams, at least historically, at the World Cup, and I don't think Algeria is one of the stronger African teams this time around.
Historically speaking Algeria never had great players, but always had great teams. This is not a sub-Saharan African team. In 1982 Algeria was the victim of the infamous Austria-Germany side, so they showed that they can do well. One thing in general: Never treat North African sides as sub-Saharan sides. Totally different mentality of players and style of play. Also significantly less talent. Historically the best team was Cameroon 1982-1990. Theoretically they had no great players, but still were arguably the best side at 1990 and showed their mettle in 1982 against the Italy (world champions in 1982) and Poland (bronze medalists). Were it not for dubious refereeing Cameroon should have eliminated either Poland or Italy in 1982 in the group phase. From subSaharan Africa the most consistent team is normally Ghana, who is tactically light years ahead of any other sub-Saharan team.
No great players? What about Madjer, Hadji, Naybet and others. The north african teams have different styles of play. You can't compare f.e. the style of morocco and tunisia. tunisia is more defensive. If i would compare the playstyle to other nations than it would be like this: Morocco(in their good times) = Argentina Egypt = Germany Tunisia = Italy Algeria = Turkey I remember that on Aljazeera someone said that Ghana plays more northafrican than subsaharan.
I never said NO TALENT. In general they have fewer talented players and make up for it in tactics. A typical sub-Saharan team has more talented players, but do not have the same organisational backbone. Ghana is usually an exception to the rule. i.e. Morocco 1998 is an exception to the rule, but that was probably the most gifter Moroccan team ever. In general it is no surprise that Egypt and Ghana have the best AFCoN track record. Cameroon had their successes mostly thanks to having the most talented team.
Interesting poll. Pick your two teams to advance.... but you can only choose one... I see England and the US going through, but England for some weird reason and nothing to do with skill or tactics, always has trouble with the US.
Interesting...The last match I watched, at Wembley, England never had to get out of first gear and cruised comfortably to a shutout victory.
Hey I didn't say we we're going to lose, we just seem to make it hard. But then I forgot that last Wembly match. It was a friendly with nothing at stake and no emototion. Shut them down in SA the same way, keep the tempers from running and we'll do them.
If you need a more calculated idea of who I feel will go through, then lets just look at qualifying for this one and how both teams faired. CONCACAF, IMHO is designed by FIFA to give US and Mexico free entry into every World Cup. Even though they both made harder work of it than usual. Perhaps because it’s been so easy in past years, they didn’t take it as seriously as they should. The US Came 1st in the group but gave up 10 points. 3 to Mexico, 4 to Costa Rica and drew with El Salvador (pop. 307 ) Even T&T whose population is less than El Sal. Held them to 1 goal. Perhaps it’s because of the potential fan base in the US that helps FIFA’s mindset in giving them a virtual bye every 4 years but they’re not really helping the US team get better. Again, IMO. Putting the US in a group like this is not doing them any favours. They tailor their game to the opposition and they virtually don’t have any! It’d be better for them if they were lumped in with the South American teams and sorted similar to UEFA’s nine groups. They’d get some real opposition a more realistic idea of what they’re up against. I don’t mean any disrespect to the likes of T&T. (They won 1 and drew 3) They did great holding the US to a goal but face it, they have limited resources. England had a better qualifying group than usual and we only dropped 1 game. (That we shouldn’t have) We have a decent set of players this time around but I’m sure we can bugger that up with some infighting and media shit stiring. Even so, all things going they way they should, we’ll come out top of the group. If the group stage goes well for us, it’ll set us up nicely, with confidence for the next round. As I said. Just my opinion….
Disagree with that. Obviously the USA has had a couple of famous wins against England, arguably the biggest shock result in international football in the 1950 World Cup and a win in the US Cup in 1993 against an England team at one of it's weakest points. But in the other 7 games they've played England has either thrashed the USA (as they did in the 4 games between the 1950 and 1993 losses) or have won in a pretty comfortable fashion with barely breaking a sweat (as they have done in the last 3 games). England and USA have pretty simlair styles, US soccer being heavily influenced by British soccer. And I feel that whilst a fixture against the USA does not really have special signifcance for England, it does for the USA. This effects the US mentality in these games in both postive and negative ways. What I think we'll see in this game is the USA really going for it, but at the same time I think should they go a goal down they will struggle. England for their part will need to be patient and on-guard.
1. No one gets free entry to the WC. The US had to play some pretty decent teams to qualify. Mexico is obviously a quality team, but Honduras, Costa Rica, and even Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and El Salvador aren't pushovers. I'd bet on Honduras and Costa Rica against a majority of teams from around the world. I'd also bet on even the unqualified likes of T&T, Jamaica, and El Salvador to get a result against some of the WC qualified teams. If qualifying from CONCACAF were a given the US wouldn't have failed to qualify for 40 years. It's not like CONCACAF is full of Andorra-sized minnows that would get stomped by anyone. 2010 WC playoff: Costa Rica 1-2 Uruguay 2006 WC: T&T qualified beating Bahrain 2-1 in playoff; 0-2 England, 0-0 Sweden, 0-2 Paraguay Costa Rica 2-4 Germany, 0-3 Ecuador, 1-2 Poland 2002 WC: Costa Rica 2-0 China, 1-1 Turkey, 2-5 Brazil 1998 WC: Jamaica 1-3 Croatia, 0-5 Argentina, 2-1 Japan Not great results, but CONCACAF teams outside the US and Mexico can give teams from around the world a tough game. I look forward to seeing Honduras at the World Cup because I think they can beat Switzerland and compete with Chile. 2. It doesn't matter at all that the US didn't win every game. Even if FIFA only allocated 1 slot for CONCACAF the US would have qualified.
That's what I said: A free ride..! They made harder work of it than they should have. I couldn't see them qualifying if the were sorted with South Ameican Counties without playing a better brand of football to raise their standard of play. And that's my point.
Only 1 slot would add more pressure to every game. It would add a completely different psychological perspective to the group. A situation where every game was important. As it stands USA can lose all their away games and make it. USA only topped the group because they scored a 94th minute goal versus costa rica in the final game.
The problem with US soccer fans is that their expectations are not in line with what the team is capable of producing. Before the 2006 world cup I watched an interview in which Eric Wynalda and Marcelo Balboa mentioned that the US was capable of winning the world cup. Give me a break. The US is a good team, but not a great team. Like most good teams, they are capable of beating the best teams in the world on any given day, but they are unable to do it on a regular basis. The Confederations Cup is a good example. They played four matches against the top teams in the world (Brazil twice, Italy, and Spain) but won only one. Here is the US recent record against non-Concacaf teams: USA 3 X 2 Sweden (home) USA 1 X 3 Italy (Confederations Cup) USA 0 X 3 Brazil (Confederations Cup) USA 3 X 0 Egypt (Confederations Cup) USA 2 X 0 Spain (Confederations Cup) USA 2 X 3 Brazil (Confederations Cup) Slovakia 1 X 0 USA (away) Denmark 3 X 1 USA (away) Netherlands 2 X 1 USA (away) Unimpressive, to say the least. The losses against Slovakia and Denmark are particularly concerning because these teams are arguably on the same quality level as the US. Yes, the US has a relatively easy group, but I don't think people should expect them to cruise into round 2. In my opinion, the US will lose their first game to England. Slovenia will be a problem, and Algeria is coming into this world cup with nothing to lose. It should be interesting.
I want every athlete in that tournament playing to win the World Cup and thinking they can do so. Including North Korea, New Zealand, etc. This mentality that you have to respect your station and merely be happy with playing to meet that level. I'll just call it right now---It's nonsense(and that's the family friendly word for what it really is). And it is as far from being a part of the athlete's psyche as one can be. The United States players should be playing to win the World Cup. Just as New Zealand's athletes should be playing to win the World Cup. Its why they are there.
I believe the poster was referring to the expectations of the fans, not the players. Which is a nice segue for me to ask that posters refrain from using broad brushstrokes in their comments as this is usually inflammatory and invariably wrong