WORLD CUP 2006 / GERMANY

[Brad]

Congratulations Austraila and good luck. Hopefully you won't start in the same group as Brazil.

←

Chris: I'm not sure that would make that much difference. Let's face it - for each the strugglers, there is going at least of the super teams per group. It's the other two the likes of Australia will be hoping to beat.

Is there always a group of death? How are the group lineups decided? Anyone?

←

Yes, there always seems to be one. Sorry if I got you offended but you're no different than most fans. As far as Red's comment about Australia not being an underdog to several teams, including the US, that has to be a joke. The US side is one of the better teams, with realistic chances of making the quarters. Australia and teams like Trinidad and Tobago will be teams happy to be there.

As far as rooting for the blue bloods, I make no excuses for rooting for the likes of Spain and Brazil and, as I am a fan of the Premiership, England. If I have to choose Spain always comes first on my list. Viva Espana!

[JohnJ]

[Alexander Hawkins]

As for the World Cup, congratulations to Australia, I am very happy they have qualified. Most tournaments have one or two surprise teams and you never know how far any team might go (anyone remember North Korea in 1966).

Far too young, unfortunately, but there was a wonderful documentary about the North Koreans on TV over here about a year back. The people of Middlesborough - contrary to various parochial tendencies in the country at the time, especially with regards to 'foreigners' - completely took the Koreans to heart, and supported them fervently throughout the tournament. And then Eusebio's performance to knock them out...One of the greatest in the history of the game? It'd have to be there or thereabouts!

Red, as Kiwi living Australia, I reckon that's very funny and pretty cool, too. There's some truth in what you say, but I still think it was a cracker of a final.

Wow, have to completely disagree with you there Red. As Kenny says, the final was a classic and England, while not pretty, were very effective and most definitely the best team. It would have been a travesty if Australia had won.

Actually, I should have qualified what I said. I completely agree with you - the final was a great game, and, much as it pains me to say it, we probably deserved it . But I do think that game was aberrant for our campaign that tournament. I mean the French played such beautiful stuff, and it didn't seem fair that we could just blunderbuss our way through play like that. [Mind you, maybe aesthetically speaking the French were more beautiful for being the heroic losers .]

Off on a tangent: How things have changed. The Wallabies have lost seven in a row and Fiji almost beat the six nations champs, Wales. Blimey. And there's even a possibility of GB/NZ final in the tri-nations rugby league!

I like the Welsh a lot, but I was really sorry for the Fijians there! The rugby league final - if it does shape up that way - will be feisty after that Vagana tackle.

The All Blacks Union side though at the moment...My god. Frighteningly good.

On the brutality thing: Aussies admire good, hard play as much as anybody. But it's a fine line. And ironically in the end, the graceless gamesmanship of Uruguay, not just on the field, probably tipped the balance Australia's way in a funny sort of way.

Again, my mistake - I didn't make my point well. I've got no time for this lack of grace either...Mine was only a defence of the odd 'industrial tackler' within the context of the game! No - certainly you're right - I don't go for gamesmanship in the slightest.

[Alexander Hawkins]

Congratulations Austraila and good luck. Hopefully you won't start in the same group as Brazil.

←

Chris: I'm not sure that would make that much difference. Let's face it - for each the strugglers, there is going at least of the super teams per group. It's the other two the likes of Australia will be hoping to beat.

Is there always a group of death? How are the group lineups decided? Anyone?

←

Yes, there always seems to be one. Sorry if I got you offended but you're no different than most fans. As far as Red's comment about Australia not being an underdog to several teams, including the US, that has to be a joke. The US side is one of the better teams, with realistic chances of making the quarters. Australia and teams like Trinidad and Tobago will be teams happy to be there.

As far as rooting for the blue bloods, I make no excuses for rooting for the likes of Spain and Brazil and, as I am a fan of the Premiership, England. If I have to choose Spain always comes first on my list. Viva Espana!

←

Don't get me wrong - I would never need any excuses for rooting for Spain and Brazil! I shall be watching both very closely, and would genuinely love both to do well. I suspect the Brazilians will be phenomenally hard to beat. However many they may concede, it will take a fantastic defence to shut them out (one reason I think John Terry may loom disproportionately in England's campaign in Germany).

As for Spain, history dictates that they will fail to trouble the scorers again in a major tournament, but I'm all in favour of them doing well.

Argentina - another Hispanic country I really fancy this year. Riquelme!!!!!!!!

[Alexander Hawkins]

Brad - I take the point to an extent. Of my original list:

Croatia

Poland

Switzerland

Ukraine

Ecuador

Paraguay

Costa Rica

Trinidad and Tobago

United States

Angola

Ghana

Ivory Coast

Togo

Tunisia

Iran

Japan

Saudi Arabia, and

South Korea

I think several are tough games, and we could probably argue about underdog status.

The US would be one team for sure. Tunisia as well. Conceivably Ghana if Essien gets his thing going.

But I stand by my assertions for the others. Croatia are most certainly not what they were a few years back. Poland? Decent, but no better than average! Ukraine - again, not what they were a few years back. Switzerland? Hats off to anyone who can beat Turkey that well, but really...

Management always seems to be a problem for the Socceroos. I mean, if you look at some of the players at their disposal, they are VERY good Premiership players. They just don't seem to meld as a team.

[kenny weir]

Management always seems to be a problem for the Socceroos. I mean, if you look at some of the players at their disposal, they are VERY good Premiership players. They just don't seem to meld as a team.

←

Always USED to be a problem. Not any more. It's not just Hiddinck, but a new national league and management from top to bottom.

Yes, Australia will rightly be considered a minnow. But there are always surprises.

For myself, and plenty of others around Australia, it's just great to feel like I've got a stake in the World Cup that goes beyond mere spectator, and in the A-League with Melbourne Victory, too. I'll remain a union, league and "other" fan, but football is where it's at.

Brad: I AM a different kind of fan from you. This is a time for rejoicing as the last few stragglers make it through and everyone one looks forward - together - to next year. Sneering and sour grapes are not part of my world.

I, too, will be rooting for Spain. Other favourites will include: US, S Korea, Japan, all the Africans, Netherlands.

From what I've gathered from this morning's Australian papers: Seedings system decided on December 3, draw made on December 9.

As there quite a few teams playing in the cup for the first time, and the process is being kept secret, FIFA is on a hiding to nothing.

One story looking at this subject also tipped scorn on the No.7 ranking for US. Comments?

Edited November 17, 2005 by kenny weir

[scottb]

One story looking at this subject also tipped scorn on the No.7 ranking for US. Comments?

I don't what kind of bogus point system they use to determine these rankings but I promise you the US is NOT in the top ten best national teams.

I think they are probably in the top 20 and at that level on a given day they can beat just about anyone. Similarly, Australia could beat just about anyone on a given day as well, but they would do it as underdogs.

To say they would not be underdogs against the US shows that you either haven't seen the US with its top team playing a game that mattered (I will remind you about outplaying the Germans in 2002 despite the 1-0 scoreline) or you've taken the European view that Americans suck at football no matter what contributions they make to Europeans teams, or results they get at the international level.

How do you figure the Aussies to be favorites over Ecuador and Paraguay who qualified ahead of Uruguay whom you scraped out a win with PKs?

I also think you underestimate a few of those European teams. Anyone who qualifies out of Europe is playing some good football.

Edited November 17, 2005 by scottb

[kenny weir]

scottb: I realise you probably didn't address your last post to me, but ...

I consider Australia will be rightly be considered underdog against all but a handful of sides. But like you, I think they will rightly like their chances against a whole bunch more. The World Cup always has unexpected wrinkles.

[Brad]

I'm not sure about Paraguay but I think Australia should at least be considered the equal of Ecuador as they have a few EPLers on the team.

If I appeared ungracious, sneering, whatever. Anyway, I do congratulate you and the Australian fans and I'm sure it's very exciting for everybody down there. I hope they do well since that can only help the game down there. I also feel good for the likes of Harry Kewell since qualifying for the smaller nations can be a very difficult proposition and who knows when they may get back there.

[kenny weir]

I'm not sure about Paraguay but I think Australia should at least be considered the equal of Ecuador as they have a few EPLers on the team.

If I appeared ungracious, sneering, whatever.  Anyway, I do congratulate you and the Australian fans and I'm sure it's very exciting for everybody down there.  I hope they do well since that can only help the game down there.  I also feel good for the likes of Harry Kewell since qualifying for the smaller nations can be a very difficult proposition and who knows when they may get back there.

←

Thanks, Brad. The reaction here is unbelieveable.

The current boss of Australian Rules footy said several years words to the effect that "every time the Socceroos fail to make the World Cup, we crack open the champagne". Eat your words, chump.

And as with the new African countries, having Australia at the party can only help cement even more football's place as the paramount sporting esperanto.

It's great.

All the other team sports at which Australia excels - league, union, cricket - are by-products of a long-gone colonial era and played very well by just a few countries. And cricket seems to suffering greatly from such a small gene pool.

And, yes, it was last chance time for a few of our guys, though not necessarily Kewell.

Edited November 17, 2005 by kenny weir

[marcoliv]

well i can say that i'm very happy with the last teams qualified for the WC

Kenny, you can pray for Australia to be with France on the first round and then you'll have a real chance to go through. i'm not saying the Socceroos don't have their chances, i think they do, but the easiest path is....

i'm particularly happy for Ivory Coast (i lived there for 4 years) and maybe they will be one of the surprising teams

now let's see what the draws will bring to Raymond Domenech and his wonderful coaching abilities....

Marcus

PS:Allez les Bleus!

[Alexander Hawkins]

One story looking at this subject also tipped scorn on the No.7 ranking for US. Comments?

I don't what kind of bogus point system they use to determine these rankings but I promise you the US is NOT in the top ten best national teams.

I think they are probably in the top 20 and at that level on a given day they can beat just about anyone. Similarly, Australia could beat just about anyone on a given day as well, but they would do it as underdogs.

Agreed. I don't know how the FIFA system works, and I don't subscribe to it, really. What I would say is that there are several teams who the USA could beat, certainly, but this would be as underdogs. I'd suggest this is illustrated by your choice of a 1-0 defeat as illustrative of US pedigree!

To say they would not be underdogs against the US shows that you either haven't seen the US with its top team playing a game that mattered (I will remind you about outplaying the Germans in 2002 despite the 1-0 scoreline) or you've taken the European view that Americans suck at football no matter what contributions they make to Europeans teams, or results they get at the international level.

I certainly don't take the view that Americans suck at football (Canadians? Yes ). But contributions to European teams? I'm not sure about that...Who were you thinking of? The Americans in the Premier League are average at the very best (and incidentally, I would have thought, not as good as the Australians in the EPL, although at present, they are fairly ordinary. To his credit, though, Cahill was very good last season).

To an extent, I think this European vs. American thing is a bit of a straw man. I don't know how any other Europeans feel, but it's not really an issue in the UK as far as I'm concerned. I think to the extent that there is - or has been - any bias, it's an anti 'Non-European-or-South American' [i.e. encompassing Australia and the US] bias rather than an anti US bias. But, as I say, it's not an issue over here. [i don't know - might the same be true of basketball? We have an inferiority complex over here - but are UK players treated with any degree of scepticism/disdain in the NBA?]

How do you figure the Aussies to be favorites over Ecuador and Paraguay who qualified ahead of Uruguay whom you scraped out a win with PKs?

Well, it's clear that it doesn't work like that! Northern Ireland beat England a couple of games ago. England just beat Argentina. We don't figure Northern Ireland to beat Argentina, though...Likewise, Spain had to qualify through the playoffs as you know, but we don't figure the Serbians (who qualified automatically) to be a better team. The examples could go on and on.

I also think you underestimate a few of those European teams. Anyone who qualifies out of Europe is playing some good football.

←

I don't think Europeans (English people? I don't know, I can't speak this generally!) typically underestimate European teams. ANY English fan will tell you how tough the Poles are, and always have been. Likewise, we remember the Bulgarians and the Romanians of the mid-90s and the Croatians and Ukrainians (to a lesser extent) of the late 90s... the Czechs now, etc. etc.

No, I'm aware of how good (or otherwise) many of these European teams are. Goodness knows I watch too much football. BUT, many are beatable, and Australia have undoubted quality in their ranks (even if some is fading slightly).

[scottb]

Red, I guess the most obvious example of lack of respect for US players in the EPL to me would be Fulham. Yes, they have two Americans on the roster but they are continually trying to replace them because, "if we're playing Americans, we must be weak in that position."

Fulham has acquired no less than 4 strikers since McBride's arrival. All he's done is produce goals both by scoring and setting up others yet they are continually trying to replace him!

Carlos Bocanegra was played out of position at left back until their center backs were so horrible (including English national Zat Knight) they had no other choice but to play him and he's performed well. He and Goma are holding down the middle with much more success. By the way, they brought in Jensen and Christianval to replace him as well. The Fulham board is full of fans who don't appreciate what these guys do for their team.

[scottb]

Well, it's clear that it doesn't work like that! Northern Ireland beat England a couple of games ago. England just beat Argentina. We don't figure Northern Ireland to beat Argentina, though...Likewise, Spain had to qualify through the playoffs as you know, but we don't figure the Serbians (who qualified automatically) to be a better team. The examples could go on and on.

I wasn't basing that opinion on one result. It's a marathon and not a sprint to qualify out of South America. It takes more than just one lucky result make the cut.

[Jim R]

What I would say is that there are several teams who the USA could beat, certainly, but this would be as underdogs.

←

I'm not sure I understand that comment. It would make more sense to me if a term such as "elite" or 'upper tier" or somesuch was insterted before the word "teams".

I'd suggest this is illustrated by your choice of a 1-0 defeat as illustrative of US pedigree!

Scott mentioned that loss to the Germans for obvious reasons, I think. It's not simply that we lost by only one goal to a traditional powerhouse. Most observers seemed to think that the US outplayed the Germans in that match- and of course we are referring here to a rather important and pressure-packed match. In assessing any national team, shouldn't we take such things into account? At any rate, we lost, and we only deserve what we've earned, but I don't think we have to rely solely on such stories to illustrate our pedigree- it's just part of the overall picture.

Scott posted:

I also think you underestimate a few of those European teams.  Anyone who qualifies out of Europe is playing some good football.

Red responded:

I don't think Europeans (English people? I don't know, I can't speak this generally!) typically underestimate European teams.

Maybe I'm the one who's confused, but I thought Scott's comment was directed at Kenny. Anyway, I agree with your comments regarding a lot of teams (even some very good teams) being beatable. After all, this whole thing (despite the long rigors of qualifying in the first place, and the challenge of advancing out of the first round) really comes down to how well a team plays over a short stretch or on a given day (after the first round is over). The "best team" won't always win, and it's not like our perceptions of who the "best" teams are can really be established in a generalized sense anyway, as they would be in (for example) a best of 7 series in baseball or basketball.

[Alexander Hawkins]

Red,  I guess the most obvious example of lack of respect for US players in the EPL to me would be Fulham.  Yes, they have two Americans on the roster but they are continually trying to replace them because, "if we're playing Americans, we must be weak in that position." 

Fulham has acquired no less than 4 strikers since McBride's arrival.  All he's done is produce goals both by scoring and setting up others yet they are continually trying to replace him! 

Carlos Bocanegra was played out of position at left back until their center backs were so horrible (including English national Zat Knight) they had no other choice but to play him and he's performed well.  He and Goma are holding down the middle with much more success.  By the way, they brought in Jensen and Christianval to replace him as well.  The Fulham board is full of fans who don't appreciate what these guys do for their team.

←

[i should say sorry if anything I've posted here seems petulant - got in VERY late from a gig last night and was keen to get stuck into some football! Put it down to the 'emotional venting' bit in the thread title! ]

Scott - when you put it like that, I agree. McBride has been treated pretty shabbily, and Bocanegra too. But, I'm still not sure it's to do with any anti-American bias...I just feel that Premier League clubs are too cut throat, too hell bent on winning, to care about stuff like that! There are so many other players who've been treated like dirt as well, that it's difficult to pin down any overriding principles. I agree, Bocanegra is probably a better player than the (let's face it) decidedly average Zat Knight.

[Alexander Hawkins]

Well, it's clear that it doesn't work like that! Northern Ireland beat England a couple of games ago. England just beat Argentina. We don't figure Northern Ireland to beat Argentina, though...Likewise, Spain had to qualify through the playoffs as you know, but we don't figure the Serbians (who qualified automatically) to be a better team. The examples could go on and on.

I wasn't basing that opinion on one result. It's a marathon and not a sprint to qualify out of South America. It takes more than just one lucky result make the cut.

←

Fair point. I'd forgotten about the S.American system (too caught up in our recent qualifiers over here!). Maybe my point was more historical/emotional/impressionistic than empirically based at the present time: it somehow feels like the Aussies should beat teams such as Ecuador/Paraguay...For example, the only Ecuadorian internationals I can think of playing in England (there may be others whom I'm forgetting, of course), are on the bench at (Championship) Southampton [or have they left? I can't remember!].

But - I eat humble pie here. Your point is definitely well taken with respect to the marathon S.American qualifications!

[Alexander Hawkins]

What I would say is that there are several teams who the USA could beat, certainly, but this would be as underdogs.

←

I'm not sure I understand that comment. It would make more sense to me if a term such as "elite" or 'upper tier" or somesuch was insterted before the word "teams".

Jim - absolutely. I apologise and again plead tiredness . I should have said 'upper tier' or 'elite' etc. And, to make myself clear, I don't think anyone could argue that there aren't a majority of teams in world football whom the USA wouldn't start against as heavy favourites (what an ugly sentence that was..!) For instance, of the home nations (despite the game against Scotland - I was on a gig at the time - did it finish as a draw?), the USA would fairly comfortably see off N.Ireland, the Republic, Scotland, and Wales. And although they'd be underdogs to England, they'd be a dangerous match-up (I don't think that pre-season tour really taught us anything in this respect).

And - to make myself clear (first time for everything, etc. etc.) - I think the US would be clear favourites against the Aussies. All I meant to suggest was that the Aussies would (should) look on that as a game they might take something from with a concerted performance (as opposed, for example, to a game against (say) Brazil, Argentina, Italy, etc. - against all of whom it's possible to play exceedingly well and come away empty-handed).

In any case - I hope I've extricated myself from any holes here. Didn't mean to sound like an EPL-centric 'Old Europe' guy. Believe me, English parochialism p*sses me off more than anything, and I'd be delighted (and you may quote me when in happens, as I hope it does) for England to be beaten by almost any side come the Summer. This country will be INTOLERABLE if we win. Believe me, I suffered it through a rugby world cup win, so if we do it in the footy... -_-

[Jim R]

Red,

[Gary]

[in any case - I hope I've extricated myself from any holes here. Didn't mean to sound like an EPL-centric 'Old Europe' guy. Believe me, English parochialism p*sses me off more than anything, and I'd be delighted (and you may quote me when in happens, as I hope it does) for England to be beaten by almost any side come the Summer. This country will be INTOLERABLE if we win. Believe me, I suffered it through a rugby world cup win, so if we do it in the footy...       -_- 

←

Dont worry Red if the unlikely does happen & we do win it I'll be here to make it INTOLERABLE for you even on here .

[J.A.W.]

[in any case - I hope I've extricated myself from any holes here. Didn't mean to sound like an EPL-centric 'Old Europe' guy. Believe me, English parochialism p*sses me off more than anything, and I'd be delighted (and you may quote me when in happens, as I hope it does) for England to be beaten by almost any side come the Summer. This country will be INTOLERABLE if we win. Believe me, I suffered it through a rugby world cup win, so if we do it in the footy...       -_- 

←

Dont worry Red if the unlikely does happen & we do win it I'll be here to make it INTOLERABLE for you even on here .

←

I don't think the England team will give you the chance to do so...

[Gary]

Yes its highly unlikely that we will win but I will be hoping we can do it & celebrating if we do.

Heres some odds for the tournament -

http://www.ladbrokes.com/lbr_portal?action...&LAYOUT=default

2006 World Cup

Brazil 3/1

Argentina 6/1

England 7/1

Germany 7/1

Italy 7/1

Holland 9/1

France 11/1

Spain 12/1

Portugal 20/1

Sweden 25/1

Czech Republic 28/1

Croatia 50/1

Ivory Coast 50/1

Serbia and Montenegro 50/1

Ukraine 50/1

Mexico 66/1

Paraguay 66/1

Poland 80/1

USA 80/1

Australia 100/1

Switzerland 100/1

Ecuador 125/1

Japan 125/1

Korea Republic 150/1

Ghana 200/1

Tunisia 200/1

Iran 250/1

Costa Rica 350/1

Togo 350/1

Angola 500/1

Saudi Arabia 500/1

Trinidad and Tobago 750/1

[scottb]

This is another pet peeve of mine: Why is Mexico considered to have a better chance of winning than the US. We are their superior of late and have only lost to them once since we beat them in the World Cup and that loss came at Azteca Stadium 2-1. Unless the WC is held as Azteca, I'll take the Yanks everytime.

[Brad]

I have no quarrel with the top 11 or 12 since they should be considered the powers but it does strike me as odd that the US is ranked so low. I would have ranked them at or slightly below the Czech Republic. After all, they did make it to the quarters and are only getting better. On the other hand, I'm not sure France deserves to be there.

[Brad]

Not world cup football, but any opinions on Roy Keane leaving Manchester?