Printable View
England got very lucky during the first half; that is for sure but the second half was not so bad.
I enjoyed watching Mexico's game (though agree with you, Neely, that their defence was lacking)...
Wondering whether I should vote for them.
PS: Not long ago there was a piece of news that some financiers came up with some predictions that England would win the Cup... Does anyone remember that?
No, don't know anything about that, which financiers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
On the plus side England have qualified strong, have a good manager and a handful of good players and are due one surely, but on the negative they have lost to Spain, France and Brazil in friendlies and this is England we are talking about. The bottom line for me is that they are just not good enough. Where the head and wallet is potentially concerned you have to opt for Spain or Brazil or take the likes of Italy and France and lay off after the group stages a little.
I didn't realize how many pages this got up to already. Does Kazakhstan have a team in the World Cup? :p My son will probably be eligible to play for them in 20 years. :D
I also fancy Spain if Torres maintains his fitness (which I think he probably will, since he has been saving himself for most of the last quarter of the season judging how he played for Liverpool - although the same could be said of Gerrard I suppose).
Brazil also look a safe bet, but some of their players still perform like show-ponies - displaying none of that flowing team skill that earlier Brazil teams showed to such great effect.
England? Not with Rio in defence. It's nice to watch my team figure so strongly in their line-up (Spurs). Perhaps Huddlestone could have been blooded a little earlier in the game - and Defoe seems to have gone off the boil. But no - they're good going forward (although suddenly it's all counter-attack) but in defence they still resemble headless chickens far too often. Mexico were after all a mediocre team so the score did flatter Cappello's boys.
Out of interest Virgil, how is the world cup likely to go down in America? I mean will there be people following it generally do you think or will most people not even know that it is going on? Do people realise that the US have England in the first match? And finally, has football come on any in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Oh and Kazakhstan no doubt have some sort of team, but they are not in the World Cup, they haven't qualified. :bawling:
I watched the Greece Vs North Korea friendly today :shocked:? (2-2) and North Korea look quite sharp up front and good on the ball, might surprise one or two a little - really I'll do anything to avoid work...
The only reason I know of the World Cup is because of this thread, my coke can has a little "South Africa 2010" logo and just recently while in line at the grocer store I saw a magazine cover with two soccer players in their underwear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
England have a good chance this year. thought Mexico weren't bad, and they pressed for some time.
I'll be watching - on that emotional rollercoaster again.
The World Cup is watched fairly heavily in the US. Don't forget, the US probably has 40% or more of it's population that are either immigrants, first generation, or second generation Americans. 40% out of a country that is 300 million is probably larger than the population of most European countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I haven't talked to anyone about any of it yet. Unfortunately I won't even be in the country. I'm in Kazakhstan if you haven't seen any of my recent blogs. :wink5:
:biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I don't know, I'm not so sure. I think that they will have a good run out of the group and the next stage, but I think as soon as they come up against a really good team they won't be strong enough. I don't think that they are good enough at the back in particular, we'll see...Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Yes point taken about the immigrant population, though I was just thinking generally. Kazakhstan! :eek: I'll have to read about that later...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I think Virgie and I live in two different worlds, there's no way in heck that world cup is heavily watch in the US.
England have probably the best coach in the world. The jury is out on Rio, but he is the captain so he will play. I'd prefer Ledley King in there and make Gerrard skipper.
I think Crouch is a good option as he offers a threat just by his presence. That goal by Johnson was a screamer. Not sure about walcott though - good player, and perhaps with a lot in his future, but perhaps not yet. Both wright-Phillips and Lennon are threats down the flanks.
I would agree with you with Crouch, time and time again he does it for England as sub and I think it is about time that he has the opportunity to start properly. Wright Phillips has pace and I quite like him but I think he just doesn't seem to do quite enough, he comes across as a nearly man to me. Not sure about Lennon seems OK but yet to prove himself. Walcott is a strange one, but of a wild card maybe? Rio has been good in the past, but has had a few mistakes of late, though I agree that we have a top class manager. Overall though, I pretty sure that they are just not strong enough when all is considered.
Your interest in the world cup appears to be about the same as mine. However, one little snippet of news I read yesterday should make you smile. It appears that the USA knocked England out of the competion in 1950 at a time when England was believed by many to have the best team.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed