Jump to content

World Cup Qualifiers


Recommended Posts

All the great teams go to World Cup 2010!

Brazil, Argentina, Netherlands, Spain, France, Portugal, England, Italy, Germany ...

I want to see the final between Brazil vs Spain. It will be the best game of this century.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 382
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am sure the Irish have forgotten all about it in a drunken haze.

I was looking forward to the potential of an England-Ireland-New Zealand-Australia group. You wouldn't have to worry about hooliganism in that group, they'd all be too sh!t-faced to know if they should be angry about something or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure the Irish have forgotten all about it in a drunken haze.

I was looking forward to the potential of an England-Ireland-New Zealand-Australia group. You wouldn't have to worry about hooliganism in that group, they'd all be too sh!t-faced to know if they should be angry about something or not.

Having either New Zealand or England in our group would be a dream come true. Certainly more interesting than the Brazil, Japan, Croatia draw we had last time.

We've had a very interesting rivalry with the Japanese since 2006 though. Despite performances at the Asian Cup it has been three years of good matches between what are currently the two best teams in Asia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
New Zealand has never played England before in Football. It would be great to have us in the same group as England and Australia!!!

I concur. Let's add Italy in the mix. It could end up like this:

Australia and England advance to round of 16 where:

England VS Australia (England Wins)

England VS Italy (England Wins or Draws)

England VS New Zealand (England Wins, by a huge margin)

Italy VS Australia (Australia Wins(2006 WC revenge) or Draws)

Italy VS England (England Wins or Draws)

Italy VS New Zealand (Italy Wins by a reasonable margin to huge margin)

Australia VS England (England Wins)

Australia VS Italy (Australia Wins or Draws)

Australia VS New Zealand (Australia Wins or gets a shocking defeat against old rivals)

At any rate Australia and England advance due to wins counted or goal difference. England ranked first, Australia second, Italy cause shock in the Football world as the reigning World Champions fail to advance to the round of 16 and as expected, New Zealand fail, going to 4th place perhaps sneaking away with a win.

This could potentially lead up to an Australia VS England final! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 teams qualified for the final tournament:

UEFA

* Denmark

* England

* France

* Germany

* Greece

* Italy

* Netherlands

* Portugal

* Serbia

* Slovakia

* Slovenia

* Spain

* Switzerland

AFC

* Australia

* Japan

* Korea DPR

* Korea Republic

CAF

* Algeria

* Cameroon

* Côte d'Ivoire

* Ghana

* Nigeria

* South Africa

CONCACAF

* Honduras

* Mexico

* United States

CONMEBOL

* Argentina

* Brazil

* Chile

* Paraguay

* Uruguay

OFC

* New Zealand

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always been against video replay technology (goalline technology, on the other hand, I've always been for) because every week on Match of the Day the pundits see 20 slo-mo replays of the same incidenct and come to different conclusions from each other! I've never thought it to be the great solution some think it to be. That position is quite hard to defend tonight, but I'm sticking by it for now - I'm not going to change my mind in the heat of the moment.

But this very same tecnology works very well for rugby. Also lets not forget that rugby is similar to football in terms of complexity of decision taking by the referee...

Link to post
Share on other sites

All 7 World Champions are in. By the order in which they joined the club:

- Uruguay (1930 and 1950)

- Italy (1934, 1938, 1982 and 2006)

- Germany (1954, 1974 and 1990)

- Brazil (1958, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002)

- England (1966)

- Argentina (1978 and 1986)

- France (1998)

Some interesting facts about them:

- All WC winners have hosted the event, with Germany, France and Italy hosting twice.

- All of them joined the club when playing at home, except for Brazil (Sweden 1959) and Germany (Switzerland 1954).

- No European country has ever won the WC outside the UEFA counstries, but the Soth Americans have won in all continents where the WC has travelled (Sweden 1958, Mexico 1970, Mexico 1986, USA 1994 and Korea/Japan 2002), including 2 outside the Americas both won by Brazil, being 1 in Europe.

- Until 1990, Brazil was the only of the champions not to have won the WC at home. Then Italy lost it in 1990 and Germany in 2006. France joined the club in 1998, being automatically added to this group by having failed to clinch the trophy in 1938. Brazil remains as the only one of them never to have won at home.

- Those countries have not only won all WC, but they have been keeping a monopoly of the spots in the final match. Since 1982, the final matches was played by a combination of those 5 of those 7 teams (Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Germany and France). Since 1966, the Netherlands is the only team never to have won the WC to play the final match. Before that it other 3 teams also broke this tight club Hungary (1938 and 1954), Czechoslovakia (1934 and 1962) and Sweden (1958).

- England is the team with the least final match appearances (1 in 1966) followed by Uruguay (1930 and 1950) and France (1998 and 2006) with 2.

- Brazil and Germany hold the record for final match appearances with 7 each, followed by Italy with 6 and Argentina with 4.

- Uruguay and England have never lost the final match of the WC.

- Germany is the only of the 7 to have lost more final matches (4) than won (3). France and Argentina lost as many finals as they have won.

- Brazil was the only of the 7 to have lost the final match at home in 1950.

- Argentina is the only of the WC winners never to have finished in either 3rd or 4th.

So, the WC Champions is a very exclusive club. It has been having a monopoly of the WC final matches and they seem unwilling to give up another seat. Entrance was given in the early years, with 5 new entrants in the first 8 tournaments and another one in the 11th WC. Since then, 20 years passed before they let another one in.

People talk about Spain... Well it is possible. But I would prefer to bet in one of the members of the G-7 up there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But this very same tecnology works very well for rugby. Also lets not forget that rugby is similar to football in terms of complexity of decision taking by the referee...

To me, it would be no problem at all to have the fourth official in the stands, watching a monitor and doing something useful as opposed to his pointless role at the moment.

Anyway, the FAI have demanded a replay but I doubt FIFA will follow their own precedent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fictional draw - I just did it with some piece of papers:

A - South Africa, Slovakia, Portugal, New Zealand

B - Brazil, Denmark, Algeria, Australia

C - England, Serbia, Ghana, Honduras

D - Spain, Slovenia, Uruguay, Japan

E - Germany, Netherlands, Paraguay, North Korea

F - Argentina, Greece, Cameroon, Mexico

G - France, Côte d'Ivoire, Chile, USA

H - Italy, Switzerland, Nigeria, South Korea

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cape Town is getting ready to welcome all your countries. Its Africa's turn.

GP_17_Nov_09_a.jpg

:lol: Yaay New Zealand's just glad to be there, even if it's just going to be for the first week! :lol:

:unsure: ...at least it'll remind us what it's like to be a minnow at a Rugby World Cup! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Yaay New Zealand's just glad to be there, even if it's just going to be for the first week! :lol:

:unsure: ...at least it'll remind us what it's like to be a minnow at a Rugby World Cup! ;)

3 games will be better than none!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish attacking-minded teams get rewarded for their posture in the 2010 WC. Chile, with half of its team ahead of the line in the middle of the field (whats is the name of tht line? ) nd Cosdta do Marfim deserve ti ger spost in tje quartefinals. I hope "El Mago Valdivia" and Drogba have an important role in the WC.

Sorry, maybe I grank a little too mcuh nefore posting here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fictional draw - I just did it with some piece of papers:

A - South Africa, Slovakia, Portugal, New Zealand

B - Brazil, Denmark, Algeria, Australia

C - England, Serbia, Ghana, Honduras

D - Spain, Slovenia, Uruguay, Japan

E - Germany, Netherlands, Paraguay, North Korea

F - Argentina, Greece, Cameroon, Mexico

G - France, Côte d'Ivoire, Chile, USA

H - Italy, Switzerland, Nigeria, South Korea

With thes griuos:

Round of 16:

Soth Farica x Switzeroand

Portugal x Italy

BraZIL x Frnce (yes's we'd lose fopr the 4th time dince 1986)

Autsrakua x chile ....

k, you do the rest cause im kinda handicapped righ now

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry about my last post. I'm so in love with gamesbids.com I can't go to sleep without reading its last posts, even if I'm utterly alcoholized. If you're wondering, By the way, "Leobas" is of Lebanese ascendanscy, not Scottish. Yep, call me racist oakydoky :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is no way the game can be replayed. To do so would cause absolute chaos for football. If it was replayed, then every match in the future would also be subject to these calls for a replay any time a referee misses an incident."

I think that's fair enough actually. If it were a less obviously deliberate infraction leading up to France's goal, such as an offside or 50/50 challenge, nobody would be calling for a replay, but the outcome would have been the same i.e the referee would have missed an incident and a goal would have stood which shouldn't have done.

So why would one circumstance lead to calls for a replay and the others not? It's the nature of the incident, that's all. And then where would FIFA draw the line between offering replays and not? It's harsh on Ireland but I agree with this decision.

I would like to see more use of retrospective punishment for incidents like this though. Henry should receive a two or three match ban, to be served at the World Cup (not during France's friendlies next year) and of course the ref and the linesman should be called to account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Rob, but to say the FIFA line is 'fair enough' is total and utter garbage. FIFA have set their own precedent and now choose to ignore them apparently because it would penalise a 'big team'. There is a rancid stench coming from Zurich today and it is the stench of hypocrisy, lies and cheats all condoned by an organisation that is no longer fit for purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Graham Poll was explaining this on this news yesterday. The last replay in Bahrain was because of an error in law i.e. the referee saw an incident and made completely the wrong decision, not because he didn't see it properly but because he didn't know the laws of the game properly! Now, you might argue from a players and fans point of view there's little difference, but there is a difference which is why claims of hypocricy are taking things too far. There is no precedent for a missed incident causing a replay of a game.

FIFA's biggest error was seeding the play-offs. On that issue, I am annoyed with them and because of that they certainly can be accused of favouring bigger teams when circumstances don't warrent it. On the handball incident, on the other hand, the blame lies mostly with Henry and partially with the officials for missing it. FIFA have no recourse to replay a game under those circumstances.

What if, as I said in my last post, France were awarded a dubious penalty for a 50/50 challenge and earnt their 1-1 draw that way instead? Would everyone be calling for a replay then? No, of course they wouldn't, because those things happen in football. What if the score was 2-0 to Ireland and Ireland's second goal had come from a dubious penalty? Would people be calling for a replay then? Of course they wouldn't, and those sort of things happen often in games. The only thing that was different about Wednesday was the nature of the infraction that was missed, and if you're going to start making value judgements on which games should and shouldn't be replayed on that basis, we're going to open up a whole new set of questions. Why were Man Utd awarded a replay for a missed foul and Wigan weren't etc etc? "Well, the FA obviously favours the bigger teams etc etc". And so it goes on ad infinitum.

You have to draw the line somewhere and saying the referee's decision is final, so long as he hasn't made a vital error in law seems perfectly sensible.

Henry deserves to be villified wherever he goes, and deserves a two or three match ban from the world cup. He is the antagonist in this, not FIFA. He's the one who cheated and caused this minor diplomatic incident, and he's the one who deserves a punishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...