World Cup Play-Offs (European)/International Friendlies Friday and Tuesday Thread

[Duty281]

First topic message reminder :

European Play-Offs First Leg:

Iceland v Croatia (19:00)
Greece v Romania (19:45)
Portugal v Sweden (19:45)
Ukraine v France (19:45)

International Friendlies:

England v Chile (20:00)
Ireland v Latvia (19:45)
Scotland v USA (20:05)
Turkey v Northern Ireland (19:00)

Obviously the stand-out tie for the play-offs tonight is Portugal v Sweden, or Zlatan v Ronaldo if you prefer. That tie looks to be the most balanced of the four, with just one spot in the World Cup Finals up for grabs. Ukraine will remain hopeful of catching France off their guard, but France will start as strong favourites. Greece should seal their place over a potentially dangerous Romanian side. Lastly, Iceland will be aiming to spring one of the biggest surprises in World Football - by defeating Croatia. I imagine that, should Iceland get there, they will be the smallest nation to ever make the World Cup.

On the friendlies side, Ireland (under new management), Scotland, and Northern Ireland will start their building process to next autumn's Euro 2016 qualifiers.

For England, this is the first of five friendlies in preparation for the 2014 World Cup. Chile will provide a test, one that England should overcome, against an injury-hit and virus-hit home team. During qualification, Chile averaged the most possession amongst the South American teams - surpassing the likes of Argentina, Colombia and Uruguay - and an average of 3.4 goals per game were scored in matches involving Chile. High tempo, high pressure - that's the Chile way. England are suffering with the absences of Gerrard, Wilshere, Lambert and Walker. Nevertheless, I expect England to triumph 2-0.

Expected England team (the Times): Ruddy, Johnson, Jones, Smalling, Cole, Lampard (C), Cleverley, Milner, Lallana, Rodriguez, and Rooney.

[super_realist]

Really? Neither have challenged in majors lately and both have similar world rankings and reach similar major milestones, eg, 4th Rd/QF, what's the difference? Both have a dozen or so teams/players standing in their way

Sounds like a pretty good comparison.

[mystiroakey]

I didnt realise Isner has been climbing the rankings .

I thought he was still miles back,,

Not a huge tennis fan,

yep that's an apt comparison

[super_realist]

No doubt Duty would think England a Nadal.

[mystiroakey]

erm maybe a tsonga or hass

two big names that are known about but rarely get past the big boys although give them very hard games..

[super_realist]

erm maybe a tsonga or hass

two big names that are known about but rarely get past the big boys although give them very hard  games..

Mmm, not a Tsonga as he's reached grand slam finals, but Hass, as an ageing also ran, capable of the odd shock would be a good description.

[westisbest]

erm maybe a tsonga or hasstwo big names that are known about but rarely get past the big boys although give them very hard  games..

Ah Tommy, shame he never won a slam.

Great comparison though.

[Steffan]

Come on Deutschland

[westisbest]

Interesting to see how we do against Poland.

First away game under the new management.

Going with a 2-2 draw.

Hope Sweden can qualify tonight.

[Duty281]

Thank you Mystiroakey.  Other posters:

I've never said England will win the World Cup.

I said they can win the World Cup, with the rub of the green and some players hitting a purple patch. England's minimum objective (IMO) should be to reach the quarters.

What's exactly over the top about that?

I'm not this massively optimistic, flag-waving, 1966-remembering, Jerusalem-wanting, xenophobic, racist Englishman that some people think I am!

Now Germany are playing a weakened team tonight, but so are England. Result doesn't matter. Hope Lallana can justify a bigger claim to the World Cup squad, and that Smalling underlines his credentials. Most importantly - I hope Joe Hart gets back into form.

[Duty281]

England would be creaming their pants if they'd done as well as Germany in competitions.

Credit where credit is due, Germany are in a different class to Engerland, always have been.

As for England reaching the final in 2002, pure conjection. If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. Bit like saying "if we'd scored more goals than them, we'd have won"

Look at Germany's route to the final! If England had that, it would have been a stroll in. Before losing to Brazil in the final.

England were the second best team at that tournament - they were the only team to get close to Brazil.

       

The Germans had to play Ireland, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia, Paraguay, USA, and South Korea to make the World Cup final (the last 3 by 1-0 margins) - probably the easiest route in history! Then they were outplayed by Brazil.

England at least got the better of Argentina, and thumped Denmark, before losing 1-2 to Brazil - the only team to score against Brazil in the knockout stages.

Swap England and Germany around in that tournament, and England go all the way to the Final.

[Duty281]

No doubt Duty would think England a Nadal.

Duty thinks it's illogical to compare tennis to football.

[super_realist]

You might as well say every team can win the World Cup in that respect.

I imagine the Russian, Belgian, Swiss, Greek and Chilean forums are all saying the same things about their teams with a good draw and rub of the green.

I think they'll reach the Quarters, which they usually do, but have seen nothing to suggest they are any better or should go any further than previous years when they have achieved precisely the same, and I'd say that a South American tournament will hinder them a little too.
So QF's would be Status Quo and precisely average.

[super_realist]

England would be creaming their pants if they'd done as well as Germany in competitions.

Credit where credit is due, Germany are in a different class to Engerland, always have been.

As for England reaching the final in 2002, pure conjection. If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. Bit like saying "if we'd scored more goals than them, we'd have won"

Look at Germany's route to the final! If England had that, it would have been a stroll in. Before losing to Brazil in the final.

England were the second best team at that tournament - they were the only team to get close to Brazil.

       

The Germans had to play Ireland, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia, Paraguay, USA, and South Korea to make the World Cup final (the last 3 by 1-0 margins) - probably the easiest route in history! Then they were outplayed by Brazil.

England at least got the better of Argentina, and thumped Denmark, before losing 1-2 to Brazil - the only team to score against Brazil in the knockout stages.

Swap England and Germany around in that tournament, and England go all the way to the Final.

And South Korea beat Italy and Spain en route. So what makes you think England would have beaten them if Italy and Spain couldn't?

There are, as you should know absolutely no guarantee that England would have  beaten Paraguay or USA.  Especially given how poor they were against the likes of USA and Trinidad in recent World Cups.

It's all if's and maybe's and completely pointless specualtion. THey didn't have that draw, so we'll never know whether they would have made the final that route or whether they would have tried to play the matches on their hands.

[Duty281]

I think about 10 teams can win the World Cup, in no particular order:

Spain, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Netherlands, Portugal, England, Uruguay, Belgium.

[Duty281]

England would be creaming their pants if they'd done as well as Germany in competitions.

Credit where credit is due, Germany are in a different class to Engerland, always have been.

As for England reaching the final in 2002, pure conjection. If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. Bit like saying "if we'd scored more goals than them, we'd have won"

Look at Germany's route to the final! If England had that, it would have been a stroll in. Before losing to Brazil in the final.

England were the second best team at that tournament - they were the only team to get close to Brazil.

       

The Germans had to play Ireland, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia, Paraguay, USA, and South Korea to make the World Cup final (the last 3 by 1-0 margins) - probably the easiest route in history! Then they were outplayed by Brazil.

England at least got the better of Argentina, and thumped Denmark, before losing 1-2 to Brazil - the only team to score against Brazil in the knockout stages.

Swap England and Germany around in that tournament, and England go all the way to the Final.

And South Korea beat Italy and Spain en route. So what makes you think England would have beaten them if Italy and Spain couldn't?There are, as you should know absolutely no guarantee that England would have  beaten  Paraguay or USA.  Especially given how poor they were against the likes of USA and Trinidad in recent World Cups.

It's all if's and maybe's and completely pointless specualtion. THey didn't have that draw, so we'll never know whether they would have made the final that route or whether they would have tried to play the matches on their hands.

Italy were cheated out of it, and Spain were rank awful in that tournament. Of course it's not a guarantee that England would have made it to the final if they were swapped around with Germany, but they would have been the most likely to make the final on that side of the draw.

[super_realist]

I think about 10 teams can win the World Cup, in no particular order:

Spain, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Netherlands, Portugal, England, Uruguay, Belgium.

Well you're narrowing it down to something more rational, but I really don't think England, Portugal or Belgium have the quality or experience, nor the players capable of winning big matches.
Admirable hope, but the vast majority of people would say England are in the second tier of teams, and not this time capable of winning.
All opinion of course,

[super_realist]

England would be creaming their pants if they'd done as well as Germany in competitions.

Credit where credit is due, Germany are in a different class to Engerland, always have been.

As for England reaching the final in 2002, pure conjection. If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. Bit like saying "if we'd scored more goals than them, we'd have won"

Look at Germany's route to the final! If England had that, it would have been a stroll in. Before losing to Brazil in the final.

England were the second best team at that tournament - they were the only team to get close to Brazil.

       

The Germans had to play Ireland, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia, Paraguay, USA, and South Korea to make the World Cup final (the last 3 by 1-0 margins) - probably the easiest route in history! Then they were outplayed by Brazil.

England at least got the better of Argentina, and thumped Denmark, before losing 1-2 to Brazil - the only team to score against Brazil in the knockout stages.

Swap England and Germany around in that tournament, and England go all the way to the Final.

And South Korea beat Italy and Spain en route. So what makes you think England would have beaten them if Italy and Spain couldn't?There are, as you should know absolutely no guarantee that England would have  beaten  Paraguay or USA.  Especially given how poor they were against the likes of USA and Trinidad in recent World Cups.

It's all if's and maybe's and completely pointless specualtion. THey didn't have that draw, so we'll never know whether they would have made the final that route or whether they would have tried to play the matches on their hands.

Italy were cheated out of it, and Spain were rank awful in that tournament. Of course it's not a guarantee that England would have made it to the final if they were swapped around with Germany, but they would have been the most likely to make the final on that side of the draw.

How do you know? It's pure wishful thinking. Give Spain or Italy that draw and you'd say exactly the same.

It's as good as saying. "I don't know, so I'll just say england are the best option". It's baseless and an argument from ignoarance

[Duty281]

So let's swap England and Germany around and look at that side of the draw from 2002:

England, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Ireland, USA, Mexico, and Paraguay.

Who's the best team out of that? I would say England, less than a year after winning 5-1 in Munich, and less than a month after defeating Argentina.

Ergo, England would be the most likely to make the final.

[super_realist]

Well, you would say that because you're English and constantly ham them up as being better than they are or were.

You can't decide "most likely" in such a scenario. There isn't any data for it. However, seeing as you like pointless stats, they also got beat by Germany in that qualifying group when they won 5-1 and also only drew with Greece and only then with a 93rd minute goal. So there is no "most likely"

ANyway, it's completely useless as that wasn't the draw and they didn't do it.

You might as well say. If Wales had 11 Pele's they'd win.

[Champagne_Socialist]

So let's swap England and Germany around and look at that side of the draw from 2002:

England, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Ireland, USA, Mexico, and Paraguay.

Who's the best team out of that? I would say England, less than a year after winning 5-1 in Munich, and less than a month after defeating Argentina.

Ergo, England would be the most likely to make the final.

Duty I suppioort England but you are talking nonsense now. You can't say things like England would have reached the final if we had Germany's route etc because it didn't happen, we never had germany's route so we will never know. We were not impressive at WC 02 either we drew with sweden, beat a poor argentina 1-0 and drew with nigeria.

Look at WC 2010 england had the easiest route to the semi final but somehow finished second in their group behind the usa meaning they got Germany in the 2nd round and we lost 4-1.

[Stella]

England had a very good side in 2002 and I believe we could have been in the final, if we had missed Brazil, but the fact is we didn't. We will never know.

[Stella]

So let's swap England and Germany around and look at that side of the draw from 2002:

England, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Ireland, USA, Mexico, and Paraguay.

Who's the best team out of that? I would say England, less than a year after winning 5-1 in Munich, and less than a month after defeating Argentina.

Ergo, England would be the most likely to make the final.

Duty I suppioort England but you are talking nonsense now. You can't say things like England would have reached the final if we had Germany's route etc because it didn't happen, we never had germany's route so we will never know. We were not impressive at WC 02 either we drew with sweden, beat a poor argentina 1-0 and drew with nigeria.

Look at WC 2010 england had the easiest route to the semi final but somehow finished second in their group behind the usa meaning they got Germany in the 2nd round and we lost 4-1.

We beat a decent Denmark side 3-0, with ease,

[Champagne_Socialist]

So let's swap England and Germany around and look at that side of the draw from 2002:

England, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Ireland, USA, Mexico, and Paraguay.

Who's the best team out of that? I would say England, less than a year after winning 5-1 in Munich, and less than a month after defeating Argentina.

Ergo, England would be the most likely to make the final.

Duty I suppioort England but you are talking nonsense now. You can't say things like England would have reached the final if we had Germany's route etc because it didn't happen, we never had germany's route so we will never know. We were not impressive at WC 02 either we drew with sweden, beat a poor argentina 1-0 and drew with nigeria.

Look at WC 2010 england had the easiest route to the semi final but somehow finished second in their group behind the usa meaning they got Germany in the 2nd round and we lost 4-1.

We beat a decent Denmark side 3-0, with ease,

is that meant to impress me?

[Stella]

So let's swap England and Germany around and look at that side of the draw from 2002:

England, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Ireland, USA, Mexico, and Paraguay.

Who's the best team out of that? I would say England, less than a year after winning 5-1 in Munich, and less than a month after defeating Argentina.

Ergo, England would be the most likely to make the final.

Duty I suppioort England but you are talking nonsense now. You can't say things like England would have reached the final if we had Germany's route etc because it didn't happen, we never had germany's route so we will never know. We were not impressive at WC 02 either we drew with sweden, beat a poor argentina 1-0 and drew with nigeria.

Look at WC 2010 england had the easiest route to the semi final but somehow finished second in their group behind the usa meaning they got Germany in the 2nd round and we lost 4-1.

We beat a decent Denmark side 3-0, with ease,

is that meant to impress me?

Couldn't care less if it does or doesn't, but to win a last 16 game that easily says we were pretty handy.

[Champagne_Socialist]

England finished 2nd in their group behind sweden, difficult to say england would have reached the wc final when we are finishing 2nd in our group and we are drawing with nigeria and sweden.

[super_realist]

So let's swap England and Germany around and look at that side of the draw from 2002:

England, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Ireland, USA, Mexico, and Paraguay.

Who's the best team out of that? I would say England, less than a year after winning 5-1 in Munich, and less than a month after defeating Argentina.

Ergo, England would be the most likely to make the final.

Duty I suppioort England but you are talking nonsense now. You can't say things like England would have reached the final if we had Germany's route etc because it didn't happen, we never had germany's route so we will never know. We were not impressive at WC 02 either we drew with sweden, beat a poor argentina 1-0 and drew with nigeria.

Look at WC 2010 england had the easiest route to the semi final but somehow finished second in their group behind the usa meaning they got Germany in the 2nd round and we lost 4-1.

We beat a decent Denmark side 3-0, with ease,

is that meant to impress me?

Couldn't care less if it does or doesn't, but to win a last 16 game that easily says we were pretty handy.

Or that Denmark had a bad game. Which can happen to anyone. Scorelines don't always tell the whole story.

[Champagne_Socialist]

So let's swap England and Germany around and look at that side of the draw from 2002:

England, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Ireland, USA, Mexico, and Paraguay.

Who's the best team out of that? I would say England, less than a year after winning 5-1 in Munich, and less than a month after defeating Argentina.

Ergo, England would be the most likely to make the final.

Duty I suppioort England but you are talking nonsense now. You can't say things like England would have reached the final if we had Germany's route etc because it didn't happen, we never had germany's route so we will never know. We were not impressive at WC 02 either we drew with sweden, beat a poor argentina 1-0 and drew with nigeria.

Look at WC 2010 england had the easiest route to the semi final but somehow finished second in their group behind the usa meaning they got Germany in the 2nd round and we lost 4-1.

We beat a decent Denmark side 3-0, with ease,

is that meant to impress me?

Couldn't care less if it does or doesn't, but to win a last 16 game that easily says we were pretty handy.

Against denamrk, anything less than a win would be a massive failure. fact England failed to beat sweden and nigeria says it all.

England had an easy route to the semis if we had won our group. Would have had senegal in the 2nd round and then turkey in the quater finals and then brazil in the semis.

[Stella]

England finished 2nd in their group behind sweden, difficult to say england would have reached the wc final when we are finishing 2nd in our group and we are drawing with nigeria and sweden.

Well yes, but teams generally get stronger as the tournies go on, and as we beat Denmark, and gave Brazil a better game than Germany did, in our last two games, I'd say we were.

2006 and 2010 were embarrassing imo. Poor, negative Football.

[Stella]

So let's swap England and Germany around and look at that side of the draw from 2002:

England, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Ireland, USA, Mexico, and Paraguay.

Who's the best team out of that? I would say England, less than a year after winning 5-1 in Munich, and less than a month after defeating Argentina.

Ergo, England would be the most likely to make the final.

Duty I suppioort England but you are talking nonsense now. You can't say things like England would have reached the final if we had Germany's route etc because it didn't happen, we never had germany's route so we will never know. We were not impressive at WC 02 either we drew with sweden, beat a poor argentina 1-0 and drew with nigeria.

Look at WC 2010 england had the easiest route to the semi final but somehow finished second in their group behind the usa meaning they got Germany in the 2nd round and we lost 4-1.

We beat a decent Denmark side 3-0, with ease,

is that meant to impress me?

Couldn't care less if it does or doesn't, but to win a last 16 game that easily says we were pretty handy.

Or that Denmark had a bad game. Which can happen  to anyone. Scorelines don't always tell the whole story.

No they don't but we were much better on the day.........opinion..............and won 3-0.........fact.

[super_realist]

Senegal beat Sweden, who topped England's group.
Turkey were also pretty handy in that Tourney so whether they won the group, or came second there isn't any guarantees at all.

[Champagne_Socialist]

England finished 2nd in their group behind sweden, difficult to say england would have reached the wc final when we are finishing 2nd in our group and we are drawing with nigeria and sweden.

Well yes, but teams generally get stronger as the tournies go on, and as we beat Denmark, and gave Brazil a better game than Germany did, in our last two games, I'd say we were.

2006 and 2010 were embarrassing imo. Poor, negative Football.

Brazil did have 10 men for 35 minutes.

[Champagne_Socialist]

Senegal beat Sweden, who topped England's group.
Turkey were also pretty handy in that Tourney so whether they won the group, or came second there isn't any guarantees at all.

this is just going to go round in circles.

[Stella]

England finished 2nd in their group behind sweden, difficult to say england would have reached the wc final when we are finishing 2nd in our group and we are drawing with nigeria and sweden.

Well yes, but teams generally get stronger as the tournies go on, and as we beat Denmark, and gave Brazil a better game than Germany did, in our last two games, I'd say we were.

2006 and 2010 were embarrassing imo. Poor, negative Football.

Brazil did have 10 men for 35 minutes.

As seen MANY times, 10 men who can keep the ball can be very difficult to break down. First half we were better, second, they were, and deservedly won.

[Stella]

Italy of course could also lay claim for thinking they may have reached the final. There was something seriously wrong with the officiating in their Korea game.

[super_realist]

I think so. Truth is, England haven't reached a semi in a very long time, and haven't looked like a team capable of challenging to win, so all the idle speculation and straw clutching " if Ronaldinho had slipped on a banana skin would have won" doesn't prove anything does it?

England are a second tier nation who are a considerable distance behind a raft of teams far more likely to win the world cup. I think that sums it up fairly enough.

[Champagne_Socialist]

England finished 2nd in their group behind sweden, difficult to say england would have reached the wc final when we are finishing 2nd in our group and we are drawing with nigeria and sweden.

Well yes, but teams generally get stronger as the tournies go on, and as we beat Denmark, and gave Brazil a better game than Germany did, in our last two games, I'd say we were.

2006 and 2010 were embarrassing imo. Poor, negative Football.

Brazil did have 10 men for 35 minutes.

As seen MANY times, 10 men who can keep the ball can be very difficult to break down. First half we were better, second, they were, and deservedly won.

Don't get what you are talking about, Brazil had 10 men and won, brazil were the better team. What are you debating?

[super_realist]

If that was the case that 10 men teams are hard to break down, then you might as well make the argument that England should start off with 10.
Who knows you might make a semi-final

[Stella]

super

We deserved to lose against Brazil, but were playing some good stuff, post group games, and had a good chance of getting further, if we had avoided them. BUT, we should have won the group. No excuses.

[Stella]

If that was the case that 10 men teams are hard to break down, then you might as well make the argument that England should start off with 10.
Who knows you might make a semi-final  

I said teams who can keep the ball  

[mystiroakey]

Thank you Mystiroakey.  Other posters:

I've never said England will win the World Cup.

I said they can win the World Cup, with the rub of the green and some players hitting a purple patch. England's minimum objective (IMO) should be to reach the quarters.

What's exactly over the top about that?

I'm not this massively optimistic, flag-waving, 1966-remembering, Jerusalem-wanting, xenophobic, racist Englishman that some people think I am!

Now Germany are playing a weakened team tonight, but so are England. Result doesn't matter. Hope Lallana can justify a bigger claim to the World Cup squad, and that Smalling underlines his credentials. Most importantly - I hope Joe Hart gets back into form.

No your not mate- and you make fair points,

Lallana and smalling are two of my main focuses tonight

[super_realist]

super

We deserved to lose against Brazil, but were playing some good stuff, post group games, and had a good chance of getting further, if we had avoided them. BUT, we should have won the group. No excuses.

I don't get all this "should" stuff. Why "should" England be entitled to anything? All we ever hear is "should" or "would".

[Stella]

super

We deserved to lose against Brazil, but were playing some good stuff, post group games, and had a good chance of getting further, if we had avoided them. BUT, we should have won the group. No excuses.

I don't get all this "should" stuff. Why "should" England be entitled to anything? All we ever hear is "should" or "would".

Should have won, to help us avoid Brazil. Not saying we deserved to win it.

[super_realist]

Ah right, I thought you meant you "should" have beat Sweden and Nigeria because you "should" be beating teams like that.

Incidently, hope Sweden win tonight.

[Champagne_Socialist]

super

We deserved to lose against Brazil, but were playing some good stuff, post group games, and had a good chance of getting further, if we had avoided them. BUT, we should have won the group. No excuses.

Should have won the group I agree. Same in 2010 we should have won the group.

[Stella]

Ah right, I thought you meant you "should" have beat Sweden and Nigeria because you "should" be beating teams like that.

Incidently, hope Sweden win tonight.

Not too worried, but Ronaldo is great to watch, so maybe Portugal?

[mystiroakey]

I prefer watching Zlatan when he is on form.. There is no sexier or punishing player than him in World football IMO.

But Ronaldo is better week in week out .

I will again be watching both games(friendly and sweden v portugal) . lets hope both are slightly better than last week!!

[super_realist]

Ronaldo is scum and a diving cheat so I'd love to see him crying in Stockholm tonight.

[John Cregan]

I prefer watching Zlatan when he is on form.. There is no sexier or punishing player than him in World football IMO.

But Ronaldo is better week in week out .

Ah Mysti, have you been drinking. Ibrahimovic would not get a place in the Bayern Munich team, let alone be the most "punishing player in world football".............he's a very good player, but not one of the greats

[super_realist]

Zlatan has a better goal ratio than Ronaldo.

[Guest]

Ibrahimovic never shows up on the biggest stage...not a great.

[Sponsored content]