The Official World Cup 2010 Thread

[Unknown Soldier]

Originally Posted by loveissucide

It's Italy you're thinking of re:1966 and Portugal beat them 5-3 after being 3-0 down in one of the best matches ever.

New Zealand got there because of how poor the teams they had to play along the way were in the Oceania group.

It sounds a stunning match and yer your right it definately was Italy!

That`s because Australia are now in the Asian Zone leaving NZ the possibility of getting through a play off with an Asian team.

[lucifer_sam]

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Clint Dempsey has been on fire for Fulham lately. I could easily see him putting a few away against Algeria or Slovenia

and Tim Howard is reliable enough as keeper. i have no doubt they'll secure a victory against either Algeria or Slovenia, those aren't exactly the teams i'm worried about in their group.

i probably shouldn't close the book on them so quickly but considering the extent to which there is depth in the lineup consists of Onyewu, Beasley, Dempsey and Donovan, i doubt they'll make it past the second round.

still, it's gonna be fun to see a Ronaldo - Ronaldinho - Drogba matchup. i just wonder who's gonna get the call for the dive first.

[loveissucide]

Anyone else think they really need to rethink the qualification process to stop the New Zealands and North Koreas of the world getting in ahead of better sides like Ireland and Costa Rice purely based on geographic location?As a football fan I'd rather see the genuine best teams in the world playing it out rather than any poor teams from the Far East who don't deserve to be there(eg Saudi Arabia in 2002).

[Unknown Soldier]

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Yeah it was Italy

Edit: The winner of the Oceania group used to have to go into a play off with the 4th or 5th place South American team I assume that isn't the case now.

They now play against an Asian side and the 5th place South American side plays off against a central/north Amercian side (This year Uruguay beat Costa Rica)

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Originally Posted by loveissucide

Anyone else think they really need to rethink the qualification process to stop the New Zealands and North Koreas of the world getting in ahead of better sides like Ireland and Costa Rice purely based on geographic location?As a football fan I'd rather see the genuine best teams in the world playing it out rather than any poor teams from the Far East who don't deserve to be there(eg Saudi Arabia in 2002).

I sort of agree with this but I don't ever see FIFA doing anything about it. They want it to be an international event, If they just put the 24 best teams in only people from Europe, South America & Africa will get a look in with maybe Mexico , USA & Australia sneaking in.

My biggest issue is with the qualifying groups. I think there should be pre-qualifying for nations like San Marino, Faroe Island, Andorra and places like that.
I'm bored of seeing the teams of those places just sticking 11 men in the penalty area and not attacking for the whole game whenever they play a big name side.

[Unknown Soldier]

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

and Tim Howard is reliable enough as keeper. i have no doubt they'll secure a victory against either Algeria or Slovenia, those aren't exactly the teams i'm worried about in their group.

i probably shouldn't close the book on them so quickly but considering the extent to which there is depth in the lineup consists of Onyewu, Beasley, Dempsey and Donovan, i doubt they'll make it past the second round.

still, it's gonna be fun to see a Ronaldo - Ronaldinho - Drogba matchup. i just wonder who's gonna get the call for the dive first.

I don`t think Algeria will trouble anybody and its Slovenia or USA for second spot. Slovenia surprisingly put out Russia in the play offs and Russia were probably the most exciting side along with Turkey in the last Euro Champs (Neither of these two teams are there!) Slovenia got there because the home form was very impressive something they`ll not be able to fall back on in South Africa, so I don`t think Slovenia will be complete push overs. Their shorter passing game will definately contrast with the more athletic and disciplined approach of the USA.

[loveissucide]

My biggest objection is that the Euros have made the same mistake and expanded to 24 when it's claim to being better than the World Cup was that it had only strong sides in it.

I think a 20-team world Cup like the Rugby has would be the best idea,with 5 teams to a group.It'd still be enough football for the TV people,but only decent sides would get in.

[Unknown Soldier]

Originally Posted by loveissucide

Anyone else think they really need to rethink the qualification process to stop the New Zealands and North Koreas of the world getting in ahead of better sides like Ireland and Costa Rice purely based on geographic location?As a football fan I'd rather see the genuine best teams in the world playing it out rather than any poor teams from the Far East who don't deserve to be there(eg Saudi Arabia in 2002).

At least one crap team needs to get there, otherwise we`ll have no more 7-0or 9-0 matches.

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

At least one crap team needs to get there,

That's usually the host nation

[loveissucide]

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

At least one crap team needs to get there, otherwise we`ll have no more 7-0or 9-0 matches.

There's too many crap teams in that bunch though.