Sneer |
12-04-2009 02:05 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveissucide
(Post 777849)
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.
|
I think it's great that countries that wouldnt normally have a chance in hell get the opportunity to qualify. Generally the qualifying sections are proportional in terms of quality. You do get anomalies like Australia but to be honest, fair play to them. Ireland didnt qualify because they didnt put the host of chances they had away, had they been better in front of goal they would be in SA, simple as that. The Henry debacle is just diverting attention away from this and making Ireland look like unlucky heroes. You were unlucky in a sense, a game should never be settled in such circumstances, but the fact is you werent good enough to kill off a very ordinary France. Teams like North Korea are beating teams of a similiar or greater quality and deserve their success.
As for the draw, to all you Americans, i'm going to enjoy the English getting one over on you for once:) I think we can reach the semis. On paper we're a team featuring one of the best strikers in the world, 2 of the best midfielders, on of the best centre backs and in my view THE best left back. Thats five world class players and im not even including Joe Cole, who when fit deserves to be considered as such. Same applies to Ferdinand when in form.
|