Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The 2010 World Cup

"By Jingo, old bean, may I suggest you put on your spectacles"

"Dash it, the Algies have scored! Are they allowed to do that?"

"You may have won the War of Independence, you jumped-up colonial, but don't think for one minute you're going to win this match."

"Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia. It's all the same place, isn't it?"

"Did you see that ref? He played it along the ground!"

etc.
 
covisio said:
I don't agree with that - they're not the best in the world but they're good enough. Performance of the outfield players is far more critical.
Click to expand...

looking at the world cups since 1966 how often has the english team with "good enough" keepers made it:

into the finals: 0 times
at least into the semi final: 1 (achieving 4th place)

and now compare them with the the germans who in general have superiour keepers but not so great outfield players as England:

into the finals: 5 times (winning 3 times)
at least into the semi finals: 7 times


combined with the european champion ship since 66 those numbers increase to
for england: 0 finals and 3 semi finals
and for germany: 11 finals and at least into semi finals: 14 times (out of possible 21)

keepers sometimes make all the difference
 
takao said:
looking at the world cups since 1966 how often has the english team with "good enough" keepers made it:

into the finals: 0 times
at least into the semi final: 1 (achieving 4th place)

and now compare them with the the germans who in general have superiour keepers but not so great outfield players as England:

into the finals: 5 times (winning 3 times)
at least into the semi finals: 7 times


combined with the european champion ship since 66 those numbers increase to
for england: 0 finals and 3 semi finals
and for germany: 11 finals and at least into semi finals: 14 times (out of possible 21)

keepers sometimes make all the difference
Click to expand...

Well I'll grant you we may well have beaten Germany in 1990 if Shilton hadn't had all the agility of a giant sequoia. But it was two of our most 'reliable' outfield players that blasted the ball over, relieving Germany's keeper from having to actually do anything.

Oh, and we may have had a chance against Brazil if 'Big' Dave Seaman had bothered to jump two inches. So granted, it may have made a difference in isolation there, too.

If, if, if.
If Maradona hadn't put the ball in with his arm.
If Gascoigne hadn't got a yellow card.
If Beckham hadn't been sent off.
If Rooney hadn't been sent off.
If Waddle and Pearce were better at taking penalties.
If Owen's knee hadn't popped out.
If Beckham hadn't jumped out of a crucial tackle.
If Rooney's metatarsel hadn't broken.

Stand by what I say. It would be lovely to have a "World Class" keeper, but you don't necessarily need one to win the World Cup
 
I'm going to have to work through the opening games tomorrow :)( but with one eye on the live text) but I will be able to catch the England-USA match.

It's finally here!!!

I actually had a nightmare the night before last that USA got whalloped 7-1 by England in the first game. Made me wake in a cold sweat! England are usually my second team when it comes to international tournaments, but as far as I'm concerned it's 1776 (or 1812) all over again for the duration. :D

As for the opening games, Mexico are a good side who I feel underperform at these tournaments. They might crush the South Africans...or lose. But I'm predicting a 2-0 win for El Tri. Uruguay is no pushover either, France will have to work for a win. I'll go with a 2-1 to the French.
 
theITGuy said:
I know it's a little early to stoke the fires...but:

Football is a simple game; 22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans win. [Gary Lineker]

;) Gute Nacht my English friends...:D

-J.-
Click to expand...

Hi ITG,

You got that last bit wrong.

You have no English friends.

Tally ho.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
I actually had a nightmare the night before last that USA got whalloped 7-1 by England in the first game. Made me wake in a cold sweat! England are usually my second team when it comes to international tournaments, but as far as I'm concerned it's 1776 (or 1812) all over again for the duration. :D
Click to expand...

This morning I woke up and was thinking, what if USA wins on Saturday, but England go on to win the whole thing. Will anyone back in England have survived long enough to see that it happened?
:p
 
aloofman said:
This morning I woke up and was thinking, what if USA wins on Saturday, but England go on to win the whole thing. Will anyone back in England have survived long enough to see that it happened?
:p
Click to expand...

USA have an outside chance of winning the group if England play badly. I feel like both the Slovenia and Algeria games are certainly winnable, so a draw with England could see us top the group on goal difference. The English media would be apoplectic...
 
Lord Blackadder said:
USA have an outside chance of winning the group if England play badly. I feel like both the Slovenia and Algeria games are certainly winnable, so a draw with England could see us top the group on goal difference. The English media would be apoplectic...
Click to expand...

true but for slovenia and algeria the US game is also winnable ;)
i think for the US it's not really an advantage to have the england game first ... since algeria vs slovenia is in no way possible going to end in a draw

honestly it's hard to rate teams before the first round is played.. in fact i'm pretty sure that this WM we will see more upsets in terms of results
it's perhaps easy to guess the top team in a few groups with exeptions being Group A, E, and G, but runner ups ? very difficult
 
Lord Blackadder said:
USA have an outside chance of winning the group if England play badly. I feel like both the Slovenia and Algeria games are certainly winnable, so a draw with England could see us top the group on goal difference. The English media would be apoplectic...
Click to expand...

I don't think either of us would quibble about whether USA finishes first or second!

There are only a few things we can be sure of. One team will do much better than everyone expected. One of the top teams will completely choke. Even money seems to be on Argentina right now, since there are so many ways that Maradona can screw it up.

The one that surprised me a little bit was that Brazil or Germany have made the final game in 13 of the last 15 World Cups. And those other two years they finished third. It seems very likely that at least one of them will be in the semis.

I have a weird hunch that the Netherlands will also make the semis, but I don't have any reason to think so.
 
theITGuy said:
Other than maybe Germany vs Italy...there's nothing quite like watching the 3 Lions battle Die Mannschaft...

Brasil vs Argentina can be good as well...

-J.-
Click to expand...

though i never heard "die mannschaft" being used around here as sort of nick name ... mostly used is "die DFB-Elf" (= "DFB-eleven")

not that the germans aren't creative with making up words in regards to football but with their national side .. not so much

edit: the netherlands have a strong attacking team this year but as usual the problem is in the defense... which by all means is either old or average at best ... and without van der saar i'm looking forward to 4:3 etc. results by them ;)
 
takao said:
true but for slovenia and algeria the US game is also winnable ;)
i think for the US it's not really an advantage to have the england game first ... since algeria vs slovenia is in no way possible going to end in a draw

honestly it's hard to rate teams before the first round is played.. in fact i'm pretty sure that this WM we will see more upsets in terms of results
it's perhaps easy to guess the top team in a few groups with exeptions being Group A, E, and G, but runner ups ? very difficult
Click to expand...

I agree that predictions will be much easier once the first round of matches is played. In terms of Group C, I believe that USA face three very tough games. I feel confident, but none of the three matches carry any guarantees of a result for us.

aloofman said:
There are only a few things we can be sure of. One team will do much better than everyone expected. One of the top teams will completely choke. Even money seems to be on Argentina right now, since there are so many ways that Maradona can screw it up.

The one that surprised me a little bit was that Brazil or Germany have made the final game in 13 of the last 15 World Cups. And those other two years they finished third. It seems very likely that at least one of them will be in the semis.
Click to expand...

Argentina are such a talented squad, if they DO choke everyone will blame Maradona. But they could easily go deep, even to the final, given their star-studded roster (plus Martin palermo).

As for the Germans, they always perform well at the WC. I expect the same this time around, and I would have been shocked not to see them in the semis even before you mentioned that stat about them making so many finals. With that being said, I don't see them overcoming Spain or Brazil, my predicted finalists.

That leaves room for one more semifinalist...I'd love to see a surprise. France or Italy are obvious possibilities, but I'm hoping for a shock semifinalist.
 
covisio said:
Well I'll grant you we may well have beaten Germany in 1990 if Shilton hadn't had all the agility of a giant sequoia. But it was two of our most 'reliable' outfield players that blasted the ball over, relieving Germany's keeper from having to actually do anything.

...
Click to expand...

Dave Beasant joined as third choice keeper because David Seaman injured his thumb during training in Italy. Not sure of the rules in 1990 re substituting goalkeepers, but it might have been possible to put Beasant on just before the end of extra-time; England had only used one sub - Trevor Steven. The Chelsea goalie was pretty, pretty good at saving penalties. Anyone know the rules back then?

Cheers,
OW
 
I don't think there would be anything in the rules to prevent such a substitution so long as it was done before the end of extra time – and that the team still had substitutions available, of course. Back then you could make two changes and as you say we'd only made one at that point.

But was Beasant actually one of the named substitutes in that match, or was our stand-by shot stopper on that occasion Chris Woods?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

I think Beasant was on the bench and was supposed to be brought on as a specialist penalty keeper. I did hear the reason why he wasn't brought on but I can't for the life of me remember it...



All academic really, that Waddle penalty is still travelling and is expected to reach Jupiter in 2025.



In other news YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHH WORLD CUP!!!! *ahem*. I really am excited.



I've got my '86 Lineker replica shirt out ready (a good slim fit shirt) but stupidly I've managed to get myself a job that starts on July 5th.
 
Given England's historic troubles with shootouts, I'm surprised Capello didn't choose a keeper strictly on his penalty-saving stats, an extreme specialist if you will. Since you can bring three keepers, why not bring one purely for penalties?
 
Very true. And frankly, who wants to take that job? Saving penalties is hard even when the penalty is not taken all that well. But a well-taken penalty is essentially unstoppable.
 
Jaffa Cake said:
I don't think there would be anything in the rules to prevent such a substitution so long as it was done before the end of extra time – and that the team still had substitutions available, of course. Back then you could make two changes and as you say we'd only made one at that point.

But was Beasant actually one of the named substitutes in that match, or was our stand-by shot stopper on that occasion Chris Woods?
Click to expand...

Penalties; Woods or Beasant > Shilton

Can't find the list, FIFA show the rest of the squad as subs, probably Woods as you say.


Cheers,
OW

Edit - took so long looking for the information I didn't see capoeirista's post; congratulations re the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back