I you don't win by at least 3, I'm calling your country out as being thoroughly unprofessional 'cause , if the roles were reversed, we'd take great joy in humiliating you.
You better show up.
You better show up.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
World Cup 2022
- Thread starter RAFUH
- Start date
- Status
USA have no chance without Freddy Adu
Altidore will save us.
Yep. There’s one in my town.
Ton of them in Oklahoma
Rook
Player Valuation: £80m
Berhalter is meh, but I'm not sure coaching has much to do w/ it. Its a young team devoid of leaders. Only Steffen has been the best player on his team.
Just think too many of these guys are chasing Europe. Pepi has promise, WFT is he doing in Germany at 19? MLS for all its faults is a really good development league for U-23s. There is little wear and tear, you can be captain of your squad at a young age, and learn how to play when the opposition is laser focused on you. IMO Weah would be a better player if he played if he just stayed in NY until he was 21. Jeez stay for a while so when you do go overseas you don't have to come back like Yedlin.
And sure Europe has better coaching, but coaching doesn't replace game experience. You can peak at 28-31.
The last time I saw one (PW) was in a damn near vacant little town in North Dakota, when I was a kid.
Out of random boredom I looked up Kum & Go and they're apparently out of Iowa...and, staying semi on topic:
"In addition to Kum & Go, Krause Group owns and operates the Des Moines Menace soccer team as well as Italian Serie B side Parma"
Is Pickford up for doing a Rob Green?
I mean he kinda owes those of us that wake at all all hours of the morning
I mean he kinda owes those of us that wake at all all hours of the morning
Drico
Player Valuation: £50m
Prior to the last World Cup, we had to endure a journalistic campaign that labeled the England players "likeable". This was risible on two levels. First, why the hell does it matter if players are likeable or not? Second, it seemed needy. If they couldn't be labeled "good" there seemed to be a determination to present them as likeable. In truth, they went to the last World Cup as unheralded outsiders after the Iceland comedy debacle in 2016 and the press could not deploy it's usual "world-beaters" schtick in the run up to generate hype.
This time around, there will be no talk of likeability. Half their fans hate them now anyway. No, they will be puffed up as genuine contenders, the side to bridge the gap to 1966, world-beating representatives of the greatest league in the world. TM.
And this is where the familiar old story kicks in. This team had its chance at the Euro. Home advantage almost all the way, a final at Wembley against a side that missed the previous World Cup (and next one, as it turned out) and a goal start. And they still lost.
England beat one heavyweight at the Euro despite all these advantages. And that was a Germany in transition, declining and going nowhere under a coach well past his sell-by date. Are we really to believe that a team that beat one weakened heavyweight have what it takes to beat, perhaps, up to four heavyweights in a relatively alien climate when it really matters? Even if they avoid a major power until the quarter-finals, surely they will need two or three major wins from there to lift the trophy. While they are probably fourth or fifth in the world at the moment, this England side have no real history of beating the big boys when it matters. They cede the midfield against ball-playing sides, as they did against a limited Italy and a gutsy Croatia in Russia. And that Croatian side, admirable as it was, was no superpower either.
I don't think this draw suits England. They'd have been better off drawing Holland or Germany in the group and beating one of them to really build belief. As it is, they are on a hiding to nothing against an Iranian side playing in their own backyard, an American side with absolutely nothing to lose (and probably lots of utterly unjustifiable belief) and possibly Wales with Bale who will be hyped. The Scots took a point from them at Wembley last year. These are no-win matches for England that they simply need to push aside before the real business starts. There could be hubris. The press will expect three wins and give them no real credit for them other than building hype. And they'll have played "no one" yet at that point. And this is the best-case scenario. Imagine if they start dropping points. The jingoistic press will be apoplectic.
So, I'd say Southgate is right to say it is an "intriguing" draw. He's on a hiding to nothing. These are matches to simply negotiate and try not to lose players to injury. We will learn very little about England until, possibly, the last eight - by which time it could be too late. The French are, potentially, waiting there. That'd be a huge step up after the group matches and a potential last 16 tie against Qatar, Senegal, or Ecuador. So, lots of banana skins for England and no real chance to test themselves against genuine powers. On the upside, they are almost guaranteed to go deep into the tournament. So, the run up to Christmas will be short this year and the comedic possibilities enchanting...
This time around, there will be no talk of likeability. Half their fans hate them now anyway. No, they will be puffed up as genuine contenders, the side to bridge the gap to 1966, world-beating representatives of the greatest league in the world. TM.
And this is where the familiar old story kicks in. This team had its chance at the Euro. Home advantage almost all the way, a final at Wembley against a side that missed the previous World Cup (and next one, as it turned out) and a goal start. And they still lost.
England beat one heavyweight at the Euro despite all these advantages. And that was a Germany in transition, declining and going nowhere under a coach well past his sell-by date. Are we really to believe that a team that beat one weakened heavyweight have what it takes to beat, perhaps, up to four heavyweights in a relatively alien climate when it really matters? Even if they avoid a major power until the quarter-finals, surely they will need two or three major wins from there to lift the trophy. While they are probably fourth or fifth in the world at the moment, this England side have no real history of beating the big boys when it matters. They cede the midfield against ball-playing sides, as they did against a limited Italy and a gutsy Croatia in Russia. And that Croatian side, admirable as it was, was no superpower either.
I don't think this draw suits England. They'd have been better off drawing Holland or Germany in the group and beating one of them to really build belief. As it is, they are on a hiding to nothing against an Iranian side playing in their own backyard, an American side with absolutely nothing to lose (and probably lots of utterly unjustifiable belief) and possibly Wales with Bale who will be hyped. The Scots took a point from them at Wembley last year. These are no-win matches for England that they simply need to push aside before the real business starts. There could be hubris. The press will expect three wins and give them no real credit for them other than building hype. And they'll have played "no one" yet at that point. And this is the best-case scenario. Imagine if they start dropping points. The jingoistic press will be apoplectic.
So, I'd say Southgate is right to say it is an "intriguing" draw. He's on a hiding to nothing. These are matches to simply negotiate and try not to lose players to injury. We will learn very little about England until, possibly, the last eight - by which time it could be too late. The French are, potentially, waiting there. That'd be a huge step up after the group matches and a potential last 16 tie against Qatar, Senegal, or Ecuador. So, lots of banana skins for England and no real chance to test themselves against genuine powers. On the upside, they are almost guaranteed to go deep into the tournament. So, the run up to Christmas will be short this year and the comedic possibilities enchanting...
Last edited:
Home advantage should see Wales through
Nah, the welsh or ukranians don't throw patio furniture in a hissy fit
Only just seen the groups, that’s a favourable one for us.
Billy Dean
Player Valuation: £70m
England
America
Shiites
Yet to be confirmed
America
Shiites
Yet to be confirmed
Billy Dean
Player Valuation: £70m
I disagree with you a little bit. I think England will have other chances to go deep in tournaments, when you look at the quality of players coming through I think they will have a pretty strong team for the next 10-15 years. That is not to say they're nailed on to win things but they should be looking at QFs minimum in that time and then see from there.
Why does it matter if players are likeable or not? Because for a long time the England squad was full of self-entitled big time charlies. I don't see it as a problem that the current squad come across as humble and decent lads.
I definitely think England's draw is tougher than it looks and I agree there is tons of banana skin potential there. But it could've been much worse also.
barneygumble
Player Valuation: £60m
Cherno Samba up top for us, I hope.
Billy Dean
Player Valuation: £70m
last World Cup where we saw unusual. timelines was 2002 and there were a lot of strange results especially in the group stages. Wondering whether we might have something similar this time round. Especially considering the teams in pots 3 and 4 don't seem as weak as they have been in previous tournaments
- Status