World Cup 2010 - South Africa is Coming

[Black Wizard]

Because they are biased.

[Mme Erzulie]

What a devastatingly well put argument, I can find no flaw in its detailed logic. :P

I assume you're objecting to me writing off Norway, but the fact is that on recent form going into these qualifiers, that's not a particularly controversial opinion. Scotland had a better recent record. Norway just aren't what they used to be. I'm not suggesting that they were anything other than our main rivals for second, but should we have been capable of taking four points off your lot, rather than the other way around? I think most objective commentators would say 'yes'.

ETA - please note, I'm not disputing that in the event we were the worse team. The table doesn't lie. It's not as if you guys fluked that 4-0, either. We played badly and deserved to come third.

I don't really care much about Norway when it comes to football, but it was the "no problem qualifying" I objected to. Would they perhaps have had slightly better odds to come second compared to Norway at the start of qualifying? Probably. Does that equal "no problem qualifying"? If you want to be anal about it, Holland is the only team that has actually qualified, and had you said it about them, I would have had to agree. But Scotland and Norway are two countries of roughly similar population and development in terms of football, and Scotland having performed slightly better over the last couple of years by no means made them a shoo-in (as seen).

Having said that, I'm not shedding a tear that Norway will most likely not be one of the top 8 no. 2s. I don't think they (or Scotland) are playing football that justifies being in the WC.

[Renasko]

Because they are biased.

Nah, if it is, it's very slight. Scotland pick players from the likes of Celtic, because the best defenders your country has to offer are snapped up by the big clubs.

[The Iceman of the North]

AFC

When the Saudi's went up 2:1 in overtime, their expected advancement to the AFC/OFC Play-offs looked all but certain, but four minutes into added time Bahrain equalized thus advancing on away goal. This was the best possible result for the Kiwi's, who now have a slight chance of actually reaching a World Cup final for the second time.

CAF

Group 1

With a second win within a few days Cameroon have gone from bottom to top of the group. With two rounds remaining, this group is still wide open.

CONCACAF

With the US away win in Trinidad, the islanders are, not unexpectedly, eliminated. Mexico won again, improving the nerves of it's fans, while the Salvadorian win over Costa Rica means that they still have a theoretical chance to get the play off spot. Mexico and the US are both ensured at least a Play-off spot.

CONMEBOL

A not quite unexpected home win for Paraguay over Argentina secures their qualification, while Argentina need to win their final two matches to avoid collective suicide. Bolivia losing at home to Ecuador means that they are eliminated. Chile only need two points to secure qualification, or one point for the Play-off spot. With two matches to go, there's only three points between Ecuador (currently in the last direct qualification spot), and Colombia in the 8th spot.

UEFA

Group 1

An away draw in Albania for Denmark reduced their chances to win the group somewhat, but they are still top of their group. Hungary's home loss to Portugal saw them drop from 2nd to 4th position in the group, and with away matches against Portugal and Denmark remaining, their hope seems slim. At the moment I'd rate Portugal's chances of coming second in the group slightly higher than Sweden's, but the Swedes have been quite lucky in their latest matches.

Group 2

Apart from Luxembourg being eliminated following a 7:0 trashing in Israel, very little changed in this group. Switzerland are still topping the group, but nothing seems certain.

Group 3

Slovakia's win in Northern Ireland means that they only need a point at home against Slovenia to secure a group win, but even without it they are ensured at least a Play-off spot. If the Czech win their two home matches against Poland and Northern Ireland they could get a play-off spot, but in this group the only result in the remaining 5 matches that I'm sure of is a home win for Slovenia in San Marino.

Group 4

An embarrassing Finnish draw in Liechtenstein means that the match between Russia and Germany in Moscow next month will determine which of these two teams will qualify directly while the other have to play a play-off first. I'd be surprised if not both of these teams show up in South Africa.

Group 5

As one of the three teams to keep a perfect score, Spain qualified after a lacklustre 3:0 win over Estonia. A draw between Bosnia and Turkey means that Turkey's hope for a play-off spot is still alive, but Bosnia just need one more point. Belgium's away loss in Armenia means that their slim hope is gone.

Group 6

England is ready for South Africa after crushing Croatia 5:1 on Wembley. Belarus needed a win over Ukraine, and are now out with a draw, while Ukraine need to beat England to get a Play-off spot.

Group 7

The most chocking result of the night must be the Faroe Islands win over Lithuania. Serbia's home draw against 10-man France, means that they are ensured at least a Play-off spot, while France with a coming home match against the Faroe Islands ought to be just as sure of at least a Play-off spot.

Group 8

Italy's home win over Bulgaria all but ensured a direct qualification, while Ireland can get the Play-off spot even in the unlikely event that they lose the home match against Montenegro.

Group 9

The Netherlands concluded a perfect campaign with a win in Scotland. A Norwegian home win against Macedonia put them in the second spot. Although Norway still have a theoretical chance to reach the Play-offs, this is highly unlikely.

Summary as of 09 September 2009

205 teams taking place in the competition

11 team qualified: South Africa, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Netherlands, North Korea, Brazil, Ghana, England, Spain and Paraguay

5 teams withdrawn: Bhutan, Central African Republic, Eritrea, Guam and São Tomé & Príncipe

2 teams eliminated through technicalities: Palestine and Papua New Guinea

1 team excluded: Ethiopia

132 teams eliminated

54 teams still in the qualifying rounds: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, United States, Venezuela, Wales and Zambia

Highest ranking eliminated team (according to the September 2007 FIFA Ranking): Scotland (ranked 14)

Lowest ranking team still inn: New Zealand (ranked 156)

Highest number of undefeated matches: 13 (South Korea)

Most wins: 12 (United States in 16 matches)

Best goal difference: +26 (England in 9 matches)

Best average goal difference: +3.25 per match (England)

Worst goal difference: -37 (American Samoa in 4 matches)

Worst average goal difference: -10 per match (US Virgin Islands)

Biggest win (not counting matches vs. Tuvalu): 29/08/07 Vanuatu 15 vs. American Samoa 0

[mormont]

I don't really care much about Norway when it comes to football, but it was the "no problem qualifying" I objected to. Would they perhaps have had slightly better odds to come second compared to Norway at the start of qualifying? Probably. Does that equal "no problem qualifying"?

Actually I said 'no problem finishing in second place'. :) But by that I only meant that none of the other teams in the group should have presented a problem to our finishing in second, because they were all teams that (on average) we should be able to beat (except Netherlands). Indeed, we nearly did finish in second despite a well below par performance in at least three of the games - we were equal on points with Norway.

[Calibandar]

Mormont

You don't see a tiny contradiction in being proud of dominating a group you think is weak?

Well it's one thing to win a group which you should win. That's living up to expectations. Holland was expected to win the group. It's another to dominate so thoroughly as the Dutch have done so and go on to win all your matches in the group, which is rare. I've seen all of the matches and some were matches in which they really played exceedingly well. That's where the pride in their performance comes from. They look a fierce candidate for next year.

I also think that Scotland wasn't really that much more a candidate to finish 2nd in this group than most of the other teams. Macedonia isn't that bad a side and could have caused a minor upset, and Norway is usually considered to be on equal footing with a team like Scotland.

[Hereward]

I think we should bring back the Loser's Lounge, so this magnificent thread is not cluttered up with supporters of teams who have failed the test of history. :smoking:

[mormont]

Well it's one thing to win a group which you should win. That's living up to expectations. Holland was expected to win the group. It's another to dominate so thoroughly as the Dutch have done so and go on to win all your matches in the group, which is rare. I've seen all of the matches and some were matches in which they really played exceedingly well. That's where the pride in their performance comes from. They look a fierce candidate for next year.

You've certainly done really well in qualifying. I'm not sure that the players are of the standard of some of the past Dutch teams - and despite the incredible defensive record in the group, you do seem to lack a top-quality centre-back - but van Marwijk is a really good coach.

I also think that Scotland wasn't really that much more a candidate to finish 2nd in this group than most of the other teams. Macedonia isn't that bad a side and could have caused a minor upset, and Norway is usually considered to be on equal footing with a team like Scotland.

No, really, Macedonia are that bad a side.

We've had the Norway/Scotland discussion already, so I won't recap.

[Usotsuki]

Hereward, history may not repeat itself but it does rhyme.

England will produce one good performance against a weak team, the press will respond with hymns of praise and confident predictions of ultimate victory. This will be immediately followed by a mediocre performance against an unremarkable team, the media will enter a period of strained and anxious optimism and claim that the English team now has an opportunity to remedy its flaws (It's as yet unclear whether the the flaw will be careless defending, passing motivated by wishful thinking or lack of killer instinct but it will be one of them.)

England will then survive the group stage, thanks to a surprising performance by one hitherto unpopular player and an upset result in one of the other matches in its group. The press will once again reach shocking heights of hubris in an effort to expunge the memories of pants-wetting fear.

Then England loses.

I'd suggest reserving a place in the Losers' Lounge at the earliest possible moment, I'm hoping for a window seat myself. :P

[Hereward]

Then England loses on penalties and the press crucifies everyone involved.

I'd suggest reserving a place in the Losers' Lounge at the earliest possible moment, I'm hoping for a window seat myself. :P

Exactly. I can hardly wait!

[Biter]

UEFA

Group 1

An away draw in Albania for Denmark reduced their chances to win the group somewhat, but they are still top of their group. Hungary's home loss to Portugal saw them drop from 2nd to 4th position in the group, and with away matches against Portugal and Denmark remaining, their hope seems slim. At the moment I'd rate Portugal's chances of coming second in the group slightly higher than Sweden's, but the Swedes have been quite lucky in their latest matches.

Matches remaining:

Denmark (18 points): Sweden (previously won 1-0), Hungary (tied 0-0)

Sweden (15 points): Denmark (lost 0-1), Albania (tied 0-0)

Portugal (13 points): Hungary (won 1-0), Malta (won 4-0)

Hungary (13 points): Portugal (lost 0-1), Denmark (tied 0-0)

I'd be willing to bet on Denmark getting at least one point in their two games, and considering their excellent goal difference, they should win the group.

It's possible that Sweden might win against Denmark, but they definitely need to get their act together, relying on pure luck won't work anymore.

[Usotsuki]

Exactly. I can hardly wait!

Which does raise the question of what whisky one should choose to accompany a lynching. Lagavulin?

[Xray the Enforcer]

Which does raise the question of what whisky one should choose to accompany a lynching. Lagavulin?

I was going to suggest Bruichladdich -- tastes like the sour tears of defeat.

[Calibandar]

I'm not sure that the players are of the standard of some of the past Dutch teams - and despite the incredible defensive record in the group, you do seem to lack a top-quality centre-back - but van Marwijk is a really good coach.

Well it's largely the same team that stunned at the EC 2008. Van der Sar has hinted last week that he is thinking of returning for the WC 2010. Which is probably going to happen. RvNistelrooy has also hinted he would like to return for the WC, but that probably isn't going to happen since strikers is not something we are short off. The amount of really gifted strikers & midfielders is very pleasing inddeed. But I agree that there is a weakness in defense that I can see strong teams exploiting. Defense is most certianly the weakest area, the good results in the group notwithstanding.

[Hereward]

Which does raise the question of what whisky one should choose to accompany a lynching. Lagavulin?

It would have to be something matured in a bourbon barrel for that Deep South feel. :P

X-Ray,

You wound me. :|

[Xray the Enforcer]

It would have to be something matured in a bourbon barrel for that Deep South feel. :P

X-Ray,

You wound me. :|

:lol: Well played, sir.

I like Bruichladdich -- but you must admit that certain bottlings do have a briny quality to them.

[Isis]

Congrats England. Do you guys think Heskey should be playing? I listen to 606, and people moan about him nonstop. It does seem to go against Fabio's stated methods of choosing players who are in form for their clubs.

Defoe has been SERIOUSLY hard done by over the years. It's not fair and yes, he should be starting matches instead of Heskey. And I see that Capello must have agreed with me about the UTTER waste of space that Carrick was at the weekend.

[Renasko]

If Defoe had started instead of Heskey, England would have won by a much greater margin. Emile fluffed at least a couple of chances. He looked pretty bad, to be honest. I'm not sure if he'd be good enough for the World Cup or not. England have better options available.

[Fireball07]

I think Denmark and Sweden will both get 4 points from their last 2 games, and then knock Portugal out.

[The Iceman of the North]

I think Denmark and Sweden will both get 4 points from their last 2 games, and then knock Portugal out.

I don't know. I think they'll both lose their two remaining matches. Which would be quite a feat given that they are playing each other in one of them.