UKC

A tough group for England, but could have been worse, group A looks tough!

•Group A - Brazil, Cameroon, Mexico, Croatia
•Group B - Spain, Chile, Australia, Holland
•Group C - Colombia, Ivory Coast, Japan, Greece
•Group D - Uruguay, Italy, Costa Rica, England
•Group E - Switzerland, Ecuador, Honduras, France
•Group F - Argentina, Nigeria, Iran, Bosnia Hercegovina
•Group G - Germany, Ghana, USA, Portugal
•Group H - Belgium, Algeria, South Korea, Russia

In reply to Tony the Blade: Scots will be happy with the prospects for England! Tough group and playing in the Amazonian humidity will not suit our frantic running around with minimal skill approach.

France get lucky again after scraping in via play offs.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

The Scots? What group are they in, or did I miss something?

We'll have to revert to our slick pass-and-go tactics, or maybe the long ball!

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

We have as much chance of winning it as Scotland. Everybody knows what a potential banana skin Costa Rica are.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Gary Lineker - "One of the positives is that Luis Suarez isn't in good form at the moment."

Tough, but not the worst. However it is the furthest north, with high humidity, so that will cause problems.

On the plus side, it should be all over by the time the Tour arrives in Yorkshire.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

I think hard groups are better for England. Look at what happened last time when we had a group of life. At least the next round match shouldn't be too hard if we do manage to overcome Italy, Uruguay and Costa Rica.

Humid conditions are the same for both teams but apparently that first match will be played at 2am UK time.

Alan

In reply to Chris the Tall:


>
We have six months to sort that out. In the absence of Norman Hunter I think John Terry could be our man.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Its probably the toughest group.. maybe group A.. but south american team in south america.. and then italy..

but agree it means we have to play well.. Italy are an unknown too.. bit of a holland.. great one year, shite the next..

In reply to Tony the Blade:

We have a very good team on paper, but unfortunately the game is played on grass!

In reply to Tony the Blade:
After a very bad year in the cricket and rugger I think it's very important for the Engerlund to do well in the WC(not the toilet), otherwise that national treasure called 'THE SUN' will slaughter you. I can see the turnips on the back page already, ha...

In reply to IainRUK:


But usually a good tournament team once they get there.

Two draws and a win against CR, and hope there is a result in the Italy v Uruguay match giving Engerland second place.

Alan

In reply to Postmanpat:


Leave it out.Our Luis is the most important player in Premier League at the moment.

In reply to IainRUK:

surely this one is worse...?

Group G - Germany, Ghana, USA, Portugal

this one wouldnt have been much fun either

Group B - Spain, Chile, Australia, Holland

aside from the aussies, spain then chile in S america when they won at wembley would have been a big ask

and also

•Group F - Argentina, Nigeria, Iran, Bosnia Hercegovina

given that england would have taken bosnia's place, argentina and nigeria would be hard work

i think its a middling group, the bigger issue is playing in manaus, but even then its the first match, and its against italy, so i can see both sides being happy with an energy-conserving 0-0 draw...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Nigeria are way off aren't they?

G and B are tough too..

I think we'll go through in second place.

In reply to IainRUK:

dunno, not been following it closely. they always strike me as one of these teams that has the potential to pull off a good result, but not the consistency to really get to the latter stages

not sure whether i'd rather have them or uruguay- forlan will be on his last legs, english defenders have had 3 years to work out how to play suaraz now, still a good side but england shouldnt fear them too much.

second place behind italy sounds most likely to me,

cheers
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Hasn't really made much difference though. Suarez is a "street" footballer, like many South Americans, the difference between him and a lot of others is that he never lost than "street" mentality. He will try things most would only try in training, added to his very quick "footballing brain" I'm not sure it's possible to "work out how to play Suarez".

In reply to Skip:

yes, this would suggest there is still a bit of 'working out' to go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/top-scorers

nevertheless the point i was making was that uruguay are not necessarily a tougher proposition than nigeria, current african champions, would have been. not the best group for england, but it could have been worse i think,

cheers
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Uruguay were pretty bad in qualifying and only just scraped into the play-off position in the end to beat Jordan and qualify, other than Suarez and Cavani most of the team is past it or not quite good enough.

Costa Rica should be a pretty easy win.

Italy, you never quite know with them but as someone else has said it is the 1st game and in Manaus so both teams might be happy to sit back and take a draw to conserve energy.

I'm not english but I honestly don't see where this view that it's hardest group possible comes from, to be honest other than Italy (Algeria from pot 2) it's exactly who I would have hoped to be drawn against for a good chance of progression.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Does the draw matter that much ? sooner or later England would have had to play a half decent side in the tournament.

In reply to GrahamD:

It matters quite a lot, the group and were that puts you in the draw influence how many top teams you need to play to win. Beating better teams is possible in one off matches, you are unlikely to beat three better teams on the trot.

In reply to The New NickB:


Very well illustrated at the last World Cup. England's tame draw and Robert Green's blunder against the USA set a path to the final of:

Germany > Argentina > Spain > Holland

Had we managed an extra goal, not thrown the ball in our own net, or other minor performance improvements to win the very easy group then the path would have been

Uruguay > Ghana > Holland > Spain

I fancy England would have had a decent chance of reaching the semis on that path. A draw and penalty shoot-out against the second crappest penalty shoot-out team on the planet might have even made the final (to get stuffed by the Spanish).

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

But England didn't deserve anything in that World Cup. I think it was Algeria in your group - one of the worst international displays I remember(and I've watched Wales in quite a lot of those over the years......)

In reply to wynaptomos:


No they didn't deserve anything much, my point was though that the next round path can be utterly crucial and they might well have done much better but for a tiny performance improvement in the first round.

Don't forget that England were pretty crap in 1990 (if you remember back that far). A draw against Republic of Ireland, Holland then narrow 1-0 win against Egypt got them through the qualifiers. Then a lucky 120th minute winner against the might of Belgium and 2 penalties against Cameroon in a match they should probably have lost got them through to the semi-final. There they played bloody well and were unlucky not to win but everyone thinks it was wonderful World Cup Team. They actually played much better in France 1998 and Korea 2002 before being knocked out on penalties or Brazilian lucky lobs.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I remember it well. I thought Belgium were a good side in those days and Cameroon were inspired by a 40-year old Roger Milla. A pretty ordinary World Cup all round from what I remember marred by a lot of negativity and cynicism. No outstanding teams and I agree England showed in the semi that they could very easily have won it but they were nowhere near in 2010.

In reply to wynaptomos:

That is world cups though.. TBH I only think in 1996/98 we turned up.. and even then we limped past Spain and were lucky in that game.. 1998 we got better and did well.

The rest we've played OK, with Seaman, Sol and Rio, later Terry we had the best defence in world football, then Beckham, Gerrard could put the ball in. So we were in a good at tournaments because we were hard to beat.

Under Robson though the press were awful to him. But 90 is looked upon too fondly, that team were too old really and cameroon destroyed us.

We'll see.. At the moment apart from Spain and Germany I think everyone else we can have a game against and on our day get through. But compared to 20 years ago the top 20 teams in the world are much stronger, better organised.. so the days of basically 1-2 whipping boys in each group are over.

However until we get our league down to 18 and bring in a summer break we have little chance. Its not luck that over the past decade we've consistently lost 2-3 key players each summer. Its Gerards last world cup and a fair few others are at or just over their peak so hopefully they won't be too scared and just go for it.

One problem is Townsend has been out for Spurs recently, Zaha hasn't had a luck in... we have some good young talent like Morrison but reckon it may come too soon for them.

In reply to The New NickB:


That's if you think England have any real chance of winning. Something pretty drastic needs to happen for that to be a realistic prospect.

In reply to GrahamD:

Just getting to later rounds is a big plus.. in terms of ranking points, experience for younger players.

Greece and Denmark in the last 20 years alone.. so in what the last 9 tournaments we've twice had totally unpredicted winners.. thats tournament football.

I'm not overly hopeful at all, but I don't see the point in being pessimistic and knocking the team. We have a professional press for that..

In reply to GrahamD:

England's chances of winning are irrelevant, you said the draw doesn't matter, it clearly does. My statement applies to every team in the competition.

In reply to IainRUK:

I think we have done less well in the last two. We were outclassed by Italy and lucky to be beaten on penalties in 2012, we were outclassed by Germany in 2010. Before that though England were knocked out in ding-dong matches that could have gone either way and usually went to penalties. I think in any of them (except 2000 and 2008) England could have equalled or beaten 1990 with a little bit of luck/change in decision, at some point.

We are probably saying the same thing here, that 1990 wasn't that special, and that Hoodle, Sven etc, didn't do such a bad job. I always thought Sven has become unfairly under-rated as an England manager.

Since 2006, I think other teams have got better and England haven't but we are in mid-transition between two eras so maybe the next Euros are something to aim for.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Sven is really badly judged.. yet we were successful. I just think because that was our golden generation and we had so much hype it was bring in back or failure.. yet we were consistently final rounds..

Hoddle did great but he basically fnished himself with the drury woman..

We've showed glimpses this time. I actually think its quite positive. In Welbeck and Sturridge we have genuine threat alongside Rooney, then Townsend and potentially Zaha.. and Morrison, Barkley et al..

In reply to The New NickB:

Maybe I'm just being cynical but I don't buy the idea that propagating an English system that means we scrape our way out of the early rounds by glossing over the obvious deficiencies actually "matters" .

What would "matter" is if something happened that made us realistic contenders which might mean NOT qualifying for a few major tournaments.

In reply to GrahamD:



eh? How would that be beneficial?

I think at times maybe we stuck with the old guard for too long.. but I think we are seeing progress.

In reply to GrahamD:



Eh? All Nick and Alan are trying to point out is that a good draw can benefit teams who go on to win eg Italy 2006.

As for England, they are clearly a 2nd tier team at the moment but a good run would do them good.

In reply to IainRUK:

I think what Graham's referring to is that England being a major football nation should be a given to get through to second round and by the law of averages should have won a few more. Similarly Wales, Scotland and the Irish should have qualified for a few more over the years so that points to major deficiencies with our whole strucutre at the grass-roots level.
We just don't seem to be getting to grips with it in the same way that the Spanish and Germans shook up their whole strategy 10-15 years ago.

In reply to wynaptomos:

I dont think that washes anymore.. OK we have one of the best leagues in the world.. but still 60 million people..

Remember when we beat Turkey.. what 8-0? those days are over.. the likes of South Korea as a decent team was fairly much inconcievable 20 years ago.. but there are now so few teams we can expect to turn up and trounce.

Spain and Germany did shake up their systems, but whilst still qualifying.. I don't think we cant do both.

But I do think we are seeing change, more technical players, less empasis on power and size.

In reply to wynaptomos:


No sorry.... England are not a major football nation, we have a diversity of sports. There's a lot of populous countries were football is more popular than here.

We do have a well respected and competitive top league but that's different.

In reply to IainRUK:


I agree. Also the big clubs are realising that a good youth academy is a great investment and can bring success (and/or money from selling youth talent). Look at Arsenal and Southampton, both who have very good academies and quite a few home-grown players in their first teams now.

Alan

In reply to Papillon:

I disagree. UK might well have a more diverse array of sports than most but the population is still crazy about football. The league is arguably the most popular in the Worls which means that the game is awash with money which should help massively with development but doesn't because the structure and strategy is wrong. Take Spain for instance where they have a far smaller population but they have a much higher number of qualified coaches - they have made the decision over 15 years ago to increase the technical standards of their young players and look how it has paid off for them.

In reply to IainRUK:


In which direction ? the pool of players the England coach has to draw on seems to diminish year on year. Given the ever increasing influence of the premiership this isn't going to improve.

In reply to GrahamD:

Progress.. the standard is much higher. I think you are wrong, the home grown rule was good.. we are seeing more better quality young players..

I dont really care if its 90% foreign as long as its 10% class.. not 90% dross..

I think it was diminishing but we'll see the lag effect where the changes being made start to show. Economically clubs just cannot ignore their youth set ups anymore.

In reply to wynaptomos:


Spain has a similar population to England relatively, but I take your point. We'll have to agree to disagree on popularity In places like Spain, Italy and Brazil you do feel it is more important to them.

In reply to wynaptomos:


Interesting how this is exactly what we did in this country in cycling, sailing, rowing, etc. since the dismal 1996 Olympics with dramatic results. However I have a feeling that was just us spending money where others weren't.

Football (like tennis) has now reached the level where you can't just spend money, since everyone is doing that, you need to spend it wisely. I think that might be happening but not on a national level yet.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

France made a huge commitment to make coaching available in schools in the late 90s. I'm not sure whether youth level in this country is supported the same ?

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes, I had heard that. Funny how France have varied since then from a final in 2006 to dismal failure in most campaigns and they are down to 19 in the Fifa rankings. Whatever they spent, it doesn't appear to have brought sustained success.

Spain, on the other hand, appear to be broke and have brilliant football, tennis, basketball teams and are good at competition climbing, and other sports I am sure.

Not sure what this shows.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'd keep national level out...

to screw it up.. give it to the FA.. we've had Howard Wilkinson as technical director.. it is just incredulous that they would appoint the least technical manager to that role.

Let the clubs do it at their level. They need the players coming through.

in Spain I suspect much of it comes from Barca..

In reply to IainRUK:

You may be right that the Barca model sets the tone nationally but the technical level of so many of the young Spanish players we see coming into the League(from all their clubs) just seems to be a level above our home-grown players