By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The dumbing down of the qualifying criteria has played it's part here. Usually after blowing it like they would have tonight, they would be facing a playoff now and in usual fashion 95% would have flopped it.
I'm a bit torn. God knows over the years there have been many worse players in WCs and ECs than, say, Southall, Giggs, Saunders, and Rush, let alone Bale and Ramsey. I like the idea of a competition with England,Wales, and both Irelands qualifying, and I might have even broken the habit f a lifetime and cheered for the Scots.
But qualifying because Israel lose to Cyprus seems a bit rubbish really. It does feel like the qualification is just eliminating the truly dreadful.
I'm a bit torn. God knows over the years there have been many worse players in WCs and ECs than, say, Southall, Giggs, Saunders, and Rush, let alone Bale and Ramsey. I like the idea of a competition with England,Wales, and both Irelands qualifying, and I might have even broken the habit f a lifetime and cheered for the Scots.
But qualifying because Israel lose to Cyprus seems a bit rubbish really. It does feel like the qualification is just eliminating the truly dreadful.
Bit harsh to call Scotland 'truly dreadful' when they'd certainly give Jersey a good game.
'Always In Motion' by John Honney available on amazon.co.uk
Nous sommes L’occitane Rs!
You have to remember that if Wales beat Andora on Tuesday they could win the group. Andora have a population of less than Jersey, have a -30 goal difference, bottom of the league and their milkman goalie is struggling for the night off!!!
You have to remember that if Wales beat Andora on Tuesday they could win the group. Andora have a population of less than Jersey, have a -30 goal difference, bottom of the league and their milkman goalie is struggling for the night off!!!
It's been good in that some who have qualified have done so even allowing for the "dumbing down" for example Iceland have done well. Nonetheless I think overall it will be a benefit to have some different sides in, but with 24 sides able to qualify it will in all honesty dilute how tough a tournament it was in the past, however the fact the groups are all but done and only half the teams are qualified seems a bit nonsense in all honesty that being said only Wales, NI Iceland and Austraia are really out of the norm, elsewhere it's your usual fare. IN essence it looks like UEFA want to have it basically mimic the World Cup with a last 16 round - money I guess when all is said and done.
However great for all those fans of other countries like Wales etc, who often get a hard go at qualifying when lets face it in World Cup many sides get in by virtue of where they are based and not whether they are truly good enough to be there. Australia even moved into Asia from Oceania which it's nearly impossibly to qualify from (NZ in 2010 accepted)
It's been good in that some who have qualified have done so even allowing for the "dumbing down" for example Iceland have done well. Nonetheless I think overall it will be a benefit to have some different sides in, but with 24 sides able to qualify it will in all honesty dilute how tough a tournament it was in the past, however the fact the groups are all but done and only half the teams are qualified seems a bit nonsense in all honesty that being said only Wales, NI Iceland and Austraia are really out of the norm, elsewhere it's your usual fare. IN essence it looks like UEFA want to have it basically mimic the World Cup with a last 16 round - money I guess when all is said and done.
However great for all those fans of other countries like Wales etc, who often get a hard go at qualifying when lets face it in World Cup many sides get in by virtue of where they are based and not whether they are truly good enough to be there. Australia even moved into Asia from Oceania which it's nearly impossibly to qualify from (NZ in 2010 accepted)
The Oceana one is a bollocks. You whip everyone out of site 20-0 in some cases against Chrismas Islands and the like, then once you've done that you get thrown into a two leg play off affair with someone usually with a bit of pedigree about them. Australia f*cked it twice losing to both Iran for France 98 and then Uruguay for 2002, before they decided to move to Asia.
Pretty mean spirited to diminish the achievement, especially as the same system has allowed England to qualify while barely breaking a sweat.
I wonder how well London would do if it had an international team, given the population is more than twice that of Wales.
London is a town, not a country.. So can't have an international team.. Even if it could, there'd be no Englishman in it.. Have you been in London recently? .. Just met a Scotsman in the pub, he's been down here for 2 days, he said I was the first londonder he'd met this trip.
International finals tournaments should only ever have multiples of 16 teams IMO (tournaments like the Copa America excepted). The World Cup for me was always a nonsense in the four tournaments from 82-94 when it had 24 teams and four of the best third placed teams in the groups got to the last 16.
London is a town, not a country.. So can't have an international team.. Even if it could, there'd be no Englishman in it.. Have you been in London recently? .. Just met a Scotsman in the pub, he's been down here for 2 days, he said I was the first londonder he'd met this trip.
That was quite an impressive leap fron a speculative comment to a thinly disguised dig at immigrants.
That was quite an impressive leap fron a speculative comment to a thinly disguised dig at immigrants.
You really are obsessive mate..if I said I was wearing a black pair of jeans... Would I be racist? My neighbours are Latvian and they have a screaming baby that keeps me up all night... I'm not anti Latvian ,I'm anti the squaking child.... But you know me really well obviously, so thanks for reminding me my nazi party membership has run out.
You really are obsessive mate..if I said I was wearing a black pair of jeans... Would I be racist? My neighbours are Latvian and they have a screaming baby that keeps me up all night... I'm not anti Latvian ,I'm anti the squaking child.... But you know me really well obviously, so thanks for reminding me my nazi party membership has run out.
The Oceana one is a bollocks. You whip everyone out of site 20-0 in some cases against Chrismas Islands and the like, then once you've done that you get thrown into a two leg play off affair with someone usually with a bit of pedigree about them. Australia f*cked it twice losing to both Iran for France 98 and then Uruguay for 2002, before they decided to move to Asia.
Yes thats my point entirely - desperate to have people from all over the joint but some are given less chance than others. Be interesting to see if in the next say 5 world cups whether anybody else new wins the WC. Only 5 different sides have won since WW2 I think (stand to be corrected)
Yes thats my point entirely - desperate to have people from all over the joint but some are given less chance than others. Be interesting to see if in the next say 5 world cups whether anybody else new wins the WC. Only 5 different sides have won since WW2 I think (stand to be corrected)
6. West Germany Brazil England Argentina France Spain
Should have been 7 if the Dutch hadn't had the misfortune to play the hosts in the '74 and '78 finals.
Technically speaking Germany and West Germany aren't the same country.
TGRRRS said new winners since WW 2. Italy won it twice before the war.
Yes, should have added Hungary to the should haves. Germany had also crocked (some have said deliberately) Puskas in the group game Hungary had against them when Germany were spanked 8-3. It turned out to be a hairline fracture and Puskas was basically a passenger for the rest of the tournament.
Germany count the two West Germany wins and the 1990 win as the same hence the wearing of three stars on the shirts prior to winning it last year.
Technically speaking Germany and West Germany aren't the same country.
We've had this before.
Technically they are the same country, namely the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). West Germany is like Southern Ireland, a name made up to help British people to understand a partition, never used by the people concerned.
TGRRRS said new winners since WW 2. Italy won it twice before the war.
Yes, should have added Hungary to the should haves. Germany had also crocked (some have said deliberately) Puskas in the group game Hungary had against them when Germany were spanked 8-3. It turned out to be a hairline fracture and Puskas was basically a passenger for the rest of the tournament.
Germany count the two West Germany wins and the 1990 win as the same hence the wearing of three stars on the shirts prior to winning it last year.
[Post edited 11 Oct 2015 22:08]
No, he didn't. He said "Only 5 different sides have won since WW2 I think (stand to be corrected)". If he'd meant 'new since WW2', the word 'more' would have been better than 'different'. Regardless, there were only two pre-war winners in only three tournaments (Italy (2), Uruguay).
So let's add Uruguay into it for a total of 8 or 9 different winners (depending on the West Germany/Germany thing) out of 17 tournaments (Argentina (2), Brazil (5), England, France, Germany, Italy (2), Spain, Uruguay, West Germany (3)). I think that undermines the 'small winners group' argument somewhat.
Australia changing of federations wasn't simply because the Asian Federation offers an 'easier' path. After all, the Oceania winner, and that was only ever going to be Australia or New Zealand, currently just has to beat the country placing fifth in Asia. Rather, Australia consider themselves to be a side that would perform better in the long run. They wanted to avoid the 'sudden death' of the inter-federation, home-and-away playoffs. Also, Oceania qualification seems to be something FIFA feels free to revisit frequently, so the Asian Federation perhaps offered a more stable target. Swapping federations doesn't seem like an option that countries should be given, but Australia were able to make their case, and no, I don't think a few fat envelopes changed hands.
Qualifying for the European Cup these days is just as unrecognisable as the map of Europe compared to how we knew it in the 70's and 80's. It absolutely had to change and I haven't really got any problem with it. The predictably of our premier league actually makes it all the more enjoyable in my opinion. Haven't Albania qualified leaving Denmark in 3rd place. Not in my lifetime.
No, he didn't. He said "Only 5 different sides have won since WW2 I think (stand to be corrected)". If he'd meant 'new since WW2', the word 'more' would have been better than 'different'. Regardless, there were only two pre-war winners in only three tournaments (Italy (2), Uruguay).
So let's add Uruguay into it for a total of 8 or 9 different winners (depending on the West Germany/Germany thing) out of 17 tournaments (Argentina (2), Brazil (5), England, France, Germany, Italy (2), Spain, Uruguay, West Germany (3)). I think that undermines the 'small winners group' argument somewhat.
Australia changing of federations wasn't simply because the Asian Federation offers an 'easier' path. After all, the Oceania winner, and that was only ever going to be Australia or New Zealand, currently just has to beat the country placing fifth in Asia. Rather, Australia consider themselves to be a side that would perform better in the long run. They wanted to avoid the 'sudden death' of the inter-federation, home-and-away playoffs. Also, Oceania qualification seems to be something FIFA feels free to revisit frequently, so the Asian Federation perhaps offered a more stable target. Swapping federations doesn't seem like an option that countries should be given, but Australia were able to make their case, and no, I don't think a few fat envelopes changed hands.
Ah, i thought that australia had to join the Asian group because it's now a subsidiary of China?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
