The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Pot 1
Greece
Netherlands
Portugal
England
Czech Republic
France
Sweden
Pot 2
Germany
Croatia
Italy
Turkey
Poland
Spain
Romania
Pot 3
Serbia & Montenegro
Russia
Denmark
Norway
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Slovakia
Pot 4
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Republic of Ireland
Belgium
Latvia
Israel
Scotland
Slovenia
Pot 5
Hungary
Finland
Estonia
Wales
Lithuania
Albania
Iceland
Pot 6
Georgia
FYR Macedonia
Belarus
Armenia
Northern Ireland
Cyprus
Moldova
Pot 7
Liechtenstein
Azerbaijan
Andorra
Malta
Faroe Islands
Kazakhstan
Luxembourg
San Marino
Six groups of 7 and one group of 8, with the team in Pot 7 left over after the draw then put into a group as the 8th seed.
Some interesting stuff in there, with Republic of Ireland as low down as 4th seed, which is equal to Scotland.
Greece are also a first seed due to Euro 2004, completely ignoring the fact that they bombed it in the World Cup 2006 qualifiers and finished 4th in their group.
Possibly some really difficult groups as well, but if someone like Scotland can get Greece and Poland/Turkey as the first two seeds, we could do pretty well. The easiest possible option for England would probably involve them drawing Poland again.
Greece
Netherlands
Portugal
England
Czech Republic
France
Sweden
Pot 2
Germany
Croatia
Italy
Turkey
Poland
Spain
Romania
Pot 3
Serbia & Montenegro
Russia
Denmark
Norway
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Slovakia
Pot 4
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Republic of Ireland
Belgium
Latvia
Israel
Scotland
Slovenia
Pot 5
Hungary
Finland
Estonia
Wales
Lithuania
Albania
Iceland
Pot 6
Georgia
FYR Macedonia
Belarus
Armenia
Northern Ireland
Cyprus
Moldova
Pot 7
Liechtenstein
Azerbaijan
Andorra
Malta
Faroe Islands
Kazakhstan
Luxembourg
San Marino
Six groups of 7 and one group of 8, with the team in Pot 7 left over after the draw then put into a group as the 8th seed.
Some interesting stuff in there, with Republic of Ireland as low down as 4th seed, which is equal to Scotland.
Greece are also a first seed due to Euro 2004, completely ignoring the fact that they bombed it in the World Cup 2006 qualifiers and finished 4th in their group.
Possibly some really difficult groups as well, but if someone like Scotland can get Greece and Poland/Turkey as the first two seeds, we could do pretty well. The easiest possible option for England would probably involve them drawing Poland again.
Page:
ßìgGíË Li††lÊ Jn® wrote:
> Czech republic are not as good as there ranking suggests. sure
> they've got Tomas rosicky, petr cech, ujfalusi in defence and of
> course baros and koller/heinz up-front has always worked well for
> them. They've have been poor recently, and when was the last time
> they did really well in a major tournament - 96 probs.
Err, did you watch Euro 2004? They were easily the best team in the tournament, and to suggest getting to the semi-finals (gaining maximum points in a group containing Germany and Holland, by the way) isn't doing well is ludicrous.
> Man for man Italy out class Czech republic, i mean they've got
> buffon, zambrotta, gilardino, iaquinta (who has been spectacular the
> last couple of seasons), perrota, del piero. As do spain, raul,
> torres, xavi, joaquin, puyol to name a few - i mean seriously the
> czechsshould not be 4th in the world, Who is better than Czech
> republic hmm..
Man for man, yeah? Well, that's funny, because I don't remember tournaments being won due to the level of each individual player compared to others on different teams. Football is a team competition, and as a team, the Czechs are better than Italy or Spain. Simple. People can make excuses about Italy and Spain all the want, but the truth is both of them choke at international tournaments. Spain always have done, and Italy have in probably at least the last 10 tournaments, maybe barring Euro 2000. Big players or not, if you can't perform when it matters (in tournaments), then you're a failure.
> Brazil
> holland
> portugal
> england
> argentina
> italy (if lippi choses a better line up)
> spain (if they're playing well enough)
Brazil and possibly Holland are the only teams in the world that I think can claim to be better than the Czechs. Portugal are close, but I think the Czech Republic could take them. England? Ahahah. And Argentina are basically like Italy and Spain, in that they have a capable squad, but the inability to actually do anything with it.
> Another thing that annoys me is how Mexico and uruguay are always so
> high in the rankings - How? HOW!!!!
Mexico? Because they're a great team, as you would have seen if you'd watched the Confederations Cup this Summer. They're maybe a little higher in the rankings than they should be, but they're still a very good team. Probably top 10. As for Uruguay, as down said, they consistently get good results against consistently good teams - that's what happens if you're an on-form team in South America. Paraguay and Chile are probably a little lower down the rankings than they should be, but I believe Uruguay's placement is about right. If you're a good South American team, you're top 30 at least, because it's easily the most intense qualifying campaign there is. Any team there could easily handle a World Cup.
> Czech republic are not as good as there ranking suggests. sure
> they've got Tomas rosicky, petr cech, ujfalusi in defence and of
> course baros and koller/heinz up-front has always worked well for
> them. They've have been poor recently, and when was the last time
> they did really well in a major tournament - 96 probs.
Err, did you watch Euro 2004? They were easily the best team in the tournament, and to suggest getting to the semi-finals (gaining maximum points in a group containing Germany and Holland, by the way) isn't doing well is ludicrous.
> Man for man Italy out class Czech republic, i mean they've got
> buffon, zambrotta, gilardino, iaquinta (who has been spectacular the
> last couple of seasons), perrota, del piero. As do spain, raul,
> torres, xavi, joaquin, puyol to name a few - i mean seriously the
> czechsshould not be 4th in the world, Who is better than Czech
> republic hmm..
Man for man, yeah? Well, that's funny, because I don't remember tournaments being won due to the level of each individual player compared to others on different teams. Football is a team competition, and as a team, the Czechs are better than Italy or Spain. Simple. People can make excuses about Italy and Spain all the want, but the truth is both of them choke at international tournaments. Spain always have done, and Italy have in probably at least the last 10 tournaments, maybe barring Euro 2000. Big players or not, if you can't perform when it matters (in tournaments), then you're a failure.
> Brazil
> holland
> portugal
> england
> argentina
> italy (if lippi choses a better line up)
> spain (if they're playing well enough)
Brazil and possibly Holland are the only teams in the world that I think can claim to be better than the Czechs. Portugal are close, but I think the Czech Republic could take them. England? Ahahah. And Argentina are basically like Italy and Spain, in that they have a capable squad, but the inability to actually do anything with it.
> Another thing that annoys me is how Mexico and uruguay are always so
> high in the rankings - How? HOW!!!!
Mexico? Because they're a great team, as you would have seen if you'd watched the Confederations Cup this Summer. They're maybe a little higher in the rankings than they should be, but they're still a very good team. Probably top 10. As for Uruguay, as down said, they consistently get good results against consistently good teams - that's what happens if you're an on-form team in South America. Paraguay and Chile are probably a little lower down the rankings than they should be, but I believe Uruguay's placement is about right. If you're a good South American team, you're top 30 at least, because it's easily the most intense qualifying campaign there is. Any team there could easily handle a World Cup.
ßìgGíË Li††lÊ Jn® wrote:
> or†ega wrote:
> when was the last time
> they did really well in a major tournament - 96 probs.
... Euro 2004, perchance? Better than England, Spain, Italy, anyway.
Also, Brazil won the Confederations Cup
And Mexico and Uruguay are so high because the rankings are more related to confederations than to overall world rankings.
> or†ega wrote:
> when was the last time
> they did really well in a major tournament - 96 probs.
... Euro 2004, perchance? Better than England, Spain, Italy, anyway.
Also, Brazil won the Confederations Cup
And Mexico and Uruguay are so high because the rankings are more related to confederations than to overall world rankings.
Mexico are quite a good team. Definitely have them in the top 10 in the World. Not sure on Uruguay though.
ßìgGíË Li††lÊ Jn® wrote:
> More importantly though
>
> Another thing that annoys me is how Mexico and uruguay are always so
> high in the rankings - How? HOW!!!!
Mexico won the Confederations cup recently i think, and they have won cups and lots of matches in there own continent. Uruguay probably do the same and win lots of games in their own region.
> More importantly though
>
> Another thing that annoys me is how Mexico and uruguay are always so
> high in the rankings - How? HOW!!!!
Mexico won the Confederations cup recently i think, and they have won cups and lots of matches in there own continent. Uruguay probably do the same and win lots of games in their own region.
or†ega wrote:
> Italy are still a class act. Lippi just needs to stop playing Vieri
> who is clearly past it now. I'd like Toni and Gilardino to be
> playing up front regulary with Totti feeding them.
Czech republic are not as good as there ranking suggests. sure they've got Tomas rosicky, petr cech, ujfalusi in defence and of course baros and koller/heinz up-front has always worked well for them. They've have been poor recently, and when was the last time they did really well in a major tournament - 96 probs.
Man for man Italy out class Czech republic, i mean they've got buffon, zambrotta, gilardino, iaquinta (who has been spectacular the last couple of seasons), perrota, del piero. As do spain, raul, torres, xavi, joaquin, puyol to name a few - i mean seriously the czechsshould not be 4th in the world, Who is better than Czech republic hmm..
Brazil
holland
portugal
england
argentina
italy (if lippi choses a better line up)
spain (if they're playing well enough)
More importantly though
Another thing that annoys me is how Mexico and uruguay are always so high in the rankings - How? HOW!!!!
> Italy are still a class act. Lippi just needs to stop playing Vieri
> who is clearly past it now. I'd like Toni and Gilardino to be
> playing up front regulary with Totti feeding them.
Czech republic are not as good as there ranking suggests. sure they've got Tomas rosicky, petr cech, ujfalusi in defence and of course baros and koller/heinz up-front has always worked well for them. They've have been poor recently, and when was the last time they did really well in a major tournament - 96 probs.
Man for man Italy out class Czech republic, i mean they've got buffon, zambrotta, gilardino, iaquinta (who has been spectacular the last couple of seasons), perrota, del piero. As do spain, raul, torres, xavi, joaquin, puyol to name a few - i mean seriously the czechsshould not be 4th in the world, Who is better than Czech republic hmm..
Brazil
holland
portugal
england
argentina
italy (if lippi choses a better line up)
spain (if they're playing well enough)
More importantly though
Another thing that annoys me is how Mexico and uruguay are always so high in the rankings - How? HOW!!!!
AfroJoe wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> By getting two draws?
>
> Yes. To me that's comfortably dealing with one of the biggest names
> in European football. Maybe a win at home would have given me more
> right to say this, but I still think that any team in the world would
> take a draw away to Spain.
Yeah, most would take it, but they didn't beat them at either attempt. I wouldn't call that comfortably dealing with them. It was neither a great nor a bad result, that's what a draw is.
> The fact of the matter is, they won the group, undefeated, conceeding
> only one goal throughout the campaign, yet Spain are still ranked
> higher than them, despite being decidedly average for the majority of
> the campaign. A 90th minute equaliser to rescue a result at home to
> Bosnia is not good. Especially for Spain.
It's not exactly unexpected these days, really. Spain have been underachieving for a long time. ie, on paper they should be doing better than they are. Which is why they're higher, because they have a very good team. They just seem mediocre when they play together most of the time. A bit like England.
> Blank wrote:
> By getting two draws?
>
> Yes. To me that's comfortably dealing with one of the biggest names
> in European football. Maybe a win at home would have given me more
> right to say this, but I still think that any team in the world would
> take a draw away to Spain.
Yeah, most would take it, but they didn't beat them at either attempt. I wouldn't call that comfortably dealing with them. It was neither a great nor a bad result, that's what a draw is.
> The fact of the matter is, they won the group, undefeated, conceeding
> only one goal throughout the campaign, yet Spain are still ranked
> higher than them, despite being decidedly average for the majority of
> the campaign. A 90th minute equaliser to rescue a result at home to
> Bosnia is not good. Especially for Spain.
It's not exactly unexpected these days, really. Spain have been underachieving for a long time. ie, on paper they should be doing better than they are. Which is why they're higher, because they have a very good team. They just seem mediocre when they play together most of the time. A bit like England.
Does anyone remember World Cup '94?
Some third placed teams got through if I remember, the only year that Scotland didn't make as they were the all best country and just missing second place.
Edit: At the competition itself that is
Some third placed teams got through if I remember, the only year that Scotland didn't make as they were the all best country and just missing second place.
Edit: At the competition itself that is
Could always go for the old world Cup system when there were 24 teams. Though that allowed teams placed third in a group of four through to the second round to still get 16 through.
Yeah
I'm just bitter that we'll never qualify for anything again.
Even if we got second place for the World Cup we would probably get humped in the qualifiers again.
I'm a bit sceptical at how good some of these African teams are this year. Though, you do need diversity I suppose.
I'm just bitter that we'll never qualify for anything again.
Even if we got second place for the World Cup we would probably get humped in the qualifiers again.
I'm a bit sceptical at how good some of these African teams are this year. Though, you do need diversity I suppose.
I don't think FIFA would allow the European cup to be equal to the World Cup
And with 32 teams, there would just be toooo many crap teams. the top 32 out of that list would be
Greece
Netherlands
Portugal
England
Czech Republic
France
Sweden
Germany
Croatia
Italy
Turkey
Poland
Spain
Romania
Serbia & Montenegro
Russia
Denmark
Norway
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Slovakia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Republic of Ireland
Belgium
Latvia
Israel
Scotland
Slovenia
and four from
Hungary
Finland
Estonia
Wales
Lithuania
Albania
Iceland
And with 32 teams, there would just be toooo many crap teams. the top 32 out of that list would be
Greece
Netherlands
Portugal
England
Czech Republic
France
Sweden
Germany
Croatia
Italy
Turkey
Poland
Spain
Romania
Serbia & Montenegro
Russia
Denmark
Norway
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Slovakia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Republic of Ireland
Belgium
Latvia
Israel
Scotland
Slovenia
and four from
Hungary
Finland
Estonia
Wales
Lithuania
Albania
Iceland
Page: