Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] World Cup Play-Offs.



Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,211
Surrey
So, two remaining then.

Australia (0) v (0) Honduras
Rocking home crowd and the Aussies are favourites, but before this tie started it was too close to call. I never think 0-0 away is as good as it sounds in tight match ups where away goals count double. If Honduras score, they'll go through because I don't think Australia are good enough to score two against a team as good as Honduras.

Peru (0) v (0) New Zealand
I can't really see New Zealand getting anything in Lima - comfortable home win. They are heavily dependent on Winston Reid and Chris Wood, and it sounds like Wood is injured anyway.
 




San Siro

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
72
England have 'had it easier' because we have maintained a strong ranking that ensures we are seeded for every qualifying group. Italy have not, therefore they ran the risk of ending up with a team like Spain. You can't criticise England for that. It's easy to dish out the blame now but the real damage was done the moment Italy slipped into the second tier. The Netherlands did the same and ended up with France in their group. England may be very uninspiring but we have at least got a fantastic qualifying record and obviously do enough to remain a seed.

England often do well in qualifiers and friendlies and then die in competition.Italy do the opposite hence their success in competition yet they are low in rankings.We all know the ranking system is a joke anyway when you look at some of the teams high up.
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,211
Surrey
I don't know about Holland but Italy are not 'shite'.We just had a 'shite manager'.If you look at our players man for man we are not 'shite'but if you want to post 'shite'because you are ignorant then go ahead.
You're deluded. I'm pretty far from ignorant, you're just not very good (shite).

England would have beaten Moldova at home with that manager, no doubt about it.
 


San Siro

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
72
But there's some quirky teams like Panama, who will have a cult following. To be honest I'm looking forward to watching them in high-scoring games rather than Italy and USA playing for a dreary draw in order to secure a point they need for the knockout stages. Where can I buy a Panama hat to watch their matches? :)

Yeah if I was going to bother watching the World Cup Panama would really pull me in along with Morrocco and please someone tell me Tunisia qualified because they always entertain.
 


San Siro

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
72
You're deluded. I'm pretty far from ignorant, you're just not very good (shite).

England would have beaten Moldova at home with that manager, no doubt about it.

As I said,England often do well in qualifiers and friendlies then die in competition aided by two recent defeats by Italy.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,211
Surrey
As I said,England often do well in qualifiers and friendlies then die in competition aided by two recent defeats by Italy.
Well, yes but in order to beat England at major tournaments, you need to qualify. Normally Italy manage (usually with a degree of comfort) but this time they were just absolute toilet. I know you had Spain in your group, but let's not forget it was never close there either. They absolutely smashed you in Madrid, where you got off lightly "only" losing 3-0.

Yeah if I was going to bother watching the World Cup Panama would really pull me in along with Morrocco and please someone tell me Tunisia qualified because they always entertain.

The world hasn't ended just because Italy won't be there. Occasional failure to qualify is a thing for every single country in the world not called Brazil. And it's not like Italy would have entertained - they have forgotten how to score goals. They're shite. :lolol:
 


Iggle Piggle

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2010
5,337
It's only a shame if they are any good, and Italy and the Netherlands are not - they are shite. Italy couldn't score a goal in two games against Sweden and had a home draw against Moldova in qualifying. No big loss.

Come back when they are good enough.

I agree with you to a point - Ace is clearly a Pizza eating, Chianti drinking version of Graham Taylor and the Italian downfall is their own fault.

The flip side is 2 issues. Firstly, We've got some pub teams that have qualified. Iran, Panama and Saudi Arabia. The world cup is slowly eroding the number of European teams and it's not better for it . The North American group is almost impossible for a half decent team to not get out of it although the Yanks somehow managed it. The second issue is that the FIFA rankings put Italy in the same group as Spain. Teams like Switzerland and the Taffs play the ranking game by not playing friendlies or beating Sunday league teams to boost their points to the extent that Gareth Bale FC were top ranked. It's a nonsense that we have Serbia and Wales in one group and Italy and Spain in another.
 


San Siro

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
72
Well, yes but in order to beat England at major tournaments, you need to qualify. Normally Italy manage (usually with a degree of comfort) but this time they were just absolute toilet. I know you had Spain in your group, but let's not forget it was never close there either. They absolutely smashed you in Madrid, where you got off lightly "only" losing 3-0.



The world hasn't ended just because Italy won't be there. Occasional failure to qualify is a thing for every single country in the world not called Brazil. And it's not like Italy would have entertained - they have forgotten how to score goals. They're shite. :lolol:

I assume you are an England supporter so you would clearly recognise 'shite'.Even when Italy are 'shite' they still entertain more than England do including their performance last night which could have gone differently if the awful ref had given us two clear pens.There's no point qualifying if you have no real chance of winning and whilst Italy often find a way England always fail miserably so whilst you have qualified what does it really mean if you have no realistic chance to win.
 






Durlston

"Garlic bread!?"
NSC Patron
Jul 15, 2009
9,765
Haywards Heath
Yeah if I was going to bother watching the World Cup Panama would really pull me in along with Morrocco and please someone tell me Tunisia qualified because they always entertain.

I thought with Ciro Immobile in the form of his life, the brilliant Gianluigi Buffon and three-man defence, you'd do it last night. I know how it's shit when your nation doesn't make major tournaments though. Without England at USA '94 and Euro 2008 it was so unmemorable. OK, Panama and Morocco aren't going to win the World Cup but they're going to have a party and enjoy themselves.
 


OzMike

Well-known member
Oct 2, 2006
12,938
Perth Australia
So, two remaining then.

Australia (0) v (0) Honduras
Rocking home crowd and the Aussies are favourites, but before this tie started it was too close to call. I never think 0-0 away is as good as it sounds in tight match ups where away goals count double. If Honduras score, they'll go through because I don't think Australia are good enough to score two against a team as good as Honduras.

You obviously didn't see the game in Honduras, Australia were all over them and did everything but score, a bit like the game we had against Watford.
I think a comfortable home win with Tim Cahill and two or three other suspended players back as well, 2 - 0.
Bet your house on it.
 
Last edited:




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,205
Goldstone
Italy are a shadow of their former selves but this 'anti-football' a lot of these teams are playing will kill the game. Sweden have 10 x 6+ ft yard dogs on display, no creativity whatsoever. It is desperate to watch.
Knocky would walk into this Italian team too.
But he's French?

We had the players but not the coach.Had Conte stuck around we would not have been in this mess.Some on here think it's funny and that's fair enough however personally when I watch the world cup which I now won't be doing I want to see the big teams.The World Cup will not have Italy or Holland and that's a big shame for any true football fan.
When you watch a WC you want to see the big teams, but you won't bother if your team isn't in it. Bye then :shrug:
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,345
Chandlers Ford
I assume you are an England supporter so you would clearly recognise 'shite'.Even when Italy are 'shite' they still entertain more than England do including their performance last night which could have gone differently if the awful ref had given us two clear pens.

Agree there were two clear pens in that game last night.


(both should have been awarded AGAINST Italy, for handball)
 






Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,772
Location Location
I assume you are an England supporter so you would clearly recognise 'shite'.Even when Italy are 'shite' they still entertain more than England do including their performance last night which could have gone differently if the awful ref had given us two clear pens.There's no point qualifying if you have no real chance of winning and whilst Italy often find a way England always fail miserably so whilst you have qualified what does it really mean if you have no realistic chance to win.

What absolute BOBBINS

Should the World Cup Finals just have Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain and France then ? After all, whats the point of anyone else being there, if they have no chance of winning it.

Whats the point of BHA being in the PL. After all, we have no chance of winning it.

Give your head a wobble.
 


San Siro

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
72
I thought with Ciro Immobile in the form of his life, the brilliant Gianluigi Buffon and three-man defence, you'd do it last night. I know how it's shit when your nation doesn't make major tournaments though. Without England at USA '94 and Euro 2008 it was so unmemorable. OK, Panama and Morocco aren't going to win the World Cup but they're going to have a party and enjoy themselves.

Personally I haven't enjoyed recent World Cups anyway.1982 for example was a classic and not just because Italy won.You had the best Brazil side never to have won the World Cup,very good Dutch,German and French sides and some memorable games.Over the last 15 years the big international teams have declined in quality.Brazils 7-1 loss was just one example.The big teams are not crammed with the truly world class players of 20/30 years ago.It use to be that you had some very good teams and a bunch of average teams in the World Cup.Now they are all meeting in the middle.They are also enlarging the world cup to further erode the quality.Where as I use to watch alot of the games,the last 3 world cups I have watched much less.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,205
Goldstone
I don't know about Holland but Italy are not 'shite'.We just had a 'shite manager'.
:eek: That's the same thing. The manager is the most important member of the team. And you call Simster ignorant. A ****, maybe, but not ignorant.
 




San Siro

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
72
What absolute BOBBINS

Should the World Cup Finals just have Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain and France then ? After all, whats the point of anyone else being there, if they have no chance of winning it.

Whats the point of BHA being in the PL. After all, we have no chance of winning it.

Give your head a wobble.

BHA are in the Prem to make it a proper league with sufficient numbers for around 3 teams to win it.We all know that.
 


San Siro

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
72
:eek: That's the same thing. The manager is the most important member of the team. And you call Simster ignorant. A ****, maybe, but not ignorant.

Having just a 'shite' manager means you get a non-'shite' manager in and its happy days again.However if you already have a non'shite' manager but 'shite' players then you have serious problems.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here