fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I think it makes sense. Just like they try to keep teams from the same conference in different brackets for March Madness.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Official 2014 World Cup Thread*** (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter NewlyRetired
- Start date
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I suppose the argument is that we want the games to get better as the tourney progresses. It might be kind of anticlimactic for Germany to come out of a group with France and Italy and then face Costa Rica and Cameroon in the next two rounds.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
What happens, though, is that you get a bunch of Euro v. Euro games when the knockout rounds start. I'm not sure it's better to have ACC teams avoid each other in the early rounds of the bracket if it means you have an all-ACC semifinal round. At least, it's ambiguous.
Perhaps - but that is the point of seeding the teams first 1-8, 9-16, 17-24, 25-32
That gets you the best "random" draw, while still putting favorites in a position to advance. IT creates the best potential match-ups throughout the tourney.
Right now, its simply UEFA saying we don't want our 13 teams to knock each other out in the group stage - bad for business back home.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Well, if the Euro teams are that good, they deserve to survive to the knockout round.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I mostly agree with you (although I don't trust Fifa rankings either).
I kind of prefer having a weird semifinal run, even if I think that it's probably true that the European Championships are a "better" tournament considering the average quality of play. So I don't mind if Holland get hosed while South Korea gets some breaks.
I'd also point out the extreme difficulty in actually ranking the teams. And, with FIFA in charge, it would never be corruption free.
The current way that FIFA does its listed rankings is pure folly. Team composition changes yearly - so looking back at team success/failure from 4 years ago is useless to determine the strength of the current squad. Then, you need to toss out friendly results when doing the rankings - so many things go into a friendly game, in terms of how strong a line-up is presented v. getting new players a shot. Then you have to consider that almost all "competitive" national team matches are within the same confederation - i.e. not enough cross-federation matches to get a real sense of how the confederations match up with each other at any given time.
The current way that FIFA does its listed rankings is pure folly. Team composition changes yearly - so looking back at team success/failure from 4 years ago is useless to determine the strength of the current squad. Then, you need to toss out friendly results when doing the rankings - so many things go into a friendly game, in terms of how strong a line-up is presented v. getting new players a shot. Then you have to consider that almost all "competitive" national team matches are within the same confederation - i.e. not enough cross-federation matches to get a real sense of how the confederations match up with each other at any given time.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Dante isn't a bad #3 at cb. I would not consider DL4 a super strong world class cb generally, but he's hardly a weak spot for Brazil, given their style of play as I understand it.I wouldn't classify Brazil as favorites on a neutral pitch. Brazil's top two strikers are still Fred and Jo. They still play David Luiz at CB (and would be particularly exposed if Thiago Silva were to miss a game due to injury or suspension, IMO). Neymar is an excellent talent, but Hulk is a bit of a puzzle on the RW for the Selecao. I also believe that teams are going to kick the hell out of Neymar, unfortunately."Good said:Great kick-off, NR.
Another interesting fact to remember (and has been discussed in the Soccer Thread already) is that South American teams have won all four World Cups hosted in South America. They've also won the two hosted in Mexico (Brazil in 70, Argentina in 86). 9 out of 10 WC's held in Europe were won by European teams, btw. Brazil broke serve in Sweden in 1958.
Brazil's probably the best team in the world before HFA, and they're the clear favorites. But like NR showed, the field is loaded. And there are multiple other South American teams who can give them problems.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
You would think they'd start Dante over Luiz. Or Marquinhos!I wouldn't classify Brazil as favorites on a neutral pitch. Brazil's top two strikers are still Fred and Jo. They still play David Luiz at CB (and would be particularly exposed if Thiago Silva were to miss a game due to injury or suspension, IMO). Neymar is an excellent talent, but Hulk is a bit of a puzzle on the RW for the Selecao. I also believe that teams are going to kick the hell out of Neymar, unfortunately.Good Posting Judge said:
Another interesting fact to remember (and has been discussed in the Soccer Thread already) is that South American teams have won all four World Cups hosted in South America. They've also won the two hosted in Mexico (Brazil in 70, Argentina in 86). 9 out of 10 WC's held in Europe were won by European teams, btw. Brazil broke serve in Sweden in 1958.
Brazil's probably the best team in the world before HFA, and they're the clear favorites. But like NR showed, the field is loaded. And there are multiple other South American teams who can give them problems.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
since I don't like the FIFA rankings, lets use SPI and see what the pots would look like in this scenario for fun
Pot 1:
Brazil
Argie
Spain
Germany
Chile
Colombia
France
Uruguay
Pot 2:
Holland
England
Ecuador
Belgium
Italy
Bosnia
US
Russia
Pot 3:
Portugal
Ivory Coast
Switzerland
Costa Rica
Ghana
Greece
Mexico
Nigeria
Pot 4:
Croatia
Japan
Honduras
South Korea
Iran
Cameroon
Australia
Algeria
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
That's fair. I do think Luiz is a talented but error prone CB. In a short tournament, it only takes one bad game. Often, only one bad mistake (Felipe Melo's red card against Holland at the last WC, for example).Dante isn't a bad #3 at cb. I would not consider DL4 a super strong world class cb generally, but he's hardly a weak spot for Brazil, given their style of play as I understand it.I wouldn't classify Brazil as favorites on a neutral pitch. Brazil's top two strikers are still Fred and Jo. They still play David Luiz at CB (and would be particularly exposed if Thiago Silva were to miss a game due to injury or suspension, IMO). Neymar is an excellent talent, but Hulk is a bit of a puzzle on the RW for the Selecao. I also believe that teams are going to kick the hell out of Neymar, unfortunately."Good said:
Another interesting fact to remember (and has been discussed in the Soccer Thread already) is that South American teams have won all four World Cups hosted in South America. They've also won the two hosted in Mexico (Brazil in 70, Argentina in 86). 9 out of 10 WC's held in Europe were won by European teams, btw. Brazil broke serve in Sweden in 1958.
Brazil's probably the best team in the world before HFA, and they're the clear favorites. But like NR showed, the field is loaded. And there are multiple other South American teams who can give them problems.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
It could be a toss up at cb, but I thought Luiz looked great in the Confed, and Phil has even been giving him the armband in recent friendlies.You would think they'd start Dante over Luiz. Or Marquinhos!I wouldn't classify Brazil as favorites on a neutral pitch. Brazil's top two strikers are still Fred and Jo. They still play David Luiz at CB (and would be particularly exposed if Thiago Silva were to miss a game due to injury or suspension, IMO). Neymar is an excellent talent, but Hulk is a bit of a puzzle on the RW for the Selecao. I also believe that teams are going to kick the hell out of Neymar, unfortunately."Good said:
Another interesting fact to remember (and has been discussed in the Soccer Thread already) is that South American teams have won all four World Cups hosted in South America. They've also won the two hosted in Mexico (Brazil in 70, Argentina in 86). 9 out of 10 WC's held in Europe were won by European teams, btw. Brazil broke serve in Sweden in 1958.
Brazil's probably the best team in the world before HFA, and they're the clear favorites. But like NR showed, the field is loaded. And there are multiple other South American teams who can give them problems.
My prediction for the Samba Boys next summer is a coming out party for #11.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
I kinda like that nobody's gonna want to pull us from Pot 2. Weak of a pot as it is.
I agree, Luiz isn't getting enough credit for the great job he did in the Confederations Cup. With Dante, Marquinhos, and Luis or Adriano as depth I'm not really worried about the back line.It could be a toss up at cb, but I thought Luiz looked great in the Confed, and Phil has even been giving him the armband in recent friendlies.You would think they'd start Dante over Luiz. Or Marquinhos!I wouldn't classify Brazil as favorites on a neutral pitch. Brazil's top two strikers are still Fred and Jo. They still play David Luiz at CB (and would be particularly exposed if Thiago Silva were to miss a game due to injury or suspension, IMO). Neymar is an excellent talent, but Hulk is a bit of a puzzle on the RW for the Selecao. I also believe that teams are going to kick the hell out of Neymar, unfortunately."Good said:
Another interesting fact to remember (and has been discussed in the Soccer Thread already) is that South American teams have won all four World Cups hosted in South America. They've also won the two hosted in Mexico (Brazil in 70, Argentina in 86). 9 out of 10 WC's held in Europe were won by European teams, btw. Brazil broke serve in Sweden in 1958.
Brazil's probably the best team in the world before HFA, and they're the clear favorites. But like NR showed, the field is loaded. And there are multiple other South American teams who can give them problems.
My prediction for the Samba Boys next summer is a coming out party for #11.
Hulk at RW is a bit odd, but I don't expect he will play too wide with Alves bombing forward behind him. I think the Fred and Jo stuff is a bit of European bias.
Keys will continue to be Neymar and Oscar, who were excellent in Confederations.
Last edited by a moderator:
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
There are two groups in that pot.
Teams would rather avoid US, Mexico, SK, Japan and Aussie and probably be happy with CR, Honduras or Iran.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
Fifa moves like a tectonic plate. This is such a simple and affective solution that Fifa will figure out a way to screw it up some how. I am sure they are pitting two companies against each other to maximize the bribes. There is no testing that needs to be done, it has been used in thousands of games already.
The spray is something akin to shaving cream. It de-marks perfectly and then disappears.
It should be mandatory at every professional game, be it club or international level.
Last edited by a moderator:
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I think it is so ingrained in the sport that any change must be a bad change. Association Football makes baseball look nimble in comparison when it comes to changes that will help the sport. This spray change has the following positive affects
1) speeds up the game
2) creates more chances at scoring on free kicks (since without the line, players encroach easily 1-2 yards before kick is taken)
3) reduces yellow cards
I can't think of a single negative affect outside of "oh no this is different, shield my eyes" type of stuff.
Hopefully with billions of people watching next summer, the various leagues and confederations will adopt it for the 2013/14 league seasons.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eephus
Footballguy
Guardian columnists Jonathan Wilson and Michael Cox do an early ranking of the 32 finalists including synopses
1. Spain
2. Brazil
3. Argentina
4. Germany
15. USA
23. Mexico
29. Costa Rica
31. Honduras
Evidently not CONCACAFans
1. Spain
2. Brazil
3. Argentina
4. Germany
15. USA
23. Mexico
29. Costa Rica
31. Honduras
Evidently not CONCACAFans
Eephus
Footballguy
Didier Drogba will trip over the invisible line and roll around on the ground for five minutes
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
That is a bit harsh but not too outrageous. Mexico is obviously the problem. 15 months ago, most of us would have put them neat the top 10. Their horrible year makes Concacaf look worse. I think someone is going to get a nasty surprise drawing Mexico in the group stage.
SPI rankings of Concacaf within the 32 squads is
US 15
CR 20
Mexico 23
Honduras 27
Last edited by a moderator:
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
They should feel right at home in South America.
It's high time the Germans got their 4th. 2nd, 3rd and 3rd the last three cups.Slapdash said:Time for the Seleção to get that 6th star.
First Nazi joke of the thread!
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I wish! Do you already have your ticket package?
I can't even imagine the party down there. Brazilians party on rainy Mondays just cause. The WC is going to be a fantastic away from the stadiums.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Major
Footballguy
I used to live there and still have wimmenz/friends that'll take care of me so free shelter and local ticket prices #winning
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Okay so we know that the draw is not very likely to be kind to the USA - but I was wondering what do we (and the other teams) really deserve?
So what I did is I took the 3 most notable rankings (FIFA, SPI, and ELO) and then put groups together, starting with the top seed and then snaking around - adhering to the FIFA requirements that no group have more than 2 UEFA teams in the same group and no more than 1 team from any confederation in the same group. In the case where I ran up against this requirement I dropped the team I was adding in question (which always seemed to be Ecuador) until the requirement was met (the exception in some scenarios was flipping Algeria and Australia, the last 2 teams in some methods, in order to meet the requirement. The FIFA rankings left a question of what to do with Brazil, which i ranked 11th in the October FIFA rankings. In one scenario I seeded them, but as #8 overall. In another I seeded them as #1 overall. In the 3rd I seeded them according to their FIFA rank. Since Brazil is #1 in both SPI and ELO, I did not need to do these alternate systems for those rankings. So without further adu...
I've also adjusted the groups assigned, b/c why not, based on seed. To split the groups up so that
1 would play 8, with winner gets 4 vs 5 winner and then 2 vs 7 and 3 v 6 on the other side, moving things around in such a way that Brazil is always in group A (I'll put the number of the seed in parentheses for reference)
Method 1 - Brazil gets seeded as the lowest top seed (8th) using FIFA rankings otherwise
Group A (8) - Brazil, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Algeria
Group B (1) - Spain, Bosnia, Cote D'Ivoire, Australia
Group C (4) - Colombia, USA, Russia, Iran
Group D (5) - Belgium, Chile, France, Japan
Group E (2) - Germany, Greece, Ecuador, Cameroon
Group F (7) - Switzerland, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria
Group G (3) - Argentina, Portugal, Croatia, S Korea
Group H (6) - Uruguay, England, Ghana, Honduras
Method 2 - Brazil gets seeded as the top overall seed using FIFA rankings otherwise
Group A (1) - Brazil, Bosnia, Cote D'Ivoire, Australia
Group B (8) - Switzerland, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Algeria
Group C (4) - Argentina, Portugal, Russia, Iran
Group D (5) - Colombia, USA, France, Japan
Group E (2) - Spain, Greece, Ecuador, Cameroon
Group F (7) - Uruguay, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria
Group G (3) - Germany, Chile, Croatia, S Korea
Group H (6) - Belgium, England, Ghana, Honduras
Method 3 - Brazil gets no seed consideration - FIFA rankings used for everyone
Group A (5) - Belgium, Brazil, Ghana, Honduras
Group B (4) - Colombia, Portugal, France, Iran
Group C (1) - Spain, Bosnia, Cote D'Ivoire, Australia
Group D (8) - Netherlands, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria
Group E (2) - Germany, Chile, Croatia, Cameroon
Group F (7) - Switzerland, England, Ecuador, Costa Rica
Group G (3) - Argentina, Greece, Russia, S Korea
Group H (6) - Uruguay, USA, Algeria, Japan
Method 4 - SPI Rankings (Brazil already ranked #1)
Group A (1) - Brazil, Russia, Portugal, Algeria
Group B (8) - Uruguay, Netherlands, Nigeria, Croatia
Group C (4) - Germany, Ecuador, Switzerland, Iran
Group D (5) - Chile, Italy, Ghana, S Korea
Group E (2) - Argentina, USA, Cote D'Ivoire, Australia
Group F (7) - France, England, Mexico, Japan
Group G (3) - Spain, Bosnia, Costa Rica, Cameroon
Group H (6) - Colombia, Belgium, Greece, Honduras
Method 5 - ELO Rankings (Brazil already ranked #1)
Group A (1) - Brazil, Greece, Belgium, Algeria
Group B (8) - Portugal, Uruguay, Iran, Nigeria
Group C (4) - Argentina, USA, Croatia, S Korea
Group D (5) - Netherlands, France, Mexico, Ghana
Group E (2) - Spain, Russia, Ecuador, Cameroon
Group F (7) - England, Chile, Japan, Costa Rica
Group G (3) - Germany, Switzerland, Cote D'Ivoire, Honduras
Group H (6) - Colombia, Italy, Bosnia, Australia
Two things I take away from this:
Every single one of these sets of groups cannot possibly happen for the USA. We really are getting a raw deal here.
As wack as people think the FIFA rankings are, it seems that ELO rankings are pretty wack as well. Australia ranked ahead of Ghana? Okay then.
Anyhow, figured I throw this into the conversation. It also can serve as a measuring stick when evaluating how each team fared in the draw
-QG
So what I did is I took the 3 most notable rankings (FIFA, SPI, and ELO) and then put groups together, starting with the top seed and then snaking around - adhering to the FIFA requirements that no group have more than 2 UEFA teams in the same group and no more than 1 team from any confederation in the same group. In the case where I ran up against this requirement I dropped the team I was adding in question (which always seemed to be Ecuador) until the requirement was met (the exception in some scenarios was flipping Algeria and Australia, the last 2 teams in some methods, in order to meet the requirement. The FIFA rankings left a question of what to do with Brazil, which i ranked 11th in the October FIFA rankings. In one scenario I seeded them, but as #8 overall. In another I seeded them as #1 overall. In the 3rd I seeded them according to their FIFA rank. Since Brazil is #1 in both SPI and ELO, I did not need to do these alternate systems for those rankings. So without further adu...
I've also adjusted the groups assigned, b/c why not, based on seed. To split the groups up so that
1 would play 8, with winner gets 4 vs 5 winner and then 2 vs 7 and 3 v 6 on the other side, moving things around in such a way that Brazil is always in group A (I'll put the number of the seed in parentheses for reference)
Method 1 - Brazil gets seeded as the lowest top seed (8th) using FIFA rankings otherwise
Group A (8) - Brazil, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Algeria
Group B (1) - Spain, Bosnia, Cote D'Ivoire, Australia
Group C (4) - Colombia, USA, Russia, Iran
Group D (5) - Belgium, Chile, France, Japan
Group E (2) - Germany, Greece, Ecuador, Cameroon
Group F (7) - Switzerland, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria
Group G (3) - Argentina, Portugal, Croatia, S Korea
Group H (6) - Uruguay, England, Ghana, Honduras
Method 2 - Brazil gets seeded as the top overall seed using FIFA rankings otherwise
Group A (1) - Brazil, Bosnia, Cote D'Ivoire, Australia
Group B (8) - Switzerland, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Algeria
Group C (4) - Argentina, Portugal, Russia, Iran
Group D (5) - Colombia, USA, France, Japan
Group E (2) - Spain, Greece, Ecuador, Cameroon
Group F (7) - Uruguay, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria
Group G (3) - Germany, Chile, Croatia, S Korea
Group H (6) - Belgium, England, Ghana, Honduras
Method 3 - Brazil gets no seed consideration - FIFA rankings used for everyone
Group A (5) - Belgium, Brazil, Ghana, Honduras
Group B (4) - Colombia, Portugal, France, Iran
Group C (1) - Spain, Bosnia, Cote D'Ivoire, Australia
Group D (8) - Netherlands, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria
Group E (2) - Germany, Chile, Croatia, Cameroon
Group F (7) - Switzerland, England, Ecuador, Costa Rica
Group G (3) - Argentina, Greece, Russia, S Korea
Group H (6) - Uruguay, USA, Algeria, Japan
Method 4 - SPI Rankings (Brazil already ranked #1)
Group A (1) - Brazil, Russia, Portugal, Algeria
Group B (8) - Uruguay, Netherlands, Nigeria, Croatia
Group C (4) - Germany, Ecuador, Switzerland, Iran
Group D (5) - Chile, Italy, Ghana, S Korea
Group E (2) - Argentina, USA, Cote D'Ivoire, Australia
Group F (7) - France, England, Mexico, Japan
Group G (3) - Spain, Bosnia, Costa Rica, Cameroon
Group H (6) - Colombia, Belgium, Greece, Honduras
Method 5 - ELO Rankings (Brazil already ranked #1)
Group A (1) - Brazil, Greece, Belgium, Algeria
Group B (8) - Portugal, Uruguay, Iran, Nigeria
Group C (4) - Argentina, USA, Croatia, S Korea
Group D (5) - Netherlands, France, Mexico, Ghana
Group E (2) - Spain, Russia, Ecuador, Cameroon
Group F (7) - England, Chile, Japan, Costa Rica
Group G (3) - Germany, Switzerland, Cote D'Ivoire, Honduras
Group H (6) - Colombia, Italy, Bosnia, Australia
Two things I take away from this:
Every single one of these sets of groups cannot possibly happen for the USA. We really are getting a raw deal here.
As wack as people think the FIFA rankings are, it seems that ELO rankings are pretty wack as well. Australia ranked ahead of Ghana? Okay then.
Anyhow, figured I throw this into the conversation. It also can serve as a measuring stick when evaluating how each team fared in the draw
-QG
Last edited by a moderator:
The Gator
Footballguy
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
If we stipulate that none of us want Brazil and everyone would want Switzerland as the top seed, how do you guys rank out the rest, factoring the location, in terms of the US?
Here are the other 6 seeds in no order
Spain, Argie, Germany, Uruguay, Colombia, and Belgium.
Since 1990, here are the various US records against each team:
Spain: 1 win, 4 losses
Argie: 2 wins, 1 draw, 3 losses
Germany: 3 wins, 6 losses
Uruguay: 2 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss (have not played since 2002)
Colombia: 2 wins, 4 draws, 6 losses (2 draws were after being tied after extra time and lost in pk's. Fifa considers these draws)
Belgium: 0 wins, 4 losses
Here are the other 6 seeds in no order
Spain, Argie, Germany, Uruguay, Colombia, and Belgium.
Since 1990, here are the various US records against each team:
Spain: 1 win, 4 losses
Argie: 2 wins, 1 draw, 3 losses
Germany: 3 wins, 6 losses
Uruguay: 2 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss (have not played since 2002)
Colombia: 2 wins, 4 draws, 6 losses (2 draws were after being tied after extra time and lost in pk's. Fifa considers these draws)
Belgium: 0 wins, 4 losses
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Colombia
Spain
Uruguay
Belgium
Argentina
Germany
No deep thoughts, except that Germany is just so clinical and battle-tested that I'd never choose them. And that I think Spain is primed for a fall.
Spain
Uruguay
Belgium
Argentina
Germany
No deep thoughts, except that Germany is just so clinical and battle-tested that I'd never choose them. And that I think Spain is primed for a fall.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Diego Costa at striker could give Spain the teeth that they've occasionally lacked since the last WC.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Klinsmann gives us no edge against Germany?
Colombia is a team with pressure without experience amd the '94 result would loom even larger if they faced us.
Belgium hasn't been on the big stage for a while. The fact of playingoff continent is a factor as well. They also are a side that would probably be vastly outnumbered by the US in terms of support in the stadium.
I put Germany next (jokes about Brazil being a 'home' game aside) as our histpry vs them in the big spot is not bad amd I think Klinsmann is a factor to the good for us.
Spain. Hard to put the holders here but off continent does it for me.
Uruguay has had their better form of late and the home continent edge should help (though perhaps the ghost of 1950 will lead the Brazilians to support us.
Argentina. A top squad close to home? Even with the tendency to start slow in group stages - no thanks.
-QG
Colombia is a team with pressure without experience amd the '94 result would loom even larger if they faced us.
Belgium hasn't been on the big stage for a while. The fact of playingoff continent is a factor as well. They also are a side that would probably be vastly outnumbered by the US in terms of support in the stadium.
I put Germany next (jokes about Brazil being a 'home' game aside) as our histpry vs them in the big spot is not bad amd I think Klinsmann is a factor to the good for us.
Spain. Hard to put the holders here but off continent does it for me.
Uruguay has had their better form of late and the home continent edge should help (though perhaps the ghost of 1950 will lead the Brazilians to support us.
Argentina. A top squad close to home? Even with the tendency to start slow in group stages - no thanks.
-QG
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Out of the Euro Pot (assuming France NOT in the pot).
1. Croatia. Worst form of the Euros in the qualifiers.
2. Bosnia. New to the stage and a team we can beat.
3. Greece. Another team that is of a quality we should beat.
4. Russia.
5. England.
6. Italy. Though they often can be had in the group stages.
7. Portugal. Colonial and culture links to Brazil make this the Euro team closest to a Euro team with a home away from home edge.
8. Holland. They are always tough in the group stages and should be a seed.
If France is in this pot (i.e. they make a 9-team Euro Pot I put them after Russia)
-QG
1. Croatia. Worst form of the Euros in the qualifiers.
2. Bosnia. New to the stage and a team we can beat.
3. Greece. Another team that is of a quality we should beat.
4. Russia.
5. England.
6. Italy. Though they often can be had in the group stages.
7. Portugal. Colonial and culture links to Brazil make this the Euro team closest to a Euro team with a home away from home edge.
8. Holland. They are always tough in the group stages and should be a seed.
If France is in this pot (i.e. they make a 9-team Euro Pot I put them after Russia)
-QG
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Presumed other pot.
1. Algeria. A cut below the rest here.
2. Ecuador. On the continent but a team that doesn't play as well outside its borders.
3. Cameroon.
4. Nigeria. Cameroon and Nigeria both are a cut below prior editions.
5. France. Brutal pot.
6. Cote d'Ivoire
7. Chile. Another tough team playingnot far from home.
8. Ghana. Duh
-QG
1. Algeria. A cut below the rest here.
2. Ecuador. On the continent but a team that doesn't play as well outside its borders.
3. Cameroon.
4. Nigeria. Cameroon and Nigeria both are a cut below prior editions.
5. France. Brutal pot.
6. Cote d'Ivoire
7. Chile. Another tough team playingnot far from home.
8. Ghana. Duh
-QG
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
Nice run QG.
Do you know when the official final pots will be announced or do we have to wait for the draw itself?
Do you know when the official final pots will be announced or do we have to wait for the draw itself?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Maybe just break them into tiers...
Colombia (my first choice for sure)
Spain, Uruguay and Belgium (no strong feelings of one over the others)
Germany, Argentina (can see arguments for both)
Last edited by a moderator:
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Away from the general vicinity of the penalty area, I presume.That's what I'd do
Near the penalty area is where I have to worry about the near misses.Away from the general vicinity of the penalty area, I presume.That's what I'd do
:flop:
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
You trip him at midfield, you have to worry about him stumbling all the way to the 18 before falling down.Near the penalty area is where I have to worry about the near misses.Away from the general vicinity of the penalty area, I presume.That's what I'd do
:flop:
Similar threads
