I'm sorry, I forgot this was a mainly English MB. I meant to say that England has the best squad EVER, easily better than Brazil and that Germany are utterly useless. 5-1!!!! 5-1!!! 5-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will be bye-bye Sweden against Germany I'm afraid. They're a class above England, and Schweinsteiger + Lahm will destroy us down the left. Which is why it's so agonizing to hit the bar twice and have another shot cleared off the line... so close to topping the group This really was a game of two halves as they say, with each team having one awful half. Linderoth's corners were excellent, Lucic had a good game and Allbäck did well (And has to be the hardest-working striker at the WC).

Indeed. I get the feeling both teams will more or less cancel eachother out.

This is something else that annoys me... you disagree with some decisions fine, but let it go will you? The continuous insinuations that the ref was paid for or otherwise biased are getting tiresome and have no foundation in reality. Anyone looking at the game objectively can see his reasoning behind the cards even if they don't necessarily agree. You were 11v11 for 28 minutes, 11v10 for 17, and didn't have any shots on goal during that time. And no, watching the other games I don't find Italy to be diving more than others. You can cry all you want because you didn't win, but it doesn't make what you say anymore true. I wonder what you'll be whining about if you lose to Ghana, as they don't have any bad reputation that I know of.

The constant whining at how Italy cheated (Not necessarily on here), getting the word "cheat" into every sentence etc. just makes me wish Italy had won the game. So incredibly sore "losers" after drawing a game 1-1 where you had ZERO shots on target... Italy don't dive more than other teams, but because people watch their games knowing their reputation they interpret anything as a dive. Been shown in countless psychological experiments that people see what they want to see.

Honestly (And you don't have to believe it, but I'm being honest here) I wouldn't think they were ridiculous. Very possible that I'd think they were wrong (I can't know for sure as it wasn't Sweden playing), and I understand anyone saying so, but they weren't ridiculous. And there's a clear difference there. For the first card it's pretty obvious that his foot is off the ground, studs first, and doesn't get the ball. It doesn't have to be malicious, as seen countless times in the past. Whether it's red or yellow is a matter of whether you follow the stricter interpretation the refs have been instructed for this WC, or the usual one. Ridiculous implies that there's nothing whatsoever to support the decision, but there clearly was. Perhaps not quite enough, but that's a different matter. The second, to me, comes down to whether the ref should look at the incident more separately or take into account the effect it'll have on the quality of the game. It might have been a tad harsh (And like I said, I wouldn't have thought it wrong to let it slide), but again it wasn't ridiculous. But let's just agree to disagree, like you say. It'll take time before any American can see sense in this game. Just look at the English and the disallowed goal in '04, still not over it Not that it matters though, but it was more like 9½ v 9 with Perrotta being pretty much immobile for the last ~25 minutes. Anyway, at least you're not like this guy (Said ~55 minutes into the game on another forum) EDIT: And Gerrard too in the past, along with many others. Doesn't mean anything though does it? Similar isn't the same as identical. Keep in mind what the referees have been instructed to keep an extra eye on during this tournament. Also if you follow the logic that refs should be more lenient with 2nd yellows "for the sake of the game", then can't they also be harsher with the reds for the same reason? 10v10 makes for a better game than 10v11. EDIT #2: Dunno if I can be arsed to reply more here though. I think my view on this is pretty clear already. Some agree, some disagree.

http://www.fwtf.com/temp/red_1.gif Foot off the ground, studs first, follows through with the other leg (Although that part wasn't too bad) and is nowhere near the ball. Refs had been told to look out for this particular type of challenge too. Could easily have broken his ankle, spot on decision IMO. Again, noone would have complained about Pope if it had been his first yellow, and IMO there shouldn't be too much weight put on whether it's his first or second card. Card or no card there, 50/50. Neither decision is exactly wrong. There also seems to be a very clear divide (On the boards I visit anyway) in that Americans find their two cards ridiculous, while most others (And not just Italians) don't. But that's, obviously, down to the general anti-American feelings in Europe..

All three red cards were fine IMO. There'd have been no complaints about Pope's card if it had been his first. EDIT: Also, good decision with the disallowed goal. I don't think he had a great perfomance though, as both sides had good penalty appeals turned down, and some free kicks were quite quetionable indeed.

To me it feels like some of you seriously overestimate your own team. Saying that the individual quality in the side is equal to that of Brazil or Argentina is something you'll only hear from an Englishman. Players like Rooney, Gerrard, Terry and a couple more would have a good shout at getting into any squad in the world, but behind that it's a bit thin. Don't get me wrong, the rest of the starting 11 are quality players, but there's honestly not much between many of them and the Croatian, Portuguese, Swedish etc players. Enough quality to be a world top 10 team, and regularly reach quarter finals? Sure. Enough quality to, on a good day, be able to beat any side in the world? Yes. But the best squad in the world? Not really. Perhaps that's the impression you'd get if you watched very little Spanish, Italian, German and French football, but it's not necessarily accurate. It's perhaps also a matter of playing styles. It's a less valid argument now compared to 10-15 years ago, but perhaps being used to the British style of play isn't a great thing internationally? Doesn't help that Ashley Cole, Rooney and Owen aren't 100% match fit either. Anyway, people assess players differently and are bound to disagree. But it's my opinion that is that the lack of silverware is due, at least in part, to the quality of the squad, and not solely down to the foreigner. Sure, SGE hasn't been perfect, but look at his record as England manager and you'll find that it's not bad. Results won't magicly improve with an Englishman in charge

Tbh, the US didn't impress me at all vs the Czechs, while Italy looked good against Ghana, so it's hard for me to see anything but a win for Italy. If that doesn't happen, I think it'll be a 0-0 draw.

That was from 2002 (Assuming it's the one where Mellberg makes a tackle and Ljungberg squares up to him right after? Something like that, been a while since I last saw it). This "incident" was in the dressing room right after the game. The actual incident *is* a non-story, but there is perhaps a story here; Who leaked it? Apparently there weren't many people there at all when it happened. Fife: Sorry for doubting you, just seemed a bit *too* sincere if you know what I mean Tris: Hilarious. But maybe I was one step ahead of you; knowing all along that someone would pick up on it? Or maybe I wasn't, you'll never know!

Fife: If that's sincere, then thank you and I accept your apology (Not that there's any need to apologize). If it's sarcastic, then I'd just like to say that I didn't post it because I was upset or anything, I was simply curious; was it a pun I didn't understand, general stupidity or something else? Speeeeeeeedie: The reason I brought England and Paraguay into it is that the only thing that matters in a WC grp is how well you play compared to the other teams in the group. I saw nothing from Paraguay and England that says we can't beat them, and thus go through. They also had 11 men before the break, we still had a lot of posession. And remember that you can only play what's put before you. Having most of the play and creating a lot of chances is never bad, regardless of opposition. Again, the finishing and the cutting edge inside the box wasn't there, but apart from that it wasn't bad. WC debutantes are also very motivated and raise their game several notches. Ivory Coast and Angola certainly caused Argentina and Portugal some problems, and Angola's squad isn't really better than T&T's. EDIT: Oh, and Chippen is Wilhelmsson. Little end product, but against an immobile defense his pace could cause serious problems. EDIT #2: Just so we're clear; I'm not saying it was a fantastic performance or anything, I'm just saying it wasn't as bad as the result. Normally we did more than enough to win, but poor finishing, bad luck and a great performance from Hislop made sure it stayed 0-0.

"fighting" :D :D It's a non-story, created by a reporter at TV4, known for being generally clueless. Immediately after the game, in the dressing room, some players (Not just those two) had a heated discussion about the game. Ljungberg wasn't happy with how Mellberg played the ball out of defense for one thing, but I'm sure there was more to it. Outside the penalty area we weren't bad at all, you'd be blind not to see that. Inside the area we were awful however, noone is disputig that. But were England or Paraguay any good? They certainly weren't... Englands second half was awful, Paraguay's first half even worse. Even the teams' respective "good" halves weren't anything to be afraid of. Paraguay's slow central defenders will have serious problems if Ljungberg + Chippen wake up and start playing and making their runs.

Iran had a great first half, but then switched off for the 2nd half and it cost them the game. Mexico were impressive as the game progressed though, and actually made 3 at the back look good. Basicly because Mexico played a 3-4-3 they had two players on the wing at all times, and Karimi had to track back to help his full back a lot. Which probably stifled his game. He also seemed to play a bit too centrally.

If he's replacing anyone it's Svensson. Against a team like T&T Linderoth seems a bit "useless", but against better teams that'll attack more (England and Paraguay) he's great. He's honestly one of the best defensive midfielders in this tournament. Extremely underrated. Positioning and tenacity second to none. Without him the likes of Gerrard and Lampard will get too much time on the ball. If Linderoth is fit, he plays. And I wouldn't want it any other way.

Iran to win 2-1. Got some money on Iran to win, and they're my pick for surprise of the tournament.

Tbh we weren't poor, it was the finishing (And generally all play inside their penalty box) that let us down. The rest was fine. In a way it's not unexpected, we're still not very good at trying to break down sides, we do better against better teams for some reason. And since neither Paraguay or England impressed me I think this is still very much doable. And what's with English people writing "Sweeden" all the time? I never see it from other people, but a lot of Englishmen do it, even when it's spelled correctly several times in the same thread. And skip the "this is not school!!!! yadda yadda" crap.

First-choice keeper Andreas Isaksson suffered a concussion during training yesterday after Kim Källström's shot hit him in the face, and he'll miss the game against T&T, and possibly against Paraguay as well. I'm not worried about the T&T game, but I want him in the other two games as he really is a great keeper. Surprised he's still at Rennes. Now either Rami Shaaban or Jon Alvbåge will play, with a grand total of two caps between them. I'd have wanted IFK Göteborg keeper Bengt Andersson in the squad, because his age (39) nonwithstanding, he's still a brilliant keeper.

47217 I just started though, so I'm a bit behind everyone else

I've a couple small bets on Toni (17/1) and Adriano (11/1 IIRC). Oh, and a fiver on Podolski at 40/1.

Nah it's fine, a lot better than the usual attempts by foreigners

While the three most recent friendlies (Finland, Chile, Ireland) have been with the "real" team (Although several regulars didn't feature against Finland and Ireland), the friendlies against the Saudis and Jordan were with domestic-based players only, and thus aren't really any indication of form. The two games featured 5 members of the WC squad, 3 of whom are likely starters, 1 backup and the 3rd choice keeper. I also wouldn't pay too much attention to friendlies, but there are some worrying signs, not least the fact that in the last qualifying campaigns (EC 2004, WC 2006) we've actually not gone undefeated through them, which we did in 2000 and 2002. A meaningless loss vs Latvia in 2003 and two 1-0 losses vs Croatia. Also, a few years back our strength was defensively, and we looked clueless offensively. Now we're much better going forward, but at the cost of some defensive stability. Remember that while we didn't perform well in the friendlies, we pasted Iceland 4-1 away during qualifying for example. It's not been all bad results lately. Strengths: The attack. Zlatan didn't have the best of seasons, but there's no doubting his talent. And Henrik Larsson turned a Champions League final around with his two assists, and looks ten years younger than he really is. Two brilliant players, backed up by the reliable Marcus Allbäck who has a good record for Sweden (23 goals in 55 games). Fredrik Ljungberg is also, as you all probably know, a threat too. Another strength is the workrate of the side. Weakness: The right side of the pitch, mainly right back. I'll list the potential lineups below so you can see for yourselves. The problem here is that Niclas Alexandersson might be the best player in the Swedish league, but he's not a right back. He says so himself, his manager says so. Mikael Nilsson was converted to an emergency right back for Euro 2004, and now has it as his primary position. But he has been out injured a lot this year, and had very little match training before being selected for the WC. He's also a very poor tackler. Likely lineup (4-1-3-2) Isaksson; Alexandersson, Lucic, Mellberg ©, Edman; Linderoth; Wilhelmsson, Svensson, Ljungberg; Larsson, Ibrahimovic What could change is Nilsson instead of Alexandersson, and Källström intead of Wilhelmsson. If Källström does play the question is which side Ljungberg and Svensson play on. Ljungberg can play on both (Played centrally for Halmstad, on the right for Arsenal, on the left for Sweden), but he prefers the left for Sweden. Svensson is a central midfielder, but has played on the left for Elfsborg this season. My prediction for this game: 3-0 to Sweden. And I expect England to win the group with 7pts, ahead of Sweden on goals scored. England - Sweden is always a draw Oh, most importantly; Swedes are always at their best when it really matters, and like Rovers have a combative squad that thrive on the competitive nature in games. I expect us to shake off any problems from the friendlies, and having T&T in the opener is great.

To me it was quite obviously tongue-in-cheek, but there are a few things that could explain how people didn't spot it: It's not too different from real, "serious," articles from the US on football, that also tend to be full of inaccuracies and extremely poor "reasoning". And, the big one, it's not actually funny. At all. "Soccer would get bigger audiences if they started playing with heads of princes instead of leather balls", "Soccer would be more popular if everyone started using steroids like they do in the real sports, Am. Football and Baseball". Hilarious, isn't it? As for the popularity (And I suppose mainly directed at American); Making these comparisions is quite pointless indeed, because the structure of Am. football in the states and the structure of Football in most countries around the world is VERY different. Am. football probably has a higher average attendance per game. What does that tell us? That it's a more popular sport? Less popular? Better? That fans are more passionate about their teams? Less passionate? No, it tells us absolutely nothing of the kind. There are fewer professional teams around in Am. football, and thus they each on average have a bigger following than the average professional Football club in England, Spain, Italy or Germany. They also play far less games in a season (I believe it's 16? Or something close to that anyway, compared to the 60 a football club can play), and thus there will be more attention on one game. What makes football so great to me is that people everywhere love it. It may not be the biggest sport everywhere, but wherever you go in the world you'll see football being played. Everyone knows it. Some may value how "big" a sport is in terms of the average interest level of all the countries in which it's played, some by raw attendance numbers, some by other criterias that I can't be arsed to list now, but I prefer to look at how widespread it is. And no sport can compare to football in this aspect. People from all social classes, all religions, all "races", all continents, all ages, all <insert anything you can think of>. I agree that simply dismissing something that a lot of people care about is wrong, but I'd say it's "more wrong" to put the interest of one people above the interest of almost every other people, rather than the other way around. Which, to emphasize further, doesn't mean I condone dismissing Am. Football just because Europe don't like it, or anything similar. How fast a sport grows is largely irrelevant though, as an increase from 1 player to 100 players would be a huge increase, but it'd still be a tiny sport (And before any overzealous yank jumps me, I know very well that both Am. Football and Baseball are bigger than that even here in Sweden, where "nobody" gives a crap about them). Take Floorball for example. It took ~15 years from the creation of the sport to it becoming the second most played sport in the country, ahead of well established sports like hockey, handball, basketball, tennis, athletics etc. That's, by any standards, explosive growth. And yet I suspect that 90% (If not more) of you have no idea what the sport is. In case it wasn't clear, the point of this example is that "fastest growing" alone means nothing, and that labelling someone ignorant for not knowing about something fast-growing isn't quite the same as labelling them ignorant for not knowing something that's far more widespread, albeit not fast-growing. But indeed, the popularity of the Super Bowl is quite amazing. I don't care about Am. Football much at all, but yet I stay up to 5 A.M once a year (Usually before a school/work day) to watch it, but I can't explain quite why I might start liking it more if I watched some games in person, that weren't broadcasted commercially, as the constant commercial breaks really annoyed me.

The Mendieta goal I mentioned earlier Click!. Perhaps a bit OT, but it's one brilliant goal, similar to one of the candidates here.

Probably true that they're not as good as they were in '98 when they reached the semis, but they are by no means a poor team. In the qualifying for this WC they beat Sweden twice, and while we're not the best team in the world or anyhing, only Croatia (Twice) and Latvia (In a meaningless game) have beaten us over 90 minutes in a competitive game in almost 6 years (The other losses are Senegal in extra time in '02, and Holland on penalties in '04). This might not prove anything other than that their playstyle works against us, or that we simply had two bad days, but I'd like to believe it means something. Australia may very well beat them, but it should be no means be considered an easy win. That group could get very interesting with Croatia, Japan and Australia battling it out for that second spot (I don't think Brazil will have any trouble. But then one only needs to look at France or Argentina in '02..)