| Same old England 13:31 - Nov 20 with 12994 views | trampie |
How have England got such an easy draw on paper yet again in this World Cup ?
Before looking at the draw I thought they won't get past both Brazil and Argentina but it looks likely that Brazil and Argentina are going to be in a different half of the draw and destined to play each other in the semis, so any potential winner from the other half won't have to play the both of them (unless one of Brazil/Argentina don't win their group and perhaps they would be not that good anyway in that scenario).
Brazil might be deemed to be better overhaul than Argentina but possibly not head to head versus Argentina (didn't Argentina beat Brazil in the last Copa America ) so if Argentina get past Brazil in the semis then there is as much chance of an Argentina v England as there is of any other possible finals.
Iran, USA and Wales in the group for one of the 'big teams' in the form of England means they couldn't ask for better draw than that, then the possible easiest last 16 tie for them (possibly Senegal from Africa) then a potential Quarter final against France, France seem to be on the way down they lost 2-0 to Denmark last time out, they have injuries to their top players like Benzema and Pogba then England would have on paper a possible semi final against ageing Belgium.
England couldn't hand pick a better draw if they tried. |  |
| |  |
| Same old England on 21:30 - Dec 3 with 974 views | Fireboy2 |
| Same old England on 21:24 - Dec 3 by NotLoyal |
In an old school group of death Wales should never have been so poor.
Those players will look back on those games and regret it to their dying day. |
So will page for not picking Moore to start against the usa, plus giving too much gametime to bale and ramsey. |  | | |
| Same old England on 22:07 - Dec 3 with 949 views | jack247 |
| Same old England on 21:14 - Dec 3 by Dr_Parnassus |
We were inept I agree, but to say it’s a favourable group is factually incorrect for the reasons already stated.
It’s easier to get 4 points against the likes of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, Ecuador etc than get 4 points against three teams in the top 20.
So while it’s frustrating we didn’t play well and there were certainly some fundamental errors in team selection, we were never likely to qualify from such a group where every team is strong with no team to pick up an “easy” three points from.
Sadly in a group like ours, we were the whipping boys. |
Of course, but as bottom seeds there was never going to be a whipping boy.
I think ourselves and Ukraine would actually have been pot 3 under normal circumstances, but Scotland were pot 4 and FIFA based it on that when they made the draw before we qualified.
Qatars group yes, but as I said above, it’s distorted because they were pot 1. Netherlands hit the jackpot as they missed all the genuine pot 1 teams and were pot 2 themselves.
A group of death/three teams battling it out for second place is an absolute result if you’re the bottom seeds. We could have been in there with Argentina, Poland and Mexico as an example.
We drew against USA, could have been buried by half time, but equally, probably would have beaten them had Page not got his tactics so wrong and started with the line up he changed it to at half time. We were 0-0 in injury time until our keeper got sent off against Iran. As flatly as we played almost all tournament, we were well in contention in both games. We wouldn’t have been, playing that badly, against the stronger pot 2 and 3 teams. |  | | |
| Same old England on 22:31 - Dec 3 with 915 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 22:07 - Dec 3 by jack247 |
Of course, but as bottom seeds there was never going to be a whipping boy.
I think ourselves and Ukraine would actually have been pot 3 under normal circumstances, but Scotland were pot 4 and FIFA based it on that when they made the draw before we qualified.
Qatars group yes, but as I said above, it’s distorted because they were pot 1. Netherlands hit the jackpot as they missed all the genuine pot 1 teams and were pot 2 themselves.
A group of death/three teams battling it out for second place is an absolute result if you’re the bottom seeds. We could have been in there with Argentina, Poland and Mexico as an example.
We drew against USA, could have been buried by half time, but equally, probably would have beaten them had Page not got his tactics so wrong and started with the line up he changed it to at half time. We were 0-0 in injury time until our keeper got sent off against Iran. As flatly as we played almost all tournament, we were well in contention in both games. We wouldn’t have been, playing that badly, against the stronger pot 2 and 3 teams. |
But we are talking about England, not Wales. Completely different discussion.
England will have wanted an easier 3 teams in the group because all three teams could have taken something from them, quite conceivably.
The perspective of the 1st seed and 4th seed is completely different. For Wales it was a decent group as there was not two top 10 teams.
From Englands perspective however, it was the toughest group out there as all teams were in the top 20. |  |
| |
| Same old England on 22:47 - Dec 3 with 911 views | jack247 |
| Same old England on 22:31 - Dec 3 by Dr_Parnassus |
But we are talking about England, not Wales. Completely different discussion.
England will have wanted an easier 3 teams in the group because all three teams could have taken something from them, quite conceivably.
The perspective of the 1st seed and 4th seed is completely different. For Wales it was a decent group as there was not two top 10 teams.
From Englands perspective however, it was the toughest group out there as all teams were in the top 20. |
They could have ended up with Germany or Netherlands instead of the USA. Serbia or Poland instead of Iran.
With the exception of maybe Tunisia, any team in pot 2 or 3 could have conceivably given them a game.
Yes, on paper we were probably the toughest pot 4 team, but that’s far less relevant than drawing the weakest pot 2 team.
They’d have been delighted with that draw. | | | |
| Same old England on 07:36 - Dec 4 with 864 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 22:47 - Dec 3 by jack247 |
They could have ended up with Germany or Netherlands instead of the USA. Serbia or Poland instead of Iran.
With the exception of maybe Tunisia, any team in pot 2 or 3 could have conceivably given them a game.
Yes, on paper we were probably the toughest pot 4 team, but that’s far less relevant than drawing the weakest pot 2 team.
They’d have been delighted with that draw. |
But you are again looking at England, through the eyes of Wales.
They have to simply finish in the top two, so Germany don’t come into it if they landed in their group. They would simply have to finish above the world number 24 (Japan) and 31 (Costa Rica), Germany would become a mere irrelevance in the great scheme of things.
If they landed in the Netherlands group they would simply have to finish above the world number 44 (Ecuador) and world number 50 (Qatar), again the Netherlands become an irrelevance.
Both the above groups are far easier to qualify from as an elite side, then having to finish above two top 20 sides. | |
| |
| Same old England on 08:06 - Dec 4 with 862 views | jack247 |
| Same old England on 07:36 - Dec 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
But you are again looking at England, through the eyes of Wales.
They have to simply finish in the top two, so Germany don’t come into it if they landed in their group. They would simply have to finish above the world number 24 (Japan) and 31 (Costa Rica), Germany would become a mere irrelevance in the great scheme of things.
If they landed in the Netherlands group they would simply have to finish above the world number 44 (Ecuador) and world number 50 (Qatar), again the Netherlands become an irrelevance.
Both the above groups are far easier to qualify from as an elite side, then having to finish above two top 20 sides. |
They would have wanted to win the group and secure an easier second round tie. Every top seed bar Qatar would have.
England, USA, Iran, Wales. They probably qualify from this group 9 times out of 10, win it 8 times out of 10.
England, Germany, Poland, Saudi Arabia
England, Netherlands, Serbia, Ecuador.
They don’t win either of those groups 8 times out of 10, even though they contain the two lowest seeds excluding Qatar. They are groups of death.
Qatar were in pot 1. If England were in that group it would have been in place of them.
I’m 100% convinced Germany and Belgium would both still be here if they had Englands place. | | | |
| Same old England on 08:27 - Dec 4 with 835 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 08:06 - Dec 4 by jack247 |
They would have wanted to win the group and secure an easier second round tie. Every top seed bar Qatar would have.
England, USA, Iran, Wales. They probably qualify from this group 9 times out of 10, win it 8 times out of 10.
England, Germany, Poland, Saudi Arabia
England, Netherlands, Serbia, Ecuador.
They don’t win either of those groups 8 times out of 10, even though they contain the two lowest seeds excluding Qatar. They are groups of death.
Qatar were in pot 1. If England were in that group it would have been in place of them.
I’m 100% convinced Germany and Belgium would both still be here if they had Englands place. |
It makes very little difference if you come top or second, it’s often an advantage coming second.
All they want to do is qualify, two whipping boys is the order of the day when it comes to elite teams - who the other team is doesn’t matter, failing that - one whipping boy and a below average side will do.
They got 3 good sides instead.
Happy enough to replace Qatar with Senegal, the end result is the same. It’s easier to finish above 1 top 20 side than two. That’s all it comes down to. | |
| |
| Same old England on 08:46 - Dec 4 with 832 views | jack247 |
| Same old England on 08:27 - Dec 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
It makes very little difference if you come top or second, it’s often an advantage coming second.
All they want to do is qualify, two whipping boys is the order of the day when it comes to elite teams - who the other team is doesn’t matter, failing that - one whipping boy and a below average side will do.
They got 3 good sides instead.
Happy enough to replace Qatar with Senegal, the end result is the same. It’s easier to finish above 1 top 20 side than two. That’s all it comes down to. |
It certainly wouldn’t have been in this case, they’ll be happier playing Senegal than Holland.
Iran are whipping boys for teams like England. They beat them 6-2. On your logic they only really need a point from us or the USA. That’s a breeze of a draw.
The FIFA ranking are a joke as everyone knows. You could probably name 10 teams outside the top 20 who would start as favourites against Iran.
Even within Europe, where comparisons can be more accurate, would we be favourites against Poland, Serbia, Ukraine, Sweden, Russia | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Same old England on 08:52 - Dec 4 with 817 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 08:46 - Dec 4 by jack247 |
It certainly wouldn’t have been in this case, they’ll be happier playing Senegal than Holland.
Iran are whipping boys for teams like England. They beat them 6-2. On your logic they only really need a point from us or the USA. That’s a breeze of a draw.
The FIFA ranking are a joke as everyone knows. You could probably name 10 teams outside the top 20 who would start as favourites against Iran.
Even within Europe, where comparisons can be more accurate, would we be favourites against Poland, Serbia, Ukraine, Sweden, Russia |
Iran aren’t whipping boys for anyone, they are in the Worlds top 20 and deservedly so.
Germany put 7 past Brazil a while back, it would be silly to say they were whipping boys though. One result doesn’t define a team, their ranking speaks for itself.
Again, it’s easier to finish above one top 20 team than finish above two top 20 teams.
I disagree that the FIFA rankings are a joke since the way they have been calculated was changed in 2018 based on ELO.
People had no idea that Iran and USA are now decent sides, that’s all it boils down to.
At home we would be favourites against all those teams you listed yes. Neutral venue would be close, it would depend on who is available in our thin squad at the time. [Post edited 4 Dec 2022 8:53]
| |
| |
| Same old England on 08:56 - Dec 4 with 826 views | jack247 |
| Same old England on 08:52 - Dec 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
Iran aren’t whipping boys for anyone, they are in the Worlds top 20 and deservedly so.
Germany put 7 past Brazil a while back, it would be silly to say they were whipping boys though. One result doesn’t define a team, their ranking speaks for itself.
Again, it’s easier to finish above one top 20 team than finish above two top 20 teams.
I disagree that the FIFA rankings are a joke since the way they have been calculated was changed in 2018 based on ELO.
People had no idea that Iran and USA are now decent sides, that’s all it boils down to.
At home we would be favourites against all those teams you listed yes. Neutral venue would be close, it would depend on who is available in our thin squad at the time. [Post edited 4 Dec 2022 8:53]
|
If you think England needing 4 points from USA, Iran and Wales is a tough draw for them, that’s your prerogative. | | | |
| Same old England on 09:08 - Dec 4 with 807 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 08:56 - Dec 4 by jack247 |
If you think England needing 4 points from USA, Iran and Wales is a tough draw for them, that’s your prerogative. |
I didn’t say it was tough. No draw should really be tough for the top seed in a World Cup.
What I said was, qualifying in a group with 3 top 20 teams is harder than qualifying from a group with two awful teams irrespective of the strength of the other.
Ergo - it’s nowhere near the easiest group for a seed 1 team and indeed one of the hardest available… that is a world away from calling it tough. | |
| |
| Same old England on 09:32 - Dec 4 with 809 views | jack247 |
| Same old England on 09:08 - Dec 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
I didn’t say it was tough. No draw should really be tough for the top seed in a World Cup.
What I said was, qualifying in a group with 3 top 20 teams is harder than qualifying from a group with two awful teams irrespective of the strength of the other.
Ergo - it’s nowhere near the easiest group for a seed 1 team and indeed one of the hardest available… that is a world away from calling it tough. |
You called it the hardest group. That’s no different to calling it tougher than the other 7. That is not a world away from calling it tough. | | | |
| Same old England on 10:57 - Dec 4 with 772 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 09:32 - Dec 4 by jack247 |
You called it the hardest group. That’s no different to calling it tougher than the other 7. That is not a world away from calling it tough. |
Eh? You are once again losing me here.
If I say the following regarding a group of 8 men:
“of all 8 men, man number 3 is the tallest”
At 5 foot 7… it doesn’t mean I think he’s tall. It means he’s the tallest man of the selection given.
So yes, it’s wildly different to the assumed and incorrect retort of “if you think 5 foot 7 is tall then more power to you”.
Him being tall was not a consideration of mine, nor indeed anything to do with the point being made, making the retort completely devoid of accuracy or substance.
So to move that back to the discussion - there is no real tough group for a seed 1 team with the goal to finish in the top 2 and I didn’t claim any group to be “tough”. All should comfortably qualify, if they don’t then something has gone very wrong.
Some are harder than others though, and of the groups that exist - ours is one such group that is unquestionably harder than others, if not the hardest, for a seed 1 team to qualify. This of course in response to the inaccurate statement that England had the easiest group/route.
I’m extremely careful with my words in order to stop people twisting them, so just use what I say. No need to embellish or fill in your own gaps.
Everything I mean, I say, and everything I say, I mean. Use those words please. [Post edited 4 Dec 2022 11:06]
| |
| |
| Same old England on 13:35 - Dec 4 with 732 views | jack247 |
| Same old England on 10:57 - Dec 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
Eh? You are once again losing me here.
If I say the following regarding a group of 8 men:
“of all 8 men, man number 3 is the tallest”
At 5 foot 7… it doesn’t mean I think he’s tall. It means he’s the tallest man of the selection given.
So yes, it’s wildly different to the assumed and incorrect retort of “if you think 5 foot 7 is tall then more power to you”.
Him being tall was not a consideration of mine, nor indeed anything to do with the point being made, making the retort completely devoid of accuracy or substance.
So to move that back to the discussion - there is no real tough group for a seed 1 team with the goal to finish in the top 2 and I didn’t claim any group to be “tough”. All should comfortably qualify, if they don’t then something has gone very wrong.
Some are harder than others though, and of the groups that exist - ours is one such group that is unquestionably harder than others, if not the hardest, for a seed 1 team to qualify. This of course in response to the inaccurate statement that England had the easiest group/route.
I’m extremely careful with my words in order to stop people twisting them, so just use what I say. No need to embellish or fill in your own gaps.
Everything I mean, I say, and everything I say, I mean. Use those words please. [Post edited 4 Dec 2022 11:06]
|
Stick to the topic please.
You’ve already said the group was not winnable for us and you feel the fifa rankings are reasonably accurate. With us, USA and Iran clustered closely together, that surely implies it would have been very difficult for any of the three to win it, so where does that leave England.
Reality is, they would have been wanting and expecting to win the group, the other three all had a decent chance of second place.
With England having different aspirations to the rest, it was a favourable draw for all four teams. Us and England slightly more than the others, as we were (in theory) a tough pot 4 team. | | | |
| Same old England on 15:56 - Dec 4 with 687 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 13:35 - Dec 4 by jack247 |
Stick to the topic please.
You’ve already said the group was not winnable for us and you feel the fifa rankings are reasonably accurate. With us, USA and Iran clustered closely together, that surely implies it would have been very difficult for any of the three to win it, so where does that leave England.
Reality is, they would have been wanting and expecting to win the group, the other three all had a decent chance of second place.
With England having different aspirations to the rest, it was a favourable draw for all four teams. Us and England slightly more than the others, as we were (in theory) a tough pot 4 team. |
This is the topic.
I’m explaining to you that saying something was the hardest (from a pre set selection), doesn’t mean it was hard. Saying someone is the tallest (from a small group of people) doesn’t mean they are tall.
No group was winnable for us, but we are talking about England. England are an elite side who should qualify in the top 2 of any group, quite comfortably. However as groups go, with all three teams being in the top 20, ours was among the (if not the) hardest for England to qualify from.
It’s not a remotely difficult concept to understand. [Post edited 4 Dec 2022 18:01]
| |
| |
| Same old England on 18:01 - Dec 4 with 653 views | shingle |
| Same old England on 15:56 - Dec 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
This is the topic.
I’m explaining to you that saying something was the hardest (from a pre set selection), doesn’t mean it was hard. Saying someone is the tallest (from a small group of people) doesn’t mean they are tall.
No group was winnable for us, but we are talking about England. England are an elite side who should qualify in the top 2 of any group, quite comfortably. However as groups go, with all three teams being in the top 20, ours was among the (if not the) hardest for England to qualify from.
It’s not a remotely difficult concept to understand. [Post edited 4 Dec 2022 18:01]
|
That is like saying something was the easiest doesn`t mean it was easy, or saying someone is the shortest doesn`t mean they are short, why you are going down the hardest route again shows that confusing yourself is a regular occurrence. | | | |
| Same old England on 18:05 - Dec 4 with 646 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 18:01 - Dec 4 by shingle |
That is like saying something was the easiest doesn`t mean it was easy, or saying someone is the shortest doesn`t mean they are short, why you are going down the hardest route again shows that confusing yourself is a regular occurrence. |
It is like saying that, yes.
- 8 blokes in a line. Tallest one is 5 foot 7. Saying he’s the tallest doesn’t mean he’s tall, does it.
- 8 jigsaw puzzles one the floor. One with 2 pieces, the next with 3, the next with 4 etc etc saying the one with most pieces is the hardest doesn’t mean it’s hard, does it.
- 8 World Cup groups…..
You’re welcome. | |
| |
| Same old England on 18:05 - Dec 4 with 644 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 17:59 - Dec 4 by Treforys_Jack |
Makes sense to me. Which is a worry  |
Looks like someone is confused by the simple concept though. Hardly a surprise  | |
| |
| Same old England on 19:42 - Dec 4 with 606 views | pencoedjack |
| Same old England on 22:01 - Dec 2 by raynor94 |
The dissing of Henderson tells you everything you need to know about that clowns football knowledge |
Fair dos he doesn’t have a clue. |  | | |
| Same old England on 19:55 - Dec 4 with 586 views | onehunglow |
| Same old England on 19:42 - Dec 4 by pencoedjack |
Fair dos he doesn’t have a clue. |
Imagine us having somebody like Henderson for a captain.
A leader, a vocal guy,an inspiration to his team mates and one who can score goals.
Makes you think | |
| |
| Same old England on 19:58 - Dec 4 with 584 views | jack247 |
| Same old England on 15:56 - Dec 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
This is the topic.
I’m explaining to you that saying something was the hardest (from a pre set selection), doesn’t mean it was hard. Saying someone is the tallest (from a small group of people) doesn’t mean they are tall.
No group was winnable for us, but we are talking about England. England are an elite side who should qualify in the top 2 of any group, quite comfortably. However as groups go, with all three teams being in the top 20, ours was among the (if not the) hardest for England to qualify from.
It’s not a remotely difficult concept to understand. [Post edited 4 Dec 2022 18:01]
|
No, it’s a simple concept to understand.
I just assumed you would have applied perspective. If you’re stating that it was the hardest group, but still not tough, then it’s a bit of a moot point.
Your second paragraph is my point exactly. If you’re taking the rankings as accurate and no group, in your words, was winnable for us in 19th, then surely the same would apply to Iran in 20th and it would be very difficult for USA in 16th. That would mean England were almost certain to win it, which is what happened, at a canter. | | | |
| Same old England on 20:23 - Dec 4 with 560 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Same old England on 19:58 - Dec 4 by jack247 |
No, it’s a simple concept to understand.
I just assumed you would have applied perspective. If you’re stating that it was the hardest group, but still not tough, then it’s a bit of a moot point.
Your second paragraph is my point exactly. If you’re taking the rankings as accurate and no group, in your words, was winnable for us in 19th, then surely the same would apply to Iran in 20th and it would be very difficult for USA in 16th. That would mean England were almost certain to win it, which is what happened, at a canter. |
Why is it a moot point?
What was being said was, England have had a favourable draw and have the easiest group. My response was to show it was among the toughest of all possibilities… that was not me claiming it was a tough group.
I reiterated that several times.
England were essentially a certainty to qualify from any group, they have qualified from every World Cup group bar one since I have been in this earth - but our group provided the greatest challenge for them… but that challenge was still not a big one.
I think you maybe decided to apply your own meaning to the point I was making. I did make that clear when you initially changed it from Englands perspective to Wales’. | |
| |
| Same old England on 20:25 - Dec 4 with 551 views | onehunglow |
| Same old England on 20:23 - Dec 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
Why is it a moot point?
What was being said was, England have had a favourable draw and have the easiest group. My response was to show it was among the toughest of all possibilities… that was not me claiming it was a tough group.
I reiterated that several times.
England were essentially a certainty to qualify from any group, they have qualified from every World Cup group bar one since I have been in this earth - but our group provided the greatest challenge for them… but that challenge was still not a big one.
I think you maybe decided to apply your own meaning to the point I was making. I did make that clear when you initially changed it from Englands perspective to Wales’. |
I fail to see the hate speech coming Dr P s way
England are and we’re light years ahead of us and the others
They took it easy on us,let’s face it.
It is impossible for more welsh men to be objective about England and it’s painful to behold | |
| |
| Same old England on 20:30 - Dec 4 with 543 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Same old England on 20:25 - Dec 4 by onehunglow |
I fail to see the hate speech coming Dr P s way
England are and we’re light years ahead of us and the others
They took it easy on us,let’s face it.
It is impossible for more welsh men to be objective about England and it’s painful to behold |
There’s no hate speech. I’d remove it if there was. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.