who do YOU think will win the WorldCup?

what a morning!!
France is out! with not even one goal in the entire worldcup!!
and the best game in the worldcup!!!
3-3 Urugway - Senegal!!
thats why football rules!1 almost 4-3 to Urugway after 3-0 to sengal in half time! what a gme . what a game! and we still got today germany and ireland!

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
...And Americans have been playing soccer for years. Kids love to play it. But they go to baseball games. Go figure!

I've been to Baseball games in the States and still can't see why it's so popular. I enjoyed playing rounders as a kid, but to watch the grown-up equivalent? Can't do it. I even drank beer and ate Cracker Jacks while watching, but it didn't help. And in case you're wondering, yes, I understand the rules of baseball. Just can't get enthused about it.
I prefer watching Cricket because it's a game which requires more skill
Or perhaps it's just about what you've grown up with and/or around and what you're comfortable with.

France out of the World Cup
Overconfidence
They should have taken Zindane from the begining

Originally posted by George Brown:

I prefer watching Cricket because it's a game which requires more skill

Granted, I'm not a huge fan of watching baseball, either, but I can't imagine that it takes any small amount of skill to hit an 85 mph breaking ball or a 100 mph fastball.

Originally posted by George Brown:
I prefer watching Cricket because it's a game which requires more skill

That's why so many baseball players are former cricket players. Not!!!

Italy - Sweden --> the final

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Jennifer & Maki:
Germany
You haven't watched them.
Expectations that we will win were never so low since 1950. And in 1950 they were so low, because we did not participate!!!
brain selection: Brasil, Portugal, England
heart selection: Cameroon, Germany

I'm still going for Germany, it's all this German blood in me I guess! Of course I'd love to see U.S. win though! At least let Keller play a game!!!

ersin im with you!
at least i hope so and Italy wins !
but Italy got a tough match ahead against mexico
which they have to win!

Originally posted by Jennifer Bhamoo:

I'm still going for Germany, it's all this German blood in me I guess!

Yes. Thanks for support.

Much better choice than it appeared before the world cup. Sorry for my stupid post. Now, thanks to great trainer Rudi V�ller and even greater captain Oli Kahn, they are a real team.
To watch the match today wasn't that easy. This month I work as an external consultant/ programmer in an insurance company in my hometown.
A complete madhouse.
Well there's lot of work, and I decided to watch only the second half. I asked in first, second and third floor, but no T.V.. There are lots of PCs, but only one PC with access to internet.
I worked. At minute 15 I got mad and walked in the room with the fancy internet PC. I expected crowds flocking around the screen to watch score. But there was ... nobody. Just some people around with Excel, Word on their screen. Everybody working.
Every 5 minutes or so I walked to that PC. I told them red card for Ramelow. I expected panic, a stampede to the surrounding bars. But nothing. Pure shrug of shoulders. Every prejudice regarding people working in insurance companies was confirmed today.
Second half I watched in a bar with lots of T.V. screen. This 1-0 was such a relief. Although I didn't know anybody it was a nice atmosphere. Not to beery. Not to cold.
This is best german team since 1990.
But 1990 team was way better. :roll:

the 1990 sucked big time dude...
winning 1-0 with a penalty kick the finals is PATHETIC...
this team is much better but i give it the 1/4 final only.

FRANCE.. the defending champs... humbled not only due to thier over confidence...
Hey, one lose to senegal must have woken them up..
Aw.. Zidane wasnt playing the previous matches.. well he cudnt play and he didnt play.. even in the last match, Zidane cudnt really do anything..
moreover, who puts a team up front on the world cup, with only only striker.. how ever stared he may be?? esp. when he is doing bad health??
I sure wudnt..
Well thats about the offensive. look @ the french defense.. it sure has crumbled thrice..
The defense has been absolutely futile in putting up a fight with the opposition offense..
Bad team.. Bad game.. Bad result..

Argentineans have my sympathy. Another favourite team out of world cup as England and Sweden tops the group.
[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Ashok Manayangath ]

here in england we're not shedding too many tears at the departure of argentina
they annoyed us in 1998 when they beat us, their players jeered at ours when they were sat on the coach after the match
had it coming i reckon
final will be england (or maybe brazil) v spain

Argentina and Nigeria are the better teams and should have went to 1/8.
England and Sweden are BORING teams who play bunker and win by accident! 0-0 1-1 or 1-0 is all they can do. absoultely disgusting.

Originally posted by Roy Ben Ami:
Argentina and Nigeria are the better teams and should have went to 1/8.
England and Sweden are BORING teams who play bunker and win by accident! 0-0 1-1 or 1-0 is all they can do. absoultely disgusting.

No one ever said it had to be pretty to be a win. If a team can go 90 minutes without allowing the other team to score more than 1 goal, perhaps they deserve to win.

england have been saving the goals for the knockout stages
also, how can you criticise england for lack of goal-scoring???
we stuck 5 past the germans in September 2001 don't forget!

Originally posted by Roy Ben Ami:
Argentina and Nigeria are the better teams and should have went to 1/8.
England and Sweden are BORING teams who play bunker and win by accident! 0-0 1-1 or 1-0 is all they can do. absoultely disgusting.

And Argentina and Nigeria have amply demonstrated their goal scoring ability this world cup ...

Corey i didnt say they didnt deserve, i said it was DISGUSTING.
Football has 2 approaches:
the german=england=sweden approach which basically says: " play as disgusting as you can, with bunker and then try to have 1 lucky shot at the goal...."
the argentina=brazil=paraguway approach which says:" play nice football and make the crowd enjoy it!! try your best to have fun and make great football".

too bad, that sometimes the tactical boring teams win but thats what the game is about.
and although argentina had bad luck and the ball didnt get in, if you ACTUALLY watched the game you would have seen they played great football with 32 kicks to the goal. sweden had 2 kicks, and enlgnad against nigeria 1.
thats life, and thats football, but that doesnt mean we (the true football fans) have to like it or support them.
i dont have my country in the worldcup and although i like argentina and italy i support every team which tries to play nice football (even if it is against italy and argentina).
sadly, england , germany and sweden dont fall in that category and its a shame to see them go 1 level up.
Brazil team, although i hate , plays good football and deserved to go up.

Originally posted by Roy Ben Ami:
the german=england=sweden approach which basically says: " play as disgusting as you can, with bunker and then try to have 1 lucky shot at the goal...."
the argentina=brazil=paraguway approach which says:" play nice football and make the crowd enjoy it!! try your best to have fun and make great football".

But if the team that could get the most kicks on goal was always the winner, why would anyone watch? I mean, if it was a foregone conclusion that Argentina would always beat England, would anyone watch the game? What would be the point? Just to see how much they'd win by?
Not all teams have the players to play a fast-paced run and gun style. Some teams, obviously, have players that are more suited for defense rather than scoring. You make do with what you have and, if you're good enough at it, I think you are just as deserving to win.
Perhaps a defensive soccer game isn't as much fun to watch, but it doesn't mean that the team playing better defense is any worse than the team that spends all day attacking the net without getting one in.
Corey

once again, i didnt say they couldnt play that way - in fact they can and thats exactly what they do.
But, in my opinion and a lot of football fans like me , we rather watch a good football game with action than a boring one with a team doing a bunker for 90 minutes.
its no wonder, most of the fans enjoy watching brazil or argentina but hate teams like germany and england for their unimaginitive football.
it doesnt prevent them from playing that kind of game (or from taking the worldcup for that matter) but we dont have to like it, and we can prefer watching argentina than germany .
I think i speak for the majority of football fans when i say this.

I hate to bring hockey analogy here, but.. Philadelphia Flyers always have lots of shots on goal, most times a lot more than their opponent. Last time they won Stanley Cup: 1975
Shura

To go along with that NHL analogy (simply because it's easy for me), take the 95 Stanley Cup champions, the New Jersey Devils. They won the championship because of stifling defense, not because they could score.
I didn't say that it's not boring to see a team play all defense, but it's respectable.
Corey

with all the examples flying around, i'd like to give one myself:
no insult to hockey but you really cant compare the two. Football should be played nicely and i surley DONT respect groups who play defense.
This issue is so serious for us football fans, that some groups like Manchester United or Boca Junior have to play fun football and even if they win the championship in their country without playing nice , it is considered an insult and a shame to their fans.
groups who play defensive football are boring, dull and deserve no respect what so ever. that , unfourtantly doesnt prevent them from winning games.
This is the reason, south american football is much more respected than european football. it is creative, fun to watch and makes football the game it was intedned to be.
again, only 2 of the 5 teams actually went to the 1/8 final from south america buit that doesnt mean i should like it

Yes, it is fun to watch. I'd take Argentina-Brasil game over Germany-Sweden, probably, although not certain.
It is like you dislike looking at pendulum clock because it is so predictably mechanic. It is also really Unpleasant to watch BAD South American teams, because they are a mess. Every one attempts, and subsequently fails, to personally beat the whole opponent's defence. Like they've never heard of a pass.
I go out and play myself once in a while. Although I can't call myself a master of ball control, me and my russian buddy(-ies) can take on any Mexican- or African-staffed team any day. Because, although these guys play great individually, they have no clue that football is a Team sport. That's why teams like Germany and England are great.
And it is always fun to watch great teams, no matter what style.

Posted by Roy Ben Ami:
Football should be played nicely and i surley DONT respect groups who play defense.

I guess then you don't understand FOOTBALL. Teams just DON'T WIN WITHOUT DEFENSE.
Shura
[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

sorry to disappoint but the results speak for themselves
if you find it 'disgusting' that england, germany and sweden have progressed then why not just stop watching the competition. that way you will be disgusted no longer.
in the meantime, the rest of us can enjoy the football
'nuff said i reckon
come on england

progressed?
on the contrary. England football is in a downfall since 1966, same goes for other european teams. African and south american football is onnthe rise exactly because it is played nicer.
and i didnt say football shouldbnt have defence. i said football shouldnt be ALL defence like england, germany etc...

Originally posted by Roy Ben Ami:
i said football shouldnt be ALL defence like england, germany etc...

Roy, I'm not saying that you're exhibiting troll-like symptoms but...
I'll take the bait anyway how can you say that england and germany are all defence. That's just nonsense. They play an attacking game too, but they know when to defend.
Otherwise how would they have scored goals (esp. Germany with 8 against Saudi Arabia)
I think the issue is obviously one of teamwork and discipline when it's required rather than an issue of an offense team or a defense team.

Sheesh! I'm spending so much time on the internet that I've forgotten whether I should say defence or defense. Looks like resistance is futile, I may well be assimilated.

Originally posted by Roy Ben Ami:
no insult to hockey but you really cant compare the two.

Actually, hockey is more like soccer than any other sport I know. Perhaps you just don't understand hockey well.
[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Corey McGlone ]

After seeing Mexico play against Italy I think they have a very good chance in this competition.
But... the final minutes of the game were scandalously tortuous. The Italians all remained in their half and the Mexicans just passed the ball backwards and forwards over and over again. Both teams should be fined for that. It wasn't football, it was a disgrace and you could hear the fans getting very annoyed. If you call that sort of thing entertaining you must be extremely bored.

FORZA LA SQUaDRA AZZURRA!
yipee!
go del piero!
and who cares about the last 4 minutes?
the result didnt matter to any one else. even if italy had won or mexico the groups going to the 1/8 would be the same. its not like it hurt anybody.

Actually Corey you can't compare hockey to soccer. Hockey is actually interesting to watch

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Actually Corey you can't compare hockey to soccer. Hockey is actually interesting to watch

A hockey game will end with at least 50-60 shots on goal. A soccer game might have 10 at most.

Indeed - hockey is much more fun to watch (in my opinion) than soccer and it does generate many more shots on net. However, one reason for the high number of shots on net is the smaller rink size. If a hockey rink was as large as a soccer field, you probably....actually, you'd probably generate a bazillion shots because with only 5 skaters on a side, there'd be gobs of room. Of course, if each side had as many players on the ice as soccer players have on the field, the puck would never make it to the net.
When I said that hockey is like soccer, I was referring to the way the players move and set up the plays. If you ever see a game of arena soccer, you'll see how similar they are. The addition of boards and a smaller field sure make soccer a lot more like hockey.
Corey

So you're only interested in the shots on goal? What about the skill and the playing of the game, the foreplay, so to speak ? Doesn't that count for just as much ?

where are all the european ranchers when you ned them?

Originally posted by George Brown:
So you're only interested in the shots on goal? What about the skill and the playing of the game, the foreplay, so to speak ? Doesn't that count for just as much ?

Foreplay only goes so far... the prefix "fore" means that it is something that happens before. In soccer all we get is foreplay!
A lot of things require an enourmous amount of skill but that doesn't mean I want to watch them being done for 3 hours!

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

A lot of things require an enourmous amount of skill but that doesn't mean I want to watch them being done for 3 hours!

Hmmm....that could be a fun list...

Originally posted by Corey McGlone:

Hmmm....that could be a fun list...

You want to watch a Unix server be configured for 3 hours?

Hey it's a nice forum.
Well I think Germany has a fair enough chance to win this world cup like 1990 ( the one I remember).
My Prophecies about half of Round Two :: Arrow points towards winner !
Germany : Paraguay --> Germany
England : Denmark --> England
Sweden : Senegal --> Senegal
Spain : Ireland --> Spain