World Cup 2010

[biased indian]

Can some one tell me at what time GMT is it going to take place on Friday..

 

[Matteh]

Naah, as an England supporter you think you can beat anyone, is why the group stage is boring because you're watching waiting for a goal all the time.
The reason Australia were so much better to watch in 06 was because you felt any result was possible against Japan/Croatia/Brazil/Italy.

 

[Matteh]

can some one tell me at what time gmt is it going to take place on friday..

1730

 

[biased indian]

1730

hmm 11 PM india time wont be able to watch it as i will be driving to my native place and is expected to reach home around 12.30 AM..it should be over by that time ????

 

[Matteh]

Most probably, unless they decide to make some show of it in the middle.

 

[biased indian]

what about the pre quarter line up ..is it fixed like Teams in Group A playing Group B like that .....or will there be lot for that also

 

[Matteh]

Yeah, should be Winner of Group A plays the Runners Up in Group B and vice versa.

 

[marc71178]

Friday is going to be nerve wrecking..

No, its not.

If we've any pretensions about winning it, we've got to beat all the best teams at some point.

 

[Nate]

Nerve-wrecking for us then. Having a party for it, still not sure why.

 

[GIMH]

Hoping and praying for Eng-Aus in the same group, just think it would be so great

 

[Uppercut]

What If John Nicholson Ran Fifa...?

WAG. Someone agrees with me!

The eight seeds are based on the dodgy FIFA rankings in October. The rankings are obtuse in the extreme. These are not the eight best sides - merely the eight sides which have had the best results against the competition they've been given by another seeded draw for the previous tournament (plus friendlies - if you play easy friendlies and win you go higher). That's not the same thing as being the eight best. Argentina were rubbish and they're a seed. South Africa are a seed because they're the hosts and they're awful. It's senseless.

 

[social]

I would've thought that being given a place in the torney was a big enough gift for SA let alone being made a seed

After all, there's an argument to be made that they are the worst team in the finals

 

[aussie]

No, its not.

If we've any pretensions about winning it, we've got to beat all the best teams at some point.

Indeed. But i would rather us have to face the better teams in a knockout phase, after a negotiable group phase. ENG dont historically start tournaments great anyway.

 

[Uppercut]

Indeed. But i would rather us have to face the better teams in a knockout phase, after a negotiable group phase. ENG dont historically start tournaments great anyway.

They haven't gone out in the opening group stage since 1958.

 

[Agent TBY]

 

[Uppercut]

Just watch aussie try to dig himself out of a hole rather than admit he just made a simple error.

 

[GIMH]

Haha, tbf if he is talking about performances then he has a point, but still, it's a results business

 

[Uppercut]

It's not like they always pick it up after the group stages and perform well for the rest of the tournament either though. They haven't been slow starters, they just haven't been much good.

 

[aussie]

It's not like they always pick it up after the group stages and perform well for the rest of the tournament either though. They haven't been slow starters, they just haven't been much good.

Only person that has dug themselves into a whole is you einstein. My post was never meant to draw the comparison that "ENG are slow starters thus they need a average group to build on, so they can be in better shape to handle to big teams in the knockout phase instead of early on".

As you said ENG since 1966 have never been much good & many intangibles have affected their performances them over the last 44 years. So although this crop of players is probably the best ENG have had since italia 90, i would prefer my team to get a easy group instead of tricky opening.

 

[aussie]