Comments on: Weltmeisterschaft 2006

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:17:54 +0000

Puzzlement at why Brazil should be favored; has a South American team ever won a World Cup played in Europe? Yes, but in 1958 when they had arguably one of the best teams ever—and they don’t play the same “pure” Brazilian style now that they played back then.

Italy tends to get off to a slow start in the first round—they tend to win a game and get two draws and have everyone else beat each other up. The US could put up a win against Italy.

Dutch—Always too many head cases.

Spain—’nough said.

England—Find a way to beat themselves or get screwed out of a win. I think the soccer gods are punishing them for a controversial cup win in 1966.

Look for the Germans to march to victory.

By: glenn

glenn — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:58:43 +0000

Czechs are very good, and the way Italy is playing – relying mostly on their reputation, and are a shadow of former selves – the USA has a slim, but not impossible, chance of getting second. Clearly, playing in Europe helps the azzurri. But at the end, I think we’ll have to suffer through another Brazilian victory.

By: Doug T

Doug T — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:54:02 +0000

Dumb question that is now irrelevant, but if the Netherlands really are a good bet to win it all, then why would their first round group make that big of a difference? If you’re really good enough to be one of the favorites to win the whole thing, then surely getting out of the first round ought to be fairly straightforward, an easy enough task that it wouldn’t affect the odds that much.

To put it another way, the difficulty and chance of failure is a lot higher when playing in the second round, when it’s win or go home and every single opponent is a top team, as opposed to the first round, where the success criteria is usually winning every other game, and half of the opponents are lower tier teams.

By: strewelpeter

strewelpeter — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:21:32 +0000

A foolproof way to make lots of money on british based exchanges is to lay ENG ER LAN AND in all major international sporting events in which they compete.
No matter how good or bad their teams are or what their real chances of winning are they will always be bought at a huge discount to the real odds by punters who bet with their hearts.

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:12:39 +0000

Are the Czechs actually any good? I confess to having missed if they are. And I wouldn’t want to underestimate Ghana (see the FR-GH opener in 2002), but I do like the Americans’ chances of getting out of the group. Whether or not any goals at are are scored in the games that Italy plays.

As for the US team being good because a few guys are in the Bundesliga, I think that’s exactly backwards. First, the Bundesliga is not that good (see current Champions’ League results). Second, the Americans are not getting much time on the field. Unless, in contrast to athletes in every other sport on the face of the planet, they are getting better by not playing, warming a Bundesliga bench is not such a great thing. MLS is a better pro league than it gets credit for.

And for whatever the FIFA rankings are worth, they have the USA at #8 and Italy at #12. Group of Death it may be, but whose?

By: Guy

Guy — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:26:07 +0000

I am afraid the Dutch team is indeed overrated, but that could be to their advantage. Hubris has all too often made them selfdestruct.

One interesting detail: Ivory Coast player Salomon Kalou has been applying for Dutch citizenship. So far it has been denied. Should he be naturalised, he’ll end up playing against his ‘former’ country. The Dutch will be playing either with Kalou or against him. Good stuff for a debate on immigration.

By: Danny

Danny — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:13:43 +0000

Brazil is easily the most talented side – but talent doesn’t mean much – look at Euro 2004.

Fortunately, Brazil have the Miror Theory on their side: Observe:
1982 – Italy
Going 4 years backwards and forwards:
1978, 1986: Argentina
Again:
1974, 1990: Germany
Once Again:
1970, 1994: Brazil
A bit of cheating:
1966, 1998: Host nation (England & France respectively)
Back in the mold:
1962, 2002: Brazil

Well, Brazil won it 1958. According to this calculation, they should win it this time round as well.

By: novakant

novakant — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:04:12 +0000

well, well, everybody please keep in mind that Denmark (if you’re too young, old or haven’t been paying attention – I kid you not), yes, DENMARK managed to win the European championships in 1992…

hmmm, had I only bet a couple of 1000 on Denmark then …

By: des von bladet

des von bladet — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:31:23 +0000

Swe-der-lnd, Swe-der-lnd, Swe-der-lnd!

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:50:43 +0000

There was a survey of yesterday of Swedish football figures says that England along with Trididad and Togo were our dream opponents,

Yes but this is probably just because England have such an abysmal record against Sweden (no victories for 37 years). Even if this run continues (and there’s not guarantee of that) England should still get through the group phase.

By: P O'Neill

P O'Neill — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:30:19 +0000

Togo and Ivory Coast seem to prove that political collapse is no obstacle to having a half-decent football team.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:40:06 +0000

OK, I’d like to retract the idea that the US are good value now that they’ve landed in one of the two groups of death. (They’ve actually gone out to 94-1 on Betfair now)

Hektor – I believe they’d have actually taken Serbia & Montenegro’s place in group C, rather than Ivory Coast’s, though they’re probably wishing they’d got Costa Rica or South Korea’s instead.

Oh, and did anyone else find themselves wishing Poland had been drawn into the second spot in Germany’s group, so they’d get to play the opening match against them?

By: aretino

aretino — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:30:59 +0000

Hmmm. In 2002, the U.S. outplayed runner-up Germany pretty obviously. Only spectacular goal play and one set-piece goal saved Germany.

Yes, and needing only a draw to advance from their group the U.S. let a dire Poland thrash them. (Remember that naive football I told you about. Yeah, there it is.) Only Portugal’s spectacular implosion saved the Yanks’ blushes.

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:10:28 +0000

Oranje boven!

By: Mrs Tilton

Mrs Tilton — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:50:18 +0000

For once I find myself largely in agreement with Slocum. Minor dissents: German victory over USA also materially aided by dodgy refereeing; spectacular goalkeeping yes, on the whole, but Kahn made one of his few bad calculations of WC02 in the match against the Americans, and it very nearly cost the Germans dear. (He made a far more serious error in the final, of course, and that one did cost.) America won’t win; but chances are good they’ll give a decent account of themselves.

But, in the end, it’s gotta be Togo.