THIRDPLACE-O-METER

[Optimistic Nut]

I used to think people from Japan were called Japanians until I was about 13.

[Deuce]

I used to think people from Japan were called Japanians until I was about 13.

 

Were they your companions?

[Nobody]

Wouldn't be any shame losing to Colombia tbh.

Still bite us in the arse that we didn't even try to finish first get Japan.

And it'd go down as a shite WC if we only beat Tunisia and Panama and then lose the only two decent teams we played

[TRon]

Surely all of the major nations that have gone out early will have a massive overhaul after this. This is England's best chance of progressing far into the tournament in years.

 

Of course it is, there's no reason why England can't do it logically, but you just know they'll find a way to fuck it up somewhere.

[Deuce]

Wouldn't be any shame losing to Colombia tbh.

Still bite us in the arse that we didn't even try to finish first get Japan.

And it'd go down as a shite WC if we only beat Tunisia and Panama and then lose the only two decent teams we played

 

Aren't you Swedish?

[Guest firetotheworks]

f***. Me.

 

I've been spelling it that way my whole life and never once noticed.

 

There we were now here we are, all this confusion nothing's the same to me.

Haha, yeah.

 

 

 

...nee idea.

[Greg]

f***. Me.

 

I've been spelling it that way my whole life and never once noticed.

 

There we were now here we are, all this confusion nothing's the same to me.

Haha, yeah.

 

 

 

...nee idea.

 

[Infinitely Content]

Wouldn't be any shame losing to Colombia tbh.

Still bite us in the arse that we didn't even try to finish first get Japan.

And it'd go down as a shite WC if we only beat Tunisia and Panama and then lose the only two decent teams we played

 

Love the excuses coming out already  Just face it we should have been trying to win every game man, nay such thing as an easy side of the tournament. Russia just knocked out one of the best sides in it earlier, after all. Anything can happen.

[Guest neesy111]

I really don't think their's any easy games from now on, the quality gap in international football has really narrowed in recent years.

[Guest firetotheworks]

f***. Me.

 

I've been spelling it that way my whole life and never once noticed.

 

There we were now here we are, all this confusion nothing's the same to me.

Haha, yeah.

 

 

 

...nee idea.

 

Ahhh okay. That'll be why.

[Optimistic Nut]

Wouldn't be any shame losing to Colombia tbh.

Still bite us in the arse that we didn't even try to finish first get Japan.

And it'd go down as a shite WC if we only beat Tunisia and Panama and then lose the only two decent teams we played

 

Love the excuses coming out already  Just face it we should have been trying to win every game man, nay such thing as an easy side of the tournament. Russia just knocked out one of the best sides in it earlier, after all. Anything can happen.

 

Uruguay, Portugal, France, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico & Japan

Colombia, Spain, Russia, Croatia, Denmark, Switzerland & Sweden

 

If you could hand pick one side to be on before the tournament started, which would you choose?

 

On one side of the draw, we could have played our best but if the opposition also did, there's 3 better than us and 2-3 who'd run us close.

 

On the other there's one who'd beat us at their best (they're out), a few who on their day could beat us but if we play our best, we should beat.

[mrmojorisin75]

In my life I've never sat in a tournament and thought we could win it. This is the first time. It's there for the taking, everyone is as bad as each other. I think we might do it.

[Rich]

Can we add an “11”?

 

Would’ve been 12 if Denmark had won.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

I really don't think their's any easy games from now on, the quality gap in international football has really narrowed in recent years.

England was very fortunate to draw a group with two of the "easy games" available in the entire tournament, tbh. Outside of Saudi Arabia, all of the other sides were at least competitive or difficult to break down.

 

Colombia struggled against Senegal, tbh. I think England are better. The best side on that side of the draw, tbh.

[Sifu]

I really don't think their's any easy games from now on, the quality gap in international football has really narrowed in recent years.

 

To my mind, this is it basically. England can't take it for granted that there's a relatively "favourable" route to the Final. If this World Cup is anything to go by, it really doesn't matter who you are, if you bottle it and don't take it to the opposition on the day, you will more than likely get punished.

 

It goes without saying that Tuesday will be the first true test of England's mettle (I'm not counting the Belgium game as neither side looked like they wanted the win on that day) - if they get the win against Colombia, then things will certainly look good

[Disco]

Best chance ever really.

 

France in the final of the big teams could be the preference. This group are known bottlers.

[Guest firetotheworks]

One thing I will say, like. Imagine the hype if this was the draw and it was the 2006 squad.

[Infinitely Content]

Wouldn't be any shame losing to Colombia tbh.

Still bite us in the arse that we didn't even try to finish first get Japan.

And it'd go down as a shite WC if we only beat Tunisia and Panama and then lose the only two decent teams we played

 

Love the excuses coming out already  Just face it we should have been trying to win every game man, nay such thing as an easy side of the tournament. Russia just knocked out one of the best sides in it earlier, after all. Anything can happen.

 

Uruguay, Portugal, France, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico & Japan

Colombia, Spain, Russia, Croatia, Denmark, Switzerland & Sweden

 

If you could hand pick one side to be on before the tournament started, which would you choose?

 

On one side of the draw, we could have played our best but if the opposition also did, there's 3 better than us and 2-3 who'd run us close.

 

On the other there's one who'd beat us at their best (they're out), a few who on their day could beat us but if we play our best, we should beat.

 

I'd say "Oh, here we have 14 teams all capable of getting out the groups, they'll all be tough games. As well as that, this is football and there's thankfully a lot more to it than face-value. We best just take it on a game-by-game basis try win every match we can and build up steam as well as we can".

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

I know what you're saying, but it's taking it to the enth degree if you'd honestly say that with a straight face if you were given the choice of playing Brazil or Sweden/Switzerland in the quarter finals. Objectively there's an easier option, you don't have to be all Dr Ian Malcolm about the whole thing.

[Infinitely Content]

If I had to have any preference/choice of teams to come up against, I would sooner make that choice based on form/last match rather than names anyway. Same would go for Newcastle in a semi final for instance. Would I rather play say Leicester bang in form or Chelsea not really playing up to their full capabilities at the time? Certainly makes it a less clear cut question. I personally would veer towards the bigger side, with the added rationale that teams often step up and play better when the quality they're facing is perceived as being higher.

 

Basically, it's just not as simple as > see big name > choose other way, for me personally. Gladly football doesn't work that way too as we have seen numerous times in this tournament.

[Hanshithispantz]

"Dr Ian Malcolm"

 

Anyway I don't know how you can say there' no easy side of the tournament like IC. You use Spain getting beat off Russia but that just highlights how bad this side is - the best team go out and there's very little left. That couldn't have happened on the other side, the best hope for Belgium was/is Mexico beating Brazil but even then Mexico are no pushovers and they were/are still guaranteed to be playing a strong side in the Semis.

 

We could realistically beat Columbia and then play Sweden and Russia. That was never possible for Belgium as their half is stacked with very good sides.

[Infinitely Content]

Because I just can't see a good enough reason to quantify it in such a way. Say Switzerland thrash Sweden 4-0. Brazil edge past Mexico on pens. Who would I rather play? Well the answer isn't all that definitive & clear to me in such a scenario. So without knowing things such as form, which requires fresh judgement on a game-to-game basis, there's no such thing as an easier side to me.

[Kaizero]

You'd want to play Switzerland. No matter the scenario, one team is Brazil and the other team is Switzerland, which means you'd want to play Switzerland.

[Guest firetotheworks]

If I had to have any preference/choice of teams to come up against, I would sooner make that choice based on form/last match rather than names anyway. Same would go for Newcastle in a semi final for instance. Would I rather play say Leicester bang in form or Chelsea not really playing up to their full capabilities at the time? Certainly makes it a less clear cut question. I personally would veer towards the bigger side, with the added rationale that teams often step up and play better when the quality they're facing is perceived as being higher.

 

Basically, it's just not as simple as > see big name > choose other way, for me personally. Gladly football doesn't work that way too as we have seen numerous times in this tournament.

 

Aye, but Brazil are bang in form so I've no idea how this argument would apply.

[Dembacha]

You'd want to play Switzerland. No matter the scenario, one team is Brazil and the other team is Switzerland, which means you'd want to play Switzerland.

 

Yup. One team hasn't beaten England since 1981 the other one has won 5 world cups ( that would be Brazil)