Seems Michael Bradley is the best friend for any team playing the U.S.  Yeesh, what a way to draw.

In the absence of England I'm now going for Argentina - not sure why but got to think of one team

Relying way too much on Messi... Every team will man mark him and then there's no B plan.

At this stage France is the only stand out... and Costa Rica

Mark

which is why we should go out there and smash costa rica apart - set us up for the euros in sept.

Lol... u make me laugh Bill

Quoted from irish eyes Lol... u make me laugh Bill

about bloody time something said about the team made anybody smile

Quoted from Reef Dreamer which is why we should go out there and smash costa rica apart - set us up for the euros in sept.

Just heard Ben Foster's in goal. Setting us up for Euro? Yeah, if we expect to go out in the first round...  

Quoted Text I remember players losing their transfers to English teams because of this and others getting their work permits after appeals. This was of course mostly happening to lower ranked teams in the Premier League as they went after players from such countries. It always seem to me a bit unfair. Is this still in place?

I remember those laws, I also remember when it used to be three foreigners in a team (in european competition).

I believe they were relaxed due to EU law, I think there's still some issues with countries outside europe, players need to have played X amount of times for their country or club. Does not appear to be much of a deterrence,  teams buy non-EU players and then loan them out for a season or two to fulfill their permits.

Quoted Text If teams had to rely more on English talent, they would be more willing to build up English talent, instead of buying foreign talent which are often cheaper than comparable British players. Not saying that's the solution, by any means. But if, say, all PL teams needed to have X number of British players on their squads and X number of British players in the line ups, I see no way that this wouldn't enhance English talent. Less than a third of the top 10 PL teams have squads with a strong English presence (which I am determining as 5 or more regular team members being English): Liverpool, Man U and Southampton. Arsenal and Everton are pretty decent as well, as they normally field squads with 3 or 4 English players as well. But surely, if the likes of Chelsea and Man City fielded squads with as many English players as these previously mentioned teams, this would result in more English players reaching these teams? As I said, there's no sure fire way to improve England's performance, but doing something like this would definitely have some sort of positive impact.

Yeah, you're probably right, Toby. I may have gone on a bit of a tirade in my previous comment, haha. I do see the plus points in having more home-bread players - they will gain experience from playing european games and "top of the table" clashes. But I can't help but feel we've had this before and it still never worked out. After 1966, England have under performed at international level. Club teams never had the masses of foreign players they do now, they did well in europe, but England still failed in world cups and european championships.

I don't really know what the answer is to England's problem. It resides at grass roots level; coaching; overpaid; overrated; I dunno, endless list really.

As with my previous posts in this thread, aside from England, it's been the best world cup I can remember!

Quoted from Scoob As with my previous posts in this thread, aside from England, it's been the best world cup I can remember!

- Yeah it’s been great, lots of attacking football, goals, close games and upsets.

However, there has been a disappointing lack of my favourite type of goal...the good old fashioned long range strike!

Direct free kicks have been hard to come by too with Switzerland's first consolation goal against France being the only one...which was due to a very French acting wall!

The only long rangers have been Messi (sort of) and Jones of the US. I think there is nothing better than a 20-30 yard belter/stonker/thunderbolt/thunderbastard, etc into the top corner with the goalkeeper flailing helplessly or rooted to the spot, whichever, both are immensely visually satisfying on an equal level!

This absence becomes even more apparent after one watches the compilation on youtube of every goal scored in the 2010 World Cup which was considered a conservative tournament yet yielded lots of the aforementioned outside the box thumpers!

We need more of em!

I'm gonna be exceptionally annoyed if England win today... think about it, Costa Rica have beaten Uruguay and Italy's BEST teams (minus Suarez).  

If Hodgson plays a bunch of players that are the "B Team" and they WIN, everyone is gonna get on him for playing the team he played those first two games.

This is why, IMO, the World Cup should have 6 games per group instead of 3.  Like the Champions League, each group team plays each other twice.  

At least that way, teams have a chance to warm-up and get ready for the knockouts.

Quoted from Leegion This is why, IMO, the World Cup should have 6 games per group instead of 3.  Like the Champions League, each group team plays each other twice.   At least that way, teams have a chance to warm-up and get ready for the knockouts.

- Mmm, I dunno about that, wouldn't more games lower the intensity, would it be too drawn out? I like the all or nothing factor in the group games, it adds that extra element of tension/jeopardy which makes them so exciting such as England v Uruguay where everything was at stake.

Yes, you can lose one game and still turn it around but that's all you get, two fu?k ups and you're essentially out. Its tough love but that's what tournaments are all about. I think they have it right the way it is now but knowing FIFA it will probably be extended to 64 teams by 2030...scratch that, 128 teams by 2034!

Wow, Spain, Italy, England and (most likely) Portugal... not been a great campaign for Europe

... and Suarez?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!

Words cannot describe that man.

The thing I find weird is that the only teams in this tournament to make it through groups have been teams from Hot Climates: Brazil, Mexico, Holland, Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Colombia, Argentina...

I wouldn't exactly call Holland a hot climate... Amsterdam was -02 degrees last time I visited! But I do agree that it's odd to see that all teams qualified (apart from Holland) central or south American... Will we see an African team qualify later with Ivory Coast?

But as I said, shocking campaign for European football so far. France have been looking shit-hot, but apart from that, no other European team has looked too impressive. Belgium have been lackluster, Switzerland got demolished by France, and even Holland looked shaky against Australia. And who knows, Germany may even slip up... one can only hope