Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Group Winners! - Sven IN !!!!
- Thread starter Willow
- Start date
Stinky Kat
Tripping
Our group was harder than Italys and they did worse than us
Lots of people have jumped on the anti sven bandwagon.
Stinky Kat
Tripping
i am on the sven fence
sirmax2004
New member
i thought the team looked a lot more balanced last night with SWP on the right and also lampard was much better and he had the freedom to control the game with king playing a more holding role. i would have been pretty pissed off had we not won the group whoever was manager. not a huge fan of svens but as long as we keep winning i'm happy
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
England had the weakest group in terms of the rankings of the other teams. Check this out (from The Times).
Add the Fifa world rankings of the top five teams in each European group together and a clearer picture emerges of England’s task. The higher the number, the weaker the group.
In reverse order: group two (Ukraine qualified) 171; group one (Holland qualified) 174; group four (one from Israel, Switzerland, France and Ireland) 212; group three (Portugal qualified) 228; group eight (Croatia and Sweden qualified) 237; group five (Italy qualified) 247; group six (Poland and England qualified) 290.
More significantly, analyse the gap between the second and third-ranked teams to ascertain which nations had the best chance of qualifying in second place without having to go through the play-offs. Again, in reverse order: group seven (Belgium to Serbia and Montenegro) 1; group two (Denmark to Greece) 6; group three (Russia to Slovakia) 15; group four (Ireland to Switzerland) 17; group eight (Croatia to Bulgaria) 21; group one (Czech Republic to Romania) 28; group five (Norway to Slovenia) 35; group six (Poland to Austria) 62.
In other words, on form, there was an outstanding chance that the runners-up in England’s group would qualify automatically, given the weakness of the opposition.
Add the Fifa world rankings of the top five teams in each European group together and a clearer picture emerges of England’s task. The higher the number, the weaker the group.
In reverse order: group two (Ukraine qualified) 171; group one (Holland qualified) 174; group four (one from Israel, Switzerland, France and Ireland) 212; group three (Portugal qualified) 228; group eight (Croatia and Sweden qualified) 237; group five (Italy qualified) 247; group six (Poland and England qualified) 290.
More significantly, analyse the gap between the second and third-ranked teams to ascertain which nations had the best chance of qualifying in second place without having to go through the play-offs. Again, in reverse order: group seven (Belgium to Serbia and Montenegro) 1; group two (Denmark to Greece) 6; group three (Russia to Slovakia) 15; group four (Ireland to Switzerland) 17; group eight (Croatia to Bulgaria) 21; group one (Czech Republic to Romania) 28; group five (Norway to Slovenia) 35; group six (Poland to Austria) 62.
In other words, on form, there was an outstanding chance that the runners-up in England’s group would qualify automatically, given the weakness of the opposition.
Last edited:
Easy 10 said:
Yes but the had two Derbys with teams that hate us - you watch, palace on paper are a far better side than Brighton but yet it well be a tight game
Last edited:
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,093
What, like the 5-1 match?
¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤
Banned
KinkyGoebels said:
Plus Poland and Austria are not easy places to go to.
Pavilionaire said:
Think it was 5-0
Palace were not a good side then.
Derbys are always close unless you play like a bunch of retards
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,093
Palace were a lot better than us that day, it was the most one-sided match I have ever seen.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Maybe so, but its wide of the mark to say (as some are) that other teams have struggled in easier groups than ours.KinkyGoebels said:
Aggregate out the world rankings, and ours WAS the easiest group in Europe.
FACT.
World rankings are bollocks tho - FACTEasy 10 said:
Yorkie said:
I was thinking more USA - Watched a lot of Mexico while there for a month and a bit this year - they are good.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Well, in terms of some of the teams you see floating around in the upper echelons, ie the top top 10 or 15, I'd agree with you. But its undeniable that the shit floats to the bottom, and the low-ranked teams are certainly down there for a reason. Its never going to be 100% accurate, but as a general yardstick, you can see that this group was utterly piss-poor, and the stats back that up.KinkyGoebels said:
Last edited:
Easy 10 said:
Again wrong america is a big place teams like t and t get points and are above ni and the like because they play crap sides
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Nothing to do with NI being gash either then ?KinkyGoebels said:
Like I say, the rankings don't always make a lot of sense at the top, but in general most teams are roughly where they should be. There's always an odd strange exception you can point at, be it USA, Mexico or whatever, but look down the rankings and its largely correct, probably to within half a dozen places or so. Its never going to be an exact science.
Fact remains, on average we had the lowest ranked teams of the lot.
Seasider78
Well-known member
- Nov 14, 2004
- 6,000
Don't get me wrong I am happy as anyone we have qualified but lets not get silly. With the players at Svens disposal it would take something to go seriously wrong not to have made it out of this group. I am with easy 10 on this one we made hard work of games against Austria, Northern Ireland and Wales. To win a world cup we need to beat the quality of Brazil and Argentina...my guess quarters again semi's if we are lucky.