Because of the issues with travelling I would say keep qualification as it is apart from the play offs. Play offs become a world play off but no team can play another from the same confederation. agree with the playoffs, would be like a miniature WC? best teams from go through regardless of how ...

God is an Englishman wrote:

Doovde wrote:
how do you determine the best teams in the world?

Don't separate qualifying via regions to start with.

agree, its a good start, but what is the whole plan?

mate, that's because its not as embarrassing if England lose to Italy or Holland as opposed to say......'Iceland' or even Australia.... its a 'WORLD' cup....get over it!!! The world cup should have the best teams in the world in it, not teams just making up the numbers. Pedantic hat on, holland ...

Was good to see the RBB out in force

Because 9 players I named who you'd expect to be starters weren't even in the squad as they have been "rested". That means that even if the put out their best team from the squad, that's their Reserves. So, if they name their 2nd best team from that squad - that would be the C Grade. As usual you ...

Because 9 players I named who you'd expect to be starters weren't even in the squad as they have been "rested". That means that even if the put out their best team from the squad, that's their Reserves. So, if they name their 2nd best team from that squad - that would be the C Grade. As usual you ...

Most would likely be on holiday or temp visas, whereas most here have settled and here for the long term. There's your difference. Do we base discussions on "most would likely" now? Bottom line is aussies in London are proud (for some unknown reason) of their nationality, so why shouldn't an ...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: you make me laugh. England had a harder group? Costa Rica top 15? Australia actually had 3 teams in the top 15. we played the current Champions (Spain at the time they played held the trophy), the current runner up, and the 2nd ranked team in Americas i am by no means saying ...

well by that logic, if the 2nd best team in the world can lose in the quarters, then the best team could also lose. and how do you become the best, if you don't beat the best teams? But lets say that all somehow makes sense. if England was only 1 point better than Australia, then why do you think ...

Correct Fair enough. I guess by that logic then, Australia are evenly matched with England, seeing as they finished the tournament in the some position. although i would think Australia might be slightly ahead, as they did have to play the 2 best teams in the world (At that time) so would make ...

Correct Fair enough. I guess by that logic then, Australia are evenly matched with England, seeing as they finished the tournament in the some position. although i would think Australia might be slightly ahead, as they did have to play the 2 best teams in the world (At that time) so would make ...

so you dont recognize FIFA rankings? Why pit ourselves against a side that is so lowly ranked? I certainly don't recognise them as a way to decide who is the best team. They can give you an approximation but not a definitive answer. So the team who wins a once in four year tournament is a better ...

I would say winning a world cup makes you the number one side FIFA doesn't agree FIFA also agrees that taking bribes is OK FIFA also agrees that playing a world cup in the middle of a middle eastern summer is fine. I don't judge my opinions on those of FIFA. so you dont recognize FIFA rankings? Why ...

God is an Englishman wrote:

Doovde wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
Largest empire in the world

being so large, you would think they could find 11 decent footballers

because most of them wouldn't be eligible to play for England.

Geez, some empire then.

are you suggesting that the best players under British rule are not from England?

God is an Englishman wrote:
I would say winning a world cup makes you the number one side

FIFA doesn't agree

God is an Englishman wrote:
Largest empire in the world

being so large, you would think they could find 11 decent footballers

Grosso wrote:the excuses have been banked

there's no need though as I cant see this lot of socceroos getting close to even a disinterested England

which would make it win/win for Australia

I don't understand why England would play this game at all. If it was for the money then why hold it in Newcastle, a lot more aussies in London to attend? Why pit ourselves against a side that is so lowly ranked? Why pit ourselves against a side that will not play the style of football we will be ...