Doovde wrote:
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 that Australia is a better team that England. im just trying to understand your logic
Australia's group had Australia in it, there was a weak link. The worst team in England's group were England and they were top 10 ranked. QED.
But Australia finished in the same position as England (with 1 less point) against tougher opponents (higher ranked)
if England were the worst team in their group, how come Costa Rica were ranked well below them? i guess by your logic, the FIFA rankings don't reflect who is better
Therefore, why does it bother you that England are playing a team that is "so lowly ranked"
Doovde wrote:
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 that Australia is a better team that England. im just trying to understand your logic
Australia's group had Australia in it, there was a weak link. The worst team in England's group were England and they were top 10 ranked. QED.
But Australia finished in the same position as England (with 1 less point) against tougher opponents (higher ranked)
if England were the worst team in their group, how come Costa Rica were ranked well below them? i guess by your logic, the FIFA rankings don't reflect who is better
Therefore, why does it bother you that England are playing a team that is "so lowly ranked"
I would love to see the comparison of rankings at that time. Maybe a mean ranking of the group could answer the question.
The rankings can obviously only give an idea, they're not an absolute judgement. Rankings or no rankings my point was that England should be playing better sides in the lead up to a "major" tournament.
England were the worst team in the group as they came bottom of the group.
Vuvuzela Heaven wrote:They've only won one. Your questions are irrelevant.
Then why only count the tournaments that FIFA had? We won the tournaments well before that they just weren't called world cups.
It's a stupid as people thinking football only began in 1992,
The Uruguayans claim they won four as they won two olympic gold medals prior to 1930.
well, youre wrong to some degree because the game was being played in sth America and Europe at that time as well
but just to please your insecurity, we're happy to declare that the winner of the tournament played by the home nations as the Unofficial Football World Champion....
“Hence, we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks." Winston Churchill
MegaBonus wrote:well, youre wrong to some degree because the game was being played in sth America and Europe at that time as well
Really?
it was 13 years later that the first international not involving a British side took place
It was 21 years later that the first italian side was formed
It was 29 years later that the first south american international happened
It was 31 years later than the first european international (non British) happened
the first Eng V Sco occurred in 1872
in 1867 the game was being played in Argentina (bought across by Eng businessmen) and even earlier in Peru
French and german clubs had also been founded prior to the first international
a little arrogant to claim a tournament between the 4 home nations amounted to a 'world championship' when the game was being played elsewhere as well
read the book by your countryman 'Inverting the Pyramid' - J Wilson...a fantastic read...
“Hence, we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks." Winston Churchill
