The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Redskin in Canada wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote: But in English league football, he has only ever flattered to deceive.

Do not measure the talent of players by the way the perform in England. The World is -anything- but English football. The fantastic aspect of a world cup is the clash between very radically different styles. A style that does not match well at all against one national team may be deadly against another.

Well, he wouldn't be the first player to star in a World Cup who has been decidedly average in the English leagues. But attacking players generally thrive in English football, due to the emphasis on attacking play, and the somewhat less sophisticated approach to defensive play than you see in other European leagues. But Wanchope only shone for a very brief period, before the opposition worked out how to play against him.

You're right, a different environment can allow a player to shine in ways that he hasn't shone before. But I'll still say that Wanchope is above average in ability, and below average in performance.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Possibly the most limited team to win the trophy in my lifetime.

That's an Englishman speaking, alright!

Let me put a stop to that with something you can relate to first hand. About three weeks ago, Henry played for Arsenal the BEST game I have seen a player play this season ANYWHERE in the world!

Zidane played in an inspired way too in that World Cup. French teams are like that. They may play garbage, as they did in the last World Cup, -or- in an inspired manner. Paraguay was the closest any team ever came to eliminate France in that World Cup. And they did not.

You're right - my Agincourt tendencies do tend to show through. But it's not blind prejudice. That French team was dire to watch, with the one exception of Zidane. Clearly, he was the player of that tournament.

Thierry Henry is one of the most fabulous footballers in the world to watch, but he was a marginal figure in that World Cup, as I believe his contributions were made wide out on the wing. However, I have formed an opinion over the years that he has a tendency to completely disappear in the really big games, at least for Arsenal in the European Champions League. That may be the result of the whole team playing badly, but he rarely seems to have lifted them in the biggest games of all.

But there is no doubt that he is a fantastic player in full flow, and he could set the World Cup alight.

Here's some meaningless speculation on England's chances from "The Kaiser":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/4676442.stm

I have to believe that this is just a German trying to ease the pressure on the home nation - Germany have to be favourites to reach the final, and that final won't be against England.

UK Skins Fan wrote:I have to believe that this is just a German trying to ease the pressure on the home nation - Germany have to be favourites to reach the final, and that final won't be against England.

I agree.

There can always be a European surprise (such as Switzerland ) but my top European teams include:

Germany, Netherlands, England and Czech Republic. Italy can NEVER be discounted and depending on the light of day and the mood of more than one player Portugal and Spain can have very good -individual- games (not necessarily tournaments).

UK Skins Fan wrote:[ and the somewhat less sophisticated approach to defensive play than you see in other European leagues.

As in a "catenaccio" in Italy? Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catenaccio

Catenaccio (Italian) = Lock (English)

As an American, someone who watched the last WC with some interest, and not as much sleep as I'd have liked, I was proud and somewhat impressed with the fact that the US team ultimately lost to the winning team, the Germans, and in a game when the US didn't play to their full potential. Can they do it again? Who knows, that's why they play the games. Otherwise, it's Rangers and Kilmarnock for me.

DESkins wrote: Otherwise, it's Rangers and Kilmarnock for me.

Kilmarnock as in Scotland or Virginia?

Redskin in Canada wrote:

DESkins wrote: Otherwise, it's Rangers and Kilmarnock for me.

Kilmarnock as in Scotland or Virginia?

Well, the one in Scotland definitely has a football team, but I'm not sure about the one in Virginia (not that I had ever heard of the one in Virginia until you mentioned it).

DESkins wrote:As an American, someone who watched the last WC with some interest, and not as much sleep as I'd have liked, I was proud and somewhat impressed with the fact that the US team ultimately lost to the winning team, the Germans, and in a game when the US didn't play to their full potential. Can they do it again? Who knows, that's why they play the games. Otherwise, it's Rangers and Kilmarnock for me.

Hate to be a smartarse, but the Germans lost to Brazil in the final. But that doesn't alter the fact that the US did well in the last tournament, and did so without some of the extraordinary additional "assistance" that Japan and South Korea seemed to have.

The attached link lists the players that are likely to feature in the World Cup, who currently play their football in Britain.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4442898.stm#teamnews

I'll draw your attention to the long list of Trinidad and Tobago players who are based here. These guys will play their hearts out against England - the smaller nations always do anyway, because of the kudos of getting a result against the mother country of the game. The additional incentive of being able to strut their stuff over here after getting a result against England will definitely stiffen their sinews.

I predict that England will be given a mighty scare by Trinidad and Tobago, if they don't take them seriously.

As a Panamanian, member of CONCACAF as well as RIC, I have watched team USA develope since the world cup USA 94. They have become a power house in our area and IMO, they are ready to give the world a surprisse. They are not ready to beat Brazil, but if not taken seriously by the so called elite teams, they'll give you a run for your money.

As someone mention, I also think violence is going to be an issue. Not becouse of the world famous hooligans, but for religious reasons.

HaiL,

I agree that the US will give anybody a fright, if they're not taken seriously. Actually, they'll give plenty of teams a fright even if they are taken seriously. There is a tendency for those of us from the allegedly "elite" footballing nations to look down on the US, but England know very well that they should not be taken lightly. That being said, I'd be disgusted if England were to lose to them in a World Cup (once every 50 years or so is quite enough, thankyou!).

As for the threat of violence, there has to be potential for it to happen, with the Dutch, English, Italian, German, Serbian and Croatian fans all in the same country. In addition, Munich has a sizeable Turkish population, and if England end up playing there in the second round against Germany, there is every chance of every kind of prejudice bubbling to the surface amongst the fans of all nations.

And that's before we've even started to discuss the possible violent consequences on the pitch, if somebody winds up our own Wayne Rooney just a little too far.

Hate to be a smartarse, but the Germans lost to Brazil in the final. But that doesn't alter the fact that the US did well in the last tournament, and did so without some of the extraordinary additional "assistance" that Japan and South Korea seemed to have.

I would go so far as to say, if not for a god awful Super Bowl 40 sized blown call vs Germany we would have won and been in the Semi's...

UK Skins Fan wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

DESkins wrote: Otherwise, it's Rangers and Kilmarnock for me.

Kilmarnock as in Scotland or Virginia?

Well, the one in Scotland definitely has a football team, but I'm not sure about the one in Virginia (not that I had ever heard of the one in Virginia until you mentioned it).

It was a veiled joke played on a native of the Virginia area. There is indeed a Kilmarnock in Virginia. But he refers to the Rangers in Scotland of course. Sorry.

Rangers used to be the protestant crowd team in Scotland in the old days. I do not know to what extent this is still true.

gus wrote:As a Panamanian, member of CONCACAF as well as RIC, I have watched team USA develope since the world cup USA 94. They have become a power house in our area and IMO, they are ready to give the world a surprisse. They are not ready to beat Brazil, but if not taken seriously by the so called elite teams, they'll give you a run for your money.

The US has a very tough group to play against in the first round: Italy, Czech Republic and Ghana in group E are some of the MOST competent teams in their regions.

Ghana is an unpredictable team. They can lay an egg and self-destroy or they can play -very- inspired football with a rare combination of skill and strength.

Italy is Italy. Their opportunistic game is stellar. The most skillful defense in football. The US has -never- defeated them.

Czech Republic is probably one of the top five teams in all of Europe. Their games against the Netherlands rivaled any World final round game. They lost but I do not think that many will want to play against them.

The winner of this group E plays against the runner up of group F. The runner up of this group E plays the winner of group F. So if the US goes through, it would have to face either of the better two teams among Brazil, Croatia, Australia and Japan.

It will be very difficult for the USA to win group E. Its best chances is to become the runner up. If this is the case, the favourite team to win group E is ...

... Brazil !

Brazil is the favourite team to win the tournament and while it is not invincible, you have to agree that it will be a very tough game.

By the way, I am intrigued by the team from Panama. They had some excellent games and then some lousy ones in the qualifying rounds. Why Gus?

UK Skins Fan wrote:I'll draw your attention to the long list of Trinidad and Tobago players who are based here.

The tougher games are played among players that know one another the best. It will be a tough game. England is still the favourite in that group.

The first elimination round often sets the tone for the play of all teams that go into the second round. If England in group B still goes with a poor play into the second round, it does not stand a great chance against any of the top two teams in group A: Germany, Costa Rica, Poland and Ecuador.

Germany in Germany is the favourite team in group A. Not a pretty sight for the runner up of group B.

FIFA Reviews for each of the 32 teams in the 2006 World Cup:

Group A
Germany, Costa Rica, Poland & Ecuador

Group B
England, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago & Sweden

Group C
Argentina, Ivory Coast, Serbia and Montenegro & Netherlands

Group D
Mexico, Iran, Angola & Portugal

Group E
Italy, Ghana, USA & Czech Republic

Group F
Brazil, Croatia, Australia & Japan

Group G
France, Switzerland, Korea Republic & Togo

Group H
Spain, Ukraine, Tunisia & Saudi Arabia

Enjoy,

RiC

Redskin in Canada wrote: By the way, I am intrigued by the team from Panama. They had some excellent games and then some lousy ones in the qualifying rounds. Why Gus?

Well RIC, Panama has always been a beisball country and futbol is recently becoming more and more popular. We have always been a week team in the area and the other countries looked pass us. In the last qualifying process, we gathered a good diciplined group of guys and raised some eyebrows. When teams took us seriusly, we weren't up to the task.

Panama has never been to a world cup, but has participated in the last 2 Sub-20 world cups. Maybe in 2010 will make the trip to the big show....

Gus

gus wrote: Maybe in 2010 will make the trip to the big show....

Thanks. Good luck!

Go CONCACAF!

Yes, Rangers is the "Protestant" team in Glasgow, and yes, I meant Kilmarnock as in Scotland. I don't suppose I have to my wedding picture, with me in my kilt now, do I?

DESkins wrote:Yes, Rangers is the "Protestant" team in Glasgow, and yes, I meant Kilmarnock as in Scotland. I don't suppose I have to my wedding picture, with me in my kilt now, do I?

You can keep your skirt wearing photos to yourself, thanks.

Rangers' fan base remain strongly protestant, and Celtic very much catholic. A little progress in breaking down the barriers was made when Graeme Souness was Rangers manager, and had the temerity to sign a catholic to play for them - Mo Johnston. However, sectarianism remains a real problem in Scottish football, and it's not been properly addressed yet. The level of religious bile that is spat between the two sides of Glasgow is difficult for most of us to understand.

SKIRT??? Just because I showed more leg at the wedding than the bride is no reason to call it a skirt (besides, I have better legs than she does!).

DESkins wrote:(besides, I have better legs than she does!).

Considering that it is soccer we are talking about (writing really) I guess this is till on topic. HOWEVER, better legs than your wife?

I am sure you mean football. BUT ...

I better not touch (no pun intended) that one.

UK Skins Fan wrote:The level of religious bile that is spat between the two sides of Glasgow is difficult for most of us to understand.

I have a Canadian friend here in my town that was -confused- to be a Celtic's fan because he was inadvertently wearing the "enemy's" colours and was beaten up pretty good by Rangers fans. A a visitor, he did not know what the Rangers or Celtic fans and teams were anyway.

I have met people from almost -All- religions and -none-. Religious affiliation or tendencies do not relate AT ALL to the quality of the person. I have met GREAT people and AWFUL people from ALL religions and NONE.

We are what we are. And our teams are what they are. God in whatever form is out of it entirely.

DESkins wrote:SKIRT??? Just because I showed more leg at the wedding than the bride is no reason to call it a skirt (besides, I have better legs than she does!).

Oh well, if your legs are good enough - you go and flaunt them.