England beatable by US?
in [World Football]
|
From: Jellore on 4 Jun 2010 18:36 On Jun 4, 11:22 pm, gsn <gsnaraya...(a)ymail.com> wrote: > England could not score against Japan. Also Mexico had a good game vs > England. > In CONCAF , as Dwight said in another thread, Mexico is only the > third best team. The US usually plays better than Mexico and wins more > often than not. > So it looks like it is possible to beat England (or atleast split > points)? > > - gsn A 3-1 defeat is a good game?
From: MH on 4 Jun 2010 18:58 Jesper Lauridsen wrote: > On 2010-06-04, MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: >> Of course not. On paper, this England team are no better than Portugal >> of 2002 (Portugal qualified first out of a tough group with Netherlands >> and Ireland, and had done well in Euro 2000, including putting out >> England and Germany) > > How do they compare to the Polish from the same WC? Well, Poland did have a very strong qualifying campaign for 2002, but I don't think many of us thought they were as good as Portugal. I for one expected the US to finish last in that group. Which they might well do this time, too, but I would certainly not bet on it. The USA beating England at this WC would not, in my view, be among the biggest world cup upsets of all time. Probably not even top 5, possibly not even top 10. In no particular order (except chronological), here are some that were possibly bigger: USA 1-0 England 1950 Mexico 3-1 Czechoslovakia 1962 N. Korea 1-0 Italy 1966 Algeria 2-1 W. Germany 1982 N. Ireland 1-0 Spain 1982 Morocco 3-1 Portugal 1986 Cameroon 1-0 Argentina 1990 Costa Rica 1-0 Scotland 1990 Senegal 1-0 France 2002 USA 3-2 Portugal 2002 Czech Republic 0-2 Ghana 2006 Can one count draws as upsets ? Then one could add a whole bunch more.
From: Yo Merito on 4 Jun 2010 22:32 gsn <gsnarayanan(a)ymail.com> writes: > England could not score against Japan. Also Mexico had a good game vs > England. In CONCAF , as Dwight said in another thread, Mexico is only > the third best team. The US usually plays better than Mexico and wins > more often than not. So it looks like it is possible to beat England > (or atleast split points)? thanks for the laugh ;-)
From: Yo Merito on 4 Jun 2010 22:40 MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca> writes: > The USA beating England at this WC would not, in my view, be among the > biggest world cup upsets of all time. Probably not even top 5, > possibly not even top 10. > > In no particular order (except chronological), here are some that were > possibly bigger: > > USA 1-0 England 1950 > Mexico 3-1 Czechoslovakia 1962 Well, but that game was already meaningless for Czechoslovakia, right? (Certainly not for Mexico, our first win in a WC!)
From: Mark V. on 4 Jun 2010 22:59
On Jun 4, 3:58 pm, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: > Jesper Lauridsen wrote: > > On 2010-06-04, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: > >> Of course not. On paper, this England team are no better than Portugal > >> of 2002 (Portugal qualified first out of a tough group with Netherlands > >> and Ireland, and had done well in Euro 2000, including putting out > >> England and Germany) > > > How do they compare to the Polish from the same WC? > > Well, Poland did have a very strong qualifying campaign for 2002, but I > don't think many of us thought they were as good as Portugal. I for one > expected the US to finish last in that group. Which they might well do > this time, too, but I would certainly not bet on it. > > The USA beating England at this WC would not, in my view, be among the > biggest world cup upsets of all time. Probably not even top 5, possibly > not even top 10. > > In no particular order (except chronological), here are some that were > possibly bigger: > > USA 1-0 England 1950 > Mexico 3-1 Czechoslovakia 1962 > N. Korea 1-0 Italy 1966 > Algeria 2-1 W. Germany 1982 > N. Ireland 1-0 Spain 1982 > Morocco 3-1 Portugal 1986 > Cameroon 1-0 Argentina 1990 > Costa Rica 1-0 Scotland 1990 > Senegal 1-0 France 2002 > USA 3-2 Portugal 2002 > Czech Republic 0-2 Ghana 2006 I think that Saudi Arabia 1-0 Belgium 1994 belongs on here somewhere, perhaps more than CZE-GHA '06. |