England beatable by US?
in [World Football]
|
From: MH on 5 Jun 2010 19:10 Yo Merito wrote: > 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!) I am not sure about that - I suppose it might have been sort of meaningless if Brazil had already beaten Spain, and I expect they didn't hold the last round games simultaneously in those days (well they didn't in 1982 which is why all the scandal surrounding Austria- W. Germany). But even then, Czechoslovakia had a chance to win the group with a 3 goal win vs. Mexico, so it was not entirely meaningless. I just checked, this match was the day after Brazil's.
From: MH on 5 Jun 2010 19:18 Mark V. wrote: > 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, I didn't include that one because the Saudis had already lost 2-1 to Holland, and won vs. Morocco, so it was clear they were no slouches. Plus Belgium had won both games so they were guaranteed a place in the next round. I don't think I included any games where the underdogs had already won a match in that round. The largest number of my choices were in the first match in the group stage, I think. > perhaps more than CZE-GHA '06. I hesitated about that one, but the Czechs were so good in Euro 04 (and would have been worthy winners) and had just taken the US apart in the first game, so this was quite a big surprise to me. Ghana had looked so-so against a very indifferent Italian team.
From: MH on 5 Jun 2010 19:19 Alkamista wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:59 pm, "Mark V." <markvande...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> 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.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I would definitely take CZE-GHA '06 off that list. Top African teams > beating good European teams hardly count as upsets anymore. Ghana had never qualified before, and the Czechs were more than just a good European team from 2003-2006. Plus there were the results of the first round.
From: gsn on 5 Jun 2010 23:39 On Jun 4, 6:36 pm, Jellore <jell...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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? That comment was based on hearsay evidence as I did not watch the game. Some people who watched were of the opinion that Mexico dominated for several minutes and wasted some good chances. gsn
From: Bruce D. Scott on 5 Jun 2010 23:57
MH (MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca) wrote: : Mark V. wrote: : > perhaps more than CZE-GHA '06. : I hesitated about that one, but the Czechs were so good in Euro 04 (and : would have been worthy winners) and had just taken the US apart in the : first game, so this was quite a big surprise to me. Ghana had looked : so-so against a very indifferent Italian team. But that's deceptive... the US entered the first match mentally unprepared, scandalously so (I was at the match, could see the whole field). Besides we couldn't defend against good wing play anyway. Then, Koller pulled his hamstring. So I think it was a combination of CZ looking better than they were against a USA side who were playing worse then they were in that match, and also CZ being seriously weakened before the Ghana match. Ghana were playing to their maximum potential in all three matches, so I agree with Mark that the GHA-CZ victory was not that great an upset, even if it was a mild one. The USA over England would be a pretty big upset, but not among the really shocking ones. No more so than over Portugal in 2002. Just in the present circumstances... England are a lot more resilient under Capello than recently otherwise. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ |