World's best international team

The United States plays crappy soccer? Correct me if I'm wrong, but our national team advanced to the round of 8 while seven teams on that list (France, Italy, Argentina, Czech Republic, Portugal, Holland and Ireland) did not back in the 2002 World Cup.

I'm not dumb enough to think they're the best in the world, but I'm just trying to contradict an earlier suggestion.

As to who is the best, though, I think I'm gonna throw my hat into the ring and say Brazil. Those boys always seem to be on the world scene, and it's hard to argue with "defending World Cup champions".

I'm sorry, USA are an emerging force in world football, but I don't think they'll be among the contenders for the next world cup. But in the future...

I know this is contradicting what I earlier said about Spain, but I think if Raul and Torres are on top form, can can get a bit of luck, they could win the next world cup (but I hope not, their fans were terrible against England, visit the "Kick Spain/Racism out of football" thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Sark

Just to go directly against you mate I.m going for Argentina. Whereas I think Brazil are a top quality side I still think they have defensive frailties that can be exposed by the right team. For every quality player the Brazilians have, the Argentines have one too. Ronaldihno - Saviola. Lucio - Samuel, Adriano - Tevez (who by the way was absolutely awesome in the Olympics and the Copa America and in my opinion the most awesome talent on the planet!!!), Cafu - Zanetti etc etc. I actually think that both teams are on a par with Brazil probably slightly edging it on attacking power but losing out defensively.

---

The reason I didn't compare Brazil to he Argentines in my earlier posts is that I really cannot justify any statement that Brazil are the better team. Argentina are a fantastic side, and are certainly stronger defensively than the reigning champions. The only factors that swayed my decision were:

1) Brazil seem to have more strength in depth. Looking at the Brazilian bench I'd day it's just a little bit stronger than Argentina's, and that can be a crucial factor in tournaments.

2) Brazil are the reigning champions, and despite the weakness of their opponents in the 2002 tournament, that's very difficult to argue with. (On the other hand, if we are going to judge teams on performance, Argentina are in fact two points ahead of the Brazilians in the South American qualifiers.)

3) It is an Englishman's duty to dislike the Argentinians, whereas we have nothing against Brazil. :D

And I'll agree with Strider that the USA are a decent emerging nation. While I think that they were a bit lucky to reach the quarter finals in Japan/Korea, they did put on a solid display against Portugal, and have got some fairly talented players. As the sport's popularity increases over there the national side should become very strong indeed, and they could be World Cup contenders in a decade or so.

I agree with 'czech republic' that if football was more popular in the USA, they could become a big force in world football, after all, they have the money/facilities/talent to become one.

In my opinion the best S.American team is still Brazil...just

I know Argentina won the Olympics and Tevez scored many goals, but not being disrespectfull to the Olympics, the quality of opposition was poor e.g, Iraq, Paraguay, The Italian reserve team. Brazil have proven quality in players such as Carlos, Ronaldo, Cafu and up-and-coming talent like Adriano and Ronaldinho (who by the way I still haven't forgiven for scoring that flukey goal in the 2002 world cup) and the best attack in the world (dodgy defence, but when your attack is as good as Brazils). But...

I know I keep on saying this, but I think the winners of the next world cup will be from Europe. :p

England. :D

The same Italy that can't even get through the first round of Euro 2004? :rolleyes2

Poor Italy. They are the only team to score 5 points in a group stage ever to go out of a major tournament. And on goal difference too. Aw.

Quote:

---

1) Brazil seem to have more strength in depth. Looking at the Brazilian bench I'd day it's just a little bit stronger than Argentina's, and that can be a crucial factor in tournaments.

---

Again, I think that's a matter of opinion. You're right in saying they are the world champions which IS very difficult to argue with when debating who the best team is but when you look at the options available to the Argies on the bench, Tevez, Coloccini (spelling..?), Kily Gonzales, Gustavo Lopez, Cambiasso, Solari etc. Anyway I hope they show the Argentina v Brazil match on Bravo cause they have been showing COMMEBOL qualifiers recently.

Quote:

---

3) It is an Englishman's duty to dislike the Argentinians, whereas we have nothing against Brazil.

---

Can't argue with that. Kinda makes me look like a traitor and nullifies any counter arguement I have pro Argentina. Damn my national pride.

I am surprised at the amount of people that have picked England having watched us played off the park by Spain. I am normally renowned for my optimism concerning the English national side, but we just look inflexible and unimaginative. We revolve around David Beckham when we should be building a team! Like the Czechs, the Americans, the Greeks. Screw Beckham. Bench him. Lampard, Gerrard, Downing and Wright-Phillips for me. Of course as long as Sven is in charge......more chance seeing Darren Byfield win a cap.

England's team for 2006 should be...

Robinson
G.Neville
Ferdinand
Terry
Cole
Wright-Phillips
Lampard
Gerrard
Barry
Owen
Rooney

I know you might be thinking 'why Barry?' but he rarely puts a foot wrong for Aston Villa, he'd be a good replacement for Scholes and anything is better than Beckham and Butt

My nomination for englands 2006 team


C Kirkland
G.neville S.campbell J.terry A.Cole

Wright-phillips Lampard Gerrard Downing

Rooney
Owen

only downing if he continues to improve though

I'm rather patriotic

Kirkland is still unproven, and why the hell isn't Ferdinand in your team, he's the best centre back in the world. Barry is more experienced than Downing, and he's a defensivly minded midfielder, the only other ones we've got are Butt (past-it), Hargreaves (don't know much about him) and Phil Neville (TOO defensivly minded). I would also consider Defoe if he got more experience and Owen doesn't perform in Spain.

Quote:

---

Kirkland is still unproven, and why the hell isn't Ferdinand in your team, he's the best centre back in the world. Barry is more experienced than Downing, and he's a defensivly minded midfielder, the only other ones we've got are Butt (past-it), Hargreaves (don't know much about him) and Phil Neville (TOO defensivly minded). I would also consider Defoe if he got more experience and Owen doesn't perform in Spain.

---

??????????

Are you watching much Spanish football lately. Owen has got 6 goals in his last 9 games for Madrid, a much better strike rate than Defoe. Now you have contradicted yourself here, we are talking about an England side for 2006 and you want to put Defoe in place of Owen if he gets more experience. So then why not Kirkland in two years time when he has more experience. He's playing at a higher level than the other two England goalkeepers and I have never seen him make a mistake.

And Barry. Please. He hasn't had an England cap in 4 years and when he did we lost 2-0 to France, he plays for a team that consistently underachieves, he's too defensively minded, better suited for a left back on the International stage and that slot is taken I'm afraid. No Downing is the kind of dynamic left sided player the team needs. He gets the ball into the box, he takes on defenders and he is quick. He reminds me of a young Ryan Giggs and an England cap is only just around the corner for him surely.

My team for 2006.

Kirkland, G.Neville, Campbell, Ferdinand (if he finds some good form again soon, its understandable that Gokufusions would prefer Terry who is equally good), Cole, Wright-Phillips, Lampard, Gerrard, Beckham (on left), Owen, Rooney.

subs: Downing, Defoe, Robinson, King and Smith.

I know I said I would bench Beckham, but realistically, if Beckham is becnhed and England perform badly, the manager gets crucified upside down on a burning cross. If Beckham plays on the left in the kind of role that Zidane fulfills for France he could be very effective. A free role allowing him to do what he likes to do, run around a lot pinging balls about etc. Lets face it, it's likely to be his last major tournament because he'll be 33 by the time we reach Austria and Switzerland so he's going to want to do well.

i chose terry over ferdinand because of how fernando torres riped him apart in the friendly, don't believe the andy gray influenced hype he isn't as good as his reputation. And woodgate was supposed to be the better of the two at leeds anyway if he ever recovers from injury.

While this thread has veered wildly off topic, selecting an England side is a very interesting area of discussion, so I guess I'll join in:

I personally haven't lost too much confidence in David James, and think he would still perform solidly in goal for us. However, to say that he's better than Paul Robinson just wouldn't be right at all. Though as an Arsenal fan it's hard to admit, Robinson is probably the best 'keeper for us right now.

At right back there aren't too many options, and Gary Neville has proven himself to be worthy of the position.

In the centre of defence I'd have to go for Campbell and Terry. Rio just hasn't found the same form he once had, and it's clear that the ban has had an adverse effec on his performances. Terry, on the other hand, is on a roll, commanding the Chelsea back line to the best deensive record in the Premiership. He and Campbell could use a few more games together to prevent set-piece problems like those shown in Portugal, but I'd still trust them enough to give them a permanent place in the side.

Left back isn't as tough as it used to be. Ashley Cole has come on in leaps and bounds this past year and is now a definite selection in this position. While Wayne Bridge remains a better crosser of the ball this isn't really a problem, which I'll explain later.

On the right of midfield I'd have to go for David Beckham. As undoubtedly talented as Shaun Wright-Phillips is, I think that Beckham's defensive capabilities and his partnership in Neville make him the best choice. Plus he can always be relied on to deliver a pinpoint pass over 40 yards, and with our pacy strikers this can be the most effective tactic of all.

In the centre it has to be Gerrard and Lampard, two great all-rounders who can defend and attack in equal measure, and get on the scoresheet too. They don't have much competition for these positions either. since Chelsea have effectively killed Scott Parker's career, I can't think of a worthy replacement for either.

My left-side choice is the reason that Cole's crossing (as I mentioned earlier) is no longer an issue. Stewart Downing can deliver crosses better than Wayne Bridge ever could, and is the dedicated left-sided player that England have been looking for. His combination of passing skill, crossing ability and sheer flair makes him the best possible choice for us right now, and I'm hoping Sven will recognise that soon.

Up front my first choice would have to be Wayne Rooney, who on his day can rip a defence apart by himself. Partnering him would Michael Owen, whose renewed confidence should see him back on form for his country once more. Together these guys could form a great partnership.

It is a rather generic XI, but an effective one nonetheless. :)

i like a lot the way Holland plays football..i always found that way excellent..especially in the Euro 96' deserved to conquer the cup..