I'm going for England!
Printable View
I'm going for England!
hey where is greece? :p
well i'm going for england too..just for becham..
I don't think there's any doubt that the best International Football Team is found in the United States of America. :D
Australia. Bitch.
In Rugby of course. I assume this is a soccer poll. I'll take Spain.
For the future: America since Freddy Adu can only get better.
As for right now: England looks strong at the moment. Though I'd be wary of some teams from Africa.
Take care all.
Yes this is a footbal, or should I say 'soccer' (as you Yanks and Aussies call it) poll.
By the way USA and Austarlia suck at football, and Englan dare better than Australia at rugby as well, think back to the world cup.
There can be very little doubt that Brazil have the overall best national side. Most other nations have two or three key players who can change a match in a second. Brazil have those all over the field. The sheer range of attacking options they have is frightening, and some of the very best talents out there actually struggle to get in to the first team (Adriano, anyone?)
What's more, Brazil rarely underachieve. Their loss last week against Ecuador was their first in the entire World Cup Qualifying stage. A single loss in eleven games is something that many European teams could only dream of, with slip-ups against weak opposition being all too common. England fail to beat teams like Macedonia and Austria, France crash and burn in major tournaments, Holland failed to even qualify and of course, every single one of the european giants were beaten by Greece to the Euro 2004 trophy.
I'm not saying that Brazil are faultless, nor that any of their rivals are bad sides. However, they are by far the most reliable and consistent of the international sides in the world.
they did win the 98 world cup.Quote:
France crash and burn in major tournaments,
But in the last World Cup and Euro 2004, they were crap.
Brazil are a bit overated in my opinion. In qualification the only test they face is Argentina. Argentina best players are getting too old (Crespo, Veron). Portugal and Spain underachieve, and despite having great individual players, their teams lack spirit. France, Italy and especially Germany all underachieve, and all three have lost recognisable people. Ireland, Mexico, USA, the African teams and the Asian teams haven't got the quality. That leaves England, Czech Republic and Holland, in my opinion, one of these 3 teams will win the next world cup (hopefully England) :)
i went for the chezch's because they work very well as a team far more than brazil, france ect and also because after watching my England team play like a bunch of americans last wednesday i can't won't vote for them.
You have to remember, Australia is the only team to make it to the World Rugby Cup final 3 times. They have 2 WRC titles...more than any other team. Australia is ALWAYS a contender in Rugby.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomamar04
And Uruguay won the 1930 World Cup. What's your point? '98 and '00 were the only two successful tournaments the French have ever had. Apart from that they've made very little progress, and haven't exactly performed well in the games they have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow8017
England are nowhere near to tournament winning standard, either. We've got the potential, but it never seems to amount to anything, and as long as Sven remains unwilling to try new players this will continue to be the case. Compare the Spanish side of 2002 to today's: Fernando Torres, Xavi, Exteberria and co. have all broken into the first team since then. The only unforced changes in England's team are Rooney and Lampard. Funnily enough, these players have had a hugely positive impact on the team, yet Sven still won't give his younger talents a chance.
Holland are pretty similar. On paper they have a great side (although the defence is a little suspect) but they rarely come together and perform on the big occasions. Consider their quarter final against Sweden in Euro 2004: They were matched quite easily by a team that they really should have beaten, and had to resort to penalties to progress. Their individuals just couldn't combine to tear apart opposition the way they could have.
The Czechs do play well as a team, but one has to wonder how far they can go without Pavel Nedved, and Poborsky on the brink of retirement. The one weakness of the Czechs is that while they'll perform brilliantly on a good day (such as against Holland this summer) on a bad day they'll be absolutely awful (like against Latvia in their opening game).
That is where I think Brazil really shine. I don't think I've seen the current Brazilian side play a bad game of football. They've been average at times, maybe even underachieved a little, but they're never ever bad. On a bad day Brazil might let in 3 goals against Costa Rica, but on that same day they'll score 5 at the other end, and that's why they are the best footballing nation on the planet right now.
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. Anyway I am gonna agree with you on England. We are not good enough at the moment to win a major tournament. The only way I can see that happening is either Sven growing a pair or the F.A. bringing in a fresh approach that isn't Steve McLaren.
I am going to continue agreeing with you cause its fun. And I do. Czechs lack stature at the back and leak goals. Like you say Nedved and Poborsky are on the way out and lets face it what happens if Baros gets injured? Jan Koller on his own upfront. That would be like Heskey playing up on his own for England.
Brazil prove themselves on the world stage consistently, and there are other tests in South America. Ecuador are obviously a well organised team as this is the second time in recent years they have overcome Brazil, then Columbia, Paraguay (who have a very good youth setup) and Uruguay. Argentina's best players are not Crespo and Veron anymore. Think Tevez, Saviola, D'Allesandro and Samuel. I saw no evidence of a lack of spirit from the Portuguese in Euro 2004, particularly against England, and bouncing back from their first day defeat to Russia. USA were 1/4 finalists of the 2002 World Cup and looked every bit a team that played for eachother, the only thing they lack is the support of the American public. They are very well organised not unlike the Czechs. Senegal, Nigeria and Cameroon have been constant obstacles to teams in major tournaments and the quality of African football improves vastly almost every year and while Pele's prediction that an Asian or African team would win a world cup by the year 2000 was a little pre-emptive, Greece's success at Euro 2004 should demonstrate that any team can win or do very well in a major tournament. With strikers like Eto'o and Martins and the influence of foreign coaches who practice defensive tactics to counteract the African's natural urge to play flair football, we could see an African world cup winner emerge in the next 20 years. That's if France and Holland stop stealing all the best players just cause they colonised them. Gullit, Vieira, Zidane, etc.Quote:
Brazil are a bit overated in my opinion. In qualification the only test they face is Argentina. Argentina best players are getting too old (Crespo, Veron). Portugal and Spain underachieve, and despite having great individual players, their teams lack spirit. France, Italy and especially Germany all underachieve, and all three have lost recognisable people. Ireland, Mexico, USA, the African teams and the Asian teams haven't got the quality. That leaves England, Czech Republic and Holland, in my opinion, one of these 3 teams will win the next world cup (hopefully England)
Still it's nice to see someone else starting football threads.
Brazil need I say more?
Portugal... in football.... :p
(for some reason I've lost my faith in England tream sonce Beckham entered there!)
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Sark
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.
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:
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.
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.Quote:
3) It is an Englishman's duty to dislike the Argentinians, whereas we have nothing against Brazil.
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..
I don't think Sweden should be out of this poll, I think they have a pretty good squad, personally.
Rooney is over-rated. Call me a bitter Everton fan if you want, but I can show you a LJ entry before the England-Portugal game saying I hoped he'd get sold. He's good, I won't deny that, but not as good as everyone says. Not that I'm complaining about the huge sum of money Manchester United paid for him.
Bear in mind about Argentina though, the group they were in in the 2002 World Cup wasn't exactly easy. England, Sweden and Nigeria? All good teams.
England constantly don't perform as well as they should though. Beckham and Rooney are over-rated. And I've never particularly liked David James to be perfectly honest.
While Sweden are a perfectly good side (and better than some of the teams included in the poll, for that matter) I wouldn't say they were the best in the world. I certainly don't think they'd be able to win a World Cup, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heath
You know, I actually agree with you on this one. Rooney is highly talented, and is perhaps the most gifted player in the national side right now, but the huge amount of praise he receives is somewhat unjustified, and the suggestion that he's the 'next Pele' is absolutely ludicrous. Occasionally he shoots when a pass would be more appropriate, his temper is always suspect, and he can drift out of games for long periods. The reason he's so popular is that he can always turn on the skill when the cameras are watching. In some league games he can be next to useless, but when it's a major international he's fantastic.Quote:
Rooney is over-rated. Call me a bitter Everton fan if you want, but I can show you a LJ entry before the England-Portugal game saying I hoped he'd get sold. He's good, I won't deny that, but not as good as everyone says. Not that I'm complaining about the huge sum of money Manchester United paid for him.
The same could be said of David Beckham. After a dozen lacklustre performances and the press on his back, he pulls off one good move and scores a crucial goal, and he's a media darling again. You'll never see Darius Vassell or Steven Gerrard scoring a last-minute goal to gain us qualification to the World Cup, it's always Beckham or Rooney who plays well when it counts, and their entire careers are based on these sorts of moments. Ask people what they remember about the 2002 World Cup. Chances are they won't say Owen's goal against Brazil or David Seaman's superb reactions to keep us in the lead against Argentina, it'll always be that image of Beckham fluking a penalty past Cavallero and jumping around by the corner flag. It's moments like that that stick in people's minds, and that's why Beckham and Rooney are the most popular players in the side today.
A very good point, but I personally would expect a world-beating team to qualify from this sort of group. Considering that Argentina weren't able to beat England, and Brazil were, I'd say that's a fairly good comparison of the two sides.Quote:
Bear in mind about Argentina though, the group they were in in the 2002 World Cup wasn't exactly easy. England, Sweden and Nigeria? All good teams.
On the other hand, that was two years ago, so there's no telling which side is better now. I'm only sticking with Brazil through personal preference (or rather, utter contempt for the Argentine football team). :D
Sweden!?!?!? What?!
In the last 2 tournaments they've lost against Seegal in the last 16, and against Holland in the QF's.
I know you may say that England haven't done much better but;
Euro 96 - If Gazza just got on to the end of the cross....
WC 98 - Campbell had perfectly good goal disallowed
Euro 2000 - Last minute penalty which Phil Neville stupidly gave away
WC 2002 - Flukey goal
Euro 2004 - That Swiss ref must die...
I think England would have stood a good chance of winning both WC2002 and Euro 2004.
By the way, Doc Sark, what are you thinking, if Beckham's that bad on the right and in the centre, what the hell is he going to be like on the left, Beckham must leave the England team. I know Sven and Steve would get alot of stick for it, but he's missed 3 penalties in important matches in the space of a few months, and when was the last time you can truthfully say that Beckham performed for England?
Well it would be a better option than Gareth bloody Barry. Beckham is not a bad player, I never said that. In fact he is one of the best passers/crossers/free-kick takers in the world. I'm a massive fan of Shaun Wright-Phillips and I want to see a proper winger in our national side. Either him or Stuart Downing. If it was the former then Beckham would have to move to accomodate him, playing him in a FREE ROLE, out on the left NOT as a rigid left winger (read posts carefully), he would be fine. Lets face it Beckham does not play right wing for England. Zidane works it well for the French and Ronaldinho for Brazil now while Beckham is not of the same calibre as these great players, his ability to unlock a defence with one pass would make his inclusion an effective one wherever he played in midfield. Sven wouldn't just get stick if we played badly without Beckham, he would lose his job. If you were a Swedish man getting paid £4 million a year, would you risk not playing him even though it could cost you your job? No.
By the way. Beckham performed for England against Wales. "Deliberate" booking aside, he scored a fantastic goal and was a constant threat with his passing.
If Sweden are so bad, why can't we beat them. No win over Sweden since 1969. Lets face it Sweden aren't the best team in the world but are good enough to beat any team in the world on their day. Football is full of what ifs and your statement reminds me of something I posted straight after the game against Portugal, but at the end of day if we aren't good enough to beat teams with clear goals and good defending then do we deserve to win major titles?
Just a quick question, Doc Sark.
Any particular reason for mentioning Darren Byfield? Every time I start a game of Championship Manager, I create a save file where I fight my way up from the lower divisions to Premiership glory. In CM 97/98 I purchased Byfield from Aston Villa and he transformed my side's fortunes in an instant, becoming my top scorer and earning me promotion. Since then it's been a sort of tradition, and he almost always ends up in my side eventually. While he's never been as good as he was in 97/98, I still keep an eye on his career, just out of curiosity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Sark
So I was just wondering why you chose to mention him in particular, or whether it was just a strange coincidence.
In answer to the vague question, Cid's Knights.
Realistically, Brazil, even if the only international soccer team I'd bother watching is England.
EDIT: As for Rugby, definitely New Zealand. Ranked 1st at IRB and the only team who could possibly say they have one up on us right now is South Africa, after they took the Tri Nations, but even then they only one it on bonus points and not games won. If Dingo wants to bring up 'history' then NZ has a hell of a lot more history than Aussie does when it comes to TransTasman victories. ;)
Lol! I was reading in Shoot magazine (which I will never buy again as it the football publications' equivalent of Heat) that Darren Byfield is dating Jamelia and it tickled me. I wonder if "Superstar" was written for him!!!!Quote:
So I was just wondering why you chose to mention him in particular, or whether it was just a strange coincidence.
I do remember Holland being HAMMERED 4-1 by England in Euro '96 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AdventChild_6
wut can i say? i am 50% german and i was also born there so of course i have to vote for it! i go there every year! France as well because i speak the language and also visit there often
I'm all for patriotism, but Germany have been crap since Euro 96. I know they got to the last World Cup final, but they had a easy group (Ireland, Cameroon and Saudi Arabia) and in the knockout stages they played Paraguay, USA and Korea. The only world class team they played, Brazil, they were humiliated by.Quote:
wut can i say? i am 50% german and i was also born there so of course i have to vote for it! i go there every year! France as well because i speak the language and also visit there often