World Cup 2006

[ONO]

Well, you did just say he was your best player, and I said if you're pinning your hopes on Kewell (as he's your best player), I found that remotely funny, and still do. No offence, but Greece are hardly the best team in the world. (Y)

[Chris the Human]

No, Brazil are. Still, I consider a win against them a little more special than a win against Hungary or Jamaica. I'd also consider a draw against a full strength Netherlands team with a one man advantage for half an hour a damn good result.

[ONO]

No, Brazil are. Still, I consider a win against them a little more special than a win against Hungary or Jamaica. I'd also consider a draw against a full strength Netherlands team with a one man advantage for half an hour a damn good result.

[Chris the Human]

Sorry, I just assume everyone who deathrides Australian football for no apparant reason is English. It's that whole 'We created you, stop beating us' mentality they have.

Australia's records over the past year have done nothing to prove they suck. Nor have past results against sides like England, France, Mexico, and Brazil. Our ranking is low because we rarely play friendlies and when we do, we play them without the majority of our European based players.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know that because, well, why bother researching an argument when you can just spout random crap?

[ONO]

Sorry, I just assume everyone who deathrides Australian football for no apparant reason is English. It's that whole 'We created you, stop beating us' mentality they have.

Australia's records over the past year have done nothing to prove they suck. Nor have past results against sides like England, France, Mexico, and Brazil. Our ranking is low because we rarely play friendlies and when we do, we play them without the majority of our European based players.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know that because, well, why bother researching an argument when you can just spout random crap?

Edited June 5, 2006 by Lost Soul

[Chris the Human]

Well, compared to giants such as Cypress and Faroe Islands, I guess so. You are Irish, aren't you? How are your boys shaping up for the Cup finals?

You again show your ignorance of the qualification process. Australia qualifies through Oceania - yes, they have to beat such minnows as American Samoa and New Zealand. The difference is we then play somebody else. Once it was Argentina. Twice it's been Uruguay. Once it was Iran. The one year we had automatic qualification as a confederation - we choked and went down to New Zealand.

From now on qualification is done through Asia, a confederation we're sure to have a lot less trouble with. No more playing off against the fifth placed South American teams.

EDIT: Wait a second, Armagh is in Northern Island. The footballing giant sitting at #96 in the World Rankings. Who do you support, exactly?

Edited June 5, 2006 by The Misanthrope

[ONO]

Well, compared to giants such as Cypress and Faroe Islands, I guess so. You are Irish, aren't you? How are your boys shaping up for the Cup finals?

You again show your ignorance of the qualification process. Australia qualifies through Oceania - yes, they have to beat such minnows as American Samoa and New Zealand. The difference is we then play somebody else. Once it was Argentina. Twice it's been Uruguay. Once it was Iran. The one year we had automatic qualification as a confederation - we choked and went down to New Zealand.

From now on qualification is done through Asia, a confederation we're sure to have a lot less trouble with. No more playing off against the fifth placed South American teams.

EDIT: Wait a second, Armagh is in Northern Island. The footballing giant sitting at #96 in the World Rankings. Who do you support, exactly?

Edited June 5, 2006 by Lost Soul

[The Quasi Juice]

No, Brazil are. Still, I consider a win against them a little more special than a win against Hungary or Jamaica. I'd also consider a draw against a full strength Netherlands team with a one man advantage for half an hour a damn good result.

[Chris the Human]

So now you're saying that winning a World Cup is the only measure of a good team? So all but seven of the teams in world football are shit by that definition? I've explained qualification, something which you chose to ignore. But it is a hell of a lot easier to argue when you ignore facts. I'll give you that.

I haven't said Australia are the world's greatest football team, nor have I said they'll win the World Cup. I said they were a good team producing good results. Drawing with the Netherlands is a lot better than a 1-0 win over Malta or a 2 all draw with Iran - and that's what we're coming up against in the group stages. I wasn't saying a 1 all draw makes us world #2, I was saying that it puts us in damn good stead for our group. I'd be disappointed if we didn't make the round of sixteen based on our recent form.

And you can bring in the rankings all you want. The fact is, Honduras, Slovakia, Eduador and Saudi Arabia are ranked higher than Australia. I also remember a time when Germany dismantled a Saudi Arabia side 8-0.

Edited June 5, 2006 by The Misanthrope

[ONO]

So now you're saying that winning a World Cup is the only measure of a good team? So all but seven of the teams in world football are shit by that definition? I've explained qualification, something which you chose to ignore. But it is a hell of a lot easier to argue when you ignore facts. I'll give you that.

I haven't said Australia are the world's greatest football team, nor have I said they'll win the World Cup. I said they were a good team producing good results. Drawing with the Netherlands is a lot better than a 1-0 win over Malta or a 2 all draw with Iran - and that's what we're coming up against in the group stages. I wasn't saying a 1 all draw makes us world #2, I was saying that it puts us in damn good stead for our group. I'd be disappointed if we didn't make the round of sixteen based on our recent form.

And world rankings? Christ, how can anyone take them seriously when a classless side like the United States is apparently better at football than England and Argentina?

[Chris the Human]

No, I'm saying the obvious, if you fail to qualify for a World Cup in 32 years how the fuck can you believe you're a good side?

[ONO]

No, I'm saying the obvious, if you fail to qualify for a World Cup in 32 years how the fuck can you believe you're a good side?

I'm sorry, but what do the results of teams from ten (or even four) years ago have to do with this side? The Australian team this year is good - you can argue against it all you want, but it is. Whether or not we've qualified in the past 32 years is completely irrelevant with regards to this tournament.

I bet Australia will finish bottom of their group.

Edited June 5, 2006 by Lost Soul

[Chris the Human]

EDIT: I may be wrong on the Japan thing. I watched a programme last week, and I believe it said they drew 1-1 with Brazil.

[ONO]

EDIT: I may be wrong on the Japan thing. I watched a programme last week, and I believe it said they drew 1-1 with Brazil.

FIFA website has them playing against Brazil last June and drawing 2 all. I just can't take them seriously. They lost 2-1 to Bulgaria, drew 2 all with Bosnia-Herzegovina, and only just beat Malta. Malta are even lower than some of the 'giants' we have to play in qualifying.

Germany and Australia? The last time we played it was 4-3 to Germany in the Confed Cup. Not really a hammering, but I daresay neither side was full strength. Confed Cup rarely gets proper treatment.

[Guest Kelsardo]

So now you're saying that winning a World Cup is the only measure of a good team? So all but seven of the teams in world football are shit by that definition? I've explained qualification, something which you chose to ignore. But it is a hell of a lot easier to argue when you ignore facts. I'll give you that.

I haven't said Australia are the world's greatest football team, nor have I said they'll win the World Cup. I said they were a good team producing good results. Drawing with the Netherlands is a lot better than a 1-0 win over Malta or a 2 all draw with Iran - and that's what we're coming up against in the group stages. I wasn't saying a 1 all draw makes us world #2, I was saying that it puts us in damn good stead for our group. I'd be disappointed if we didn't make the round of sixteen based on our recent form.

And world rankings? Christ, how can anyone take them seriously when a classless side like the United States is apparently better at football than England and Argentina?

No, I'm saying the obvious, if you fail to qualify for a World Cup in 32 years how the fuck can you believe you're a good side?

And come on, it's not as if the Oceania qualification process is difficult, especially when Australia have this amazing side with draws against Holland, they should qualify for all World Cups, with ease.

Japan have also been producing good results. Didn't they draw with Brazil recently? And Japan aren't an entirely bad side, Croatia can surprise a few people too. I bet Australia will finish bottom of their group. (Y)

Well, you're the one that brought the whole rankings system into play. So, in future, if you're going to try and make a point, at least use something that you yourself take seriously.

[ONO]

So now you're saying that winning a World Cup is the only measure of a good team? So all but seven of the teams in world football are shit by that definition? I've explained qualification, something which you chose to ignore. But it is a hell of a lot easier to argue when you ignore facts. I'll give you that.

I haven't said Australia are the world's greatest football team, nor have I said they'll win the World Cup. I said they were a good team producing good results. Drawing with the Netherlands is a lot better than a 1-0 win over Malta or a 2 all draw with Iran - and that's what we're coming up against in the group stages. I wasn't saying a 1 all draw makes us world #2, I was saying that it puts us in damn good stead for our group. I'd be disappointed if we didn't make the round of sixteen based on our recent form.

And world rankings? Christ, how can anyone take them seriously when a classless side like the United States is apparently better at football than England and Argentina?

No, I'm saying the obvious, if you fail to qualify for a World Cup in 32 years how the fuck can you believe you're a good side?

And come on, it's not as if the Oceania qualification process is difficult, especially when Australia have this amazing side with draws against Holland, they should qualify for all World Cups, with ease.

Japan have also been producing good results. Didn't they draw with Brazil recently? And Japan aren't an entirely bad side, Croatia can surprise a few people too. I bet Australia will finish bottom of their group. (Y)

Well, you're the one that brought the whole rankings system into play. So, in future, if you're going to try and make a point, at least use something that you yourself take seriously.

Edited June 5, 2006 by Lost Soul

[Chris the Human]

Anyone know what channel the Germany Vs Costa Rica game is on?

[The LBTN Express]

You don't have a channel dedicated over there? I guess we're lucky. SBS is broadcasting each and every World Cup fixture - which means I'm going to not be getting any sleep for the duration.

[Guest Kelsardo]

Anyone know what channel the Germany Vs Costa Rica game is on?

You don't have a channel dedicated over there? I guess we're lucky. SBS is broadcasting each and every World Cup fixture - which means I'm going to not be getting any sleep for the duration.

I know for a fact Australia will not win the WC. I'll put a tenner on Australia not even getting to the second round.

[alldaws1]

I know for a fact Australia will not win the WC.

What a stupid thing to say, really. You don't know 'for a fact' that Australia won't win the World Cup. It's unlikely, but it's not fact that they won't.

And Harry Kewell is not Australia's best player IMO, it's Tim Cahill.