Yup - It’s “Cluff” and “Cluffie”. Best manager of his generation - possibly of all time. The idea that Derby could win the League or Notts Forest the European Cup - TWICE is beyond dreaming now. (in fact Forest are looking the third division in the face)
That scraping sound you may be able to hear is the sound of a soapbox being pulled up. You have hit on one of my biggest bugbears.
You are quite right CONACAF deserves one maybe at most two places. It’s all to do with FIFA being desperate to get the USA to take up the game - so they rig the WC to make it almost impossible for them not to qualify. Conversely Australia (who do deserve to get to the WC) are completely stuffed (as, conveniently, are Israel.)
It also has the effect of rigging the World rankings so that the USA is in some ludicrous spot like tenth when 50th or more would be more accurate (to put it into context he USA couldn’t qualify for either the European Championship or the Copa in S America - yet it effectively gets a bye into the WC).
I’m not knocking the USA’s football team (well I suppose I am - they’re pants and they play like the old Wimbledon), but let’s have some realism here!
What did people make of Gary Neville’s outspoken comments on the FA’s recent anti-racism campaign?
I was impressed that he had the stones to speak his mind on what is always an incendiary topic. I have a soft spot for footballers with more than two brain cells, so I am a bit of a G. Neville fan. (I suspect this is a minority opinion 
)
He is definitely a polarising figure in the game. He is such a pedestrian player, but has managed to hide in a talented team for what seems like the last ten years. 110 percenter though, which is worth something. Maybe Jaap Staam said it best, describing him and his brother as a “couple of busy c**nts”
Re: Neville: Stam was definately on the money! He seems to see himself as a shop-steward figure (he was behind the threatened “strike” by England players over Rio’s short-term memory loss)
However he is right about Nike jumping on the bandwagon.
I don’t know anyone outside of Man Utd fans (who all hate England anyway) who can stand him. Having said he is the best we have at Right Back.
Ah, the English view of the world. So quaint. Lessee, 50th would put USA below Jamaica, to whom they’ve never lost. Maybe the USA should be ranked somewhere near 20-25, but never 50th. That’s absurd. Let’s just assume that you’re being a bit hyperbolic. And it’s not as if FIFA rankings have anything to do with qualifying anyway. Yes, as an overall region it’s certainly easier to qualify. I don’t think that can be argued. But I don’t believe the disparity is as big as the English are wont to make it. England has Poland, who can be tough (and nasty) but beyond that your group is Azerbaijan, Northern Ireland and Wales. Northern Ireland lost to Canada, for pete’s sake, who can’t even make it past the first round of CONCACAF qualifying. In an off year England might finish second in the group, but they really should win out. And if they come second they still get a second chance to play through.
Let’s look at some of the other European powerhouses out there: Latvia, Israel,
Macedonia, Estonia, Cyprus, Armenia, Albania, Liechtenstein, Faroe Islands, Andorra, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Serbia & Montenegro, Iceland, Lithuania,
Moldova, Azerbaijan, San Marino and Malta. Many of these are your equivalents of our St. Kitts & Nevis, Bahamas, etc. Some occasionally have good runs, some are too small to ever matter. But if they’re not include then is it truly a World Cup? In the end Europe have about 10-12 consistent quality sides, with about 3-5 “upstarts” every year (Greece and Ukraine this year?) that make life difficult for everyone. I think you get 12 or 13 spots in the Finals, so that’s hardly unfair. It does mean that every time a decent side or three will miss out (Netherlands in '02, England in '98), but that’s part of what makes the tournament exciting.
I agree that Oceania get screwed, but maybe FIFA should consider an extra spot to Asia and include the top two from Oceania in the final round of Asian competition and drop the 1/2 spot from CONCACAF. Frankly, the USA should finish in the top 2 here each time, and if they can’t not cry about it. Three should get us comfortably in for perpetuity. We have some drawbacks that England don’t face (hostile home crowds, so no home field advantage, plus most of our better players have to travel back from Europe and face jet lag and travel fatigue), but these are mostly of our own making, so I’ll not complain about them.
In the end it’s in FIFA’s best interest to have the world involved. You could make an argument that it should just be South America and Europe, since that’s who always wins. But that’s hardly global and would diminish the competition, IMHO. Maybe we can just grandfather old England in so that we don’t have to put up with the sour grapes all of the time and be done with it. You can even have one of CONCACAF’s spots, for all I care.
As you point out England have a cakewalk into the 2006 WC - but that is down to luck. We could be in this group:Netherlands, Romania, Finland, Czech Republic, Macedonia FYR, Andorra, Armenia. So it works both ways.(and I wouldn’t fancy your chances against Serbia - a bit of a needle match as well).
I have no problem with the world cup being precisely that - so yes let’s have the USA there (particularly now the rest of the world have worked them out), but it shouldn’t be necessary to rig it. Again, as you say if you can’t come second in CONACAF you have no right to go. (and I wouldn’t fancy your chances against Serbia - a bit of a needle match as well).
The rankings are perceived over here as irrelevent. We know who’s good and who’s not, but it is odd to see the USA in the top 10.
It’s going to be won by the Dutch you know.
Well, that’s the last team we lost two, in a friendly 1-0 on a goal by Robben, in Amsterdam. It’s been a while, just about a year. So we’re hardly pushovers, although clearly not yet the elite.
Anyway, the Dutch will probably find a way to choke and lose when the pressure gets on. It’s their way.
Where is Coldfire, anyway? I know he’s a newlywed and all, but I hope taking the piss will get his attention.
What they usually do is start fighting with each other, and then the coach, and the the bus driver, and then half the team won’t pass to the other half of the team.
That’s how we used to beat the South American clubs back when I played in the local amateur leagues. 
Yeah, that’s right. A team that made it to the Quarterfinals of WC 2002 is below 50 in the world!? 
Yes. Things change and the way to win games changes - that’s why Brazil don’t win it every year.
Here are the top 50. Howmany do you reckon the usa would beat on a best of five basis?:
Top 10:
1.Brazil
2 France
3 Argentina
4 Czech Republic
5 Spain
6 Netherlands
7 Mexico
8 England
9 Portugal
10 Italy
I say none of them (and WTF are MEXICO doing there (and england’s placing is a bit flattering too)
Next ten:
11 USA
12 Republic of Ireland
13 Sweden
14 Denmark
14 Turkey
16 Germany
17 Uruguay
18 Greece
19 Japan
20 Iran
Now this is just plain silly - I’ll give you Japan and Iran(?!) and possibly even Greece at the outside (yes I know - but they’ll never get that lucky again)
Next ten:
Korea Republic
21 Nigeria
23 Cameroon
23 Croatia
25 Poland
26 Colombia
27 Costa Rica
28 Romania
29 Paraguay
30 Saudi Arabia
30 Senegal
You can have Saudi Arabia and maybe Costa Rica out of that lot (possibly Paraguay too)
Ten More:
Russia
33 Egypt
34 Morocco
35 Tunisia
36 Norway
37 Bulgaria
38 South Africa
39 Ecuador
40 Jordan
I’ll give you the last 4
And the last ten:
Côte d’Ivoire
42 Slovenia
43 Finland
44 Belgium
44 Iraq
46 Serbia and Montenegro
47 Jamaica
47 Uzbekistan
49 Israel
50 Bahrain
See what I mean? - this is about right. I’d give Serbia and Finland a chance but the rest you’d beat.
Mybe ten or fifteen years ago 25th would have been fair - but the game’s moved on from there.
Cmon man, things don’t change that much in 2 1/2 years.
I take it you have a problem with how the FIFA World Rankings are calculated. What exactly would those be?
It’s quite simple. In short; the FIFA rankings only take account of competitive games ie qualifiers and tournament games. The USA’s competitive games are laughably easy, so their ranking is overinflated.
Wrong – Friendlies are included as well.
And no, USA’s competitive games are not all laughably easy!
Friendlies DONT count! Not in the real world anyway - they are at the bottom of that list and the bottom of the weightings. And maybe not ALL of the USAs qualifiers are a doddle but a lot of them are - watch what happens to England after Wales, northern Ireland and pyjamastan. Suddenly we’ll be MUCH better than we were before.
Friendlies DO count. Regional Strength is also taken into consideration:
With all of these factors taken into consideration, I fail to see how the FIFA World Rankings are bogus.
Well common sense should enter into it for a start. You’ve seen the top fifty - you justify a placing of 11th for the USA. You’re going to find it hard.
Friendlies are bollocks - some countries (ie England) don’t take them seriously, other countries (ie all the African ones) use them as money spinners and Brazil play wherever Nike tell them to. I suspect that’s why Japan have that ludicrous rating - ie moneyspinning and nike friendlies have flattered to decieve.
Look the USA aren’t crap. There just not that good - and they certainly ain’t the 11th best team on the planet.
Outside of a few goalies are there even any players who would get into the other top ten teams? Now reverse the question - how many of the England side would walk into a place with the American team?
See what I mean now?
Anyway I have to go now to begin building up for spurs v the baggies tomorrow.
I’ll be back tomorrow.
No dude, I don’t see what you mean. If you are saying that USA is below #50, when FIFA says they are #11, then you are saying that the FIFA World Rankings don’t mean shit.
I’m saying, based on FIFA’s criteria for rankings, that they are fairly accurate.
And yes, I think USA matches up quite well against most of the teams in the Top 50.
Portugal 3-2, Mexico 2-0, we played a hell of game against Germany…Do you remember these at all?
I agree with you though I would note that Israel are doing very well in their current group. That is until we go there in March and take care of business. FIFA is so utterly corrupt that it beggars belief. Blatter is an out-an-out crook. The way the system works now, Brazil, Argentina, Mexicon and the USA will ALWAYS qualify for the World Cup. The favoritisim shown to Brazil is nothing less than scanadalous (ask Denmark, China and Turkey in last years WC).
The rankings, however, are not a relevant factor in qualifying for the WC. The groupings are what is relevant. Argentian and Brazil are always in the same group that requires them to get the top 5 places out of ll or 12 teams. Do note, they can also come in 6th and beat Australia in a play-off to make it to the WC. Some of the teams in the South American groups are very poor such as Paraguay and El Salvador. Contrast that with Israel playing in a group with Ireland, France & Switzerland or even Ireland playing in a group with Holland and Portugal and you can see the difference. The entire system needs to be overhauled.
I think you are missing the point. Not all of USA’s competitive games are easy but most are. Games against Triniad and Tobago are a joke. The one truly tough game that you have is against Mexicon. The fact remains though that those two games don’t matter. America can lose both games to Mexico and still qualify for the WC. All you have to do is avoid a defeat to the likes of Jamacia :rolleyes: and you’ll qualify. Not very difficult at all.
The rankings are considered a joke by most soccer fans and pundints alike. For example, Nigeria and Romania, on their day, could carve up most of the teams on that list. Ignore the rankings and focus on the disgraceful racket that is the qualifying system.
As an aside, I think the current US team is farily decent and would give most teams a run for their money.