Well, I guess you put more weight on qualification form and general current form than me. I look more at the long term record. England almost always come a cropper in knockout games against the really big teams, while for Germany, Italy, Brazil, semi-finals are almost routine. The Netherlands record is patchier, but they have at least won something and been in other finals in the last forty years.
As much as it pains me to say, I think you’re right. Allthough the relatively easy, ok doable, groups may give the Dutch and English a chance o slowly grow into the tournament. I somehow have the feeling we (the dutch) were so happy to progress to the second phase the last few tournament, that we weren’t really sharp anymore. Both in 88 and 98 we struggled through relatively easy groups to become better and better.
Although I suppose as a group stage team, maybe I should rank England higher, because they have an excellent record at that stage of World Cups. I believe 1962 was the last time they went straight home.
In 1962, England got out of Group 4 in second place to Hungary (on superior goal average to Argentina) but lost 3-1 to Brazil in the quarter finals.
Our only first round failure occurred in 1950 when the tournament took place under a different format than is currently the case. Only the winners of the four groups of 4 went forward to a final group (ultimately won by Uruguay with 5 points to Brazil’s 4). England finished second to Spain in Group 2, but second got nothing in 1950, except an early flight home.
I Wikied it and we’re both wrong. 1958 was the year that all four British nations qualified, and guess which two made it to the knockout stages? Wales and Northern Ireland. Apparently England were level with the USSR in the group on goals for/against/between, there was a play-off, and we lost. A play-off! Try fitting that into a modern World Cup.
So it occurred in 1950 when England lost, 1-0, to the United States. USA, England and Chile all finished on 2 points with 1 win and 2 losses but England were second goal difference.
That doesn’t mean anything. None of the players on the current England team were on the 1990s teams that were always losing to the Germans on penalties.
And the US is wearing 1950 throwbacks. 
Thank you. I hate that ancient history stuff in sports. Two years ago, Spain was supposed to choke yet again. Now, they’re (co-) favorites.
I know, but maybe there’s the psychological thing that footballisplayedwithyourfeet suggests. The players know the history, and England just don’t get to finals, let alone win them. I remember in 1990, it felt surreal for us to be in with a shout of the final (and we very nearly did it). England actually winning a tournament is beyond my comprehension. I would believe in religion at that point.
I’ve already heard it said abut 2010 that reaching the semi-finals would be a satisfactory result, and it’s true. I think the players know it too.
Reaching the semi-finals would be a satisfactory result for anyone. That means you’re one of the four best teams in the world. Can’t ask for much more than that. Are England on the same level as the multiple winners (Argentina, (West) Germany, Brazil and Italy, off the top of my head)? No, but they are good enough to win.
Think about what might have been in '06 had Michael Owen not been injured in the first match (or at least the group stage - I forget exactly when he got hurt).
Any team not named Brazil, you mean. 
Well, yes, but… fuck 'em. 
Kind of a sidelight, but I was struck, as I looked at all the country names in a table, by the absence of teams from that entire swath of earth between Greece and the Koreas. That’s a ton of real estate unrepresented. You get a good sprinkling from Europe, Africa, the Americas, East Asia and Oceania, and nada from the Middle East, the Subcontinent, and Central and Southeast Asia. Kind of a pity. You’d like to see at least somebody from there.
So who’ll join me in sending ten bucks to the Uzbek Football Federation? Must look towards the future, you know.
Meh, Saudi Arabia is a regular, and since 1990 we’ve also seen Iran, China, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. So soccer isn’t big in Thailand and India.
It’s the second most popular sport in India nowadays. It’s just a million miles behind cricket, and hamstrung by a lack of investment. With the sort of financing that, say, Japan has poured into its football system, India would probably field one of the best teams in Asia (the national team finished fourth in the 1956 Olympic tournament, won the Asian games football tournament in 1951 and 1952, and qualified for the World Cup in 1950 (and subsequently withdrew because half the team refused to play in shoes in accordance with FIFA rules… don’t ask).
Soccer is huge in Thailand. They just aren’t very good at it. But it’s no problem to find almost any match from the Prem and Serie A in a pub late at night. In the time I lived there I had little kids always running up to me and calling me “Beckham”*.
*We both were farangs with shaved heads. His hair has since grown back in. There are no other similarities.
Football is huge in India. We just aren’t very good at it. There’s a lack of infrastructure and training to take us to a competitive level.
I refuse to call it soccer in a World Cup thread. The headline “World Cup Soccer” that I see on news sites and elsewhere just makes me want to scream.
Some interesting stuff from the 538 website:
First, Silver’s odds on favorites for each group (using his statistical analysis:
Group A - Uruguay, France
Group B - Argentina, Nigeria
Group C - England, USA
Group D - Germany, Serbia (Ghana close behind)
Group E - Netherlands, Cameroon
Group F - Italy, Paraguay
Group G - Brazil, Ivory Coast (Portugal very close behind)
Group H - Spain, Chile
He also puts Paraguay, Italy, Slovakia, USA, Nigeria as getting the draws that improved their chances of advancing the most.
Ivory Coast, South Africa, Switzerland, Chile, Portugal as getting the worst draws (ones that decreased their odds of advancing).
Then he goes into some permutations on absolute value of the draw, in other words, not accounting for expectations going in. North Korea got it the worst and Italy the best. USA is about middle of the pack.
I’m pleased with the whole draw. Looks like some great matches are coming up, so I just need to decide on which rank outsider to bet on coming good (there’s always one). Home continent advantage would suggest one of the Africa teams, but it’s never the one you think (i.e. Ivory Coast). Cameroon, maybe?
Anyway, hopefully England and the US will get through group C in positions 1 and 2.