The Official *England's Journey to Brazil 2014* Thread

[Duty281]

First topic message reminder :

"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England."
Sir Winston Churchill

Yes, it's nearly that time. Time for England to begin their Qualifying Campaign for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Those promising, encouraging, and brave displays witnessed during Euro 2012 will have to be built on as the long road to Brazil starts. Along the way, they will play in London, Podgorica, Kiev, Warsaw, Chisinau and Serravale. The aim is simply to top the group and make it to Brazil with a minimum of fuss.

"Ask any man what nationality he would prefer to be, and ninety nine out of a hundred will tell you that they would prefer to be Englishmen."
Cecil John Rhodes

England have been drawn in Group H with Montengro, Ukraine, Poland, Moldova and San Marino. I don't even need to be insanely optimistic this time round. England will top that group. Moldova and San Marino will be the whipping boys. Montengro, Ukraine and Poland will only prove a challenge in their own ground. Wembley will be deemed a fortress.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first place in the lottery of life."
Cecil John Rhodes

The fixture list for those Qualifiers is the following:

Moldova v England (7th September 2012)
England v Ukraine (11th September 2012)
England v San Marino (12th October 2012)
Poland v England (16th October 2012)
San Marino v England (22nd March 2013)
Montenegro v England (26th March 2013)
England v Moldova (6th September 2013)
Ukraine v England (10th September 2013)
England v Montenegro (11th October 2013)
England v Poland (15th October 2013)

Lovely, simple, finishing with a Wembley double-header. I predict we'll get 28 out of 30 points, perhaps getting a draw in either Warsaw or Kiev.

"Follow your spirit; and upon this charge,
Cry "God for Harry! England and Saint George"."
William Shakespeare

Of course, while England's fate will be defined by those 10 games, the ever important International Friendly will hone the team against more quality opposition. The friendlies currently scheduled are:

Italy v England (15th August 2012)
Sweden v England (14th November 2012)
England v Scotland (14th August 2013)

So let's get the England train rolling, starting on Wednesday, build up momentum before landing in Brazil in nearly 2 years time. Come on England!

“The English are so filled with their own greatness and have won so many big victories that they have come to believe they cannot lose. In battle they are the most confident nation in the world."
Unknown

[mystiroakey]

Belgium may just believe they own hype a bit to much.

I can't fault kompany-The one deffo world class player they have and i would play him as defending in a world team.

vertigun at tottenham is playing very well. Those two in defense are possibly one of the best in the world on paper!

then Hazard- Quality, but not world class

Luluka, benetke are clearly very talented- but thats all it is so far

Fellaini - ermmmm.. Not really sure about him.. on par with Carrick IMO..Possibly better- we will have to wait and see.

Courtis the keeper- is quality thats a given


The rest are good but wouldn't really get into many top sides in the world.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

It's pretty rare that everyone's fancied dark horse tip comes off I think. Belgium look likely to fall into that category.

I quite fancy Chile to pull up a few trees

[super_realist]

Compared to England though Oakey, they've got a lot more quality players, more depth and more experience and variety of experience.

Your spelling is wretched though Oakey! Verigun and Kuluka?

I imagine you mean Vertonghen and Lukaku?

[CFCNick]

I agree, Mysti. Thorgan Hazard is quality but Eden is world class.

Seriously though. If we root our midfield around Carrick and Gerrard and we get Belgium then Hazard, De Bruyne, Dembele and Mirallas will run circles around us. As you've said they are very strong defensively, add Van Buyten and Vermaelen to who you've mentioned. Then they also have Chadli, Defour at Porto and Mertens from Napoli.

They will definitely make the last 16 at least. There are enough teams far far worse that will go out first. Iran, Switzerland, Bosnia, Honduras, even the USA and Mexico. Plus there's always one or two epic fails.

Belgium could be the Uruguay of this World Cup.

[mystiroakey]

Compared to England though Oakey, they've got a lot more quality players, more depth and more experience and variety of experience.

Your spelling is wretched though Oakey! Verigun and Kuluka?

I imagine you mean Vertonghen and Lukaku?

Thats a bit of a stretch mate. England players have way more experience at the higher levels(international cups and CL knockout stages) than belgium players- That isn't even debatable..

I would say that we have more depth of talent as well.

Similar quality first teams though!

[Stella]

Belgium players like any others get a little more hyped, thanks to playing in the EPL. Lukaku looks no better than what we've got tbh, but is hailed as the new Drogba.

Kompany is good, as is Hazard. Felliani, whilst inconsistent has a very good touch and would be a pain in the bum if he played against us.

[mystiroakey]

CFC they would run rings around those two and thats why i cannot fathom us wanting to play them.

Where we do pip belgium is obviously with rooney as the link man, and on the wings(we do actually have a large depth of talent in defense and attack from the wings)

[super_realist]

How many Oakey and how diverse is their experience?

Belgium have players in England, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium and Russia and England have players who play in er.....England.

15 of the current Belgium squad have over 20 caps, and 10 have over 40, anyway as well as having plenty players with CL experience.

Have England ever made their "supposed" experience count though?
They still never been close to winning anything, and in fairness to Belgium, I don't think England have EVER been regarded as anyone's dark horse, the way Belgium are being considered.

[mystiroakey]

very diverse at the highest level compared to Belgium.. as i stated that shouldn't even be debated.. Its just false.

The spanish players all play in La liga(bar a couple) same with the germans in germany!

Ozil isn't any better just because he played in spain or as he does know england- he would be just as good in germany! his experience of different leagues isnt a factor.

But the PL is highly competitive so in truth- Thats where you want you players playing week in week out. There are no easy games- like you do get in spain or germany!

[super_realist]

Oakey, I've just shown you how Belgium are equally well experienced. And even if England were more experienced, it hasn't done them any good. They still are 2nd tier.

There are no easy games? You're a Palace fan for goodness sake!

As for the lack of "competitiveness" in La Lige, Seria A and the Bundesliga. Where have 6 of the last 8 CL winners come from? Exactly.

[mystiroakey]

By the way i dont think Belgium are anyones dark horse to win-- are you really suggesting that?

They are people dark horse to do well.. No one seriously ever expects a dark horse to win a WC- it just doesn't happen!! Yes theoretically speaking thats what a dark horse should be known as but belgium are being touted as doing well because they haven't played in one  for 12 years or so.

basically what you and others are doing in regards to Belgium is what others have done with england in the past. Its exactly the same thing.

They have this 'golden generation'

[mystiroakey]

Oakey, I've just shown you how Belgium are equally well experienced. And even if England were more experienced, it hasn't done them any good. They still are 2nd tier.

There are no easy games? You're a Palace fan for goodness sake!

Where?

and how???

[J.Benson II]

I think what is impressive about Belguim is that they are a small nation with a small population that have still managed to produce an impressive amount of fine players in recent years.

Overall though, I think England are stronger. If the teams were to merge, the majority of the 23 man squad will be English. As would the starting 11.

I can see Belguim having a strong Euro 2016 as the team would have matured by then. However, I personally think they may underperform next year in Brazil.

For me, its Columbia and Russia as the dark horses.

Columbia - strong qualification campaign, will have strong support, South American and have possibly the best foward in the world.

Russia - topped a tough qualification group, experienced manager in Capello and showed promise in 2012 despite early exit.

[mystiroakey]

Oakey, I've just shown you how Belgium are equally well experienced. And even if England were more experienced, it hasn't done them any good. They still are 2nd tier.

There are no easy games? You're a Palace fan for goodness sake!

As for the lack of "competitiveness" in La Lige, Seria A and the Bundesliga. Where have 6 of the last 8 CL winners come from? Exactly.

you dont understand what competitive 'domestic league' means do you?

[super_realist]

Oakey, Read my posts.

First of all iv'e shown how well capped they are, how experienced they are, how much variety there is in their experience, how many play in top teams and how playing in the English Premier doesn't make you any more likely to win the Champions League.

I never said a "dark horse was favourite to win" did I?

[super_realist]

Oakey, I've just shown you how Belgium are equally well experienced. And even if England were more experienced, it hasn't done them any good. They still are 2nd tier.

There are no easy games? You're a Palace fan for goodness sake!

As for the lack of "competitiveness" in La Lige, Seria A and the Bundesliga. Where have 6 of the last 8 CL winners come from? Exactly.

you dont understand what competitive 'domestic league' means do you?

Oakey, I've shown how it makes no difference to how well England do in International football and how having a "competitive domestic league" doesn't mean you are guaranteed to do well in the Champions League.

Therefore playing in England in the EPL doesn't seem to make ANY difference to how well England do internationally.

[owen10ozzy]

I don't think it would be good for England to have the easiest group possible. England need a challenging team, one that is beatable, but one that would give a massive confidence boost should England triumph. Kind of like Argentina and 2002.

And it would be good for England to have Argentina again, because they are a team that England can get the better of. With regards to the top seeds, I would say in order of preference, from top to bottom:

Argentina
Belgium
Uruguay
Colombia
Switzerland
Spain
Germany
Brazil

Really you would rather come up against Argentina or Uruguay over Switzerland!?

People seem to be completely forgetting where this World Cup is being hosted! In Brazil, where climate and altitude are going to play a major factor!I wouldn't like to come up against any of the South American teams if possible. Even the likes of Honduras will be tough to beat next year!

[super_realist]

Of course, Switzerland isn't at altitude is it?

[mystiroakey]

Your definition of experience is very different to mine.

Experience for me is at the highest level.. England players on average have had way more knock out CL games than the begiums and has any of them  even played in a WC or Euro cup??

As i said its not even up for debate- Belgian players seriously lack experience at the highest level.. The highest level is not qualifying games or friendlies for your country!

Your definition of what a competitive domestic league is also very different to mine..

[mystiroakey]

Oakey, I've just shown you how Belgium are equally well experienced. And even if England were more experienced, it hasn't done them any good. They still are 2nd tier.

There are no easy games? You're a Palace fan for goodness sake!

As for the lack of "competitiveness" in La Lige, Seria A and the Bundesliga. Where have 6 of the last 8 CL winners come from? Exactly.

you dont understand what competitive 'domestic league' means do you?

Oakey, I've shown how it makes no difference to how well England do in International football and how having a "competitive domestic league" doesn't mean you are guaranteed to do well in the Champions League.

Therefore playing in England in the EPL doesn't seem to make ANY difference to how well England do internationally.

I didnt say it did- however you implied that teams like belgium(that can't sustain their own league) are in a better place than the english because they have players playing in other leagues.. You equate that to experience- I however did not and dont.. Experience to me is as i stated above!

I also didn't even state that experience will make us any better, you however implied it- I just explained that england have more experienced players at the higher level(as you suggested belgians have more experience)- I am not for one moment suggesting we will get further than belgium- i would say its a very 50/50 outcome tbh!

[super_realist]

And again Oakey I ask what good has it done them internationally?

Whether or not England players win the champions league every year (they don't) have a 100 caps each  (they don't) play in a competitive league ( it's clear it makes no difference internationally) is irrelevant.  Your criteria for "experience" means absolutely nothing when with all of it supposedly behind them they still fail time after time.

Experience in Englands case means nothing at all internationally.

I said Belgian players had a better variety of experience. Experience is something from which you learn, which is supposed to give you extra chance of success because you know how to react and how to succeed through your failures. Yet England consistently fail and fail to learn from "experience" so what good is it?

I don't know if England or Belgium will do better, but the context in which you use the word is virtually meaningless.

[Duty281]

I don't think it would be good for England to have the easiest group possible. England need a challenging team, one that is beatable, but one that would give a massive confidence boost should England triumph. Kind of like Argentina and 2002.

And it would be good for England to have Argentina again, because they are a team that England can get the better of. With regards to the top seeds, I would say in order of preference, from top to bottom:

Argentina
Belgium
Uruguay
Colombia
Switzerland
Spain
Germany
Brazil

Really you would rather come up against Argentina or Uruguay over Switzerland!?

People seem to be completely forgetting where this World Cup is being hosted! In Brazil, where climate and altitude are going to play a major factor!I wouldn't like to come up against any of the South American teams if possible. Even the likes of Honduras will be tough to beat next year!

Well against the Swiss, England would be expected to win, and all the pressure would be on England. Lack of focus and complacency may creep in.

Against Argentina or Uruguay, the pressure would be less, the game would be a lot tighter, and the rewards of an English victory (or even a draw) psychologically would be far greater than over the Swiss. And it would ensure England will be on their game from the word go, as opposed to the disasters of 2006 and 2010.

[mystiroakey]

"And again Oakey I ask what good has it done them internationally?"


what has that got to do with anything? I just correced your fallacy! You implied belgians experience puts them above england!!! (are you now arguing your original point made by you yourself!)




"Whether or not England players win the champions league every year"


who said they do???


seriously what the heck are you waffling about?

[super_realist]

Oakey, Why do you even mention experience when it hasn't given England any advantage whatsoever?

You assert that England are more experienced than Belgium, lets assume that by your definition they are. So what? By your rationale, it's as worthless as counting how many have brown hair in comparison to how many blondes Belgium have.

[mystiroakey]

"but the context in which you use the word is virtually meaningless"

My context of experience in sport is the the way 99.99999% of sports fans use the term..

having rooney, gerrard and cole, etc that have all won and put in match winning final performances in CL finals and all played in a variety of International cups is the point, Belgium have none of that.

But i would still go for youth over experience in gerrards case, Baines over cole(unless we really need his experience and defensive qualities of course)

[CFCNick]

Your definition of experience is very different to mine.

Experience for me is at the highest level.. England players on average have had way more knock out CL games than the begiums and has any of them  even played in a WC or Euro cup??

As i said its not even up for debate- Belgian players seriously lack experience at the highest level.. The highest level is not qualifying games or friendlies for your country!

Your definition of what a competitive domestic league is also very different to mine..

Look at the current Belgium squad. If you look at their "experience" England only just shade it and then lose if we plan on taking the likes of not just Redmond, Morrison, Barkley, Townsend and Berahino but players like Jagielka, Baines, Sturridge (hardly remember him playing in UCL knockout games), and Milner.

Players like Walker, Cahill, Walcott, Jones, Smalling and Wilshere all have limited "experience" in your definition.

Belgium are quality. They're just as good if not better than us.

[mystiroakey]

"Oakey, Why do you even mention experience when it hasn't given England any advantage whatsoever?"


you did! not me. I just corrected your statement below


 ""more depth and more experience and variety of experience"(your words)

[super_realist]

"but the context in which you use the word is virtually meaningless"

My context of experience in sport is the the way 99.99999% of sports fans use the term..

having rooney, gerrard and cole, etc that have all won and put in match winning final performances in CL finals and all played in a variety of International cups is the point, Belgium have none of that.

But i would still go for youth over experience in gerrards case, Baines over cole(unless we really need his experience and defensive qualities of course)

Your context is that it means they have played a lot of games, mine is that they have a lot of experience both in terms of having played a lot of games and also of having a great variety of experience in various leagues.

England may well have played a lot of international tournaments, so what. Have they won any recently, or have they even played well in a recent tournament?

Also how many England players currently are CL champions? At least one Belgian is.

All the experience in the world hasn't made England a better team internationally.

Neither Cole or Rooney have ever put in match winning performances in a CL final either.

[Kay Fabe]

Belgium don't have the experience of England, but then again younger players very seldom do, they also don't have the burden of unrealistic expectation to deal with either.

[mystiroakey]

"Neither Cole or Rooney have ever put in match winning performances in a CL final either."


I think you're a bit mistaken there Cole was exceptional during the barca semis and final v bayern.


The whole team worked as a defensive unit and cole was superb and one of the outstanding performers. You may be right about Rooney but he has played very well in many knockout CL games.

[super_realist]

You said match winning in a final, and as Rooney has never performed great in a winning side and Cole won on a penalty shootout after Drogba had equalised and scored the winning penalty I don't think you could say he did either.

Regardless, all that experience has helped England how?

[mystiroakey]

Oh cole was exceptional mate- the defensive unit of chelsea was what won them the game and the CL.. I think you need to watch games over just reading stats to be honest mate. 

"Regardless, all that experience has helped England how?"


experience is your word mate- you used it to state belgium were better- not me..


I think you need to ask yourself the question tbh?

[Stella]

We do have some players with world cup(s) experience at least. This will be Cole's fourth, and Gerrard, Rooney and Lampards third.

Add to that a couple of euro finals.

[mystiroakey]

I think it's time to just reel it back and start again tbh

SR
"belgium have more experience"

Mysti
"No they dont"


THE END

[super_realist]

Yet, you jumped on my use of the term experience as if it was some attribute England should laud over Belgium. Yet for all their experience they still aren't a seeded team, nor are being talked up as a team to watch.

Truth is there isn't much between them both on the pitch and in experience, neither will win the world cup, yet, I'd fancy Belgium to get further by one round. A wider range of experience and more skillful players.

[mystiroakey]

Yet, you jumped on my use of the term experience as if it was some attribute England should laud over Belgium. Yet for all their experience they still aren't a seeded team, nor are being talked up as a team to watch.

Truth is there isn't much between them both on the pitch and in experience, neither will win the world cup, yet, I'd fancy Belgium to get further by one round.

No I didn't(dint put words in my mouth!!- you just hate being wrong!)- you Implied that belgium were better as they were more experienced.

I then stated england were more experienced and that isn't up for debate- I actually ended it with . BOTH FIRST TEAMS ARE 50/50!!!

That is perfectual factual and balanced.

[super_realist]

perfectual? What the hell is that?

[mystiroakey]

perfectly- its iphone autospell.

[mystiroakey]

Anyway - any team that hasn't qualified for a major tourney for so long!!and has some high profile players and do well in qualifying are going to be bigged up massively..(and the team to watch blah blah)

The irony is that if they had actually qualified for a few before no one would have talked about them!!

Belgium have allways had goodish players. Its just so hard for european teams to get out of the qualification groups. As i said yesterday I would be gutted if i was in a fringe team. It just doesn't seem fair. BUt globalisation over quality is the way its being done- so we have to live with it and it is a world cup.. Europe have actually been getting better over the years yet getting less spots! Its great that the next euro cup is increasing its amount of teams!!

I predict england to meet belgium in the group of 16 and england to win 2-1!!

 

then go out on pens to argentina or someone!!

[Marky]

I like you Mysti but to suggest England's first team is better than Belgium's is quite biased. Belgium are highly seeded because they won most of their qualifying games and are on good form. Problem is, most European teams will struggle to do well due to the humidity. Belgium will be arguably third favourite behind Spain and Germany for Euro 2016 because they are that good.

[mystiroakey]

"England's first team is better than Belgium's is quite biased"


who said that mate?


do you have a comprehension problem - I have said 50/50 and equal.


I am not quite sure why there is so much mis quoting going on to be honest.


"Belgium will be arguably third favourite behind Spain and Germany for Euro 2016"


you call me biased  


no let's not get carried away!!

[super_realist]

I think Euro 2016 will be rubbish for 50% because of so many dreadful teams going to qualify.
It will be like the laughable Rugby World Cup with lots of meaningless games featuring toss teams and many one sided results.

How to make a good tournament poor.

[mystiroakey]

I think Euro 2016 will be rubbish for 50% because of so many dreadful teams going to qualify.
It will be like the laughable Rugby World Cup with lots of meaningless games featuring toss teams and many one sided results.

How to make a good tournament poor.

So much wrong with that statement i dont know where to start

[Stella]

The euros's are historically very tight, as you don't get the ' new zealand's' involved.

[mystiroakey]

We have so much quality in europe that it is only right to expand it so some of these nations have a chance of getting to a cup. There are easily 24 good enough teams that wouldn't look out of shape in a WC.

[super_realist]

WHy? If you dilute what is a very strong tournament with the extra eight teams planned for 2016 you'll have a lot of teams like ROI getting pumped and a lot of dreary games between the likes of Finland and Estonia.

Euro's have always been hard to win because the standard is so high, more crap teams leads to a lower quality product with the plans to expand.

[super_realist]

ROI actually qualified when it was 16 teams, and they were possibly the worst team ever in EUro's. Can you imagine knowing there will be 8 teams worse than them qualifying next time?

[mystiroakey]

Its a european thing, football is so big here- About time we included more of europe even if the quality of some games will be poor.. The reality is though the overall quality will be no worse than the WC.

ANd to footy fans its MORE FOOTBALL  and watching more talent from more obscure nations on a euro stage!

[Stella]

Not sure about 24 teams. 16 is fine. And we get to see this talent in the qualifiers.

[mystiroakey]

You could argue that a 16 is a good number and that produces quality- But it has thrown up Greece hasn't it. sometimes a lesser team can actually come through a smaller tourney because you play less games!!

The WC has never thrown up an average team??

But the fact is lads- Its here and the number is 24

[Sponsored content]