c4countdown

With the 2014 FIFA World Cup only a month away, feel free to post what you think of the teams, managers, line-ups, controversial decisions and other things about the World Cup.

Also, say what you like about anything in the build-up to the World Cup too. For example, which players to keep an eye on and which team could spring a surprise.

Ashley Cole should have been selected for the main squad and Luke Shaw picked to be 1 of the 7 on standby.
Frank Lampard should have been left out completely!

Really would have picked Stockdale in place of Forster, and Sidwell over Stones or Flanagan.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Really would have picked Stockdale in place of Forster

I know he plays in an inferior league but Forster is actually the best keeper England have and should start. I'd have left Foster out myself. For another outfield player. I've never understood bringing three goalies. I think its over cautious. Anyone fancy dregging out the stats for how often the third choice goalie actually gets to play at the World Cup?

FIFA rules mandate three keepers for some reason.

Mark James wrote:I've never understood bringing three goalies. I think its over cautious. Anyone fancy dregging out the stats for how often the third choice goalie actually gets to play at the World Cup?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... oalkeepers

Bradley Cates wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... oalkeepers

Cheers. Good read that.

Mark Deeks wrote:FIFA rules mandate three keepers for some reason.

Can't they just say someone else is a goalkeeper? Goalkeepers can play in outfield positions can't they?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Mark Deeks wrote:FIFA rules mandate three keepers for some reason.

Can't they just say someone else is a goalkeeper? Goalkeepers can play in outfield positions can't they?

And outfield players can play in goal, as occasionally happens when a team runs out of keepers due to injury or sendings-off or whatever else. All the stand-in keeper has to do to identify themselves as keeper is wear a different coloured top from the rest of their team.

No idea why this three-goalkeepers rule exists for the world cup. If a team wants to bring only two goalies, or even one, and accept the small risk that they'll have to play a game or part of a game with an outfield player in goal, what's the problem?

Surely England should be sending their "best" referee to the World Cup, instead Of Howard Webb!

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Mark Deeks wrote:FIFA rules mandate three keepers for some reason.

Can't they just say someone else is a goalkeeper?

Well it'd be pretty obvious that they were lying. But yeah it's an odd rule. If a team wants to take a small gamble taking only two, let them. If it costs them, that's their loss.

Not sure who'll win, but to get behind my sweepstake side, Argentina all the way \o/

On the subject of keepers, Ireland's third registered keeper at Italia 90 was Niall Quinn. Not sure if you'd get away with that these days

On the subject of keepers, Ireland's third registered keeper at Italia 90 was Niall Quinn. Not sure if you'd get away with that these days

North Korea named an outfield player as their third choice keeper last time out and quickly changed their minds when FIFA told them he'd only be allowed to play in goal.

Really pleased with England's squad. Lampard offers some experience in a young squad and it's not like we've got a wealth of talent in central midfield. Can't really see him playing much but it's hard to make a case for anyone else in that position, especially given that Barkley's in anyway.

Agree that Barkley, Sterling and Shaw are all in. The first three young English players in aaaages who genuinely look like they could develop into top international performers (except maybe Hart). We won't win this whether we have Shaw or Cole at left back so it may as well be the younger of the 2.

Not a fan of Ben Foster but as this thread has detailed, 3rd choice keepers shouldn't be a factor, as long as it's someone who's played all season and won't be drain on morale if he's not playing. Hart's well ahead of the others, Forster is possibly the best number 2 we've had in a while, but after that it's much of a muchness Stockdale/Foster/Ruddy would hardly inspire confidence if called upon!

Can't see anyone from Europe going over there and winning, for the South American teams every match will be like a home one, could see Brazil V Argentina as the final but think Colombia (especially if Falcao is fit) and Chile will be hard for anyone to knock out. If any winner is coming from Europe it's surely got to be Spain or Germany, don't think anyone else has enough to go all the way. There are more strong teams than last time round so it's hard to see a situation where a Uruguay type make the semi's again.

Looking forward to it though. Interested to see how the South American teams do. Interested to see how Belgiums golden generation are coming along. Interested to see how close England are now to being competitive, hope we've improved faster than the Italy side we drew 0-0 with at the Euro's and could see us out the group.

"The Racing Post World Cup Special Issue", is this Thursday June 5th!
Full of value tips and sound advice, anyone planning on having a few bets, would be a fool to miss it!

I think you used to have 22 in a squad - two for each position. Presumably at some time it was thought that having only two goalkeepers left you vulnerable, because you can't play someone out of position as easily as you can for an outfield position. If FIFA had said you must have three goalkeepers in your 22, people would have complained. If they said you can have two or three, people would have complained. So someone suggested increasing the squad size to 23, of whom 20 were still outfield players, and no-one complained.

Dave Nicholson wrote:Can't see anyone from Europe going over there and winning, for the South American teams every match will be like a home one.

In the same way as every England game is like a home game when they are playing in, say, Italy? It's not like the 1930s, when teams had to travel by boat and another continent was like going to Mars would be now. I can't see the locals getting behind Argentina or Uruguay, either.

David Williams wrote:

Dave Nicholson wrote:Can't see anyone from Europe going over there and winning, for the South American teams every match will be like a home one.

In the same way as every England game is like a home game when they are playing in, say, Italy? It's not like the 1930s, when teams had to travel by boat and another continent was like going to Mars would be now. I can't see the locals getting behind Argentina or Uruguay, either.

I think climate and pitch conditions are more likely to confer a "home advantage" than the crowd. But I think the main reason a South American team will probably win is that they are better..

I think Hodgson has chosen a very good squad with a nice mix of experience and youth which will, hopefully, bode well for future tournaments.
I'd expect us to get out of the group and should be good enough to make the quarters but we'll lose to either Brazil or Spain then.
Brazil vs Germany and Spain vs Belgium as the semi finals with Brazil to beat Belgium in the final!

I think Hodgson may have made a mistake taking all the youngsters ahead of more experienced players. The World Cup is no place for experimenting with youth. Though saying that, at least it means the players will get the experience for future years, which could stand us in good stead to maybe dare to dream of winning a World Cup in our lifetime.
As for this time, it's hard to look beyond Brazil and Argentina. I think Argentina might do it, with the sheer quality of their team. Maybe another AGUERRROOOOOOOOOOO moment As for the rest, I think Belgium or Russia could spring a surprise depending on who wins their group. Portugal might not be the team they were so assuming they come second in group G, they could come a cropper in the second round. Germany seem to have an easy ride to the semis, before they run into Brazil. Then there's the big semi - Spain v Argentina. So if Spain are to retain their trophy they'll do it the hard way, not that there's an easy way to win the World Cup I suppose.

Loving the, erm, "satirical" votes for England and Russia.

Tonight 9-00pm on DAVE, Freeview12, Sky111, Virgin128.
England's Top 39 Footy Gaffes.
Should be a laugh, followed at 10-00pm by Rachel Riley trying to blow £10K in Greece in some daft challenge!

Today's the day "The Racing Post World Cup Special Issue" is on sale, I had to go to 3 shops this morning to get my copy, but it was well worth the hassle.

The reason they have a rule on having three keepers is exactly the same thinking as having teams from a spread of 5 or 6 continents... It gives all a chance to play not just the superstars!

Crap teams compete in the finals as well as lower ranked squad members including the less-thought-of keepers.

Finally, we're off and running, Croatia certainly deserved something from the game, but thanks to the Japanese Howard Webb & their own hapless keeper they ended up getting well and truly shafted, with at least 3 huge decisions going against them.
Brazil looked nothing special and are going to need a lot more help from the officials if they are going to lift the trophy.

Dave Preece wrote:The reason they have a rule on having three keepers is exactly the same thinking as having teams from a spread of 5 or 6 continents... It gives all a chance to play not just the superstars!

Crap teams compete in the finals as well as lower ranked squad members including the less-thought-of keepers.

But very rarely do all three goalkeepers play, so what's the point? I doubt the reasoning behind this rule has anything to do with having teams from several continents.

I never realised that it was compulsory to name three goalkeepers and I agree that it's silly. According to the article, only four teams have ever used three goalkeepers in one tournament in in all four cases, it appears to have been out of choice rather than forced upon them. I doubt many teams use more than two goalkeepers in a domestic league season so the chances of needing three for a handful of games must be very slim. I wonder if this rule applies to the Euros, though since it's a UEFA tournament rather than FIFA, I'm guessing not. It appears that most teams still take three anyway.

Franz Beckenbauer has been banned from all "FIFA activities" for 90 days, his X-Box & PlayStation have been confiscated!

Steven M. McCann wrote:Finally, we're off and running, Croatia certainly deserved something from the game, but thanks to the Japanese Howard Webb & their own hapless keeper they ended up getting well and truly shafted, with at least 3 huge decisions going against them.
Brazil looked nothing special and are going to need a lot more help from the officials if they are going to lift the trophy.

The problem is when you have a game that might have one or two goals but several more refereeing decisions that could go one way or the other that could determine whether a goal is scored, you have a game with very low "resolution". I don't really watch football very much, but when I do it seems that most closeish games could have gone either way with different refereeing decisions. So it's not a very good game, right?

2014-06-12 17:05:08 Mark James says:
i think englands group ill see all four teams with 4 points
2014-06-12 17:05:22 Andy Platt says:
nah, costa rica are useless
2014-06-12 17:05:24 Time's up and Barry Bridger was the only person to get it, solving it in 20.2 seconds and receiving 12 bonus points. The answer to BBKEONIR was KNOBBIER.
2014-06-12 17:05:32 Callum Todd says:
who woul costa rica beat/
2014-06-12 17:05:33 Robin McKay says:
I predict Brazil will score in the 60th minute and win 1-0 with a goal from Neymar
2014-06-12 17:05:35 Andy Platt says:
they might pinch a draw off england or italy though
2014-06-12 17:05:58 Mark James says:
uruguay in the first game. catch them off guard


Told ya.

2014-06-12 17:05:08 Mark James says:
i think englands group ill see all four teams with 4 points
2014-06-12 17:05:22 Andy Platt says:
nah, costa rica are useless
2014-06-12 17:05:24 Time's up and Barry Bridger was the only person to get it, solving it in 20.2 seconds and receiving 12 bonus points. The answer to BBKEONIR was KNOBBIER.
2014-06-12 17:05:32 Callum Todd says:
who woul costa rica beat/
2014-06-12 17:05:33 Robin McKay says:
I predict Brazil will score in the 60th minute and win 1-0 with a goal from Neymar
2014-06-12 17:05:35 Andy Platt says:
they might pinch a draw off england or italy though
2014-06-12 17:05:58 Mark James says:
uruguay in the first game. catch them off guard


Told ya.

Good effort, Mark.

I still absolutely do not understand all those who say that England should save all their fast players for the last 20 minutes. It's their greatest advantage and we want to limit its usage to a fraction of the game? That's like being the world's greatest six small player but only using it once. Stupid.

What a shout.

Since November, Costa Rica have lost to the major footballing forces of Australia, South Korea, Japan, Chile, (well Japan are alright and Chile are good at least), drawn with Ireland, and edged out a home win against the mighty Paraguay. They are literally coming in to the WC off the back of absolutely no form and there was little reason to think they'd get more than about 1 point in the group stage.

Take a bow son!

Correctly guessing one upset isn't that big a deal! Let's see if all four teams end up on four points.

Absolutely hilarious, a not fully fit Luis Saurez has scored the goals that look like putting England out of the Tournament, yet Roy Hodgson still won't concede that he's world class!
No doubt he thinks Wayne Rooney is!

I think Adrian Chiles has had too much sun, he's just after saying to Roy Hodgson "It's generally acknowledged you're the right man for the job!"
I think it's "generally acknowledged" that he's the wrong man for the job!
Hodgsons now planning to completely disrespect Italy & Uruguay by putting the "stiffs" out against Costa Rica.

How is it disrespectful?

Italy and Uruguay need England to beat Costa Rica for either of them to have any chance to win the group.
That's less likely to happen with Roy's makeshift team of "squad" players.
Good luck to any Hills punters who backed Costa Rica @ 1147/1 to get maximum points in the group!

Italy and Uruguay should have beaten Costa Rica themselves.

The real fun will start when Germany & USA play out the draw that will see them both go through at the expense of Ghana or Portugal!

Doesn't Hodgson realise that the winner of the England v Costa Rica game becomes the unofficial world champions? And if it's England our early exit means we will probably hold on to it for a lot longer than Costa Rica would.

Fred Mumford wrote:Doesn't Hodgson realise that the winner of the England v Costa Rica game becomes the unofficial world champions? And if it's England our early exit means we will probably hold on to it for a lot longer than Costa Rica would.

Excellent, first time for quite a while if I remember right too.

I got the impression, Luis Suarez doesn't think much of Joe Hart as a goalkeeper, twice trying and nearly succeeding in making a fool of him direct from a corner!

Ian Volante wrote:Excellent, first time for quite a while if I remember right too.

Yes, we were last unofficial champs during Euro 2000 - another tournament where we didn't do quite so well officially.

Fred Mumford wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:Excellent, first time for quite a while if I remember right too.

Yes, we were last unofficial champs during Euro 2000 - another tournament where we didn't do quite so well officially.

Yis were great in 1994 too, although why you changed your name to Ireland is anybody's guess.

Bookmakers Paddy Power are clearly taking the piss!
They have Brazilian striker Fred 10/1 to score a hat trick versus Cameroon!
Neymar only 11/2 to score a hat trick is a shocking price as well!

What a noble gesture by Luis Suarez, taking the heat of Roy and his one point wonders!

All 6 Spurs players through to the knockout stages!
- Bentaleb, Chadli, Dembélé, Lloris, Paulinho and Vertonghen
(Assou-Ekotto is at QPR so he doesn't count)

Liverpool are not doing quite so well...

Cheerio Chile, Howard Webb is reffing!

I was so loving this world cup so far but tonight has ruined it. If Brazil win the whole thing I'll probably be physically sick. Horrible team with terrible players.

Scolari's hypocrisy is breathtaking, his players (particularly Fernandinho) went after Colombian ace James Rodrigues all night long, yet he's bleating about Neymar being targeted and hunted!
The referee was so embarrassingly weak and biased, that the Brazilian players thought that they could do virtually anything and not get carded, but that backfired spectacularly with Silva's yellow card and now subsequent suspension for that ludicrous foul on the Colombian goalie.
For the sake of the tournament, let's hope the Germans crush this sorry bunch on tuesday night!
The likes of Fred, Hulk, Paulinho and Jo being World Champions doesn't bear thinking about!

Alan Shearer says this is "the best World Cup ever!", I suppose if I was getting paid £100K+, staying in a luxury hotel for 6 weeks and getting to see quite a few of the games from great vantage points, I'd probably say the same!
In truth, it's been a pretty average World Cup, but I reckon the two best teams are contesting the final and you can't really ask for much more than that.
Robbens dive for the winning penalty against Mexico & both their goalkeepers trying to put off opponents about to take penalties in successive shootouts, resulted, I'm sure in most people being pleased Holland didn't reach the Final.
There were at least 8 teams better than a full strength Brazil so Big Phil (& the officials) deserve some credit in getting them to the semi-finals!
Let's hope there's an early goal to set the Final alight.

Yep, obviously the following things are totally average:

- The reigning champions, who in addition to winning the World Cup in 2010 had also won the last 2 European Championships, going out in the group stages of the competition (#PrayForTikiTaka) and losing 5 (FIVE) 1 to the team they beat in the last final;
- The hosts being beaten 7 (SEVEN) - 1 in the semi finals, with zillions of records being broken;
- No-hopers Costa Rica making the quarter finals, having not only qualified from one of the 'groups of death' but topped it;

not to mention various acts of madness (Van Gaal's goalkeeper sub, Suarez's third bite, Jonathan Pearce's complete meltdown over goal line technology in the France-Honduras game), absolutely shitloads of goals, ITV's windows being smashed by riots, Colombia's dancing celebrations, the spray foam stuff, stadium breaches, etc...

Steven, what would make it an above average World Cup for you? An alien invasion during the final? There's still time.

shit world cups are still amazing anyway

I accept a lot of what you say Jennifer, but even you must agree, a lot of the knockout phase matches have been pretty dire, 8 goals in 1 match doesn't really compensate for only 16 goals in the other13 knockout matches (90 minutes) including 5 X 0-0's & 2 X 1-0's.
Holland v Costa Rica, Holland v Argentina and Switzerland v Argentina are three of the worst knockout games I have ever seen and don't get me started on Belgium!
With a good referee there's no reason why the Final shouldn't be a great game with a few goals (unlike 4 years ago).

It's natural that the knockout games have fewer goals as teams who know how to defend are successful teams.

What I find interesting is that in this little poll at the top of the page, nobody said Germany would win.

Germany was my pick before the tournament (genuinely) but I voted Uruguay just in case Suarez went nuts and I could claim a great call.
Got the "went nuts" bit kind of right I guess.

Before the tourney I picked an Arg v Ger final. That's good enough for me.