The International Friendlies thread

[SF_]

So, very similar.

But anyway, this is a Costa Rica side who finished top of their group at the last world cup, beating Italy and Uruguay. They qualified ahead of the US.

Of course they are better than us, occasionally small nation will have good teams. Their team isn't fantastic but they had an admirable team spirit.

England, more than ten times their size, mocked them relentlessly then drew with them in a dead rubber - finishing bottom of the group where Costa Rica finished top.

But nevertheless, apparently beating Scotland 1-0 is worthy of derision? The lack of knowledge of certain nations continues to be astonishing.

I answered the question about population size, I didn't make any comments in regards to how good their team is. I just commented on Scotland being wank and them doing well to just lose 1-0.

Don't remember ever mocking them 4 years ago, but even if we did, it was 4 years ago, has zero relevance. Holland got to the semi finals in 2014, they're gash now.

Can Scottish fans ever talk about football without bringing England into it? I doubt it.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Didn't Costa Rica make the 1/4 Finals as well? Only going out in penalties to NL?

Tbf, I'd expect Scotland to lose to Costa Rica right now. I'd expect England to lose to Costa Rica right now too.

Costa Rica reaching the quarter finals was a one time thing. They are a good side indeed, but they aren't as good as the last world cup suggested. I think they'll go through their group this time and that will be that.

 

[SALTIRE]

Scotland fans are absolutely ridiculous, no doubt about that.

What you on about now?

 

[mistermagic]

Peru? HA don't make me laugh!

You are going to be one of the tournaments whipping boys who will be taken lightly and rightly so because your team is just so shit. Oh you beat Iceland in a friendly? WOW just WOW the footballing juggernauts of Iceland!

You will be out by the second group match without scoring a single goal.

Peru are going to the World Cup and Chile aren't. Think about that and let it sink in. I also thought that Peru was destined to finish bottom 3 of the South American zone till the end of time but woopdeefuckindoo they made it. I won't be taking them ligthly this summer (mainly because that nasty Lib fucker will make fun of me if I do!).

We've had a rather strange international break. We lost to Colombia 2-3 playing very well for half an hour and beat Russia 3-1 playing very badly.

Some of the stuff we played early on in the Colombia game was superb and certainly not something you'd come to expect in a friendly 3 months before the biggest tournament there is in world football. Alas, I believe we started too strong. Credit to the Colombians who stayed resiliant and managed to regroup by manmarking Lemar in order to diminish our attacking threat and score a goal before half-time to stay in the game. The second half we look shattered and, having attended the game, I reckon the intensity of the opening half hour was just too much for the players to bare. Maybe they expected the Colombians to lie down and die. After all, losing to us in a friendly is nothing to be ashamed of but they kept going and deservedly beat us. Not expecting Peru to be as good as Colombia were on Friday but expecting the same South American grinta. I've got a ticket for Poland/Colombia in Kazan and I'm very much looking forward to that one. Loads of Colombians at the Stade de France and they bought a great atmosphere.

Russia was of course different. A lesser opponent with different quality but I thought their defending and overall play was not that bad. If they can nullify Salah against Egypt, I reckon they have a chance of making 2nd behind Uruguay. The players aren't world-beaters but they proved to be hard to beat at least which I thought they really weren't given the recent results.
Anyway, we started Mbappé upfront and he delivered by scoring just before half-time (arguably one of the worst France halves I ever watched), Pogba got a second from a free-kick (he did fuck all else), Russia got one back and Mbappé scored his second, a tentative shot that really should have been saved.
Not much else can be said of the Russia game. We beat the worst team of the tournament based on FIFA rankings by not playing very well. The press went mad of course but most of us will keep in mind that we scored 3 goals against someone which doesn't happen that often (we managed to draw goalless against Luxembourg at home!).

Last night, I watched most of Germany vs Brazil and must say what a good outfit the brazilians make. This was the first meeting between the two countries since the 1-7 and Brazil looked to have regrouped and picked up the pieces. Casemiro and Fernandinho form an efficient CM pairing that protects the back four well, Willian and Coutinho are quite threatening down the wings (especially the latter, the Chelsea player had a bit of a meh game really) while Paulinho keeps being much more impressive for his country than he is for his club.
Said it before, I don't rate this Germany side. I think they lack character. They did manage to play a very good and high-tempo game against Spain (my favourites to win the World Cup, just beat Argentina 6-1 I see) though. Mal schauen.

 

[St. Juste]

Dude, no one cares about population. San Juan de Lurigancho (district in Lima) has THREE times the population of Iceland. Iceland is in the World Cup and finished first in their qualifying group ahead of Croatia. We don't have a huge national pool either. We have a really good group of 23 but after that its questionable quality for this level.

Population is absolutely relevant, the favourites for the world cup are Brazil and Germany, and those favoured least are the smaller nations. There is a clear correlation. Why aren't Andorra or the Faroe Islands in the World Cup?

One very small nation, Iceland, is. And that has been an incredible story that has received a lot of attention. But they are not favourites ahead of Brazil and Germany - why not?

Can Scottish fans ever talk about football without bringing England into it? I doubt it.

It was an England fan who posted the comment about Scotland....

Costa Rica reaching the quarter finals was a one time thing. They are a good side indeed, but they aren't as good as the last world cup suggested. I think they'll go through their group this time and that will be that.

They are clearly better than us, which was my point.

What you on about now?

The relentless and crushing negativity of many Scotland fans

 

[SF_]

It was an England fan who posted the comment about Scotland....

I haven't read the entire thread so i'll just say, fair enough.

 

[Gassy]

Population is absolutely relevant, the favourites for the world cup are Brazil and Germany, and those favoured least are the smaller nations. There is a clear correlation. Why aren't Andorra or the Faroe Islands in the World Cup?

One very small nation, Iceland, is. And that has been an incredible story that has received a lot of attention. But they are not favourites ahead of Brazil and Germany - why not?

There is definitely correlation. But infrastructure is also, if not more important than population.

Otherwise I throw you India & China.

You'll always get those 1 off stories of Iceland doing well for a generation of players & also teams like Italy having a poor set right now, it's a natural cycle.

 

[Dirk]

Said it before, I don't rate this Germany side. I think they lack character. They did manage to play a very good and high-tempo game against Spain (my favourites to win the World Cup, just beat Argentina 6-1 I see) though. Mal schauen.

Ja, schau'n wir mal, mm.

I am here with you. Great match against a very good and strong spanish team (which are now my favourites too. You won't see a team attacking us already in our penalty area very often. I was very impressed and yet we managed to get some chances too. Those matches against Spain are always a delight for me to see, 2 teams that played the field up and down for a long time and both were seldom clueless.
The match against the Brazilians was a different cup of tea though. Löw changed the very good side from the Spain match in 7 positions to give the 2nd row a last chance before the nominations and most failed to make a statement. Especially both Man City players, Sane and Gündogan, showed why they aren't first choice in the national team. Both with many errors and Sane couldn't win any duel with the spanish d#. And Gündogan again a failure, I don't know what it is with him. In the Mannschaft he is seldom convincing.
Brazil wanted to win, we looked again that we couldn't be arsed (although as mentioned it was the last match before Löw had to make the cut). All in all it was a mediocre match (not in the least comparable to the very good Spain match) from both sides.

 

[St. Juste]

There is definitely correlation. But infrastructure is also, if not more important than population.

Otherwise I throw you India & China.

You'll always get those 1 off stories of Iceland doing well for a generation of players & also teams like Italy having a poor set right now, it's a natural cycle.

Well, yes, India and China is the first response when people are countering that population is a factor.

However, of course, population is only applicable in nations where football is the dominant, or at least a major sport. This is not the case in either India or China.

China in the coming decades might well turn out to be very good. India will not, they have very little interest.

Of nations where football is the dominant sport, the correlation with population is clear.

You can be very confident that San Marino and Andorra will never win a world cup, and that Brazil and Germany will win it again.

 

[Railway Blue]

But for Sterling that chance might not exist. Ditto the one that lead to the goal. Movement is more important than finishing ability, hence why Sterling has 20 goals this season and Sané has 12.

Sterling is playing in a team that are a cut above all the others. A lot of his goals for City I could have scored.

 

[Gassy]

Well, yes, India and China is the first response when people are countering that population is a factor.

However, of course, population is only applicable in nations where football is the dominant, or at least a major sport. This is not the case in either India or China.

China in the coming decades might well turn out to be very good. India will not, they have very little interest.

Of nations where football is the dominant sport, the correlation with population is clear.

You can be very confident that San Marino and Andorra will never win a world cup, and that Brazil and Germany will win it again.

For the record, i'm not disagreeing with you.

I'm just saying that it's not just down to interest & population. Scotland have a poor team considering their population in Europe & infrastructure of football. Of the countries in Europe with a +/- 1 million of Scotland i'd say most are better than Scotland; Denmark (y), Finland (n), Slovakia (y), Norway (n) Ireland (y), Croatia (y). I'm not picking on Scotland btw, England definitely come bottom of our pile

When you're comparing populations though, Brazil is the 5th highest populated country in the world at over 200m. Germany is 82m - less than half. They, in theory, shouldn't be able to compete. But because of the infrastructure in Germany, they can compete comfortably. Nigeria - football is one of, if not the top sports with a population of 195m - but they can't get near Brazil/Germany.

Of course, I agree than San Marino & Andorra will never win it (just waiting for Iceland to win the world cup and make our entire discussion pointless )

 

[SALTIRE]

The relentless and crushing negativity of many Scotland fans

It's justified though now, we've been patient long enough. Twenty years now we've been waiting on the national side doing something and to have failure after failure after failure, does take it out of you. We generally are a positive bunch, but this is beyond tiresome how poor we have become; and the clueless SFA aren't helping things continuing to make draconian decisions on how our game continues to be run, and by employing has-been managers who will do nothing to help us progress onwards. Bringing in third and fourth-rate Englishmen to bolster the squad only makes things worse too and does nothing for the young lads up here trying to push through. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we'd be better off at this rate fielding Celtic's youth side instead of bringing in McBurnie's and McTominay's.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Population is absolutely relevant, the favourites for the world cup are Brazil and Germany, and those favoured least are the smaller nations. There is a clear correlation. Why aren't Andorra or the Faroe Islands in the World Cup?

One very small nation, Iceland, is. And that has been an incredible story that has received a lot of attention. But they are not favourites ahead of Brazil and Germany - why not?

Ok, then why aren't China and India in the World Cup? Why are Uruguay in every world cup and Peru being their first world cup in 40 years, if San Juan de Lurigancho is a 3rd of Uruguay's population?

 

[St. Juste]

For the record, i'm not disagreeing with you.

I'm just saying that it's not just down to interest & population. Scotland have a poor team considering their population in Europe & infrastructure of football. Of the countries in Europe with a +/- 1 million of Scotland i'd say most are better than Scotland; Denmark (y), Finland (n), Slovakia (y), Norway (n) Ireland (y), Croatia (y). I'm not picking on Scotland btw, England definitely come bottom of our pile

When you're comparing populations though, Brazil is the 5th highest populated country in the world at over 200m. Germany is 82m - less than half. They, in theory, shouldn't be able to compete. But because of the infrastructure in Germany, they can compete comfortably. Nigeria - football is one of, if not the top sports with a population of 195m - but they can't get near Brazil/Germany.

Of course, I agree than San Marino & Andorra will never win it (just waiting for Iceland to win the world cup and make our entire discussion pointless )

Well, that is looking at a very limited time frame. Scotland have had a national side for 150 years - for many of those years we have been far better than many larger sides. Indeed, your comparison doesn't take account of the fact we are better than other larger European nations - we just beat Hungary away.

Are we at our best? Clearly not, I would say we are roughly where you would expect a nation of our size to be. We should be expecting regular qualification for the Euros but the World Cup will always be incredibly difficult, and an exception rather than a rule.

It's not a coincidence that the two largest footballing nations are the two most successful. Simply being bigger will not mean you will win, obviously, but Germany have a far better chance of competing with Brazil than Finland does with Germany. For decades Scotland and England were the only really established national sides and the record is close despite one being 10 times larger than the other.

As for Nigeria, in decades to come I think they will be a major footballing power. They suffer from losing a lot of their diaspora players and a relative lack of infrastructure.

Ok, then why aren't China and India in the World Cup? Why are Uruguay in every world cup and Peru being their first world cup in 40 years, if San Juan de Lurigancho is a 3rd of Uruguay's population?

Because China and India don't have football as the dominant sport. This has already been addressed.

Uruguay are not in every world cup. The two most successful nations in South America are the 1st and 3rd largest, the least successful are the smallest.

it's a very clear correlation, there are certain reasons why Colombia and Peru underperform, and Uruguay overperform, but this does not mean population is not a factor. If population was genuinely not a factor Guyana would have as much chance of being successful as Brazil. They do not.

It's justified though now, we've been patient long enough. Twenty years now we've been waiting on the national side doing something and to have failure after failure after failure, does take it out of you. We generally are a positive bbe unch, but this is beyond tiresome how poor we have become; and the clueless SFA aren't helping things continuing to make draconian decisions on how our game continues to be run, and by employing has-been managers who will do nothing to help us progress onwards. Bringing in third and fourth-rate Englishmen to bolster the squad only makes things worse too and does nothing for the young lads up here trying to push through. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we'd be better off at this rate fielding Celtic's youth side instead of bringing in McBurnie's and McTominay's.

This 20 years of failure is a completely false narrative.

In 2008 when we beat France twice and finished ahead of WC QF Ukraine, was that a failure? Not qualifying from a group containing the two world cup finalists? Absolutely not, it was a demonstrably successful campaign, even if we didn't qualify.

Scottish people are, without doubt, the most pessimistic people on earth. Fantastically captured in Trainspotting.

McBurnie and McTominay feel Scottish, and clearly have Scottish names, I have absolutely no issue with them playing. All nations take advantage of such rules including England who have a Ghanaian and Jamaican in their side.

We will qualify for most Euro campaigns going forward, and the occasional World Cup. This is a reality for nations of 5 million people in Europe.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Because China and India don't have football as the dominant sport. This has already been addressed.

Uruguay are not in every world cup. The two most successful nations in South America are the 1st and 3rd largest, the least successful are the smallest.

it's a very clear correlation, there are certain reasons why Colombia and Peru underperform, and Uruguay overperform, but this does not mean population is not a factor. If population was genuinely not a factor Guyana would have as much chance of being successful as Brazil. They do not.

Neither do Iceland and with not even 1 million people, they have managed to be better than China and India.

Peru has had talent along the decades that don't make it due to poor career decisions or the national team underperformed. Population has nothing to do with anything.

Uruguay have been in the last 3 world cups and have 15 Copa America's. What's your point?

 

[SALTIRE]

This 20 years of failure is a completely false narrative.

In 2008 when we beat France twice and finished ahead of WC QF Ukraine, was that a failure? Not qualifying from a group containing the two world cup finalists? Absolutely not, it was a demonstrably successful campaign, even if we didn't qualify.

Scottish people are, without doubt, the most pessimistic people on earth. Fantastically captured in Trainspotting.

McBurnie and McTominay feel Scottish, and clearly have Scottish names, I have absolutely no issue with them playing. All nations take advantage of such rules including England who have a Ghanaian and Jamaican in their side.

We will qualify for most Euro campaigns going forward, and the occasional World Cup. This is a reality for nations of 5 million people in Europe.

I have lived through a lot of these qualifying campaigns. Yep we have come close in a couple of them, and I remember Panucci getting a goal that shouldn't have been given to eliminate us in the last game of qualifying all too well. There has been plenty of other examples in these last 20 years. All these times I supported the side, as even though I know we were not blessed with talent, as long as we gave out some heart that's all we asked for, including me. We weren't far off qualifying last time around, but I for one never thought we'd get there anyway; that's not pessimism, that had reason behind it as we have always been 'braveheart's' - so close, yet so far - it's time to let go of all this romantic pish about us. I'm sick fed up of us being the laughing stock of the UK when smaller nations like Wales and the Irish have qualified recently for tournaments.

There is no vision from top to bottom, the SFA are clueless, their latest choice of manager after 4 months of deliberation came down to a washed-up has-been, when they could've tried for someone like Derek McInnes. He then chooses third and fourth-rate Englishmen to prop up the side who have no real allegiance to us outside of their relatives. McBurnie would not get near the England team in a million years so he feels the best way to play international football is to ply his trade with us.

We then play industrial football, hoofing it up to Phillips (another Englishman) in the second game, and expect to progress playing systems like that? It works for Mourinho, but he has world class players under him at least.

In the two games we have played so far, I've seen nothing, not an iota, of a chance we'll be able to be competitive and finally qualify for a tournament even if its expanded; not while the whole of the system underpinning the side is in such a mess.

And you say we are a pessimistic bunch, what utter tosh. I may be as I've finally had enough of this drivel, but I've been supportive these last two decades, and the interviews you hear from the Tartan Army generally remain pretty positive - though god knows why.

We are not going to qualify for a major tournament for at least another decade with this system in place.

 

[mistermagic]

Can a mod rename this topic the population correlation thread please?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Sterling is playing in a team that are a cut above all the others. A lot of his goals for City I could have scored.

No you couldn't, not without his movement, a facet of the game you seem determined to ignore. If it were as simple as playing for a great side then the rest of their forwards would score at a similar or better rate, instead of just Aguero.

 

[Carver]

Peru are going to the World Cup and Chile aren't. Think about that and let it sink in. I also thought that Peru was destined to finish bottom 3 of the South American zone till the end of time but woopdeefuckindoo they made it. I won't be taking them ligthly this summer (mainly because that nasty Lib fucker will make fun of me if I do!).

We've had a rather strange international break. We lost to Colombia 2-3 playing very well for half an hour and beat Russia 3-1 playing very badly.

Some of the stuff we played early on in the Colombia game was superb and certainly not something you'd come to expect in a friendly 3 months before the biggest tournament there is in world football. Alas, I believe we started too strong. Credit to the Colombians who stayed resiliant and managed to regroup by manmarking Lemar in order to diminish our attacking threat and score a goal before half-time to stay in the game. The second half we look shattered and, having attended the game, I reckon the intensity of the opening half hour was just too much for the players to bare. Maybe they expected the Colombians to lie down and die. After all, losing to us in a friendly is nothing to be ashamed of but they kept going and deservedly beat us. Not expecting Peru to be as good as Colombia were on Friday but expecting the same South American grinta. I've got a ticket for Poland/Colombia in Kazan and I'm very much looking forward to that one. Loads of Colombians at the Stade de France and they bought a great atmosphere.

Russia was of course different. A lesser opponent with different quality but I thought their defending and overall play was not that bad. If they can nullify Salah against Egypt, I reckon they have a chance of making 2nd behind Uruguay. The players aren't world-beaters but they proved to be hard to beat at least which I thought they really weren't given the recent results.
Anyway, we started Mbappé upfront and he delivered by scoring just before half-time (arguably one of the worst France halves I ever watched), Pogba got a second from a free-kick (he did fuck all else), Russia got one back and Mbappé scored his second, a tentative shot that really should have been saved.
Not much else can be said of the Russia game. We beat the worst team of the tournament based on FIFA rankings by not playing very well. The press went mad of course but most of us will keep in mind that we scored 3 goals against someone which doesn't happen that often (we managed to draw goalless against Luxembourg at home!).

Last night, I watched most of Germany vs Brazil and must say what a good outfit the brazilians make. This was the first meeting between the two countries since the 1-7 and Brazil looked to have regrouped and picked up the pieces. Casemiro and Fernandinho form an efficient CM pairing that protects the back four well, Willian and Coutinho are quite threatening down the wings (especially the latter, the Chelsea player had a bit of a meh game really) while Paulinho keeps being much more impressive for his country than he is for his club.
Said it before, I don't rate this Germany side. I think they lack character. They did manage to play a very good and high-tempo game against Spain (my favourites to win the World Cup, just beat Argentina 6-1 I see) though. Mal schauen.

I see France have a lot of quality players on paper but you seem to lack team spirit and that is the difference.

But these recent results for every nation are just friendlies, when the tournament begins a different mentality and intensity will kick in and normal order will be resumed.

 

[St. Juste]

Neither do Iceland and with not even 1 million people, they have managed to be better than China and India.

Peru has had talent along the decades that don't make it due to poor career decisions or the national team underperformed. Population has nothing to do with anything.

Uruguay have been in the last 3 world cups and have 15 Copa America's. What's your point?

Since 1950 no nation of less than 40 million people has won the world cup.

But if it truly means nothing - why not a charity bet. £100 that Brazil will a world cup before ALL nations of less than 1 million people?

I am incredibly confident that will to fruition.

And you say we are a pessimistic bunch, what utter tosh. I may be as I've finally had enough of this drivel, but I've been supportive these last two decades, and the interviews you hear from the Tartan Army generally remain pretty positive - though god knows why.

We are not going to qualify for a major tournament for at least another decade with this system in place.

You are complaining about things that are commonplace for all nations. On the one hand Ireland and Wales qualify but you criticise us for using (less) 'third rate Englishmen' some of whom definitely consider them self Scottish? It's completely incoherent.

But, anyway, it would probably just be best if yourself (and people like you) stopped supporting the national team altogether.

 

[Railway Blue]

No you couldn't, not without his movement, a facet of the game you seem determined to ignore. If it were as simple as playing for a great side then the rest of their forwards would score at a similar or better rate, instead of just Aguero.

Just spoken to my Man Utd supporting mate in Kuala Lumpar and he seems to think this is the best England team for a while. He also thinks that Southgate is a good manager (still haven't forgiven him for that pizza advert) and that for a team to be successful you need a good captain and luck, so we're going to have to create a lot of luck. Last 16 for me, which is an improvement on last time.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Since 1950 no nation of less than 40 million people has won the world cup.

But if it truly means nothing - why not a charity bet. £100 that Brazil will a world cup before ALL nations of less than 1 million people?

I am incredibly confident that will to fruition.



You are complaining about things that are commonplace for all nations. On the one hand Ireland and Wales qualify but you criticise us for using (less) 'third rate Englishmen' some of whom definitely consider them self Scottish? It's completely incoherent.

But, anyway, it would probably just be best if yourself (and people like you) stopped supporting the national team altogether.

Argentina doesn't have 40 million. Quit lying to yourself.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Actually I'm wrong there, they are at 43 million but my point stands. Population is absolutely irrelevant. The USA should of won the World Cup by now and they aren't even in it.

Percentage of interest in the sport is much more important.

 

[SALTIRE]

But, anyway, it would probably just be best if yourself (and people like you) stopped supporting the national team altogether.

You really are a total buffoon.

 

[St. Juste]

Actually I'm wrong there, they are at 43 million but my point stands. Population is absolutely irrelevant. The USA should of won the World Cup by now and they aren't even in it.

Percentage of interest in the sport is much more important.

Er, your point does not stand. If population doesn't matter, why don't all the nations with less than 40 million people ever win the World Cup?

If you were so confident, you would take the bet that the 73 countries with less than 1 million people will win the world cup before Brazil. I'm so confident - make it less than 2 million.

Come on, stand by your absolutely ridiculous position with hard cash.

Regarding your final point, lets do a quick mathematical exercise. Say Brazil had 1% of the country interested in football, that would be just over 2 million people. If 100% of Cyprus were interested in football that would be 1 million people.

Who is more likely to win?

You really are a total buffoon.

Why support a team you will relentlessly complain about - including just after them winning away?

It clearly gives you no pleasure, just quit it.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Er, your point does not stand. If population doesn't matter, why don't all the nations with less than 40 million people ever win the World Cup?

If you were so confident, you would take the bet that the 73 countries with less than 1 million people will win the world cup before Brazil. I'm so confident - make it less than 2 million.

Come on, stand by your absolutely ridiculous position with hard cash.

Regarding your final point, lets do a quick mathematical exercise. Say Brazil had 1% of the country interested in football, that would be just over 2 million people. If 100% of Cyprus were interested in football that would be 1 million people.

Who is more likely to win?

Cyprus

 

[Libertadores FC]

Er, your point does not stand. If population doesn't matter, why don't all the nations with less than 40 million people ever win the World Cup?

If you were so confident, you would take the bet that the 73 countries with less than 1 million people will win the world cup before Brazil. I'm so confident - make it less than 2 million.

Come on, stand by your absolutely ridiculous position with hard cash.

Regarding your final point, lets do a quick mathematical exercise. Say Brazil had 1% of the country interested in football, that would be just over 2 million people. If 100% of Cyprus were interested in football that would be 1 million people.

Who is more likely to win?

You are contradicting yourself. USA has the population of Brazil just about, and they aren't even in the World Cup in a shitty qualifying zone. Its the 5th sport in the country and its not big in China or India either. Population is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. Canada are another example. Great infrastructure and 27 million people, but a shitty team with no interest in the sport (and I've lived in Canada, I can tell you first hand)

Interest in the sport is much more important, so Cyprus would beat Brazil if that was the case.

 

[Libertadores FC]

Ja, schau'n wir mal, mm.

I am here with you. Great match against a very good and strong spanish team (which are now my favourites too. You won't see a team attacking us already in our penalty area very often. I was very impressed and yet we managed to get some chances too. Those matches against Spain are always a delight for me to see, 2 teams that played the field up and down for a long time and both were seldom clueless.
The match against the Brazilians was a different cup of tea though. Löw changed the very good side from the Spain match in 7 positions to give the 2nd row a last chance before the nominations and most failed to make a statement. Especially both Man City players, Sane and Gündogan, showed why they aren't first choice in the national team. Both with many errors and Sane couldn't win any duel with the spanish d#. And Gündogan again a failure, I don't know what it is with him. In the Mannschaft he is seldom convincing.
Brazil wanted to win, we looked again that we couldn't be arsed (although as mentioned it was the last match before Löw had to make the cut). All in all it was a mediocre match (not in the least comparable to the very good Spain match) from both sides.

Low is an average coach tactically in my eyes, but if you want a good team builder, you don't get much better than him.

 

[SALTIRE]

Why support a team you will relentlessly complain about - including just after them winning away?

It clearly gives you no pleasure, just quit it.

So because I criticise the system and our old-fashioned policies, I should just quit supporting my home country after 40 years? It doesn't work like that. We have reached a nadir and I have every right to call it such, but hope (without nothing to back this up) that we can, somehow, with a miracle; finally qualify once more. And it will take a miracle, as these shockingly bad players and pub-team standard manager will hold us back once more.

 

[Dirk]

Argentina doesn't have 40 million. Quit lying to yourself.

Actually I'm wrong there, they are at 43 million but my point stands..

Hey, Lib. You weren't so wrong with Argentina. When they won their first World Cup the population of Argentina was only a bit more than 27 million.





Contradicts the argument that no nation with less than 40 million won the World Cup after 1950. OK, nowadays Argentina has more than 43 millions. But not in 1978. Seems they are screwing like rabbits then

Anyway, can we please shut this endless discussion. It's Groundhog day all again, we had this months ago in lenghty and annoying posts in some thread (Kazakhstan comes to my mind )