Of course, but they played and beat the tournament favorites and now play the tournaments second favorites. Therefore their path to the final is far from favorable as England's.
There is no agenda against England that some here are trying to prove. It's just baffling that people won't admin how easy England run to the final will be (if they make it).
Eventually the best in the 'easy-peasy' half will meet the best in the galacticos, super hero, genuine world class half. If the team from the 'easy' half win, will that be justification? Or a fluke?
When you look at 2 years of qualification along with the finals themselves, there is never an easy route to winning any World Cup. All who have done so deserve it.
But you sort of proved my point by telling England supporters yet again how they should feel.
For what it's worth, I'm just happy we didn't embarrass ourselves at this tournament (yet). We've set the bar sufficiently low that nothing is ever easy and failure is expected.
‘
“Dude you have a chip on your shoulder about "England fans". Chill out.’
That to me is snapping at my posts which have been very impartial, clear and formulated while also never critical of the English side or their fans to any significant degree. That was your first engagement with me. Perhaps you have elaborated somewhat since but it’s a poor standalone post that I would call snapping. You then said that my opinion was preachy and sanctimonious (despite it just being a different opinion to the one being made by the posters you agree with). Is the op then preachy and sanctimonious or are those phrases reserved for people you disagree with?
I’m not telling you how to feel or any fans how to feel any more than when you told me I have a chip on my shoulder and to chill out. I’m not sure how you expect an exchange of opinions to go but if my wording offends you then I can only assume you can only engage in dialogue with people who share your exact opinions. I would assume that as adults we are past the stage of having to start every position with “in my opinion..” you’re being quite hypocritical.
I’m expressing opinion, not giving instruction. It’s clear that you disagree with me which is obviously fine, but don’t resort to accusing me of telling anybody how to feel. If that were true 99% of posts on this or any forum would be doing the same.
I’ve got better things to be doing with my time than to go taking screenshots across the internet (like eating my dinner and enjoying the bitterness on this thread).
England fans are incredibly arrogant for believing one side of the draw is easy relative to the other. They shouldn't be pleased at finishing 2nd in the group.
*England make it through to the semi finals*
England are unbelievably fortunate to have lucked-out by getting such an easy draw. It's the only reason they've made it to the semis!
Why the long posts. Fact: England have had a piss easy route to the WC Semis. There’s way too many ridiculously long posts trying to deny what is clearly factual.
England fans are incredibly arrogant for believing one side of the draw is easy relative to the other. They shouldn't be pleased at finishing 2nd in the group.
*England make it through to the semi finals*
England are unbelievably fortunate to have lucked-out by getting such an easy draw. It's the only reason they've made it to the semis!
Inspired by some of the responses in this thread, I present the Official "On Paper" World Cup 2018.
A simple concept, by which the highest possible ranked teams enter the tournament (sans the hosts). No confederation has more teams than could have possibly qualified, with the only change in number being CONCACAF claiming a fourth spot ahead of AFC claiming a fifth. The dates used for the rankings were the same FIFA used for the group draw (October 2017).
Initial notes:
Qualified for the FIFA World Cup, missed out on the "On Paper" World Cup
Uruguay
Iceland
Sweden
Serbia
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
Failed to qualify for the FIFA World Cup, qualified for the "On Paper" World Cup
Chile
Wales
Italy
Netherlands
USA
Congo DR
Failed to qualify for the "On Paper" and FIFA World Cupsbut ranked in the top 32
Northern Ireland
Slovakia
Republic of Ireland
Scotland
Ukraine
The group stage draw has mirrored the FIFA World Cup draw, in that each group allocation is from the same pot position (i.e. Russia were top in Pot 1 as hosts, and drew the 7th team in Pot 2, the 6th in Pot 3, and the 8th in Pot 4). The new pots are as follows (ranking in brackets):
Pot 1
Russia (65)
Germany (1)
Brazil (2)
Portugal (3)
Argentina (4)
Belgium (5)
Poland (6)
France (7)
Pot 2
Spain (8)
Chile (9)
Peru (10)
Switzerland (11)
England (12)
Colombia (13)
Wales (14)
Italy (15)
Pot 3
Mexico (16)
Croatia (18)
Denmark (19)
Netherlands (20)
Costa Rica (22)
USA (27)
Tunisia (28)
Egypt (30)
Pot 4
Senegal (32)
Iran (34)
Congo DR (35)
Nigeria (41)
Australia (43)
Japan (44)
Panama (45)
South Korea (62)
As there are rules pertaining to the group draw regarding the number of teams from a confederation in each group (no more than two per group from UEFA, no more than one per group for every other confederation), a change had to be made whereby Brazil would have been drawn with Peru, the third team from Pot 2. In this instance, Peru were swapped with the next side in Pot 2, Switzerland, placing Peru with Belgium. The new groups look like this:
Group A: Russia, Wales, USA, South Korea Group B: Portugal, Spain, Egypt, Australia Group C: France, Chile, Mexico, Congo DR Group D: Argentina, Italy, Croatia, Iran Group E: Brazil, Switzerland, Denmark, Senegal Group F: Germany, Colombia, Netherlands, Nigeria Group G: Belgium, Peru, Costa Rica, Japan Group H: Poland, England, Tunisia, Panama
As this is the "On Paper" World Cup, the teams progressing from each group were the highest ranked based on the FIFA Rankings released just before the tournament started (June 2018). This leaves a knockout bracket like this:
Left Side
Wales vs Spain
France vs Italy
Brazil vs Colombia
Belgium vs England
Right Side
USA vs Portugal
Chile vs Argentina
Switzerland vs Germany
Peru vs Poland
Following these games, the quarter-finals shape up like this:
Left Side
Spain vs France
Brazil vs Belgium
Right Side
Portugal vs Argentina
Germany vs Poland
The semi-finals look like this:
France vs Brazil
Portugal vs Germany
And your final order is:
Winner - Germany
Runner-up - Brazil
Third - Portugal
Fourth - France
Final notes:
Seven of the 16 teams in the first knockout round at the "On Paper" World Cup did not make it that far in the FIFA World Cup
Four of those seven didn't even qualify for the FIFA World Cup
Five of those seven ended up on one half of the draw
The quarter-finals at the "On Paper" World Cup feature five teams that won just one game in the FIFA World Cup, none making it further than the first knockout round
Two of the quarter-finalists at the "On Paper" World Cup finished bottom of their groups at the FIFA World Cup
England still end up in a group with Panama and Tunisia, except they've got Poland instead of Belgium now
Germany's route to the semi-final takes them past Switzerland then Poland
Wales make their first World Cup since 1958
Congo DR make their first World Cup since 1974 (then known as Zaire)
Uruguay fail to make three straight World Cups, a feat they've now not accomplished since qualifying for the 1970 tournament
England finish second in their group and are knocked out in the last 16 to keep everyone happy
Russia become the second hosts to fail to reach the knockouts, and the first to finish bottom of their group
Japan, South Korea, Panama, Nigeria, Egypt, Congo DR and Iran make up the other last placed teams
Australia, Senegal, Costa Rica, Tunisia, Croatia, Netherlands, Mexico and Denmark are the other teams eliminated
Denmark are the highest ranked team to fail to make the knockouts, at 12th
USA are the lowest ranked team to make the knockouts, at 25th
There are none he’s talking shite as he has done quite a-lot of in this thread. Absolutely no one rated Sweden. Colombia could have been a tougher test had James not been injured but hey, that’s life.
England had never won a World Cup penalty shootout but they did that against Colombia after falling behind during it. I'd bank on this England side over the Spain, Argentina and Germany sides in this tournament every time, and I'd fancy them against Brazil too.
You can't just speculate that because "it's Germany" England would bottle it when Germany were shite.
Ffs. I’m supporting England but some of the stuff being said here is ridiculous. It’s as if we have to do well but then also prove why it was really really difficult to do well too. For those of us who are reasonable individuals and are just happy with what’s been happening and what we’ve been seeing and how we’ve been playing and how far we’ve progressed, none of this crap is relevant. The mere existence of this thread is depressing.
Literally brush it off the shoulder cos no one cares now and no one will care in the future and go out and enjoy yourself instead.
I’ve got better things to be doing with my time than to go taking screenshots across the internet (like eating my dinner and enjoying the bitterness on this thread).
Literally the only bitter people in here are the England fans that are trying every conceivable method to prove to people that the draw hasn’t been easy. These people are getting incredibly wound up and appear extremely bitter towards anyone who points out what is a fact.
Yes. There were so many people claiming Colombia were a dangerous side and that England were in for a very tough test. Those same people claimed that Sweden were also a good side and that the match could go either way - likely to be a goal on it. Now they are poor teams because England have beaten them. The same will happen with Croatia. If England win, Croatia won’t be as good as they were before the match. Tunes will change.
I think you just like to make shit up in your mind and say it as if it’s fact. You’ve spoken so much nonsense in this thread.
1. Our group was about as hard or ready as most others. Meh.
2. Columbia is a good side. Plenty feared them. A team of the rough quality you’d expect in last 16. But they missed their talisman, their best player. Makes a big difference.
3. Sweden. No one ever said they were a good side. They’ve been shit all along.
4. Croatia. Who has said they suck? Again you spouting shit.
All in all, we have had what I think is a relatively easy route to the final. Columbia is a reasonably tough game. Made a lot easier when James was out. Sweden is a much lower quality team than you’d expect to face in a QF. And the same applies to Croatia.
This is basic. It’s obvious. And it baffles me how childish some people are in this thread.
England fans are incredibly arrogant for believing one side of the draw is easy relative to the other. They shouldn't be pleased at finishing 2nd in the group.
*England make it through to the semi finals*
England are unbelievably fortunate to have lucked-out by getting such an easy draw. It's the only reason they've made it to the semis!
Literally the only bitter people in here are the England fans that are trying every conceivable method to prove to people that the draw hasn’t been easy. These people are getting incredibly wound up and appear extremely bitter towards anyone who points out what is a fact.
Think you’ll find that the majority of us English fans are on board with the obvious. The select few who seem to have their head buried in their asses are a small portion.
Why the long posts. Fact: England have had a piss easy route to the WC Semis. There’s way too many ridiculously long posts trying to deny what is clearly factual.
P1ss easy is a fairly dismissive, patronising way to sum up the likes of Colombia and Sweden. Yes, it's been preferable to facing the 'names' of Argentina, Brazil and France. If you ignore the fact that most of those 'name' teams haven't even been that good anyway.
Literally the only bitter people in here are the England fans that are trying every conceivable method to prove to people that the draw hasn’t been easy. These people are getting incredibly wound up and appear extremely bitter towards anyone who points out what is a fact.
Think you’ll find that the majority of us English fans are on board with the obvious. The select few who seem to have their head buried in their asses are a small portion.
P1ss easy is a fairly dismissive, patronising way to sum up the likes of Colombia and Sweden. Yes, it's been preferable to facing the 'names' of Argentina, Brazil and France. If you ignore the fact that most of those 'name' teams haven't even been that good anyway.
Literally the only bitter people in here are the England fans that are trying every conceivable method to prove to people that the draw hasn’t been easy. These people are getting incredibly wound up and appear extremely bitter towards anyone who points out what is a fact.
No one can argue our route hasn't been easier but would not say easy. And any English fan saying that it was easy would have been shot down in flames, and rightly so. The Arrogant tag would have been applied in every other post.
I am just delighted we don't seem to be making the same mistakes as the past and have a team playing for each other rather than a bunch of 'stars' who are out of position. I was thinking earlier how many of the pre tournament stars actually delivered and played well. I made my list of 10 and only 3/4 could I make an argument for having a good world cup. A very odd tournament.
I think you just like to make shit up in your mind and say it as if it’s fact. You’ve spoken so much nonsense in this thread.
1. Our group was about as hard or ready as most others. Meh.
2. Columbia is a good side. Plenty feared them. A team of the rough quality you’d expect in last 16. But they missed their talisman, their best player. Makes a big difference.
3. Sweden. No one ever said they were a good side. They’ve been shit all along.
4. Croatia. Who has said they suck? Again you spouting shit.
All in all, we have had what I think is a relatively easy route to the final. Columbia is a reasonably tough game. Made a lot easier when James was out. Sweden is a much lower quality team than you’d expect to face in a QF. And the same applies to Croatia.
This is basic. It’s obvious. And it baffles me how childish some people are in this thread.
*Only* if England have performed significantly better, or Colombia & Sweden have performed significantly worse, than might have been reasonably expected a week ago. I don't think that's the case.
Saying it’s piss easy though... you aren’t doing yourself any favours.
The reality is it has been relatively easy compared to other world cups and perhaps what you’d expect to face to make a final.
I wouldn’t say it is “easy”. It’s easier. And for an England team which can’t beat the easy teams traditionally, saying it’s piss Easy is just as much hyperbole as those who say it’s difficult.
I don't really see the point in pretending otherwise. It's been an amazingly easy draw from England's point of view. If you'd told me before the tournament that Panama were basically a pub team and that England would face Colombia and Sweden in the knockout rounds, I would have said they should get to the semi final
England haven't reached the semis since 1990, yet if you look since then.
1994 - didn't even qualify because Holland were in our qualifying group.
1998 - Argentina in the second round.
2002 - Brazil in the QF and had to beat Argentina just to get out of the group.
2006 - Portugal in the Quarter final.
2010 - Germany in the second round.
2014 - Didn't get out of the groups because Italy and Uruguay both in the same group.
The proof is in the pudding. The only team England have played of this calibre so far is Belgium, in a game that didn't matter, and which we lost.
Why bother trying to invent a lie and pretend otherwise? It doesn't change the fact England are in the semi final, and are playing a Croatia team who actually, have looked pretty average in the knockout rounds themselves. You can only beat the teams you're drawn against. I'd rather England get to a final playing average teams, than go out in the second round to someone like France. You don't sit there during the Champions League draw hoping United get Real Madrid in the second round instead of Besiktas.
All this “easier” silliness. Just be a man and say it’s been easy. We can all enjoy a cup of brew after that. Also you have massively overrated a Colombia side (minus their undisputed best player) and a pretty poor but well organized Sweden side. Why bother? No one agrees that either side weren’t a relatively easy task.
England had an easier route but what I think is that they are rather fortunate that things played out well for them en route to SF. Someone here earlier made a comparison with a video game, where you played easier opponents that'll keep getting harder as the game progress. It felt like that with England too. They are fortunate that they keep getting teams that matched their progress in the World Cup so far.
I thought England had another gear in them that they haven't fully used yet. Maybe they'll kicked it into play against Croatia
Why the long posts. Fact: England have had a piss easy route to the WC Semis. There’s way too many ridiculously long posts trying to deny what is clearly factual.
No such thing. All teams are there on merit due to being by definition 'good teams'. If they were shit teams, they would no longer be in the competition or wouldn't have even qualified.
England's route hasn't been 'easy' but the other half of the draw appears to be quite tough in comparison.
No such thing. All teams are there on merit due to being by definition 'good teams'. If they were shit teams, they would no longer be in the competition or wouldn't have even qualified.
England's route hasn't been 'easy' but the other half of the draw appears to be quite tough in comparison.
who gives a s*** if England got a handy route to the semis. If anyones is to blame for that its the so-called big teams who got themselves knocked out early. I don't believe it was an easy group either. There were easier groups in round 1.
Have there been any other world cups where 2 teams from the same group made it to the semi final and possibly the final?
*Only* if England have performed significantly better, or Colombia & Sweden have performed significantly worse, than might have been reasonably expected a week ago. I don't think that's the case.
I think it depends on how certain things are interpreted. I personally know england fans who were celebrating (like actually celebrating) losing to belgium. Of course its common sense to prefer the easy side of the draw but theres an arrogance to how some (probably an utter minority) england fans approached that game that naturally irks football fans. At the same time you and i both know england fans im sure, that have become increasingly arrogant after defeating the very teams they were celebrating the prospect of facing. Again these knuckleheads are probably a complete minority. An equal minority though, are non england fans making as simple a point as you suggested. Would you like the england fans i described to be the sample of all english fans? No more im sure than many in here dont like being called bitter and sad for suggesting england had an easy route
If anybody goes to the extremes of any argument- they will be wrong.
All this “easier” silliness. Just be a man and say it’s been easy. We can all enjoy a cup of brew after that. Also you have massively overrated a Colombia side (minus their undisputed best player) and a pretty poor but well organized Sweden side. Why bother? No one agrees that either side weren’t a relatively easy task.
Colombia finished ahead of Chile (current Copa America champions) in the South American qualification group. They also have some decent players and turned that match into a scrap rather than a game of football.
Sweden finished above Germany in their group, won 3 matches in the competition, and prevented both Italy and the Netherlands reaching the World Cup.
They may not be World beaters but they’re not bad sides. It’s not an “easy” route, but it is easier than the top half of the draw, 100%.
Colombia finished ahead of Chile (current Copa America champions) in the South American qualification group. They also have some decent players and turned that match into a scrap rather than a game of football.
Sweden finished above Germany in their group, won 3 matches in the competition, and prevented both Italy and the Netherlands reaching the World Cup.
They may not be World beaters but they’re not bad sides. It’s not an “easy” route, but it is easier than the top half of the draw, 100%.
Wasting your time, he's on a wind up. England drew all the teams that finished first in their groups, and therefore, the in-form teams in the competition. With the exception of Panama, there have bee no easy games and to suggest there has been is disrespectful to the other teams that England have played.
Inspired by some of the responses in this thread, I present the Official "On Paper" World Cup 2018.
A simple concept, by which the highest possible ranked teams enter the tournament (sans the hosts). No confederation has more teams than could have possibly qualified, with the only change in number being CONCACAF claiming a fourth spot ahead of AFC claiming a fifth. The dates used for the rankings were the same FIFA used for the group draw (October 2017).
Initial notes:
Qualified for the FIFA World Cup, missed out on the "On Paper" World Cup
Uruguay
Iceland
Sweden
Serbia
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
Failed to qualify for the FIFA World Cup, qualified for the "On Paper" World Cup
Chile
Wales
Italy
Netherlands
USA
Congo DR
Failed to qualify for the "On Paper" and FIFA World Cupsbut ranked in the top 32
Northern Ireland
Slovakia
Republic of Ireland
Scotland
Ukraine
The group stage draw has mirrored the FIFA World Cup draw, in that each group allocation is from the same pot position (i.e. Russia were top in Pot 1 as hosts, and drew the 7th team in Pot 2, the 6th in Pot 3, and the 8th in Pot 4). The new pots are as follows (ranking in brackets):
Pot 1
Russia (65)
Germany (1)
Brazil (2)
Portugal (3)
Argentina (4)
Belgium (5)
Poland (6)
France (7)
Pot 2
Spain (8)
Chile (9)
Peru (10)
Switzerland (11)
England (12)
Colombia (13)
Wales (14)
Italy (15)
Pot 3
Mexico (16)
Croatia (18)
Denmark (19)
Netherlands (20)
Costa Rica (22)
USA (27)
Tunisia (28)
Egypt (30)
Pot 4
Senegal (32)
Iran (34)
Congo DR (35)
Nigeria (41)
Australia (43)
Japan (44)
Panama (45)
South Korea (62)
As there are rules pertaining to the group draw regarding the number of teams from a confederation in each group (no more than two per group from UEFA, no more than one per group for every other confederation), a change had to be made whereby Brazil would have been drawn with Peru, the third team from Pot 2. In this instance, Peru were swapped with the next side in Pot 2, Switzerland, placing Peru with Belgium. The new groups look like this:
Group A: Russia, Wales, USA, South Korea Group B: Portugal, Spain, Egypt, Australia Group C: France, Chile, Mexico, Congo DR Group D: Argentina, Italy, Croatia, Iran Group E: Brazil, Switzerland, Denmark, Senegal Group F: Germany, Colombia, Netherlands, Nigeria Group G: Belgium, Peru, Costa Rica, Japan Group H: Poland, England, Tunisia, Panama
As this is the "On Paper" World Cup, the teams progressing from each group were the highest ranked based on the FIFA Rankings released just before the tournament started (June 2018). This leaves a knockout bracket like this:
Left Side
Wales vs Spain
France vs Italy
Brazil vs Colombia
Belgium vs England
Right Side
USA vs Portugal
Chile vs Argentina
Switzerland vs Germany
Peru vs Poland
Following these games, the quarter-finals shape up like this:
Left Side
Spain vs France
Brazil vs Belgium
Right Side
Portugal vs Argentina
Germany vs Poland
The semi-finals look like this:
France vs Brazil
Portugal vs Germany
And your final order is:
Winner - Germany
Runner-up - Brazil
Third - Portugal
Fourth - France
Final notes:
Seven of the 16 teams in the first knockout round at the "On Paper" World Cup did not make it that far in the FIFA World Cup
Four of those seven didn't even qualify for the FIFA World Cup
Five of those seven ended up on one half of the draw
The quarter-finals at the "On Paper" World Cup feature five teams that won just one game in the FIFA World Cup, none making it further than the first knockout round
Two of the quarter-finalists at the "On Paper" World Cup finished bottom of their groups at the FIFA World Cup
England still end up in a group with Panama and Tunisia, except they've got Poland instead of Belgium now
Germany's route to the semi-final takes them past Switzerland then Poland
Wales make their first World Cup since 1958
Congo DR make their first World Cup since 1974 (then known as Zaire)
Uruguay fail to make three straight World Cups, a feat they've now not accomplished since qualifying for the 1970 tournament
England finish second in their group and are knocked out in the last 16 to keep everyone happy
Russia become the second hosts to fail to reach the knockouts, and the first to finish bottom of their group
Japan, South Korea, Panama, Nigeria, Egypt, Congo DR and Iran make up the other last placed teams
Australia, Senegal, Costa Rica, Tunisia, Croatia, Netherlands, Mexico and Denmark are the other teams eliminated
Denmark are the highest ranked team to fail to make the knockouts, at 12th
USA are the lowest ranked team to make the knockouts, at 25th
