Voinjama Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 at moment they are 10th highest ranked European team and definite top 15 in europe Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, England, France, Italy, Bosnia, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, Denmark are definitely better. Ukraine, Montenegro and Bulgaria are marginally better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Sepp Blatter has rigged it Well he is Swiss, so it wouldn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 at moment they are 10th highest ranked European team and definite top 15 in europe Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, England, France, Italy, Bosnia, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, Denmark are definitely better. Ukraine, Montenegro and Bulgaria are marginally better. rubbish. Bulgaria are a very poor team at moment and even they are ahead of Denmark and Switzerland have been at more tournaments in last 10 years than at least 5 of them countries. Ukraine hasnt qualified for a tournament since 06. Belgium 02, Bulgaria 04. Russia and Denmark have missed a few tournaments and Bosnia and Montenegro have never qualified yet. maybe you jsut have a hatred to the Swiss for some reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Remember Switzerland is only European team to beat Spain since 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Who cares about rankings? If you make it to a WC you deserve to be there. I'm not going to take against a team like Switzerland for making it through despite playing shite football and more often than not, doing **** all at a tournament, just because I'd prefer a team with more big name players to be there. You may as well just draw an arbitrary ring around a group of countries you consider better and say no one can get in despite how well they perform. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Remember Switzerland is only European team to beat Spain since 2007 meant a real game not a friendly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 at moment they are 10th highest ranked European team and definite top 15 in europe Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, England, France, Italy, Bosnia, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, Denmark are definitely better. Ukraine, Montenegro and Bulgaria are marginally better. rubbish. Bulgaria are a very poor team at moment and even they are ahead of Denmark and Switzerland have been at more tournaments in last 10 years than at least 5 of them countries. Ukraine hasnt qualified for a tournament since 06. Belgium 02, Bulgaria 04. Russia and Denmark have missed a few tournaments and Bosnia and Montenegro have never qualified yet. maybe you jsut have a hatred to the Swiss for some reason I have no hatred towards Switzerland. Ukraine were at the Euros in summer. And some of those teams who have not been at a tournaments for a while now have very strong teams, for example Belgium. Bulgaria are not a poor team. We are talking about now, if a team didnt qualify before that has nothing to do with now. Switzerland have been getting into tournaments too easily and it makes my blood boil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Who cares about rankings? If you make it to a WC you deserve to be there. I'm not going to take against a team like Switzerland for making it through despite playing shite football and more often than not, doing **** all at a tournament, just because I'd prefer a team with more big name players to be there. You may as well just draw an arbitrary ring around a group of countries you consider better and say no one can get in despite how well they perform. They do **** all at a tournament and it shows they don't have the quality to be there. Even when they hosted the Euros in 2008 they were poor. I have nothing against Switzerland, I ijust want Europe to send the best teams to the world cup in Brazil, and I think with Switzerland there they are not. If Switzerland qualify, but a country like Sweden don't because they are in a tough group with Germany, it will be bad because Sweden are clearly better then Switzerland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Disney have shut down LucasArts the fucktards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Who cares about rankings? If you make it to a WC you deserve to be there. I'm not going to take against a team like Switzerland for making it through despite playing shite football and more often than not, doing **** all at a tournament, just because I'd prefer a team with more big name players to be there. You may as well just draw an arbitrary ring around a group of countries you consider better and say no one can get in despite how well they perform. They do **** all at a tournament and it shows they don't have the quality to be there. Even when they hosted the Euros in 2008 they were poor. I have nothing against Switzerland, I ijust want Europe to send the best teams to the world cup in Brazil, and I think with Switzerland there they are not. If Switzerland qualify, but a country like Sweden don't because they are in a tough group with Germany, it will be bad because Sweden are clearly better then Switzerland. so you be moaning the same if England qualify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 England are top 13 in Europe for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 4, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted April 4, 2013 That's football though isn't it? If the best teams went to every competition it would be boring because you'd never have any underdogs in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I fully understand its the luck of the draw. I am just expressing something that pisses me off that shouldn't. Perfect for this thread. If Switzerland were actually any good and had a an easy group for the 2nd world cup in a row I wouldn't care as much because I feel they would qualify anyway if they had a tougher group. The cynic in me thinks Blatter is Swiss........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 then why would France get Spain in the same draw when Blatter only cares about money and tehse are 2 huge nations in football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 There is no luck of the draw though is there. Its all based on a bullshit seeding system. That was is so special about out FA Cup (to an extent) in that anyone can draw anyone (after the 3rd round) I'd love to see a WC based solely on a random draw. Who cares if Brazil/Spain/Germany all get pulled one group. Who WOULDN'T want to see that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 4, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted April 4, 2013 Well there is a bit of luck to the draw. But yeah you're right, not loads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 4, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted April 4, 2013 meant a real game not a friendly Time to dust off my late dad's favourite "Thing that pissed him off that shouldn't" - internationals which aren't part of a structured tournament being called "friendlies". It never used to be like that. "Friendlies" were just that - club games (like testimonials) that were little more than a kickabout. But at the international level there were no friendlies. They were internationals, and always taken seriously. The fact that they weren't in the World Cup or whatever made no difference. But the minute they started calling them friendlies (sometime in the 1970s, probably) they got devalued in the minds of the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 meant a real game not a friendly Time to dust off my late dad's favourite "Thing that pissed him off that shouldn't" - internationals which aren't part of a structured tournament being called "friendlies". It never used to be like that. "Friendlies" were just that - club games (like testimonials) that were little more than a kickabout. But at the international level there were no friendlies. They were internationals, and always taken seriously. The fact that they weren't in the World Cup or whatever made no difference. But the minute they started calling them friendlies (sometime in the 1970s, probably) they got devalued in the minds of the public. For me friendlies meant something until about 2000 when international managers started ruining them by making too many subs. think that ruined them more than anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 There is no luck of the draw though is there. Its all based on a bullshit seeding system. That was is so special about out FA Cup (to an extent) in that anyone can draw anyone (after the 3rd round) I'd love to see a WC based solely on a random draw. Who cares if Brazil/Spain/Germany all get pulled one group. Who WOULDN'T want to see that? Oh aye, screw seeding at the tournament itself. That's utter nonsense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 4, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted April 4, 2013 Exactly. A proper gruppo del muerte, or whatever the correct term is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts