Pre-FIFA World Cup Thread!!! - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

sadora · 05-15-2006, 05:44 PM

Today was the deadline for the coaches to name their 23 men rosters. Here's a link to the article and subsequent links to each team's roster.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060515/1/6si9.html

azzarish · 05-16-2006, 02:01 PM

Ok, so who is looking forward to this. Personally I can't wait until it starts. I remember in 2002 when the Flames actually didn't even make the playoffs people were taking a keen interest in the World Cup and you could actually see people wearing their teams jersey's.

So I thought I'd try something here. Who is your?

Surprise team: AUSTRALIA (After South Korea in the last World Cup I think it's their turn to spring a few surprises in Germany.)
Dark horse: SPAIN (After a number of big tournament flops maybe the waiting is over for Spain. This could be the tournament where it all comes together for them. Bucketloads of talent but can they play as a team is the big question?)
Dissapointment: ITALY (There could be a number of teams who disappoint, Germany included, but I think Italy are going through a rebuilding phase right now, and as always there will be too much pressure on them.)
Runner Up: ENGLAND (To many they seem light on the exterior in terms of talent, but they are solid all around. Rooney, if he fails to recover from his broken foot will me missed immensley, but I think they will compensate for it. They still have Gerrard, Owen and co.)
Winner: BRAZIL (How can you bet against these guys? With players like Ronaldinho and Kaka who can turn games within seconds they are frontrunners again. Only grey area is defence, but we will see if it matters.)

Bill Bumface · 05-16-2006, 02:30 PM

I'll be rooting for places I've been where the people were good to me: Portugal and Mexico

Anyone playing the US or England

Any African country

I'm always partial to France a bit too I guess.

Its still crazy that Greece won Euro but didn't qualify...

sadora · 05-16-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

...Its still crazy that Greece won Euro but didn't qualify...

Not really. Greece got lucky IMO. Portugal had and still has more talent than that Greek team and should have won that tournament hands down.

bluejays · 05-16-2006, 04:14 PM

me personally, I can't wait for Italy to lose. Seems like every casual Italian becomes Mr. Hardcore around that time. Me...love playing soccer, don't care for watching it. I'll guess that Netherlands will win although I do like those kickass hardass teams like England and Germany.

StoneCole · 05-16-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I'll be rooting for places I've been where the people were good to me: Portugal and Mexico

Anyone playing the US or England

Boooooo: USA! USA! USA!

I'm swearing World Cup allegiance to the USA. Why? They call the sport by it's proper name: SOCCER. Any country that refers to the sport by it's proper name is allright with me.

also, it has been good to me: providing McDonald's and (real) football.

Before you jump on me for calling American Football "real", I bet 90% of the time you all call Soccer Soccer and Football Football. Before you accuse me of not liking soccer, let me state this is not the case: The sport has really grown on me the last few years.

sadora · 05-16-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneCole

Boooooo: USA! USA! USA!

I'm swearing World Cup allegiance to the USA. Why? They call the sport by it's proper name: SOCCER. Any country that refers to the sport by it's proper name is allright with me..

If you want to cheer for the USA go right ahead, you're obviously very dilussional but to each their own.

And if you want to get into technicalities, FOOTBALL is in fact the proper term for the sport...I mean you do play the game with your feet afterall. You should also realize that Canada and the USA are the only two countries in the world to call FOOTBALL by the term soccer. I've never been able to understand why North American's call Football a game that is played with the hands. I don't mind the term soccer because at least here it helps to differentiate between the two sports.

VANFLAMESFAN · 05-16-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneCole

Boooooo: USA! USA! USA!

I'm swearing World Cup allegiance to the USA. Why? They call the sport by it's proper name: SOCCER. Any country that refers to the sport by it's proper name is allright with me.

.

Huh???? u sprinkle in some crack with your Cheerios this morning???

STeeLy · 05-16-2006, 05:57 PM

Yes, indeed the correct term is football. It is just known as soccer here in the NA because Football in the North American continent (except Mexico) is american football. Americans are lazy to say the word American... and therefore they just say football... and call the actual FOOTball soccer...

StoneCole · 05-16-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadora

You should also realize that Canada and the USA are the only two countries in the world to call FOOTBALL by the term soccer.

and I live in Canada. You should realize that the other 190 countries in the world (if you count Taiwan) are the ONLY countries not to call Soccer by the term SOCCER.

StoneCole · 05-16-2006, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STeeLy

Yes, indeed the correct term is football. It is just known as soccer here in the NA because Football in the North American continent (except Mexico) is american football. Americans are lazy to say the word American... and therefore they just say football... and call the actual FOOTball soccer...

Oh come on guys...it has nothing to do with laziness. That is how the sport is known there. By the same token we criticize "lazy americans" for saying "ice hockey".

How 'bout India? Do they call field hockey "field hockey"? No, it's just hockey to them. It has nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with the fact that that is how it is referred in their country.

As far as me cheering for USA, it has less to do with them calling it soccer than it does to do with:

-similar geography
-similar culture
-they are an underdog (unless you go by FIFA rankings which most people here have already dismissed)

sadora · 05-16-2006, 07:57 PM

The point I was trying to make is that Canada and the USA are the only two countries in the world that use the term SOCCER to describe the sport played by 11 players on each team trying to kick the ball into each other's net, otherwise known as FOOTBALL by every other country in the world, with of course linguistic variations.

KootenayFlamesFan · 05-16-2006, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadora

Today was the deadline for the coaches to name their 23 men rosters. Here's a link to the article and subsequent links to each team's roster.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060515/1/6si9.html

Thanks for the link........exactly what I was looking for!

In regards to the soccer/football debate, it is/should be football.

How did American football gets it's name anyhow? They only kick the ball a few times a game.........far less than what they throw or run the ball.

sadora · 05-16-2006, 10:59 PM

Here's is yet another link to the Germany 2006 website...this is one has to do with Celebrating in Style and takes a look at the best and worst.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060516/1/6swq.html

23 days to go!!!

VANFLAMESFAN · 05-16-2006, 11:45 PM

god, this tournament could not get started any sooner.

sadora · 05-17-2006, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

god, this tournament could not get started any sooner.

Brother I couldn't agree more. After waiting four years though, 22 days doesn't seem so bad...it's pretty exciting actually with the rosters announced now, the teams making their way to Germany to train and the people getting ready for the World's biggest party.

Jagger · 05-17-2006, 02:11 AM

re: England's striker problem AKA: Rooney not playing....

Did anyone see Gerrard's performance for Liverpool in the FA Cup Final last weekend? It was quite simply incredible. His 90th minute equaliser was one of the most outstanding goals that I've ever seen. A screamer from 35 yards or more. All told Gerrard scored twice, set up the other and scored in the penalty shootout.

Anyway, my thought was should Erickson consider playing Gerrard further up front just behind Owen if Rooney can't go, as seems likely? Mostly Gerrard is used in a holding postion for England and while he's good at it, it certainly is not his main strength. I've always felt that England would do well to use this outstanding player differently.

Any thoughts out there? (The anti English, and I know that there's a few, out there need not apply!)

sadora · 05-17-2006, 02:41 AM

I think that Erickson should defenitely use Gerrard in a more attacking postion. With Rooney out of the lineup I'm sure we'll see Becks and Hargreaves pick up the slack up front as well. In all honesty I know that one player does not make a team, but with Rooney out I'm not sure how effective Owen will be.

I don't mind the Brits except for when they play against Brasil or Argentina...damn those Falklands!!!

KevanGuy · 05-17-2006, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jagger

Anyway, my thought was should Erickson consider playing Gerrard further up front just behind Owen if Rooney can't go, as seems likely? Mostly Gerrard is used in a holding postion for England and while he's good at it, it certainly is not his main strength. I've always felt that England would do well to use this outstanding player differently.

Any thoughts out there? (The anti English, and I know that there's a few, out there need not apply!)

I agree with the idea of playing Gerrard further up. He can be deadly accurate and he can really put something behind his shots. However, I also agree that Eriksson wont do it. Without Rooney I fear he will hold them back even more. Which is unfortunate because I would love to see this team open up and go balls to the wall instead of this 'get up 1-0 and sit back for the rest of the game' crap he seems to love.

My guess is that Joe Cole (or maybe Theo Walcott

) will step into the more offensive role if Eriksson decides to play someone up with Owen.

sadora · 05-17-2006, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

...My guess is that Joe Cole (or maybe Theo Walcott

) will step into the more offensive role if Eriksson decides to play someone up with Owen.

Joe Cole would be the one most likely. I don't think the 17 year old Walcott is ready to be playing at the World Cup level. Erickson should have brought in Darren Bent...

And here's a bit of Football trivia...Pele remains the youngest player to win a World Cup at the age of 17 in 1958. Ronaldo tied that age record in WC '94 when he was one of the 23 Brasilian to win the WC in the USA, though he won as a substitute.
At this WC Ronaldo is set to break the record for most WC goals. The record at the moment stands at 14 and is held by Gerd Muller from Germany. Ronaldo is currently sitting at 12.
The record for most goals in one tournament still stands at 13 by French player Just Fontaine which he set in 1958.