World Cup 2010 - GROUP D (Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana) **spoilers**

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can't judge a team from one match.

Brazil will win the tournament imo.

In this group I can only see Germany gaining confidence. They'll coast past Ghana. Serbia may put up some strong opposition and test the Germans but I believe Germany will end up beating them.

9 points sorted.

Brazil will qualify with 7 points, drawing with either Ivory Coast/Portugal. However, none of us know what the others are going to be like during this tournament.
 
A terrible Aussie team caught like a rabbit in the headlights after conceding an early goal actually made the Germans look good.

Credit to them for taking their chances though and a classy performance.

Lets see what they are like when a team actually attacks them ;)
 
First performance you could claim looked worthy of a team who could win the world cup.

The thing thats sad is, even if England managed to score and we won that game, the football, the level, quality, class, ability on show, that German performance put the English one to shame.

Podolski was brilliant, Oziel was brilliant also but he did miss a fairly simple chance when he over hit it past the keeper, and that was created from a truly brilliant pass from Podolski.

They have a lot of quality in there, a lot of experience mixed in with some newer players, but the team looked like they'd played together more than once, they seemed comftable in their positions, formation and with the other players they played with, thast half the battle.

Not even close to convinced they will win, but its a great performance that certainly shows they are playing well, can score, move the ball and do very well. What have we had, 16 teams so far, only one has shown semi final potential so far.
 
Question for you guys, how can Germany have Polish and Brazilian born players in their squad? Did they just go and recruit good players from all over? lol
 
Question for you guys, how can Germany have Polish and Brazilian born players in their squad? Did they just go and recruit good players from all over? lol

Same way we have Hargreaves. Podolski and Klose were both born in Germany with Polish parents I believe, Ozil was the same (although Turkish parents obviously)

Cacau is just not good enough for the Brazil squad though :p
 
Question for you guys, how can Germany have Polish and Brazilian born players in their squad? Did they just go and recruit good players from all over? lol

I thought it was aslong as they have not played for their home country and you have lived in the new country for 5 years you are now eligible to play in there team.
 
Wikipedia says they're Polish from Birth.

Yeah i wasn't sure, Podolski moved when he was two. I'm not really a fan of players doing it because they've lived there 5 years (the way Almunia could play for England) but if you've been there most of your life then it seems reasonable to me.
 
I like how **** ITV are.

They just look lazy, they're not bothering to do much research in to the teams, form players ect ect and are relying on the studio.

Good performance from the Germans, Germans are now favourites to win :D
 
Question for you guys, how can Germany have Polish and Brazilian born players in their squad? Did they just go and recruit good players from all over? lol

As far as this was discussed during the last world cup,they were born in Poland but lived in Germany most of their lives(Podolski since the age of 2 and Klose since 7,I think). I suppose they could have played for Poland too but this is up to them when they can hold both nationalities.There are numerous cases like that nowadays. One example was Algeria today that aparently has quite a few French born Algerians in its team while Zidane used to be Algerian that decided to play for France.

The bit Im more concerned about is when players end up in a club in a certain country(at a fairly mature age), get given a naturalisation(sometimes without any difficulties) and then playing for the respective national team in no time.
 
I thought it was aslong as they have not played for their home country and you have lived in the new country for 5 years you are now eligible to play in there team.

In general the rule is used when say someone was born, and grew up in England but can't get in the England team, they might go find a grandmother who is from outer Mongolia and qualify to play for them. Less frequent is people who are from Outer Mongolia but never play a senior game for them, move to Croatia, live there for 5 years, become a naturalise citizen there and qualify as a Croatian citizen. You can play for under 21's for one country and senior squad for another, make a single senior appearance and you're "stuck" with whoever you played it for.

Lets take Eduardo, he's Brazilian, moved to Croatia as a young kid to be part of the Youth setup at a club there, lived there for like, a decade, was never getting into the Brazillian team, got a Croatian passport, qualifying by length of time there, and now plays for them.

England have players who qualify to play for us in that way and English players play for a whole host of other clubs in the world qualifying through parents/grandparents. Some countries do it to "cheat" and get better players, but meh, mostly its guys who simply grew up in the country they end up playing for and who really cares.

Most often I think its a case of players who qualify for multiple countries and just choose the best one they can. But who really cares, I don't think theres a team out there that hasn't had a player qualify through some weird rule.
 
Can't believe how much love everyone is giving the Germans.

The USA beat this defensively lacklustre Australian side 3-1 before the World Cup. Putting a few goals past them isn't exactly difficult, especially when Cahill gets sent off (unluckily) and Schwarzer has an off day.
 
Can't believe how much love everyone is giving the Germans.

The USA beat this defensively lacklustre Australian side 3-1 before the World Cup. Putting a few goals past them isn't exactly difficult, especially when Cahill gets sent off (unluckily) and Schwarzer has an off day.

But did USA have as much possession and look so in control for the entire match?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom