Manchester City Forums

is for me. im only 22 and you can probly discount the first 10 years of my life as brazils completeness as a soccer team wasnt a big concern of mine from years 1-10.

You were doing so well up until then

_________________
Posting Bi-Monthly These Days

I was born with "methemoglobinemia"

I think they need to improve, they seem to lack invention in the mid-field on occasion.

_________________
KYPU

I think nilmars pretty immense and hulk is cover for fabiano too. pato and tardelli also. I think theyre fine up front. Dungas really got them organized imo. Won all competitions theyve played in that hes been the manager for.

None are really world class though are they? Nilmar is ok and so is Pato but i wouldnt want to be relying on them should Luis go down.

_________________
Posting Bi-Monthly These Days

I was born with "methemoglobinemia"

lol wtf, dunno where that came from. i am wearing a la galaxy jersey atm tho. will take it off and burn it sr8 away,

Good man. I bet its got Beckham on the back too.

Plastic

_________________
Posting Bi-Monthly These Days

I was born with "methemoglobinemia"

not many countrys have bags of world class strikers tho. if the rest of the team does their job and fabiano is out brazil could still cruise this thing with nilmar up front.

errrrrrr no...............ok fine you got me. 10 euro in tk max. gimme a break.

They are brazil. So they could win even with a shit team. I like dunga as a manager.

_________________
Posting Bi-Monthly These Days

I was born with "methemoglobinemia"

_________________
Posting Bi-Monthly These Days

I was born with "methemoglobinemia"

Hulk is gash

_________________

A little bit odd that they used Octobers rankings to calculated the seeding.

Valcke's reasoning was:

"In the past the seedings have been determined by a mixture of world rankings and performances in past World Cups but this time the feeling was the October rankings most closely represented the best teams in the tournament.

"We made the decision last month that the October rankings would be used because they were fairer - countries who had been involved in the play-offs would have had an unfair advantages because they would have played more games and that affects their rankings.

Doesn't really add up, when you consider Europe's groups had different amount of teams in them, South America played 16 games in qualification, Africa only had 6 games in their final groups, etc.

I don't think it's a massive conspiracy or anything, it just seems illogical. By my calculations had they used the most recent rankings France would have been seeded, not England. The Henry hand-ball would not only have got France to the World Cup but got them seeded as well. I wonder if that came into consideration.

this

_________________
'Fabio, the round thing there is the ball'

Aguero

The top seeds were always going to be a 5 to 2 European to South-American split.

They went on the October rankings because of France - the extra games against Ireland gave them two extra matches, which can only have improved their rankings because they have to have won over the two legs to have progressed. Competitive games are more relevent to deciding the rankings than non-competitive, and so by not winning their group, France arguably improved their rankings more than had they just beaten Slovakia(?) when they played them.

Makes sense (in a 'don't want to favour France' kinda way).

pretty consistent goalscorer @ club levell. ill admit a lot of his goals did come in japan but hes far from gash. His performances vs english clubs or that the uk would have seen werent a lot to write home about but I woudnt judge him soley on that.

I realise all that, but some teams play more competitive games than others. It's just the way it is. Poor old New Zealand have been twiddling their thumbs for the past 12 months or so waiting for their playoff. I do realise NZ were never going to be seeded but it's just an example. All of the sudden a few teams getting a few extra games gets taken into account? Valcke (who I should point out is French btw) said he felt and his mates felt the October rankings most closely represented the best teams. Is he suggesting the FIFA ranking system is flawed? Current rankings are not accurate?

I'm not sure. All I understand is that if current rankings were used, France would be in the top seeds by virtue of not having won their qualifying group - which seems odd.

Probs just the whole Henry thing though...

that's prolly what the emergency agm they had the other day was about. They had to make sure they didn't get another kicking by seeding the french

_________________
'Fabio, the round thing there is the ball'

Aguero

As long as Ireland are in the top 33 seeds I dont mind.