Since we have enough threads aout the cream of the crop, how about we start a competition on the absolute worst of the World Cup, based on least amount of goals scored and most allowed.

I think Saudi Arabia gets this hands down, as their group completely outclasses them. I predict at least a 2-0 defeat in every game they play.

I suppose the US team is next, as they have no really strong players, and judging from '98, they're not going anywhere.

I not sure on the rest, but I think we'll see China, Korea, and Japan up there (or downthere) as well.

Your thoughts??

japan and korea have played pretty well in the friendly games before wc. don´t underestimate them.

How about Costa Rica?

saudi arabia already lost:D8-0!
Belgium always sux:(
Holland is the worst!(eh wait a sec.holland didnt even qualify!!!!!:D)

I think that one of the worst teams will be Slovenia even though I've never seen them play I just think that there side has enough experience to go far (even though I did say that in the '98 world cup about Croatia;))

Hehe,
good one Philippe

Do you know why us Americans don't like soccer?

It is because we don't know what it is like to score a goal. [punch]


:sleep: GO Team USA!!! :sleep:

The USA beat England in 1950 :)

The USA beat England, yeah, they did, but how many years ago was that? Wait a min I just need to get my socks off to count with my toes 1...2...3... well I make it 52 years ago and a lot can happen in 52 years

Slovenia should do quite well and it seems that Saudi Arabia are going to be the worst team...

Well the US regularly (;) ) beats Germany, so don't underestimate them.....

worst team: Germany - but not scorewise
worst team scorewise: Saudi

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
The USA beat England in 1950 :) england beat sweden in 1968 :)

US are 13th in the fifa standing, 'whats up with that?':confused:

Civman10 - popularity vote?

The Saudis have this turd in hand right now, and somebody will have to play some very embarrassing footie to take it from them. Too bad, getting humiliated in front of billions.

The US is lame, but they could advance with even one lucky win. They should be able to beat Korea. Portugal will make them look like amateurs, tho.

Originally posted by Chris85
Do you know why us Americans don't like soccer?

It is because we don't know what it is like to score a goal. [punch]


:sleep: GO Team USA!!! :sleep:

An admirable first post (WELCOME), may your future posts be as wise.

Also FIFA rankings are based on the games played by the countries. USA generally play North American countries. Seeing as Mexico are the best in this area (not much really) USA don't play teams of a decent standard often enough to put them in their true place in the polls. Except of course Canada ... :rotfl:

Originally posted by Civman10
US are 13th in the fifa standing, 'whats up with that?':confused:

FIFA standings mean absolutely nothing. Team USA has nothing but mediocre players. Name your favorite...

The saudi's are crap though. They only qualified because Japan and South Korea (the koreans aren't hot shots themselves too, but they trained their butts off) are automatically placed.

Originally posted by Shabbaman
The saudi's are crap though. They only qualified because Japan and South Korea (the koreans aren't hot shots themselves too, but they trained their butts off) are automatically placed.

Which is also the reason why China qualified...If Costa Rica play well against China then China will almost certainly lose all their games.

china will be interesting to follow. they are the only team in the wc that i´ve never seen playing before.

Well, I've seen them practice against PSV Eindhoven 2 weeks ago. China lost with 0-1. Don't expect too much, then you won't be disappointed :)

do they use the fifa standing to work out the seeds for the groups?

looking at te world cup there are alot of crap teams in it. How could Brazil lose 6 qualifying matchs and still qualify :confused:. It seems fifa are being generous with south american teams. European nations have very hard qualifying time but others don't. It seems unfair that quality teams like Holland missed out, and teams like Saudi Arabia qualified and are embrassement. I think there needs to be a fairer system. Lookin at south american i think they had one group and 5 teams qualified, a bit unfair

:confused:

In South America they have one big qualifying league, instead of lots of small ones. Brazil may have lost 6 games but they played 18. This gives them enough room to win, say, 9/10 games.

Civman, look at the ease with which team usa qualified. USA sucks at soccer. Please note the Tunesian squad. They qualified, but at the Africa Cup they didn't even make the next round!

FIFA may be easy on S-A, but let's be fair: southamerican football is nice to see. It'd be a horror if, lets say, Australia or New Zealand made it to the worldcup.

Originally posted by Shabbaman
It'd be a horror if, lets say, Australia or New Zealand made it to the worldcup.

Why exactly? They are not "great" teams, but I think it would help the development of the game in these countries. Also, with the way Australia approaches sport in general, I wouldn't expect to see them performing as badly in the years to come.

And also, in the last confederation cup that NZ played in, whilst they lost every game, they only lost 2-0 to both Brazil and Germany. This did quite a lot for generating interest in the game in NZ.

The North American group and the Asian group are both qualfication groups that could be argued that they should be limited but they need to be given the chance to qualify for the world cup. They still need the same amount of places so that they can improve their game by playing the best teams. Australia are quite a good team, they would probably beat the USA and England...

Originally posted by ainwood


Why exactly? They are not "great" teams, but I think it would help the development of the game in these countries. Also, with the way Australia approaches sport in general, I wouldn't expect to see them performing as badly in the years to come.

And also, in the last confederation cup that NZ played in, whilst they lost every game, they only lost 2-0 to both Brazil and Germany. This did quite a lot for generating interest in the game in NZ.

You're right, I meant "instread of Brazil". My mistake.

Originally posted by Hitro
How about Costa Rica?

I dont think so... CRC was the first team of the CONCACAF over USA, Mexico and Honduras. Play very well in the Copa America and surelly have few very good players.

At the rate things are going, France may find themselves counted among the worst teams of this World Cup. Two games, 0 goals, 0-1-1, and facing their final 1st round game w/o Henry and probably w/o Zidane. This from a suposedly world-class team.

USA are not among the worst here. They will probably advance to the 2nd round, which will be a better showing that half the teams playing. If they win their group, they will likely play Mexico in round 2, which gives them a decent shot at making round 3. USA are not good enough to win this tournament, but they are making progress at becoming better. They do not have "only" mediocre players. Friedel and Keller are world-class in goal, Mathis and Donovan are high-quality young talent and McBride is still dominating in the air. Reyna is also talented, although we haven't seen him due to injury. If you want to sneer at the quality of the US team, do so at the '98 WC team, which deserve it. This 2002 team, however, is not that team.

My vote for worst team of the tournament is easily Saudi Arabia. No wins, no goals, and 9 against.

ONCE AGAIN Saudi Arabia aren't as bad as everyone makes out. They played very well today and although they lost they didn't harm their reputation.
Even though China have only played one game I suspect they could be this years failures. Despite having more football players in their country than most countries have in total population.

I agree that, with games left to play, a final determination cannot be made. But, right now the (dis)honor is the Saudi's to lose. ;)

"Civman10 - popularity vote?

The Saudis have this turd in hand right now, and somebody will have to play some very embarrassing footie to take it from them. Too bad, getting humiliated in front of billions.

The US is lame, but they could advance with even one lucky win. They should be able to beat Korea. Portugal will make them look like amateurs, tho."

"Civman, look at the ease with which team usa qualified. USA sucks at soccer. Please note the Tunesian squad. They qualified, but at the Africa Cup they didn't even make the next round!

FIFA may be easy on S-A, but let's be fair: southamerican football is nice to see. It'd be a horror if, lets say, Australia or New Zealand made it to the worldcup."


USA 3, Portugal 2 . . . would you like some salt with your crow?

USA! USA! USA!

Originally posted by Baleog
ONCE AGAIN Saudi Arabia aren't as bad as everyone makes out. They played very well today and although they lost they didn't harm their reputation.

I agree.
And I hope they will improve even more and archieve at least a draw next Tuesday. :D

Oh Hitro, be realistic..:goodjob:

The two worst teams of this WC are
Ireland and Saudi-Arabia. ;) ;)

Originally posted by Shabbaman
It'd be a horror if, lets say, Australia or New Zealand made it to the worldcup.

The (soccer) barbarians are at the gate! :p :D

Originally posted by maddskillz
USA 3, Portugal 2 . . . would you like some salt with your crow?

USA! USA! USA!
No, but some pepper would be nice! :p

I was going to cheer for Portugal this time around, tho that might not get me far in this WK... The US looked good. They still had some problems with consistency, but held their ground. Good match, indeed.

I think China looked bad in their opener. Their skills were so clearly inferior to Costa Rica's. If they don't improve their play, they could join the Saudis at the bottom of the pile.

France, despite not yet having scored, has a draw - that one point will prevent them from finishing last. Even so, it looks as tho even a win in their third outing will not help them. What a complete flop!

Clearly, France is the most disappointing team in the tourney. As for worst, my vote goes to the Saudis for now. China could end up being the worst team -- they have Brazil Saturday, and things could get ugly real fast.

I really do think France will go through. All they have to do is score 2 goals whilst Denmark will be playing for a draw. They may still go out but its not the most unlikely thing in the world for France to score two goals ( conceding 0) to go through.

You're assuming they'll score, Dell. From what I've seen, that doesn't seem like a realistic possibility.

I think that Slovenia will be whipping boys, to join the Saudis and China more than likely.
I was incredibly impressed with South Korea's demolition of Poland, but the Polish were so awful that they deserved everything they got. I'd be surprised if Nigeria beat England in teir final game and look to be going home without any points, but they have played some nice attacking football and have been entertaining to watch so far. This, for me at least, ranks them well above teams who will have better results but with the complete absence of any kind of style.
I'd also like to commend Denmark for having the most 1980s kit in this world cup. :goodjob:

Originally posted by duke o' york
I think that Slovenia will be whipping boys, to join the Saudis and China more than likely.


Now I wouldn't normally agree with this but for some stupid reason they had to send their best player home! Argh!

Edit: I am talking about Slovenia...

Nigeria is a huge disappointment. They're really bad.

Thats not really fair. They have had to play two very good teams and only lost by 1 goal in both games...

It's not just the result, in the Argentina match they almost never came into the Argentinian's half of the pitch, except for the last minutes. If Argentina would have been more successful at scoring the Nigerians might well have recieved a whipping like Saudi Arabia.
I think it's unfair to the Saudis for example to call them far worse then Nigeria. Of course the Nigerian's potential is bigger, but what actually came out was not (much) more.

Originally posted by Hitro
...in the Argentina match they almost never came into the Argentinian's half of the pitch,
Maybe they were trying to play like Italy... :rolleyes:

Now I wouldn't normally agree with this but for some stupid reason they had to send their best player home! Argh!

Gee, what's that like. :cry:

Originally posted by Dell19
Thats not really fair. They have had to play two very good teams and only lost by 1 goal in both games...

Yes true, the Saudis have played one really bad team and Cameroon.:p

"The two worst teams of this WC are Ireland and Saudi-Arabia."

:lol: Ah you kill me.

Originally posted by Sodak

Maybe they were trying to play like Italy... :rolleyes:

Well when Keane went home, I could imagine Ireland playing well without Keane but Slovenia shouldn't have sent their best player home, and now I don't think they have a chance to win a game...

No country in the World Cup is "The Worst". Yes, it is a competition and in all competitions there are bound to be winners and loosers, but what are those teams there for?

Those teams are out there putting in 100%, doing it for their countries and above all, trying to win.

So what if teams like Saudi Arabia lost 8-0? Like I mentioned in another thread in the World History Forum, if they put in 100% of their effort and tried their best, then they can't be considered "Useless".

Maybe I'm typing this cause ATM I'm watching China get thrashed by Brazil. darnit...

:(

I thought China were great. Defensivly naive, but what I liked was that they never gave up hope of scoring their first goal. But they're not ready to shine on the world stage.

Zahovic is clearly Slovenia's best player, but it's a bit unfair to say the rest of their players aren't up to scratch. They just aren't as well known as players playing for other teams.

Originally posted by Dell19
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sodak

Maybe they were trying to play like Italy...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well when Keane went home, I could imagine Ireland playing well without Keane but Slovenia shouldn't have sent their best player home, and now I don't think they have a chance to win a game...

Ireland? Slovenia? I thought that was about Nigeria? :confused:

I quoted the wrong person because TF decided that it would improve the site to swap the menu bars around, so that may be why my post does not make much sense.

After today's astonishingly bad performance against a mediocre Portugal side Poland must surely be contenders for worst side in the competition - at least the Saudis made an effort in their second game.

Lets face it the froggies have been woeful. And I don't see them making the last 16 now....

Originally posted by Hitro
It's not just the result, in the Argentina match they almost never came into the Argentinian's half of the pitch, except for the last minutes. If Argentina would have been more successful at scoring the Nigerians might well have recieved a whipping like Saudi Arabia.
I think it's unfair to the Saudis for example to call them far worse then Nigeria. Of course the Nigerian's potential is bigger, but what actually came out was not (much) more.

Nigeria is not a bad team. They have skilled players, altough they are not in their most shining moment.

It's that Argentina is using a very risk and daring position in the field. They leave a last man to guard their field and advance their second line of defense almost to the midfield. Holland was like that the last world cup, and they have beatne argentina, so maybe that's where they got it.

Anyway, when your players do their job well, this system will result in severe pressure over your adversarie, and will result in total territorial control, not allowing the for to breath. Like what happened to Nigeria.

On the other hand, when they don't do it all that well, it will result in lots of space to fast counter-strikes, like happened against England, when Owen was a vision of hell to Argentina's defenders.

If the English team underestimate the really talented Nigerians, they might very well have a big surprise.

Well lets include France as one of the worst teams as they failed to even score a goal...At least Nigeria have scored a goal.

Originally posted by Dell19
Well lets include France as one of the worst teams as they failed to even score a goal...At least Nigeria have scored a goal. I'll have to agree. At least the others are like newbies but France is the champion in 1998. Performance is completely inadequate.

Indeed, France is but a croaking frog in this WK.

Why do people think Nigeria is so bad? :confused: They've played well, they have talent. They lack experience and are in a very tough group. Who would even expect them to net a point in that group, really? I think they would have posted some results if they were switched with Paraguay or Russia, for example.

Originally posted by Dell19
I really do think France will go through. All they have to do is score 2 goals whilst Denmark will be playing for a draw. They may still go out but its not the most unlikely thing in the world for France to score two goals ( conceding 0) to go through.

As true as ever... ;) :cool: :D :goodjob: :king: :lol: :) :p :rolleyes:

I think that France have played very bad and it shows they exited the compitition without scoring a goal also England are overated there is a lot of people thinking that they will win but it is highly unlikey they have not been tested by teams like Brazil Spain Germany. also lots of people have forgot how well senagol did in the african nations cup that is why they a getting so far in the world cup

More abuse for the sad-sack French:

Let's compare them to the US, the 32nd-place team in the '98 WC.

records:
USA 98: 0-3-0
France 02: 0-2-1

goals for/against:
USA 98: 1-5
France 02: 0-3 (note the zero)

Pretty sad, eh?

AMEN! Praise the Lord!

France

Just one note:

It's the 1th time that the world cup have 32 teams. I Think that the last ne had 24 or 28, but i'm not sure of wich.

So, even if every world cup has a team in the last position, France is the 1th one in history to be th 32nd place.

France 98 already had 32 teams. ;)
I think the USA have been 32nd there. But I don't think much of those comparisions. The groups are different so that ranking is pretty useless.

You sure?

No offense intended but it's gotta be Saudi Arabia. 3 games, 3 losses, no goals for, 12 against. It's a numbers game.

France may be the biggest dissapointment, but no way the worst team.

If you could take the top four candidates for worst team in this world cup and put them in their own group (call it group Z) and then have them play a mini round-robin tournament, who would finish last? That team is your worst team of this world cup.

My vote remains Saudi Arabia, 0 - 12.

As for most disappointing effort in this World Cup, I vote France.

I think the nigerians had very poor defence. In the match against sweden, I could see the swedes pass one or two passes easily, and they were within the penalty marks. Their players are really good though, individually. As a team, they were not so good, not bad, but not so good.

I'm glad to see your criticism of the Nigerian team el_kalkylus, check for my posts tomorrow morning as to whether I agree!

Well, they are a good team, they had bad days, that's all. Tomorrow england will crush them though. Too bad I won't be watching that game, because I have one slightly more important game to watch. :)

Well I have an important game to watch but sadly an exam will cut it short for me and I will have to watch the second half later.