12 comments by 2 or more people

1. Mathew Mannion

   Beckham was probably the second best player in the game, behind J Cole.

   11 Jun 2006, 15:56

2. I agree with the NY Times.
   Without Beckham England would have been even more miserable than they were.

   11 Jun 2006, 16:26

3. Becks was good but few others noteworthy? No, J Cole was good, Neville had a good first half, Rio was quite sturdy, Lampard good in first half, Owen good in first half despite being less than 100% fit, and Robinson was good though undertested.

   Gerrard was a disappointment as was A Cole but they have lots of time to prove themselves and I think they will.

   11 Jun 2006, 17:02

4. There only saying that because he set up the goal.

   11 Jun 2006, 19:02

5. I hope so, because it was a really mediocre performance against a really mediocre side.
   From watching all the other matches I can say that even the S&M could have beaten England that day. Good thing they're in a piss easy group.

   11 Jun 2006, 19:48

6. Good thing they're in a piss easy group.

   It's the only group that contains three teams that made it past the group stages of the last world cup.

   Groups A, D, and H are the "soft" groups, and groups C and E are the groups of death. Paraguay and Sweden are both good sides.

   11 Jun 2006, 19:59

7. Sweden (and to a lesser extent Paraguay) should be a good side on paper. But I don't think there was ever any real danger of Paraguay doing more than equalising against us.

   11 Jun 2006, 20:32

8. Douglas

   It's a pity that the US is in Group E, and the Group E runner–up is most likely to be Brazil–chow. Sports Illustrated in the US says we're not advancing. And 4 US players appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated this week, which is the sure kiss of death.

   11 Jun 2006, 22:30

9. "It's a pity that the US is in Group E, and the Group E runner–up is most likely to be Brazil–chow"

   I think its a bit optimistic to think that the US are going to be runner's up. Czech Republic and Ghana are both good teams. Czech Rep, looking a bit old atm, and have a lot of injury's but were absolutely sick in euro 2004. Most goals scored, 3 of the top 5 scorers in the tournie, incl. the golden boot – only knocked out by tournament winners after their best player went off injured on 35th minute. Bottom line: Brazil – Czech Rep. would be a great game to watch.

   12 Jun 2006, 11:08

10. Conor

    I hate to say it but I think that the US deserves more credit. Granted, CONCACAF is not the most difficult group to qualify from, you must also bear in mind that it has one of the longest and most complex qualifying processes of any continent. Plus, having seen a bit of the US's qualifying run, including bits of an extremely impressive victory over Mexico, I'm not sure that they deserve all of the slack that they get. They are an athletic and talented team. Moreover, I could turn my argument around and point to the results of CONCACAF teams thus far and it's not bad: 1 win (Mexico over Iran), 1 loss (Costa Rica to Germany), and 1 draw (Trinidad & Tobago and Sweden). If you base those results on the belief that only European teams, and Argentina and Brazil, are the only teams worth noting, that you could easily dismiss those results. But, world football IS changing and "the lesser continents" ARE getting better. So, while the US would do well to make it out of Group E, I wouldn't be surprised if they did, and finished first at that.

    12 Jun 2006, 16:21

11. It's going to take a while to change people's perceptions of the non–European and South American teams as not as good as the others, especially if the FIFA world rankings system continues to be like it is and put Mexico and the USA higher than a lot of people think they should be.

    12 Jun 2006, 16:33

12. The USA just got a well–deserved 3–0 thrashing from the Czech Republic. The USA were totally unimaginative and average, wheras the Czechs were great. Finally, there is something the USA cannot say they're good at.

    12 Jun 2006, 20:38