My original scenario has, however, been falsified by events, so here's another (taking into account England 1-0 Paraguay and Sweden 0-0 Trinidad):
Sweden 4-0 Paraguay
England 0-0 Trinidad
Paraguay 0-2 Trinidad
England 1-1 Sweden
Final group table:
Sweden p3 w1 d2 l0 pts5 gd4
Trinidad p3 w1 d2 l0 pts5 gd2
England p3 w1 d2 l0 pts5 gd1
Paraguay p3 w0 d0 l0 pts0 gd-7
8 comments:
I see Paul knows as little about football as he does about politics.
England beat a Paraguay team that previously beat Brazil and Argentina.
I can confidently predict than Anderson's predictions will continue to be spectacularly wrong.
Schmucko! I'm not predicting anything, because I don't do predictions. I'm simply setting out a credible scenario. How credible is up to you. But the fact that unfancied Team A beat fancied Team B in the qualifiers does not mean that Team C beating Team A in the finals augurs well for Team C's prospects. Football doesn't work like that...
You write, 'I don't do predictions' yet below you write, 'For what it's worth, my money's on Brazil to win (boring), for Spain to be best European team and for an African side to get to the semis (not sure which one). But that's enough crystal balls.'
Balls is the word.
By the way, do you teach tabloid 'journalism'?
"My money's on ..." is not synonymous with "I predict". To gamble on a particular outcome is not to foresee it or to state with confidence that it will happen.
and your crystal ball is for what?
Oh dear - "balls" = "bollocks" = "rubbish".
Oh tell him to fuck off Paul.
He does seem a bit Benji, doesn't he?
Post a Comment