Football Champions

England's win over Sweden was fantastic. No question about it. After arguably their best half of football in a decade (going back to the victory over Argentina in the 2002 World Cup), Roy Hodgson's men showed tremendous resilience in coming back to defeat Sweden and leave Zlatan Ibrahimovic and his mates with nothing to play for on the final match day.

Unfortunately, therein lies the problem. Well, part of it. With the Swedes' bags packed and their tee times booked, the Scandinavian side cannot realistically be expected to offer much resistance against France in their final match. France, equal on points with England, already have the better goal difference. So to win the group, England will likely need to defeat the Ukraine by at least a couple of goals.

We'll discuss the challenge of doing that against the host team in a bit. For now let's just point out that if England finish second, they face defending world and European champions Spain in the quarterfinals. Sorry, but under no realistic expectation can the three lions be expected to win that. England may have looked good against Sweden, but they didn't look that good. Not with the way they defended on the two goals, for example. If they pull that stuff against Spain it is going to be a very long day indeed.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves because a place in the quarterfinals is by no means assured. To finish second, England need at least a point from the encounter in Donetsk. No easy task considering the Ukraine will be playing for God and country on their home turf. Think the Ukrainians will be fired up for that one? Think there's any chance Andriy Shevchenko sits it out? Yes. And no. Sheva is 35. This is his last chance to represent his country (or indeed anybody) at this stage of a major tournament. Shevchenko will not only play, but play hard. Anybody expecting any different is probably also expecting the refereeing to be perfectly just. UEFA is not anywhere near as corrupt as FIFA (then again, neither is Afghanistan) but there is a vested interest in not seeing both cohosts exit the European championships for the second time in a row. Plus, rabid home crowds just have a way of influencing officials. So England will have their work cut out for them.

Still, let's say Roy Hodgson's side pulls it out. After all, Wayne Rooney will be back and that will supply a big boost. Surely, a draw can be achieved. And with it a spot in the quarterfinals, in all likelihood against Italy.

While an easier opponent than Spain, the azzurri are nevertheless likely to be the best team England have faced in the tournament so far. France were just getting their sea legs in game 1 and Sweden are really pretty weak in the whole scheme of things. Italy are organized and will not leave the Danny and Wayne show much breathing space. That means it will come down to England's midfield to create chances. This part of England's game has actually been impressive so far. Which means it can't remain so much longer. I mean come on, Steven Gerrard? Sorry, but at this stage of his career, he really shouldn't put much of a scare in the Italian defense.

At best, we see England holding on for a draw and maybe taking the game to penalties, where things will meet their inevitable end. Yes, Chelsea (an English team) defeated Bayern Munich (a German team) on penalties in the Champions League final, but how many actual Englishmen took spot kicks for the Blues? Two did, and they both converted, but can you really see five English players doing it? Well, maybe. But probably not. We may be reverse-jinxing England the way we did poor Poland and Barcelona (as well as a few others we don't need to bring up at this point) but betting against England at a major soccer tournament has got to still be a safe thing, right? Right? We'll just have to wait and see.

For the first time in nine months we are facing a weekend with no top flight soccer action in the northern hemisphere. (We're talking men's professional soccer here and no, Major League Soccer does not qualify as top flight). What better time to take a look at the main event of this summer's soccer schedule, the 2012 UEFA European Football Championship (aka Euro 2012)?

With its geopolitical influence waning, its economy in shatters and its currency union on the fritz, the "old continent" at least gets to hold what it can rightfully claim as the most competitive soccer tournament in the world. Unfortunately, "most competitive" does not always mean "most entertaining" or "most memorable." With few exceptions (van Basten, Bierhoff, Rehhagel) there are no great sagas that emerge from Euro tournaments the way they do from World Cups or even club soccer competitions. There are no equivalents to the Maracana miracle (Brazil, 1950) the "Wunder von Bern" (Miracle from Bern, Switzerland, 1954), football coming "home" (England, 1966), Showdown in Seville (Spain, 1982), "hand of god" (Mexico, 1986), etc etc. For whatever reason, the exploits of the Euro are quickly forgotten. Despite the high level of competition, or perhaps because of its resulting parity, Euro games very rarely enter the annals of the sport's history. In many ways this is a shame, or perhaps it is entirely fitting given the issues facing Europe at the moment.

Somebody else can pontificate on this at greater length should they so choose. For now, let's keep the focus on the field -- which in soccer is called the "pitch" (lesson number one for American readers looking to sound knowledgeable at Irish pubs this summer). Here, then, are some fearless forecasts for the Euro 2012:

1. Germany will either make the final or exit at the group stage. With one exception, this has been the pattern since 1972. That one exception was in 1988 when (West) Germany hosted the tournament and lost to the van Basten/Gullit-led Dutch juggernaut in the semifinals, so consider that an anomaly for those reasons. Apparently even Germans can succumb to pressure when they have to play in front of home crowds. Which leads us to...

2. Unless the host country is world class, it probably won't go anywhere. This is a stark contrast to the World Cup, where South Africa just became the first host not to qualify for the elimination round. Just two host countries, Portugal in 2004 and France in 1984, made the finals and just one (France) won it. Both of those clubs were at the top of their game at the time: France was a semi finalist at (and probably should have won) the 1982 and 1986 World Cups. Led by Michel Platini, the French played beautiful soccer, featuring prominently in the very best games of that era (that would be the 1982 semifinal against West Germany, still considered a traumatic event in France, and a 1986 quarterfinal victory over Brazil, still the best game this blogger has viewed in his lifetime). The Portugal side from 2004 featured Luis Figo, Deco, Cristiano Ronaldo and others and Porto won the UEFA Champions League that year. Besides those two, only two teams others won elimination round matches: England in 1996 and the Netherlands in 2000 (true story. Prior to 1996 the first "elimination round" was the semifinal). So things do not look good for Poland and the Ukraine and if you're a gambling man (or woman) you may not want to place bets on either club.

3. England will not win. This is like saying the sky is blue, but it's still worth pointing out. Besides, in the Ukraine the sky isn't always blue. Isn't that where Chernobyl is? Anyway, England may have looked impressive in qualifying but the runner-up in their group was Montenegro for God's sake. Montenegro! Since when is that even a country? Anyway, England don't face the most challenging competition in the group stage either, with France, Sweden and the aforementioned Ukraine. Consider their chances of surviving the group very good. But that will probably be the end of the road. The runner up in England's group D face the winner of group C, which will probably be Spain. If they win Group D, England would be most likely to face Italy, which we just can't see ending well either. But again, you knew this already and aren't holding out any unrealistic hopes, right? Right???

4. The semifinals will probably feature at least one team nobody was expecting. Since the Euro tourney expanded to include a quarterfinal, in 1996, there has been one of these each time except 2000. In '96 you had the Czech Republic and France, in '08 Greece, and Russia and Turkey last time. Who will it be this year? Probably not either of the hosts, if history is to be believed, and not England. That still leaves plenty of teams, such as Ireland (wouldn't that be fitting after the 2010 debacle vs. France), Russia (again), Greece (again) or maybe Croatia. Greece would be nice for obvious reasons, but if they're back on the drachma by then one would hope the bonuses get paid in euros.

Yes, these are strange days in Europe, but the more things change the more they (often) stay the same. Germany is pretty predictable at this tournament, as we have seen. If you're looking for a safe bet, invest in US Treasuries. If you're looking to gamble, bet on Germany if they advance to the elimination round. But it will still be gambling. If the recent history of Europe (both soccer and otherwise) is any guide, patterns and paradigms are bound to change, often with no notice. They play these games for a reason and nobody, least of all us, can tell you with any degree if certainty what is going to happen. Except England won't win. We're pretty sure of that.

Hot rumour coming out of Spanish Sports media tonight is that FC BARCELONA Coach JOSEP GUARDIOLA will announce his departure at the end of the season. REPEAT, it is only a rumour, but a hot one at that hitting the "airwaves"



Pep Guardiola


The Coach wishes to communicate his decision to his players tomorrow & then will give a Press Conference to drop "the bomb". The man is mentally exhausted

ENGLAND hosted the current FIFA World Champions SPAIN at Wembley for an International Friendly with the home side winning 1 - 0. Another defeat for Spain in a Friendly that is not to much of a drama but has lessons that should be noted as there are signs that call for attention & correction.

England remembered more a traditional Italian team ( Manager Capello ) which defended more that attacked,

...is this man: Wayne Mark Rooney.

Yes, we know: Rooney is actually Irish and could just as easily be playing for The Republic like his brother. But there are two problems with this: 1. Ireland were cheated out of a World Cup spot and 2. Rooney, for whatever reason, chose to represent the three lions.

They can be very glad he did. Because if England do defeat their former colony in South Africa, it will undoubtedly be because of Rooney. The best player in British football presents the U.S. a "match-up" problem its defense is ill-equipped to deal with. And that's when American defenders are healthy. At present, two of its starting back four (Oguchi Onyewu and Steve Cherundolo) are injured. So is defensive midfielder Ricardo Clark, whose services would be sorely needed to contain the Man United striker.

All three are expected back in time for the World Cup, but that might not help much. The U.S. simply does not have anybody who can match Rooney's pace, strength and positioning. Few, if any teams do of course but defense happens to be our weakest link. Clark is perhaps the best equipped to at least shadow Rooney in midfield and try to prevent him from getting touches there. But the back four will need to provide cover in the defensive third. And neither Onyewu nor Carlos Bocanegra, the Yanks other starting central defender, are up to the task. Onyewu can match Rooney physically but he's too slow for the assignment. Bocanegra is a bit fleeter than the massive Onyewu but not much. And frankly Boca (who also plays midfield) does not seem all that smart as a defender, as indicated through numerous blown assignments and cases of "ball watching" in qualifiers.

Too bad, because other than that England has no real edge on the U.S. In fact, the Yanks are stronger on the wings (through Landon Donovan, mainly) and far superior at goalkeeper. England have problems of their own on defense, and we aren't talking about John Terry's personal issues. Clint Dempsey has proven through his goal scoring at Fulham that he can succeed against English (and other) defenders. Plus we remain unconvinced about the strength of England's midfield, with Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard hogging all the limelight (and most of the possession).

So make no mistake: Rooney is the only truly world class player on either side right now. Among U.S. players, Tim Howard is almost there and Jozy Altidore certainly has the potential. So does Charlie Davies, but nobody knows how last October's accident will affect his skills over the medium term. And for England? Rooney's it, folks. Sorry, but Stevie and Frankie aren't world class anymore, if indeed they ever were. Okay, fine, Theo Walcott also has the potential to be world class but who knows about his health.

Of course lots can still happen between now and June 12. Rooney could get injured, or burn out, or lose his form. Charlie Davies could continue his miraculous recovery and return as his old self in time for kick off. Stuart Holden could emerge as another bonafide threat on the flanks. Who knows, maybe a defensive star will even emerge for the U.S. Eh, not so much. But for now, it looks like Wayne Rooney is the one key factor for which the U.S. have no answer. If England beat us, it will be because of him.

Don't get me wrong, the book Soccernomics by Simon Kuper and Stean Szymanski is a quick and entertaining read and teaches a few solid lessons. It provides some pretty compelling insight into England's woes in particular and manages to shatter a few myths about the business of soccer. But the book falls short of its ultimate goal, to uncover new, "data-driven" truths that will revolutionize the way the sport is coached, scouted and managed. If you're looking for soccer's version of Bill James' Baseball Extracts, this ain't it. In fact, perhaps more than anything else the book demonstrates the perils of trying to turn soccer into a statistical, data-centric sport; it simply tries to do too much with too little. You're left with a lot of extrapolation, most of which is likely to be disproved before the end of the next World Cup.

The book's main points are this: Rich, prosperous countries and municipalities have more success than poor ones, though there are two notable exceptions (England and Brazil). The transfer market is very inefficient because people who manage soccer clubs, despite their success in other endeavors--or perhaps because of them--do not make good decisions when it comes to managing their clubs' resources (again one notable exception: Lyon). Soccer is not only not big business, but actually rather small potatoes. England are crap and will probably never win another World Cup.

The chapter on England that opens the book is also its best. Hopefully England supporters will read it before the World Cup. Then, when we (the U.S.) beat them in the opening match it will be less of a surprise--and also less of a catastrophe--for the sport's mother country and its bloodthirsty press. So why are England crap? Simple: It has never "developed resources" beyond its working class roots. The English national team is still largely made up of proletarian yobs. To illustrate, the book provides a table with members of England's last three World Cup teams and their fathers' professions. Besides the ones whose dads were professional soccer players or coaches, only David James, Peter Crouch and Gareth Southgate appear to have middle class backgrounds. "When you limit your talent pool, you limit the development of skills," Kuper and Szymanski write. Yes indeed.

Okay, then what about countries like Nigeria, Russia and Mexico, all of whom have soccer-mad populations north of 100 million but none of whom ever appeared in a World Cup semifinal? The same reason, really: managing resources. "People all over the world might want to play [organized] sports, but to make that happen requires money and organization that poor countries don't have."

Here is where the authors' thesis starts to get a bit dicey. How do they explain Brazil, a poor country that has won more World Cups than anybody? Or Argentina, which wasn't exactly rich when it won World Cups? They acknowledge Brazil is an anomaly, but say Brazilian players are overvalued on the transfer market. Then they laud the success of Olympique Lyon, who have somehow managed to "buy low/sell high" almost exclusively with Brazilian imports.

They also have high praise for Arsene Wenger. It's hard to argue that the Frenchman hasn't done great things for Arsenal and that his methods haven't reinvigorated the game in England. But despite being one of the richest clubs in the world, Arsenal has won little silverware in England and none in Europe since Wenger's arrival. Manchester United, par contre, have had unparalleled success the past two decades even though the team's (Scottish) manager does not have an advanced degree in economics and presumably employs none of Wenger's new-age methods.

It just doesn't add up. The Soviet Union had a run of almost 50 years with a highly organized system of more resources than anybody else but didn't win anything. When its clubs did win, it places like Tbilisi and Minsk, not population centers like Moscow and Leningrad. Mexico may not be rich but its clubs have more money (and resources) than anybody outside Western Europe. The first African nation to make inroads internationally (Cameroon) does not even have the 10th-largest population on the continent and is certainly not its richest.

The authors' curious choice of Iraq as an "emerging" soccer nation is even more questionable considering it is right next to Saudi Arabia. The countries are comparable in population size, but one would think the Saudis have more money and organization dedicated to soccer these days. Another country they tapped for soccer greatness, China, has very limited success with team sports of any kind (despite its resources). South Korea has both resources and the know-how to manage them and made the semifinals of the World Cup to boot, but the book barely mentions the Taeguk Warriors.

In the end, it comes out to a typical example of over-reaching to make data fit your ideas rather than vice-versa. You can't fault the authors for trying, but it's a losing proposition from the word go. Unlike sports such as baseball and (American) football, soccer simply does not lend itself to statistical analysis. It just isn't wired that way. The game cannot be parceled up and broken apart with numbers or even facts. The story of a soccer match cannot be told in its box score and there is still no statistic that properly measures a player's contributions. This is starting to change with metrics like tackles, passes and distances run, but the sample size is very, very small. Moreover, even the crudest data, goals scored and against, does not always reflect the reality of what transpired on the pitch. In soccer, the best team does not always win. Over the course of a full season, the best team usually (though not always) ends up winning more than the rest, which is why you need a single table and full home and away schedule to determine a righteous champion. But neither the World Cup, nor its qualification pre-tournaments have this, which is one reason why international matches cannot be trusted as a proper metric for statistical modeling. The European club tournaments aren't much better, though they have been more just in the Champions League era (with its group stages) than before, when each round was drawn completely at random. Yet these make up most of the book's data sample.

So Soccernomics has no chance. The data is flawed to start, and the authors do it no favors by extrapolating to make points that aren't there to begin with. It's lose-lose. Kuper and Szymanski (and their editors) deserve credit for producing a work that is easy and fun to read and raises some interesting questions. But soccer will never lend itself to complete statistical analysis for the same reason that films, artists and actors won't. It's just too visceral.

The biggest sporting event on the planet, the soccer World Cup, will be held in South Africa next June. Today, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the international governing body of soccer (which some parts of the world still call football) staged, er, held its draw to decide the makeup of the eight groups. Charlize Theron led the ceremony, though ties between her and South Africa are nebulous at best. The actress does not appear to be capable of even mimicking a South African accent, if today's show is to be believed. Apparently Matt Damon wasn't available.

Anyway, our ranking of these groups by degree of difficulty, from most difficult to least difficult, follows:

1. Group G: Brazil, North Korea, Ivory Coast, Portugal
The most challenging group, no question. Three of these teams are potential semifinalists. Brazil is fierce, but the matchups with the Ivory Coast and its former colonial masters Portugal are very intriguing. The African side appear deeper than Portugal: with Didier Drogba and Salomon Kalou it has one of the most formidable striker pairings anywhere. Barcelona man Yaya Toure anchors a midfield that also includes Arsenal's Emmanuel Eboue and Didier Zokora, while Kolo Toure heads up the defense. If there's a weak link, it's at goalkeeper. In fact, I couldn't even tell you who they have for the spot. Brazil, by contrast, has two Serie A tested goalies who could start for any number of other teams, including England (though frankly MLS has some goalkeepers who would be an improvement to England's options. But I digress). This group is going to be awesome. Except for the games involving North Korea, that is. Which is fine, because nobody fom North Korea will be watching them.

Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana
If Group G is the group of death, Group D is the group of hospice. Unlike Group G, there is no weak link, at least not to the degree of North Korea. You know the Germans are going to be a force because, well, they always are. Serbia are very strong and can play with anybody. Australia are underrated. Mark Bresciano and Scott McDonald can cause problems for opposing teams' defenses and you know the Aussies will work harder than just about anybody. Ghana were runners-up in the inaugural African Nations Championship. Their midfield, with Mickael Essien and Sulley Ali Muntari, is superb. The two European sides are probable favorites to advance, but Australia and particularly Ghana could give them a run for their money. Should be a fun group. In the end, the Germans win. Expect more of the same here.

Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea, Greece
A clear favorite (Argentina) with three teams that will challenge each other for second place. Unless, that is, Argentina lose their opening game against Nigeria (could easily happen). South Korea appear a little thin but if 2002 taught us anything it's that they are more than capable of surprises. Greece too could go either way. But all in all a pretty easy group for Argentina.

Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon
Another group that could go either way. The Netherlands kicked arse in qualifying but had lousy competition. Other than Wesley Sneijder and Arjen Robben this team appears to lack star power, at least judging by its own very high standards. The current generation of Dutch players simply aren't as compelling as past ones. There does not appear to be a Johan Cruyff or Marco van Basten or Ruud Gullit or even Patrick Kluivert. The Dutch could advance pretty far, but they're unlikely to captivate us much. Denmark are an efficient little team. Christian Poulsen of Juventus is likely their best player. I'm honestly more intrigued by Denmark than Holland at this point. Cameroon? Well, you got Eto'o and, um, right. Japan will likely finish last.

Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile
The most intriguing team here is Chile. Argentine coach Marcelo Bielsa has put together a squad that finished second in CONMEBOL qualifying. They do not appear to have any superstars (yet. Though look out for Matias Fernandez, a 23-year old midfielder who plays for Sporting Lisbon) but also no obvious weak links. We fully expect them to advance out of this group with European champions Spain. The other two teams are crap. Honduras aren't even supposed to be here and Switzerland were pathetic in the Euro 2008 tournament held on their home turf. Both clubs have a few intriguing players, but Spain and Chile should rule the group with relative ease.

Group A: South Africa, Uruguay, Mexico, France
Another very mediocre group. South Africa may be the worst host country since the U.S. in 1994. Mexico had a horrific start to their qualifying campaign but eventually got their stuff together under new coach Javier Aguirre. We liked Mexico's 2006 team a great deal. Their round of 16 match against Argentina was probably the best game of the entire tournament, but several key players from that club are in the twilight of their careers and the younger guys who replaced them have not impressed. Giovanni dos Santos has been a disappointment and may not even make the team. France? Don't get me started. Talk about teams that aren't supposed to be here. Uruguay may win the group with ease. Diego Forlan is awesome, but may be past his prime at this point. Ajax man Luis Suarez has not yet hit his; the 22-year old has scored 17 times in 15 Eredivisie matches this season (not a typo). This World Cup could very well be his coming out party. Uruguay are actually very deep at the forward position: Edinson Cavani and Jorge Martinez are two other guys who can score; they currently do so for Serie A sides Palermo and Catania, respectively and has some talent in defense as well. They could make a run to the quarterfinals. But don't expect much more than that. Remember this is a team that had to qualify through a playoff against Costa Rica.

Group C: England, U.S.A, Algeria, Slovenia
They've done better under Fabio Capello but England shouldn't really scare anybody. Wayne Rooney, admittedly, is terrific and John Terry is a fine defender. Other than that they appear to be built on over-hyped players who never really accomplished anything in their national team careers. We're not even talking about David Beckham here, who has absolutely no business on this team and, if there is any justice in this world, will be left off. (Instead the finger points directly at Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard). Theo Walcott is potentially intriguing but will he even make the team? Aaron Lennon may be worth watching as well, but with Frankie and Stevie calling the shots in midfield, how many balls will he really see? Slovenia is smaller than about 48 of the 50 U.S. states but watch them beat us. Could happen, especially the way people here are talking about the group. Ditto Algeria, who appear to be strong in midfield and defense, which could create all kinds of problems for Bob Bradley's side. The U.S. has been maddeningly inconsistent this year; not just from one match to the next, but within individual games as well. The team simply appears to tune out and fade from stretches of games for no apparent reason. Without Charlie Davies, there are not enough weapons in attack. The defense is stong in the center but weak on the flanks. There is very little creativity in midfield and that is virtually all supplied by Landon Donovan. Other players (Michael Bradley and Clint Dempsey) need to step up. Is Jermaine Jones the answer? Probably not, but there could be somebody else to emerge much the way Davies did this year. Bottom line: This group is not England's or America's by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, neither team could qualify. What a field day we'd have with that one.
By the way: What do people think of my idea, floated on Twitter, for a friendly wager for the game: If the U.S. wins, England agrees to adopt "soccer" as the definitive word for the sport. If England win, Americans do the same for "football." If you're serious about this we should get other media involved. But then what happens if it's a tie? Well, then the status quo can prevail. What do you say?

Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia
Is it me or does Italy never get drawn into a difficult group? Italy never gets drawn into a difficult group. I don't know how much money, pasta, or prostitutes Italy has sent Sepp Blatter's way over the years, but it's obviously enough to earn some pretty nice favors. I mean, how can you even begin to take this group seriously? New Zealand is by far the worst team in the entire field. They're so bad they have a guy from the New York Red Bulls starting at left back. (True story) That spot in the tournament really should go to the defending champion or something. Give it to Ireland. Hell, give it to Canada. Anyway, you also have highly mediocre teams from South America and Slovakia to make sure Italy don't get off to one of their customary bad starts. It may not help. I can see Italy losing their first game against Paraguay, beating New Zealand 1-0 and maybe playing Slovakia to a scoreless draw and end up advancing as the second placed team. To make things even less fair, Italy will likely face another mediocre club in the round of 16. What a joke.

Photo taken from celebrity-gossip.net without permission.

With a 5-1 victory at Wembley, the English national team was able to exorcise the ghosts of its last meeting with Croatia and advance to the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. 5-1? Against effectively the same Croatia side that gave England fits in their 2007 meeting? You could write off last year's 4-1 England victory in Zagreb as a fluke, but this suddenly makes England look pretty good. Compared to their pre Euro 2008 selves, that is.

The victory makes a few things perfectly clear:
1. Steve McClaren was a horrible national team coach (or manager, as he's known over there).
2. David Beckham has absolutely no place in the England lineup and should not be included in the World Cup squad, even as a substitute. Let him play in a ceremonial friendly match for all we care, but for God's sake please declare his national team days over and done with, once and for all.
3. Aaron Lennon is a player on the rise and a star in the making and should be given every chance to flourish fnor England (see item 2, above).
4. Frank Lampard and Steve Gerrard might just be able to form a solid midfield nucleus, provided they aren't asked to do too much. With players like Lennon, Wayne Rooney and (when he's healthy) Theo Walcott, they won't need to.
5. Robert Green may be a serviceable national team goalkeeper, but more skill is needed on defense if England are going to go anywhere at the World Cup.

So much for England.

Coming into today's crucial World Cup qualifying matches, we naively (and, it turns out, wrongly) thought all four British teams plus the Republic of Ireland had a shot to make the main event in South Africa.

How quickly things change! It looks like England will now be the sole representative from the U.K. Wales, a distant longshot to begin with, are now officially eliminated after losing to Russia. Scotland lost at home to the Netherlands and are now done as well. Northern Ireland, which actually had an outside chance to win its group and qualify outright, lost at home to Slovakia and now has a real fight on its hands if it is even going to finish second.

That leaves Ireland, which didn't even play but saw its (slim) chances of winning Group 8 dashed after Italy beat Bulgaria. With a five point lead on the third-placed Bulgarians with two games to play, you might figure Ireland to be in the driver's seat. But a look at the remaining schedule (Ireland host Italy and Montenegro; Bulgaria are at Cyprus and host last-placed Georgia) reveals potential trouble ahead for Giovanni Trapattoni's side. Two points from the last two games are likely needed if Ireland are going to finish second. Montenegro may not have a win yet, but nearly all the games they have played have been close--including a scoreless draw against the Republic one year ago.

Elsewhere, Portugal threw a giant wrench in Hungary's plans, winning at Budapest 1-0. With first-placed Denmark stumbling in Albania (a 1-1 draw) the group is very much up for grabs. The next matchday features a battle between Denmark and second-placed Sweden. The Danes then host Hungary on the last matchday. If Portugal win out (they host Hungary next and finish with Malta at home) they should finish second.

Matters are tight in Group 2 as well, with four teams (Switzerland, Greece, Latvia, Israel) still in the race. Greece somehow managed to drop points at lowly Moldova, while Switzerland and Latvia drew.

In Group 4, Russia and Germany will fight it out for first place in the next matchday. Russia trail by a point. Everybody else is out of it.

Turkey stayed alive with a 1-1 draw at Bosnia, meaning Bosnia will need a result from one of its last two games (at Estonia and home to Spain) if it is to hold off the Turks for second place in Group 5. Spain have won the group after trouncing Estonia. No surprise there.

France barely managed to stay alive with a 1-1 draw at Belgrade. With a four point lead, the Serbs can clinch the group if they win one of their last two games (at home to Romania and at Lithuania). Expect France to win their last two games, against Austria and the Faroe Islands, to finish second.

That brings us up to date in Europe. Stay tuned for the situation in the Americas once those games are completed later tonight.

Photo taken from Aaron Lennon unofficial Web site without permission.

This is not a joke. England are all but qualified and can book their trip to South Africa with a win over Croatia Wednesday. Northern Ireland can win their group with victories in their last two games and a little help. Their neighbors to the south, the Republic of Ireland, have an outside shot of winning their group but should at least finish second. Scotland are in good shape to finish second in Group 9--all they need is a point against Holland on Wednesday or hope that Macedonia and Norway play to a draw.

That leaves Wales, who undoubtedly face the longest odds. John Toshack's team sit a distant fourth in Group 4, nine points behind second-placed Russia with three games to play. But Wales still has a shot at completing the sweep. It needs to start with a decisive victory over Russia at Cardiff on Wednesday. Did I mention that Russia has a +12 goal difference to Wales' -2 and that goal differential is the first tie-breaker, according to FIFA rules? No? Well it is. Okay, so the odds are very long indeed. But Wales can still make it. They need to trounce Russia to narrow the gap in goal difference between the two sides. Then Wales need to win their penultimate group stage match at third-placed Finland on Oct. 10. Not an easy task either. Even less so with goal difference a factor and Finland still very much part of the race for second (especially if Russia lose at Wales, which will need to happen for us to even have these conversations in the first place). They will also need Germany to beat Russia that same day--again, by a high as score as possible. That leaves the final matchday, where Wales have to beat up on Liechtenstein while hoping that Russia lose at Azerbaijan. The chances of all of these taking place are admittedly remote. If Wales beats Russia by anything less than two goals you can all but forget about it. But the possibility does exist.

Of course second place only guarantees a playoff match to get in and with some of the teams likely to finish second (France and Portugal come to mind) these could be some very tough matchups indeed. Or two of the teams could face each other.

But even if only three of the four British clubs qualify, plus Ireland, it will still be a monumental occurrence. When was the last time that happened? Scotland have not been to a major tournament since 1998 and Northern Ireland last saw action in 1982, if memory serves.

Of course there is also the possibility that no British teams will qualify. Northern Ireland face tough matches against Slovakia and at the Czech Republic, Ireland might need a result against World Champions Italy on the penultimate matchday. Scotland can easily miss out and even England can be caught if they lose to Croatia. With the direction British football has taken recently, that might be the more likely outcome.

Image taken from loretoenglish.wikispaces.com without permission.

The international break will be a moment of truth for several national teams, with two matchdays on the calendar over the next week. We have taken a look at the group standings and calendar and provide you the following ranking of most crucial games (in order):

1. Portugal at Denmark, Sept. 5
It may lack the "sexiness" of some of the other match-ups, but Portugal v. Denmark holds the keys to the most competitive group in Europe and one that contains several squads that have been World Cup regulars in years past. Denmark lead the group with 16 points from six games. Portugal are lagging in third place, with just nine points from the same number of matches. The surprising Hungarians sit second with 13 points. They'll host Sweden, who are tied with Portugal on points. So Cristiano Ronaldo and his countrymen (along with a few guys born in Brazil who happen to play for Portugal) need a win. Unlike Denmark, they'll have a full squad at their disposal. The Danes will be without goalkeeper Thomas Sorensen (suspended) and four other starters: Thomas Kahlenberg, Leon Andreasen, Daniel Jensen and Daniel Agger (injuries). It's gonna be big.

2. France at Serbia, Sept. 9
Wednesday's match between the top two teams in Group 7 will likely decide the fate of both. The surprising first-placed Serbs (18 points from seven games) will be fresher after sitting out Saturday's games. France must first get by Romania, a club that gave them fits at last year's Euro but have since fallen apart and are barely a factor in the group (seven points from six games). Assuming they win, Raymond Domenech's men will be two points behind Serbia when they meet Wednesday. With a win in that match, they will in all likelihood take the group (their last two games are at home against the Faroe Islands and Austria). Figure Serbia, playing their first tournament as an independent, non-Yugoslav entity, to be aware of this. So the pressure will be on. Expect fireworks.

3. Slovakia at Czech Republic, Sept. 5
Group 3 is essentially turned on its head, with recent World Cup participants Czech Republic and Poland at the bottom of the table and Slovakia and Northern Ireland at the top. Saturday's "Czechoslovak derby" can begin to turn the tide. The Czechs are absolutely desperate for wins, having just eight points from six games. Slovakia sit first in the group with 15 points. Betweeen them are N'Ire (13 points from seven games), Slovenia (11 from seven) and Poland (10 from six). Oh yeah, the men from Ulster also play at Poland Saturday. But the Czecho-Slovak battle is the big one. With a win, Slovakia move a giant step closer to their first participation in a major tournament. A draw does the Czechs no favors either, but leaves Slovakia vulnerable to moves from Poland and Northern Ireland, whom they face at Belfast Wednesday.

4. Brazil at Argentina, Sept. 5
It undoubtedly pits the two best teams against each other, so why is this only the fourth-best (or most crucial, whatever) match? Simple: CONMEBOL is very top-heavy. While they currently sit fourth (the last automatic qualifier), Argentina still have some margin for error if they don't get a result tomorrow. Then Thursday's game at Paraguay simply becomes all important. So while Diego Maradona's side face pressure, it's not a do-or-die thing. Of course, you'll still want to watch any game between these two sides. It's sure to be a spectacle either way.

5. Macedonia at Scotland, Sept. 5
The Netherlands won Group 9 a long time ago but second place is entirely up for grabs, and Scotland are in the thick of it. They'll need to beat Macedonia tomorrow to have any chance though. If they do, they'll likely still need a result against the Dutch on the final matchday Wednesday (only five teams in this group)--or hope that Norway (currently one point behind Alex McLeish's side) and Macedonia somehow take each other out of it. But Holland will likely be resting starters Wednesday and Norway face a potentially tough game at Iceland tomorrow. So if they win tomorrow, Scotland might just be in the driver's seat.

6. Turkey at Bosnia, Sept. 9
If they win at lowly Armenia Saturday, Bosnia can effectively clinch second place in Group 5 when they host Turkey on Wednesday. With a win in that game, they would then put seven points between themselves and Turkey with two matchdays remaining. Of course, Bosnia have been close to qualifying for tournaments before (well, once, for Euro 2008) and ended up falling apart down the stretch. And second place is no guarantee to advancement either. (In case you're wondering: First place is not really an option seeing as Spain hold the lead in the group with a perfect 18 points from six games). But this would be a massive accomplishment for Bosnian football.

7. Mexico at Costa Rica, Sept. 6
Mexico are resurgent under new coach Javier Aguirre and have back-to-back victories against the hated Gringos to boost their fragile egos going into this crucial qualifier at San Jose. La Sele lead the group with 12 points from six games and are a particularly difficult foe on their home turf (it is actual fieldturf, too). But with just nine points, Mexico sit fourth and need a result. If they get it, they can look to the ensuing home games against Honduras and El Salvador to book their ticket to South Africa. If they lose, they'll face yet more soul searching.

8. Russia at Wales, Sept. 9
The moment of truth for Wales, who face extremely long odds even if they do win this game. Assuming (big leap of faith here) that second-placed Russia win at Liechtenstein Saturday, Wales will be nine points in arrears with three games to play. But these are three games that Russia can clearly lose; besides Wednesday's game at Millenium Stadium, they host Germany Oct. 10 and play at Azerbaijan Oct. 14. John Toschak's squad play at Finland and Liechtenstein. There is still hope for a Welsh appearance at South Africa, but it's a feint one.

9. Cameroon at Gabon, Sept. 5
Speaking of moments of truth, the Lions Indomptables have their backs to the wall with just one point from their first two games. They sit fourth and last in Africa's Group A, albeit with a game in hand over the second- and third-placed teams (Togo and Morocco, respectively). Gabon are first, with a perfect six points from two games. So Cameroon, the first team to really put African soccer on the map back in the 1990 World Cup (though some would argue that Algeria did so first in 1982), need a result. Actually, they need two, perhaps three to qualify directly (they face Gabon again Wednesday). But first thing first for the team now coached by Paul LeGuen, who previously led Paris Saint Germain, Glasgow Rangers and Olympique Lyonnais.

10. Croatia at England, Sept. 9
England have been stellar so far in Group 6: 21 points from seven games. We aren't exactly sure of the math, but it looks as though Fabio Capello's side can clinch a spot in South Africa with a victory Wednesday. That would put to rest the demons of the last time they hosted Croatia. It won't mean England are good, much less a threat to win anything next June, but it will be a nice accomplishment for a team that has had very little to cheer about since, well, 1966.

Want to play Fantasy Football? Any interest in football betting? Get your soccer news as well.