c4countdown

Just for fun, here are my round of 16 predictons

Uruguay 1 South Korea 1 AET South Korea to win on pens.
USA 3 Ghana 2
Germany 1 England 2 AET
Argentina 2 Mexico 2 AET Mexico to win on pens.
Holland 3 Slovakia 1
Brazil 1 Chile 0
Paraguay 2 Japan 3 AET
Spain 1 Portugal 1 AET Spain to win on pens.

Any others?

Marc Meakin wrote:Just for fun, here are my round of 16 predictons

Uruguay 1 South Korea 1 AET South Korea to win on pens.
USA 3 Ghana 2
Germany 1 England 2 AET
Argentina 2 Mexico 2 AET Mexico to win on pens.
Holland 3 Slovakia 1
Brazil 1 Chile 0
Paraguay 2 Japan 3 AET
Spain 1 Portugal 1 AET Spain to win on pens.

Any others?

You should stick a quid on that lot - the win/draw/loss bets alone would accumulate into over two grand!

Marc Meakin wrote:Just for fun, here are my round of 16 predictons

Uruguay 1 South Korea 1 AET South Korea to win on pens.
USA 3 Ghana 2
Germany 1 England 2 AET
Argentina 2 Mexico 2 AET Mexico to win on pens.
Holland 3 Slovakia 1
Brazil 1 Chile 0
Paraguay 2 Japan 3 AET
Spain 1 Portugal 1 AET Spain to win on pens.

Any others?

Uruguay 2 South Korea 1 (causing New Malden to fall silent)
USA 2 Ghana 1 AET
Germany 1 England 2
Argentina 3 Mexico 1
Holland 2 Slovakia 0
Brazil 2 Chile 1
Paraguay 1 Japan 1 AET Japan on pens
Spain 1 Portugal 0

Can't be arsed predicting the scoreline of every match but now we're down to the nitty gritty I predict the top 3 will all be South American teams with Argentina beating Brazil in the final and Uruguay coming a very respectable 3rd.

Here are mine:

Uruguay 2 South Korea 0
USA 1 Ghana 2
Germany 1 England 2
Argentina 2 Mexico 2 AET Mexico to win on pens.
Netherlands 2 Slovakia 0
Brazil 2 Chile 1 AET
Paraguay 3 Japan 2 AET
Spain 3 Portugal 3 AET Portugal to win on pens.

Here are mine:

Uruguay 2 South Korea 0
USA 2 Ghana 1
Germany 2 England 1 AET
Argentina 3 Mexico 0
Netherlands 4 Slovakia 0
Brazil 3 Chile 0
Paraguay 2 Japan 2 AET Japan to win on penalties
Spain 2 Portugal 2 AET Spain to win on penalties.

The mighty Uruguayans are looking good for a place in the last 8!!

Ryan Taylor wrote:The mighty Uruguayans are looking good for a place in the last 8!!

Noooo.

Oliver Garner wrote: Uruguay 2 South Korea 1 (causing New Malden to fall silent)

On the ball Ollie!

Disappointed for the USA because they've played with real spirit, but absolutely made up for Ghana. Wooo!

Michael Wallace wrote:ad infinitum

This; this; a thousand times this.

Come on Germany!

Eoin Monaghan wrote:

Come on Germany!

Learn to think for yourself.

Eoin Monaghan wrote:It looks like Mexico will be playing Argentina, just like 2006. Hopefully it's decided by as good as a goal as Maxi Rodriguez scored.

Tevez does the business.

How many more instances are needed to prove that goal-line technology is needed?

Eoin Monaghan wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:It looks like Mexico will be playing Argentina, just like 2006. Hopefully it's decided by as good as a goal as Maxi Rodriguez scored.

Tevez does the business.

How many more instances are needed to prove that goal-line technology is needed?

But Tevez definitely didn't cross the line!

It's time to use modern technology..............a guided missile to hit England's team bus.
Yes I am bitter.
Still c'mon Murray you can win Wimbledon.
Insert picture of man clutching at straws here.

Pretty exciting first 45 minutes. I went to a bar that had adopted Germany as their team for the cup and they daringly offered free pints if Klose got the first goal, so it was mayhem when he scored. Unfortunately, we didn't see a fair result. With two goals in such quick succession England may have been good for a third, or the second half starting 2-2 would have been a different story. Anyway, best 45 minutes of the cup i've seen so far and hard luck chaps. At least now they can shut up about 66 and after such a terrible error from the ref and with the inevitable media onslaught, maybe Sepp will finally cave and give the video ref a shot.

Didn't get to see the match, but did catch this snippet from English commentators towards the end of the highlights (paraphrased): "Excellent play from the German there" "Yes, he passed the ball to his teammates feet."
Ouch, the match isn't even over and already the media hounding has started. I've often seen it mentioned over here that the English media are the worst in the world when it comes to their national football team. Too quick to build them up to ridiculous levels of expectation, and way too quick to tear them down again. It's not a recent phenomenon either, the media treatment of Eriksson, Graham Taylor and especially Bobby Robson was absolutely appalling. Capello did well enough with what he had to deserve a second chance, but will he get it?. Already the calls for his resignation have started, but who appoints the manager, the F.A, or the media? Will one of todays papers have a picture of Capello or some of the players photoshopped onto some vegetable or other? Even money on that one. I give Capello six weeks at the most.

Liam Tiernan wrote:Didn't get to see the match, but did catch this snippet from English commentators towards the end of the highlights (paraphrased): "Excellent play from the German there" "Yes, he passed the ball to his teammates feet."

Lawro again.

It's all ok though, as John Terry says that England will bounce back and give it a much better shot "next year". Give the guy a fucking calendar.

Terry can fuck off anyway. He was responsible for most/all of the goals.

Craig Beevers wrote:Terry can fuck off anyway. He was responsible for most/all of the goals.

You can't blame it all on Terry.
Gareth Barry cost us 2 of the goals.
Rooney was a virtual passenger.(thanks Fergie for fucking him up)
Capello proves that there is a vast difference between being a club coach and an International coach.
Gerard should not have played on the left.
Defoe should not have played at all (ditto Heskey)
Milner is vastly overrated.
Glen Johnson is NOT a defender.
Matthew Upson ditto.
Lampard was crap, but still was our best player by miles against Germany.
Joe Hart should have played from game 1. (James should have done better at goals 2 and 3)

Lets face it we don;t have any world class INTERNATIONALS anymore.
Look at Klose, mediocre club player but a world class striker for Germany.

Marc Meakin wrote:Look at Klose, mediocre club player but a world class striker for Germany.

Despite the fact he's Polish.
Why can't we nick players from other countries, like our cricket team
Based on current form for both teams, it's an idea that needs looking into.

James Robinson wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:Look at Klose, mediocre club player but a world class striker for Germany.

Despite the fact he's Polish.
Why can't we nick players from other countries, like our cricket team
Based on current form for both teams, it's an idea that needs looking into.

It worked for Jack Charlton in his FAI (find another Irishman) days.


Well we can look on the bright side, our under 17 team did win the European Championship earlier this year.

Hmm, post mortem time.

- We were actually quite decent, although a bit short of excellent, going forward yesterday, and had some bad luck (in addition to you know what, the first German goal had a whiff of offisde about it)
- Still, you can't expect anything other than defeat when you defend like that. The defensive organisation of the whole team was poor, and we were naive in committing so many men forward at an early stage. The blame for this should lie with Capello.
- Last 16 / last 8 is about where we should be given the quality of our players. The golden generation is a myth. England do have a few top players, unfortunately they all like to play in the same position.
- Not really a possibility, but I would have loved to have Scholes and Hargreaves in the centre of midfield. Gerrard is a great player, but not a great midfielder (I would've played him as a forward with Rooney). Barry is neither a great player or a great midfielder.
- England have not beaten a single top team in the knockout stages of the world cup since 1966 (fun fact stolen from football365)
- I'm a bit conflicted about this one, as I really don't like it when players do this, but Johnson should have fouled the German in the build-up to the third goal. Instead, he was more concerned about missing the next match.
- James could probably have done better on the second and third goals. A quality keeper is desperately needed (duh).
- Credit to Joachim Loew, to get an international side playing with such movement and flair is a big achievement. Schweinsteiger and Ozil (don't go to City ) were quality. Best of luck to them for the rest of the tournament.

Paul Howe wrote:Hmm, post mortem time.

- We were actually quite decent, although a bit short of excellent, going forward yesterday, and had some bad luck (in addition to you know what, the first German goal had a whiff of offisde about it)
- Still, you can't expect anything other than defeat when you defend like that. The defensive organisation of the whole team was poor, and we were naive in committing so many men forward at an early stage. The blame for this should lie with Capello.
- Last 16 / last 8 is about where we should be given the quality of our players. The golden generation is a myth. England do have a few top players, unfortunately they all like to play in the same position.
- Not really a possibility, but I would have loved to have Scholes and Hargreaves in the centre of midfield. Gerrard is a great player, but not a great midfielder (I would've played him as a forward with Rooney). Barry is neither a great player or a great midfielder.
- England have not beaten a single top team in the knockout stages of the world cup since 1966 (fun fact stolen from football365)
- I'm a bit conflicted about this one, as I really don't like it when players do this, but Johnson should have fouled the German in the build-up to the third goal. Instead, he was more concerned about missing the next match.
- James could probably have done better on the second and third goals. A quality keeper is desperately needed (duh).
- Credit to Joachim Loew, to get an international side playing with such movement and flair is a big achievement. Schweinsteiger and Ozil (don't go to City ) were quality. Best of luck to them for the rest of the tournament.

You lost me at "We were actually quite decent"

Marc Meakin wrote:You lost me at "We were actually quite decent"

I thought Germany deserved to win, but I don't buy the worst performance evah hyperbole you hear from some quarters. We retained possession quite well and created some good openings. On another day we could have had 3 goals.

PS Michael, are you gay or something?

Paul Howe wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:You lost me at "We were actually quite decent"

I thought Germany deserved to win, but I don't buy the worst performance evah hyperbole you hear from some quarters. We retained possession quite well and created some good openings. On another day we could have had 3 goals.

PS Michael, are you gay or something?

We were so tactically naive it was incredible, going for broke with over 20 minutes left was suicide.
I bet that when they saw Upson and Defoe on the teamsheet they thought it was Christmas.

Paul Howe wrote:PS Michael, are you gay or something?

No, I just liked your anal(ysis)?

Eoin Monaghan wrote:How many more instances are needed to prove that goal-line technology is needed?

Meh, I don't get all the clamour for goal-line tech. The ref and linesman missed a blatant goal, but so what? They should have seen it, but didn't, but the same happens with offsides, handballs, fouls, everything. All with much more frequency than the pretty rare "did it cross the line" debate. I mean, goal-line tech wouldn't have helped the poor old Mexicans just a few hours later, when Argentina's first goal was ludicrously offside. Both bad decisions by, ultimately, the linesman, but ones which the ref might also have seen. Both worth a goal. Why should one warrant a dramatic rule/ethos change while the other is 'just one of those things'? (And even if you start video-reffing everything, how often do you still find yourself analysing the replay and disagreeing?)

Jon Corby wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:How many more instances are needed to prove that goal-line technology is needed?

Meh, I don't get all the clamour for goal-line tech. The ref and linesman missed a blatant goal, but so what? They should have seen it, but didn't, but the same happens with offsides, handballs, fouls, everything. All with much more frequency than the pretty rare "did it cross the line" debate. I mean, goal-line tech wouldn't have helped the poor old Mexicans just a few hours later, when Argentina's first goal was ludicrously offside. Both bad decisions by, ultimately, the linesman, but ones which the ref might also have seen. Both worth a goal. Why should one warrant a dramatic rule/ethos change while the other is 'just one of those things'? (And even if you start video-reffing everything, how often do you still find yourself analysing the replay and disagreeing?)

So you're saying that, since some mistakes will always occur no matter the technology, we shouldn't try to eliminate any mistakes with technology?

It has been reported that fog has closed all English airports. The England team will get a heroes welcome as their plane has been diverted - TO GLASGOW!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Eoin Monaghan wrote:How many more instances are needed to prove that goal-line technology is needed?

Meh, I don't get all the clamour for goal-line tech. The ref and linesman missed a blatant goal, but so what? They should have seen it, but didn't, but the same happens with offsides, handballs, fouls, everything. All with much more frequency than the pretty rare "did it cross the line" debate. I mean, goal-line tech wouldn't have helped the poor old Mexicans just a few hours later, when Argentina's first goal was ludicrously offside. Both bad decisions by, ultimately, the linesman, but ones which the ref might also have seen. Both worth a goal. Why should one warrant a dramatic rule/ethos change while the other is 'just one of those things'? (And even if you start video-reffing everything, how often do you still find yourself analysing the replay and disagreeing?)

So you're saying that, since some mistakes will always occur no matter the technology, we shouldn't try to eliminate any mistakes with technology?

Pretty much. At the very least, tackle them in order of importance. Offside is very important, and very, very difficult to accurately assess in real-time. Every game will have at least one incorrect offside decision. Way more impact than the odd "did it cross the line?" debate. Thing being that this isn't even really one of those debates, it's one of those (like Carroll v Spurs at O.T.) that seemingly everybody (bar the two most important people) saw.

I'm struggling to articulate what is clear in my head here - it was simply an appalling decision. Technology is neither here nor there. Officials occasionally miss blatant stuff. Technology shouldn't be required for this anymore than it should to count the number of players on the pitch.

If that's really your position then you might as well argue that we shouldn't bother with competent referees at all, and just employ whoever's free. To say "it's an appalling decision and that's all there is to it" overlooks the fact that humans invariably make mistakes, no matter how much training, reward, castigation or punishment you provide. We have to work with that.

I agree though that order of significance is important, and offsides and goal-line decisions are an obvious priority. Blatter's argument that it would be "expensive" is laughable given that the requisite technology to resolve the vast majority of cases (a TV camera) is already installed in every major stadium in the world.

I just realised this post has a bit of a serious tone considering lol football, but you know, millions of pounds and millions of people's happiness is at stake so it's worth thinking about a bit.

Charlie Reams wrote:If that's really your position then you might as well argue that we shouldn't bother with competent referees at all, and just employ whoever's free. To say "it's an appalling decision and that's all there is to it" overlooks the fact that humans invariably make mistakes, no matter how much training, reward, castigation or punishment you provide. We have to work with that.

Yeah, that's where I said I was struggling to articulate it, because that's not what I'm trying to say. My point is that unless you have RoboRef who gets everything right 100% of the time, I don't see why you'd particularly give a shit about whether the ball has crossed the line considering that a) well over 99% of the time it's correctly called, and b) in only bothering to correctly adjudge this 'minor' aspect, you've possibly (probably) missed several other things that have led up to this point.

When I say 'minor' aspect, it sounds a bit silly as that's how the game is scored, but football isn't just about the ball crossing the goal-line, but everything leading up to it too. Kirky'll love me using darts as a comparison - darts is all just about which bed your dart is in. There's nothing more to it than that (provided you've stood legally to throw, which I don't know the ins and outs of, but is presumably easy to judge). Provided we accurately measure this, everything's taken care of. In football, the ball may have crossed the line, but if it's come from an offside player, or a corner that didn't cross the line (or maybe came off the attacker last) etc, then that's all just as important as the ball crossing the goal-line. And those decisions impact the game far more than the odd "did it/didn't it?" question. (And as I said, this isn't really even one of them, because it was apparent to everyone bar the ref & linesman that it had gone in!)

Charlie Reams wrote:If that's really your position then you might as well argue that we shouldn't bother with competent referees at all, and just employ whoever's free. To say "it's an appalling decision and that's all there is to it" overlooks the fact that humans invariably make mistakes, no matter how much training, reward, castigation or punishment you provide. We have to work with that.

I agree though that order of significance is important, and offsides and goal-line decisions are an obvious priority. Blatter's argument that it would be "expensive" is laughable given that the requisite technology to resolve the vast majority of cases (a TV camera) is already installed in every major stadium in the world.

I just realised this post has a bit of a serious tone considering lol football, but you know, millions of pounds and millions of people's happiness is at stake so it's worth thinking about a bit.

Maybe with the global recession, the way forward is to employ a dozen officials, placed in strategic positions around the ground, to cover every angle.

Paul Howe wrote: We retained possession quite well and created some good openings. On another day we could have had 3 goals.

Now we all know I don't like football but is possession everything? We had 55% possession and 45% possession at one point (in our favour) and were like 3-1 down. It seems that we spend the whole time passing the ball around with no emphasis on progressing and shooting. With stats like that it seems like England pass the ball around for 2 minutes until one mistake is made, Germany get it, make a couple of passes and shoot and score. In fact I think another stat was Germany 3 shots on goal to England's 0 or something, yet England's possession was higher again. Time to stop this passing around nonsense and attack?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Paul Howe wrote: We retained possession quite well and created some good openings. On another day we could have had 3 goals.

Now we all know I don't like football but is possession everything? We had 55% possession and 45% possession at one point (in our favour) and were like 3-1 down. It seems that we spend the whole time passing the ball around with no emphasis on progressing and shooting. With stats like that it seems like England pass the ball around for 2 minutes until one mistake is made, Germany get it, make a couple of passes and shoot and score. In fact I think another stat was Germany 3 shots on goal to England's 0 or something, yet England's possession was higher again. Time to stop this passing around nonsense and attack?

Fabio Capello has been sacked as England manager.

Kirk Bevins has been appointed.

Matt Morrison wrote:It's all ok though, as John Terry says that England will bounce back and give it a much better shot "next year". Give the guy a fucking calendar.

He's had too many dates as it is.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Paul Howe wrote: We retained possession quite well and created some good openings. On another day we could have had 3 goals.

Now we all know I don't like football but is possession everything? We had 55% possession and 45% possession at one point (in our favour) and were like 3-1 down. It seems that we spend the whole time passing the ball around with no emphasis on progressing and shooting. With stats like that it seems like England pass the ball around for 2 minutes until one mistake is made, Germany get it, make a couple of passes and shoot and score. In fact I think another stat was Germany 3 shots on goal to England's 0 or something, yet England's possession was higher again. Time to stop this passing around nonsense and attack?

Yeah! Also, 17 shots - but only 11 actually at the goal? Why shoot if you're not going to do it at the goal?! Overpaid primadonnas.

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:It's all ok though, as John Terry says that England will bounce back and give it a much better shot "next year". Give the guy a fucking calendar.

He's had too many dates as it is.

Arf. My first 'like'

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Paul Howe wrote: We retained possession quite well and created some good openings. On another day we could have had 3 goals.

Now we all know I don't like football but is possession everything? We had 55% possession and 45% possession at one point (in our favour) and were like 3-1 down. It seems that we spend the whole time passing the ball around with no emphasis on progressing and shooting. With stats like that it seems like England pass the ball around for 2 minutes until one mistake is made, Germany get it, make a couple of passes and shoot and score. In fact I think another stat was Germany 3 shots on goal to England's 0 or something, yet England's possession was higher again. Time to stop this passing around nonsense and attack?

It's not everything, but it is important to be able to retain the ball and bide your time against a well organised defence, which we managed pretty well compared to the group matches (when I say retain possession, I'm also talking about things like keeping control of the ball in tight spaces, rather than just passing it around for ages). You make it sound like we didn't create anything; in fact, we scored 2 perfectly good goals, had Defoe's effort against the bar wrongly ruled out for offside, produced a great chance for Gerrard, had a couple of other occassions where Defoe nearly got in but it just wouldn't break for him, Lampard hammered the bar. I'm not saying we cut them open at will, just that our attacking play was decent. It was the defense that was a shambles.

I'm actually suprised that James isn't shouldering more blame. For the first goal, Klose didn't get to the ball until he was inside the penalty area, you'd expect James to sweep that up instead of staying on his line (eg. Reina does this very well). The third was well struck, but straight at him. The second has well taken, but it should take more to beat a top keeper from that narrow angle.

Paul Howe wrote:I'm actually suprised that James isn't shouldering more blame. For the first goal, Klose didn't get to the ball until he was inside the penalty area, you'd expect James to sweep that up instead of staying on his line (eg. Reina does this very well). The third was well struck, but straight at him. The second has well taken, but it should take more to beat a top keeper from that narrow angle.

Agreed, I've been saying this too. The stupid Beeb were gushing about him being fantastic. Stupid Beeb

Jon Corby wrote:

Paul Howe wrote:I'm actually suprised that James isn't shouldering more blame. For the first goal, Klose didn't get to the ball until he was inside the penalty area, you'd expect James to sweep that up instead of staying on his line (eg. Reina does this very well). The third was well struck, but straight at him. The second has well taken, but it should take more to beat a top keeper from that narrow angle.

Agreed, I've been saying this too. The stupid Beeb were gushing about him being fantastic. Stupid Beeb

Disagree. The only blame James can hold for the first goal is not organising his central defenders. As a goalkeeper he would fully expect a long ball like that to be dealt with by a defending header and I can not believe that none of the defenders were there to deal with that. The second goal was a nutmeg, James did the best he could, he closed down the angle and made himself big, the only way to get it past his body was to nutmeg him which he did. The third goal does look bad, yet he is anticipating the shot across goal which I would too, it is the most likely. The fact that the ball was blasted at him at such a speed made the shot difficult to save with him already in his mind leaning across goal. If he did shoot across goal we would be full of praise for an excellent save. James did other one on one saves to keep England in it at 2-0. He came for corners, crosses and caught them. I thought he was one of the better players in England's squad along with Lampard. I would possibly only blame him for the 3rd goal as he didn't stand up to the shot.

Sucks for Slovakia (although Holland getting to the last 8 guarantees me at least a fiver, wahey). Assuming Brazil get past Chile later could be a really tasty quarter final that (although I reckon Chile have more of a chance than the bookies are giving them 4.9 to go through on betfair, for instance).

Ryan Taylor wrote:The second goal was a nutmeg, James did the best he could, he closed down the angle and made himself big, the only way to get it past his body was to nutmeg him which he did.

His legs were about 4ft wide when the shot was taken. You could've driven a fucking smart car through the gap.

Jon Corby wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:The second goal was a nutmeg, James did the best he could, he closed down the angle and made himself big, the only way to get it past his body was to nutmeg him which he did.

His legs were about 4ft wide when the shot was taken. You could've driven a fucking smart car through the gap.

Hahahaha! They were wide I'll give you that, and he was quite a bit off the floor, but still he is just doing what he has been coached to do. The annoying thing is the German didn't even aim the shot, he just hit and hoped.

Jon Corby wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:The second goal was a nutmeg, James did the best he could, he closed down the angle and made himself big, the only way to get it past his body was to nutmeg him which he did.

His legs were about 4ft wide when the shot was taken. You could've driven a fucking smart car through the gap.

I think the Germans did their homework on James, along with Terry and other players.

Paul Howe wrote:I'm actually suprised that James isn't shouldering more blame.

In fairness he's had a lot of recaps to write.

James Robinson wrote:Here are mine:

Uruguay 2 South Korea 0
USA 1 Ghana 2
Germany 1 England 2
Argentina 2 Mexico 2 AET Mexico to win on pens.
Netherlands 2 Slovakia 0
Brazil 2 Chile 1 AET

Ignoring Germany v England (which we'll excuse as blind patriotism) these are pretty accurate. Well done!

Edit, wait I thought you got Argentina right too, I must've got confused. I take it back. Rubbish.

Jon Corby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Here are mine:

Uruguay 2 South Korea 0
USA 1 Ghana 2
Germany 1 England 2
Argentina 2 Mexico 2 AET Mexico to win on pens.
Netherlands 2 Slovakia 0
Brazil 2 Chile 1 AET

Ignoring Germany v England (which we'll excuse as blind patriotism) these are pretty accurate. Well done!

At least I've done much better than the earlier guesses.

James Robinson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Here are mine:

Uruguay 2 South Korea 0
USA 1 Ghana 2
Germany 1 England 2
Argentina 2 Mexico 2 AET Mexico to win on pens.
Netherlands 2 Slovakia 0
Brazil 2 Chile 1 AET

Ignoring Germany v England (which we'll excuse as blind patriotism) these are pretty accurate. Well done!

At least I've done much better than the earlier guesses.

Oi

Cracking match coming up. I trust you'll all join me in RA RA RA NIPPON NIPPON

Michael Wallace wrote:Cracking match coming up. I trust you'll all join me in RA RA RA NIPPON NIPPON

No I'm supporting the Guay's from now on.

How long before one of the commentators says "Honda has a good engine"?

Marc Meakin wrote:How long before one of the commentators says "Honda has a good engine"?

About negative two weeks.

What's the Japanese no. 2 got against Capello's boys.

What price an all South American semi final?