Cugalabanza

Brazil & Germany can meet in the final. Depends on how they do in their groups. If they each win their group (as expected), they will be E1 and F1 and will be on opposite sides of the knockout bracket and would meet in the final. If one wins their group and the other finishes second in their group, they will be on the same side of the draw (and would in fact meet in the first round of knockout play). In the unlikely event both Brazil and Germany finish second in their groups, they will be on opposite sides of the knockout bracket.

I think that's a decent bet. Portugal is capable of winning it. After Germany and Brazil, I think Portugal has as good a chance as anyone. Spain may have slipped a bit because of their coaching situation and France did not look spectacular in their final warm up against the U.S.

I wasn't sure if you were kidding or not. I know, it's hard to believe.

Man, I just love the World Cup. I already have a few games circled in the first few days that I have to watch: 6/15 at 2pm ET - Portugal vs Spain 6/16 at 10am - Argentina vs Iceland 6/17 at 11am - Germany vs Mexico 6/17 at 2pm - Brazil vs Switzerland How they have England above Portugal is a headscratcher. Also, Belgium has been getting hype for a few years now. Yes, they have a very strong team, but they keep pooping out early in big tournaments. They need to earn the right to be counted with the heavyweights.

row_33 is right. Basically, just too time consuming. Tons of administrative / organizational stuff on top of the actual playing schedule. Soccer is a grueling year-long sport, for players and for coaches. And yes, often international duty overlaps with the club schedules. Sometimes club coaches will refuse to release certain players for international duty. The national teams in soccer are much more active throughout the year than for other sports. I often wonder how top players don't fall apart physically. They play full seasons of league games for their club, plus the handful of tournaments that take place concurrently (example: In England, there is the FA Cup plus the league cup tournaments). Then, if you're on a top team, you also play tournament games against other European club teams (Champions League or UEFA League). And if you're on your National team too, that's another bunch of games plus training camp type stuff. It's pretty grueling. I was curious so I looked about coaches pulling double duty. There are some examples, most notably Sir Alex Ferguson coached the club team Aberdeen and Scotland leading up to the 1986 WC. I doubt we'll see something like that again at a top level. The expectations are just too high for these coaches.

I think they will do well. Portugal is one of the teams I like to root for, along with Iceland, Mexico, Costa Rica and a couple others. Anyway, Portugal can't embarrass themselves any worse than USA (oh my heart!), Italy and Netherlands already have.

No. At that level, you can't do both. I can't think of an example where a national team coach was simultaneously involved with a club team too. Maybe it has happened, but definitely not for top teams like these.

Well, he had just signed a contract extension to coach the national team into 2020. Then he went out and made this other deal with Real Madrid without letting anyone know. It was an a-hole move and firing him was the right thing to do in my opinion.

funny thread.

I agree. Starting a new thread as a personal attack is too much. It’s crap.

Can't do it. There aren't that many people left in the world capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

What'd they do, give a huge random tax cut to the wealthy?

4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident. Only a senseless degenerate maniac would chew Dentyne. Also, the ad did specifically say, "...for patients who chew gum." So, it's not like chewing gum was offered as an alternative to brushing your teeth. It's just that, if you're going to chew gum, use this one because it won't give you cavities or stick to your weird bridges & caps or anything like that. Once again, I have set you poor misguided people straight. You're welcome.

I agree

Memos are expensive (construction paper, glitter, macaroni, cotton balls,...)

I don't know. Is it the exact same subset as your [non-mainline Republicans]?

Differentiate what? Do you mean, between good and bad? Between who's valuable and who needs to go? I already said "based on their own merits / failures." If you're asking me to be more specific, this conversation is going to turn tiresome very fast. The point I was making is simply that it's unwise to make blanket assumptions. I don't think it's a controversial position.

I agree that DC is one of the most corrupt cities on Earth, yes. I don't like the phrase, "draining the swamp." One, because it's an awkward analogy. Of course, I understand where it's apt, but as a phrase it rubs me the wrong way. More importantly, I just object to the generalization. We have to judge individuals based on their own merits / failures. I work with a great deal of exceptionally inept morons. I'm often judged based on the group perception and I hate that. It's unfair. It's also a fallacy (Hasty Generalization).

"Stepping down?" You mean like from a ladder or something?

Could be. If that's the case, I have even less respect for him than before.

Too easy. I hate politicians too, but that's a pretty broad brush. I wasn't aware that Paul Ryan was the subject of any investigation or suspected of foul play. Have I missed something? I'm no fan of Ryan--I don't like his square-headed approach to policy--but my first thought when I saw this new story of him retiring was that it was due to frustration, that he feels handcuffed, unable to get his job done and tired of being put in a position to have to be an apologist for the erratic behavior of the president and all the chaos going on around him.

What's Paul Ryan guilty of, other than a generally creepy fetishist obsession with tax cuts?