I'm pretty happy with England's group.
I agree PG.
If England don't qualify from their relatively easy group against Trinidad and Tobago, Sweden and Paraguay, then Sven-Goran Eriksson should be sent to the Tower of London.
It's as good a draw as England could have hoped for, although I know we haven't beaten Sweden since 1968 and we may end up finishing 2nd in our group.
Eriksson said after the draw: "On paper we are favourites to win the group but you never know. I said before the draw that if we could avoid Holland and Australia then we would be happy."
Sven said he was looking forward to playing against Sweden at the World Cup. "Sooner or later we have to beat them. It won't be easy. They are well organised and have two good strikers in Henrik Larsson and Zlatan Ibrahimovic."
With five of the best attacking players in the world - Ronaldinho, Adriano, Ronaldo, Robinho and Kaka - Brazil are obviously going to be the team to beat. Not all of them will probably be able to play at the same time though, and Brazil need to ensure that their defence is right.
Brazil coach Carlos Alberto Parreira claimed that Germany pose the biggest threat to his country's chances of lifting the World Cup. While some pundits (Alan Hansen included) believe that Germany don't have enough world class players to succeed next year, Parreira says that he fears the Germans the most on their home territory.
An estimated 350 million people worldwide were watching last night's World Cup draw and I thought it was an embarrassing farce.
Because of FIFA's meddling (They didn't want 3 European teams in one group) - what should have been a relatively simple draw for 350 million people across the world to follow became a ludicrously over-complicated spectacle.
What's so terrible about having 3 European teams in one group?
FIFA though had to ensure that the "geography" was right. The African and Asian teams had to be spread out nicely so that football can be seen as a "global" event.
The World Cup qualification process itself does seem to be a bit biased in favour of weak African and Asian teams at the expense of European nations.
To take ten teams at the tournament for example - Togo, Ghana, Tunisia, Angola, Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Iran, Trinidad and Tobago and Saudi Arabia. Those ten sides in my opinion should have been reduced to about six or seven for the World Cup.
It's a bit unfair in my view that some decent European sides like Greece (Euro 2004 Champs) and Denmark (who beat England 4-1 this year) both miss out on the World Cup after they were placed in tough European qualification groups. Whereas the likes of Togo and Angola both get to play in the tournament. Denmark, for example, are ranked 13th in the world and Angola ranked 62nd in the world.
The World Cup should be about having the 32 best teams on show. But because of FIFA's desire to see a "global" event, it seems that African and Asian teams have been over-represented.
I know that Ivory Coast have got a couple of decent players, as have Ghana - with Chelsea's Michael Essien in the side. But realistically those ten countries I mentioned haven't got a cat in hell's chance of winning the World Cup.
Latest World Cup Betting Odds from Ladbrokes:Brazil 11/4
England 6/1
Germany 7/1
Argentina 7/1
Italy 8/1
Holland 10/1
France 12/1
Spain 12/1
Portugal 20/1
Czech Rep 33/1
Sweden 33/1
Mexico 50/1
Ukraine 50/1
Croatia 50/1
Serbia and Montenegro 66/1
USA 80/1
Switzerland 100/1
My Prediction:Last four to be Brazil, England, Holland and Spain.
Winners: Brazil.
