Comments for World Cup College

Comment on Zakumi v The Oldies by lisa

lisa — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 04:53:53 +0000

wow,, iam amazed how people rate the new mascot with a high score.. is this because hes new or is it because you guys never even heard and paid attention to a world cup before and now your judging the mascots just now,like if you new of the subject or sport for a long time? Soccer rookies, study all the mascots more hard, they all deserve a high score and a closer study like in how the older mascots merchandise sells like hot bread.(opps , that must mean they have a lot of fans)!!!

Comment on The W-W formation: the future?! by John

John — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:55:47 +0000

The ‘M’ of WM is actually referring to the 2 inside forwards and 3 strikers in the wiki article, as well as here:
http://library.thinkquest.org/27353/english/formations/form1.html

It seems there are two different “school of thought”s for naming formations.

The important thing is that we both agree that the 2-3-2-3 could be an good response to the current hegemony of 4-2-3-1. I would love to see teams using this formation in our modern football.

Comment on The W-W formation: the future?! by Eugene

Eugene — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:39:59 +0000

This page also suggests that the shape of 2-3-2-3 is WW.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metodo_(calcio)

Comment on The W-W formation: the future?! by David Painter

David Painter — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:21:46 +0000

In his book ‘Inverting the Pyramid’, Jonathan Wilson also refers to the 2-3-2-3, or metodo, as WW. So there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on which way up the pitch goes!

However, looking at the wikipedia link, the ‘M’ of WM incorporates the three defenders and two deeper midfielders. Therefore, the inversion of this (the two-man defence, and three-man defensive midfield) makes a W – as described in both the article above and Wilson’s text.

Comment on The W-W formation: the future?! by John

John — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:03:54 +0000

The 2-3-2-3, also referred to as the Metodo, is actually not the W-W formation.

The WW formation is the one used by Hungary in the 50’s. (3-2-3-2)

Historically, the naming convention of these formations is derived from how they look with the defenders placed on the top of the drawing. (as with your formation image in the article). Therefore, the Metodo is in fact a M-M, not a W-W.

For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football)#Metodo

Comment on Thomas Hobbes & English Mechanism by Tim Micheli

Tim Micheli — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:41:41 +0000

Like life, England World Cup campaigns are nasty, brutish, and short…

Comment on Cheerio & Thanks! by Shaken Not Stirred

Shaken Not Stirred — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:29:47 +0000

I’ve got a feeling we haven’t seen the last of Ashley Le Sansom.

Comment on World Cup 2014: wildcards! by KK

KK — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:53:03 +0000

I’d like to see England in a 4-2-3-1, with these players:
Joe Hart
Brown-Jagielka-Dawson-Cole(A)
Carrick-Rodwell
Lennon-Wilshere-Johnson(A)
Rooney
With Joe Cole, Walcott, Ashley Young and Milner deputising on the wings, Lampard in the squad as central midfield backup, and Steven Gerrard nowhere in sight.

Comment on The W-W formation: the future?! by KK

KK — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:39:22 +0000

Isn’t the Barcelona 4-3-3 pretty much a 2-3-2-3?
Pique-Puyol
Dani Alves-Busquets-Maxwell/Abidal
Xavi-Iniesta
Messi-Ibrahimovic-Pedro

Comment on Cheerio & Thanks! by Think About It

Think About It — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:27:59 +0000

Thanks for the mammaries