Just participate as UK and make Bale play. 


+RamboJust participate as UK and make Bale play.![]()


It's a win-win, not like they don't know Wales will almost never make it to the final 32.+Rambo
A team like that would at least make it into the top 16, yup![]()
And Sweden has a better chance than Wales, heck they were even close.Hodgson was talking about something like that? Too many foreign players in the EPL?I'm not anti-english btw, I'm just realistic and honest with our genuine chances. Media hype in England is a curse for every home grown player. <_<
Well, if they don't have foreign players in the EPL teams, they won't have teams that last longer than the group phase in the Champions League... and no one wants that.Hodgson was talking about something like that? Too many foreign players in the EPL?
They won't, but then again England had a better team than this and did not make it and it had more superstars, I mean, Terry, Owen, Lampard, Rio ...Well, if they don't have foreign players in the EPL teams, they won't have teams that last longer than the group phase in the Champions League... and no one wants that.

He was a promising player as a youth, and had a good run ... for a bit.Owen![]()
Too many years being a superstar in a different field Becks. 
No I still think that qualifications on your side of the world are a joke (anywhere but Europe is a joke ... barrages matches in Europe are against Portugal, France, Ukraine, Croatia ... not Jordania ...). But putting 3 former world champions in the same group is a joke as well. For example, our group is a joke and England didn't play bad enough to be already eliminated.Not long ago you said that our qualy was a joke and that we had too many slots (even though, usually, 4 out of 5 of us make it into top 16 whereas half of the Europeans leave in group phase, but that's another topic). If Brazil wasn't the host Uruguay wouldn't be in the WC... and now you're praising them like that?
Do you think we deserve more slots? :3
Obviously you're gonna have so many if you're so many countries ._.Oh and for the fun of it:
1990: 10 EU teams in round of 16 among the 16 teams
1994: 10 EU teams in round of 16 among the 16 teams
1998: 10 EU teams in round of 16 among the 16 teams
2002: 9 EU teams in round of 16 among the 16 teams
2006: 10 EU teams in round of 16 among the 16 teams
2010: 6 EU teams in round of 16 among the 16 teams
Well, Uruguay sucked balls in the Qualy, so yeah I think it's fair (you should had used Spain/Chile/Netherlands imo). There isn't a better way to set up groups (except for having a proper way to select the ¨head teams¨ instead of the ranking, althogh imo Colombia > England anyway... can't defend Switzerland, but well it's among EUs right? England wouldn't deserve that spot anyway, it should be the Netherland's).Or do you really want to argue that Belgium (first world cup in 12 years and inexperimented) - Russia (with no players outside the russian championship) - Algeria (10 defenders because 11 keepers are not allowed) - South Korea (Very young) is fair as a group when there are Italy - England - Uruguay in the same group ?
Cruzeiro, River Plate, Boca Juniors, Sao Paulo, Santos...Plus, big football clubs are ALL in Europe. Give ONE big team outside EUROPE at club level ?
Well, yeah, I can't defend shitty teams from Asia getting in the Cup, but it wouldn't be a World Cup if you didn't have them in it really.Give me a break. If the world cup was the real 32 best teams of the world, it would be at least 20 european teams. For god's sake, we let Ibrahimovic home to give a place to Honduras or Iran. 5 teams qualified out of 9 for CONMEBOL and you think it's not enough, you think it's as hard as Europe to qualify ?
i have to disagree with you sir, you're in the darkSwitzerland x France (Switzerland is defensive and France is crappy, boring draw)