I have a query about the games so far. Do the pundits watch a different game to the one we watch at home?
It could just be that I am just a tiny fraction biased, but they talk about how good England were, how good Argentina were and how good Holland were etc. I always thought that the game was about scoring goals. So far there has been some pretty passing and clever ball work in the middle of the park, some good Argentinian impersonations of dying swans (from broken legs not bird flu) but not enough action in the 18 yard box to create a bit of excitement. In fact the only game worth watching so far was Trinidad & Tobago hanging on for a 0-0 draw.
One further point, not one of these "super stars" has bettered a certain overhead goal from a certain now departed central defender.

I saw a brief bit of the English FA game and when J. Cole went down like he'd been shot the commentator said "Thats unlike him, he must be injured' ... YEAH RIGHT ! now there's total bias, if opposing players go down like he does then its a disgrace etc.

Joe Cole has talent but is just so frustrating when he falls all over the place when he could beat a man and get a cross in, sure he injures himself because he lands funny whilst diving as apposed to the original tackle.