Don't think anyone would consider ARGENTINA as dark horses esp in a south American tournament. BRAZIL, ARGENTINA, GERMANY AND SPAIN are prob the top 4 to beat. Can't see past those teams tho perhaps Italy Uraguay and Netherlands could upset. Dark horses could be Belgium or dare I say England.  Hodgsons selection is not surprising and he seems to have a well balanced team... I am looking fwd to the WC esp as I be on hols in Gran Canaria with some German friends and hoping England get thru the group stage.

Apart from Pablo Zabaleta their defence is rubbish, one man can't defend a Brazilian or German attack - unless you park the bus and I wouldn't rank Demichelis as a good defender, he is inconsistent. Having a great defence as well as attack is what wins games.

Betting odds show Brazil faves then Argentina, Germany then Spain. So Argentina 2nd favourites hardly dark horses !!!!!!!!

Odds are nothing, does a horse that is favourite always win the Grand National? nope. Argentina were one of the favourites 4 years ago but they didn't make the semis and their team isn't hugely different this time around.

Pretty decent squad from Hodgson, not quite as bad as I feared.  I'm very pleased he selected Barkley, Lallana, and Shaw, and with the exception of selecting Lampard, it is about as good as could have been hoped. I'm very happy to see Cleverly not make the provisional 23, which suggests even if someone drops out, he is far from certain to win an appearance anyway.

Agree with others that it looks light in defence, and I feel that the defensive midfield position is going to be an area of weakness other teams will aim to exploit.  Will Roy opt to play Liverpool style (outscore the oppostion) as a result or his tried and tested safety-first way? Not sure he has the cajones to play Barkley and Lallana at the same time but who knows? Both of these in the same starting XI might give the necessary creativity to break down what will likely be a trademark stubborn Italian defence-counter attack shape.

My misplaced sense of optimism sees me thinking that Roy could really surprise the opposition if he chooses an attack focused team. The pace and fearlessness of the young players, and opposition teams expecting a standard Roy sensible strategy could see us doing better than the last couple of outings at the WC.

And then, back on planet Earth...

win nothing with kids

I'm not at all confident in Johnson, either. I'd love to see Liverpool upgrade the RB position this transfer window.

The issue I'm intrigued with is whether Shrek will bother turning up. After looking like he could challenge to be 'best player in the world' when he burst onto the international scene at Portugal 08, his performances at subsequent tournaments have been akin to me playing. His form for Man U over his whole career with them hasn't exactly been a picture of consistency, either. Yes, he's too often had to play in a position not really suited to his talents, and there've been times he's carried that team. But he's also struggled for any kind of domestic form for long periods. Sturridge has been fantastic for Liverpool this season, not just for a great scoring return, but for his off-the-ball running. If Hodgson gets Rooney playing the right role, Sturridge could be a great foil & they could complement each other really well. The problem with this is that I can't see Hodgson knowing how best to play Rooney.

Odds are nothing ...??? Are you for real...??? Comparing the world cup to the Grand National ( a lottery) is foolish. Do you actually know anything about football ...???

France was one of the favourites 4 years ago too yet they fell out with their coach at the world cup and more or less refused to play like we normally see them play, so, yeah odds are nothing, many factors like the French fiasco contribute to a team winning or losing and not odds. Whoever put Argentina as 2nd favourites musn't of looked at their defence as a crap defence won't win you the World Cup or probably don't know anything about football, you'll only get to the quarters with a good attack and average poor defence and that's it - I'm afraid it doesn't take an Einstein to work that out, that's why their the dark horse.

Also what if Aguero or Messi or even both get an injury? it is certainly possible. So odds don't come into play with that either.

Brazil were red hot favourites in 1998 yet they got battered in the final. Who would of predicted France to lift the trophy? Same with Denmark at the 1992 Euros, odds were they were going to lose in the group stages but they won the whole thing.

I'd agree with that, and the problem with a player of Rooney's reputation (despite rarely playing well for England) is that he becomes too "important" to drop or sub.

Was the same with Italy in the '82 World Cup. Who really thought that they would put Brazil out that year, and that Brazil team was rated by many as the best Brazilian side of any since Pele & co in 1970. Worth remembering also that Italy in 1982 failed to win any of their first round group matches (3 draws) whereas Brazil won all their games in style before the Italians got the better of them.

Johnson is the best in that position unfortunately. I quake with fear at the thought of Smalling playing there should Johnson get injured. It would surely end in tears.

Personally, I'd play Rooney in the classic number 10 role with Sturridge as the lone striker. That's the only way I see Shrek and Sturridge together.

Just to add - Woy has made some good choices i.e Barclay, Lallana, yet you can be rest assured he'll press the default button. So I expect Milner to see a lot of match time.

Agree with you on all counts, there.

You said it, you seem to have a bad memory as these teams went "against the odds"

History shows you can't look past the South Americans , I would be surprised if one of the Europeans won the WC

True we can never discount them completely, but having said that in 2006 Italy won it and then Spain in 2010. In both those finals those 4 teams were European teams (Italy-France 2006) (Spain-Netherlands 2010).....but no South American ones present.

3 out of the past 4 world cups have seen a European Winner.

Of all the world cups European teams have won more - No superstition in that 

Err think your missing the point.... NO EUROPEAN TEAM Has won the Cup in South / Central America so your comment is totaly insignificant with the exception it probably means more world cups have been held outside of south and central America.

Doesn't matter - the new future can be written, absolutely no reason to say a European team won't win the whole thing over there just because of what's happened in the past.

In that regard fairy superstitions from you're part don't count. I don't believe 1 magpie will give me bad luck.

Europe has dominated the world cup in terms of overall wins.......just. Most likely due to Europes strengths in all areas maybe even better training facilities, whereas south American teams concentrate far more only on attack. You won't win all time with just a great attack. At some point you have to defend when you meet better teams after the groups, and that's where they slipped up over the past 2 world cups.

In fact looking at their provisional lineup I would say Spain has a fantastic chance to hold on to the cup and be only the 3rd team to do it after first Italy and then Brazil. Spain are not any weaker than 4 years ago. 

Spain certainly are weaker than 4 years ago !!! The team was very much based upon Xavi and insists who 4 years ago were in their prime. Spain do carry the same threat as 4 years ago.

Exactly.

I really can't see past Brazil. I can think of no obvious weakness in that side, unlike Argentina which is defndively suspect.

For me, a European team has just as much chance as a South American team of winning this years World Cup.  If I were forced to make a prediction I would say the South American teams edge it by a neck, particularly Brazil. Why? Nothing to do with squad talent per se, though a look at Uruguay and Argentina's squads, and obviously Brazil's, show some supreme attacking talent, and though weaker defensively, still not too bad. More to do with partisan crowds, unfamilar climate, spread out venues meaning much travelling, and the home advantage (relative).

It is hard to ignore history also. Indeed, history shows no non-South American winners of World Cups in the Americas full stop. Mexico 70 and 86, and USA 94 were all South American winners. However, for me, the previous points are more valid IMO for a South American winner.

from Europe, then Germany, Italy, or Spain could spoil the party. I don't expect much from France (though they will do better this time round but hardly difficult not to), and for England a last 16 place max.  Dark horses for me are Belgium. Hugely talented squad, strong in all departments, and definitely worth a punt.  What price on a Belgium v Uruguay final?