Pitch- the playing field. As in, "he was the best player on the pitch tonight." I don't know why they can't just call it a "field", but we call a baseball "field" a diamond, so I guess I can cut them some slack.
Nil- zero. As in, "his team lost 3- nil." It sounds a little Eurotrashy, and for some reason seems to be used only for soccer, but I guess I'm ok with it. Well, I'm ok when foreigners use it. I hate when American soccer fans feel obligated to say "nil" as if it ups their soccer credibility.
Match- usually it's a soccer match and not a soccer game. As a former tennis player I am ok with that because I know that in tennis you play points, games and sets, which are collectively known as a match.
The country, (e.g. England, Argentina) is singular. It is only one country. Conversely, their team, though it comprises several players, is still singular. The singular verb in that case is "is.". You say, "where is your shoe (singular)?" and "where are your shoes (plural)?". One may correctly say, "The players on Spain are in top form" but you can't say, "Spain are in top form".
Sadly, stupidly, maybe arrogantly, annoyingly, lamely, unfortunately, seriously-what-the-fuck-ly, this grammatical rule is repeatedly broken in an attempt to sound more soccer credible. The same a-hole who will say, "Where is my book? I have zero books. Where are your books?" will later put on a soccer jersey, and turn on the soccer match and state, "England are great. They'll win 4-nil." . And it is fucking awful.
With all of this crappiness (sadly) in mind, the real question is: Do I sound more learned about soccer when I make a poor, jargon-buttressed prediction like, "America are going to win the World Cup 6-nil over Argentina." or when I use non-soccer jargon but make a rational prediction. "If Tevez gets injured Argentina is not going to win 3-zero, but probably 3-1."?