The WC 2010 playoff draw WILL be seeded.

GLaDOS

The thing is, they said it was a decision they just reached, meaning that it was not assumed beforehand.

Bounty Hunter

so after 100+ posts in a thread stating the draw WILL be seeded is there any official word? or are all the statements here based on hearsay

Mr.Nice Guy

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

so after 100+ posts in a thread stating the draw WILL be seeded is there any official word? or are all the statements here based on hearsay

It's been officially confirmed:

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2009/0930/ireland.html

cournioni

**** sake.

This whingy bollocks is really annoying. If Ireland are good enough to get to the world cup, they should beat whoever they have to face. Whether that is France or Slovenia. It shouldn't matter!

Whoever Ireland face will be a second placed team, which means they will be a good team. They will all be in or around the same quality as we are. Make no mistake about that. They will have all earnt second spot in their group for a reason.

For the record, I think that Ireland would possibly have a better chance against one of the bigger teams. We always seem to struggle against the decent teams rather than the good ones. It has always been the case with us.

Bandit12

Disgraceful. No doubt Platini had a big hand in this considering the French are likely to be in the draw.:rolleyes:

WoollyRedHat

For those saying that this isn't news, that it was seeded last time, this time it is different as already pointed out

-FIFA have announced this on a whim. They admit this. Last time, it was announced before the tournament took place. Everyone knew where they were at from there on in.

-The real question is would such a decision have been taken had France and the others peformed better than they have?

-The prospect of Ireland playing France means we have to play harder than ever. Yes we should have performed to our best reguardless, but had seeding been anounced from the begining it would have been much fairer.

Things have now changed.

Pisco Sour

PORNAPSTER wrote: »

**** sake.

This whingy bollocks is really annoying. If France are good enough to get to the world cup, they should beat whoever they have to face. Whether that is Germany or Slovenia. It shouldn't matter!

Whoever France face will be a second placed team, which means they will be a good team. They will all be in or around the same quality as they are. Make no mistake about that. They will have all earnt second spot in their group for a reason.

Edited your post for you there

okidoki987

If Argentina dont qualify by right, FIFA are looking at freeing up a place by forcing the last 2 Asian qualifiers to play off against each other for a place in the finals

That and the seeding now makes FIFA the biggest joke of the year.
Disgraceful.

briany

Maybe FIFA could have just held an open draw in the interests of "Fairness" but had it rigged to suit themselves.

ArmaniJeanss

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

-FIFA have announced this on a whim. They admit this. Last time, it was announced before the tournament took place. Everyone knew where they were at from there on in.

I'm not trying to defend them here, but this bit is wrong.

Last time was identical (not clearly stated either way in the rules and announced very late in the day (actually after the 6 teams were known)) and caused just as much consternation in the countries that were affected.

greendom

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. Using this logic sure they might as well just base qualification solely on the World Rankings and allow the top 32 to enter.

After all, then we'd have no "weaker teams" in at the expense of "a stronger team" right? Bloody hell.

If it's seeded then even the dogs on the street know why. It's so the big boys can get their way just like they do in other areas of the sport.

Seeding gives an unfair and unjust advantage to certain teams as each team in the Play-Offs ought to be looked upon as equals. This kind of system is designed to restrict entry, not to promote diversity, and as such should be regarded as being against the spirit of the competition.

Typical political bullsh*t from FIFA.

No it doesn't ; it means that the "stronger" teams don't end up knocking each other out before the business end of the competition,

Tomthepost

Im going to look at this as diplomatically as possible. It is in the interests of UEFA that the strongest teams in Europe represent the continent on the world stage and the seeding should help this.
It is however unprofessional by the organisation not to set this out at the outset of the campaign.
Still if Ireland are good enough we will be in the World Cup. If not we wont. Where Ireland are at player wise any second placed team would be a difficult draw.

Pisco Sour

greendom wrote: »

No it doesn't ; it means that the "stronger" teams don't end up knocking each other out before the business end of the competition,

As has been mentioned over and over on this thread, the stronger teams have been seeded already at the start of the group stages. This provides a reward for their great performances over the last few years. If they f*ck up and completely blow this opportunity that has been presented to them they should not be given another reward based on the same criteria that got them their first reward (which the didnt take advantage of).

greendom

04072511 wrote: »

As has been mentioned over and over on this thread, the stronger teams have been seeded already at the start of the group stages. This provides a reward for their great performances over the last few years. If they f*ck up and completely blow this opportunity that has been presented to them they should not be given another reward based on the same criteria that got them their first reward (which the didnt take advantage of).

Oh no, not you again -(bet you're thinking the same thing)

If all the teams in the play-offs had already played each other as part of the qualification process I would agree with you.

They haven't though and it's a fact that some groups were easier to finish 2nd in than others. I haven't gone through all the groups but some were definitely easier than others.

Tomthepost

04072511 wrote: »

As has been mentioned over and over on this thread, the stronger teams have been seeded already at the start of the group stages. This provides a reward for their great performances over the last few years. If they f*ck up and completely blow this opportunity that has been presented to them they should not be given another reward based on the same criteria that got them their first reward (which the didnt take advantage of).

Get what you are saying here but to look at it another way. 9 teams are top seeds, 9 second seeds and so on. At the outset the 10th team (top second seed) will feel screwed. Similiarly the 18th team (bottom second seed) will be elated. By seeding the play-offs your are essentially ironing out this a little.
Its hard to get to the top at International football no doubt about that but if we start having open draws here why not just make everything an open draw. That would certainly be in the true spirit of the sport.

Mr.Nice Guy

greendom wrote: »

No it doesn't ; it means that the "stronger" teams don't end up knocking each other out before the business end of the competition,

You are judging "strength" on games that took place BEFORE the qualification campaign. Does that make sense?

It's a bit like if say Torquay United and Wycombe Wanderers managed to make it through to the semi-finals of the FA Cup, only for the FA to decide to seed the last 4 draw and thus Torquay had to face United and Wycombe had to face Chelsea. Would that be fair? Wouldn't it be better for it to be an open draw and if Torquay and Wycombe got each other, so be it? Shouldn't each team be judged on its own merits?

Hell, why not let France start off their play-off tie with a 2 goal lead in order to reflect their ranking superiority? Can't upset the big sponsors can we?

Tomthepost

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You are judging "strength" on games that took place BEFORE the qualification campaign. Does that make sense?

It's a bit like if say Torquay United and Wycombe Wanderers managed to make it through to the semi-finals of the FA Cup, only for the FA to decide to seed the last 4 draw and thus Torquay had to face United and Wycombe had to face Chelsea. Would that be fair? Wouldn't it be better for it to be an open draw and if Torquay and Wycombe got each other, so be it? Shouldn't each team be judged on its own merits?

Hell, why not let France start off their play-off tie with a 2 goal lead in order to reflect their ranking superiority? Can't upset the big sponsors can we?

Torquay and Wycombe got to get through round 1 and 2 in the first place to even get the chance to play against Man Utd or Chelsea in the first place so in a way seeding also exists here. Anyway we are not talking about club football here.
Seeding system has been in place for a long time in international football anyway and at the end of the day its 11 V 11 whatever the draw and may the best team win.

greendom

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You are judging "strength" on games that took place BEFORE the qualification campaign. Does that make sense?

It's a bit like if say Torquay United and Wycombe Wanderers managed to make it through to the semi-finals of the FA Cup, only for the FA to decide to seed the last 4 draw and thus Torquay had to face United and Wycombe had to face Chelsea. Would that be fair? Wouldn't it be better for it to be an open draw and if Torquay and Wycombe got each other, so be it? Shouldn't each team be judged on its own merits?

Hell, why not let France start off their play-off tie with a 2 goal lead in order to reflect their ranking superiority? Can't upset the big sponsors can we?

Well I wouldn't want any team to start with an unfair advantage, but the FA Cup semi-final scenario sounds fair enough to me. (And this is from a Barnet supporter). The semis will never be seeded of course, due to history etc, but I would feel a bit robbed if Wycombe or Torquay (probably not in Barnet's case if I;m strictly honest with myself )made it to the final via the semi-final back door.

briany

I think the groups being seeded at the beginning of the qualification stage is fine because if you didn't have some way of organizing the groups then you might see the likes of Georgia qualifying for the World Cup and no offence intended to them or anything but I don't think it would make for a competitive tournament with them and any other weak nations getting the crap knocked out of them by a quality side who could cruise on to win it. But the big teams, if they've failed to qualify outright they shouldn't get a second gift. I'd love for France to be beaten by the likes of Slovenia just to sicken FIFA. Ditto for Russia.

Mr.Nice Guy

Tomthepost wrote:

Torquay and Wycombe got to get through round 1 and 2 in the first place to even get the chance to play against Man Utd or Chelsea in the first place so in a way seeding also exists here. Anyway we are not talking about club football here.
Seeding system has been in place for a long time in international football anyway and at the end of the day its 11 V 11 whatever the draw and may the best team win.

Listen, we are talking about football here and we are talking about sport. Explain to me how it can be justified, in any sport, to say to 4 teams out of 8 that in spite of your EQUAL achievement in making it to the play-offs, we PERCEIVE there to be a hierarchy in terms of quality and we will thus give advantages to the teams we judge to be the best - and we will judge this based on previous campaigns.

Previous campaigns ought to have no bearing on the current campaign in the interest of fairness.

greendom wrote: »

Well I wouldn't want any team to start with an unfair advantage, but the FA Cup semi-final scenario sounds fair enough to me. (And this is from a Barnet supporter). The semis will never be seeded of course, due to history etc, but I would feel a bit robbed if Wycombe or Torquay (probably not in Barnet's case if I;m strictly honest with myself )made it to the final via the semi-final back door.

I can't fathom this mindset. There's no robbery going on in such a scenario. Every team in the draw is in the same boat. They have gone on their own journies to reach their final destination. Why then should obstacles be placed in the way of certain teams based on results that took place in previous campaigns? How are previous campaigns relevant?

Idbatterim

It is ridiculous that the seeding decision has been made now, but we arent even that far away from making pot 1. If our recent record hadnt been so crap, (and that is the teams and managers fault) we could well be in pot 1. Trappatoni should not have been awarded a new contract until after the play offs... On the note of us being hammered by any of the second place teams, I doubt it, do i think we would win over 2 legs... probably not, but what happened the last time we played germany when we were in disarray, a 1-1 draw at home and a 1-0 loss over there thanks to a deflections. Look we are pretty ****e at the moment, but so are the vast majority of the national sides at the moment! Given the size, population and history of many of the likely second place teams, it is a disgrace they are relying on getting to the world cup via a play off!

greendom

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Listen, we are talking about football here and we are talking about sport. Explain to me how it can be justified, in any sport, to say to 4 teams out of 8 that in spite of your EQUAL achievement in making it to the play-offs, we PERCEIVE there to be a hierarchy in terms of quality and we will thus give advantages to the teams we judge to be the best - and we will judge this based on previous campaigns.

Previous campaigns ought to have no bearing on the current campaign in the interest of fairness.

But it's not an equal achievement is it? The World Cup qualifying groups contain different teams and each group has a different level of difficulty to qualify from despite seeding




I can't fathom this mindset. There's no robbery going on in such a scenario. Every team in the draw is in the same boat. They have gone on their own journies to reach their final destination. Why then should obstacles be placed in the way of certain teams based on results that took place in previous campaigns? How are previous campaigns relevant?[/QUOTE]

Robbery is a bit strong I agree but it would feel like Torquay or Wycombe would have reached the final only because they didn't get to play one of the stronger teams in the semis. And it would be a desperate anti-climax to see a final with plucky little x getting hammered. Remember when Milwall reached the final a few years ago.

Mr.Nice Guy

greendom wrote: »

But it's not an equal achievement is it? The World Cup qualifying groups contain different teams and each group has a different level of difficulty to qualify from despite seeding

We can't do anything about the difficulty of the other groups though. I don't see why that should matter. To make the play-offs in 2002 we had to go through a ridiculously difficult group which featured Portugal and Holland and if memory serves me right we never lost a game in that group and only narrowly missed out on top spot. Still, it didn't matter as we were in the play-off draw just like everyone else and in my view that's the way it should be.

I seem to be going around and circles here and the situation's not going to be changed now anyway.

Let's just hope we make the play-offs or all of this will look very silly indeed. :pac:

podge018

what difference does it make when FIFA announced this? If they said it beforehand or now, it's quite obvious that the bigger counties are going to be higher seeded, so they would know 18 months ago that if any of the powerhouses were struggling to qualify automatically in 18 months time that a seeded draw would help their cause.

Q: How does holding out to see how the groups shape up help them get the bigger nations through?

Drumpot

podge018 wrote: »

what difference does it make when FIFA announced this? If they said it beforehand or now, it's quite obvious that the bigger counties are going to be higher seeded, so they would know 18 months ago that if any of the powerhouses were struggling to qualify automatically in 18 months time that a seeded draw would help their cause.

Q: How does holding out to see how the groups shape up help them get the bigger nations through?

As one example . .

Greece, switzerland , serbia are all ahead of Portugal in the rankings system and would all be in line to be ahead of the portugeuse in a pre determined playoff seed (not even including France, Russia/germany, croatia!).

With two of these three going to qualify automatically, a seeding system protects the portugeuse . .

Whatever way you look at it , a pre determined way of seeding is the farest. . By waiting until now FIFA have allowed themselves the opportunity to pick whichever system is commercially favourable.

podge018

were the swiss and the serbs ahead of portugal 18 months ago?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't class Portugal as a major power-house of the European game, they didn't qualify for 98, 94, or 90. Top of the middle-rung teams perhaps, but not a Germany, France, Holland, England, Spain, Italy.

Tomthepost

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Listen, we are talking about football here and we are talking about sport. Explain to me how it can be justified, in any sport, to say to 4 teams out of 8 that in spite of your EQUAL achievement in making it to the play-offs, we PERCEIVE there to be a hierarchy in terms of quality and we will thus give advantages to the teams we judge to be the best - and we will judge this based on previous campaigns.

Previous campaigns ought to have no bearing on the current campaign in the interest of fairness.




Listen, there should be no seeding for anything based on what you are saying above. Maybe the English FA should put the 100 and whatever club names in the hat at the start of every season. First season Barnet are in the premiership but Arsenal and Man Utd got to play in Division 3.
Despite winning the Premier League Fulham got to play in division 3 the following season. Group A for the European Championship Qualifers will be a tough one for Ireland as they are pitted against Holland, Germany, Italy, Spain and England.


The big issue here is that it should have been made clear at the very start of the campaign other then that what is all the fuss about really?
The truth of the matter is if you top your group you go to the world cup. If you come second (unless your Norway) you get a second chance.
As pointed out earlier it is in the interests of Europe as a continent to send its best teams and this system helps with that.
The world cup is about seeing the best teams in the world and the system generally helps us get that.
A bigger diadvantage in my opinion is if the seeded teams were guaranteed home advantage for the second leg. But maybe FIFA will break that news to us in a few weeks.
If the FAI and Trapp start making an issue of this what kind of message is it sending out to the players? We are **** so if we don't draw Slovenia in the play-offs we might as well field a League of Ireland 11 (no disrespect meant)

Tomthepost

podge018 wrote: »

were the swiss and the serbs ahead of portugal 18 months ago?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't class Portugal as a major power-house of the European game, they didn't qualify for 98, 94, or 90. Top of the middle-rung teams perhaps, but not a Germany, France, Holland, England, Spain, Italy.

It makes little sense to me this. If a top seed team finish second in their group surely the chances are that there ranking position would worsen not get better.

Pisco Sour

podge018 wrote: »

were the swiss and the serbs ahead of portugal 18 months ago?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't class Portugal as a major power-house of the European game, they didn't qualify for 98, 94, or 90. Top of the middle-rung teams perhaps, but not a Germany, France, Holland, England, Spain, Italy.

Pointless comment. What has past failures got to do with anything?

England - failed to qualify in 2008, 1994, 1984, 1978, 1976, 1974, 1972, something like 7 of the last 20 major champs

Holland - failed to make the 1982, 1986 and 2002 world cups.

Not that it matters but just thought I'd point that out for you.

podge018

It's got to do with FIFA supposedly doing their best to get these power-houses into the WC. The poster picked out Portugal, I added as an aside that I didn't believe they came into that category. I just said they didn't qualify for a 3 in a row in the previous decade, I didn't even look at European Championships as it's a different comp.

dannydiamond

It's really weird to me all the varying opinions.
It's very straight forward lads, the lower seeded teams including Ireland are getting shafted, no two ways about it.

podge018

Tomthepost wrote: »

It makes little sense to me this. If a top seed team finish second in their group surely the chances are that there ranking position would worsen not get better.

chances are they would worsen yeah, but not to a huge extent if they still manage to finish 2nd. I never said they'd get better.

GLaDOS

podge018 wrote: »

It's got to do with FIFA supposedly doing their best to get these power-houses into the WC. The poster picked out Portugal, I added as an aside that I didn't believe they came into that category. I just said they didn't qualify for a 3 in a row in the previous decade, I didn't even look at European Championships as it's a different comp.

Commercially they would be big though, especially with Ronaldo

podge018

dannydiamond wrote: »

It's really weird to me all the varying opinions.
It's very straight forward lads, the lower seeded teams including Ireland are getting shafted, no two ways about it.

how, when as they left it open, there could only ever be 2 options, to seed or not to seed. They haven't done any U-turn here. They seeded it the last time. If they decided to have an open draw the higher seeds could easily come out saying they've been shafted.

Mr.Nice Guy

Tomthepost wrote: »

Listen, there should be no seeding for anything based on what you are saying above. Maybe the English FA should put the 100 and whatever club names in the hat at the start of every season. First season Barnet are in the premiership but Arsenal and Man Utd got to play in Division 3.
Despite winning the Premier League Fulham got to play in division 3 the following season. Group A for the European Championship Qualifers will be a tough one for Ireland as they are pitted against Holland, Germany, Italy, Spain and England.

What are you on about? You're having a John Giles moment. Why would a league format be determined by a draw?

Is it really difficult to comprehend the view that a play-off draw ought to be unseeded? Haven't RTE been making this point all evening as well as others? What's so hard to stomach about it?

The 8 teams are all there on merit. No one flukes entry. No one earned a free pass through a ticket in a cereal box. Let the teams fight for their place and don't put some of them up on a pedestal.

Tomthepost wrote:

The big issue here is that it should have been made clear at the very start of the campaign other then that what is all the fuss about really?

The "fuss" is that - for commercial reasons - FIFA have decided to make it harder for teams like Ireland to make the World Cup at the expense of the bigger teams in there, as these teams have provided more money. Oh but money talks, right?

Tomthepost wrote:

The truth of the matter is if you top your group you go to the world cup. If you come second (unless your Norway) you get a second chance.
As pointed out earlier it is in the interests of Europe as a continent to send its best teams and this system helps with that.

Oh this just gets better and better. So it's now a moral crusade that Mr Blatter is on, is it?

Tomthepost wrote:

The world cup is about seeing the best teams in the world and the system generally helps us get that.

So why then has Europe been getting fewer places with each competition while the other confederations benefit? No one could seriously believe the likes of North Korea offer more quality than teams from Europe. I was under the impression all of this was to promote diversity and make it a true 'World Cup', but apparently diversity is only tolerable as long as certain teams (France, Germany) are assured of qualification.

The argument about quality is a load of garbage as far as I'm concerned. No teams should be given preferential treatment during the course of the campaign.

In this instance FIFA have - quite literally - made the rules up as they've gone along. It is lousy and it is wrong and those defending this shambolic organisation, run by a clown who today said he thinks diving is justifiable, need their heads examined.

Tomthepost

podge018 wrote: »

chances are they would worsen yeah, but not to a huge extent if they still manage to finish 2nd. I never said they'd get better.

Sorry I had no issue with your opinion it was the poster that you had initially responded to. His theory made no sense.

deisedude

This is a disgrace. How can they justify making up this rule now? I might be able to stomach it if Fifa said they planned on seeding the playoffs before qualification began but this is just discriminating against the smaller nations. Blatter may as well just tell us bend over and take it up the arse while he is at it:mad:

Tomthepost

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What are you on about? You're having a John Giles moment. Why would a league format be determined by a draw?

Is it really difficult to comprehend the view that a play-off draw ought to be unseeded? Haven't RTE been making this point all evening as well as others? What's so hard to stomach about it?

The 8 teams are all there on merit. No one flukes entry. No one earned a free pass through a ticket in a cereal box. Let the teams fight for their place and don't put some of them up on a pedestal.



The "fuss" is that - for commercial reasons - FIFA have decided to make it harder for teams like Ireland to make the World Cup at the expense of the bigger teams in there, as these teams have provided more money. Oh but money talks, right?



Oh this just gets better and better. So it's now a moral crusade that Mr Blatter is on, is it?



So why then has Europe been getting fewer places with each competition while the other confederations benefit? No one could seriously believe the likes of North Korea offer more quality than teams from Europe. I was under the impression all of this was to promote diversity and make it a true 'World Cup', but apparently diversity is only tolerable as long as certain teams (France, Germany) are assured of qualification.

The argument about quality is a load of garbage as far as I'm concerned. No teams should be given preferential treatment during the course of the campaign.

In this instance FIFA have - quite literally - made the rules up as they've gone along. It is lousy and it is wrong and those defending this shambolic organisation, run by a clown who today said he thinks diving is justifiable, need their heads examined.

Your a very angry man it seems to me!
Thankfully I got a mind of my own on this issue and all other issues for that matter. Havn't been watching RTE all evening thank god and I don't take what people say on RTE (Johnny Giles included) as my bible.
When have I mentioned money at any stage by the way and when have I praised Sepp Blatter.
By the way Europe has not lost places at the World Cup finals. Up to recently only 24 teams qualified. Now it is 32.
There is a precedent to seed why can't you stomach that?
Is it really difficult to comprehend that if Ireland are good enough they will be at the World Cup?
By the way just got someone to have a quick look at my head and you will be glad to know everything is in proper working order:D

GLaDOS

Tomthepost wrote: »

By the way Europe has not lost places at the World Cup finals. Up to recently only 24 teams qualified. Now it is 32.

No? 13 qualify (9 automatically and 4 from playoffs). You're thinking of the European Championships possibly?

ArmaniJeanss

Tomthepost wrote: »

By the way Europe has not lost places at the World Cup finals. Up to recently only 24 teams qualified. Now it is 32.

Theres definitely been a downward trend for Europe, it was 14.5 places in 2002 (Ireland fighting Iran for the half place), 14 in 2006 and now its down to 13 for 2010.

Africa up to 6 now without any on-field justification.
Asia and Oceania had a combined 4.5 places in 2006, now up to 5.

As I said earlier its not justified by performance as Europe is the only continent who is outperforming their allocation each time.

Personally despite the announcement being made by Blatter I think this was ultimately a UEFA decision to send their strongest 13. Blatter would have wholeheartedly agreed with it though for financial reasons.

Edit. I just checked 1998 and it was 15 places for Europe then so it seems to be going down by .5 of a place every couple of competitions.

Mr.Nice Guy

Tomthepost wrote: »

Your a very angry man it seems to me!
Thankfully I got a mind of my own on this issue and all other issues for that matter. Havn't been watching RTE all evening thank god and I don't take what people say on RTE (Johnny Giles included) as my bible.
When have I mentioned money at any stage by the way and when have I praised Sepp Blatter.
By the way Europe has not lost places at the World Cup finals. Up to recently only 24 teams qualified. Now it is 32.
There is a precedent to seed why can't you stomach that?
Is it really difficult to comprehend that if Ireland are good enough they will be at the World Cup?
By the way just got someone to have a quick look at my head and you will be glad to know everything is in proper working order:D

I am angry about this. I think this is a kick in the balls to our hopes and to other small nations and a pat on the back for the old guard. I can't see how you can condone it.

Europe has been steadily losing out on places in the World Cup. For the 2002 World Cup there were 14.5 places available which has since gone down to 13 places up for grabs next year. If the competition was primarily about quality then surely there would be more European places and not less?

There was hardly a precedent to seed. It was far from being a foregone conclusion and even Blatter's language suggests it was a decision made recently. Therein lies the injustice in all of this as we all know what prompted the move.

It's not about being "good enough" because every team in the pot is in the same boat and has known that 8 teams will contest for a place. If you win you ARE good enough. Seedings are an unnecessary and immoral addition to the equation.

Tomthepost

ScienceNerd wrote: »

No? 13 qualify (9 automatically and 4 from playoffs). You're thinking of the European Championships possibly?

There was definitely only 24 teams in the world cup up until 1994. Remember Ireland, England and Holland progressed from the same group to the last 16 in 1990 and Ireland,Italy and Mexico (or was it Norway?) in 1994

Johnny Utah

Outrageous decision, obviously intended to ensure that the bigger nations make it to the World Cup.



The real problem though is that the Fifa rankings themselves are an absolute joke. Teams like Mexico, USA, Australia etc are ranked way higher than they should be. Also Brazil seem to be always number 1- obviously picking up points playing difficult friendlies in South America against the likes of Venezuala and Peru. I have highlighted this problem before.

Also, Europe are not being allocated enough places in the World Cup, and this really needs to be looked at.


The Elo Ranking system is slightly more accurate than the Fifa rankings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_football_rating

And, it's quite interesting to note that if the ELO system was used to pick the best 32 countries for the World Cup, then Ireland would just sneak in:

ELO Rankings wrote:

September Rankings:

1 Brazil
2 Spain
3 Netherlands
4 England
5 Germany
6 Italy
7 Mexico
8 Russia
9 Croatia
10 France
11 Argentina
12 Portugal
13 Chile
14 Turkey
15 United States
16 Serbia
17 Denmark
Switzerland
19 Paraguay
20 Uruguay
21 Czech Republic
22 Bulgaria
23 Côte d'Ivoire
24 Japan
25 Romania
26 Ukraine
Sweden
28 Republic of Ireland
29 Honduras
30 Cameroon
31 Australia
32 Ghana

So, 6 countries from South America, 19 from Europe, 2 from North America, 2 from Asia, and 3 from Africa would give us the best 32 countries to compete in the World Cup, and would make the competition a lot stronger imo. Maybe Fifa should allot places for each continent based on an accurate ranking system like this? It would certainly suit Ireland anyway, and it would get rid of some of the dross in the World Cup. Anyone else agree?

GLaDOS

Tomthepost wrote: »

There was definitely only 24 teams in the world cup up until 1994. Remember Ireland, England and Holland progressed from the same group to the last 16 in 1990 and Ireland,Italy and Mexico (or was it Norway?) in 1994

That may be true, I was only a toddler then, but only 13 are qualifying this year from Europe

Tomthepost

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I am angry about this. I think this is a kick in the balls to our hopes and to other small nations and a pat on the back for the old guard. I can't see how you can condone it.

Europe has been steadily losing out on places in the World Cup. For the 2002 World Cup there were 14.5 places available which has since gone down to 13 places up for grabs next year. If the competition was primarily about quality then surely there would be more European places and not less?

There was hardly a precedent to seed. It was far from being a foregone conclusion and even Blatter's language suggests it was a decision made recently. Therein lies the injustice in all of this as we all know what prompted the move.

It's not about being "good enough" because every team in the pot is in the same boat and has known that 8 teams will contest for a place. If you win you ARE good enough. Seedings are an unnecessary and immoral addition to the equation.

Thanks for pointing that out but we only had 14 teams last time out because Germany qualified as hosts and Africa got that spot this time around.
On merit up to 20 European teams would be 'good enough' for top 32 in the world but look how well football is progressing in Africa and Asia in the past 20years. I think Africa deserve 6 to be honest and I can see Ghana doing extremely well next year.

ArmaniJeanss

Tomthepost wrote: »

Look how well football is progressing in Africa and Asia in the past 20years. I think Africa deserve 6 to be honest and I can see Ghana doing extremely well next year.

Last World Cup 1 of 5 African teams made it out of the groups.

The 5 teams record was.
Played 16, Won 3, Drew 3, Lost 10.

That isn't progress. Reward, an increased allocation.

Mr.Nice Guy

Tomthepost wrote: »

Thanks for pointing that out but we only had 14 teams last time out because Germany qualified as hosts and Africa got that spot this time around.
On merit up to 20 European teams would be 'good enough' for top 32 in the world but look how well football is progressing in Africa and Asia in the past 20years. I think Africa deserve 6 to be honest and I can see Ghana doing extremely well next year.

Well Europe has been losing places as it's been a controversial topic even going back to 2002.

Surely we are in agreement here though? You talk about how well football is progressing in Asia and Africa and isn't this precisely because of efforts to promote diversity rather than make it be purely about 'quality'? Isn't it because football is reaching out to countries outside the old guard?

Isn't this precisely why seeding the play-offs is a bad idea and against the spirit of the international game? Shouldn't we give countries like Ireland and Slovenia a chance rather than giving preferential treatment to the Frances and Germanys of the world?

Tomthepost

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Last World Cup 1 of 5 African teams made it out of the groups.

The 5 teams record was.
Played 16, Won 3, Drew 3, Lost 10.

That isn't progress. Reward, an increased allocation.

But the arguement here is completely contradicting itself. On one hand people are claiming that FIFA are patting the old guard on the back with the seeding system but then saying Europe should have a bigger allocation of places. Surely that would be patting the old guard on the back alot more.
The other ranking system looks alot more accurate from the post but that would mean 19 teams from Europe competing. Would that be a world cup in the spirit of what it is all about?
African football has come along way and is improving all the time. Look at the amount of decent players in the premier league and accross europe.

Tomthepost

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Well Europe has been losing places as it's been a controversial topic even going back to 2002.

Surely we are in agreement here though? You talk about how well football is progressing in Asia and Africa and isn't this precisely because of efforts to promote diversity rather than make it be purely about 'quality'? Isn't it because football is reaching out to countries outside the old guard?

Isn't this precisely why seeding the play-offs is a bad idea and against the spirit of the international game? Shouldn't we give countries like Ireland and Slovenia a chance rather than giving preferential treatment to the Frances and Germanys of the world?

No i think that it is in the interest of each continent to send its best teams. This may very well lead to the 4 unseeded teams progressing from the playoffs. Seeded does not mean better! Lets agree in hoping that happens.

NukaCola

Anyone who defends this decision to seed the playoff draw with 2 games to go in the group stages doesn't know much or care about football. World Football and Fair play has lost a lot in this decision, it is unjustifiable and saddening....terrible decision.