This is how the FIFA World Cup SHOULD be

Xavi6

Des wrote: »

Your logic is flawed then.

An average is the sum of every part, divided by the number of parts.

Europe has 53 teams, there would be 26 below average, and 26 over average.

So still, you'd have no below average teams qualifying.

Ok, be pedantic about it.

In a batch of 18 qualifiers you have more chance of getting worse teams than if there were 13 qualifiers.

04072511 wrote: »

below par in the european sense doesnt mean below par in the world sense. Teams like Ireland, Bosnia, Slovenia etc would put up a much better fight than the poorest teams that will qualify from Asia, Africa and CONCACAF

I disagree.

The African qualifiers at the moment are Ivory Coast and Ghana. Then there's Cameroon, Tunisia and Algeria topping their group right now.

The latter two would be perceived to be worst. I don't think they're any worse than Ireland or Greece for example.

Pisco Sour

FatherTed wrote: »

You are a Europhobe... on Honduras they are a pretty good team, some great players in Palacios, Suavo and Guevara. They WON all their home games up until last Saturday night against the US and the US got lucky with Honduras missing a penalty with a few minutes to go. But then again, you just probably watch Euro teams and have no idea what goes on in other parts of the world.

I do know the quality of teams in other parts of the world. Easier to remain unbeaten when playing against weak teams. Put Honduras into a European group and their home winning record wouldnt last too long.

The World Cup finals is the best way of seeing the relative strength of each zone. I'm afraid (as ive mentioned in a previous post analysing the 2006 Finals) that Europe comes out well on top.

Frisbee

BastardPrince wrote: »

how about the top 32 in the rankings?

1 Brazil South America
2 Spain Europe
3 Netherlands Europe
4 Italy Europe
4 Germany Europe
6 Russia Europe
7 England Europe
8 Argentina South America
9 Croatia Europe
10 France Europe
11 USA CONCACAF
12 Greece Europe
13 Serbia Europe
14 Australia Asia
15 Switzerland Europe
16 Denmark Europe
17 Portugal Europe
18 Czech Republic Europe
19 Bulgaria Europe
20 Côte d'Ivoire Africa
21 Chile South America
22 Israel Europe
23 Paraguay South America
24 Mexico CONCACAF
25 Ukraine Europe
26 Romania Europe
27 Turkey Europe
28 Uruguay South America
29 Cameroon Africa
30 Scotland Europe
31 Northern Ireland Europe
32 Egypt Africa
32 Ghana Africa


4 South American
1 Asian
4 African
2 CONCACAF
21 European

That system would be so massively skewed towards Europe that they may aswell abolish the World Cup altogether and add an extra two groups into the Euros and add in a few decent teams from Africa and South America.

Considering how well African teams have been doing in recent years it won't be long before they start getting more and more teams into the latter stages of the competition.

Xavi6

FatherTed wrote: »

You are a Europhobe...

Is he not the exact opposite of that?

Pisco Sour

Frisbee wrote: »

Considering how well African teams have been doing in recent years it won't be long before they start getting more and more teams into the latter stages of the competition.

People were saying that in 1990 after Cameroon narrowly missed out on the semi's. I've seen no improvement since. They have actually gone backwards. Only Senegal have made the last 8 since.

I agree that using the rankings is stupid. A fairer allocation is all that is required in my opinion. Allocations could be re-assessed after each tournament based on performances.

FatherTed

You cannot use ELO or FIFA rankings as it takes much londer for lower ranked teams to move up because they usually only play weak opponants e.g. let's take Honduras, they are in the 50's somewhere I think. For them to get to the top 3 would take forever because they usually only play teams in Concacaf and a few weaker ones from Conmebol. It's not like get to play higher ranked teams such as Italy, Bulgaria, Holland etc where a good result give them a lot of points as opposed to beating say, Guatemala.

FatherTed

Xavi6 wrote: »

Is he not the exact opposite of that?

Yes, it should be Eurosnob, not Europhobe...

Pisco Sour

FatherTed wrote: »

You cannot use ELO or FIFA rankings as it takes much londer for lower ranked teams to move up because they usually only play weak opponants e.g. let's take Honduras, they are in the 50's somewhere I think. For them to get to the top 3 would take forever because they usually only play teams in Concacaf and a few weaker ones from Conmebol. It's not like get to play higher ranked teams such as Italy, Bulgaria, Holland etc where a good result give them a lot of points as opposed to beating say, Guatemala.

You have backed up my point here.

Frisbee

04072511 wrote: »

You have backed up my point here.

But how can we expect the weaker teams to get better if they can't pit themselves against the best teams in the game. All it would achieve is the gulf widening even further and the competition being made up of nearly all European teams.

leninbenjamin

Des wrote: »

Everyone knows that FIFA is all about the benjamins.

they didn't ask me about it :mad:

...

I've often wondered though what the situation would be like if you done away with the qualification zones and just had a UEFA style qualification with lots of smaller leagues seeded according to the world ranking.

So say you make 24 different qualification groups. Each with either 8 or 9 teams. the top team automatically qualifies, and the second placed teams enter into a play-off for the last 8 places along with 8 best 3rd placed teams.

Now i know travel would kill this idea stone dead, but i've often thought it'd be pretty cool. Get to play teams like Coloumbia, Ghana, Korea for example.

Pisco Sour

Frisbee wrote: »

But how can we expect the weaker teams to get better if they can't pit themselves against the best teams in the game. All it would achieve is the gulf widening even further and the competition being made up of nearly all European teams.

Which is why I suggested 18 teams. Thats not nealy all. Its a little over half. Suppose Africa has 3.5 places as I've suggested, Asia has 3 places etc etc and the teams representing these continents actually perform well and have representatives in the quarter finals, then that would be an indication that their allocation should be increased. If all or most of these teams are competitive and a good few are progressing through the tournament this would prove that these confederations are ready to make a step up and get a bigger allocation.

Increasing Africa's allocation from 5 to 6 off the back of a failure of a world cup from the confederation is ridiculous in my opinion.

Frisbee

Was their allocation not just upped because there is an African team hosting it?

Pisco Sour

Frisbee wrote: »

Was their allocation not just upped because there is an African team hosting it?

Europe's allocation wasnt upped in 2006 based on a team hosting it.

whatawaster

04072511 wrote: »

Which is why I still suggested each continent gets an allocation. Its just a fairer allocation in my view. Its too easy for teams like South Korea, USA etc to qualify.

Actually if you see my earlier posts, it's harder for teams from those confederations to qualify. They just happen to be good relative to their opposition

04072511 wrote: »

Increasing Africa's allocation from 5 to 6 off the back of a failure of a world cup from the confederation is ridiculous in my opinion.

Africa still only has 5 places.

Pisco Sour

whatawaster wrote: »

Actually if you see my earlier posts, it's harder for teams from those confederations to qualify. They just happen to be good relative to their opposition



Africa still only has 5 places.

It has 6. 5 qualifiers + South Africa

ArmaniJeanss

Purely on performance basis Europe is under-represented.

It has had less than half the 32 qualifiers for the last 3 competitions, but has had half or more of the last 16, last 8 and last 4 places.
So it is the only continent to continually exceed its representation.

Africa clearly has too many now in 6, relaistically it should have reduced by 1 to 4 rather than increased by 1.

The rest, South America, Asia, ConCacaf look just about right, though SouthAmerica performance figures look good purely because of Brazil and Argentina.

On balance though there isn't a huge lot wrong with the current fugures.

whatawaster

04072511 wrote: »

It has 6. 5 qualifiers + South Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification#Summary_of_remaining_qualification

It's 5+1

Pisco Sour

whatawaster wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification#Summary_of_remaining_qualification

It's 5+1

Europe wasnt given an extra spot in 2006 as a result of Germany hosting the world cup, so it should not be any different for Africa.

whatawaster

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Purely on performance basis Europe is under-represented.

It has had less than half the 32 qualifiers for the last 3 competitions, but has had half or more of the last 16, last 8 and last 4 places.
So it is the only continent to continually exceed its representation.

Africa clearly has too many now in 6, relaistically it should have reduced by 1 to 4 rather than increased by 1.

The rest, South America, Asia, ConCacaf look just about right, though SouthAmerica performance figures look good purely because of Brazil and Argentina.

On balance though there isn't a huge lot wrong with the current fugures.

Europe’s allocation allows one in four teams from the continent to qualify.
It offers plenty of European teams the chance to win the competition. Certainly it’s rare that an absent European nation would have been contenders.

But, also, the World Cup is Fifa’s number one chance to spread the game worldwide. The game has more scope to spread in Asia, Africa and the Carribean, so I’m perfectly happy with them getting more representation.

Similar to the cricket world cup really. Lot’s of journalists etc from Test nations saying the likes of Ireland, Holland, Kenya shouldn’t be competing. But the ICC have to develop the game, and the more these teams have played big nations, the more shocks there have been and the stronger the smaller, under-developed nations have become.

Frisbee

04072511 wrote: »

Europe wasnt given an extra spot in 2006 as a result of Germany hosting the world cup, so it should not be any different for Africa.

Because Europe already have a very big allocation and Africa don't?

Pisco Sour

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Purely on performance basis Europe is under-represented.

It has had less than half the 32 qualifiers for the last 3 competitions, but has had half or more of the last 16, last 8 and last 4 places.
So it is the only continent to continually exceed its representation.

Africa clearly has too many now in 6, relaistically it should have reduced by 1 to 4 rather than increased by 1.

The rest, South America, Asia, ConCacaf look just about right, though SouthAmerica performance figures look good purely because of Brazil and Argentina.

On balance though there isn't a huge lot wrong with the current fugures.

4.5 is definetely too much for Asia (well 5 between Asia and New Zealand).

How many Asian teams have achieved anything?

1994 - Saudi Arabia last 16
2002 - Japan (as hosts) Last 16
2002 - Korea (as hosts) Semi's
2006 - Australia last 16

I cant think of anybody else in recent times (obviously everybody knows about North Korea in 66). The one outstanding result was by the host nation. That luxury doesnt happen very often.

5 between Asia and New Zealand is too much. This confederation has performed even worse than Africa.

whatawaster

04072511 wrote: »

Europe wasnt given an extra spot in 2006 as a result of Germany hosting the world cup, so it should not be any different for Africa.

Africa had 5 places in the 2006 world cup. 5 places in the 2010 world cup.
The hosts are separate completely.

Europe has 13 places in 2010 world cup
13 places in 2006 world Cup (hosts are separate)
13 places in 2002 world Cup (plus a play-off with Asia)

Chardee MacDennis

noodler wrote: »

So no qualifying campaigns?

How would those places be decided then?

The qualifying campaigns are half the fun.

Not to mention that we'd have been out of a chance with qualifying fro a year now.

well these would have to be worked out! but there would need to be competitive fixtures of some sort to fairly do the rankings...

Pisco Sour

whatawaster wrote: »

Similar to the cricket world cup really. Lot’s of journalists etc from Test nations saying the likes of Ireland, Holland, Kenya shouldn’t be competing. But the ICC have to develop the game, and the more these teams have played big nations, the more shocks there have been and the stronger the smaller, under-developed nations have become.

But Ireland, Holland, Kenya in Cricket aren't taking spots away from better teams. In football teams like New Zealand, North Korea etc are getting places ahead of far superior teams in Europe.

ArmaniJeanss

whatawaster wrote: »

Europe’s allocation allows one in four teams from the continent to qualify.
It offers plenty of European teams the chance to win the competition. Certainly it’s rare that an absent European nation would have been contenders.

But, also, the World Cup is Fifa’s number one chance to spread the game worldwide. The game has more scope to spread in Asia, Africa and the Carribean, so I’m perfectly happy with them getting more representation.

Similar to the cricket world cup really. Lot’s of journalists etc from Test nations saying the likes of Ireland, Holland, Kenya shouldn’t be competing. But the ICC have to develop the game, and the more these teams have played big nations, the more shocks there have been and the stronger the smaller, under-developed nations have become.

Its worth pointing out that in cricket (your example) no team clearly better than Ireland on the rankings gets left out so that Ireland can participate.

I actually agree with your reasoning as to why its a good thing. I just thinks its needs to be made clear that Europe is definitely getting an allocation that is less than their performance in previous competitions would imply they deserve. But a couple of places wither way isn't a disaster.

Pisco Sour

whatawaster wrote: »

Africa had 5 places in the 2006 world cup. 5 places in the 2010 world cup.
The hosts are separate completely.

Europe has 13 places in 2010 world cup
13 places in 2006 world Cup (hosts are separate)
13 places in 2002 world Cup (plus a play-off with Asia)

There were 15 teams from Europe in the 2002 World Cup (including holders france)

There were 14 in 2006

Now theres 13

whatawaster

04072511 wrote: »

But Ireland, Holland, Kenya in Cricket aren't taking spots away from better teams. In football teams like New Zealand, North Korea etc are getting places ahead of far superior teams in Europe.

There are more than enough spaces for European teams to qualify, they can have no complaints. THEY HAVE A 1 IN 4 CHANCE OF QUALIFYING. No complaints.

ArmaniJeanss

whatawaster wrote: »

13 places in 2002 world Cup (plus a play-off with Asia)

It was 14 places in 2002, + a playoff. So we ended up with 15 when Ireland beat Iran.

Frisbee

04072511 wrote: »

But Ireland, Holland, Kenya in Cricket aren't taking spots away from better teams. In football teams like New Zealand, North Korea etc are getting places ahead of far superior teams in Europe.

Such as who? The international footballing giants that are Ireland, Finland and Estonia?

whatawaster

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It was 14 places in 2002, + a playoff. So we ended up with 15 when Ireland beat Iran.

13 places, plus a playoff. The hosts are completely separate.

ArmaniJeanss

whatawaster wrote: »

13 places, plus a playoff. The hosts are completely separate.

The hosts were also seperated from Europe by 7000 miles being in Asia.

Also maybe stop with the 1 in 4, this is a debate about merit.

Pisco Sour

Frisbee wrote: »

Such as who? The international footballing giants that are Ireland, Finland and Estonia?

I could list a dozen teams better than New Zealand and North Korea.

Bosnia
Slovenia
Ireland
Czech Republic
Sweden
Croatia
Norway
Bulgaria
Greece
Poland
Turkey

You dont honestly think the All Whites and North Korea are better than all these teams do you?

whatawaster

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The hosts were also seperated from Europe by 7000 miles being in Asia.

Also maybe stop with the 1 in 4, this is a debate about merit.

sorry, i meant one being the holders.

Frisbee

04072511 wrote: »

You dont honestly think the All Whites and North Korea are better than all these teams do you?

Nope, but if they can manage to qualify from their groups where none of the teams above can manage can do that then they are more deserving.

And before you say that they play weaker teams I will admit that. But the only way to create stronger teams in these confederations is have them exposed to the best teams in the world.

whatawaster

04072511 wrote: »

I could list a dozen teams better than New Zealand and North Korea.

Bosnia
Slovenia
Ireland
Czech Republic
Sweden
Croatia
Norway
Bulgaria
Greece
Poland
Turkey

You dont honestly think the All Whites and North Korea are better than all these teams do you?

No, but stop and think for a second what it means for a fan of NZ or Korea to play at a world cup. How many new players will take up the game?

It means nothing for Ireland, really, other than the fact we’ll all be p*ssed for the summer. The game can hardly grow much here.
None of the above European teams are going to win the thing. Almost all of them are average sides.

So what if NZ are a poor team. They’ll never improve unless their given these sort of chances.

Pisco Sour

whatawaster wrote: »

No, but stop and think for a second what it means for a fan of NZ or Korea to play at a world cup. How many new players will take up the game?

It means nothing for Ireland, really, other than the fact we’ll all be p*ssed for the summer. The game can hardly grow much here.
None of the above European teams are going to win the thing. Almost all of them are average sides.

So what if NZ are a poor team. They’ll never improve unless their given these sort of chances.

Nobody gives a rats a s s about football in New Zealand. They made the world cup in 1982 and it made little difference to the popularity of the sport then. I dont see it being any different this time. Now they have a far inferior team than back then. Getting stuffed 4-0 will do them no good in my opinion.

whatawaster

04072511 wrote: »

Nobody gives a rats a s s about football in New Zealand. They made the world cup in 1982 and it made no difference to the popularity of the sport then. I dont see it being any different this time. Now they have a far inferior team than back then. Getting stuffed 4-0 will do them no good in my opinion.

Well speak for yourself.
Personally, i've far more interest in seeing teams i've never seen before than the same old European countries.
By and large, teams from Asia and Africa play good football, and Africa in particular is improving all the time, which can be seen by the number of top African players in the big leagues and their performances at youth level

Pisco Sour

whatawaster wrote: »

Well speak for yourself.
Personally, i've far more interest in seeing teams i've never seen before than the same old European countries.
By and large, teams from Asia and Africa play good football, and Africa in particular is improving all the time, which can be seen by the number of top African players in the big leagues and their performances at youth level

I'm referring to people in New Zealand not caring about the sport of Football. Making the world cup will not change that. Its very much a minority sport there. And qualifying in 1982 didnt change that.

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

Nobody gives a rats a s s about football in New Zealand.

That's not true. Wellington Phoenix do alright considering they have only been in existence since 2007. A World Cup appearance for New Zealand now would be absolutely perfect to build on that.

And anyway, no one gave a rats arse about it in Australia until 2006 and now it's booming, especially at grass roots level.

_blank_

04072511 wrote: »

I'm referring to people in New Zealand not caring about the sport of Football. Making the world cup will not change that. Its very much a minority sport there. And qualifying in 1982 didnt change that.

True, they couldn't even sustain a franchise for the A-League, the original one folded, and the new one isn't doing much better.

Football simply doesn't exist in New Zealand.

whatawaster

04072511 wrote: »

I'm referring to people in New Zealand not caring about the sport of Football. Making the world cup will not change that. Its very much a minority sport there. And qualifying in 1982 didnt change that.

Whatever about NZ, football is massive in Asia and Africa and they deserve this chance to prosper, improve and compete with better nations.

Frisbee

Xavi6 wrote: »

And anyway, no one gave a rats arse about it in Australia until 2006 and now it's booming, especially at grass roots level.

This.

My uncle moved to Australia and his son is paid to play underage football. Granted it's something measly like 5 dollars a week but imagine being a kid and being paid to play football. You'd jump at the chance. If NZ making this WC can do what Oz did and make it more appealing to kids it's only going to keep getting better in standard.

Warper

04072511 wrote: »

No I want to get rid of below average non european teams. I believe by having 18 european places that you would not see any below average european teams make it. The European Championships has 16 spots and produces high quality, so I dont see having 18 slots being much different.

The likes of New Zealand will get stuffed next summer if they make it. Thats not good for the competition.

A World Championship type event should be the best teams there on merrit. Its why for the Olympics in Track and Field you need to make a qualifying standard (regardless of nationality) before you can be allowed to compete.

Are you having a laugh - Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine, Norway, Denmark, Sweden - all very mediocre sides who regularly compete in the Euros. When have any of the above done any good in the WC? Teams like Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Australia, Japan, Korea, Egypt, Mexico are all better sides than the above.

ArmaniJeanss

whatawaster wrote: »

sorry, i meant one being the holders.

So the holders no longer qualifying means that there is an extra spot available which goes it seems to anyone accept Europe.

Africa gets an extra place which you reckon is for hosting.
But do you honestly think that Africa won't cause enough of a fuss to retain their 6th places for the competition in 2014?

There is absolutely no merit to the way this is happening. Either the world rankings or performance in the finals of the last 3 competitions would merit Europe maybe another 1.5 or 2 places.

I'd actually be happy if Europe was reduced to 8 guaranteed places with say another 10 potential places from playoffs against 3rd, 4th , 5th best teams in the other federations.

Has a European team ever lost a playoff?
I know who my money would be on for Croatia v North Korea or Sweden v Ecuador.

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

That's not true. Wellington Phoenix do alright considering they have only been in existence since 2007. A World Cup appearance for New Zealand now would be absolutely perfect to build on that.

And anyway, no one gave a rats arse about it in Australia until 2006 and now it's booming, especially at grass roots level.

I think you are over-exaggerating this. Football is still not very big in Australia. In relation to Cricket, AFL, and Rugby (League and to a lesser extent Union) its way behind.

Xavi6

Des wrote: »

True, they couldn't even sustain a franchise for the A-League, the original one folded, and the new one isn't doing much better.

It was poorly managed. Lessons were learnt, same as in Australia.

Football simply doesn't exist in New Zealand.

My turn to be a pedant, and that's more than a bit of an exaggeration.

The Phoenix get an average about 8,000 at a home game. A second team is definitely sustainable imo.

_blank_

Frisbee wrote: »

This.

My uncle moved to Australia and his son is paid to play underage football. Granted it's something measly like 5 dollars a week but imagine being a kid and being paid to play football. You'd jump at the chance. If NZ making this WC can do what Oz did and make it more appealing to kids it's only going to keep getting better in standard.

The population difference between the two is massive for a start.

NZ has about the same population as Ireland, and has two other large sports.

Rugby, as we all know, is ate, shat and slept by the NZ Public. Cricket comes next and then Soccer.

If they tried to have a national league on any scale it would be an out and out failure, much like the LoI.

Frisbee

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I know who my money would be on for Croatia v North Korea or Sweden v Ecuador.

Sweden aren't hugely better than Ecuador. I'd say it would be a very tight game.

inforfun

whatawaster wrote: »

Stupid Rant.
Look at how far African football, for instance, has come in the last 10/15 years. Last night Ghana reached the final of the world youth cup.

Ghana always makes the last 4 of youth worldchampionships.
Ghana has very "special" youth teams.

When Tony Yeboah played for frankfurt he went to his home in Ghana during the summer break. He came back with malaria
And 6 years younger.

Based on what African youth teams do on the world stage the continent does deserve the 6 places. But something smells there.

Pisco Sour

Frisbee wrote: »

This.

My uncle moved to Australia and his son is paid to play underage football. Granted it's something measly like 5 dollars a week but imagine being a kid and being paid to play football. You'd jump at the chance. If NZ making this WC can do what Oz did and make it more appealing to kids it's only going to keep getting better in standard.

New Zealand have been in a world cup before, with a better team, coming through a more difficult qualification campaign, and it didnt make any difference.