Should the format of the World Cup draw be changed?

RATM

Having seen Ireland beat two World Cup qualifing teams in the last 7 days it got me wondering about the actual format of the World Cup. There are 32 teams qualified but they are not necessarily the best 32 in the world. What we have is a system whereby many nations have a better chance than others purely by the geographical status of their country- hardly fair IMO.

Would it not be better to have a type of global open draw for the WC? Like if there is 200 odd teams then hold an open draw and play a two legged home and away contest. This then brings it down to 100 teams, repeat until 50 then repeat until 25 and then hold the tournmanent from those 25. Surely then we could say that on performance alone those are the best 25 teams deserving to go to the WC.

It would throw up some interesting draws, we could find ourselves playing anywhere from North Korea to Argentina. I know it would be a pain for away fans, not to mention expensive but there would only be 6 qualifying games in total so 3 away and 3 home.

Would this be a fairer and better way to hold the WC?

Neil3030

No. You're proposing a knock-out competition, which would in no way guarantee the best teams reach the final.

The current system isn't perfect, but it's down to logistics. While global randomisation of groups would theoretically let the best teams in, it would be completely infeasible if you had a group with Ireland, Canada, Australia and Benin, for example.

So the trade-off is we get teams like New Zealand qualify, and teams like Ireland miss out. Sh*t happens.

Reganio 2

It would be murder on the players though and that's the last thing you want. Premier League players are already struggling as it is imagine they got drawn in a match against China Away on a Wednesday and had a match os Sunday in the League. Even Saturday to Saturday it would be absoloute murder on the players.

Also it helps crappier teams qualify which should be making the crappier teams better.

DazMarz

Just because Ireland beat two teams already in the World Cup does not mean that we are better than they are.

We beat them in two 'nothing' games, weeks before the actual World Cup starts. None of those players who were going to the World Cup were going to give it sox and risk getting injured. I'm sure had they been group games in the World Cup, Ireland would have had a tougher time of it.

As unfair as it may be and so on, Ireland's ranking in the world rankings does fairly reflect the current state of Ireland's national team. Ireland have not qualified for a major tournament since 2002; they have missed two European Championships and two World Cups in that time. Not stellar at all. In no way do Ireland even deserve to be ranked any higher.

yes, I know... Hand of Henry and all that...

But had Ireland gotten their act together and held onto leads better in the group (they had Italy and Bulgaria behind and let the lead slip...) for the World Cup, they might be there. They didn't, and they aren't. Thems be the brakes...

Also, money talks for FIFA. No way would they want an open draw of the 200 or so teams... So Brazil and Spain could be drawn together and two of the best teams in the world won't even make it into the Top 100??? Two countries where the revenues for FIFA are astronomical... no way.

And taking that model of an open draw... Imagine, say, San Marino playing Andorra in the first round... While Spain get knocked out by Brazil and aren't in the Top 100, a team like San Marino or Andorra are??? That isn't fair, no matter how you slant it!!!

The current format is designed to try and ensure that the best teams do get in, the mediocre ones are weeded out. FIFA also has to grant what is seen to be equitable spaces for teams from all the different confederations. If it was actually up to FIFA, they'd only let teams from Europe and South America in, but then it wouldn't be the 'World' Cup, would it?

OPENROAD

Firstly I wouldn't read too much into friendly results, they really mean nothing imo.

As for the open draw, no way, as mentioned the last thing you want is to have your players having to go have way around the world and then not being able to play at the weekend, no way!!!

Peyton Manning

applehunter wrote: »

RATM... you related to that poster CorkMan.

Clogging up the forum with useless threads like this ****e.

Have a bit of cop on, would you?

Gavin "shels"

Friendlies my friend, they were meaningless friendlies!

Should be European competitions because Shamrock Rovers narrowly lose to Real Madrid this year, obviously no!

Build a bridge, and pop on over it!

Le King

The current system is by no means perfect.

These are the FIFA World rankings of the teams in the WC 2010:

1. 1 Brazil (1,611 points)
2. 2 Spain (1,565)
3. 3 Portugal (1,249)
4. 4 Holland (1,231)
5. 5 Italy (1,184)
6. 6 Germany (1,082)
7. 7 Argentina (1,076);
8. 8 England (1,068)
9. 9 France (1,044)
10. 13 Greece (964)
11. 14 USA (957)
12. 15 Serbia (947)
13. 16 Uruguay (899)
14. 17 Mexico (895)
15. 18 Chile (888)
16. 19 Cameroon (887)
17. 20 Australia (886)
18. 21 Nigeria (883)
19. 24 Switzerland (866)
20. 25 Slovenia (860)
21. 27 Ivory Coast (856)
22. 30 Algeria (821)
23. 31 Paraguay (820)
24. 32 Ghana (800)
25. 34 Slovakia (777)
26. 36 Denmark (767)
27. 38 Honduras (734)
28. 45 Japan (682)
29. 47 South Korea (632)
30. 78 New Zealand (410)
31. 83 South Africa (392)
32. 105 North Korea (285)

Ireland would be 28th on that list (41st)

However the rankings are poor IMO. Are Portugal the 3rd best team in the world? I'd say no.

As it's the World Cup, a team from every continent would have to be included. However, if you want a "Best Nations Cup" it would probably just be a Europe Vs South America tournament.

Currently with travel and all that it's not very realistic for a European team to travel to China or Chile for a qualifier match. It makes the most sense with the current format. However, we'll never get "the best" teams under the current format.


Perhaps there could be one or two adjustments to the qualifying process, but right now it's the best system available.

RATM

applehunter wrote: »

RATM... you related to that poster CorkMan.

Clogging up the forum with useless threads like this ****e.

Nice contribution there apple. If you think the thread is ****e then why bother post in it? Especially as you've nothing to contribute.

RATM

Reganio 2 wrote: »

It would be murder on the players though and that's the last thing you want. Premier League players are already struggling as it is imagine they got drawn in a match against China Away on a Wednesday and had a match os Sunday in the League. Even Saturday to Saturday it would be absoloute murder on the players.

Also it helps crappier teams qualify which should be making the crappier teams better.

Yes true the distances would be greater but under an open draw system the games would be fewer. Currently the qualifiers are taking up 12 games or so, more for those who get to playoffs. Under an open draw system there would only be 6 games to qualify and 3 of them would be away. This is compared to 6 away games at present.

So although the players would have to fly further they would also do it half as much. And they'd have the best part of 18 months to play those 3 away games- so only one every 6 months.

Also I've no doubt that Premier League teams would prefer see less international games- only playing 6 games over 18 months would also give the Champions League more scope to increase the size of the tournament which is an attractive option.

As regards the problem of having Spain play Brazil in the first round- well so be it. We'd all get to watch it, the game would just be a qualifier- its still no less competitive than a WC game at the end of the day. The point is that it doesn't matter who draws who because the teams who qualify have done so on the basis of their performances- not because they had a geographical advantage. But even then it would not be hard to seed the best 25 teams in the world and conduct the draw so that they cannot meet until the actual WC. Then if they get knocked out by a lesser team along the way so be it- football is a meritocracy after all.

By having an open draw you'd also get a little bit of that FA Cup magic whereby everyone looks forward to the actual draw itself. We all wait on the 'mouth-watering' ties of the draw and it's probably one of the main reasons why that competition is so successfull- for once David has a chance to fell Goliath- something I think we can all relate to.

There was a time in hurling when Galway automatically got a bye into the All-Ireland semi finals every year simply because no other county in Connacht played hurling. Now Galway had a massive advantage over other teams simply because of their geographical location in Ireland. It was a ridiculous situation and eventually the GAA recognised it as such and changed the system to make it more equitable on all teams, which it has done.
But the same situation exists in WC qualifying- some teams have an immediate advantage over others simply based on their geographical location.

Degag

You seem to be contradicting yourself though. You stated in your opening post that you weren't happy that the 32 teams in the World Cup weren't representative of the best 32 teams in the world. Then when the question was posed to you about the possibility of Brazil playing Spain in one of the qualifiers, and hence, one of them missing out on the World Cup, "well so be it"

Your system would change nothing, perhaps only make it worse because you could still have a team like North Korea getting to the World Cup because they had an easy route while Spain may miss out!

Lukker-

We should relocate Ireland just of the coast of the UAE.

parker kent

Knockout systems rarely end up with the two best teams in a final. Plus the format in the OP would be logistically impossible. At least the current system means that the best teams (give or take or take a few shocks) make the tournament. Then as well as the best, other teams get in and get to compete with the best.

The current system is the best solution for a very difficult organisational conundrum. Tim Vickery was asked a question on the BBC website this week that is sort of related to this topic. I agree with his main idea, it is a World Cup, so you need world representation. The OP seems to want teams like New Zealand, North Korea etc from competing but that prevents the expansion of the game. African teams were awful when they first competed but are now slowly moving towards winning one. Same thing might happen for New Zealand etc.

Q. In its current format the World Cup is predominantly made up of teams mainly from Europe and the Americas. Do you think it's time Fifa changes the rules so that more countries from Africa and Asia participate in the finals. After all it is the 'World' Cup?
Amit, UK

A. I would have thought that since the expansion to 32, both Africa and Asia are adequately represented and that there is no longer a problem in this area, although I would welcome comments from people who disagree. Certainly, I agree with the statement that it should be a 'World Cup' - ie with all the continents represented.

There is a case for arguing that in the Stanley Rous years FIFA was not sufficiently active in developing the less traditional continents - if they don't come to the party, lose and learn from their mistakes then how are they going to grow?

tdv123

RATM wrote: »

Having seen Ireland beat two World Cup qualifing teams in the last 7 days it got me wondering about the actual format of the World Cup. There are 32 teams qualified but they are not necessarily the best 32 in the world. What we have is a system whereby many nations have a better chance than others purely by the geographical status of their country- hardly fair IMO.

Would it not be better to have a type of global open draw for the WC? Like if there is 200 odd teams then hold an open draw and play a two legged home and away contest. This then brings it down to 100 teams, repeat until 50 then repeat until 25 and then hold the tournmanent from those 25. Surely then we could say that on performance alone those are the best 25 teams deserving to go to the WC.

It would throw up some interesting draws, we could find ourselves playing anywhere from North Korea to Argentina. I know it would be a pain for away fans, not to mention expensive but there would only be 6 qualifying games in total so 3 away and 3 home.

Would this be a fairer and better way to hold the WC?

We beat Germany & Holland in friendlies right before the 94 world cup. But when the tournament reached the knock-out stages it was clear we were miles behind Holland.

So I wouldnt put any faith at all in friendly matches.

_blank_

Ireland have a pretty crap record in the "knock out" part of qualifying.

Fr Tod Umptious

parker kent wrote: »

Knockout systems rarely end up with the two best teams in a final. Plus the format in the OP would be logistically impossible. At least the current system means that the best teams (give or take or take a few shocks) make the tournament. Then as well as the best, other teams get in and get to compete with the best.

The current system is the best solution for a very difficult organisational conundrum. Tim Vickery was asked a question on the BBC website this week that is sort of related to this topic. I agree with his main idea, it is a World Cup, so you need world representation. The OP seems to want teams like New Zealand, North Korea etc from competing but that prevents the expansion of the game. African teams were awful when they first competed but are now slowly moving towards winning one. Same thing might happen for New Zealand etc.

The OP is not nesessarly doing it in this thread but I find it very interesting that Irish people are up in arms about a 'conspiracy' to allow a bigger team (France) into the World Cup, yet they have no problem advocating that a smaller federation (Oceania) should be denied a place in favour of a bigger one (UEFA)

parker kent

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The OP is not nesessarly doing it in this thread but I find it very interesting that Irish people are up in arms about a 'conspiracy' to allow a bigger team (France) into the World Cup, yet they have no problem advocating that a smaller federation (Oceania) should be denied a place in favour of a bigger one (UEFA)

Exactly. Plenty of hypocrisy seen in such an attitude. We should be happy that there exists a format that works pretty well. Europe has the most places so they are reflecting where the strongest countries are. In the past it was basically the European Championships plus Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.

Pepe LeFrits

I agree with the OP that it isn't really a fair system but the geographical divisions are absolutely necessary for logistical purposes.

Do FIFA have a coefficient type deal for the continental associations like the way UEFA have for the CL allocations? If not, then they should. It seems to me that Europe's allocation for the WC is too small but then maybe the performances of European teams at it don't support having a great number.

5starpool

We shoull just take Israels place in the Asian qualifiers.

event

Des wrote: »

Ireland have a pretty crap record in the "knock out" part of qualifying.

and a pretty crap record in any part of qualifying really

smallerthanyou

It's set up as well as it can be really. Ireland are better than some of the teams going to the World Cup but there has to be a reasonable geographic spread so it can be called a "world" cup. The system can result in weaker team making the competition but by being there they get stronger so can only be good for the game.

Probably the main reason for the current way is so Fifa can make millions from a worldwide exposure especially the Asian markets but they say it's to promote soccer worldwide. If the best 32 countries as taken by FIFA rankings were going only Australia would represent Asia/Oceanica. This way Japan, South & North Korea and New Zealand are all going and I imagine that these are some key areas that soccer can be marketed to and money made from.

noodler

What they can do is change the absurdly corrupt seeded play-off system which throws an additional handicap on lower ranked team and an additional safety net for the better ones despite the higher ranked team having already benefitted from a positive group.

DazMarz

The problem is that, rightly or wrongly, the bigger nations will always get a more positive group/draw in order to ensure maximum economic value for FIFA.

Soccer is rapidly becoming a global sport and FIFA wants to exploit this to the max by having a suitable mix of the old-guard/'best' teams in there (Brazil, Germany, Italy, Spain, Argentina, France etc.) and a mix of the newer teams where soccer is still emerging (African and Asian teams) so that the competition still has a draw (by having the bigger teams there) and an appeal to nations where soccer would not be the biggest sport (see the newer teams in there).

They are not going to spoil this by upsetting a system that keeps the FIFA coffers bloated and keeps things just as they are.

Zaph

RATM wrote: »

By having an open draw you'd also get a little bit of that FA Cup magic whereby everyone looks forward to the actual draw itself. We all wait on the 'mouth-watering' ties of the draw and it's probably one of the main reasons why that competition is so successfull- for once David has a chance to fell Goliath- something I think we can all relate to.

If each round was a one-off tie, and particularly if the smaller team was drawn at home, then maybe there would be some giantkilling to look forward to. But over home and away legs the stronger team will inevitably win.

Columbia

I can't recall anybody questioning about the format before the qualifiers took place, no point complaining about it now that we haven't made it.

ArmaniJeanss

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

It seems to me that Europe's allocation for the WC is too small but then maybe the performances of European teams at it don't support having a great number.

Not at all, on performance level UEFA should have more than half the places, as they generally have 8+ of the last 16, 4+ of the last 8, 2+ semifinalists and at least 1 if not both of the finalists. But yet their allocation is 13 of 32.
Africa by contrast generally get 1 last 16 team each WC, and 1 quarter finalist every 2.5 competitions, but their allocation continues to sneak up all the time. Now SIX.
Its caused by a combination of reasons - positive discrimation towards the smaller associations (not wholely a bad thing) and political stuff (you can get voted to the top level of FIFA if you make promises to a large voting block like the African confederation).

UEFA just can't win this battle - if they get say 6 of the 8 1/4 finalists again then the other assocations will say theres no need to increase the allocation as the top UEFA teams come through anyway. If by some statistical anomaly UEFA have a nightmare and Africa gets 2/3 quarter finalists then their will be an overwhelming call to increase their allocation further and Europe is the one who always gets hit.

The chickens may come home to roost a little bit for FIFA attendance wise - 4 or 5 of the European countries who qualified are the 'wrong ones' and have basically no travelling fans and the other African qualifiers don't seem to be bringing any fans either.