Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
World Cup 2014 Qualification
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I suspect that the FIFA rankings under rate the Asian teams particularly Japan and ROK. Qualifying against teams way below you in the FIFA rankings, isn't going to improve your ranking. Japan did well in it's recent friendlies against the Nederlands and Belgium. 44th in the world seems harsh, perhaps more of a high 20s team?
That said I expect Australia and Iran to be bottom of the group candidates.
0 -
ArmaniJeanss wrote: »Nope, 1990 was regionally split as well. Can actually remember the papers explaining it that morning (though had to check wiki now for the actual details).
Pot 1 the 6 seeds.
Pot 2 the Top 6 ranked Europeans.
Pot 3. Remaining 4 Europeans + 2 Conmebol (who couldn't be drawn with seeded Brazil or Arg).
Pot 4. Africa + Asia + NorthAmerica.
Hmm, I see what you're saying but I'm still not sure about that one tbh. I even see the seedings/groupings section on wiki that I think you're referring to and yes they are exactly as I remember them also.
However. I do remember that there was a very clear distinction made at the time between 'pot 2' , 'pot 3' and 'pot 4'. For instance 'pot 4' was very much 'pot *rank = 4*' and not 'the CAF/AFC/CONCACAF pot'. Likewise 'pot 2' was 'pot *rank = 2*' and not 'the UEFA pot'ete etc. Maybe that was just a media thing I picked up on though, rather than any official wording from FIFA?
I'd love to seem some definitive writings on how exactly those teams were ranked/grouped and whether regionally based or whether the teams were sliced up into 4 groups largely along some sort of perceived quality line. Maybe it was just a very arbitrary thing though? For instance I read that England weren't actually a seed but were swapped with Spain so that FIFA could contain England and their fans in Sardinia.
The only official article I could find was one that gave a single sentence that said that teams were ranked according to their performances at WC82 and WC86. However that then that makes me wonder why Netherlands (clearly one of the top teams on paper) just 'happened' to be the team in Pot#2 when they (just every other Euro team in pot 3) failed to qualify for WC82 and WC86?
However, all that said, since I've nothing to dispute your point so I'll accept what you're saying is correct.
0 -
-
In true Fifa style, they seem to change the system every time. Depending on the circumstances I suppose but it does seem to have changed every time since 1994 used the same format as 1990 -
In 2010, there were 8 non-seeded European teams, so it was easy to divide the teams into the four equal pots -
In 2006 when there was 9 non seeded European, as we have now for 2014, they placed Serbia and Montenegro (European team with lowest world ranking) in a 'special pot'.
For 2002, all 11 non-seeded European teams were together in one pot -
In 1998, when 6 out of the 8 seeded teams were European anyway, all the 9 non seeded European teams were in the same pot.
In 1994, pretty much kept to the same format as 1990. It was 4 pots of 6, with non seeded European teams split into two groups with the two Asian countries (whereas in 1990 it was two South Americans). Ireland, Italy, and Norway ended up in the same group, it was before the rule of a maximum of two Europeans teams in a group.
And 1990 the non seeded European teams were split into two groups with the two non seeded South American teams, to create 4 pots of 6 teams. Before the days of two European teams in a group, obviously had Ireland with England and Netherlands here.
0 -
Hmm, I see what you're saying but I'm still not sure about that one tbh. I even see the seedings/groupings section on wiki that I think you're referring to and yes they are exactly as I remember them also.
However. I do remember that there was a very clear distinction made at the time between 'pot 2' , 'pot 3' and 'pot 4'. For instance 'pot 4' was very much 'pot *rank = 4*' and not 'the CAF/AFC/CONCACAF pot'. Likewise 'pot 2' was 'pot *rank = 2*' and not 'the UEFA pot'ete etc. Maybe that was just a media thing I picked up on though, rather than any official wording from FIFA?
I'd love to seem some definitive writings on how exactly those teams were ranked/grouped and whether regionally based or whether the teams were sliced up into 4 groups largely along some sort of perceived quality line. Maybe it was just a very arbitrary thing though? For instance I read that England weren't actually a seed but were swapped with Spain so that FIFA could contain England and their fans in Sardinia.
The only official article I could find was one that gave a single sentence that said that teams were ranked according to their performances at WC82 and WC86. However that then that makes me wonder why Netherlands (clearly one of the top teams on paper) just 'happened' to be the team in Pot#2 when they (just every other Euro team in pot 3) failed to qualify for WC82 and WC86?
However, all that said, since I've nothing to dispute your point so I'll accept what you're saying is correct.
My understanding is that the 6 seeds were arbitrarily decided on this basis, with as you said caused quite a bit of fuss over England getting the 6th spot as it was believed it was for the purposes of kettling their fans!
But after that I'm fairly sure three pots were geographical segregation. When you think about it there was no way they could have said 'hey all you non-Euros and non-SouthAmericans, you are 4th seeds coz you is all sh1t'. (even if there would have been some truth in it!). If they were doing 4 pots of 6 on perceived quality I think they'd have made some token effort for political correctness reasons to move the African champs up to the third pot.
I definitely agree that bits of the Irish media regarded us as being '3rd seeds', but the media is generally spectacularly terrible about understanding these draws. (It takes us internet nerds to see the underlying processes
). 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement