Pre-Qualifiers for Internationals?

eirebhoy

I know Pigman is a big advocate of this. Its been discussed on another forum so I might aswell open a topic with my thoughts here.

Every international qualifying group has one or two teams just there to make up the numbers. A lot of them just defend for the 90 minutes hoping to avoid a bashing. Should there be pre-qualifiers to eliminate the numbers of these teams?

Lets say this was done for WC2006 Qualifiers. The number of teams and matches could be changed to suit best, this is just an example. The top 39 countries (40 minus hosts Germany) in the seedings should get automatic entry into the main qualifiers. The other 12 countries:

Armenia
Cyprus
Moldova
Northern Ireland
Azerbaijan
Liechtenstein
Andorra
Faroe Islands
Malta
Kazakhstan
Luxembourg
San Marino

..make up the pre-qualifiers. What could happen is just a normal 2 leg knockout like the Inter-toto cup. For example:

1. Armenia v San Marino
2. Cyprus v Luxembourg
3. Moldova v Kazakhstan
4. Northern Ireland v Malta
5. Azerbaijan v Faroe Islands
6. Liechtenstein v Andorra

1 v 4
2 v 6
3 v 5

That leaves 3 winners. Those 3 teams then join the other 39 to make 42 and groups are then made.

The matches could be played between January-September as those months are used for friendly internationals and the World cup or Euro Championships.

Draupnir

No

yes should have been done years ago. in my opinion, part time nations should be automatically put in the pre qualifiers. i like your formula though.

wheres me jumpa

i think its a good idea.

if you look at the gaa championship where poorer teams get to play more games by playing eachother with the prospect of actually winning. it does improve teams but only to a certain point. to fully improve a team needs to test themselves against the best.

also an important point to remember is for a team like faroe islands, hosting france and ireland is major selling point for the game in that country. if a team was in the "second tier" for too long the game could cave in that particular country.

KdjaCL

No i dont think its a good idea, no matter how big the country population size etc once they recognised as country by FIFA/UEFA they should have the same rights to play as any other.

We have 5 million people living here are not a very good international side, Brazil have 100+ are the best, Faroes have 17k they should all be allowed compete on the same level.

What next if the little teams have to qualify should the big teams just get auto spots in the finals.

Another BIG plus for these teams is they get to play the big teams ie Faroes played France. But France could play next the African superstar vs these games without blooding him in a friendly.




kdjac

eirebhoy

No

Aye, I see where you're coming from Kdjac. There's a fella on Foot.ie from the Faroes and he's undecided. On one hand he loves seeing the likes of Henry on his small Island but on the other, they'd like to win a game some time.

The_B_Man

Dunno

Would they have enough time for it? between the end of the WC/EC and the start of the qualifiers for the EC/WC?

wheres me jumpa

theres always time for fifa!

eirebhoy

No

The_B_Man wrote:

Would they have enough time for it? between the end of the WC/EC and the start of the qualifiers for the EC/WC?

Aye, 4 matches in 9 months should be easy enough.

The_B_Man

Dunno

so ur sayin, after the december playoffs for the WC/EC, the worst teams & lowest place from previous qualifers are selected to start pre-qualifiers the month later, then play the legs through the summer and if successful play from the new qualifiers in september or october? that would mean almost a constant flow of matches for the lower teams while the better teams have longer breaks.
its obvious the quality of lower teams in improving anyway, so i say leave it the way it is. theres only been a few thrashings this campaign. and besides, you need to test your upcoming players in competitive games, and these games against "lower" opposition are perfect! no way would KErr have started Elliott against the french or swiss.

eirebhoy

No

The_B_Man wrote:

so ur sayin, after the december playoffs for the WC/EC, the worst teams & lowest place from previous qualifers are selected to start pre-qualifiers the month later, then play the legs through the summer and if successful play from the new qualifiers in september or october? that would mean almost a constant flow of matches for the lower teams while the better teams have longer breaks.

Well when we made it to the WC we played 10 more matches then we would have had to play if we came 3rd in the qualifying group. 2 playoff matches, 4 friendlies after that and then 4 WC matches. All between November and June so fitting in 4 matches isn't the problem.

Players are retiring from international football because of the amount of matches played. This means smaller groups and less games if the poorer teams had to do a pre-qualifying. AFAIK they have pre-qualifiers in Asia.

Big Ears

Dunno

I said no due to poorer teams ending up playing less competitive games and therefore having a lesser chance to improve but when I think about it I would support it if there was a competition set up between the teams that don't make it to take place during the tournament .

Sure winning a micky mouse comp mightn't mean much to us but im sure it would to the likes of teams competing in the tournament . It would also give the teams some competitive games which are essential for improvement .

Brian017

I like your idea Big Ears

Guy:Incognito

Dunno

I love how some of you that are for this are dead against the Liverpool issue. I'm assuming its because in this case it suites Ireland, because internationally we are not one of the "smaller " nations.


Under the current system, they are pretty much ignored anyway, as there isnt more merit in beating the Faroes 8-0 or struggling to beat them 1-0. Theres no reason for the bigger teams to exert(sp?) themselves against the smaller teams because the extra goals dont count. Maybe thats the problem?Plus, how are the smaller nations supposed to progress if they only play each other. Its not so long ago that we were in that catagory and might never have got out if we were only playing other rubbish countries,

Pigman II

As a compromise I think one way around this would be to scrap the play-offs and have more groups where only the group winners qualify.

ie for WC2006 12 uefa teams qualify so for Europe there would be 12 groups (9 with 4 teams and 3 with 5 teams) with everyone included

How would people here feel about that?

As much as I don't like having to play these v.weak countries I nearly take as much umbridge at the AMOUNT of games it causes us to have to play as a result. Imho a country should have to play a max of 8 games over a campaign in order to qualify and the current double-header system of jamming 2 fixtures in over 4 days should be abolished.

The current Ireland fixture list testifies to this need to reduce fixtures because even tho we play 10 games in our groups we effectively only have 6 dates (windows) to play them and as a result the 4 games against weaker teams seemed to have been sandwiched in more or less as afterthought.

KdjaCL

Dont play freindlies, teams who dont qualify for finals have little confederations cup things at the same time.


kdjac

eirebhoy

No

It actually gets worse for the Euro 2008 qualifiers. The groups will consist of 7 teams (1 group will have 8). No playoffs though as the top 2 qualify.

Stekelly wrote:

Under the current system, they are pretty much ignored anyway, as there isnt more merit in beating the Faroes 8-0 or struggling to beat them 1-0. Theres no reason for the bigger teams to exert(sp?) themselves against the smaller teams because the extra goals dont count.

It does matter if it goes down to goal difference. If we draw with Switzerland in Lansdowne and finish level on points with them, their 6 goals against Faroes will be a huge help.

I don't really feel strongly about this, just a suggestion as the games usually are one sided.

There was a player from the Faroes on SSN and he said he could understand why people think they shouldn't be in the qualifiers at all. He said that they really want to beat Cyprus in August as it means getting a team from a lower pot in the next qualifiers and a better chance of winning matches. Its all well and good getting beaten by everyone once you get to meet the star players but I'm sure plenty of them would exchange it for a better chance to win games.

eirebhoy

No

The following teams had to enter Stage 1 of the Asia qualifiers:

Bangladesh
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Afghanistan
Chinese Taipei
Macao
Pakistan
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Sri Lanka
Mongolia
Maldives
Guam
Nepal

Its a cup system on a home and away basis and half of them go through to stage 2.

In the North American Zone its the same system as above with the following teams:

Bermuda
Montserrat
Aruba
Surinam
Grenada
Guyana
Cayman Islands
Cuba
British Virgin Islands
St. Lucia
Turks and Caicos Islands
Haiti
US Virgin Islands
St. Kitts and Nevis
Antigua and Barbuda
Netherlands Antilles
Bahamas
Dominica
Anguilla
Dominican Republic

In the Oceanic zone Australia and New Zealand are automatically put through into stage 2.

KdjaCL

Gd doesnt count against botto teams only those you level with and above ie top 4.

kdjac

eirebhoy

No

KdjaC wrote:

Gd doesnt count against botto teams only those you level with and above ie top 4.

In the league system the ranking in each group is determined as follows:
(a) greater number of points obtained in all the group matches;
If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above criterion, their ranking shall be determined as follows:
(b) greater number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
(c) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
(d) greater number of goals scored in the group matches between the teams concerned;
If 2 teams level on points have drawn their two games then they'll have scored and conceded the same amount against each other. Therefore, the (e)goal difference is used to seperate the teams.
(e) goal difference in all the group matches;
(f) greater number of goals scored in all the group matches;
(g) a play-off on neutral ground. 8 With the approval of the Organising Committee for the FIFA

Kingp35

Dunno

I think this idea has good and bad points. I voted no because I think the bad out weighs the good. If this is done it will just be another way that UEFA is looking after the big teams at the cost of the smaller ones. I agree it will mean less games which is a good thing but then again the smaller teams need to be playing regular competative football to improve themselves and to allow for the developement of their football. The football associations in these countries would have a very small budget to work with with respect to developing football in building better facilities, organising training and scouting programs for young players, and with less competitive football games they would have even less money. They make quite a bit of money playing the top teams.

If the team got knocked out in the pre-qualifiers tehy would have no more competitive games and would miss out on all the points above. Big ears had a good suggestion in organising a "B" tournament for the teams that lose out in the pre-qualifiers. This would allow them to play more competitive games and developing the team while also allowing them to win some games. The only problem is the money issue with not playing the big teams and this would need to be addressed by UEFA in order that this countries do not lose out on the money needed to develope their footballing infrastructure.

If UEFA can organise a competitive tournament for the teams who do not make it to the group stages and some means of promoting this tournament to attract big crowds to allow these countries to earn money then pre-qualifers would be a good idea. Maybe a meaningful prize can be deveised for this "B" tournament. That way all teams win.

However if a "B" tournament isnt devised then I think it is a very bad idea because these samll teams would be losing out. Thats why I voted no for the moment.