|
Post by Maximo Mark on Sept 7, 2009 19:54:51 GMT 1
Much as I dislike Argentina I still want them to qualify, they just bring more excitement and entertainment to the tournament! I'd quite like them to be in it for those reasons, I just want out moron press to be shown that qualification for internation isn't run of the mill stuff and it's not just England that underachieive..
|
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,578
|
Post by vastar iner on Sept 7, 2009 20:07:28 GMT 1
I want them to fail to qualify, as that might persuade FIFA to look at the qualification system again. The finals are hardly helped by having cannon fodder like the Saudis taking a place of someone more deserving. As it is Portugal, in the last four last time with a Finals record better than the whole of Asia, Africa and Oceania combined, might end up missing out.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Sept 7, 2009 20:21:57 GMT 1
I want them to fail to qualify, as that might persuade FIFA to look at the qualification system again. The finals are hardly helped by having cannon fodder like the Saudis taking a place of someone more deserving. As it is Portugal, in the last four last time with a Finals record better than the whole of Asia, Africa and Oceania combined, might end up missing out. If Portugal (or France) miss out, this will be the 6th finals in a row that one of the last 4 from the previous tournament has failed to qualify. France in 1990 England in 1994 Sweden in 1998 Holland in 2002 Turkey in 2006 I have no problem with there being a blend from the different confederations. I would maybe tweak the allocations slightly but not much, and I'm sure I've been down that topic of conversation before. Could you really say Argentina are deserving if they can't finish in the top 4 of a 10-team group? And when was the last time a South American team other than Brazil or Argentina reached the quarter-finals?
|
|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on Sept 7, 2009 20:29:22 GMT 1
To be fair if they miss out behind Hungary can they really have any quibbles about missing out to Saudi Arabia?
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Sept 7, 2009 21:48:12 GMT 1
I love seeing teams from different federations in the tournament, the last thing I want is to see more European teams in the tournament. I find the most exciting football comes from elsewhere. Portugal obviously just aren't good enough this time!
|
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,578
|
Post by vastar iner on Sept 7, 2009 21:53:08 GMT 1
To be fair if they miss out behind Hungary can they really have any quibbles about missing out to Saudi Arabia? Back in 1974 England missed out to Poland. Poland then came third. Had it been a knockout format from the last eight they may have won the whole thing. You never know who's actually good or not till later. I'd merge some of the continents. It's farcical that Mexico get given a free pass to the finals every time when they do the thick end of eff all with it, unless they have home advantage. It's also harmful to them, if they played better opposition they'd be more prepared to succeed in the finals. There's no reason why North and South America shouldn't be one continent...
|
|
Thor
Member
Why can't this moment last forever more?
Posts: 22,606
|
Post by Thor on Sept 7, 2009 22:09:38 GMT 1
To be fair if they miss out behind Hungary can they really have any quibbles about missing out to Saudi Arabia? Back in 1974 England missed out to Poland. Poland then came third. Had it been a knockout format from the last eight they may have won the whole thing. You never know who's actually good or not till later. I'd merge some of the continents. It's farcical that Mexico get given a free pass to the finals every time when they do the thick end of eff all with it, unless they have home advantage. It's also harmful to them, if they played better opposition they'd be more prepared to succeed in the finals. There's no reason why North and South America shouldn't be one continent... I'd merge too. Oceania should be a sub-section of Asia with the winners getting one of the group places. I'd much prefer an Americas grouping fighting for 7 or 8 places than the current set-up. They could easily get it down to 2 groups of 6 (or 3) and then cut them down possibly with a few play-offs. The African format needs altering too. It's too all or nothing with only 1 team qualifying per groups, have less groups and a better indicator of who the best 5 teams are.
|
|
Thor
Member
Why can't this moment last forever more?
Posts: 22,606
|
Post by Thor on Sept 7, 2009 22:10:42 GMT 1
I love seeing teams from different federations in the tournament, the last thing I want is to see more European teams in the tournament. I find the most exciting football comes from elsewhere. Portugal obviously just aren't good enough this time! I think we should be back to 14 spots. It's ridiculous someone 2nd in a group isn't even getting a play-off.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Sept 7, 2009 22:41:53 GMT 1
The African format needs altering too. It's too all or nothing with only 1 team qualifying per groups, have less groups and a better indicator of who the best 5 teams are. The problem with Africa is that they usually combine qualifying for the Nations Cup and World Cup, which is why they go for 5 groups. I preferred the format they had previously when the final round had 5 groups of 6, rather than 5 groups of 4.
|
|
Thor
Member
Why can't this moment last forever more?
Posts: 22,606
|
Post by Thor on Sept 7, 2009 22:47:18 GMT 1
The African format needs altering too. It's too all or nothing with only 1 team qualifying per groups, have less groups and a better indicator of who the best 5 teams are. The problem with Africa is that they usually combine qualifying for the Nations Cup and World Cup, which is why they go for 5 groups. I preferred the format they had previously when the final round had 5 groups of 6, rather than 5 groups of 4. What about 3 groups of 6 then? Group winners qualify and then 2 from the 2nd placers?
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Sept 7, 2009 23:02:48 GMT 1
I'd much prefer an Americas grouping fighting for 7 or 8 places than the current set-up. They could easily get it down to 2 groups of 6 (or 3) and then cut them down possibly with a few play-offs. They could even go with 8 groups of 5 or 6 teams. It would save messing around with preliminary rounds and would give the smaller teams more experience at international level, rather than the usual 2 legs and then that's it for 4 years. The current FIFA rankings would give the following pots for the draw: POT 1: Brazil, Argentina, USA, Chile, Paraguay, Mexico, Uruguay, Ecuador POT 2: Costa Rica, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Trinidad & Tobago, Canada, Jamaica POT 3: Panama, El Salvador, Cuba, Peru, Barbados, Antigua & Barbuda, Grenada, Haiti POT 4: Guatemala, Suriname, Guyana, Nicaragua, St. Vincent, St. Kitts & Nevis, Bermuda, Netherlands Antilles POT 5: Puerto Rico, Belize, Bahamas, Turks & Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic, St. Lucia, British Virgin Islands POT 6: Dominica, Aruba, US Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat If need be, the bottom 10 teams could have their own preliminary round to whittle it down to 40, reducing the potential for cricket scores. The biggest problem would be the number of games as the South American teams would probably be unwilling to go from 18 down to as few as 8. With Thor's idea of having a final round of 2 groups of 6, they could be whittled down by having an initial group stage, featuring 12 groups (9 groups of 4, 3 groups of 3) with the 12 winners progressing. That would keep the number of games on a par with the current systems. A possible problem could be the number of dead rubbers towards the end of qualifying. The team finishing 4th in this year's CONCACAF final group will have played 20 qualifying matches to reach (or not, as the case may be) the World Cup. 22 if El Salvador make the playoff as they started in the 1st round as an unseeded team.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Sept 7, 2009 23:18:18 GMT 1
Minimum and maximum number of qualifying matches to qualify per confederation:
EUROPE Minimum: 8 - 8 group matches (if drawn in 5-team group) Maximum: 12 - 10 group matches + 2-legged playoff
SOUTH AMERICA Minimum: 18 - 18 group matches Maximum: 20 - 18 group matches + 2-legged playoff
AFRICA Minimum: 12 - 6 group matches + 6 group matches Maximum: 14 - 2-legged preliminary round + group matches
ASIA Minimum: 14 - 6 group matches + 8 group matches Maximum: 22 - 2-legged preliminary round + 2-legged preliminary round + group matches + 2-legged playoff + 2-legged playoff
CONCACAF Minimum: 18 - 2-legged preliminary round + 6 group matches + 10 group matches Maximum: 22 - 2-legged preliminary round + 2-legged preliminary round + 10 group matches + 2-legged playoff
OCEANIA Minimum: 8 - 6 group matches + 2-legged playoff Maximum: 14 - 4 group matches + playoff + playoff + 6 group matches + 2-legged playoff
|
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,578
|
Post by vastar iner on Sept 7, 2009 23:27:58 GMT 1
I think we should be back to 14 spots. It's ridiculous someone 2nd in a group isn't even getting a play-off. The worst thing about it is that a team can be knocked out of the World Cup thanks to results that it has no involvement with. A late winner in Group A could knock out a team in Group B. Illogical in the extreme. Mind you, Europe does not help itself with the qualification system. Every other continent bar South America has preliminary matches to get rid of the chaff, so why not do the same? To get 13 qualifiers, it's easy enough to go to eight groups of six, winners go through, two legged knockout for another our, and the four losers to have a mini-tournament for the last spot. All that needs to be done is eliminate five teams in pre-qualifying. Easy enough - just take the bottom ten in Europe and have them play two legs. Historical anomalies like Andorra do eff all for European football other than distort things by allowing teams to amass huge scores. They don't even play at home.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Sept 7, 2009 23:32:53 GMT 1
Historical anomalies like Andorra do eff all for European football other than distort things by allowing teams to amass huge scores. They don't even play at home. Andorra do play at home. They just switch the venue to Spain when they play England, in order to accommodate the large numbers of travelling England fans.
|
|
Thor
Member
Why can't this moment last forever more?
Posts: 22,606
|
Post by Thor on Sept 8, 2009 12:15:57 GMT 1
I'd much prefer an Americas grouping fighting for 7 or 8 places than the current set-up. They could easily get it down to 2 groups of 6 (or 3) and then cut them down possibly with a few play-offs. They could even go with 8 groups of 5 or 6 teams. It would save messing around with preliminary rounds and would give the smaller teams more experience at international level, rather than the usual 2 legs and then that's it for 4 years. The current FIFA rankings would give the following pots for the draw: POT 1: Brazil, Argentina, USA, Chile, Paraguay, Mexico, Uruguay, Ecuador POT 2: Costa Rica, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Trinidad & Tobago, Canada, Jamaica POT 3: Panama, El Salvador, Cuba, Peru, Barbados, Antigua & Barbuda, Grenada, Haiti POT 4: Guatemala, Suriname, Guyana, Nicaragua, St. Vincent, St. Kitts & Nevis, Bermuda, Netherlands Antilles POT 5: Puerto Rico, Belize, Bahamas, Turks & Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic, St. Lucia, British Virgin Islands POT 6: Dominica, Aruba, US Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat If need be, the bottom 10 teams could have their own preliminary round to whittle it down to 40, reducing the potential for cricket scores. The biggest problem would be the number of games as the South American teams would probably be unwilling to go from 18 down to as few as 8. With Thor's idea of having a final round of 2 groups of 6, they could be whittled down by having an initial group stage, featuring 12 groups (9 groups of 4, 3 groups of 3) with the 12 winners progressing. That would keep the number of games on a par with the current systems. A possible problem could be the number of dead rubbers towards the end of qualifying. The team finishing 4th in this year's CONCACAF final group will have played 20 qualifying matches to reach (or not, as the case may be) the World Cup. 22 if El Salvador make the playoff as they started in the 1st round as an unseeded team. I like the sound of that! But again it's a bit all or nothing in that you have to win the group or you're out. I'd much prefer it with play-offs underneath. I will have a look tonight and see what I can come up with
|
|
|
Post by Shireblogger on Sept 8, 2009 12:24:19 GMT 1
I think we should be back to 14 spots. It's ridiculous someone 2nd in a group isn't even getting a play-off. Agreed. This could so easily have been fixed by having the 2 runner-up teams with the worst record playing off against each other. Or even a 3 team mini-league to determine the final 2 European qualifiers.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Sept 8, 2009 20:58:34 GMT 1
I think we should be back to 14 spots. It's ridiculous someone 2nd in a group isn't even getting a play-off. The worst thing about it is that a team can be knocked out of the World Cup thanks to results that it has no involvement with. A late winner in Group A could knock out a team in Group B. Illogical in the extreme. Mind you, Europe does not help itself with the qualification system. Every other continent bar South America has preliminary matches to get rid of the chaff, so why not do the same? To get 13 qualifiers, it's easy enough to go to eight groups of six, winners go through, two legged knockout for another our, and the four losers to have a mini-tournament for the last spot. All that needs to be done is eliminate five teams in pre-qualifying. Easy enough - just take the bottom ten in Europe and have them play two legs. Historical anomalies like Andorra do eff all for European football other than distort things by allowing teams to amass huge scores. They don't even play at home. I agree that the general principle should be that play-offs are at the start of the qualifying phase rather than the end. If the number of European qualifiers is an odd number then there may need to be one paly off at the end of the tournament but, with an even number of qualifiers, it should be a simple matter of the top two in each group qualifying.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Sept 8, 2009 21:07:21 GMT 1
This problem could've been avoided if Europe had had 13.5 places, with Asia losing half a place.
That would've meant all 9 runners-up going into the playoffs, where the South American playoff team could've joined them, like Iran did a few years ago.
|
|
Thor
Member
Why can't this moment last forever more?
Posts: 22,606
|
Post by Thor on Sept 8, 2009 22:14:08 GMT 1
They could even go with 8 groups of 5 or 6 teams. It would save messing around with preliminary rounds and would give the smaller teams more experience at international level, rather than the usual 2 legs and then that's it for 4 years. The current FIFA rankings would give the following pots for the draw: POT 1: Brazil, Argentina, USA, Chile, Paraguay, Mexico, Uruguay, Ecuador POT 2: Costa Rica, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Trinidad & Tobago, Canada, Jamaica POT 3: Panama, El Salvador, Cuba, Peru, Barbados, Antigua & Barbuda, Grenada, Haiti POT 4: Guatemala, Suriname, Guyana, Nicaragua, St. Vincent, St. Kitts & Nevis, Bermuda, Netherlands Antilles POT 5: Puerto Rico, Belize, Bahamas, Turks & Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic, St. Lucia, British Virgin Islands POT 6: Dominica, Aruba, US Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat If need be, the bottom 10 teams could have their own preliminary round to whittle it down to 40, reducing the potential for cricket scores. The biggest problem would be the number of games as the South American teams would probably be unwilling to go from 18 down to as few as 8. With Thor's idea of having a final round of 2 groups of 6, they could be whittled down by having an initial group stage, featuring 12 groups (9 groups of 4, 3 groups of 3) with the 12 winners progressing. That would keep the number of games on a par with the current systems. A possible problem could be the number of dead rubbers towards the end of qualifying. The team finishing 4th in this year's CONCACAF final group will have played 20 qualifying matches to reach (or not, as the case may be) the World Cup. 22 if El Salvador make the playoff as they started in the 1st round as an unseeded team. I like the sound of that! But again it's a bit all or nothing in that you have to win the group or you're out. I'd much prefer it with play-offs underneath. I will have a look tonight and see what I can come up with Ok so I'd cut 45 down to 30. Probably with 15 groups of 3 with the top 2 making it. Then 5 groups of 6 with the top 5 teams + best 2nd place qualifying, the other 4 second placers have to play-off for the remaining 2 slots.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Sept 8, 2009 23:34:21 GMT 1
I like the sound of that! But again it's a bit all or nothing in that you have to win the group or you're out. I'd much prefer it with play-offs underneath. I will have a look tonight and see what I can come up with Ok so I'd cut 45 down to 30. Probably with 15 groups of 3 with the top 2 making it. Then 5 groups of 6 with the top 5 teams + best 2nd place qualifying, the other 4 second placers have to play-off for the remaining 2 slots. I'm not a fan of groups of 3, especially if 2 from each group are going through. I do like that final round, though. When Africa had 5 groups of 6 in the final stage, they just went with knockout rounds until that point, with the top 5(ish) seeds getting byes to the group stage.
|
|