2015 world cup

The rest of you can squabble over the other spots, but as long as Oceania have one for the Football Ferns to exploit, I'm happy!


Cheers,

Scousekiwi

 

World Cup Canada 2015

Well we know it will be 24 teams.

Canada is 1 and North Korea is banned.

 

Let's do the math (for 2015 WWC).

In 2011 WWC, we had:
Host (Germany): 1 (1/16 = 6.25%)
UEFA: 4.5 (4.5/16 = 28.13%)
AFC: 3 (3/16 = 18.75%)
CONCACAF: 2.5 (2.5/16 = 15.63%)
CAF: 2 (2/16 = 12.5%)
CONMEBOL: 2 (2/16 = 12.5%)
Ocean: New Zealand: 1 (1/16 = 6.25%)

Therefore, proportionate distribution should be ....

Host: 6.25% (fixed at one team at max. though)
UEFA: 28.13%
AFC: 18.75%
CONCACAF: 15.63%
CAF: 12.5%
CONMEBOL: 12.5%
Ocean: 6.25% (still fixed at one team at max ... it'll be New Zealand of course)

So the 2015 breakdown (with 24 teams should look like this) ....

Host: Canada
UEFA: 24 * 28.13% = 6.75 teams (round up to 7 spots)
AFC: 24 * 18.75% = 4.5 teams (fits perfect for being allowed 4.5 spots)
CONCACAF: 24 * 15.63% = 3.75 teams (round down to 3.5 spots, since Canada is host)
CAF: 24 * 12.5% = 3 spots
CONMEBOL: 24 * 12.5% = 3 spots
Ocean: New Zealand
--- (that makes 23 spots. we have an extra spot, since Host and Ocean can't expand past one team each, even though we move from 16 to 24 spots in the WWC. we should reward 0.5 more to UEFA, and 0.5 more to CONMEBOL, from that leftover spot)

2015 Official Allocation should be:
Host: 1.0 (Canada)
UEFA: 7.5
AFC: 4.5
CONCACAF: 3.5
CAF: 3.0
CONMEBOL: 3.5
Ocean: 1.0 (New Zealand)

UEFA #8 team plays CONCACAF #4 team for the 23rd spot into WWC (let's say UEFA #8 team wins)
CONMEBOL #4 team plays AFC #5 team for 24th spot into WWC (let's say AFC #5 team wins)

Final breakdown would look like this:
Host: 1.0 (Canada)
UEFA: 8.0 (after winning wildcard playoff against #4 CONCACAF)
AFC: 5.0 (after winning wildcard playoff against #4 CONMEBOL)
CONCACAF: 3.0 (remember, Canada is host, so technically they get four teams in)
CAF: 3.0
CONMEBOL: 3.0
Ocean: 1.0 (New Zealand)

Predictions:
Host: (Canada)
UEFA: (Germany, Sweden, France, England, Norway, Italy, Denmark, Spain)
AFC: (Japan, Australia, China, South Korea, Thailand)
CONCACAF: (USA, Mexico, Costa Rica)
CAF: (Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa)
CONMEBOL: (Brazil, Colombia, Argentina)
Ocean: (New Zealand)

*North Korea is not eligible for the 2015 WWC

 

Prediction for groups ....

Group A: Canada, England, Colombia, Thailand
Group B: Germany, Australia, Italy, Argentina
Group C: USA, Sweden, South Korea, Nigeria
Group D: Japan, Norway, Denmark, Costa Rica
Group E: France, Mexico, New Zealand, Ghana
Group F: Brazil, China, Spain, South Africa


Toughest Group (Group of Death)
Group B (Germany and Australia are two of the best in the world in 2015. Italy is also in the FIFA Top 12)

Easiest Group (Group of Life) (Tie)
Group E (Mexico is CONCACAF #2 seed, since Canada is host, and they will get on the 2nd line. France is lucky to get Mexico as the #2 team in that group, although Mexico will continue to improve from now until 2015. New Zealand will also be much better in 2015)
Group F (Brazil also gets an easy group)


Best anticipated matches in group play:

- Canada vs. England (Sinclair vs. Kelly Smith. Probably the last run for both)

- Germany vs. Argentina (rematch of 11-0 game from 2007 WWC. Has Argentina closed the gap over an eight year period?)

- USA vs. Sweden (a tradition in group stage)

- Norway vs. Denmark (crucial tough battle between Scandinavian historical traditional women's soccer nations who have had national teams for 30+ years)

- Mexico vs. New Zealand (they played a classic group match in 2011 WWC that ended in a draw? this is a key match for both teams)

- Brazil vs. Spain (a legendary match in the men's game. don't sleep on Spain. they will be a Top 15 team in the world for years to come)

 

And with the rule that no two teams from the same confederation can ever be in the same group, unless they are from UEFA.

 

Based on your ideas, I would put any collection of teams that looked like group C as a group of death. We all know Sweden's pedigree, but South Korea could be the France of 2015's WWC, while Nigeria's version of run and gun football would give the U.S. in particular all kinds of nightmares.

I seriously doubt Kelly Smith will be playing international football past 2013. She's gently being fazed out of the England set up already, making the Euro's her most likely final encore if there is to be one at all past the Olympics.

I would put Chile ahead of Argentina come 2015 WWC qualification. They seem intent on becoming a South American contender, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them do it by 2015 either.

Norway have a major legacy, but now find themselves playing within a increasingly competitive confederation. One look at their Euro 13' group will tell you everything you need to know about that fact. In a few years nations like Scotland, Holland, Switzerland, Iceland, will all be serious contenders for Norway's perennial WWC place.

 

and hope powell will be on my list for the olympics. taking kelly smith out of the uk's mid-field is like brasil dropping formiga. that team aint ready for it yet. nothing could be done about the injuries in the WC, and she played thru them like a real champ.

 

If you give more slots to a confederation of course they will have more teams participating and a higher percentage. Just like in men now the UEFA trying to get a ridiculous amount of slots that their talent level does not validate

 

That is a silly and untrue statement, every given suggestion of how to spend slots the worst qualified UEFA team would in normal cases beat the worst qualified team from every single one of the otehr confederations, and several with hardly breaking a sweat.
The same is true in the mens game with a possible exception of COMEBOL.

 

Any news about the host cities and stadia ?

 

LOL bias and untrue argument you must be european

 

Well, if you judge by FIFA national team rankings, UEFA would get 15 slots, and Africa wouldn't get any. But obviously those have a European bias.

In group play in the 2011 WWC, UEFA teams went 10-2-1 against outside competition, the only losses being Norway to Brazil and Australia.

 

How did they do in the knockout rounds?

 

UEFA had I win and three losses, or all the teams had I win and three losses out of their confederation?

 

Did other confederations do as well or better?

 

Just Wiki it, people....

In the knockout rounds (vs other confed.s):
UEFA: 1-0-3
CONCACAF: 1-2-0
AFC: 2-1-0
CONMEBOL: 0-1-0
Four W/L games, two draws, two intra-confed. games

 

Surprised to see that every confederation had a better winning percentage in the knockout rounds against non confederation teams than UEFA.

 

That because only 20% of the UEFA teams went out in the group play.
33% of AFC
50% of CONMEBOL
67% of CONCACAF
100% of OFC and CAF teams had already been elimiated.
And 2 out of 3 of the UEFA teams losses in knock-out come against Japan.

And 1win to 3 losses is a better precetage tha 0 win to 1 loss (CONMEBOL) and can be argued to be better than 0 wins to 0 losses (OFC and CAF) leaving only AFC and CONCACAF with better stats (and all of their wins was US or Japan, the two teams responsible for all UEFA knock-out losses against other confeds).
So this statistics basicly shows that USA and Japan is better than the UEFA teams and nothing else.

 

Not sure what wins in the Group stage has to do with wins in the knockout rounds against other confederations. UEFA teams ( France v. England) that knocked each other out don't count in that stat. It left only the better team to face the world. The Third place game doesn't count either.

SiberianThunderT erred with the AFC, BTW, which was 2-1-1 vs. the World in the knockout round.
Australia lost, but Japan had two wins and a tie. That would be 62%


You err also, in that COMNEBOL had no losses in the knockout rounds. ( I think you confused a tie for a loss). They were undefeated in regulation time and extra time.
USA-Brasil was a 2-2 tie.
That is 50%.
(In the weird world of the FIFA ranking table, a 2-2 tie counts as 51% for each team regardless of shootout result. Bonus for scoring, I guess.)

1 win and 3 losses is 25%, so at 50%, COMNEBOL did better than UEFA.

The question was the record of confederations in the knockout rounds against other confederations. SiberianThunderT adequately answered but for the error I note. (thank you).

It is a measure of how the best teams in the world do against other confederations. There are other measures, but this is one.

UEFA teams lost to both the USA and Japan, so the comparison is valid. Germany, Sweden, and France all had their shots. If anything, it shows the other confederations stronger, since UEFA had more chances to knock out the USA and Japan.

But you are right, I suppose. UEFA did better than OFC or CAF just by getting to the knockout rounds. They had no chance at that stat. Congrats.