Why do people say CONCACAF is crap?

At least this has good logic. Finally, someone gets the notion that it's the marginal quality, not the average, that matters. And, like just about every other analysis I"ve ever seen, it backs up the notion that Concacaf is the third strongest confederation, behind the biggies, UEFA and conmebol.

 

Not bad there tomw...rooted in some sort of reality at least...other analyses might drop home team results from the WC, then CONCACAF, and to a lesser extent Africa, bury Asia even more...
But I was speaking about all the Feds except the big two...is 4.5 not enough for you durn South Americans?? That's the possibility of half your teams...much more % than ANY other Fed.
MORE SPOTS FOR CONCACAF!

::tosses two pennies in the wishing well::

 

you have to think about where USA,Mexico and CR would be placed in UEFA qualifying and where teams like Jamaica and T&T and honduras would be put. Even though they made the cup, T&T and Jamaica would be in the 3rd best pot at best, meaning they would have two stellar teams maybe in their group (like Spain and Serbia or something). Makes it hard to qualify when you have to take 1 of the top 2 spots and if your second still have to go to a playoff.

for the top 3 in CONCACAF, im sure they'd be slotted in pot 2 with the Polands, the Czech rep's and Irelands of the world. So they'd be facing a great team, like England, Holland, France, and then a semi-decent team like Israel, Belgium, Finland etc. i would be very tough. Much less room for error than you think, espeically given CONCACAF's record on European soil.

 

I think UEFA gets its reputation in part from who doesn't qualify (Netherlands in 2002, for examle), but so much of that comes from UEFAs stubborn refusal to use a culling system as ever other confederation except conmebol uses. Get a better system (where, say the top three qualify from each of four groups of 6...) and that'll fix some of that difficulty.

 

Perhaps. US and Mexico (which was after all seeded) might be in pool 1, but the point I think is that they *might* face a great team like England, or they might face Norway or sweden or something. Of course, one has to wonder too about UEFA qualifiers playing in Concacaf, too. Even the biggest European teams would be hard pressed to get points in Mexico City, too, and would drop them in Central America as well. The others (pots 2 etc. would find it very tough to pick up any points in the Americas (in the hex, that is, vs Guatemala in Guatemala, or Honduras, etc.).

That said, I think Mexico (for sure) and the US would qualify pretty regularly regardless of confederation, but Costa Rica, Jamaica and T&T would suffer simply because there are more teams of similar calibre.

 

i doubt that the USA would be in pot one, i can name 8 teams, there were only 8 groups- England, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Holland for sure would be ahead of them...i guess thats only 7 so maybe one gets into pot 1. Im not sure who else was a top pot team for this round, Germany was not in it. maybe Turkey, or Greece as Euro champs. who knows

i agree with your point. CR, T&T and Jamaica would find it very tough, they;d be behind the 8-ball. maybe their best team ever could qualify. USA is still not a guarantee. I can't imagine the difficulty of winning in Ireland or Russia when it was qualifying, not to mention in England. USA just doesnt see that very often. Maybe 2 or 3 times a rotation.

Im also confident that the top 10 european teams could easily win in most of Central america. maybe dropping points in CR, or maybe in Guatemala if its 100 degrees and humid. (Mexico is a different issue, who can win in Azteca? nobody.) but id say the best european teams would do just fine in CONCACAF

 

CONMEBOL 5th couldn't get past the OFC winner. The current numbers seem pretty reasonable to me. Personally I would reduce the guaranteed allocation of each confederation and have many more playoffs. This would enable each tournament to better reflect the current strength of a region, rather than the past strength.

 

I think it ghets its reputation from the fact that usually more than half of the quarter finalists are from Europe.

 

Just an interesting side point here. According to your stats the Concacaf group has an average ranking of 47, Scotland's qualifying group has an average ranking of 52.5. Yet the Concacaf group gets 3 qualifying spaces and another place for a play-off, which was against Bahrain. We get 1 qualifying spot and one play-off place against Czech Republic, that's just unfair

I can't fully comment on the quality of the concacaf section. From my perspective USA and Mexico are good sides, not in the class of Holland, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, (dare I say) Portugal and France. Probably more on a par with the group below that. Not to say they couldn't beat them in a one off game, Italy, Holland and Germany didn't beat Scotland on their last visit to Scotland (all in competitive matches). But overall the quality doesn't quite compare.

Below USA and Mexico it's hard to find the quality. This year Costa Rica were third and they are a decent side from what i've seen, but in all honesty I don't think they would've qualified form a European group.

T&T are a poor side, they have players from St. Johnstone and Dundee who aren't even in Scotland's top division. There is no way they would qualify from a UEFA group. (Although I will be rooting for them in the WC). We beat them 4-1 in a friendly a couple of years ago, when we were a very poor side under B*rti.

Guatemala, Panama, Honduras, Canada, Jamaica are decent sides but they would probably be amongst the fifth pot of seeds for the upcoming Euro Championships qualifiers.

Speaking of the Euro Championships qualifiers, they could come up with some VERY tough groups that any concacaf side would really struggle in. Here's the seedings.

Pot 1

Greece
Netherlands
Portugal
England
Czech Republic
France
Sweden

Pot 2

Germany
Croatia
Italy
Turkey
Poland
Spain
Romania

Pot 3

Serbia and Montenegro
Russia
Denmark
Norway
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Slovakia

Pot 4

Bosnia-Herzegovina
Republic of Ireland
Belgium
Latvia
Israel
Scotland
Slovenia

Pot 5

Hungary
Finland
Estonia
Wales
Lithuania
Albania
Iceland

Pot 6

Georgia
F.Y.R. Macedonia
Belarus
Armenia
Northern Ireland
Cyprus
Moldova

Pot 7

Liechtenstein
Azerbaijan
Andorra
Malta
Faroe Islands
Kazakhstan
Luxembourg
San Marino

A possible group of Holland, Italy, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Belarus and Azerbaijan is just full of quality. England, Germany, Norway, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Faroe Islands (my dream group) is also extremly challenging. As would be France, Spain, Serbia and Montenegro, Belgium, Hungary etc. I could go on.

I think this is why concacaf is played down, because Uefa contains just so much quality and so many quality players. By comparison concacaf is poor, any UEFA group is stronger than a CONCACAF group IMO. Using any ranking system is no justification to say otherwise, as these are all flawed due to the very nature of there being different confederations.

 

Scottish_Morton, you must urdenstand that while discusing World football, at least at BS, we try to seprate facts from opinionss. We use rankings and WC results because they are some of the few objetive tools we have to compare teams and regions. Theres no objetive argument that can tell us that Portugal, Spain and even Netherlands are better, or more deserving, than Mexico and USA right now, I challenge you tu present me one.

 

I agree this would be a better solution, except that this is logistically and politically almost impossible. The club and international schedules are already insanely full. Adding large numbers of inter-confederation playoffs that send important club players halfway around the world is never going to fly.

My solution just rewards the confederations whose lower tier qualifiers are playing at a competitive level in the World Cup (UEFA, Conmebol) at the expense of the confederations whose lower tier teams are consistant WC punching bags (Africa, Asia).

To keep it on topic, the point is that if you want to take away qualifying spots /playoffs, they shouldn't be from Concacaf, based on recent WC results.

 

As Ebbe Skovdahl once said 'Statistics are just like mini-skirts, they give you good ideas but hide the most important thing.'

Nevertheless here's some facts, do with them what you will:

Holland have players playing regularly at Barcelona, Chelsea, Bayern Munich, Ajax, Feynoord, Man Utd, Arsenal, Villareal, PSV, Milan.

Portugal at Man Utd, Chelsea, PSG, Lyon, Benfica, Porto, Barcelona, Inter Milan.

Spain at Real Madrid, Barcelona, Villareal, Valencia, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal.

USA at LA Galaxy, Fulham, Blackburn, PSV, Standard Liege, Man City, Charlton, Cottbus, M'gladbach, Reading, and other MLS clubs

Mexico at Barcelona, Bolton, Racing Santander, and mostly mexican clubs.

Costa Rica at Udinese, AEK Athens, and well...Saprissa.

Scotland at Man Utd, Everton, Rangers, Celtic, Blackburn, Sunderland, Hearts, Hibs, Southampton, Portsmouth, Wigan.

Trinidad and Tobago at Rangers, Derby, Gillingham, Southampton, Dundee, St. Johnstone, Falkirk, Wrexham, Luton, Port Vale.

Slovenia at Bochum, Panionios, Club Bruges, Lecce, Lille.

In the Elo ratings there are 11 european teams before any concacaf teams.

 

Nice job of creating a strawman to avoid my point by intentionaly misinterpeting my remarks

or

Learn to read dipshit, this link can help you with your developmental problems: http://www.educate.com/creativeAds/...=NWGAD-GEN-0103&CFID=12757536&CFTOKEN=7001319

The concept that yes it is harder to get a qualifying spot in UEFA yet the average game in CONCACAF is tougher seems to have gone over your comically mishapen head. Those extra chromosones aren't helping you.

Wales, Northern Ireland, Azerbaijan, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Andorra, Macadonia, Cyprus. Every UEFA group had 2-3 of these crap teams in them. If you compare the average UEFA group to the hex in CONCACAF the hex compares quite favorably. In England's group there where three rubbish teams two average teams and England. In the hex there was one crap team, two average ones, one just above average team, and two good ones. The fact that FIFA gives CONCACAF more spots than it deserves does not make the individual games easier until your country has qualified. The ends are harder to achieve in Europe but the process in CONCACAF provides more of a challenge, even though reaching the ends are easier. So to say it simply so Sinner's nurse can explain it, it is harder to win the hex than an UEFA group while it is also harder to gain a UEFA qualifying spot than a CONCACAF spot. And bless you woman for carring for the handicapped.

 

Now I feel sorry for your nurse having to type all these mean things. Are you fit, is it sexist to assume that the person typing these remarks for the downs' syndrone riddled Sinner is a woman?

 

Its not impossible if these things are correctly planned. We already have a week allocated to playoffs. A lot of countries played friendlies during this week.

I don't disagree with you in principle, just with you giving South America an extra full spot when their 5th team couldn't get past OFC. On form you would have more justification to give OFC an extra half rather than South America a full extra spot.

We agree on this. I think CONCACAF has deserved the extra half spot as their worst performed team last time did reasonably well in a tough group.

 

You make some good points. You have to account for the institutional nationalism of EU work permit laws.

 

So? Thats the favorite argument of the eurocentrism... Play at Europe = Good. Don't play at Europe = Bad.

Hidden subjetive argument: Europeans club teams are much better than the club teams from Mexico/USA/CRC.

Bogus argument 1: Games are won by players names.

Bogus argument 2: La Liga > MFL => [insert La Liga Player] > [Insert MFL player].

Fact: The younger Borguetti playing at Santos Laguna was much better player than the veteran playing at Bolton right now, Borguetti was on Pachuca's bench last season btw.

Elo rating doesn't differentiate games acording to importance.

 

Indeed, one of the things the 'mini-skirt' so to speak would hide. For example Jason Scotland is really only at St. johnstone in the Scottish first division and not still sniffing around the first team at Dundee Utd in the SPL because of work permit issues. I suppose only so many can qualify to play in Europe.

Another thing that is hidden is the influence a manager has on a team. In Scotland we know this all too well. B*rti V*gts was terrible for us, some embarrasing results and we went to 88th in the FIFA rankings. Since Walter Smith took charge of his first game in March we have rose 28 places in the Fifa Rankings and are now 60th.

Also a country may have many top players but if they dont have a good balance they wont have a good team. 11 strikers don't make a good team!

There are many things to consider but what counts is what you win, i'm sure Greece will testify to that! No world class players, not qualified for this WC but they got it right 2 years ago and that's what counts. We'll see at this WC who really has the bragging rights.

 

Team chemistry i think is one issue where a team like the USA has an advantage. Many euro teams have players that dont know or appreciate their role. Im not sure even Mexico appreciates it as much. If they did, they wouldn't bomb out in round 2 all the time by being so individualistic.

its a team game at the end, and thats why the USA can hang without the talent of Mexico or europe

 

can someone post the link to the elo rankings

 

I'll say it to be clear, the top European leagues are far superior to the top concacaf leagues. I don't know how seriously Saprissa took their match with Liverpool last week but they looked a terrible side. The best players play in Europe, that is where the best player want to play. If you have the best players you will have a higher standard of football.

Reputations are made in football for a reason. The best players in the world do play in Europe. Looking back at any world cup and there will be players playing in europe at the centre. The team that wins the WC with most likley be one by a team full of players playing in Europe.

La Liga is better than the Mexican league because the la liga has better teams made up of better players. Better players DO make a better league. Teams like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Valencia, Villreal etc have some of the best players in the world playing at their club and that makes damn good teams.

There can't be a guarentee though that the team with the best players will always win though. Greece didn't have the best squad at the european championship, Liverpool were the same in last season's CL. Team's can spring surprises from time to time but they usually fade away afterwards.

Henrick Larsson's ability was always brought into question because he spent so long in Scotland, and only moved to Barca once he was well past his best. I have no doubt he was one of the top striker's in the world but he didn't get that recognition. La Liga, Serie A, the Premiership, the Bundasliga; these are the top leagues in the world. This is where most the money is and that will attract the best players to make the best players. Not all top players play in the top leagues and those players wont get the recognition they deserve but most top players do play in these leagues.

I was just using the same ratings as special k in his initial post.

The best players in the world play in Europe, that's a fact.

EDIT to add: just to make clear, the best players don't always make the most successful team. Generally speaking the team with better players has more potential but that doesn't mean a team with players of an inferior ability won't make the better TEAM and after all it is a team game.

 

http://www.eloratings.net

 

how does it decide how many points you gain or lose...some equation?

 

its on the site, is it not?...I didn't really look into it too much, but i think the elo rankings are a little more accurate, and a lot more accurate regarding concacaf and the asian region.