Why do people say CONCACAF is crap?

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by special_k, Dec 18, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cruzifero

    Cruzifero Member

    Aug 6, 2005
    Nu Jeru
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    For mexico and u.s. its nothing less than automatic that they go to the world cup. That would change DRASTICALLY if they would play in the CONMEBOL qualifiers and costa rica would never see another world cup again.
     
  2. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    Possibly a bit more accurate but they have some flaws. They favour a team who is a big fish in a little pond and teams that don't play a lot but do reasonably well when they do. If you avarage out the FIFA and ELO ratings you tend to get a better reflection of the real position.
     
  3. MoRado

    MoRado New Member

    Feb 6, 2004
    San José. Costa Rica
    Club:
    Deportivo Saprissa
    Nat'l Team:
    Costa Rica
    really? if you think Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela, etc (including Colombia, excluding Brasil and Argentina) are ¨way¨ better than CR, then you are wrong, check some results in the the last CopaAmericas, we always give those teams a hard time, i admire southamerican soccer, your country Colombia as well as Uruguay are my fav southamerican teams,.... 20+ years ago we were nothing compared to southamerica,but things change and Costa Rica is able to compete against most of the southamerican countries. ARG and BRA are 2 different things, they´ll keep kikcking our a$$ at least for the next 10 years....

    CONCACAF 3.5
    CONMEBOL 4.5
    -----------------
    both together 8 spots

    Best 3 teams in our continent

    1-Brazil
    2-Argentina
    3-Mexico


    the other 5 spots will be for 5 of the following 6 teams

    -US
    -Costa Rica
    -Paraguay
    -Colombia
    -Ecuador
    -Uruguay

    Peru, chile, Venezuela, and Bolivia and the rest fo concacaf have less chances.

    We might not qualify to all the WC´s and we surely will have a harder WCQ, but saying that we would never see another world cup again makes NO sense for me.
     
  4. dvandyke

    dvandyke Member

    Dec 15, 2005
    What would a combined qualification stage look like?

    This would be my idea

    Top Ranked 3 Nations currently Brazil, Agentina & Mexico enter at Stage 2.
    The remaining 42 teams are split into two pots based on rankings and play a two leg home and away knock out play-off.


    Pot A (Top 21)

    8 USA
    18 Uruguay
    21 Costa Rica
    24 Colombia
    30 Paraguay
    37 Ecuador
    41 Honduras
    42 Jamaica
    50 Trinidad and Tobago
    56 Guatemala
    64 Chile
    66 Peru
    67 Venezuela
    75 Cuba
    78 Panama
    84 Canada
    96 Bolivia
    98 Haiti
    115 Barbados
    124 El Salvador
    128 St. Lucia

    Pot B (Bottom 21)

    129 St. Kitts and Nevis
    130 St. Vincent and the Grenadines
    151 Grenada
    152 Nicaragua
    152 Surinam
    154 Antigua and Barbuda
    161 Bermuda
    167 Guyana
    168 Netherlands Antilles
    171 British Virgin Islands
    172 Dominica
    174 Dominican Republic
    180 Belize
    181 Cayman Islands
    193 Bahamas
    195 Puerto Rico
    196 US Virgin Islands
    198 Anguilla
    200 Aruba
    202 Montserrat
    203 Turks and Caicos Islands


    Stage 2

    The 24 qualifiers are split into 6 pots of 4 teams agian based on FIFA rankings. These would be the pots asuming all seeds qualified from stage 1.

    Pot A

    1 Brazil
    4 Agrentina
    5 Mexico
    8 USA

    Pot B

    18 Uruguay
    21 Costa Rica
    24 Colombia
    30 Paraguay

    Pot C

    37 Ecuador
    41 Honduras
    42 Jamaica
    50 Trinidad and Tobago

    Pot D

    56 Guatemala
    64 Chile
    66 Peru
    67 Venezuela

    Pot E

    75 Cuba
    78 Panama
    84 Canada
    96 Bolivia

    Pot F

    98 Haiti
    115 Barbados
    124 El Salvador
    128 St. Lucia

    Example of final groups drawn using an online random number generator to draw pots into groups. Top 2 would qualify from each group.

    Group 1

    4 Argentina
    21 Costa Rica
    42 Jamaica
    67 Venezuela
    78 Panama
    98 Haiti

    Group 2

    5 Mexico
    18 Uruguay
    37 Ecuador
    56 Guatemala
    75 Cuba
    124 El Salvador

    Group 3

    1 Brazil
    24 Colombia
    50 Trinidad and Tobago
    64 Chile
    84 Canada
    128 St. Lucia

    Group 4

    8 USA
    30 Paraguay
    41 Honduras
    66 Peru
    96 Bolivia
    115 Barbados
     
  5. dvandyke

    dvandyke Member

    Dec 15, 2005
    I think finishing in the top 2 of most of these groups is harder than the current top 3 or 4th and play off vs 5th best Asian side. Sides like Costa Rica, Trinidad & Tobago or Jamaica would find it a lot tougher
     
  6. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Dec 14, 2005
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As would Columbia, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Chile.

    I think this is a great system and well balanced. The best teams are still likely to get in (Bra, Arg, Mex, US), but there's plenty of opportunity for the mid-tier teams to shine.

    The only variation I'd throw out there would be avoid the meaningless and complete blowout games by having two rounds:

    Round 1:
    4 groups of 4 from Pots C-F. Best 2 go on.

    Round 2:
    4 groups of 4 from Pots A-B + 8 from Round 1. Best 2 qualify.
     
  7. karny9

    karny9 New Member

    Nov 20, 2005
    Toronto
    i think thats a great system. But I doubt FIFA will make any changes soon, especially if the US or MEX go far in 2006.
     
  8. Cruzifero

    Cruzifero Member

    Aug 6, 2005
    Nu Jeru
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
     
  9. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Dec 14, 2005
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    When did I say that? I wasn't comparing them to Argentina or Brazil. I said that under this qualification scheme they would be expected to qualify for the WC, as would Mexico, Argentina and Brazil. Completely different thing.

    "The US will lose to Brazil in the quarterfinals." <-- See? It's not that hard to use them in the same sentence! ;)
     
  10. Toon³

    Toon³ Member

    Dec 27, 2002
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Come on the Eurosnobs!
     
  11. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
    The point is that CONCACAF isn't exactly a confederation that challenges its good teams. Therefore performing well in it is less highly regarded. Do you see the logic here?
     
  12. karny9

    karny9 New Member

    Nov 20, 2005
    Toronto
    if only someone explained that to the people who do the fifa world rankings...
     
  13. Metrogo

    Metrogo Member

    Apr 6, 1999
    Washington Hghts NY
     
  14. Gold is the Colour

    Dec 17, 2005
    Perth Australia
    Club:
    Perth Glory
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    That is why they should combine with CONMEBOL - at least Asia (esp if combined with Oceania) and Africa have the numbers on their side, even if their quality is about the same as Concacaf
     
  15. NitrousOxide

    NitrousOxide New Member

    Jul 31, 2004
    Serravale San Marino
    I disagree and I have noticed that this idea is usually brought up by australians. Why is that ? Anyways conmebol stands to gain nothing from such a combination except the extra long hour flights.
     
  16. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    Greece was in the 3rd pot.

    These were the seedings for the WC qualifiers - UEFA zone:

    Pot A: France, Portugal, Sweden, Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, England, Turkey
    Pot B: Netherlands, Croatia, Belgium, Denmark, Russia, Ireland Republic, Slovenia, Poland
    Pot C: Bulgaria, Romania, Scotland, Serbia & Montenegro, Switzerland, Greece, Slovakia, Austria
    Pot D: Ukraine, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Israel, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Latvia, Wales
    Pot E: Hungary, Georgia, Belarus, Cyprus, Estonia, Nothern Ireland, Lithuania, Macedonia FYR
    Pot F: Albania, Armenia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Faroe Islands, Malta, San Marino, Liechtenstein
    Pot G: Andorra, Luxembourg, Kazakhstan
     
  17. Gold is the Colour

    Dec 17, 2005
    Perth Australia
    Club:
    Perth Glory
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    I think Aussies bring it up because we have such a hard qualification (1 off meaningfull game (H&A) - and the USA and Mexico have by far the easiest qualification group. Other than that it seams that most people would support it, the teams with greater travel times would be those at the far north or south - which in most cases happen to be the "richer" teams. Asia and Oceania will join soon, I'm sure of it, and I think New Zealand to Tashkent would be further than Santiago to Montreal
     
  18. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    You could also use the qualifiers to determine the teams for Copa America. Top 15 (+host) would qualify.

    For example, for the next Copa America invite the 6 teams from the last stage of the CONCACAF hex.

    There would be 4 pots:

    1 Brazil
    4 Argentina
    5 Mexico
    8 USA

    18 Uruguay
    21 Costa Rica
    24 Colombia
    30 Paraguay

    37 Ecuador
    50 Trinidad and Tobago
    56 Guatemala
    64 Chile

    66 Peru
    67 Venezuela
    78 Panama
    96 Bolivia

    Possible draw:

    Group A: Brazil, Paraguay, Ecuador, Panama
    Group B: Argentina, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Bolivia
    Group C: Mexico, Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago, Peru
    Group D: USA, Uruguay, Chile, Venezuela
     
  19. karny9

    karny9 New Member

    Nov 20, 2005
    Toronto
    if that was a draw it would be awesome. It would really make the world cup more competitive
     
  20. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Dec 14, 2005
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What about the possibility of snatching more than 4.5 qualifications? As it stands, no matter how well CONMEBOL performs, with just 10 members they'll never see another qualification slot.
     
  21. Guinho

    Guinho Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes, bless their hearts
    Estonia
    May 27, 2001
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Doubtful, especially if two extra spots were given to comebol. Mexico, after all, routinely finishes in the top three in Copa Americas, and Paraguay, that perennial qualifier from comebol has never beaten the US, I believe. The US and Mexico would still pretty much qualify a whole bunch. CR would have more competition at the margin with Uruguay and Colombia, etc., it's true.
     
  22. Sid Wilson

    Sid Wilson New Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    Perth, Australia
    Why is CONCACAF so crap? Easy. 1 crap team gets in the WC automaticaly because no other CONCACAF team can beat them apart from Mexico. Nah. It's just revolved around 2 teams. USA and Mexico.
     
  23. Nutty

    Nutty New Member

    Aug 26, 2002
    NJ
    The combined CONCACAF/CONMEBOL qualifying groups various people have posted? Awesome. I would love to see that really happen.

    Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, USA are still pretty much locks with 8 teams going through. But it makes the competition for the next four spots much more competitive.

    The main reason I’d like to see this though is because I’d love to see the US get more experience through the qualifying phase, playing other tough teams besides just Mexico. Right now at least we seem to have their number.
     
  24. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Dec 14, 2005
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's the beauty of it... everyone benefits from more competition.

    Concacaf gets respectability and better opportunities for improvement.
    Conmebol gets World Cup spots and can dump it's insane 10 team, 81 game qualification format.

    Brazil, Argentina
    They get more solid competition to test their teams out against. They're both going to still be the best, but adding regular games against the US and Mexico can only help them compete against Europe.

    US, Mexico
    Obviously better competition and confederation respectability benefit the big boys of Concacaf, possibly more than anyone else.

    Costa Rica, Paraguay, Ecuador, Uruguay
    These teams gain precious qualification slots available below the big boys (even as competition increases) as well as the incentive to keep their FA, youth programs, and internal leagues running smoothly

    T&T, Honduras, Jamaica, Columbia, Chile
    These teams have much increased hope of piping one of the final spots in a larger pool than in either confederatoin alone. When there's really only 2 spots to fight over, there aren't many scraps. Plus the incentive may be greatest for these teams to improve and/or turn things around (thus Columbia being in this group instead of the above one where they belong).

    Canada, Cuba, El Salvador, Panama, Venezula, Peru, Bolivia
    Looking to the future, how can a more competitive western hemisphere not benefit teams like these?
     
  25. spencercs

    spencercs New Member

    Dec 1, 2005
    London
    the reason people say concacaf is crappy is that it is, the best teams in concacaf or usa and mexico, neither of which are any where near the level of the best uefa or caf teams, usa and mex are not as good as the sort of second rate european teams like (this may be slightly contorversial) the czech republic, sweden and portugal. The USA would probably be about as good as the ukraine or croatia who lets face it not great.

    So, to sum up people say concacaf is ******** because it is. Yes the usa and mexico might have brilliant qualifying records but they are the best of a very bad bunch.
     

Share This Page