Thread for Developing a Statistical System for Determining WC Allocations

[Andy TAUS]

wolf6656,

Quick question: how would you see the teams being placed in their tiers ? If through the thoroughly discredited FIFA World Rankings, then this stratification would not work and it would also attract the same loathing that the current FIFA's World Rankings bring with them.

My concern is that the FIFA World Rankings do not do justice to the teams in the OFC, because of the weightings on WCQ games results & the lack of such played in the OFC, inter-continental games results weightings & (in Australia's case) the lack of competetive games ABLE TO BE PLAYED IN ANY 4 YEAR PERIOD.

These matters would have to be addressed BEFORE or AS PART OF any implementation of a new tiering system.

Cheers.

[wolf6656]

wolf6656,

Quick question: how would you see the teams being placed in their tiers ? If through the thoroughly discredited FIFA World Rankings, then this stratification would not work and it would also attract the same loathing that the current FIFA's World Rankings bring with them.

My concern is that the FIFA World Rankings do not do justice to the teams in the OFC, because of the weightings on WCQ games results & the lack of such played in the OFC, inter-continental games results weightings & (in Australia's case) the lack of competetive games ABLE TO BE PLAYED IN ANY 4 YEAR PERIOD.

These matters would have to be addressed BEFORE or AS PART OF any implementation of a new tiering system.

Cheers.

Very good points as always Andy.
As far as lack of results for some of the teams, that is the whole point of the exercise. (or should I say exorcise, as in exorcising the demons that plague the current ranking system.)

All teams would get competetive games within their tier, and some teams would get challenges in the tier above. As far as WCQ weightings go, because of the way the tiers are set up,(with the top 8 advancing) all of these games are in effect WCQ games. It is true that the intercontinental weightings are a sham, and should be removed, for the same reason that we are all having this discussion in the first place. The tiered qualifying system should eliminate the continental weightings, as qualifying is not a function of continents, but merit.

However, one has to start somewhere, and to bake this cake we have to use the ingredients available. What we have is a failed ranking system, but one in which there is a degree of merit. (We have to use it or FIFA will take their ball and go home) In the first cycle of the tiered system, teams would rise or fall on merit, and the following cycle would start to show a truer picture.

All tier's qualifying matches would be weighted with one number, and all tier's Championship Final matches with another number. (The World Cup Final is in effect the Tier 1 Championship, although it is theoretically possible for a tier 2 team to qualify.) So the Tier 3 Championship final would have the same relative weighting for Tier 3 teams as the World Cup Final would for Tier 1 teams. The RELATIVE strengths of the competing teams would be similar, but the net strengths of the teams from different tiers would be much different.

The real value of the system would be for the cross-over teams who advance to the next tier's qualifying round. Some decent results there would help these teams reach their true level(tier).

Who knows perhaps after the first cycle, we should have relegation as well instead of relying on the August year 4 ranking. In relegation, the bottom 8 teams in tier 2 qualifying would have to play tier 3 the following cycle. (there might have to be a combination Relegation/Last Chance round of Home and Aways in each Tier.) In fact, this would help all teams (top 32 and bottom 32 of each tier) get a similar number of games played.

Due to the fact that 8 of the teams in tier 2 qualifying were those that advanced from tier 3 in the same cycle, we might find that many of the relegated teams may end up being from among those 8 advancers anyway, and in fact there might be little net change as far as that goes. But surely one or two of the relegated teams in each cycle would find themselves in new territory. (I am from Canada and after watching last night's debacle with Guatemala, I wonder if Tier 2 is too good for us. :o "But we were missing 3 key players.", he said, trotting out the old excuse bag.

I suppose the bottom line here is this. In so many posts I see the same comments about the political machinations that trouble the current system. So taking things to their simplest level, I asked myself why don't we remove the politics altogether?
The other point about my system is that it gives ALL teams something to shoot for. Their own Tier championship,(Big fish, small pond.) and advancement.(bigger pond)

A side effect of this system is the fact that it might make the Confederations Cup a little more meaningful. Those longing for the good old days of inter-confederation wrangling could find added interest. (Perhaps this could be expanded to 12 or 16 teams. Confederation Champions plus the top other team in the Confederation. Balanced participation.

Anyway, as always, I'll run this flag up the pole and see who salutes.
Cheers.

[wolf6656]

Just a note of background re our search for a better qualifying system.
I am listed as a newbie on the forum, because I have just found it recently.
While by no means and expert fan, I have been following the beautiful game with increasing interest since about 1988.

I was working in a warehouse and we had this Irish gentleman, Pat Fogerty working there who was a fanatic. He was also becoming a big hockey fan and we used to exhange stories about the "glory days" of each sport.

His passion was contagious and I found myself eagerly awaiting the World Cup. I listened to games on the radio in Spanish, of which I have an extremely limited familiarity. But I could understand, ARRRRRRRRRRgentina, and Gooooooooooooooool.

Growing up in Toronto, (probably one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world) I had always been exposed to fans of the game. My neighbours were of Italian, English, Irish, Hungarian, and Scottish descent. Many cities in the world have a Chinatown, but Toronto has its Greek section, Little Italy, Little Portugal, a large Jamaican section, and thousands of residents from probably every country in the world.

But being Canadian, hockey was it. Hockey was the big sport, but every four years, one would be treated to the sight of cars driving down the street waving flags and honking horns.

I remember 1994, still a big fan of Ireland, partly due to Pat, and partly due to my love of the underdog. I was up at the cottage, in Jackson's Point Ontario, and we had a bar down the road called the Irish house. I thought for sure they would have the game on. This was June 18, 1994 Ireland vs Italy. There were several tables of people watching the game. It soon became apparent though that I was the only one, other than the owner, cheering for Ireland. There were a lot of fans there of Italian descent. I got some glaring looks from the other tables when I jumped up to cheer for Houghton's goal in the 11th minute. I toned down my cheering a little after that, and smiled as Italian fans started leaving late in the second half.

I can remember sitting in another bar in the same town for the Brazil-Italy 0-0 penalty kick final. Again there was a room full of Italian fans, but a few Brazilian supporters.

Each cycle I watch more and more of the games. However, I am only just beginning to follow the club teams. It has always been the national teams, and the World Cup.

It is the same with hockey. Sure, I follow my Leafs passionately, but I really get pumped for the big international tournaments. My personal favorite is the World Junior Championship because of the quality and pace of the game, and the purity of the motive. This isn't about money, it's about love of the game, and national pride. These are the best non-professional hockey players in the world. I also go out to junior games locally.

During France 1998, I kept my own tables and it was the major topic of discussion at work. I had moved away from Toronto, but found that there were fans here in Kitchener too.

Hockey is still the number one sport around my house, but soccer has certainly pushed the other sports into the background. I watched as much of Euro2004 as I could. I really enjoyed watching Denmark. My wife got a little upset when I started watching the Copa on the Spanish station. "You're a fanatic!",she said.

All of this background counterpoints what I have been posting before.
I am no expert, but there are plenty of them out there, (and here). Surely someone could have come up with a better solution by now!

I'm starting to think that this debate about World Cup slots is an integral part of being a fan. Pat Fogerty certainly had his strong opinions about it, when I first started paying attention, and the debate rages on.

If we ever solved this debate, it wouldn't be as much fun anymore. We would have to spend our time doing something else.

Just a human observation.

[Sagy]

Yes, the more I ponder this problem, the more I wonder if we should have some kind of tiered system (Premier,Division 2, Division 3, Division 4) that does not rely on Confederation Politics at all.
56 teams in Tier 1
56 teams in Tier 2
56 teams in Tier 3
The remainder in Tier 4.

Tier 4 plays it's Tier 4 Championship at the same time or the month following the World Cup Finals. At the end of this tournament the 205 teams are set into tiers for the following cycle.

The top 8 teams in Tier 4 Championships then join the 56 teams in Tier 3.
They playsome kind of qualifying matches from Sept. to March, and the Tier 3 Final is held in June of year 1 of the cycle (1 year after WCF).
The top 8 Tier 3 teams, then join the 56 Tier 2 teams, and play some kind of qualifying matches from August - March for the Tier 2 Championship final to be held in July of year 2 of the cycle. (Note: all confederation championships must be held in June of Year 2. Euro, Copa America, Asian Cup,Gold etc.).


The top 8 tier 2 teams then join the 56 Tier 1 teams in qualifying matches from August year 2 til August year 3.
Winners of the qualification go to the World Cup Final.
If there is to be last chance round it can take place between August year3 to November year 3.
World cup Finals held in June year 4 of the cycle.

FIFA calendar is used to free up players for the qualifying dates.

The following cycle's Tier 4 teams are set in March of year 4, (there are only 37 or so of them.) So they all play in the Tier 4 Final the month following the World Cup Final.

At the end of the Tier 4 Championships, the next cycles Tiers are set.

The 8 teams from each tier that advance to play in the next tier's championships will benefit from better competition, and who knows, they may end up seeded higher in the following cycle. (There is also the possibility of upsets) Could you imagine Solomon Islands advancing out of Tier 3, then upsetting say Libya in Tier 2 qualifying?

Each Tier has its own Championship, and something to get excited about.

I'm just throwing it out there!
What do you think?

Is this workable or not?

It looks nice on paper, but I can see several issues. I'll list the first few that come to mind:

Travel time - Consider a qualifying matches for the tier 2 between New Zealand and Canada, or Chile and Azerbaijan (I picked random teams from UEFA, CONCACAF, OFC & CONMEBOL). Where will the games take place? Are the qualifiers going to be Home & Away or a group of 4? Can you see all these in one group? I would love to get the frequent miles from all the flying around the world :rolleyes: . If the qualifiers are going to be by geographical region, then we are back to the original problem of how to allocate the slots.
Cost - How are the tier 3 & 4 teams going to pay for the travel during qualifiers? What if they make it to the final 32, and have to fly half way around the world for a month? Some of the tier 2 teams will have this problem.
Attractiveness - How many people would come to see Faroe Islands vs. Solomon Islands, or Cape Verde Islands vs. Chinese Taipei (picked island federations from UEFA, AFC, OFC & CAF) if they play home & away? What if they played in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (CONCACAF) during the 2007 tier 3 world cup? (I think they have the longest name - it should count for something, so I awarded them the WC ;))
Relegation - You suggested a reasonable system for teams to move up a tier (finish in the top 8). How are teams going down? Is there a "playoff" among the losers of the qualifiers? Consider Austria of 1999, they made it to 2 of the last three WC (1990 & 1998), no great results, but they were not the worst either - clearly a top 56 team. Austria of 2001 might still qualify as a top 56, but clearly on the decline. Since they finished 3rd in their 2004 qualifying group (with a losing record!), they are now a 3rd tier UEFA (might drop to 4th), today they are ranked 70 in the world! Using the new system how are they going to be relegated from the top 56?
Quality - If we don't use seeding for the tier 1 WC qualifiers, we will end up with 8-12 teams that don't belong. By pure luck weaker teams will end up facing each other in the qualifiers while else where stronger teams will face each other (side note, the current system yields 3-4 teams that don't belong). If you do have seeding - see next issue.
Reducing 64 teams to 32 common ways to reduce 64 teams to 32 are:

2 teams, Home & Away - winner advance
4 teams single round robin - top two advance
4 teams double round robin - top two advance (travel time might make this unrealistic)
Consider Slovenia of 2003, in all likelihood a top 56 team (tier 1), but a low one at that. If we have seeding they'll have to go through a top 10 (home & Away) or two top 30 teams (round robin) to make it to the world cup. More often than not their national team will have 2-3 meaningful games in 4 years period (OK they'll have some more in the UEFA championship qualifiers). How likely are they to improve? Currently, other than the very low level teams, I think that everyone gets at least 8 games. If we don't have seeding, we have the quality issue and the losing teams still have to deal with too few games. If we go with a double round robin (minimum of 6 games per team) and group the teams by geography (to reduce travel time) we are back to the original problem of allocation WC spots by region.


I think that due mainly to travel time and cost having the world cup qualifying done by geographical regions (confederations) is a very reasonable solution. It also gives us the extra benefits of:
mostly top teams in the WC (I guess about 10% (or low teens) failure rate on this count.
reasonable probability of establishing/keeping revelries (same teams are in the WC, Confederation Championship qualifiers as well as facing each other in the U-x level and in club competitions. This increases the number of fans that will come to the games or watch them on TV.
Payday for tier 2 teams. Finland - Holland, Latvia - Portugal, Israel - France, Belarus - Italy, Northern Ireland - England, Lithuania - Spain; The home team fans of the underdog in all these match up will come out in very large numbers for these games. The current setup gives them at least 1-2 such games every cycle, the new suggestion will make this a rare event for these fans.

To be clear I like the way it looks on paper and it has some real merit :) , I just don't think that it can be implemented in our lifetime. :(

[wolf6656]

Travel time - Consider a qualifying matches for the tier 2 between New Zealand and Canada, or Chile and Azerbaijan (I picked random teams from UEFA, CONCACAF, OFC & CONMEBOL). Where will the games take place? Are the qualifiers going to be Home & Away or a group of 4? Can you see all these in one group? I would love to get the frequent miles from all the flying around the world :rolleyes: . If the qualifiers are going to be by geographical region, then we are back to the original problem of how to allocate the slots.
Cost - How are the tier 3 & 4 teams going to pay for the travel during qualifiers? What if they make it to the final 32, and have to fly half way around the world for a month? Some of the tier 2 teams will have this problem.
Attractiveness - How many people would come to see Faroe Islands vs. Solomon Islands, or Cape Verde Islands vs. Chinese Taipei (picked island federations from UEFA, AFC, OFC & CAF) if they play home & away? What if they played in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (CONCACAF) during the 2007 tier 3 world cup? (I think they have the longest name - it should count for something, so I awarded them the WC ;))


Ok Tier 4, since it is only 37 (or so) teams would be played as a championship tournament. 5 groups of 5, 3 groups of 4.
The groups could be arranged somewhat geographically, however not by a strict Confederation boundary. For instance Guam, Philippines etc, while being AFC teams are goegraphically closer to OFC teams than they are to say Mongolia. For TV, one might want to optimize the groups into time zones anyway.
For the higher tiers, we are talking preliminary groups involving home and away travel, again possibly arranged somewhat geographically but not strictly by confederation.
Lets take TIER 2.
For instance Conmebol and Concacaf teams could be involved together, and New Zealand being the lone OFC team would play against teams in South East Asia(say China PR, Indonesia and Singapore) Lebanon could end up against African teams as well as say Israel, Georgia, etc.

But the first criteria in assigning teams to groups within a tier would be seeding. With 64 teams,(56 + 8 advancers from lower tier), there would be 4 levels each containing sixteen teams. Each of the sixteen top teams would be arranged into geographic areas, and the same with each of the other seeding levels. Then the draw would take place. (obviously the seeding and geographical arrangement will not fall perfectly into place, so there will be some teams that have to play somewhat farther away from home than others.
Algeria being a top 16 seed of the tier, while being an African team is in close proximity to Europe and could end up against Austria 2ndseed, Cyprus 3rd seed, and Moldova 4th seed.
While there are 3 teams from the Americas in the top seed, there are only two in the 2nd seed and 4 in the 3rd seed, and 3 in the 4th seed(assuming Barbados advanced from Tier 3). Since Canada and Haiti are near the top of the 3rd seed, one of these teams could be moved up to a 2nd seeding, giving us 3 fairly seeded groups, more or less geographically arranged.
So we would try to come up with groups of teams in each seed that are more or less in a geographical area.
Georgraphic area A (contains teams from Northern Africa, Southern Europe, and Western Asia
1st seed
57 Algeria
58 Oman
60 Israel
70 Libya
2nd seed
71 United Arab Emirates
77 Ukraine
84 Syria
86 Austria
3rd seed
93 Turkmenistan
94 Albania
104 Cyprus
105 Georgia
4th seed
107 Sudan
109 Lebanon
118 Armenia
119 Azerbaijan

The Draw is then made from there.
The same goes for other areas.

Here is a hypothetical Tier 2 Preliminary group draw based on these principles.
A
57 Algeria
84 Syria
105 Georgia
118 Armenia

B
58 Oman
71 United Arab Emirates
94 Albania
119 Azerbaijan

C
60 Israel
86 Austria
93 Turkmenistan
109 Lebanon

D
70 Libya
77 Ukraine
104 Cyprus
107 Sudan

E
59 Scotland
75 Iceland
92 FYR Macedonia
111 Moldova

F
61 Wales
78 Hungary
85 Belarus
115 Lithuania

G
66 Slovakia
73 Bosnia-Herzegovina
82 Estonia
112 Northern Ireland

H
63 Trinidad and Tobago
90 Canada
99 Bolivia
116 Barbados

I
66 Chile
75 Peru
91 Haiti
108 St. Kitts and Nevis

J
66 Cuba
88 Guatemala
102 El Salvador
106 Panama

K
62 Côte d'Ivoire
86 Kenya
97 Congo
113 Liberia

L
69 Congo DR
80 Burkina Faso
100 Uganda
103 Malawi

M
71 Ghana
78 Angola
98 Rwanda
109 Botswana

N
74 Zambia
88 Guinea
95 Togo
120 Benin

O
64 Thailand
83 New Zealand
96 Indonesia
117 Singapore

P
64 China PR
80 Uzbekistan
100 Vietnam
114 Korea DPR

These preliminary groups would play home and away round robin over the 10 months from July to April. The top two teams in each group would go to the Tier 2 Final.
In the final these teams would be reseeded into 8 FINAL groups of 4 regardless of geographical areas. The group phase of the tournament would be hosted by
up to 8 different countries. (one for each group, although a single country if able could host two or more groups.) After the group stage, the knockout stages would take place in just one or two countries.


Relegation - You suggested a reasonable system for teams to move up a tier (finish in the top 8). How are teams going down? Is there a "playoff" among the losers of the qualifiers? Consider Austria of 1999, they made it to 2 of the last three WC (1990 & 1998), no great results, but they were not the worst either - clearly a top 56 team. Austria of 2001 might still qualify as a top 56, but clearly on the decline. Since they finished 3rd in their 2004 qualifying group (with a losing record!), they are now a 3rd tier UEFA (might drop to 4th), today they are ranked 70 in the world! Using the new system how are they going to be relegated from the top 56?

The bottom two teams of each of the preliminary groups (total 32) would be reseeded and play a home and away, losers go to the relegation round.
The 16 losers play a round of 16. (single game or home and away) The 8 losers drop to Tier 3 for the following cycle.

I think the rivalries will take care of themselves in such a setup. As far as payday goes, while many of the tier 2 teams will not get a match against a top tier 1 team, (the 8 advancers definitely will), I think this is more than compensated by the fact that the games they are playing will be of more even competition, and have greater chance for home team success. Minor sports have large local followings. Why? Because the teams involved are of a relatively even skill level, and the games are competitive. They have a chance at winning the district title, or the provincial championship.
You should see the crowds at a local junior hockey game. Thousands of fanatics with painted faces etc. I could drive to Toronto, Buffalo, or Detroit to watch NHL, and get the games on TV, but to get good quality entertainment at a fair price, with less hassle, I go to the Kitchener Ranger games, or even drive down the highway to a Guelph Storm game. Why? (Its the Big-fish in a small pond.) More people will go more often to see their local team play an important game with something on the line, than to watch a meaningless exhibition game.

Belarus against Lithuania, in a late group game with the winner to perhaps take 2nd place and advance to theTier 2 Final, would draw as well as England vs Belarus with Belarus not having a chance of advancing. (England not fielding a top side, as they already have the group sewn up)

I don't deny that this system has it's flaws, and has things to iron out, but I am only trying to answer the comments/problems that I read and hear over and over again.


Well, time to go again.
Cheers!

[ferx203]

1.- One playoff lose the chance of to play two more qualifying games on each confederation. The confederations involves in play-offs must finished the tournament in october 1997, 2001, 2005... and don´t use two FIFA dates in november 1997, 2001, 2005. Don´t use playoffs inter-confederations.

2.- OFC and CONMEBOL always be dificult determinates the slots, because they have less teams than other confederations (OFC 12, CONMEBOL 10). OFC is too weak (only Australia and New Zealand) and CONMEBOL is too strong (all teams are in the top 100 FIFA Rankings).

3.- Merge OFC with AFC (Asia-Pacific) and CONMEBOL with CONCACAF (Americas) helps to fix the problem of point 2.

4.- In this context, if use 2006 distribution the results are this.

Host : 1 (Germany)
UEFA : 13
Africa : 5
Asia-Pacific, AFC + OFC : 4.5 + 0.5 = 5
Americas, Conmebol + Concacaf = 4.5 + 3.5 = 8.
TOTAL : 32

5.- With only 4 groups (UEFA, Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas) it can distribute 16 slots, 4 for each confederation and another 16 slots for confederation teams in second round of World Cup Germany 2006.

Examples.

Second Round Teams France 98
UEFA : 10
Americas : 5
Africa : 1
Asia/Pacific : 0
Simulation for WC 2002
UEFA : 10 + 4 = 14
Americas : 5 + 4 = 9
Africa : 1 + 4 = 5
Asia-Pacific : 0 + 4 = 4

Second Round Teams Korea-Japan 2002
UEFA : 9
Americas : 4
Africa : 1
Asia/Pacific : 2
Simulation for WC 2006
UEFA : 9 + 4 = 13
Americas : 4 + 4 = 8
Africa : 1 + 4 = 5
Asia-Pacific : 2 + 4 = 6

It´s simple, at least 4 teams from each confederation (4x4=16) and 16 slots with the last world cup results (second round).

5.- The host and the holder are included in this distribution.

Simulation for WC 2006
UEFA : 9 + 4 = 13 (12 teams & Germany)
Americas : 4 + 4 = 8 (7 teams & Brazil)
Africa : 1 + 4 = 5
Asia-Pacific : 2 + 4 = 6

6.- This system is very simple, consider the influence of the best teams, if a confederation doesn´t qualify teams in top 16, at least have 4 slots for next world cup, if qualify 10 teams, obtains 10 + 4 for next world cup.

[Sagy]

6.- This system is very simple,Agreeded, it is both simple and elegant, however
consider the influence of the best teams,This is a problem, we are trying to find a system to determine how the bobble teams slots be allocated and this system is dividing these slots based on the top teams. AFC will show why this is a problem:

1994 - AFC(2), one AFC in final 16, the other clearly deserving (0:2:1, loss was 3:2).
1998 - AFC(4), one AFC team finished 3rd in their groups so they are deserving. However, the three other AFC teams had a combined record of 0:2:7 5-20 (none scored more than 2 goals). I think that every other confederation had at least one team more deserving of a world cup spot then these 3 teams.
2002 - AFC(4), both hosts (AFC teams) in the final 16 so they are deserving. The other two AFC teams were the weakest in the tournament. They had a combined record of 0:0:6 0-21:eek: these teams had no business being in the finals - two random teams picked by lot couldn't have done much worse:rolleyes:.
We can safely say that AFC showed that at best they deserve 3 automatic slots. This system will give AFC 6 slots in 2006:mad:; if that happens I'll be willing to put good money that 4 of them will finish last in their group.

CAF have done much better than AFC:

1994 - CAF(3), one CAF final 16, two other CAF teams probably not deserving (0:1:2 goals 3-11 for one and 0:0:3 2-5 for the other). But it was a 24 team world cup (tougher competition?) so let's say that these teams were deserving.
1998 - CAF(5), one CAF team in the final 16, 2 other CAF teams finished 3rd in their groups so they are deserving. However, the two other CAF teams had a combined record of 0:3:3 3-9 (none scored more than 2 goals). I agree that Cameroon 0:2:1 2-5 was probably deserving team, but Tunisia 0:1:2 1-4 was not.
2002 - CAF(5), one CAF team in the final 16, 2 other CAF teams finished 3rd in their groups so they are deserving. The other two teams had a combined record of 0:2:4 2-8. Nigeria 0:1:2 1-3 was probably deserving as well, but I think that any of the other confederations had a team of the outside that was more deserving than Tunisia (2nd time in a row the 5th "place" CAF team).
CAF showed that they have four teams that "deserve" to be in the WC finals; their 5th team is probably not deserving, but is clearly a bobble team.

An interesting idea might be to give 24 automatic spots based on the distribution of the teams finishing 1-3 in each group and have the allocation of the a last chance tournament based on the final 16 of the WC. I do not like this idea since it distribute the bobble teams based only on the record of the best teams in the confederation.
The reason I find it problematic is:
Final 16
AFC CAF CONMEBOL CONCACAF UEFA
1994 1 1 2 2 10
1998 - 1 4 1 10
2002 2 1 2 2 9
Last place
AFC CAF CONMEBOL CONCACAF UEFA
1994 - 2 2* - 2*
1998 3 2 - 1 2
2002 2 2 1* - 3*
* one 4th place team had at least 1 victory One can see from the above that giving AFC, and probably CAF, extra slots based on teams in the final 16 will not increase the number of deserving teams in the finals. It is also clear that UEFA has a problem when it come to the last few teams it sends (e.g. Greece-1994, Slovenia-2002). The only reasonable solution (in my opinion) is to have an inter-confederation tournament (10 days max) in a neutral location to determine the final few (6-8) spots.

[ferx203]

The problem is solved by the average of the second round teams from the 3 last world cups.

USA 94
UEFA : 10
Americas : 4
Africa : 1
Asia/Pacific : 1

France 98
UEFA : 10
Americas : 5
Africa : 1
Asia/Pacific : 0

Korea-Japan 2002
UEFA : 9
Americas : 4
Africa : 1
Asia/Pacific : 2

Average 1994-1998-2002
UEFA : 9.67 --> 10
Americas : 4.33 --> 4
Africa : 1.00 --> 1
Asia/Pacific : 1.00 --> 1

Simulation for WC 2006
UEFA : 10 + 4 = 14 (13 teams & Germany)
Americas : 4 + 4 = 8 (7 teams & Brazil)
Africa : 1 + 4 = 5
Asia-Pacific : 1 + 4 = 5

** Only extraordinary results will change the distribution of the slots for the next world cup.

Example.

Americas : 4 + 4 = 8.
Americas needs qualify 5 teams in 2006 for obtain an extra slot.
5 teams (98) + 4 teams (02) + 5 teams (06) = Average 4.67 teams.
For other hand if qualify only 1 team will lost a slot.
5 teams (98) + 4 teams (02) + 1 team (06) = Average 3.33 teams.

** Using averages, the differences between on world cup and another is only +/- 1 slot by confederation.

[Sagy]

The problem is solved by the average of the second round teams from the 3 last world cups.
[snip]
Simulation for WC 2006
UEFA : 10 + 4 = 14 (13 teams & Germany)
Americas : 4 + 4 = 8 (7 teams & Brazil)
Africa : 1 + 4 = 5
Asia-Pacific : 1 + 4 = 5

** Only extraordinary results will change the distribution of the slots for the next world cup.
This very slow feedback loop, is only one of the problems with this idea. Best case it will take 8 years for changes to be reflected. If you look at immerging teams (e.g. South Africa) the cycle is even longer (16-20 years). You might be able to fix this with a weighting system, but you are still not addressing the real issues:

AFC has shown on regular basis that they don't have more than 2 "deserving" teams and maybe 1-2 bobble teams. This system will give them 5 automatic slots until 2014 without any more success.
This system rewards confederations solely based on their best teams. The real issue is how to distribute the last 8-12 or so slots. We must also look at how these teams did to determine a fair allocation of slots.
The system ignoring partial success of deserving teams. The last two world cups, South Africa & Cameroon finished in 3rd in the group both time with a record of 1:3:2 each; Tunisia finished 4th twice with a record of 0:2:4 and Saudi Arabia has two 4th and a record of 0:1:5 (goals 2-19):eek:. Clearly, South Africa & Cameroon belong while Saudi Arabia and probably Tunisia do not.
The system ignores failures. 1994: Greece and Morocco are "rewarded" as much as Norway & Russia (only two losses are to the 1st & 3rd place teams).
1998: USA and Japan are no worse than Spain, Morocco (nice improvement) or Belgium (undefeated).
2002: Saudi Arabia and China (combined 0:0:6 0-21) have the same value South Africa, Costa Rica, Cameroon and Argentina (combined 4:4:4 14-16).:mad:

System has a very long memory. Saudi Arabia, probably the worst team of the last two WC combined i still helping its confederation in 2006 because of 1994 success (12 years and 2 failures later!).:confused:
The system is very resistant to change. UEFA with 13-14 teams, at least 4 seeded teams, and 5-6 groups with two teams is almost assured 8 out of the 16 spots. A&P/CAF with have almost not chance of getting another slot before 2014. For this to happen, They'll need to get two teams to the final 16 two out of three times. CAF has never done it and AFC only did it when the two host countries made it.

[ferx203]

Another Idea.

a) Distribute 14 slots for the results from last World Cup

- 2 places for confederations with teams in World Cup Final.
- 4 places for confederations with teams in World Cup Semifinals.
- 8 places for confederations with teams in World Cup Quarterfinals.

Distribution of the last WC :
Italy 90 : 10 UEFA, 3 Conmebol, 1 CAF.
USA 94 : 11 UEFA, 3 Conmebol.
France 98 : 10 UEFA, 4 Conmebol.
******-Kor 02 : 7 UEFA, 3 Conmebol, 2 AFC, 1 CAF, 1 Concacaf.

b) Distribute 2 slots to Host and Last Champion.

c) Distribute 16 slots in proportion to a number of members of each confederation.

- UEFA & CAF : 52 members, 4 slots each one.
- AFC : 44 members, 3 slots.
- CONCACAF : 35 members, 3 slots.
- CONMEBOL : 10 members, 1 slot.
- OFC : 12 members, 1 slot.

SIMULATION

France 98 (Results USA 94)
- UEFA : 4 + 11 = 15
- CONMEBOL : 1 + 3 = 4
- CAF : 4
- AFC : 3
- CONCACAF : 3
- OFC : 1
- DIRECT : France & Brazil.

******-Kor 02 (Results France 98)
- UEFA : 4 + 10 = 14
- CONMEBOL : 1 + 4 = 5
- CAF : 4
- AFC : 3
- CONCACAF : 3
- OFC : 1
- DIRECT : (******-Kor) & France.

Germany 06 (Results ******-Kor 02)
- UEFA : 4 + 7 = 11
- CAF : 4 + 1 = 5
- AFC : 3 + 2 = 5
- CONMEBOL : 1 + 3 = 4
- CONCACAF : 3 + 1 = 4
- OFC : 1
- DIRECT : Germany & Brazil.

****

Chances of additional slots.

- UEFA : The perfomance in ******-Kor 02 was the worst WC (4 quarterfinals). Always qualify at least 4 teams to quarterfinals, 2 on semifinals and one of the finalists.
- CONMEBOL : Since Spain'82 at least 1 conmebol team qualify to semifinals.
- CAF : Qualify a team to quarterfinals twice (1990, 2002).
- AFC : ******-Kor'02 was the best results to AFC (1 semifinalist and 1 quarterfinalist), it´s difficult repeat that in next world cups.
- CONCACAF : Same case of AFC, it´s difficult qualify a team to quarterfinals (1986, 2002).
- OFC : 1 slot for every WC. Only obtains 2 if Australia qualify to quarterfinals (very difficult).

*****

Conclusions

- Simple to explain.
- Dynamic, change the distribution always.
- OFC obtains 1 direct slot.
- Represents all the world with 16 proportional slots.
- Better perfomances means additional slots.
- Doesn't need playoff inter-confederations.

[Sagy]

Conclusions

- Simple to explain.Agreed.
- OFC obtains 1 direct slot.Will this still be a plus if Australia were to switch to AFC?

- Represents all the world with 16 proportional slots.Why is this good? The Caribbean just announced that they are splitting from CONCACAF, they want their 2 slots in the WC.
- Better perfomances means additional slots.But it is the performance of the top teams why should this help the bobble teams? :confused:
- Doesn't need playoff inter-confederations.Why is this bad?

You have addressed issues e & f from my last post (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3091908&postcount=69). However, issue b (rewards confederations solely based on their best teams) is now even worse. One good/lucky team will get you 3 slots! If that teams wins they add 4 slots to the confederation. :eek:

From my point of view, you are ignoring the fact that we want to get the top 32 teams into the WC. The systems that you are suggesting give 16 slots with no on the filed merit and 14 slots based on the top teams in each confederation. This system is likely to have us with 8-10 non-deserving teams in the WC (compared with 3-4 today).


- Dynamic, change the distribution always.correct, but too much of a good thing is bad:(. If Brazil loses to Belgium, CONMEBOL has a single slot for 2006:eek:. If they lose to England CONMEBOL has only two slots.

Any system that can yield these results with a swing of one game is a bad system.

[ferx203]

ok, thanks for your opinion Sagy.

Version 2
--------

- Confederations with best 24 teams in World Cups (24).
- Host & Holder (2).
- Playoffs (6).

Best 24 WC 2002.
- UEFA : 12
- CONMEBOL : 4
- CAF : 3
- CONCACAF : 3
- AFC : 2
- OFC : 0

Best 24 WC 1998
- UEFA : 13
- CONMEBOL : 5
- CAF : 3
- CONCACAF : 2
- AFC : 1
- OFC : 0

Playoffs places : 8 places.
- Ranking of best places 1998-2002.
1º UEFA : 25 ---> 3 playoff
2º CONMEBOL : 9 ---> 1 playoff
3º CAF : 6 ---> 1 playoff
4º CONCACAF : 5 ---> 1 playoff
5º AFC : 3 ---> 1 playoff
6º OFC : 0 ---> 1 playoff

- Playoffs Definition: South Africa November 2009

1º Playoff
Ranking 1 vs Ranking 8
Ranking 2 vs Ranking 7
Ranking 3 vs Ranking 6
Ranking 4 vs Ranking 5
- Winners qualify (4 places)

2º Playoff
Loser Rank 1-8 vs Loser Rank 4-5
Loser Rank 2-7 vs Loser Rank 3-6
- Winners qualify (2 places)

--------------

Conclusions
- Confederations with teams in best 24 in the last World Cup (24).
- Host and Holder (2).
- First Playoff (4).
- Second Playoff (2).

------------

Simulation Germany 2006 (FIFA Ranking Sep.2004)

- Host and Holder : Germany & Brazil.
- UEFA (12+3) : France, Spain, Czech Rep., Netherlands, England, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden. Croatia, Russia & Belgium to Playoffs.
- CONMEBOL (4+1) : Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia. Ecuador to Playoffs.
- CAF (3+1) : Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal. Morocco to Playoffs.
- CONCACAF (3+1) : Mexico, USA, Costa Rica. Honduras to Playoffs.
- AFC (2+1) : Japan, Iran. South Korea to Playoffs.
- OFC (0+1) : Australia to Playoffs.

1º Playoff
1-8 : South Korea (23) vs Australia (58)
2-7 : Croatia (25) vs Honduras (47)
3-6 : Russia (26) vs Ecuador (42)
4-5 : Belgium (29) vs Morocco (33)

2º Playoff
Loser S.Korea-Australia vs Loser Belgium-Morocco
Loser Croatia-Honduras vs Loser Russia-Ecuador

---------

[Sagy]

ferx203,

I would do it differently, but this seems like a reasonable solution. Two suggestions

Have the Host and WC holder spots come out of their confederation count. The host confederation has already the "home field" advantage (Every home team made it to the knockout stage). The Cup holder has already earned its confederation an extra slot so that team is only using what it earned on the field - why should the confederation get another slot.
For the "Playoff" have it as a mini-tournament. Example 4 groups of 4, group winners to the WC, 2nd vs. 3rd one game for the last 4 spots. The whole mini-tournament can be done in 10-12 days. If you want to finish the mini-tournament in a week, have the top two teams in each group qualify to the WC.

[ferx203]

Automatic System

32 teams who play WC 2006.
-2 worst teams (31º - 32º).
--
30 places from WC Qualifiers 2010.
+1 host (South Africa).
+1 playoff tournament.
--
32 places of WC 2010.
==

Playoff Tournament

- 8 teams. Knockout system. 1 for each confederation + confederation with teams 31º and 32º from last World Cup.
- Matchday 1 : Quarterfinals.
- Matchday 2 : Semifinals.
- Matchday 3 : Final Game. Winner go to World Cup.

- Host in South Africa November 2009 (3 matchdays - 2 weeks).
- Replace Confederations Cup 2009 with this tournament and use these matchdays for finish the qualifiers in september 2009.
- Move October 2009 matchdays to November 2009 and play the tournament.
- Confederations who lost direct places (31º, 32º) have more teams in playoffs (and more chances too).
------------------

Simulation with results of WC 2002.

32 teams of WC 2002 (Europe 15, Africa 5, Conmebol 5, Asia 4, Concacaf 3).
-2 worst teams (Asia -2, China & Saudi Arabia).
--
30 places of WC 2006 (Europe 15, Africa 5, Conmebol 5, Concacaf 3, Asia 2).
+1 host WC 2006 (Germany).
+1 playoff tournament.
--
32 places of WC 2006.

Playoff Tournament.
- 1 for each confederation.
- 2 extras for Asia (China 31º - Saudi Arabia 32º).

Playoff teams.
- 16º Europe
- 6º Africa
- 6º Conmebol
- 4º Concacaf
- 1º Oceania
- 3º, 4º, 5º Asia