WCQ '06 - Which region is hardest?

[drace768]

After reading a hijacked thread where posters were arguing over the relative difficulty of qualifying from different regions, I decided to do some analysis. I used current FIFA World Rankings, which I am aware are not great, but are the least subjective and most current. I then analyzed the final stage of qualifying for each region, since preliminary qualifying is so variable. I assumed the final stage of qualifying finished according to current FIFA rankings, so each region presented its best teams. Here are the results:

Average World Ranking of Final Qualifying Group
1. CAF = 31
2. AFC = 34
3. CONCACAF = 35
4. CONMEBOL = 44
5. UEFA = 66 (most skewed because all teams make final round)
6. OFC = 110

Average World Ranking of Automatic Qualifiers
1. UEFA = 8
2. CONCACAF = 14
3. CONMEBOL = 18
4. AFC = 22
5. CAF = 23
6. OFC = N/A

Average World Ranking of Playoff Qualifiers
1. UEFA = 26
2. CAF = 35
3. CONMEBOL = 36
4. AFC = 42
5. CONCACAF = 49
6. OFC = 52

IMO it was surprising to see average rankings of each region’s Automatic Qualifiers. Given the high degree of +/- you have to attribute to the FIFA World Rankings, the regions are relatively equal, except for OFC. The Playoff Qualifiers were more imbalanced, but the playoff format would rectify this. I would still say that UEFA is the hardest qualification, but due to the large number of minnows in the final round, might lack intensity in all but a few key games.

[skipshady]

Thanks for doing the legwork.

It's also important to look at the format. For example, because of the way UEFA divides all member nations into small groups, you could end up in a Group of Death or a group full of cupcakes depending on the luck of the draw. And as I said in the other thread, the Conmebol format makes it damn near impossible for a quality side to miss out without screwing up badly.

CONCACAF (http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/02/en/t/q/concacaf-pc.html) - CONMEBOL (http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/02/en/t/q/conmebol-a.html) - UEFA (http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/02/en/t/q/uefa-p.html)

Some people underestimate the difficulty of the Hexagonals, but unlike either South America or Europe, you have to play in a small group against all the top teams in your region.

[Andy TAUS]

After reading a hijacked thread where posters were arguing over the relative difficulty of qualifying from different regions, I decided to do some analysis. I used current FIFA World Rankings, which I am aware are not great, but are the least subjective and most current. I then analyzed the final stage of qualifying for each region, since preliminary qualifying is so variable. I assumed the final stage of qualifying finished according to current FIFA rankings, so each region presented its best teams. Here are the results:

Average World Ranking of Final Qualifying Group
1. CAF = 31
2. AFC = 34
3. CONCACAF = 35
4. CONMEBOL = 44
5. UEFA = 66 (most skewed because all teams make final round)
6. OFC = 110

Average World Ranking of Automatic Qualifiers
1. UEFA = 8
2. CONCACAF = 14
3. CONMEBOL = 18
4. AFC = 22
5. CAF = 23
6. OFC = N/A

Average World Ranking of Playoff Qualifiers
1. UEFA = 26
2. CAF = 35
3. CONMEBOL = 36
4. AFC = 42
5. CONCACAF = 49
6. OFC = 52

IMO it was surprising to see average rankings of each region’s Automatic Qualifiers. Given the high degree of +/- you have to attribute to the FIFA World Rankings, the regions are relatively equal, except for OFC. The Playoff Qualifiers were more imbalanced, but the playoff format would rectify this. I would still say that UEFA is the hardest qualification, but due to the large number of minnows in the final round, might lack intensity in all but a few key games.drace768,

Like the poster above, I say that you also need to look at the pathway into the WC Finals.

Having the lowly OFC winner playing the relatively stronger 5th placed CONMEBOL team in a H&A shoot-out for the 32nd WC Finals place is very hard on the OFC champion. Personally I'd prefer a UEFA style group qualification playoff (no matter the implications to the teams wrt travelling & associated costs) than a crap-shoot at the very last moment.

According to all 3 of your comparison statistics, this must make the OFC regional winner having the hardest path into the WC Finals. It explains why the OFC rarely achieves qualification.

[drace768]

According to all 3 of your comparison statistics, this must make the OFC regional winner having the hardest path into the WC Finals. It explains why the OFC rarely achieves qualification.
Acually it shows that a UEFA team that has to go through a H&A playoff against another UEFA team has the hardest road, since the average UEFA playoff team has a 26 World Ranking. 6 UEFA teams will have playoffs for 3 WCQ spots.

[Andy TAUS]

Acually it shows that a UEFA team that has to go through a H&A playoff against another UEFA team has the hardest road, since the average UEFA playoff team has a 26 World Ranking. 6 UEFA teams will have playoffs for 3 WCQ spots.Disagree as that's UEFA teams #11 through #16 (in reality #12 - #17 when the host spot is taken into account) playing for those guaranteed UEFA 3 places, unlike OFC team #1 (FIFA #50+) playing CONMEBOL team #5 (FIFA # 30-35'ish).

Completely different pathway. UEFA is easier, otherwise, let OFC #1 play in those 6 UEFA teams and have UEFA #16/17 play against CONMEBOL #5.

Same outcome ? Not likely !

[El CHarro_NEgro....]

What about this semifinal table for WC 2002 for CONCACAF?

Group E
Team P W D L GF:GA Pts
USA 6 3 2 1 14:3 11
Guatemala 6 3 1 2 9:6 10
Costa Rica 6 3 1 2 9:6 10
Barbados 6 1 0 5 3:20 3

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/02/en/t/q/concacaf-sf.html

[drace768]

Disagree as that's UEFA teams #11 through #16 (in reality #12 - #17 when the host spot is taken into account) playing for those guaranteed UEFA 3 places, unlike OFC team #1 (FIFA #50+) playing CONMEBOL team #5 (FIFA # 30-35'ish).

Completely different pathway. UEFA is easier, otherwise, let OFC #1 play in those 6 UEFA teams and have UEFA #16/17 play against CONMEBOL #5.

Same outcome ? Not likely !
Only the average ranking playoff team in UEFA would be 26, while the CONMEBOL #5 is currently ranked 36. They may be guaranteed UEFA spots, but that is meaningless to an individual team. It still means that a UEFA playoff team has to beat a team that will probably be ranked in the mid 20's, while an OFC team will have to beat a team a team ranked in the mid 30's. It is more difficult for an OFC because there teams are not good. Australia, the top team is ranked 52.

[drace768]

What about this semifinal table for WC 2002 for CONCACAF?

Group E
Team P W D L GF:GA Pts
USA 6 3 2 1 14:3 11
Guatemala 6 3 1 2 9:6 10
Costa Rica 6 3 1 2 9:6 10
Barbados 6 1 0 5 3:20 3

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/02/en/t/q/concacaf-sf.html
What about it?

[drace768]

Thanks for doing the legwork.

It's also important to look at the format. For example, because of the way UEFA divides all member nations into small groups, you could end up in a Group of Death or a group full of cupcakes depending on the luck of the draw. And as I said in the other thread, the Conmebol format makes it damn near impossible for a quality side to miss out without screwing up badly.

Some people underestimate the difficulty of the Hexagonals, but unlike either South America or Europe, you have to play in a small group against all the top teams in your region.
I agree that the format makes a difference. AFC, CAF & CONCACAF have the most intense final round, because the preliminary rounds have weeded out the minnows. However, the comparison of the Automatic and Playoff Qualifiers shows UEFA with a significant advantage.

Admittedly, you can have one or two groups of cupcakes, but on average, a UEFA team has a tougher road. The pressure for UEFA teams are 2 to 4 tough games in group play and then to dominate the rest of their games. While AFC, CAF & CONCACAF have major pressure just to get points in every game in the final round. Certainly different kinds of pressure and AFC, CAF & CONCACAF have tough final rounds, but UEFA's appear a little tougher. I totally agree that CONMEBOL is set up to protect the best teams from upset.

[Rewinder]

What about it?

Guatemala and Costa Rica have exactly the same stats. GF:GA is the same too. One of them got screwed in favor of the other.

[skipshady]

Guatemala and Costa Rica have exactly the same stats. GF:GA is the same too. One of them got screwed in favor of the other.
What was the tiebreaker after goals scored?

[ursula]

A one game playoff held in Miami. CR squeeked by 5-2.

[Raider Red]

I think in looking at difficulty of qualifying you could look at two stats that are somewhat related:

1. Points per game of qualifiers.

2. Points per game of playoff teams.

Looking at the difference tells you if a team breezed through qualifying, or had to win on the last day to squeak through.

You could also look at the difference between the qualifiers and playoff teams in terms of world ranking to see if a team plays largely inferior competition.

[skipshady]

A one game playoff held in Miami. CR squeeked by 5-2.
Oh. I was wondering what "got screwed" meant.

[Tigerpunk]

I think there are two different questions here. One is which qualifying route will make it the most likely that a team who SHOULD qualify won't, and the other is which qualifying route will make it the most likely that a team who shouldn't qualify can, given that the best 32 teams irrespective of region "should" qualify.

UEFA is probably the hardest for the top teams to qualify for, simply because of its randomness. I doubt you'd see a Holland or an England fail to qualify often from any other conference except Africa, and only then if the ranking system put them with a tough challenger. The United States, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina are almost assured to go through, as are any team that is both talented and lucky in UEFA (luck of the draw plays big there).

The easiest to qualify if you tend to suck is Asia, because of ITS randomness, and because there simply aren't all that many quality teams in Asia (Japan and Korea are both world cup quality...after that its a little bit of a crapshoot. One of the middle eastern teams generally qualifies, altho their talent can..how do I put this...range. China is an up and comer, but their time hasnt arrived yet).

The hardest to qualify from if you don't deserve it is probably South America, because everybody plays each other twice and cream rises in the long run. I think that, more than any other reason, is why the 5th seed

Australia is a borderline quality team just outside of the top 32, in my opinion. I think their qualification is right now fair, although I'd also think it would be fair if they had to play against anyone OTHER THAN ONE OF THE Euro or Asia teams (why? because it gives Australia exactly what it wants and does not deserve...the possibility that it will play no team even remotely talented in order to qualify for the cup, should the 2nd place team in a group be, say, Israel).

I do not buy the "we haven't had the chance to play meaningful qualifiers" theory...hosts don't tend to do all that poorly in the world cup, and nor does brazil despite regularly playing their b squad for qualies. In a sense, they have a huge advantage over south american qualifiers who have had to play a full pro season plus qualies over the last few years. Australian players tend to play less than their south american national team counterparts, and are less likely to be hurt, injured, or tired.

In summary.

Concacaf = easy to qualify when you're the US or Mexico (i.e. a top 10 team), harder to qualify if you're one of the many 25-50 teams (Hondurus, Costa Rica (well, the old CR), Jamaica, Canada, Trinidad, and Guatamala all could play respectably in the world cup).

CONMEBAL = easy to qualify if you deserve it, tougher if you don't.

UEFA = Tough to qualify if you deserve it, surprisingly easy to have a shot at it if you don't. Don't expect the Slovakias of the world to have qualified in most countries.

OFC = Somewhat random to have it based on two games, but if Australia CONSISTENTLY loses their home and home, then they probably don't deserve it. A conference of (basically) one does not deserve an automatic qualifier or a home and home against a minnow from another conference as their road to the cup.

AsianFC = Very easy to qualify if you're Korea or Japan, everyone else is a crapshoot but they all don't deserve it anyway most likely, so in all too easy if you ask me.

AfrFC = Easy to qualify unless one of the ranked teams gets drawn into a group with a tough competitor. So long as they get as many bids as they deserve and they rank all the deserving teams, then there will be few upsets here.

[Tigerpunk]

I agree that the format makes a difference. AFC, CAF & CONCACAF have the most intense final round, because the preliminary rounds have weeded out the minnows. However, the comparison of the Automatic and Playoff Qualifiers shows UEFA with a significant advantage.

Admittedly, you can have one or two groups of cupcakes, but on average, a UEFA team has a tougher road. The pressure for UEFA teams are 2 to 4 tough games in group play and then to dominate the rest of their games. While AFC, CAF & CONCACAF have major pressure just to get points in every game in the final round. Certainly different kinds of pressure and AFC, CAF & CONCACAF have tough final rounds, but UEFA's appear a little tougher. I totally agree that CONMEBOL is set up to protect the best teams from upset.

I don't know. If Japan/Korea was any indicator, the teams that squeaked in from Europe were s*** compared to some of the teams that squaked in from other conferences, Saudi Arabia excluded (even Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Paraguay impressed). So while I do think the randomness makes life tough for the good-but-unlucky, I don't think on "average" UEFA is harder than any other conference other than Asia and perhaps OFC. That is, I think it's more likely UEFA has too many bids rather than too few. They do, however, probably need to alter their playoff system as to get their best 14 (or whatever) teams to the cup.

[drace768]

I don't know. If Japan/Korea was any indicator, the teams that squeaked in from Europe were s*** compared to some of the teams that squaked in from other conferences, Saudi Arabia excluded (even Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Paraguay impressed). So while I do think the randomness makes life tough for the good-but-unlucky, I don't think on "average" UEFA is harder than any other conference other than Asia and perhaps OFC. That is, I think it's more likely UEFA has too many bids rather than too few. They do, however, probably need to alter their playoff system as to get their best 14 (or whatever) teams to the cup.
Well the stats say other wise, if you go by world rankings, which are questionable at best. One major thing you are overlooking though, Germany made into WC '02 on a playoff with another European team and made it all the way to the finals, so the Europe playoff teams were not all s*** compared to others.

[ursula]

Oh. I was wondering what "got screwed" meant.

Yeah- Certain words get a whole new meaning here on BS. ;)

[saabrian]

Personally I'd prefer a UEFA style group qualification playoff (no matter the implications to the teams wrt travelling & associated costs) than a crap-shoot at the very last moment.

Personally I'd prefer that too, but it's easier for me because I'm not the one paying the travel and associated costs. If FIFA (ie: its richer members) wants to help subsidize travel for Guinea-Bissau to travel to Tonga, Finland and Canada, then ok. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

[SJJ]

I think in looking at difficulty of qualifying you could look at two stats that are somewhat related:

1. Points per game of qualifiers.

2. Points per game of playoff teams.

But this really doesn't follow the initial point of the thread, which is a PREDICTIVE analysis of the confederation qualifying processes (based on the Fifa rankings), but you are doing the analysis AFTER qualifying ends.