Asia 4 and half !!

[Elninho]

(I need info on that Asian tournement you are talking about, because the only way they had a chance of winning such tournement would have been if Europe's representitive was Kazakhestan and Asia's was Nepal)

The four teams in the tournament were: Honduras, Slovenia, China, and Hong Kong - incidentally, all of which are better than Nepal.

Slovenia actually fielded a stronger starting lineup than they had during the World Cup - Zahovic was playing for them. Honduras, fielding only 5 regular starters, thrashed them 5-1.

[gethomas3]

ALL RIGHT!!!

I will answer this once and for all:

CONCACAF is better then CAF, AFC, and OFC. Why? Becase we actually win shit. This is the ultimate prove regardless of whether Korea paid the ref, etc (and we all know they did). The list will provide the World Cup, team, and results as Wins/ties/loses. Then Goals Scored-Goals against.

Example:

Team (world cup finish) wins-ties-loses / goals scored-goals against

Host nations has an * next to it
Worst performing team is Underlined
Best Performing team is Bold

1986:
CONCACAF
*Mexico (Quater-finals) 3-2-0 / 6-2
Canada (First round) 0-0-3 / 0-5

CAF
Morocco (Second round) 1-2-1 / 3-2
Algeria (First round) 0-1-2 / 1-5

AFC
South Korea (First round) 0-1-2 / 4-7
Iraq (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-4

Ranking in 1986:
1-CONCACAF (Had one team in the quaterfinals)
2-CAF (Had one team in the Second round)
3-AFC (Both teams eliminated in the first round)

1990:
CONCACAF
Costa Rica (Second round) 2-0-2 / 4-6
United States (First round) 0-0-3 / 2-8

CAF
Cameroon (Quater-finals) 3-0-2 / 7-9
Egypt (First round) 0-2-1 / 1-2

AFC
South Korea (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-6
United Arab Emirates (First round) 0-0-3 / 2-11

Ranking in 1990:
1-CAF (Had one team in the quaterfinals)
2-CONCACAF (Had one team in the Second round)
3-AFC (Both teams eliminated in the first round)

1994:
CONCACAF
*United States (Second round) 1-1-2 / 3-4
Mexico (Second round) 1-2-1 / 4-4

CAF
Nigeria (Second round) 2-0-2 / 7-4
Cameroon (First round) 0-1-2 / 3-11
Morocco (First round) 0-0-3 / 2-5

AFC
Saudi Arabia (Second round) 2-0-2 / 5-6
South Korea (First round) 0-2-1 / 4-5

Ranking in 1994:
1-CONCACAF (Had two teams in the Second round)
2-AFC (Had one team in the Second round and has best overall record in between AFC and CAF)
2-CAF (Had one team in the Second round)

1998:
CONCACAF
Mexico (Second round) 1-2-1 / 8-7
Jamaica (First round) 1-0-2 / 3-9
United States (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-5

CAF
Nigeria (Second round) 2-0-2 / 6-9
Morocco (First round) 1-1-1 / 5-5
South Africa (First round) 0-2-1 / 3-6
Cameroon (First round) 0-2-1 / 2-5
Tunisia (First round) 0-1-2 / 1-4

AFC
South Korea (First round) 0-1-2 / 4-7
Saudi Arabia (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-7
Japan (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-4

Ranking in 1998:
1-CAF (Had two teams in the Second round and the best overall record in between CAF and CONCACAF)
2-CONCACAF (Had one team in the Second round)
3-AFC (All three teams eliminated in the first round)

2002:
CONCACAF
United States (Quater-finals) 2-1-2 / 7-7
Mexico (Second round) 2-1-1 / 4-4
Costa Rica (First round) 1-1-1 / 5-6

CAF
Senegal (Quater-final) 1-4-0 / 7-6
South Africa (First round) 1-1-1 / 5-5
Cameroon (First round) 1-1-1 / 2-3
Nigeria (First round) 0-1-2 / 1-3
Tunisia (First round) 0-1-2 / 1-5

AFC
*South Korea (Semi-Final) 2-3-2 / 8-6
*Japan (Second round) 2-1-1 / 5-3
China (First round) 0-0-3 / 0-9
Saudi Arabia (First round) 0-0-3 / 0-12

Ranking in 2002:
1-AFC (Had one team in the Semifinals and one in the Second round)
2-CONCACAF (Had one team in the Quaterfinals and one in the Second round)
3-CAF (Had one team in the Quaterfinals)


2006:
CONCACAF
Mexico (Second round) 1-1-2 / 5-5
United States (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-6
Trinidad & Tobago (First round) 0-1-2 / 0-4
Costa Rica (First round) 0-0-3 / 3-9

CAF
Ghana (Second round) 2-0-2 / 4-6
Ivory Coast (First round) 1-0-2 / 5-6
Angola (First round) 0-2-1 / 1-2
Tunisia (First round) 0-1-2 / 3-6
Togo (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-6

AFC
South Korea (First round) 1-1-1 / 3-4
Iran (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-6
Japan (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-7
Saudi Arabia (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-7

Ranking in 2006:
1-CAF (Had one in the Second round and best overall record between CAF and CONCACAF)
2-CONCACAF (Had one team in the Second round)
3-AFC (All teams eliminated in the first round)

Overview
CAF: 15-25-36 (20% winning rate / 33% tying rate / 47% losing rate)

AFC: 7-13-37 (12% winning rate / 23% tying rate / 65% losing rate)

CONCACAF: 15-13-30 (26% winning rate / 23% tying rate / 51% losing rate)

CONCLUSION:
Well, never mind what I said earlier about CONCACAF being the best. Looks like CONCACAF and CAF is more or less the same. But it still proves that AFC is clearly below our standards of performance. I mean, 65% losing rate?

[citizenfan redded]

I personally don't mind Asia get 4.5 or more.
Asian football is improving very fast. You saw that Australia struggled so badly in Asian Cup 2007.
There are about 46 nations registered in AFC, and 4.5 among 46 nations aren't much.
I think UEFA's berths should be lessened because countries like Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia,....aren't worthy to take part in.

ALL RIGHT!!!

I will answer this once and for all:

CONCACAF is better then CAF, AFC, and OFC. Why? Becase we actually win shit. This is the ultimate prove regardless of whether Korea paid the ref, etc (and we all know they did). The list will provide the World Cup, team, and results as Wins/ties/loses. Then Goals Scored-Goals against.

Example:

Team (world cup finish) wins-ties-loses / goals scored-goals against

Host nations has an * next to it
Worst performing team is Underlined
Best Performing team is Bold

1986:
CONCACAF
*Mexico (Quater-finals) 3-2-0 / 6-2
Canada (First round) 0-0-3 / 0-5

CAF
Morocco (Second round) 1-2-1 / 3-2
Algeria (First round) 0-1-2 / 1-5

AFC
South Korea (First round) 0-1-2 / 4-7
Iraq (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-4

Ranking in 1986:
1-CONCACAF (Had one team in the quaterfinals)
2-CAF (Had one team in the Second round)
3-AFC (Both teams eliminated in the first round)

1990:
CONCACAF
Costa Rica (Second round) 2-0-2 / 4-6
United States (First round) 0-0-3 / 2-8

CAF
Cameroon (Quater-finals) 3-0-2 / 7-9
Egypt (First round) 0-2-1 / 1-2

AFC
South Korea (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-6
United Arab Emirates (First round) 0-0-3 / 2-11

Ranking in 1990:
1-CAF (Had one team in the quaterfinals)
2-CONCACAF (Had one team in the Second round)
3-AFC (Both teams eliminated in the first round)

1994:
CONCACAF
*United States (Second round) 1-1-2 / 3-4
Mexico (Second round) 1-2-1 / 4-4

CAF
Nigeria (Second round) 2-0-2 / 7-4
Cameroon (First round) 0-1-2 / 3-11
Morocco (First round) 0-0-3 / 2-5

AFC
Saudi Arabia (Second round) 2-0-2 / 5-6
South Korea (First round) 0-2-1 / 4-5

Ranking in 1994:
1-CONCACAF (Had two teams in the Second round)
2-AFC (Had one team in the Second round and has best overall record in between AFC and CAF)
2-CAF (Had one team in the Second round)

1998:
CONCACAF
Mexico (Second round) 1-2-1 / 8-7
Jamaica (First round) 1-0-2 / 3-9
United States (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-5

CAF
Nigeria (Second round) 2-0-2 / 6-9
Morocco (First round) 1-1-1 / 5-5
South Africa (First round) 0-2-1 / 3-6
Cameroon (First round) 0-2-1 / 2-5
Tunisia (First round) 0-1-2 / 1-4

AFC
South Korea (First round) 0-1-2 / 4-7
Saudi Arabia (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-7
Japan (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-4

Ranking in 1998:
1-CAF (Had two teams in the Second round and the best overall record in between CAF and CONCACAF)
2-CONCACAF (Had one team in the Second round)
3-AFC (All three teams eliminated in the first round)

2002:
CONCACAF
United States (Quater-finals) 2-1-2 / 7-7
Mexico (Second round) 2-1-1 / 4-4
Costa Rica (First round) 1-1-1 / 5-6

CAF
Senegal (Quater-final) 1-4-0 / 7-6
South Africa (First round) 1-1-1 / 5-5
Cameroon (First round) 1-1-1 / 2-3
Nigeria (First round) 0-1-2 / 1-3
Tunisia (First round) 0-1-2 / 1-5

AFC
*South Korea (Semi-Final) 2-3-2 / 8-6
*Japan (Second round) 2-1-1 / 5-3
China (First round) 0-0-3 / 0-9
Saudi Arabia (First round) 0-0-3 / 0-12

Ranking in 2002:
1-AFC (Had one team in the Semifinals and one in the Second round)
2-CONCACAF (Had one team in the Quaterfinals and one in the Second round)
3-CAF (Had one team in the Quaterfinals)


2006:
CONCACAF
Mexico (Second round) 1-1-2 / 5-5
United States (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-6
Trinidad & Tobago (First round) 0-1-2 / 0-4
Costa Rica (First round) 0-0-3 / 3-9

CAF
Ghana (Second round) 2-0-2 / 4-6
Ivory Coast (First round) 1-0-2 / 5-6
Angola (First round) 0-2-1 / 1-2
Tunisia (First round) 0-1-2 / 3-6
Togo (First round) 0-0-3 / 1-6

AFC
South Korea (First round) 1-1-1 / 3-4
Iran (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-6
Japan (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-7
Saudi Arabia (First round) 0-1-2 / 2-7

Ranking in 2006:
1-CAF (Had one in the Second round and best overall record between CAF and CONCACAF)
2-CONCACAF (Had one team in the Second round)
3-AFC (All teams eliminated in the first round)

Overview
CAF: 15-25-36 (20% winning rate / 33% tying rate / 47% losing rate)

AFC: 7-13-37 (12% winning rate / 23% tying rate / 65% losing rate)

CONCACAF: 15-13-30 (26% winning rate / 23% tying rate / 51% losing rate)

CONCLUSION:
Well, never mind what I said earlier about CONCACAF being the best. Looks like CONCACAF and CAF is more or less the same. But it still proves that AFC is clearly below our standards of performance. I mean, 65% losing rate?

[glennaldo_sf]

Seriously dude.. do you have to quote the guys ENTIRE post? :rolleyes:

Anyhoo... I think things are fine as they are... CONCACAF gets 3.5 spots, ASIA/OCEANIA 5 spots... CAF 5 spots. Keep it as it is.

[Cirdan]

I personally don't mind Asia get 4.5 or more.
Asian football is improving very fast. You saw that Australia struggled so badly in Asian Cup 2007.
There are about 46 nations registered in AFC, and 4.5 among 46 nations aren't much.
I think UEFA's berths should be lessened because countries like Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia,....aren't worthy to take part in.

Poland not worthy? And Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Togo or Trinidad are? At least Poland won a game in the last world cup... Only 1 single AFC team did that. No AFC team managed to pass group stage, the whole WC was a disaster for them. I really doubt that any Asian team is better than Poland... the legend of improvement in Asia (or Africa) is not a new one, only the hosts in '02 really lived up to it. And Serbia was in the group of death, neither Slovenia nor Slovakia qualified, teams like Turkey, Romania, Russia, Denmark or Ireland failed, too, and I doubt that they are worse than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I would do something like this:

Asia: 3.5
Oceania: 0.5
N. America: 3.5
S. America: 5.5
Africa: 4+1
Europe: 14

South America had not a single team without a win in the last WC, since the World Cup has 32 teams, the worst team was Uruguay with 2 draws... they really deserve more teams. And Europe doesn't deserve having less teams. Asia on the other hand had always at least 2 teams without a win, 1998 and 2006 not a single Asian team reached second round, only the hosts in 2002 had decent results.

In the 2002 Qualification Europe got less places, because some went to the hosts, in 2006 despite having the host, Europe got again less places because European teams were not impressing in 2002, now for 2010, despite having performed great in the last world cup, we get less places again.

[midknight]

I am so sorry this thread died as early as it did.

- 100% sure AFC's 5th will beat Concacaf's 4th he said

:D

[Wezza]

I am so sorry this thread died as early as it did.

- 100% sure AFC's 5th will beat Concacaf's 4th he said

:D

Agreed.

[gethomas3]

I am so sorry this thread died as early as it did.

- 100% sure AFC's 5th will beat Concacaf's 4th he said

:D

Either you are ignorant or you must be smoking something really good. If you are, I want whatever you are smoking, too. AFC is utter crap compare to CONCACAF. The only confederation even with us is CAF. UEFA is second. CONMEBOL is obviously first.

[Iraqi69]

Either you are ignorant or you must be smoking something really good. If you are, I want whatever you are smoking, too. AFC is utter crap compare to CONCACAF. The only confederation even with us is CAF. UEFA is second. CONMEBOL is obviously first.

What HAHAha? You mean that concacaf is better then UEFA? man what have you snorted

[gethomas3]

What HAHAha? You mean that concacaf is better then UEFA? man what have you snorted

All right, jackass. Since I need to spell everything out for you, here is the ranking:

1-CONMEBOL
2-UEFA
3-CONCACAF
4-CAF
5-AFC
6-OFC

[Wezza]

Seriously, why do rate CONCACAF so highly? Other than USA & Mexico, there are no other teams of worthy note in that confederation.

[tomwilhelm]

Seriously, why do rate CONCACAF so highly?
Because they have a substantially better record than Africa and especially Asia in the world cup.

Other than USA & Mexico, there are no other teams of worthy note in that confederation.
Which are the "teams of worthy note" in Asia or Africa and what have they done to deserve that distinction?

[Team Melli forever]

You missed Iran in 1998, and AFC' 4.5 spots isn't due to Asia's strength, rather it is due to Asia's huge population. We are the biggest and the largest continent/confederation and deserve an extra spot for that.

The quality of Asia's football will improve in the long run and for your information, other than USA and Mexico no other CONCACAF team ever does anything at the world stage.

[puff redded]

Because they have a substantially better record than Africa and especially Asia in the world cup.


Which are the "teams of worthy note" in Asia or Africa and what have they done to deserve that distinction?

Listen! USA failed to beat Iran in 98. And USA didn't beat Korea in 2002.
USA may be better than Japan or China, but Iran and Korea are better than USA.

[midknight]

Either you are ignorant or you must be smoking something really good. If you are, I want whatever you are smoking, too. AFC is utter crap compare to CONCACAF. The only confederation even with us is CAF. UEFA is second. CONMEBOL is obviously first.

Learn to read. The "he said" should tip you off.

If that doesn't work, try looking at the smiley underneath.
If that doesn't work, try reading the 8 or 9 pages of this post that you dredged up from Hades, and you'd understand.
Hell, if that doesn't work, read what follows:









I WAS MAKING FUN OF AN EARLIER QUOTE!

:rolleyes:

[Ali_reza]

Because they have a substantially better record than Africa and especially Asia in the world cup.


Of course since both teams get to play every WC due to your weak confederation who gets 3.5 spots !

And the 3 world cups Mexico and the US have hosted has also help.

[tomwilhelm]

Listen! USA failed to beat Iran in 98. And USA didn't beat Korea in 2002.
USA may be better than Japan or China, but Iran and Korea are better than USA.
I hear Mexico beat Brazil recently. More than once even. Clearly they're better than Brazil... :rolleyes:


You missed Iran in 1998, and AFC' 4.5 spots isn't due to Asia's strength, rather it is due to Asia's huge population. We are the biggest and the largest continent/confederation and deserve an extra spot for that.
Member countries
UEFA: 53
CAF: 53
AFC: 46
Concacaf: 40
Oceania: 11
Conmebol: 10

What do you mean by "biggest" and "largest" and what's the difference?

Do you mean you have lots of people? What's that got to do with it? Between China, India and Indonesia alone you have more than 40% of the world's population. Yet combined, those three countries would still probably go three and out in the World Cup.

The quality of Asia's football will improve in the long run...
Good for you. That and $2 will get you a large coffee most places.

...and for your information, other than USA and Mexico no other CONCACAF team ever does anything at the world stage.As I said... who are these great Asian teams that have performed so much better and more consistently on the world stage?

[tomwilhelm]

Of course since both teams get to play every WC due to your weak confederation who gets 3.5 spots !

I don't think you addressed the point at all. You're saying that because Mexico and the US have easier qualifying, that Concacaf performs better than Asia and Africa at the World Cup? Please clarify...

And the 3 world cups Mexico and the US have hosted has also help.

The only time an Asian team has made it out of the first round ever was by hosting. Glass houses. Stones. All that...

[puff redded]

I hear Mexico beat Brazil recently. More than once even. Clearly they're better than Brazil... :rolleyes:

But Mexico lost to Korea MANY times recently. Mexico better than Korea? I don't think so.
I never mentioned Mexico.
As fas as I know, Brazil won Copa America this year.

[glennaldo_sf]

Listen! USA failed to beat Iran in 98. And USA didn't beat Korea in 2002.
USA may be better than Japan or China, but Iran and Korea are better than USA.

LOL! You are making me laugh. On what criteria are you making these assumptions... Korea couldn't beat the USA backed by their own fans and some pretty dodgy referees back in 2002... Are you referring to that Iran - USA match in 1998??? LOL! If im not mistaken that game was one of the most one-sided matches of the world cup... Iran got two chances and scored from them. Anyhoo.. the result is irrelevant as US soccer has come miles since then... I can't say the same about Iranian football... there isn't a single player that played that day that is still playing for the current US national team except for Keller who gets the odd callup but is no longer our number 1 keeper. Anyhoo, you sort of contradict yourself here... USA > Japan .... Japan > Iran, so therefore..... ;)

Anyhow, I prefer to look at more recent results, such as the latest world cup, for a better reflection on this camparison... USA tied and almost beat the world champions Italy while playing with 10 men - Iran meanwhile drew with Angola and then lost to 3-1 to Mexico, a team who we beat regularly.

You missed Iran in 1998, and AFC' 4.5 spots isn't due to Asia's strength, rather it is due to Asia's huge population. We are the biggest and the largest continent/confederation and deserve an extra spot for that.

The quality of Asia's football will improve in the long run and for your information, other than USA and Mexico no other CONCACAF team ever does anything at the world stage.

Actually TM, I fuly agree with the first part of this comment, I think that Asia's extra spot is merited due the size of its region and the potential of its football-mad nations. The second part of this quote however is a little ignorant. Costa Rica, Jamaica, and Trinidad & Tobago have all taken points and made an impression at recent world cups... with Costa Rica reaching the latter stages of WC90. Also, Costa Rica and Honduras have all scored big wins in recent Copa Americas - the latter knocking out Brazil in 2001.

In theory; the likes of China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and even Uzbekistan should be able to make a much bigger impression on the international game than teams like Costa Rica, Honduras, and Jamaica - but the reality is - that just hasn't been the case. The acquisition of Australia, who performed valiently in 2006, to the AFC, along with the potential of up-and coming teams in the region, merits their keeping one place over CONCACAF but if that potential doesn't soon turn into results, then the call to decrease the AFC's spots may become a very valid one.