Slots for Next World Cup in Germany

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by CanuckFan
I think you meant to say "arguably Australia deseves a full spot". Oceania is a joke. If Australia cannot beat the 5th team from CONMEBOL, they don't belong.

Who do you think won the last OFC Nations Cup?

[Crazy_Yank]

I would rate concacaf stronger than caf. Our teams have performed a lot better, and taken more points at the world cup.

[Crazy_Yank]

Concacaf potentials:

USA: should be a lock to qualify, especially given our talented youngsters coming up.


Mexico: should also be a lock to qualify given their quality. They also have a very strong domestic league.


Costa Rica: depends on how good their next generation is. I really don't know a lot about them.

Honduras: a very dangerous team, their blend of youth and experience should help their longivity (sp?). Inconsistency hurts them.

Canada: Have some good players coming up. DeGuzmen is making his mark on the Bundesliga. Has won a starting job for Hannover96. If DeRosario can earn a starting job he should start banging in more goals.


These are the teams I think have a legitmate chance to qualify. Basically it's between Honduras, Costa Rica, and Canada for the final spot/s.

[Rafael Hernandez]

Originally posted by DoyleG


Who do you think won the last OFC Nations Cup?

New Zealand, after beating an Australian team with only one european based player from Basle.

[Aguilas Del America]

Everyone is very high on Costa Rica - and yes they did well, but I really don't think they're a shoe-in to make the next WC.
I disagree
Costa Rica Has The Most Players Playin in Europe in the CONCACAF right Now...

[Gordon]

Originally posted by Aguilas Del America

I disagree
Costa Rica Has The Most Players Playin in Europe in the CONCACAF right Now...

I have to agree. I rate Costa Rica Number 1 in CONCACAF right now and note the team to be younger than their american rivals. I also disagree with the notions of the Americans and Mexicans as a lock, as Mexico never was a lock when they were the dominant nation in CONCACAF and have been knocked out by heavyweights such as Haiti in the past. Mexico, and the US, especially if the MLS survives, will always be among the favourites but, with only 3-4 spots, certainly are rated a lock only by peopel whose arrogance outstrips their prudence.

[Crazy_Yank]

Originally posted by Aguilas Del America

I disagree
Costa Rica Has The Most Players Playin in Europe in the CONCACAF right Now...


Ummm....no, the US has well over 100 players playing in Europe right now.

[Crazy_Yank]

Originally posted by Gordon


I have to agree. I rate Costa Rica Number 1 in CONCACAF right now and note the team to be younger than their american rivals. I also disagree with the notions of the Americans and Mexicans as a lock, as Mexico never was a lock when they were the dominant nation in CONCACAF and have been knocked out by heavyweights such as Haiti in the past. Mexico, and the US, especially if the MLS survives, will always be among the favourites but, with only 3-4 spots, certainly are rated a lock only by peopel whose arrogance outstrips their prudence.


I would bet that 99.9% of football pundits rate the US and Mexico as locks.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by Aguilas Del America

I disagree
Costa Rica Has The Most Players Playin in Europe in the CONCACAF right Now...

Just because a nation has many players in Europe does not translate into direct national side success. Mexico is a perfect example. So are a lot of European nations for that matter. And Brazil's qualifying for the 2002 WC should ring this true more than anything else. And I have to challenge if the comment is even true as the United States has mroe than a handful of players in Europe. The significance of their role with their team and their team's placement in the respective league is also something to consider.

I never said that Costa Rica would not qualify for 2006. I implied that it will be far more challenging for them this time. People forget that before the WC, they hit a bit of a slump and hardly looked very impressive - and their big wins in qualifying came against a lame duck US side and surreally horrible Mexico at the time. No-one can take the wins away from them, but it's fair to say that they benefitted and took advantage ot being in good form at the right time. But don't forget - Costa Rica was very fortunate to have even qualified for the CONCACAF hex tournament to begin with.

I have to agree. I rate Costa Rica Number 1 in CONCACAF right now and note the team to be younger than their american rivals. I also disagree with the notions of the Americans and Mexicans as a lock, as Mexico never was a lock when they were the dominant nation in CONCACAF and have been knocked out by heavyweights such as Haiti in the past. Mexico, and the US, especially if the MLS survives, will always be among the favourites but, with only 3-4 spots, certainly are rated a lock only by peopel whose arrogance outstrips their prudence.

Mexico and the US are no more locks than any "top" team in CONCACAF? History, experience and general depth in talent pool certainly are intangibles that should be considered here but more than anything else, you can't simply throw consistency out the window.

Why is saying that arrogant?

Mexico and the United States, in the course of the past 12 years, have proven to be the two most consistent nations in the region as far as actually qualifying for the WC and performing well in international competition with other federations. Sure, every now and then there will be the rare upsets, and teams will go through downward cycles. But here is a question: despite how horrible Mexico played, they still qualified for the World Cup. Does this say something about the strength of Mexican football or the weakness of the CONCACAF region? I doubt any team in the region could do the same - a complete U-Turn, with a new manager, a new system in such a short time.

I think both teams are very much favorites to advance. The US is still improving, as is their domestic league, and MExico has young players stepping up in the FMF. Costa Rica... well... I guess we will have to see. But I'm very apprehensive about penciling them in as favorites over those two, and more comfortable seeing them ahead of the likes of Jamaica, Canada, Honduras and Guatemala.

[Alex_1]

Dammit Yank, I was looking forward to coming back at the mis-information first. ;)

[Crazy_Yank]

Originally posted by Alex_1
Dammit Yank, I was looking forward to coming back at the mis-information first. ;)


hehe I'm just killin' time before work so I'm surfing the net.

[Crazy_Yank]

Originally posted by Alex_1




Mexico and the United States, in the course of the past 12 years, have proven to be the two most consistent nations in the region as far as actually qualifying for the WC and performing well in international competition with other federations. Sure, every now and then there will be the rare upsets, and teams will go through downward cycles. But here is a question: despite how horrible Mexico played, they still qualified for the World Cup. Does this say something about the strength of Mexican football or the weakness of the CONCACAF region? I doubt any team in the region could do the same - a complete U-Turn, with a new manager, a new system in such a short time.




To add to that the US lost 6 starters to injury during our qualifying run, lost 3 matches in a row, yet still qualified with a game to spare. This was in what was the our region's strongest qualifying field ever.

[Stan Collins]

Originally posted by Crazy_Yank
I think there is a significant drop off after the top 4 teams. Honduras nearly qualified and should make a good run during the next set of qualifiers. Look at how poorly Jamaica and T&T performed.Chances are neither of those two teams was the 5th best last time around. I'd say that was probably Guatemala.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Alex_1
I believe that North America and Asia are similar through and through. However I rate North America as a bit stronger, believe it or not. Be my guest as to who would play the other for the final two spots. I might go with OCEANA vs. CAF and N.A. vs. Asia. To be honest, Australia lost to Iran and Uruguay the "worst" qualifiers from their respective areas - they didn't deserve the full spot.

Using the term "worst" would be quite unwise. Their was up to five teams that could have had that 5th spot. The point difference between them was 4 points. It couldhave been Columbia, Paraguay, or even Brazil in that 4th spot. IF Brazil had beaten Australia in that playoff and won the Cup, your argument would eb garbage.

Iran missed out on an Asian spot when it lost to Japan in a golden goal playoff. Australia didn't lose the series against Iran since neither side won a match.

[Gordon]

Originally posted by Alex_1


Mexico and the US are no more locks than any "top" team in CONCACAF? History, experience and general depth in talent pool certainly are intangibles that should be considered here but more than anything else, you can't simply throw consistency out the window.

Why is saying that arrogant?

Mexico and the United States, in the course of the past 12 years, have proven to be the two most consistent nations in the region as far as actually qualifying for the WC and performing well in international competition with other federations. Sure, every now and then there will be the rare upsets, and teams will go through downward cycles. But here is a question: despite how horrible Mexico played, they still qualified for the World Cup. Does this say something about the strength of Mexican football or the weakness of the CONCACAF region? I doubt any team in the region could do the same - a complete U-Turn, with a new manager, a new system in such a short time.

I think both teams are very much favorites to advance. The US is still improving, as is their domestic league, and MExico has young players stepping up in the FMF. Costa Rica... well... I guess we will have to see. But I'm very apprehensive about penciling them in as favorites over those two, and more comfortable seeing them ahead of the likes of Jamaica, Canada, Honduras and Guatemala.

The point I was making Alex, is that their is a difference between a favourite and a lock. Indeed, I believe I was pretty straightforward in saying that the Mexico and the US would likely always be among the favourites. But if you want to talk about history and consistency, note that when Canada and the US were expending resources on approximately the same level per capitawise, Canada was usualy the stronger team. Note also that Costa Rica, a nation of what 3-4 million finished a full six points ahead of both of the US and Mexico in the most recent WC qualifying. Note also the struggle the US had in getting out of the semi's. The US a favourite, yes, of course. A Lock, no. Not even close. And 99.9% of soccer pundits would agree with that.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by DoyleG

Using the term "worst" would be quite unwise. Their was up to five teams that could have had that 5th spot. The point difference between them was 4 points. It couldhave been Columbia, Paraguay, or even Brazil in that 4th spot. IF Brazil had beaten Australia in that playoff and won the Cup, your argument would eb garbage.

Point difference? Could have? Hmmm. You make a shakey argument as it is speculative and can easily be turned around... think about it. Also, the point difference between qualifying nations towards the lower end is usually tight - but that does not change the fact that at the end of the day, one team is in first, one team is in last, and one team just barely makes it through and another is out of luck. In this case at the end of the day, it was not Paraguay, Brazil or Colombia, it was Uruguay, and Colombia on the outside.

So let's not speculate. For $hits and giggles - look back and follow the pattern of qualifying in CONMEBOL. The race in CONMEBOL for the fifth slot was really between Colombia and Uruguay - not necessarily Brazil. In the first half - Brazil was pretty dominant. It is a fact that Uruguay ended up the fifth place team in CONMEBOL hence, the "worst" (note quotation) qualifying side in CONMEBOL - and they met a playoff with Australia, and defeated them soundly in Montevideo.

But certainly you understood that I was referring to the "worst" or the "bottom" of the qualifying nations in the confederations table.


Iran missed out on an Asian spot when it lost to Japan in a golden goal playoff. Australia didn't lose the series against Iran since neither side won a match.

Incorrect. Australia lost to Iran based on the "home vs away" aggregate rule noted on www.fifa.com. However it is true that Iran was forced into the playoff after a 3rd place match vs. Japan which they lost.

Hey, I'm not offering opinion with the above. Iran and Australia drew 1-1 in Iran, and 2-2 in Australia. Is it a silly rule? I think it is. But I did not make the rules. If Australia and Uruguay drew 1-1 in Australia, and then drawn 2-2 in Uruguay, then Australia would have been the "victors".

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by Gordon


The point I was making Alex, is that their is a difference between a favourite and a lock. Indeed, I believe I was pretty straightforward in saying that the Mexico and the US would likely always be among the favourites. But if you want to talk about history and consistency, note that when Canada and the US were expending resources on approximately the same level per capitawise, Canada was usualy the stronger team. Note also that Costa Rica, a nation of what 3-4 million finished a full six points ahead of both of the US and Mexico in the most recent WC qualifying. Note also the struggle the US had in getting out of the semi's. The US a favourite, yes, of course. A Lock, no. Not even close. And 99.9% of soccer pundits would agree with that.

Well, I agree that there is a difference. But my point is that really, the biggest thing is the result. Favorite, lock or bust, the US and Mexico are countries that pretty much expect to make the World Cup. Is that arrogant? I don't think so until another country proves otherwise by taking a spot from them. The US straight forward qualified for the last two - without even solidifying a real roster. That is impressive. I believe they are locks. The domestic league is improving every year, the players are developing mroe and more confidence, the pool is deeper and their results are far more consistent. There are tight races, of course. But still, they advance. Last year they advanced with a match to spare - despite a rough cycle.

I never looked much into per-capita spending on football enhancement/etc. for the US vs. Canada. But I believe that over the past 12 years or so the US has turned out more significant results. I am no apologist for the yank selection - just pointing an observation. It is undeniable how the yanks have improved. IMO, Canada is a victim of it's own federation. Proof? Canada does have some solid players that could challenge for a spot in the WC. Why couldn't they put it together?

I mentioned Costa Rica before - and remember - the analogy is used with Mexico's horrific display in the early going of qualifying. How quickly we forget. They turned around *snap*, just like that. Is that a result of Mexico being "that damn good" or a result of the strength/weakness of the region they play in?

I don't buy into Costa Rica. When you look at their results - they capitalized on opportunity. There is nothing wrong with that. But think about it. They barely advanced out of the group stages with the United States, relying on a tie-breaker to Guatemala. They lost to Barbados I think in Costa Rica to boot. When they went on a "tear" in the final round of CONCACAF qualifying, well, take a deeper look into the Mexican team they faced, and the American team they faced and T&T gave up, thanks to internal combustion.

I'll never change one's mind, but I think it will be interesting to see how it turns out for them.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Alex_1


Point difference? Could have? Hmmm. You make a shakey argument as it is speculative and can easily be turned around... think about it. Also, the point difference between qualifying nations towards the lower end is usually tight - but that does not change the fact that at the end of the day, one team is in first, one team is in last, and one team just barely makes it through and another is out of luck. In this case at the end of the day, it was not Paraguay, Brazil or Colombia, it was Uruguay, and Colombia on the outside.

So let's not speculate. For $hits and giggles - look back and follow the pattern of qualifying in CONMEBOL. The race in CONMEBOL for the fifth slot was really between Colombia and Uruguay - not necessarily Brazil. In the first half - Brazil was pretty dominant. It is a fact that Uruguay ended up the fifth place team in CONMEBOL hence, the "worst" (note quotation) qualifying side in CONMEBOL - and they met a playoff with Australia, and defeated them soundly in Montevideo.

But certainly you understood that I was referring to the "worst" or the "bottom" of the qualifying nations in the confederations table.


Brazil blew it against Uruguay and ahd to fight for it's spot. Your obviously giving Brazil far too much credit than it deserved. Then again, you guys should be thanking Mexico for beating Honduras, or you would have been sitting on the outside.

Lets see: Uruguay v. Australia. A team that has been together for 18 tough games and working as a unit. A team that has only been together for a few weeks since the pro clubs refused to release the players needed. Money would be on the South Americans.

OFC is going to get that spot since it saves teams to possibility of a long travel to Australia for a one-off match.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by DoyleG


Brazil blew it against Uruguay and ahd to fight for it's spot. Your obviously giving Brazil far too much credit than it deserved. Then again, you guys should be thanking Mexico for beating Honduras, or you would have been sitting on the outside.

I don't think I give Brazil too much credit. In fact it's the opposite - I don't think people have given Brazil enough credit. In the end, they were second only to Argentina in goals forced - and were very competitive in fewest goals allowed. They didn't blow it against Uruguay. Uruguay "blew it" by continuosly blowing leads late in matches. But they sealed their fate thanks to their draw with Argentina. Everyone swore Colombia was the shoe-in but... the 2-2 draw to Venezuela came back to haunt them, despite thrashing Paraguay 4-0 on the same day.

The thing to look at with CONMEBOL is that in the end, how many points were needed to qualify directly out of CONMEBOL? 30. If anything, Brazil "blew it" by overlooking Bolivia and they were rightfully spanked. But... Brazil had more goals scored, and less goals suffered than any of the four other teams in their vicinity. (Uruguay and Colombia had fewer goals forced)

Ecuador's second place finish later proved to be a fluke.

Originally posted by DoyleG
Lets see: Uruguay v. Australia. A team that has been together for 18 tough games and working as a unit. A team that has only been together for a few weeks since the pro clubs refused to release the players needed. Money would be on the South Americans.

C'mon, you can't think it didn't happen on the other side. How many players on Uruguay's side were playing on European sides as well? Do you think Dario Silva, Carini, Montero, Forlan, Recoba... etc., or anyone there met resounding praise from their managers when they were called on by their managers to head down under.... and Uruguay for that matter? I don't even remember the Uruguay side that went - but I remember controversy surrounding Dario Silva's injury.

I'll give you the competitive factor. Australia's only test came against New Zealand. But after thrashing smaller countries by ridiculous scorelines, surely they didn't have any other sides cringing in fear and they certainly didn't win anyones sympathy when they were shell-shocked in Montevideo.

Originally posted by DoyleG

OFC is going to get that spot since it saves teams to possibility of a long travel to Australia for a one-off match.

Before 2002 I would have thought the same thing. But I'm starting to doubt that based on Oceana's general performances + the fact that it would only be one match. The key is, who gets the playoff with them? That's why I think it might end up being an African club playing off with Oceana.

[sidspaceman]

Originally posted by DoyleG
Then again, you guys should be thanking Mexico for beating Honduras, or you would have been sitting on the outside.


The US had already qualified before there match with T&T. If Honduras had beaten Mexico than Mexico would of been the odd man out.