WC seeding thread updated September 14, 2005

[ursula]

No; Italy won their group--and by a wide margin--in '98.
They recorded wins over Cameroon and Austria and drew
with Chile (7 points) while second-placed Chile gathered
three draws for just 3 points.

In 2002 Italy was indeed second (to Mexico).


You are misunderstanding what el diablito said. He was talking about how Italy finished in their qualification group to get into the WC finals (which is what this thread is about BTW), not how they finished in their finals 1st stage group.

[Sempre]

Thanks--I did misread that then.

But in 2002 Italy was first in its WCQ group. What
am I missing?

[Qdog]

The BBC knows nothing, don't worry about the article. We know way more than they do.

Actually the article does have one quote from a FIFA official that does carry some meaning: "It will be decided by the organising committee of the World Cup 2006 on 6 December in Leipzig, where the draw takes place on 9 December," said Fifa media officer Nicolas Maingot.

I take that to mean if they don't like the way the old system seeds the teams they will change the method of seeding at the last minute. This would be a good reason for the US fans to cheer for T&T this week. If they do change the system at the last minute being a qualifying group winner might be significant.

[Andy TAUS]

I'm shocked :eek:, who would have believed that FIFA is capable of changing the seeding formula at the last minute :rolleyes:.LOL. True, too true Sagy !!! :D

[midknight]

FIFA does seed afte rthe first round of the finals: first placed teams play second placed teams in the second round. Is this anti-futbol?


We can argue for years if seeding and bracketing is the same thing but the essential difference between the world cup second round 'seeding' and the play off 'seeding' is that in the first case, everyone is informed that it will be done before the tournament starts. Any team that doesn't come in first in its group only has itself to blame when it comes up against Brazil in the second round for example, the rules of the game were known in advance.

In the case of the playoff however, not only was the decision announced AFTER the start of play, but the seeding procedure hinges on something that the teams can no longer control (their ranking in september) and on which most of them could have relatively very little influence in the space of a one year qualifying cycle.

There is certainly an argument that they should have used the 2nd placed ranking table to seed the draw (that would have been reasonable as well, imo), but given the disparity in current strenth between the groups, using FIFA rankings might actually be fairer.

This argument isn't one I support. No seeding, period; a blind draw, in light of the absence of other stipulation before the qualifying cycle began would have been the fairest, especially considering that they've been doing it like that the last 2 times out.

[eldiablito]

Actually the article does have one quote from a FIFA official that does carry some meaning: "It will be decided by the organising committee of the World Cup 2006 on 6 December in Leipzig, where the draw takes place on 9 December," said Fifa media officer Nicolas Maingot.

I take that to mean if they don't like the way the old system seeds the teams they will change the method of seeding at the last minute. This would be a good reason for the US fans to cheer for T&T this week. If they do change the system at the last minute being a qualifying group winner might be significant.

This quote really doesn't mean anything. FIFA has never released the seeding formula BEFORE releasing the seeds. It has always been simultaneous. This whole thread (and the ones predicating them) have known this since day 1. Because FIFA has never explained what seeding criteria it will use, it could be anything.

That being said, there's NO REASON WHATSOEVER, to assume coming in 2nd in one's qualifying group will have any bearing on the seeds. That's as arbitrary as the color of one's kit. In other words, it bears no resemblance to the seeding formulas used in the last 3 world cups. Therefore, why pull a hypothesis like that out of the air?

Even more puzzling is how can this be extrapolated to other federations? Either Argentina or Brazil is going to finish 2nd. Why would it matter if USA is second to Mexico? What about Asia and Africa? France and Spain could still finish 2nd in their groups, will they possibly lose their seeds like England? No! It's all bollocks.

[Qdog]

I hope you're right, just for the sake of credibility. (That may be too hard of a concept for FIFA to handle). ;)

[paolodeluca]

can we get an updated seeded rankings (similar to how this thread started off)...i'm curious to know who the teams that would be seeded if things stood still right now.

[ursula]

can we get an updated seeded rankings (similar to how this thread started off)...i'm curious to know who the teams that would be seeded if things stood still right now.


el diablito will start a new thread in a couple of days- as soon as this month's FIFA Rankings come out.

[M]

We can argue for years if seeding and bracketing is the same thing but the essential difference between the world cup second round 'seeding' and the play off 'seeding' is that in the first case, everyone is informed that it will be done before the tournament starts. Any team that doesn't come in first in its group only has itself to blame when it comes up against Brazil in the second round for example, the rules of the game were known in advance.


Right, but the same criticism could be made if UEFA had done a blind draw. Can't defend UEFA on the timing of the annoucement even though they ended up making the correct decision, imo.


In the case of the playoff however, not only was the decision announced AFTER the start of play, but the seeding procedure hinges on something that the teams can no longer control (their ranking in september) and on which most of them could have relatively very little influence in the space of a one year qualifying cycle.


A decision to do a blind draw would also by definition have been made after the start of play as up until now it was undefined how the draw was to be made. Sept rankings are the latest available and the heaviest weighted matches for them both time- and competition-wise are this cycle of qualification games.


This argument isn't one I support. No seeding, period; a blind draw, in light of the absence of other stipulation before the qualifying cycle began would have been the fairest, especially considering that they've been doing it like that the last 2 times out.

This is the bit I think is illogical. Why is a blind draw any fairer in the absence of other stipulation? Seems to me that teams should have made no assumptions as to how the draw was conducted, just as they couldn't the last two times around. The only difference is that this time they've actually used some commonsense and seeded.

[eldiablito]

el diablito will start a new thread in a couple of days- as soon as this month's FIFA Rankings come out.

October 19

[jkdd77]

Although the Euro play-offs draws for 2002 and 2004 were supposedly unseeded, cynics (such as me) commented on how remarkable it was that the 'big' countries all avoided each other each time, and furthermore were almost always at home in the second leg. :rolleyes:

To be honest, I think I prefer 'official' seeding to the cynical 'hot/cold' balls procedure that has prevailed in past tournaments.

[ursula]

Here's two more English articles filled with hand wringing about possibly losing their #1 seed:

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,1589422,00.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2002390000-2005470213,00.html

These articles, flawed as they are are at least better than that BBC, More importantly, the Sun notes:

FIFA bosses have yet to confirm how they will rank nations.

But they will almost certainly use the same system as the previous two finals.

That means points will be awarded for each nation’s results at the previous three World Cups and their FIFA ranking over the last three years.

[Qdog]

Right, but the same criticism could be made if UEFA had done a blind draw. Can't defend UEFA on the timing of the annoucement even though they ended up making the correct decision, imo.

A blind draw has precedence. There would not be any criticism for using it. Don't get me wrong, from UEFA's point of view this is a better system. Their goal is to get the strongest contingent of teams to the WC. But if you don't anounce the new process at the start of qualifications, the previous system should be used.

[M]

A blind draw has precedence. There would not be any criticism for using it.


There would be plenty of criticism for using it, just as there has been when it's been used in the past. Interesting how much of the criticism is coming from outside Europe as well - I think we both know why that is.


Don't get me wrong, from UEFA's point of view this is a better system. Their goal is to get the strongest contingent of teams to the WC. But if you don't anounce the new process at the start of qualifications, the previous system should be used.

To me that's a complete non-sequiter. The fact that they had a previous system but didn't announce in advance that they were going to use it this time indicates to me that no such assumption should have been made.

[midknight]

This is the bit I think is illogical. Why is a blind draw any fairer in the absence of other stipulation? Seems to me that teams should have made no assumptions as to how the draw was conducted, just as they couldn't the last two times around. The only difference is that this time they've actually used some commonsense and seeded.

In the absence of any other stipulation, itis only natural to use the exisitngprecedent. Seeing that UEFA used more or less the same system for the only other two versions of the world cup where there were 32 team (1998, 2002), one could have expected them to continue in the same vein.

You may be right about it being an error to assume the way the draw was going to be connected, but the difference between assuming now, and assuming then is that the last two times around there was not two other times around to use as the basis for these assumptions.

Common sense and seeded? I'm not sure that's common sense. Whatever footballing pedigree a team may have, if it already can't win a six or seven team group (as opposed to a four team group where there's less room for error) although its already seeded, one has to wonder what the point is of helping them out further by seeding them in a playoff with what are most likely going to be (so called) inferior teams (seeing that they're most likely not to have been seeds in their group).

The only common sense seeding system would have been to seed them based on their performances in qualifying, but as you so rightly pointed out, the inequality between the various groups is such that a such system is not going to make much sense (and even if it did, why bother to play the play offs then, you could just send through the three best worst second placed along with the best two second placed)

you argument about the fifa rankings being composed for the heaviest part by this years qualification cycle is not completely invalid, but not only are you underestimating the weight of past results in that ranking, but when you consider that the teams most likely to finish second are those that were in the first or second pots, you'd see that this factor is highly mitigated.

just for the record. Here are the rankings of each team vying for a playoff spot in august of last year, their highest ranking since, and their september ranking

Cze 5/2/4
Rom 35/26/32

Tur 10/10/12
Den 15/13/14
Gre 14/12/20

Slo 71/43/45
Rus 27/27/30

Isr 62/44/44
Swi 47/38/38
Fra 2/2/6
Ire 16/12/21

Nor 38/36/37
SVN 43/42/52

Swe 20/10/10
Spa 3/3/8
Bih 76/67/67

With the possible exception of slovakia and/or israel there's not much improvement. I guess one can safely assume that the only way a low rated team would climb high enough in the rankings is if they finished...first :cool:

[M]

In the absence of any other stipulation, itis only natural to use the exisitngprecedent. Seeing that UEFA used more or less the same system for the only other two versions of the world cup where there were 32 team (1998, 2002), one could have expected them to continue in the same vein.


To me the precedent is that UEFA has very clearly chosen not to define how the draw is made until near the end of the qualifying competition, unfortunate as though that may be. Had UEFA wanted to establish a definitive precedent to make the draw random they could have done so by defining that up front. They chose not to, just as FIFA chooses not to define how it seeds before the qualifying competition begins.


You may be right about it being an error to assume the way the draw was going to be connected, but the difference between assuming now, and assuming then is that the last two times around there was not two other times around to use as the basis for these assumptions.


And there weren't two other times when UEFA chose not to define up front how the draw would be made. Additionally, last time UEFA made the draw before the last two games had been played; should we consider that a precdent as well?


Common sense and seeded? I'm not sure that's common sense. Whatever footballing pedigree a team may have, if it already can't win a six or seven team group (as opposed to a four team group where there's less room for error) although its already seeded, one has to wonder what the point is of helping them out further by seeding them in a playoff with what are most likely going to be (so called) inferior teams (seeing that they're most likely not to have been seeds in their group).


The strength in depth in Europe is such that the difference between first seeds and second seeds really is pretty narrow. It's hardly a shock that a number of first seeds are probably going to have to playoff (most likely Spain and Turkey(?)), particularly as the strength of teams varies over the time period since the draw was originally made.


The only common sense seeding system would have been to seed them based on their performances in qualifying, but as you so rightly pointed out, the inequality between the various groups is such that a such system is not going to make much sense (and even if it did, why bother to play the play offs then, you could just send through the three best worst second placed along with the best two second placed)


Well, I certainly wouldn't have had a problem with UEFA doing that. The best second-placed /playoffs has always been problematic. Otoh, assuming the Czech Republic don't choke in Helsinki, the three top non-qualifying second placers are probably going to be the top FIFA ranked teams anyway. So perhaps the second place table ain't so bad after all.


you argument about the fifa rankings being composed for the heaviest part by this years qualification cycle is not completely invalid, but not only are you underestimating the weight of past results in that ranking, but when you consider that the teams most likely to finish second are those that were in the first or second pots, you'd see that this factor is highly mitigated.

just for the record. Here are the rankings of each team vying for a playoff spot in august of last year, their highest ranking since, and their september ranking

Cze 5/2/4
Rom 35/26/32

Tur 10/10/12
Den 15/13/14
Gre 14/12/20

Slo 71/43/45
Rus 27/27/30

Isr 62/44/44
Swi 47/38/38
Fra 2/2/6
Ire 16/12/21

Nor 38/36/37
SVN 43/42/52

Swe 20/10/10
Spa 3/3/8
Bih 76/67/67

With the possible exception of slovakia and/or israel there's not much improvement. I guess one can safely assume that the only way a low rated team would climb high enough in the rankings is if they finished...first :cool:

lol. However, as I mentioned above, the highest FIFA ranked second placers for the playoffs look like being the three that will have garnered the most points in qualifying, so one would have expected them to maintain a lead in the rankings over the others.

[Slingerfan1977]

October 19So your Oct. seeding formula should be pretty much the same as the November, correct?

All of qualifying will be factored in to the Oct. 19th rankings except for the playoffs, and I figure the possible seed playoff teams (maybe Spain and France) would have to fail to qualify to lose ranking points in Nov. or Dec.

Netherlands aren't going to gain any points and I can't imagine France (unless they fail to qualify) or England dropping any.

[California Jack]

So your Oct. seeding formula should be pretty much the same as the December, right?

All of qualifying will be factored in to the Oct. 19th rankings except for the playoffs, and I figure the possible seed playoff teams (maybe Spain and France) would have to fail to qualify to lose ranking points in Nov. or Dec.

Netherlands aren't going to gain any points and I can't imagine France (unless they fail to qualify) or England dropping any.


with a home draw to Cyprus and draws vs. a lower-ranked side in the playoffs, perhaps they could qualify while losing ranking points.

(Can I possibly grasp at any more USA-seed straws? :rolleyes: Losing to CRC killed much of my enthusiasm for this parlor game. :( )

But while I'm at it, GO SERBIA! GO SAN MARINO! GO CYPRUS! GO USA!

[Slingerfan1977]

with a home draw to Cyprus and draws vs. a lower-ranked side in the playoffs, perhaps they could qualify while losing ranking points.Except the US is the only nation close to France in September's Cola rankings and our CR loss should hurt more than draws to the Swiss and Cyprus(which I doubt will happen). I think France will win the group, I hope that Ireland wins tomorrow.

I'm thinking about going to the pub tomorrow for the Ireland vs Switzerland match, looks to be a great one.