GRAND THEFT. Fifa takes S. America spot [Archive] - Page 13

View Full Version : GRAND THEFT. Fifa takes S. America spot

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

El_Maestro

19 Dec 2002, 01:24 PM

biosoccer

19 Dec 2002, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by fademan77
Sorry but I think you guys are straying away from the topic...

FIFA has a duty to world football, not just to europe, or SA, or who has won the most world cups, who has a bigger penis etc...

I think FIFA has, rightly, identified that by giving the OFC a full world cup berth it will foster a bigger football culture in South East Asia. I think you should all get behind the new idea of having an OFC representive in the WC.

The world cup, i believe, is not about bringing together the best 32 teams in the world, but having teams from around the world to come together, in a friendly and peaceful environment, to foster and promote the great game across the globe.

pgi.
So far, the funniest post I've seen on this thread!

Heist

19 Dec 2002, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
TOP 32 TEAMS ACCORDING TO LATEST FIFA RANKINGS - COLLATED BY CONFEDERATION

UEFA (18)

1. FRANCE (2)
2. SPAIN (3)
3. GERMANY (4)
4. NETHERLANDS (6)
5. ENGLAND (7)
6. TURKEY (9)
7. PORTUGAL (11)
8. DENMARK (12)
9. ITALY (13)
10. IRELAND (14)
11. CZECH REPUBLIC (15)
12. BELGIUM (17)
13. YUGOSLAVIA (19)
14. RUSSIA (22)
15. ROMANIA (24)
16. SWEDEN (24)
17. NORWAY (26)
18. CROATIA (32)

CONEMBOL (5)

1. BRAZIL (1)
2. ARGENTINA (5)
3. PARAGUAY (18)
4. URAGUAY (28)
5. ECUADOR (31)

CAF (4)

1. CAMEROON (16)
2. SENEGAL (27)
3. NIGERIA (29)
4. SOUTH AFRICA (30)

CONCACAF (3)

1. MEXICO (8)
2. UNITED STATES (10)
3. COSTA RICA (21)

AFC (2)

1. KOREA REPUBLIC (20)
2. JAPAN (22)

OFC (0)

World Cup Finalists from 2002 which are not in the top 32 in Fifa’s list:
UEFA: Poland (33), Slovenia (36); CAF: Tunisia (41); AFC: Saudi Arabia (38), China (63).

Teams in FIFA’s Top 32 which did not make World Cup 2002 (all from UEFA):
Netherland (6), Czech Republic (15), Yugoslavia (19), Romania (24), Norway (26).

If merit is the only criteria, and taking FIFA’s rankings as one (admitedly faulty) measure on the issue, the confederation that was under-represented in the last World Cup was UEFA, with a net loss of 3 spots compared to the number of sides it boast in the top 32 of FIFA's rankings.

Thanks Ken,
I actually think those numbers are pretty good despite the obvious flaws in the system as you mentioned, but i'd change them a little, giving half a spot to OFC, Africa, CONCACAF and one to Asia. Then I'd take two and a half from Europe.
The four teams with half spots could playoff in a 6-game home and away champs league style group, with two of them going through. You might have Romania, Jamaica, Australia, and Tunisia in that group or something. I'd be happier if the two top teams of those four made it to Germany.
The interesting thing about the process of giving spots to confederations is that its re-done every 4 years. If something isn't working they can change it.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the Champs league gives teams spots based on their country's performance over the past X number of years, with the most recent years more heavily weighted. That's how the FIFA system should eventually be, with some committee being able to make slight modifications to encourage new regions to continue to improve their play.

El_Maestro

19 Dec 2002, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by fademan77
The world cup, i believe, is not about bringing together the best 32 teams in the world, but having teams from around the world to come together, in a friendly and peaceful environment, to foster and promote the great game across the globe.

pgi.

Eh, no. The World Cup actually is about bringing together the best 32 teams in the world, that's exactly why FIFA's decision is such a travesty.

robviii

19 Dec 2002, 01:36 PM

[i][/b]That would be very interesting to see NA/CA#4 vs SA#5. What a wasted opportunity. Instead they do Asia vs NA/CA...that makes no sense. [/B]

hear, hear!

"Simply Ken"

19 Dec 2002, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by El_Maestro
Eh, no. The World Cup actually is about bringing together the best 32 teams in the world, that's exactly why FIFA's decision is such a travesty.

Heist, Maestro,

I believe the World Cup is about several things, one of them being bringing a field that closely resembles the best 32. But there are other considerations at issue as well, including promoting the sport globally -- as well as seeing a diversified field to the extent possible where it doesn't dramatically alter the face of the competition.

The FIFA rankings I posted, benefitting as they do from hindsight, are pretty good on the issue. And if merit were the only consideration, then I would say that the confederation which those rankings show was underrepresented last time (and is even more underrepresented next time) is UEFA. But even you guys seem to agree that merit is not the ONLY criteria.

My own preferrred system would pass along the benefits of true international competition by creating a Mini-World Cup in EACH of the 6 confederations as part of the qualifiers -- with something like 12 of the available places chosen from these Mini-World Cups. The other 20 can be chosen more or less as they are now.

The basic framework of my idea would see 2 teams qualify to the World Cup from each of 6 Mini-World Cups -- with one such Mini-World Cup hosted in each region. The 2 finalists from these Mini-World Cups, which would feature 6 teams divided into 2 groups each, would qualify to the World Cup. (A total of 36 teams would compete in the 6 mini-world cups).

The benefit of the system I propose is that it combines the interest in seeing the best 32 teams in the World Cup, with the idea of promoting the sport and giving lesser sides the chance to gain experience and notoriety. It also more equitably passes along the benefits of hosting, by at least giving each region the chance to host a Mini-World Cup.

Oscar

19 Dec 2002, 02:10 PM

originally posted by polololo
Go to sleep jerkoff.

What happened to the..

"you obviously don't watch much football, like me who watch a lot of football for a long time, or else you would know you are wrong, because I know you're wrong because I watch a lot of football, which you don't, go watch more football"

..argument?

Rocket

19 Dec 2002, 02:28 PM

Here's how the six federations have done in inter-federation games at the last 6 World Cup Finals (1982-2002):

UEFA...........95-57-43
CONMEBOL...52-34-21
Africa.............15-29-20
CONCACAF....13-26-9
Asia................9-35-7
Oceania...........0-3-0

So, yes, CONMEBOL teams, at 52-34-21, have done pretty well against their competitors from UEFA, Africa, etc.

Not too surprisingly, though, CONMEBOL's success at the most recent World Cups is largely due to Brazil and Argentina:

Argentina/Brazil vs. non-CONMEBOL: 44-12-4
Other CONMEBOL vs. non-CONMEBOL: 8-22-17

So as you can see, take away Argentina and Brazil and you have a federation that while more successful than Asia and Oceania, is only on a par with CONCACAF and has poorer results in the WC finals than does Africa.

SportBoy321

19 Dec 2002, 03:13 PM

I thououghly enjoy watching South American teams in World Cups and now out of Peru,Chile,Ecuador,Uruguay,Bolivia,Paraguay,Columbia I'm only gonna get to see 2 of those great football nations play. Thats not fair.

DoyleG

19 Dec 2002, 03:26 PM

Australia's record in playoffs from '94, '98, and 2002.

2 Wins
3 Losses
3 Draws

SoccerScout

19 Dec 2002, 03:31 PM

>>So as you can see, take away Argentina and Brazil and you have a federation that while more successful than Asia and Oceania, is only on a par with CONCACAF and has poorer results in the WC finals than does Africa.
>>>

Thats not fair, you cant just TAKE OUT Brazil and Argentine, they are PART of Comebol.

If you are gonna do that, then ALSO TAKE OUT 20% of the BEST EURO Teams or that of ANY LEAGUE and see how the rest do.
(20% is the percentage that Brazil and Argentina are in their Confed.)

SO in Europe that mean eliminateing the top 10 teams and then do the math. I bet it will be piss poor also. That goes for any confed...please do it i would like to see the results.

pololo

19 Dec 2002, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Oscar
What happened to the..

"you obviously don't watch much football, like me who watch a lot of football for a long time, or else you would know you are wrong, because I know you're wrong because I watch a lot of football, which you don't, go watch more football"

..argument?

What are you talking about ************fac-e

Oscar

19 Dec 2002, 03:45 PM

SO in Europe that mean eliminateing the top 10 teams and then do the math. I bet it will be piss poor also. That goes for any confed...please do it i would like to see the results.

You seem to be missing that the Europeans aren't the ones bítching about more places.

Plus that %-wise Europe already sends less teams than South America, which you seem to advocate in your last post.

You're welcome.

What are you talking about ************fac-e

Somebody needs a hug

Rocket

19 Dec 2002, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by SoccerScout
>>So as you can see, take away Argentina and Brazil and you have a federation that while more successful than Asia and Oceania, is only on a par with CONCACAF and has poorer results in the WC finals than does Africa.
>>>

Thats not fair, you cant just TAKE OUT Brazil and Argentine, they are PART of Comebol.

If you are gonna do that, then ALSO TAKE OUT 20% of the BEST EURO Teams or that of ANY LEAGUE and see how the rest do.
(20% is the percentage that Brazil and Argentina are in their Confed.)

SO in Europe that mean eliminateing the top 10 teams and then do the math. I bet it will be piss poor also. That goes for any confed...please do it i would like to see the results.
All I'm pointing out, SoccerScout, is that, other than Argentina and Brazil, CONMEBOL teams have a decidedly mediocre record in the World Cup Finals over the last 20 years.

But since you asked for it, here're similar stats for CONCACAF:

Mexico vs. non-CONCACAF.....................7-4-5
Other CONCACAF vs. non-CONCACAF....6-22-5

As you can see, the lower tier CONCACAF teams have done almost as well as the lower tier CONMEBOL teams.

I could come up with similar stats for UEFA, but what top teams would be appropriate to take out. Perhaps Germany, Italy, and ??

pololo

19 Dec 2002, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Oscar
You seem to be missing that the Europeans aren't the ones bítching about more places.

Plus that %-wise Europe already sends less teams than South America, which you seem to advocate in your last post.

You're welcome.

Somebody needs a hug

Hug your boyfriend

And go smoke some dyke in the coffeshop.

*********-k Face

SoccerScout

19 Dec 2002, 03:56 PM

>>I could come up with similar stats for UEFA, but what top teams would be appropriate to take out. Perhaps Germany, Italy, and ??
>>

VW...you took out the top 20% teams of Comebol, Brazil and Argentina. Take out the top 20% UEFA teams to make it fair. That means pulling out about 10 UEFA teams, I would say:

Italy
Germany
England
France
Spain
Holland
Sweden
etc...

deejay

19 Dec 2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Rafael Hernandez
I seen this repeated somewhere else too. Its not true.
Chile went 0-3 in Spain 1982 and didn't get any points.

Oops your right my mistake. Also Peru in '78

Still compare it to UEFA's list of 0-3.

Slovenia in '02, Greece in '94, Sweden in '90, Hungary and Yugoslavia in '78, Czeckoslovakia in '70, Switzerland and Bulgaria in '66, Switzerland in '62, Scotland and Czeckoslovakia in '54

Actually here's my list of Countries according to "suckiness threshold" Suckiness threshold is where the countries have lost TWICE as many games as tehy have won throught WC history up to '98. I don't think the '02 data will really change this list. I checked with the US and Korea and they are still at the threshold of Suckiness. Mexico did move out of suckiness atfer '02

UEFA:
Greece Israel Rep. of Ireland Switzerland Scotland Bulgaria

CONCACAF
USA Honduras Jamaica Canada Haiti El Salvador

CAF
Egypt Morocco Tunisia South Africa Zaire

CONMEBOL
Colombia Peru Bolivia

AFC
Dutch East Indies Iraq Japan Saudi Arabia South Korea North Korea Iran Kuwait Utd Arab Emirates

OFC
Australia New Zealand

--------

Anyway this whole argument is to dispell the stupid comments about how good the countries in CONMEBOL are after Brazil and Argentina. If you used the same argument against UEFA, how good are the countries after the their own cup winners? Maybe Holland is good but after that how good are Sweden, Eire, Scotland, Spain and other countries that perianially go to the WC?

I have to admit that Europe has provided more small countries that made good runs like Portugal or Yugoslavia. While we've only had a Chile and a Uruguay. But still how much does that have to do with the fact that there has been no World Cup in South America since '78?

I just think it's a stupid thing to say.

deejay

19 Dec 2002, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by vw
Here's how the six federations have done in inter-federation games at the last 6 World Cup Finals (1982-2002):

UEFA...........95-57-43
CONMEBOL...52-34-21
Africa.............15-29-20
CONCACAF....13-26-9
Asia................9-35-7
Oceania...........0-3-0

So, yes, CONMEBOL teams, at 52-34-21, have done pretty well against their competitors from UEFA, Africa, etc.

Not too surprisingly, though, CONMEBOL's success at the most recent World Cups is largely due to Brazil and Argentina:

Argentina/Brazil vs. non-CONMEBOL: 44-12-4
Other CONMEBOL vs. non-CONMEBOL: 8-22-17

So as you can see, take away Argentina and Brazil and you have a federation that while more successful than Asia and Oceania, is only on a par with CONCACAF and has poorer results in the WC finals than does Africa.

I want to see stats of all non Cup winners against non Cup winners.

deejay

19 Dec 2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by vw
Here's how the six federations have done in inter-federation games at the last 6 World Cup Finals (1982-2002):

UEFA...........95-57-43
CONMEBOL...52-34-21
Africa.............15-29-20
CONCACAF....13-26-9
Asia................9-35-7
Oceania...........0-3-0

So, yes, CONMEBOL teams, at 52-34-21, have done pretty well against their competitors from UEFA, Africa, etc.

Not too surprisingly, though, CONMEBOL's success at the most recent World Cups is largely due to Brazil and Argentina:

Argentina/Brazil vs. non-CONMEBOL: 44-12-4
Other CONMEBOL vs. non-CONMEBOL: 8-22-17

So as you can see, take away Argentina and Brazil and you have a federation that while more successful than Asia and Oceania, is only on a par with CONCACAF and has poorer results in the WC finals than does Africa.

I also want to see UEFA's stats without cup winners!!!

Oscar

19 Dec 2002, 04:06 PM

Hug your boyfriend

Man, you should really keep your fantasies about me to yourself....really, try. Ok, tell us one more before you go to sleep then. But just one!

And go smoke some dyke in the coffeshop.

You're saying this like it's a bad thing. :confused:

If you used the same argument against UEFA, how good are the countries after the their own cup winners? Maybe Holland is good but after that how good are Sweden, Eire, Scotland, Spain and other countries that perianially go to the WC?

Good enough to reach the quarter-finals in the last 12 years at least. :D