GRAND THEFT. Fifa takes S. America spot

[voros]

Originally posted by SoccerScout
>>SOUTH AMERICA SHOULD HAVE MORE SPOTS THAN AFRICA AND ASIA END OF DISCUSSION!!!>>
Here is a strecth, imagine if South AMerican countries merged from 10 nations into just 5, then what? Give them only 1 or 2 spots? At that point the talent would be so condensed that all 5 should go.
But you're assuming that the definition of who SHOULD go is the one that comes closest to picking the 32 strongest teams.

You can argue that their shouldn't be any other considerations, and I may agree with you, but I think there would be those that wouldn't.

Some would argue that it's more important to have a more diverse group of countries from different areas of the world than to force the best 32 teams to be there. They could argue that it's good for the growth of the sport as it would grow the game in those areas, and provide a little more interest in that viewers would have a chance to see some players they're not familiar with. The only downside, they'd argue, is that the 5th place team from SA would be out of luck for their spot, but in reality they had an opportunity to compete and were bested by several other teams.

I'm not saying I agree with the argument (maybe to a small extent) nor the current allocations, but it isn't a ridiculous argument.

[voros]

Originally posted by Oscar
[i]So taking away ½ spot from CONMEBOL "IS" a big deal, but taking away 2 spots from UEFA is a o k in the universe you live?

Gotta love that anti-UEFA train of thought :D
The problem with Europe isn't that not enough teams get in, the problem is that the qualification process often comes down to the equivalent of 'cutting for high card' or 'coin flips.'

As someone else hinted, maybe taking spots away is a hint to UEFA to tighten up their qualification process so that what happened to Holland (drew an obscenely tough group) doesn't spell disaster for a qualified side. I realize they'd like to get a mix from all the different 'parts' of Europe, but currently teams are often at the mercy of the 'draw.'

IOW, if you wanted to set uo a qualifying process that would be assured of keeping out some teams for no reason other than really bad luck, than the current UEFA setup is perfect. Why they can't fix this is beyond me.

[Oscar]

As someone else hinted, maybe taking spots away is a hint to UEFA to tighten up their qualification process so that what happened to Holland (drew an obscenely tough group) doesn't spell disaster for a qualified side.

I don't see how the Dutch not going has anything to do with UEFA's qualifying process being 'faulty', Holland didn't go to the finals because they played like crap in the qualifiers, and because of that didn't deserve to go.

There are 3 good sides in almost every WC qualifying group, and I guess some people would say that some teams are "better" or "more deserving" to go than others (which would make qualifying even easier for them, wouldn't you say?) but you actually have to prove that in the matches you play. You fu©k up, and there's a chance the 2 other good sides will take advantage of that. Which is what happened to the Netherlands.

A good playing Holland would have come out of this group, maybe not easily, but they would have qualified. Don't blame them not going to the WC to the group.

[Rafael Hernandez]

Maybe it because UEFA almost always have a screw up because of their qualifyng system. Netherlands didn't qualify this year but Slovenia did. In 98 there was no Portugal but they had Austria. In 94 England didn't make it but Greece did. UEFA can't argue for spots because when they have a great team that misses the cup its mostly because of their own system since they always end up sending a side very inferior to them.

[Oscar]

Netherlands didn't qualify this year but Slovenia did

Netherlands played badly in their group, Slovenia didn't.

In 98 there was no Portugal but they had Austria

Portugal wasn't there in '94 or '90 either, what the Hell are we talking about here.

note: which is why they were in the same group as Ireland and Holland, they don't have great results in WC qualifying! Oh but wait, we should ignore those past results, and just go with what you people believe are good teams or not.

[sarcasm?]

Man, Colombia should have gone to the World Cup this year, which of course means CONMEBOL..

can't argue for spots because when they have a great team that misses the cup its mostly because of their own system since they always end up sending a side very inferior to them

Like Ecuador.

[/sarcasm?]

[pololo]

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan
I would argue that they took 1 and a half spots from South America.

One, because historically they have won the playoff for the last spot every single time. That spot is practically automatic for the fifth place South American team.

And half, because they also took away the spot of the defending champion,which South America gets half of the time.

This is all about politics. South America got robbed, and so did Europe. Does anybody want to argue against the fact that the best teams consistently come from these two areas?

Europe never get robbed FIFA is from Europe.
They have like 15 spots that quite a lot.

[Oscar]

Why the Hell would UEFA, since they apparently 'own' FIFA, choose to remove a full spot from themselves?

[FunGuy]

I have no problem with fifa trying to grow the game in N. America, Asia, and Oceana it is fifa main objective anyway. The problem in qualification in uefa, is that they have a far to many groups, the fewer groups you have the lower change of a teams with lower quality qualifying. If i was uefa, i would have 6 groups insteand of the 9 or so they they had for the last WC, 4 of the groups will have 8 teams, and 2 will have 9,the top 2 teams from all the groups qualify and the 2, 3rd place temas in the groups of 9 play in a playoff to get the last spot and so you have 13 teams from the qualifiers.

[FunGuy]

the same line of reasoning is why i would like to see a final group of 8 in concacaf instead of 2 groups of 4

[Heist]

Originally posted by Oscar
I don't see how the Dutch not going has anything to do with UEFA's qualifying process being 'faulty', Holland didn't go to the finals because they played like crap in the qualifiers, and because of that didn't deserve to go.

There are 3 good sides in almost every WC qualifying group, and I guess some people would say that some teams are "better" or "more deserving" to go than others (which would make qualifying even easier for them, wouldn't you say?) but you actually have to prove that in the matches you play. You fu©k up, and there's a chance the 2 other good sides will take advantage of that. Which is what happened to the Netherlands.

A good playing Holland would have come out of this group, maybe not easily, but they would have qualified. Don't blame them not going to the WC to the group.

I agree, they blew it during the qualification, and should have made it despite the group.
I think the point is, that due to the process, having a bad couple of games could knock you out in UEFA, while it can't happen in other confederations.
In the CONCACAF Hex for example there are enough teams and games that the best teams rise to the top.
The netherlands, even when out of form, would be able to make the top 20 of Europe every time. If it was feasible to play everyone in Europe home and home they wouldn't ever miss the Cup. Of course that isn't feasible and sometimes teams get drawn into tough groups like they did. Most often the good teams get through anyway, but sometimes they don't.
UEFA should seed the top 18 teams, let the other 34 play for the second 18 spots in groups. Then 9 groups of 4 play. Winners go, the second place teams play home and home.
Something like that would be more fair I think.

[deejay]

Originally posted by Heist
I agree, they blew it during the qualification, and should have made it despite the group.
I think the point is, that due to the process, having a bad couple of games could knock you out in UEFA, while it can't happen in other confederations.
In the CONCACAF Hex for example there are enough teams and games that the best teams rise to the top.
The netherlands, even when out of form, would be able to make the top 20 of Europe every time. If it was feasible to play everyone in Europe home and home they wouldn't ever miss the Cup. Of course that isn't feasible and sometimes teams get drawn into tough groups like they did. Most often the good teams get through anyway, but sometimes they don't.
UEFA should seed the top 18 teams, let the other 34 play for the second 18 spots in groups. Then 9 groups of 4 play. Winners go, the second place teams play home and home.
Something like that would be more fair I think.

Yes that sounds very reasonable and I don't see why the likes of Faroe Islands, Lichenstein, etc. would complain.

Matter of fact that's how it done in CONCACAF.

[Oscar]

The way UEFA has set the qualifiers now is most fair to all the teams, the way you people want to see the qualifiers is only better for the better teams (on paper!) who are granted passage to the next round of qualifying so to speak while the 'weak' countries (on paper) still have to play those games. How's that fair?

There are always going to be teams in the UEFA that could have played a good WC who will stay at home, because there's always the chance that either a sub-top team overperforms or a top team underperforms, or both. (i.e. look at Italy, or should I say Wales' group in the Euro Cup qualifiers)

Either way, the teams that did best in qualifying, and who because of this really deserve to go, will go to the WC.

I think the point is, that due to the process, having a bad couple of games could knock you out in UEFA, while it can't happen in other confederations

Having 1 bad game kicked Australia out of the World Cup. ;)

[Heist]

Originally posted by Oscar
The way UEFA has set the qualifiers now is most fair to all the teams, the way you people want to see the qualifiers is only better for the better teams (on paper!) who are granted passage to the next round of qualifying so to speak while the 'weak' countries (on paper) still have to play those games. How's that fair?

There are always going to be teams in the UEFA that could have played a good WC who will stay at home, because there's always the chance that either a sub-top team overperforms or a top team underperforms, or both. (i.e. look at Italy, or should I say Wales' group in the Euro Cup qualifiers)

Having 1 bad game kicked Australia out of the World Cup. ;)

Actually doesn't it take two? They played home-home qualifiers I thought.
But you won't find anyone arguing that Australia is far better than for example Uruguay. You can find a LOT, probably almost everyone that would say that The Netherlands is better than Ireland.

What you said above is precisely why I think there should be a 4-team group instead of half-spots (Asia and CONCACAF are the only ones this year but there should be Oceania with half a spot less and CONMEBOL with half a spot more). Or if that's not feasible just insert the top 4 teams in Oceania with the top 10 or 12 Asian team (maybe NZ and Aussies get a bye) in the final stages of the Asian qualifying. That way the get a chance to prove themselves AND are forced to prove themselves, although they shouldn't have too much trouble with most Asian teams.

[DoyleG]

Forget about the OFC playing in Asia. Even if it were acceptable, the AFC has stated in the past it won't accept the OFC into the fold. That option is dead, done, and buried.

[Mr. Cam]

Originally posted by RalRhino

I'll agree that SA got screwed to benefit Austrailia, but those 9 titles have all been the work of two nations (I would discount the 2 by Uruguay because of the low participation rates). After Brazil and Argentina the remaining SA nations aren't that much better than what the rest of the world can do.

What I would have liked was for FIFA to take the 4th place team from CONCACAF, 5th place team from Asia, 5th place team from CONMEBOL, and 1st place team from Oceania and bring those four team to neutral fields in the host nation and have them play a single group tournament with the top 2 teams getting the last 2 qualifying spots.

Outstanding Idea!!! Mr.Cam nominates RalRhino to lead FIFA. Down with that PImp Blatter.

[Mr. Cam]

Originally posted by Doctor Stamen

FIFA is a joke organisation like the IOC, full of corrupt wankers who have more interest in money than the game of football.

Australia, sorry, Oceania do not deserve an automatic place in the WC. They can't even beat a third placed Iranian team, or a 5th placed SA team.


Would you trust an American run FIFA? How 'bout we let the NFL run FIFA!

[pololo]

Originally posted by Oscar
Why the Hell would UEFA, since they apparently 'own' FIFA, choose to remove a full spot from themselves?

Money of course,if they let China and Australia qualify easily that means more TV money,losing a half spot to Europe is not a big thing for mr Blatter Europe still host the games.
Remember it's all about the money.

[Samarkand]

Originally posted by Heist
Actually doesn't it take two? ..................You can find a LOT, probably almost everyone that would say that The Netherlands is better than Ireland.
Hmmm!
There were 6 points available to Holland in the 2 games with Ireland, and but for a whirlwind of a final 10 minutes in Amsterdam, Holland would have had 0 points. As it stood, they got 1. Equally, there were 6 points available to Holland against Portugal, and they got 1, having lost at home.

On paper some might agree that Holland looked better than Ireland, but Holland's other results in that group (drawing 2-2 with Estonia with 9 minutes(?) left before they won 4-2) would imply that for all the vaunted talent that squad had they were not a team. It is entirely feasible to say that had Holland qualified, 3 and out looked a very likely prospect.

Holland had a poor qualifying campaign, conceding 9 goals and never looking the equal of either Ireland or Portugal.

That's why you play games.

[voros]

Originally posted by Oscar
The way UEFA has set the qualifiers now is most fair to all the teams, the way you people want to see the qualifiers is only better for the better teams
Well, that would be the point. If the argument is that "UEFA shouldn't lose a spot because a strong team like Holland didn't qualify" you can't then argue that you want to keep a system that favors the weaker teams.

IOW, if it's a good thing that a team like Holland doesn't automatically qualify and things should be geared toward that end, well then that fact shouldn't have any bearing on how many spots UEFA gets in the WC.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say Europe shouldn't lose spots because a top quality side like Holland didn't make it, and at the same time demand a system which virtually guarantees that a high quality side won't qualify (it was either Holland, Portugal or Ireland and they all are probably well within the top 14 teams in Europe).

It'd be like forcing someone to win a group to qualify from CONCACAF and then seeding Mexico and the USA in the same group, and then after one of the two don't make it, demanding slots because a high quality side didn't qualify. UEFA has more quality teams, so the situation isn't as obvious, but it is more or less the same setup.

[dred]

The way to solve the UEFA qualifying mess is to have a final round with 5 groups of six teams where the top two teams in each group qualify automatically, and the the third and fourth place teams have to play off.

The 15 (or so) qualifiers from the previous WC (or EC, whatever) would be seeded into the final round while the "minnows" would have to fight it out for the remaining spots in a preliminary tourney. (As suggested above).

The reason this works is the same reason the hexagonal works in CONCACAF: it ensures all ten of a team's final round matches matter, since only the top teams compete. Holland basically had a four game qualification tourney in 2001, because they, Portugal, and Ireland didn't drop a single point in the six matches against the hopeless group minnows.

Holland actually had the second best goal-differential in UEFA qualifying! Yet because of the wasted spots spent on minnows, two poor performances knocked them out. Compare this to the US, who dropped points against every single competitor yet still (justly) prevailed.