GRAND THEFT. Fifa takes S. America spot

[Rafael Hernandez]

Slovenia wasn't better than the Dutch. They just had an easier group facing the dissapointing Russians and a incosistant Yugoslavia. Same thing in France 98, when Portugal had a good team with Figo and Rui Costa but failed in a tough group while Austria had an real crap group and thus qualified along with Scotland. Thus UEFA can't complain about their spots since if any good teams fail its mostly because of its system.


As for CONMEBOL, they have the fairest qualifiers of them all eventhought its marathonic.

[Oscar]

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

South America was Blatter's support confed. Next.

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.

How does that system favor the weaker teams? It's based on past results, if you've done crap in the past (Portugal) chances are you'll be in a group with 2 fairly strong teams, nobody's to blame for the seeding but the team itself.

Plus I never said UEFA shouldn't lose a spot because Holland was kept at home, I was just amazed by how people here would say CONMEBOL losing that ½ spot is an injustice and then in the same sentence say that UEFA should lose a spot or 2, not because their sub-top teams have done worse (the exact opposite of course is true) but because of the 'bad qualifying'. The only one to blame for Holland not qualifying is Holland. (this sentence should be read 3 times, because some of you don't seem to get it)

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.

It's because of the games against the minnows they have that high goal differential. They had 4 bad performances, actually more because they had a hard time against some of the minnows as well even though it wasn't reflected in the score. (match against Estonia comes to mind)

Slovenia wasn't better than the Dutch. They just had an easier group facing the dissapointing Russians and a incosistant Yugoslavia

A good Holland would have had an 'easier' time against Ireland and Portugal, than a good Slovenia against Russia, Switzerland (who are topping their Euro Cup qualif.) Yugoslavia and Romania.

[Oceania]

Oceania, as a FIFA confederation, must have a full spot. FIFA had only 2 choices - give Oceania a spot or combine Ocieania with another confederation. No other confederation wanted Oceania, so there was only one option left.

An Oceania member country will win the World Cup before long, if Oceania soccer is given a chance to develop.

Australia, New Zealand, Fiji etc are all capable of developing a lot and quickly.

In particular, Australia has the potential to rapidly improve to the point of winning the World Cup.

[RichardL]

Originally posted by pololo
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.

And just how much TV money will FIFA get from Australia? A minor sport in a country with a population of only 20 million is hardly going to get the cash registers at FIFA working overtime.

China may have a very large population, but it also is a very poor country. Big TV deals there are a long way off.

[Rafael Hernandez]

Originally posted by Oscar

A good Holland would have had an 'easier' time against Ireland and Portugal, than a good Slovenia against Russia, Switzerland (who are topping their Euro Cup qualif.) Yugoslavia and Romania. [/B]

Russia and Slovenia showed their form in the WC. If you think the Dutch would have been as bad, then that's you.

Also the Swiss were crap especially when Enzo Trossero was their coach.

[biosoccer]

I can't believe you people are still arguing about this!

[Oscar]

Russia and Slovenia showed their form in the WC. If you think the Dutch would have been as bad, then that's you.

Yes, because a big name team can't possibly do as bad as these teams...oh wait, Argentina + France :D

[wu-tang beez]

than a good Slovenia against Russia, Switzerland (who are topping their Euro Cup qualif.) Yugoslavia and Romania.

You used the words "slovenia" and "good" in the same sentence. The russians were so bad their federation threatened 2 w/hold wages unless they qualified. Yugoslavia is old & had been drilled by espania in the 2000 copa europa. The uefa system punishes good teams like Holland, England & France and allows dogs like Slovenia to advance.

The person who pointed out COMEBOL really lost 1.5 slots was right because their 5th slotted team was a lock over the oceana winner.

[LotharDSM]

Originally posted by Oceania
Oceania, as a FIFA confederation, must have a full spot. FIFA had only 2 choices - give Oceania a spot or combine Ocieania with another confederation. No other confederation wanted Oceania, so there was only one option left.

An Oceania member country will win the World Cup before long, if Oceania soccer is given a chance to develop.

Australia, New Zealand, Fiji etc are all capable of developing a lot and quickly.

In particular, Australia has the potential to rapidly improve to the point of winning the World Cup.

I hope that the FIFA ranked #49, #50 and #140 teams (don't forget Tahiti at #113) mentioned can develop quickly, because one of them needs to perform well in 2006 so that their auto-spot doesn't become a joke.

Oceania doesn't deserve a full spot with a direct pass into the WC, a better option is to give them 2 x .5 spots and allow them to have two teams playoff against the "weaker" conferences (AFC, CAF and/or CONCACAF). That leaves the possibility of two of their teams reaching the WC.

Since they're developing so quickly it will just be a matter of time before their current one (and only one) automatic allotment is holding the rest of Oceania back from wreaking havoc on the WC.

[Oscar]

The russians were so bad their federation threatened 2 w/hold wages unless they qualified

This has more to do with the demands of the Russian federation, than with how the Russians played in the qualifiers. Moreso seeing as they ended up in the 1st place with points to spare.

Yugoslavia is old & had been drilled by espania in the 2000 copa europa

Spain has never had an easy time with Yugoslavia. Plus Yugoslavia drew away at Italy (which I'm sure does 'deserve' to go to a WC to you people, seeing as you only look at names) in the Euro Cup qualifiers

The uefa system punishes good teams like Holland, England & France and allows dogs like Slovenia to advance

You didn't read that sentence which was in bold did you? Three times?

[Ombak]

Oscar, everyone knows Holland is the only one to blame here. They know what they have to do, it's not like they go in thinking the qualifiers are going to be one way and then are surprised to find they're tougher. They have plenty of time to prepare.

But how does that make this system fair?

Portugal may not have done ,cuh in the 90s but that doesn't mean they're a third-tier team. As a result these draw will produce unbalanced groups.

They always do in UEFA. Preliminary rounds would contribute to improving things. That way if Portugal is any good it will get past the preliminary rounds allowing it to compete for spots with Holland and Ireland and whoever else is seeded or qualifies. But by eliminating a large number of weak teams first you are likely to avoid unbalanced groups.

Obviously CONMEBOL has the fairest system, but they can afford to do that since they have only 10 teams. Even then it's a marathon process as stated above, but it's far better than any the aternative.

[Oscar]

The only qualification that is more fair to ALL the teams is like they do it in South America, but like you've said, that won't happen seeing as UEFA has over 50 members.

If you say Portugal isn't a third tier team, then putting them in a preliminary qualification with the weaker UEFA sides isn't all that fair to them either now is it? Not to mention to the 'weaker' teams who would have an even chance to qualify in the current system.

Even if you make less groups that are bigger, you can't count out teams underperforming or teams overperforming, and you could still get big name teams that stay at home. Changing the qualification won't stop this at all. Holland didn't stay at home because they lost to the minnows which would have been kicked out of the preliminary rounds, but to Ireland and Portugal.

The way I see it, the problem isn't more deserving sides staying at home, the problem is people here wanting to see the big name teams at the tournament regardless of how they did in the qualifiers.

[Rafael Hernandez]

Originally posted by Oscar
Yes, because a big name team can't possibly do as bad as these teams...oh wait, Argentina + France :D

BS. Slovenia went 0-3 and was in the weakest group of the WC. No way were Argentina and France as bad. France still had a shot when they faced Denmark and Argentina went out after a super defensive game by Sweden.

[Ombak]

I see your point, some people will always argue Holland is more deserving than Ireland, no matter how both teams perform. But UEFA should propose a system where they would likely end up with more balanced groups.

As it is all they do is throw everyone in a few pots and draw them into groups of 6 or 7 teams. The only way this would be more unfair would be if there was no seeding whatsoever. While we won't see a group of San Marino, Liechtenstein, Cyprus, Bosnia, Malta and Andorra, you might see one of Belgium, Austria, Scotland and 3 of the above while another group might feature Italy, Portugal, the Ukraine, Yugoslavia and 2 minnows.

Add to all that the fact that the playoffs could see matches like Holland vs. Portugal at the same time as Scotland vs. Austria and things really don't look like they're done to get the best teams in.

[Heist]

Originally posted by Oceania
Oceania, as a FIFA confederation, must have a full spot. FIFA had only 2 choices - give Oceania a spot or combine Ocieania with another confederation. No other confederation wanted Oceania, so there was only one option left.

An Oceania member country will win the World Cup before long, if Oceania soccer is given a chance to develop.

Australia, New Zealand, Fiji etc are all capable of developing a lot and quickly.

In particular, Australia has the potential to rapidly improve to the point of winning the World Cup.
This is a joke, right?
The US will win the world cup before Australia will. And as much as I like the US I don't see them with a good chance of winning a cup any time in the next 20-30 years. Australia and New Zealand are 49 and 50 in the world... The US is 9 or 10.
No team in that range has ever come close to winning the world cup since those rankings came out. The closest example might be Senegal because they got "close" this year.

Fiji will never get out of Oceania unless the Qualification is changed.

I think Oceania should have two half-spots or something and playoff with the weaker teams in CONCACAF, Asia, and Africa for a chance at a couple of spots. A home-and-home like they played against uruguay isn't really fair cause one bad game and you are pretty much done. In a 4-6 team playoff both of them would have a real shot at gettting in.

[Oscar]

Slovenia went 0-3 and was in the weakest group of the WC. No way were Argentina and France as bad. France still had a shot when they faced Denmark and Argentina went out after a super defensive game by Sweden.

Do you think the French and the Argentinians are going "hey, we still played pretty good"? All 3 teams were kicked out of the 1st round. (Slovenia at least scored a goal ;) )

The point was that it doesn't matter how big your name is, that doesn't equal a good run in the WC. You have to prove in the matches you play that you are as good as people think you are, which Holland didn't do...don't see how the structure of qualifications has anything to do with it.

[Oscar]

As it is all they do is throw everyone in a few pots and draw them into groups of 6 or 7 teams. The only way this would be more unfair would be if there was no seeding whatsoever. While we won't see a group of San Marino, Liechtenstein, Cyprus, Bosnia, Malta and Andorra, you might see one of Belgium, Austria, Scotland and 3 of the above while another group might feature Italy, Portugal, the Ukraine, Yugoslavia and 2 minnows.

So how would you propose things would be better?

Even if they removed the minnows at first (which largely don't have anything to do with big names staying at home in the 1st place) you would still use the same seeding as they do now to make the groups following the preliminaries, no guarantee that multiple good teams aren't placed in the same group.

Even if you made the groups bigger like some here have proposed, that would not stop: underperforming, overperfoming, and it would still use the same seeding as they do now.

Would you change the way they seed the teams? What other way would you measure them than the past results of these teams? Opinion?

Many people here rag about the European qualification system, but none have proposed anything better (that would let these so-called more deserving teams be guaranteed to go to the tournament)

[Oceania]

FIFA rankings are heavily dependent on the opportunities to have games that mean something. Oceania rankings are affected by this.

Oceanic rankings will continue to improve rapidly as long as Oceania retains the direct World Cup spot. Now, other confederations will want to play teams from Oceania eg Asia Confederation has already made such a contact.

FIFA's long neglect of Oceania has at last been rectified.

[wu-tang beez]

Originally posted by Oceania
FIFA's long neglect of Oceania has at last been rectified. [/B]

:D LMAOF :D

[Rafael Hernandez]

Originally posted by Oscar
Do you think the French and the Argentinians are going "hey, we still played pretty good"? All 3 teams were kicked out of the 1st round. (Slovenia at least scored a goal ;) )

The point was that it doesn't matter how big your name is, that doesn't equal a good run in the WC. You have to prove in the matches you play that you are as good as people think you are, which Holland didn't do...don't see how the structure of qualifications has anything to do with it.


Its not the same. Slovenia tanked in the worst group of the WC. They had a worst cup than France and Argentina. The fact that they were gone in the 1st round doesn't change the fact. Spain went out in the 1st round last time and so did Japan. Doesn't mean they were just as bad since Spain barely missed it and Japan went 0-3 and never had a chance.