GRAND THEFT. Fifa takes S. America spot

[deejay]

Originally posted by FunGuy
Here is a few from the last 3 yrs, the 200 confedaration cup , canada- brazil 0-0, the Copa America, the concacaf teams kick some south america ass in that tournement, and the 2002 world cup, mexico/ecudor, also 2/3 of our teams advance in that world cup, and 2/5 of the s. american teams did. outside of the big 2 CONMEBOL
is over rated, any of the top 5 teams in concacaf can beat the 8-10 teams in s. america on most days.

This is the way CONCACAF would be rated in CONMEBOL

Brazil
Argentina
Mexico
USA
Paraguay
Uruguay <--- 2006 CONMEBOL qualifying level
Colombia
Chile
Costa Rica
Ecuador
Honduras <--- 2006 CONCACAF qualifying level
Peru
Bolivia
Venezuela
All the other CONCACAF countries.

Just because Honduras went far in a tourney were the big name South American SA stars didn't appear does not make you that good.

You like us have two nations that are head and shoulder above the rest. But our two giants are head and shoulders above your two giants. Neither Argentina or Brazil take for granted that they'll qualify all the time and competition is very intense. We're better than you. It's just the facts. You guys have gotten a lot better. But we're still the best.

["Simply Ken"]

Outside Brazil and Argentina, the rest of the Conembol sides are not so good to be missed from the World Cup.

Thus, to me it is besides the point whether Honduras is stronger or Ecuador (debatable)? Or whether Costa Rica is stronger or Paraguay (again debatable)? Most Conembol sides are strong enough to compete, and upset, many other better sides on their day. However, except Brazil and Argentina, the rest of the Conembol teams are in the same general category as many other teams from many other confederations.

Although I am outraged by the automatic spot given to the OFC, and would have preferred a slightly different allocation, the real issue is not about S.America being robbed. The real issue is about the OFC gettting a gift that cannot be justified except as reward for some backroom deal.

[SoccerScout]

If I had to rank Comebol and Concacaf nations together this is how it would rank.

Important. The basis of this rank is how these teams would do in home and away matches. Its one thing to say that the US could beat Uruguay in Washington but Uruguay would most likely beat the US in Montevideo 9 of 10 times and by larger scores than the US would beat Uruguay in DC (US has a hard time enough in Mexico or Central America.)

Based on that home and away idea with aggragate scoring, the ranking would fall something like this.


1st- Brazil
2nd- Argentina

These first two cannot be disputed.

All tied up in interchangable positions are:

3rd- Uruguay, Colombia, Paraguy, US , Mexico

The US is only in this position due to the growth of soccer her in the last 8 years, in this were 1989 they would be on the very bottom next to Venezuela.

In the 3rd tier are:

8th- Chile, Equador, Costa Rica, Honduras

4th tier

12th- Peru , Bolivia, Jamaica

5th tier:

15th and lower: Everyone else.

But all in all these rankings mean little as the US would probably have a hard time beating any of these teams away. Even Brazil has a hard time beating Bolivia away in the high altitude. Thats why the games are play.

Nonetheless the US has been the fastest growing soccer nation in the last 8 years. They have come from obscurity (1990) to disaster (1998) to playing like a REAL team in 2002, though they still got spanked by Poland. The US x Germany 98 and the US x Germany 2002 were so so different.

[El_Maestro]

The main reason why Conmebol lost that half spot is their lack of power and economical resources.

Which tourists have more money, Australians or Southamericans? Who is more likely to go to Germany, an Aussie or an Ecuadorian?

What region has more talent? Oops, I guess FIFA didn't asked themselves that one.

And, of course, the reason why SA lost that spot is the same one all non Southamericans in this forum use as an excuse. They are only ten countries.

"How could they have 5 spots if they are only 10 countries", they'd say.

10 countries = 10 votes
10 votes = no power
no power = you loose a spot

Is that simple, since Havelange retirement Conmebol lost any voice it had inside of Fifa, and the president is Blatter, not that Uefa guy. Otherwise SA would have 2 spots.

Well, we've have to do what we do best, create and promote talent, play good football and win more championships than everybody else.

[emerton12]

Australia has tried numerous times to combine the AFC and Oceania. It has been rejected each and every time. The fact is they just dont want us there. Remember when Australia made a motion to combine Asia and Oceania ? The only vote in favour was Australia's. It would be to Oceania's advatantage to be involved in the AFC qualifying but I dont think it will happen in the near future. If ever.If Conmebol wanted that extra spot why did they vote against this move ? Oceania teams deserve the same deal as every team from every other conference. That is the ability to qualify from H & A qualification. This should probably be as part of the latter AFC qualifying. Oceania being too weak in my opinion to exist as a confederation in its own right.

[pololo]

Originally posted by El_Maestro
The main reason why Conmebol lost that half spot is their lack of power and economical resources.

Which tourists have more money, Australians or Southamericans? Who is more likely to go to Germany, an Aussie or an Ecuadorian?

What region has more talent? Oops, I guess FIFA didn't asked themselves that one.

And, of course, the reason why SA lost that spot is the same one all non Southamericans in this forum use as an excuse. They are only ten countries.

"How could they have 5 spots if they are only 10 countries", they'd say.

10 countries = 10 votes
10 votes = no power
no power = you loose a spot

Is that simple, since Havelange retirement Conmebol lost any voice it had inside of Fifa, and the president is Blatter, not that Uefa guy. Otherwise SA would have 2 spots.

Well, we've have to do what we do best, create and promote talent, play good football and win more championships than everybody else.

Joao Havelange still didn't do Conmebol a favor anyhow.

This is a conspiracy friends why you think the OFC main man throwed away his vote?

I can already see the future in the 2006 World Cup the final will be Germany vs Brazil/Argentina and Germany will win with the referees in their favor.

[xenaphobia]

What happened the last time Australia fielded a FULL STRENGTH side in a FIFA competition?

The 2001 Confed Cup?

Beat

Mexico
France
Brazil

http://www.eloratings.net/world.html

["Simply Ken"]

"What happened the last time Australia fielded a FULL STRENGTH side in a FIFA competition?"

Actually, I think the correct answer is that they lost 3:0 to Uraguay, missing the World Cup as a result.

[xenaphobia]

Uruguay also beat Brazil at home, so that would make Australia equal with Brazil then :D

[SoccerScout]

>>Which tourists have more money, Australians or Southamericans? Who is more likely to go to Germany, an Aussie or an Ecuadorian?>>


If that were the case then they should have gotten a spot from Africa. I think Africa is much harder up than South America and they still get 5 spots. HOW THE HELL DOES AFRICA GET MORE SPOTS THAN SOUTH AMERICA!

[pololo]

Originally posted by xenaphobia
Uruguay also beat Brazil at home, so that would make Australia equal with Brazil then :D

Uruguay-Brazil 1-0
Uruguay-Australia 3-0

Australia is equal to Brazil,right?

[xenaphobia]

Originally posted by pololo
Uruguay-Brazil 1-0
Uruguay-Australia 3-0

Australia is equal to Brazil,right?

Australia beat Uruguay in their home leg, Brazil could only manage a draw in their home game

Whole point is Australia isn't that useless as some make it out to be and losing to Uruguay in 1 game away is hardly damning in the big picture of things

[SoccerScout]

>>Australia beat Uruguay in their home leg, Brazil could only manage a draw in their home game>>

Are you seriously attempting to compare Brazil and Australia?

Please do yourself a favor and move on...

["Simply Ken"]

"Whole point is Australia isn't that useless as some make it out to be..."

Speaking for myself, I wasn't trying to put down Australia in my response to the rhetorical question you had asked. I just found it curious that you would ask that question!

I consider Australia to be a decent side. In fact, the team I support has rarely been as rattled as a memorable game in 1997 in Melbourne which ended 2:2:-) I know Iran was quite lucky in that match, even if Australia had needed some luck to leave Tehran with a draw earlier as well.

Nonetheless, it just doesn't make sense for Oceania to get one spot when you consider that it is comprised of a bunch of nearly uninhabited islands along with one decent (but not stellar) side and a mediocre one in New Zealand. That essentially gifts one of either Australia (or less likely New Zealand) a World Cup spot when most sides have to earn theirs in far more contested fashion.

I personally would like to see the final AFC qualifying rounds to allow the top 2 OFC sides competing as well, with the OFC qualifiers treated as preliminary qualifying games. But while the AFC opposed this idea, the fact is that it was never presented much of a carrot in accepting it either. As the proposal was made in prior occasions, the addition of Australia would have simply crowded room for other AFC member states without any additional slots given to the confederation to compensate it for the added entry.

[Excape Goat]

Originally posted by Heist
When they were a team of college all-stars?
If it was pre 1996 or so that's what the US was.
China is better than a US college team, but Asia barely deserves 4, 3.5 would be more fair and a playoff with Oceania.

I recalled the US team was made up of the cream of MLS after the 1996 season. I only remembered Wynalda played. Jason Kreis and Steve Ralston probably were on the team.


Australia is a decent side for sure..... but we are talking about a free ride to the WC Finals. Nobody -- except the host -- gets the free ride.

[cosmosRIP]

Anyone who thinks the 5th best team in Asia is better than the 5th best team in S. America is smoking crack.

["Simply Ken"]

"Anyone who thinks the 5th best team in Asia is better than the 5th best team in S. America is smoking crack."

I don't go near the stuff:-)

If Iran is considered the so-called 5th best team in the AFC, then the results between Iran and teams from other confederations suggest parity against S.America's number 5.

Since 1998, Iran has played Chile (Iran won), Paraguay (Iran won), and Ecuador twice (Iran won once, tied another time). Granted, the games were friendlies and the results meaningless.

Still, Iran also barely lost to Ireland in the World Cup playoffs, with the Ireland keeper selected the MVP of the series for keeping a clean slate in Dublin denying Iran several good chances in their 2:0 win, and keeping the match close in Tehran where Ireland lost 1:0.

Iran's overall results against various teams from outside of Asia show that it can hold its own and more against the kind of 2nd tier teams that qualify from other confederations.

Of course, Iran is no more the "5th" best team in Asia as Holland is the 16th team from UEFA!

[cosmosRIP]

At WC02 the 5th best S. American team finished ahead of the 3rd best Asian team and at WC98 the 5th best S. American team finished ahead of the 2nd best Asian team.

["Simply Ken"]

Those numbers don't mean jack!

In 1998, Iran qualified as Asia's '4th' team. Yet, in the tournament, it finished with the most points among the Asians -- as well as one of the Conembol sides. Was Iran therefore Asia's #1 or #4 in 1998?

Most observers of the Asian game, similarly, agree that Iran would have done much better than either Saudi Arabia or China had it qualified. The same way everyone would agree that Holland would have better represented UEFA than say Slovenia.

[cosmosRIP]

I think what needs to be looked at is who is stinking up the joint at the finals, and it is certainly not the S. Americans and yet they are the ones who are losing spots.