4.5 for Asia

["Simply Ken"]

Originally posted by Heist
Ali Daei and Medevikhia have both played in Europe, Germany and Italy I think...

At its peak, Iran used to have a dozen players in Germany, along with half a dozen elsewhere. The German based players once included Daei, Azizi, Bagheri, Mahdavikia, Hashemian, Mousavi, Pashazadeh, Yazdani, DinMohammadi, Mansourian and more.

Their records in Germany were mixed, but many of them had some very good seasons even if they had poorer ones as well. Their clubs included the likes of Bayern Munich, Hamburg SV, Bayer Leverkusen, and lesser known ones such as Arminia Bielefeld, FC Koln, St Pauli, VFL Bochum and the like.

Among them, Daei and Mahdavikia also played in the Champions League, each having a couple of MVP games in that tournament. In this list, however, only Mahdavikia (Hamburg SV) and Vahid Hashemian (VFL Bochum) remain in Germany today.

Iran has also had many players with clubs elsewhere in Europe. Those included Mehrdad Minavand, who played in 3 Champions League seasons with Strum Graz, as well as Ali Samereh and Rahman Rezaie who played in the Serie A with Perugia. Bagheri also had a brief spell in the EPL with the Charlton Athletic, although repeated injuries made that a very unsuccessful move for him.

There were also a dozen other Iranians who played for various other clubs, in Austria, Belgium, and several other countries. On this list, a few (minor) players remain in Belgium, while Iranian defender Rezaie is still with Perugia. (Rezaie had a great season with Perugia last year, but is not doing as well this year).

Iran's team is going through a transition, with a crop of very talented youngsters replacing many of our veterans who had European experience. Nonetheless, at its peak, Iran had more players in Europe than all of the other Asian countries combined!

P.S.

It is admitedly speculative to say how Iran would have done in the World Cup if it had qualified. But I have seen Iran in many games, against many teams, from other regions. Iran were a good team and though the blame for the failure ultimately rests with Iran, for my money, Iran was as good if not better than many countries that did qualify for the World Cup.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by PumaBear
4.5 spots for Asia is terrible. IMHO WC level of soccer has declined in the last few decades and this decision only reinforces this trend.

This is similar to the way the other thread was. And I agree with this. The level of football at this WC certainly wasn't up to par - and I think it's saturated - thanks to the not up to par teams.

I suppose that is the World Cup though - in true definition, it should include teams from all over. However the sacrifice has to be made somewhere and apparently, it is in the overall quality of football.

Asia should not have 4.5 spots. How do I measure? By current results, past results, strength of confederation through and through and head to head with other confeds + growth potential. Yes, S. Korea did well (thoguh not without controversy) as did Japan. However Asia also had the two worst performers by far in Saudi Arabia and China.

Asia should get at most, 4 spots. Here is the way I think it should be for a competitive "world cup".

UEFA: 16
CONMEBOL: 5
CONCACAF: 3
Asia: 2.5
CAF: 4
Oceana:.5

And for a, well, "FIFA" world cup, why not do a bit of a "warm-up" by having more playoffs?

UEFA: 15.5
CONMEBOL: 4.5
CONCACAF: 3.5
Asia: 4
CAF: 4
Oceana: .5

In that plan, UEFA, CONMEBOL lose half a spot, Oceana and CAF stays the same (I feel like this is still generous to CAF), and Asia and CONCACAF make full gains. Oceana a full spot? They couldn't get past the fringe teams from Asia and CONMEBOL. In their defense, it is difficult to organize for tougher opponents - but still....

[Goa^uld]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
Iran was as good if not better than many countries that did qualify for the World Cup.

So was Holland

["Simply Ken"]

Originally posted by Alex_1
However Asia also had the two worst performers by far in Saudi Arabia and China.


No one can dispute the poor record left by Saudi Arabia and China in the last World Cup.

However, conceptually, I find the whole exercise of trying to come up with the "right quota", relying on results from 4 years before to judge football in an entire continent, to be logically absurd.

Take Saudi Arabia as an example. In 1994, they advanced to the round of 16 after beating Belgium and Morocco, losing merely 2:1 to Holland. 4 years later they were poor, and in the last World Cup, they were aweful. Yet, who knows where they would be 4 years from now, much less how the entire Asian federation would rate then?!

Moreover, to say <b>all</b> Asian teams (other the hosts) are aweful, basically because Costa Rica, Brazil and Turkey beat China seems illogical to me when you look at how an Asian team like Iran has done against the Chinese for example. Last time Iran played China, in 2001, Iran beat them 4:0. In the 1998 qualifiers, Iran beat China 4:2 in China, and 4:1 in Iran. (We also beat them twice in the 1998 Asian Games). True, we didn't beat up on Saudi Arabia 8:0 like Germany did, but we did nonetheless beat the Saudis 4:2 on aggregates in the last qualifiers.



Asia should get at most, 4 spots. Here is the way I think it should be for a competitive "world cup".

UEFA: 16
CONMEBOL: 5
CONCACAF: 3
Asia: 2.5
CAF: 4
Oceana:.5



That is just your opinion. I don't agree with those numbers at all. Instead, I prefer those numbers to be drawn, not based on anyone's opinion, but on actual results in intercontinental qualifying.

In the meantime, if Conmebol ever get 5 automatic entries to the World Cup, I would puke!! Not only are most Conembol sides merely average, the whole confederation consists of only 10 teams! Even if 5 of them belong to the World Cup, they would need to show they do by first beating teams from other regions!



And for a, well, "FIFA" world cup, why not do a bit of a "warm-up" by having more playoffs?

UEFA: 15.5
CONMEBOL: 4.5
CONCACAF: 3.5
Asia: 4
CAF: 4
Oceana: .5



I still don't like your numbers. To me, they seem drawn willy nilly out of a hat!

My own proposal, listed elsewhere, is different, allocating numbers based on results between teams from the various confederations. However, an alternative I could live with in the meantime would combine all the spots for Conembol and Concacaf on the one hand, and the spots for OFC and AFC on the other hand.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
No one can dispute the poor record left by Saudi Arabia and China in the last World Cup.

However, conceptually, I find the whole exercise of trying to come up with the "right quota", relying on results from 4 years before to judge football in an entire continent, to be logically absurd.

Take Saudi Arabia as an example. In 1994, they advanced to the round of 16 after beating Belgium and Morocco, losing merely 2:1 to Holland. 4 years later they were poor, and in the last World Cup, they were aweful. Yet, who knows where they would be 4 years from now, much less how the entire Asian federation would rate then?!

Moreover, to say <b>all</b> Asian teams (other the hosts) are aweful, basically because Costa Rica, Brazil and Turkey beat China seems illogical to me when you look at how an Asian team like Iran has done against the Chinese for example. Last time Iran played China, in 2001, Iran beat them 4:0. In the 1998 qualifiers, Iran beat China 4:2 in China, and 4:1 in Iran. (We also beat them twice in the 1998 Asian Games). True, we didn't beat up on Saudi Arabia 8:0 like Germany did, but we did nonetheless beat the Saudis 4:2 on aggregates in the last qualifiers.



That is just your opinion. I don't agree with those numbers at all. Instead, I prefer those numbers to be drawn, not based on anyone's opinion, but on actual results in intercontinental qualifying.

In the meantime, if Conmebol ever get 5 automatic entries to the World Cup, I would puke!! Not only are most Conembol sides merely average, the whole confederation consists of only 10 teams! Even if 5 of them belong to the World Cup, they would need to show they do by first beating teams from other regions!



I still don't like your numbers. To me, they seem drawn willy nilly out of a hat!

My own proposal, listed elsewhere, is different, allocating numbers based on results between teams from the various confederations. However, an alternative I could live with in the meantime would combine all the spots for Conembol and Concacaf on the one hand, and the spots for OFC and AFC on the other hand.

Sure dude. whatever you say. They would look that way if you haven't read the thread I referred to or even understood my post. So knock yourself out!

[Soccerfever]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
In the meantime, if Conmebol ever get 5 automatic entries to the World Cup, I would puke!! Not only are most Conembol sides merely average, the whole confederation consists of only 10 teams! Even if 5 of them belong to the World Cup, they would need to show they do by first beating teams from other regions!

Pal,what you need to keep in mind,is the fact that CONMEBOL is by far the most difficult region for World Cup qualification.Plus,Brazil are the defending champions,and still,they will have to compete for a slot at the finals in Germany!

[Heist]

Originally posted by Soccerfever
Pal,what you need to keep in mind,is the fact that CONMEBOL is by far the most difficult region for World Cup qualification.Plus,Brazil are the defending champions,and still,they will have to compete for a slot at the finals in Germany!

I know there are many ways to quantify difficulty, but I assume FIFA ranking isn't one of them for you. The best 5th best CONMEBOL team is ranked 31 in the world.
The 14th best UEFA team is ranked 22nd.
Both of those teams would not make it if all goes according to rankings. If it doesn't of course quite a few top 20 teams would be left out from UEFA qualifying... like Holland was last time.
Also, I like the fact that the defending champ has to compete each time. It forces the team to play meaningful games in the meantime.
CONMEBOL is difficult, but I think its unrealistic to say either UEFA or CONMEBOL is more difficult to qualify from.

["Simply Ken"]

Originally posted by Soccerfever
Pal,what you need to keep in mind,is the fact that CONMEBOL is by far the most difficult region for World Cup qualification.Plus,Brazil are the defending champions,and still,they will have to compete for a slot at the finals in Germany!

The teams that qualified from the 'most difficult' qualifying region included Ecuador, Uruguay and Paraguay -- all decent sides, none anything more. The World Cup would missing nothing if one of these sides were to stay home. Similarly, among the Conembol sides that didn't qualify, none were that special to be missed either.

Except for Venezula, every Conembol team has qualified to the World Cup! Except for Brazil and Argentina, and excluding ancient history, none have left much of a mark either. Instead, a historical advantage enjoyed by the region has simply been continued and magnified by giving practically all of its teams the considerable benefits of participating in the World Cup.

Since 1994 alone, the following Conembol teams have participated in the World Cup: Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia! Don't tell me how hard it is to qualify from Conembol, when everyone except Venezuela has managed the feat -- and 80% have done so just in the past 8 years!

Anyway, my proposal would allow these teams to still qualify. I just want them to do so by beating teams from other regions, instead of being given so many guaranteed spots.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
The teams that qualified from the 'most difficult' qualifying region included Ecuador, Uruguay and Paraguay -- all decent sides, none anything more. The World Cup would missing nothing if one of these sides were to stay home. Similarly, among the Conembol sides that didn't qualify, none were that special to be missed either.

Okay. But you could say the same thing for 70% of the teams in other confederations as well. Or - any other team in any region that is not the team you support. How many World Cups has Mexico won? Or the United States? (CONCACAF) Or Japan? (ASIA) Or Spain? Or Portugal? (UEFA) Look at the total percentage of teams within their respective confederations, and the ones that have won. This is a good example of why I do not think it is so good to look purely at numbers. You miss too many intangibles.

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"

Except for Venezula, every Conembol team has qualified to the World Cup! Except for Brazil and Argentina, and excluding ancient history, none have left much of a mark either. Instead, a historical advantage enjoyed by the region has simply been continued and magnified by giving practically all of its teams the considerable benefits of participating in the World Cup.

Again, you could say the same thing about... every other confederation. What sort of mark has Japan left - or any Asia team? Or CONCACAF - or CAF? ;) CONMEBOL has more parity than most - dare I say all of the other confederations. Pound for pound, each team - including the much improved Venezuela - is capable of obtaining a fair result. Did you see the Venezuela vs. Colombia match in qualifying? They obtained the draw and were dangerous. They defeated Paraguay as well - and outplayed them in the match.

I think you greatly underestimate the South America region. Yes, I am standing up for CONMEBOL in this instance because I don't buy into the argument against them. Teams from the other regions have an opportunity to advance to the WC. But some of the larger confederations (in number of teams) also have a tremendous amount of "fat" (minnows) in them too, which can throw off your numbers. Qualifying against Montserrat is not the same as qualifying against a Wales or Peru.

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"

Since 1994 alone, the following Conembol teams have participated in the World Cup: Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia! Don't tell me how hard it is to qualify from Conembol, when everyone except Venezuela has managed the feat -- and 80% have done so just in the past 8 years!

You're looking too much into the numbers. It is true - 4.5 teams advanced out of the federation with 10 selections. Conversely, there are only 10 teams in the entire confederation, and most of them are very capable sides with strong players. Put all ten in Asia, the qualifying would be pretty much the same - IMO, Japan or Korea would be the only ones really contending with the them. Do the same to CONCACAF - maybe Mexico, USA and Costa Rica would be the main ones consistently challenging the full sides of the CONMEBOL countries.

Numbers can only take you so far. You have to look at the potency of the confederation as well.

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"

Anyway, my proposal would allow these teams to still qualify. I just want them to do so by beating teams from other regions, instead of being given so many guaranteed spots.

Guaranteed? Tell that to Colombia or Uruguay! :p Seriously, you may want to review CONMEBOL qualifying and the selections in the region. If it's games vs. other regions then that's fine - but like 2001 vs. Australia - even the last place team to qualify out of CONMEBOL is very difficult to play. It could have been Colombia actually, and had it been, I believe Colombia would have still been the better side vs. Australia. Problem with them was that they struggled in a critical time - the draw to Venezuela was the match that sealed their fate.

I don't mind the half slot. That is fair to me. But if you want a "real" competitive World Cup, sad to say, but it would probably consist of mostly UEFA and CONMEBOL with a handful of teams from all of the other confederations. And I might be being generous with that. To keep it a World Cup, and to keep it interesting without sacrificing too much from the quality of the sport, you have to draw a fine line on the allocation process. Really, to mock the quota is one thing. But what is a fair alternative?

I agree that the cup should be more competitive - but is it really possible to have all of the cross qualification with club football the way it is?

["Simply Ken"]

Alex,

I don't want to prolong this debate ad infinitum. Let me just say 3 things:

1) Your list of sides that are competitive from Asia relies merely on what you saw in the last World Cup! Iran, for instance, is probably the most internationally competitive side in Asia. I posted a round up of Asian football offered by the AFC after World Cup 2002, which states the same thing.

You just don't know enough about Asian football, merely relying on what you see once every 4 years in a limited number of games. To get a good idea of Asian football, you can review my last message in the thread here on "Darkhorses for 2006".

BTW, I have seen Venezuela play. I saw them against Iran in a friendly tournament in Morocco a few months ago. Iran outclassed and beat them.

2) I agree there is a lot of parity in Conembol. But I draw a different conclusion from that fact.

With only 10 teams, 9 of whom have qualified to the World Cup, 8 of whom have done so just in the past 8 years, and most of whom are merely the same good (but not stellar) type of sides, the tournament as a whole gains nothing by repeating the experience for them all the time. Not when it comes at expense of excluding sides that can benefit more from the experience, helping the sport globally.

3) Ultimately, I don't like quotas to decide the issue for so many teams, regardless of whether the quota favors one region as opposed to the other. I find the basis for determining these quotas to be faulty. And, yes, there is another way to decide the issue -- and I have outlined it in some of my messages here. And, no, I don't think the end result would necessarily see more Conembol sides, but if it does, that would be fine to me.

[Heist]

Originally posted by Alex_1
Okay. But you could say the same thing for 70% of the teams in other confederations as well. Or - any other team in any region that is not the team you support. How many World Cups has Mexico won? Or the United States? (CONCACAF) Or Japan? (ASIA) Or Spain? Or Portugal? (UEFA) Look at the total percentage of teams within their respective confederations, and the ones that have won. This is a good example of why I do not think it is so good to look purely at numbers. You miss too many intangibles.

The only legitimate threats to win the Cup most years are Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands. Every once in a while another team comes up and makes a run... but it hasn't been any other CONMEBOL team in quite a while. I seem to remeber Croatia, Turkey, South Korea doing it though.
Uruguay has won, but that was a long time ago. That's an irrelevant statistic.



CONMEBOL has more parity than most - dare I say all of the other confederations.

I totally agree with that, but that doesn't make the Confederation deserve more spots.

I think you greatly underestimate the South America region. Yes, I am standing up for CONMEBOL in this instance because I don't buy into the argument against them.

I don't I feel like they have 2 great teams, 4 very good teams and 4 (Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru) that have no business in a WC of the top 32 teams in the world.

But some of the larger confederations (in number of teams) also have a tremendous amount of "fat" (minnows) in them too, which can throw off your numbers. Qualifying against Montserrat is not the same as qualifying against a Wales or Peru.

Agreed, and I have issues with how the new CONCACAF system works and how the UEFA one works. All confederations have a lot of minnows. I don't see how that should make CONMEBOL get more than 4.5 slots.

You're looking too much into the numbers. It is true - 4.5 teams advanced out of the federation with 10 selections. Conversely, there are only 10 teams in the entire confederation, and most of them are very capable sides with strong players. Put all ten in Asia, the qualifying would be pretty much the same - IMO, Japan or Korea would be the only ones really contending with the them. Do the same to CONCACAF - maybe Mexico, USA and Costa Rica would be the main ones consistently challenging the full sides of the CONMEBOL countries.
I don't think so. Honduras, Jamaica, and T&T could easily hand with those bottom 4 in CONMEBOL, as could Iran, and potentially China. Mexico, US, Costa Rica, Japan and South Korea would all beat those bottom teams more often than lose to them and are on par if not better than Uruguay (witness the recent game with Iran), Paraguay, Colombia, and Ecuador.

I don't mind the half slot. That is fair to me. But if you want a "real" competitive World Cup, sad to say, but it would probably consist of mostly UEFA and CONMEBOL with a handful of teams from all of the other confederations. And I might be being generous with that. To keep it a World Cup, and to keep it interesting without sacrificing too much from the quality of the sport, you have to draw a fine line on the allocation process. Really, to mock the quota is one thing. But what is a fair alternative?
I don't think so.
Here's how i'd break it down:
CONMEBOL 4-5
CONCACAF 3-4
UEFA 14-15
AFRICA 4-5
ASIA 3.5
OCEANIA .5
Plus the host.
The 6 "bubble" teams as you might call them play in some kind of round-robin for the last 3 spots.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
Ken's Quote

There is nothing wrong with the debate. It is a different perspective. That is better than having all agree on the same thing.

I admit that I am not the biggest follower of Asian football. The only Asian teams that have really hit my radar beyond the WC have been Japan, China, S. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Thailand.

My point regarding Venezuela was in regards to how they found their form late in qualifying - and by them finding it, they managed to catch teams off-guard and outplay them. By the time CONMEBOL finished - there was a clear distinction between the top tier and lower tier - however it was easy to see that on any given day, a result could go in the opposite direction for the favorite where-as I don't see that happening with a UEFA or CONCACAF - or even CAF.

What I don't understand is how to not look at it from the perspective of CONMEBOL fans or fans of competitive sport that want to see the best. If international football gets "watered down", as was the case with the recent World Cup, I think the interest may be even less with the traditionally strong sides. That is not a favorable scenario - especially when you look at the balance between international and club football and how that is playing out.

The way I read what you are saying is to sacrifice some of the stronger sides for the sake of building up football to traditionally weaker sides. I don't think that's in the best interest of sport. Granted, the World Cup is to me a bit of a charity event, I think it would be more so if that becomes the norm. It is great for a Saudi Arabia to measure up against Argentina, but what is it to the top players in Argentina? Same could be said for England or some of the other sides like this. It is good to insert new tradition - but I think it's a death blow to international football to possibly eliminate some of the great and established international rivalries.

Also: Most CONMEBOL coaches will mention that qualifying is more difficult than the WC itself. What happens when the qualification process becomes that way? CONMEBOL is one example, but take Europe for instance. What would be the incentive? Not speaking for all, but I know some Europeans already see the WC as a sideshow now anyway, and once players start to really say: "IT is great to represent my country but I will prefer to do this in the European Championships", the international game's decline will be in hyperdrive.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by Heist
The only legitimate threats to win the Cup most years are Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands. Every once in a while another team comes up and makes a run... but it hasn't been any other CONMEBOL team in quite a while. I seem to remeber Croatia, Turkey, South Korea doing it though.
Uruguay has won, but that was a long time ago. That's an irrelevant statistic.

The Uruguay statistic is irrelevant or the statistic I discredited before?

Yes, every now and then a team may make a "Cinderella" run. Maybe it could be a Peru in the next World Cup. Why should CONMEBOL be the ones to be punished? ALso, I don't consider South Korea the real cinderella - although I do give them credit for their performance. Senegal was really the team that surprised. But you mentioned that CONMEBOL sides haven't done the same... that may come down to a matter of preference. Senegal - did not qualify 1998. Japan did - but was the second to worst performer. Paraguay did, and advanced. Fast forward to 2002. Senegal does qualify and makes the run. Japan, hosts, make the run to the second round. Again, so does Paraguay. The question is - what do you prefer? Consistency or the "miracle"? Good for Senegal and Japan, of course. But I don't agree with punishing consisten nations.

Also - look at whom the S. American teams generally lost to in the road to the final match.

Originally posted by Heist

I totally agree with that, but that doesn't make the Confederation deserve more spots.

Fair enough. I never said CONMEBOL deserves more spots. I say they should keep the 4.5 that they had. At the end of the post, it looks like you agree.

Originally posted by Heist

I don't I feel like they have 2 great teams, 4 very good teams and 4 (Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru) that have no business in a WC of the top 32 teams in the world.

???

Originally posted by Heist

Agreed, and I have issues with how the new CONCACAF system works and how the UEFA one works. All confederations have a lot of minnows. I don't see how that should make CONMEBOL get more than 4.5 slots.

CONMEBOL doesn't have any minnows. And again, I never argued that CONMEBOL **should** get more than 4.5 spots.

Originally posted by Heist

I don't think so. Honduras, Jamaica, and T&T could easily hand with those bottom 4 in CONMEBOL, as could Iran, and potentially China. Mexico, US, Costa Rica, Japan and South Korea would all beat those bottom teams more often than lose to them and are on par if not better than Uruguay (witness the recent game with Iran), Paraguay, Colombia, and Ecuador.

Okay. I will disagree mostly here. I honestly do not believe that some teams you mention will really stay with a Colombia, Paraguay or Uruguay in a full side home and home. Australia couldn't do it with Uruguay - or Iran. Colombia was really just unlucky not to qualify for the World Cup. And I wouldn't underestimate the "bottom" teams in CONMEBOL. The youth has some impressive showings.

Originally posted by Heist

I don't think so.
Here's how i'd break it down:
CONMEBOL 4-5
CONCACAF 3-4
UEFA 14-15
AFRICA 4-5
ASIA 3.5
OCEANIA .5
Plus the host.
The 6 "bubble" teams as you might call them play in some kind of round-robin for the last 3 spots.

I don't understand what the disagreement is with. I think it is almost for the sake of disagreement. I listed similar numbers to this - but with a different explanation. I listed alternative numbers based on the stronest sides. I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say that if it was on a pure competitive basis, UEFA and CONMEBOL would boast the most selections of the 32. BUt that wouldn't be a "world" cup.

[Soccerfever]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
Since 1994 alone, the following Conembol teams have participated in the World Cup: Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia! Don't tell me how hard it is to qualify from Conembol, when everyone except Venezuela has managed the feat -- and 80% have done so just in the past 8 years!

Well,you are kinda right in some way.But in another words,if Colombia and Chile were at France'98 and not at Korea/Japan'02,it means that they weren't able to qualify this time around so Ecuador and Uruguay qualified instead of them.Which also means that the teams that qualifies from CONMEBOL(except Argentina and Brazil)are almost never the same over the years.So it also means that it's difficult to qualify from that region if 2 out of the 4 or 5 CONMEBOL teams were not at the previous edition of the World Cup!

[Heist]

Alex,
The fact that Uruguay won a long time ago should have nothing to do with current allocations. As I said they are not a threat to win the cup and haven't been for a while.

I agree that for any team that isn't Argentina or Brazil it is difficult to qualify out of CONMEBOL as evidenced by the fact that almost 80% of the teams have qualified in the last 8 years.
That doesn't make the teams in the confederation any better, it just means there is more parity.

"Also - look at whom the S. American teams generally lost to in the road to the final match."
So? The US tied SK and lost 1-0 to Germany. Those were the 2nd and 4th place teams. Paraguay also lost to Germany 1-0 but the US looked WAY better in a later round game.
Argentina lost to England. That is something I guess.
Uruguay lost to Denmark...
Ecuador lost to Italy and Mexico
Yes, Brazil won it all.

Let's look at the rest of CONCACAF:
Costa Rica lost to the 1st place team (Brazil) and drew with the 3rd place team(Turkey).
Mexico beat Croatia AND Ecuador and ended up losing to a very good US team.
I almost forgot the US's win over Portugal...

I'm not saying CONCACAF is a better confederation top to bottom or even top 10 vs. top 10. Even Peru would beat Haiti, Guatemala, or Cuba most of the time. That certainly isn't the case, but put the top 3 CONCACAF teams up against the top 5 CONMEBOL teams and I think the teams would be pretty even (with one of Brazil or Argentina ahead of the pack most likely).
All the other confederations are much more top-heavy with minnows. That should acually work to CONMEBOL's advantage I think... They'd have come through more difficult qualifying to get there. The main problem I think is the length of the process. A team that is hot at the beginning may limp in as the 4th place team and not be too good come 2006. Still, I think its the best qualifying system out there, and certainly the best for a 10-team conference.

[pololo]

Originally posted by Heist

I don't I feel like they have 2 great teams, 4 very good teams and 4 (Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru) that have no business in a WC of the top 32 teams in the world.

I don't think so. Honduras, Jamaica, and T&T could easily hand with those bottom 4 in CONMEBOL, as could Iran, and potentially China. Mexico, US, Costa Rica, Japan and South Korea would all beat those bottom teams more often than lose to them and are on par if not better than Uruguay (witness the recent game with Iran), Paraguay, Colombia, and Ecuador.


I think Chile would do good in World Cup so do Peru and Venezuela are getting better,they wouldn't embarass themself at the tournament.

The second off your quote is full of s*h*i*t
Japan was in the Copa America and they could't beat Paraguay,Bolivia and Peru
And you think China,US,Iran,SOuth Korea would do better??
Face it South America deserve more spots than 4.5.

[Elninho]

Originally posted by pololo
I think Chile would do good in World Cup so do Peru and Venezuela are getting better,they wouldn't embarass themself at the tournament.

Uh, if Marcelo Vega is starting for Chile in World Cup qualifiers, then they have no business being in the World Cup.


The second off your quote is full of s*h*i*t
Japan was in the Copa America and they could't beat Paraguay,Bolivia and Peru
That was 1999, a year after they lost all three of their World Cup matches. And I seem to recall some of their key players (including Nakata and Nanami) being absent.


And you think China,US,Iran,SOuth Korea would do better??
Face it South America deserve more spots than 4.5.
Well, the US and South Korea actually DID fare a whole lot better than Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay at the most recent World Cup. Note that Ecuador, Paraguay, and Uruguay actually qualified for the World Cup. Colombia, Peru, and Chile did not, which suggests that they aren't as strong right now as Ecuador, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Iran was only just beaten out by Ireland, and Ireland also did better than the aforementioned South American countries (they didn't go any farther than Paraguay, but Paraguay's performance against Germany was the most amateurish I've ever seen in a knockout-stage match).

4.5 seems about right for South America. 5 at most.

["Simply Ken"]

Elninho's response to polo was right on point. Excellent.

Japan's team in Copa America shared little with the Japanese side that participated in the 2002 World Cup. The latter side was based on a group of very talented young Japanese players who had previously done well in the Youth World Cup. Japan's Copa America side, on the other hand, was based on the veterans of WC98, who would be put aside as Japan made the transition to a new team. Besides, even in comparison to their World Cup 98 team, Japan's Copa America team was still undermanned, as it missed some key players such as Nakata.

The young Japanese players who formed the core of Japan's national team in 2002, had finished 2nd in the Youth World Cup in 1999, had made it to the knock out stage in the 2000 Sydney Olympics, had won the 2000 Asian Cup, finished 2nd in the Confederation Cup, and made it to the round of 16 in the last World Cup. How another set of players did in Copa America is besides the point.

[Soccerfever]

Originally posted by Elninho
Well, the US and South Korea actually DID fare a whole lot better than Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay at the most recent World Cup. Note that Ecuador, Paraguay, and Uruguay actually qualified for the World Cup. Colombia, Peru, and Chile did not, which suggests that they aren't as strong right now as Ecuador, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

Colombia missed the World Cup at the expense of Uruguay on goal differential.

[Heist]

Originally posted by pololo
I think Chile would do good in World Cup so do Peru and Venezuela are getting better,they wouldn't embarass themself at the tournament.

The second off your quote is full of s*h*i*t
Japan was in the Copa America and they could't beat Paraguay,Bolivia and Peru
And you think China,US,Iran,SOuth Korea would do better??
Face it South America deserve more spots than 4.5.

Others have responded quite eloquently to your BS post, but I feel a need to respond as well.

Chile was once a good team, but they are not anymore.

FIFA rankings (which take into account the past 8 years of play, with recent games counting for more):
USA - 10
Korea - 20
Japan - 22
Iran - 34
China - 64

Paraguay - 18 (this is the only team you mentioned from CONMEBOL that is above ANY of the teams from other Confeds that you think wouldn't do well.)
Venezuela - 69
Chile - 77
Peru - 85
Bolivia - 95

I see to remember some good performances from the USA at Copa America in '95 - Beating Argentina and Chile.
in '01 Didn't Honduras (another CONCACAF side that didn't even qualify for the Cup in '02) beat Uruguay, Bolivia and Brazil?
Basically your premise is wrong and your individual pieces of evidence are shaky at best and I can easily find more evidence to refute your claims than you could ever find to back up your baseless premise.