4.5 for Asia

[Crazy_Yank]

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


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.


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.



Bravo :) Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument Polo. That just isn't the bigsoccer way :rolleyes:

[pololo]

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


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.


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.

Hehe Marcelo Vega isn't he the long haired goalkeeper who looks like Batistuta,why are you talking about him he isn't even a starter for Chile.
Keep bringing Jeff Agoos he got a bright future(just kidding)
Ofcourse USA,South Korea and the rest did better than Peru & CHile
Peru and Chile didn't qualify in the hardest WC Elimination i bet Germany wouldn't qualify in SOuth America either so wouldn't USA*blink*

I would love to see an all american confederation where SOuth and North emerge as one,then we wouldn't hear so much of the bulltalk from the Americans*laugh*

[Heist]

Originally posted by pololo
Hehe Marcelo Vega isn't he the long haired goalkeeper who looks like Batistuta,why are you talking about him he isn't even a starter for Chile.
Keep bringing Jeff Agoos he got a bright future(just kidding)
Ofcourse USA,South Korea and the rest did better than Peru & CHile
Peru and Chile didn't qualify in the hardest WC Elimination i bet Germany wouldn't qualify in SOuth America either so wouldn't USA*blink*

I would love to see an all american confederation where SOuth and North emerge as one,then we wouldn't hear so much of the bulltalk from the Americans*laugh*

Someone please help me out. Is this guy serious or being sarcastic?
The fact that Peru and Chile were in a difficult confederation doesn't change the fact that they aren't good teams. Again, I know Chile used to be a good team, but not recently.
The Jeff Agoos remark would be a fair one except I don't think he'll ever wear the National Team jersey again. Maybe in one more farewell match or something.

To get us back on topic though, 4 slots is a little low but arguable considering the most recent showing of CONMEBOL teams in the WC, 4.5 slots is fair, but more would be silly.
In my opinion: 3.5 is fair for Asia, 4 is debateable, 4.5 is laughable.
4 if the top 2 teams in Oceania get included in their final Asia groups would be just right I think. That would send most likely South Korea, Japan, Iran, and Australia. Those are all teams that could do well in Germany '06. Maybe China or Saudi Arabia squeeks in.

[Alex_1]

Ahh. I had a nice little break. Now what do we have here...

Originally posted by 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 with that. But there's one problem - I never said that Uruguay winning the World Cup years ago should factor into current allocations. So why are you saying this?

Originally posted by Heist

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.

Okay. But it is even difficult for Argentina and Brazil. The difference is that they usually have the ability to obtain the results that they need at the end of the day.

And I still think you're looking waytoo much into percentages and numbers. They're irrelevant in analyzing CONMEBOL. There are 10 teams in the confederation. "80% of those ten teams have advanced". Easily skewed, you know? You say that it doesn't mean that the confederation is better, as much as it means that there is "more parity". I say that that is a reciprocal argument. You could easily say: "20% or 30% of CONMEBOL teams are a threat to win the World cup - which is far better than pretty much every other confederation!" ;) But seriously you can see that the numbers are woefully in-adequate. So you have to look at other criteria. I understood the core of what was meant, though. I just don't agree with it because I think there is far more that goes into the allocation process than just the sheer size of the confederation. The real question is - how do you efficiently measure the quality?

Originally posted by Heist
"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.

The US "looked WAY better"?? C'mon! The match may not have had the "excitment" that many had expected but it was a lackluster performance on both parts. It took a last minute strike to put the Germans through against Paraguay, remember? It could have actually gone into extra time and PKs. But of course it didn't, and the end result was the same. Korea looked "way" better than the US in the group match but they only managed a draw - and almost didn't obtain that despite hitting woodwork and blowing a penalty kick. Imagine how the group would have changed had Korea lost. That gives the final match against Portugal an all new meaning, and maybe the US would have been playing Italy in the first round instead of Mexico. I don't think Korea would have cared about looking better - they woudl have been pissed for not getting the result. I'm sure the US didn't care about looking better than Paraguay. But they did care about not getting the result.

Originally posted by Heist

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 wouldn't look at that actually. I seem to recall Brazil blasting five goals by Costa Rica. That was relevant. Yeah, they lost to the #1 (you gave them credit - hooray!) and #3 team. But that means they didn't advance or get a needed result. Costa Rica did obtain the necessary result - in the final minutes of the match against Turkey. But giving up five to Brazil took fate away from then. They weren't good enough to advance this time around.

Yes, let's look at everyone else's postive results except for CONMEBOL's! :D

Originally posted by Heist

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).


Even Peru? lol. C'mon, give them a bit more credit! But yeah, I agree with that anyway - for the most part. Except I'd add Colombia. North AMerican teams have struggled against Colombia.

And I agree about the qualifying. As far as the qualification goes - I think it is the most fair - despite that an Ecuador could go through. Teams have to be relatively consistent, mediocre and poor to land where they do. Had Brazil not advanced, it would have been Brazil's fault.

ANyway, I don't see the debate anymore. I only say that CONMEBOL shoudl have 4.5, so did you. That is the right number. There were other ways to allocate the spots instead of taking the half away from CONMEBOL. I for one don't see anyone saying CONMEBOL should have 5 spots. Not now - but who knows - if all teams just dominate, maybe. But 4.5 is right.

[Heist]

Yes, I agree that we agree that 4.5 is fair, but i'm enjoying the debate still. :)

"The real question is - how do you efficiently measure the quality?"
I agree, the 80% is mainly only useful is displaying how much parity there is in CONMEBOL. I was trying to show how parity and difficulty of qualifying was not a measure of quality...
I think only 2 teams in CONMEBOL are a threat to win the cup in any year. Argentina and Brazil. That being said, its not the only judge of quality. If it were we wouldn't have teams from Asia, Africa, or North American.

The thing I was taking issue with in your post was trying to use 2002 WC to show why CONMEBOL deserved more than it got. "Also - look at whom the S. American teams generally lost to in the road to the final match." I would say that if we based 2006 spots on 2002 play CONCAF and CONMEBOL should both be getting 4 or CONCACAF should even get more. I'm not advocating that because I think 2002 was an especially poor showing by CONMEBOL.

As far as The US playing way better in a bigger game against Germany I stand behind that. Take a look at quotes from some Germans who said the US deserved to win. Paraguay bored me to tears during that game and didn't play well. Granted boring games are sometimes good enough, but they did not show well in that game.
I disagree that Korea looked "way" better than the US. A win for Korea would have been a fair result, just as the tie that occurred was a fair result. And for argument's sake if the US beats Korea they win the group unless Korea win's by a couple of goals against Portugal.

I was only giving Costa Rica credit based on the construct of your argument about who CONMEBOL teams lost to at the WC... I 'm not saying they were good enough to advance, just that if we are basing quality on who teams got kicked out of the cup by I think CONCACAF was the best Confed by far!
US lost to the #2 team
Costa Rica lost in group play to #3 and #1
Mexico lost to a Quarterfinal team (the US)

If you can think of any confederation that comes close to it please let me know. Its not CONMEBOL. Only two teams made it out of the first round and one of those lost immediately.

"Except I'd add Colombia. North AMerican teams have struggled against Colombia."
A bad US team beat them in '94 didn't they? But in general you are right. But I just haven't been impressed by Colombia recently... I don't think right now that they are any more trouble for US, Mexico, or Costa Rica than any other mid-tier CONMEBOL team. I think on any given day at a neutral site the top 3 in CONCACAF and the top 5 in CONMEBOL are pretty even (with the exception that Argentina or Brazil the likely winners and the other likely comins 2nd or 3rd)

Again, there are many ways to judge quality of teams. The '02 World Cup was one you chose to bring up so I chose to show you why I thought CONCACAF did better at the '02 Cup. You'll notice that i'm not the only one who thinks this way. Its no coincedence that CONCACAF has 3.5 spots in '06 and CONCACAF has only 4.

[condor11]

the peruvian national team and peruvian clubs right now are crap and no treath to anyone including jamaica haiti and other concacaf team

just take a look at our club teams record from 1997 in copa libertadores

im not the only one with this opinion most of peruvians i have spoken to in my current trip to peru agree that we have a long way to go if we want to have a remote chance of qualifying to the world cup


on the other hand i think that asia getting their slots is a joke if there was a federation that has earned amore slots its concacaf

["Simply Ken"]

Some of the points raised by polo here are not even intelligible, much less intelligent:-) In any case, the responses that were offered by Heist and Enhino I feel sufficiently disposed of the issue.

The FIFA rankings posted by Heist gave a good indication of how much the debate about some of these Conembol sides is driven by faulty perceptions and false premises. Nonetheless, my own preference is to look beyond the numerical rankings, and concentrate more on the points earned by each of these teams using FIFA's formula.

The latter, in my opinion, gives an even clear picture of how teams rate compared to one another. This is because teams of very similar caliber are sometimes ranked quite differently because they are separated from one another by a host of other sides with comparable points. In the process, what you get sometimes is two roughly equal teams ranked as much as 10 or even 20 positions apart, despite having earned comparable points! In other instances, you can get two teams, very different in strength based on those points, ranked close to one another.

What I am going to do in my next message is to divide various teams into different pots. In doing so, I will give more attention to the points each of these teams have earned, and less to their mere numerical rank. I will designate, based on points earned, each pot as follows: Pot 1 (Elite Teams) Pot 2 (Good Teams) Pot 3 (Average Teams), each pot containing teams that have earned no less than 120 points from the team on top of the pot. Teams that have earned less than 120 points compared to the top team in Pot 3 are excluded in this exercise, containing what I would call marginal sides, followed by minnows. Interestingly, I should note, there are several Conembol teams that, based on points earned, fall in the 'marginal' category although none would classify as minnow.

Anyway, the purpose of this exercise is to look behind the numerical ranks and instead see which teams have more or less comparable points. In this regard, my categorization of each pot is not so significant, although I have tried to use a somewhat objective formula in coming up with the point differential used for each pot.

["Simply Ken"]

Here are the top teams in the world, divided into 3 categories of Elite, Good, and Average, based on points earned according to the formula used by FIFA. Teams in each category are seperated from the leader in the category by no more than 120 points. (The number in the paranthesis is points earned by each team according to FIFA's formula).


Pot 1 (Elite Teams)

1. Brazil (856)
2. France (787)
3. Spain (780)
4. Germany (765)
5. Argentina (750)
6. Netherland (746)

Pots 2 (Good Teams)

1. England (734)
2. Mexico (732)
3. United States (723)
4. Portugal (710)
5. Denmark (707)
6. Italy (705)
7. Ireland (697)
8. Czech Republic (687)
9. Belgium (686)
10. Cameroon (684)
11. Paraguay (679)
12. Yugoslavia (677)
13. Korea Republic (659)
14. Japan (650)
15. Russia (650)
16. Costa Rica (651)
17. Sweden (649)
18. Norway (648)
19. Romania (648)
20. Senegal (647)
21. Uruguay (643)
22. Nigeria (642)
23. South Africa (636)
24. Ecuador (634)
25. Croatia (629)
26. Poland (628)
27. Iran (627)
28. Morocco (623)
29. Slovenia (620)

Pot 3 (Average Teams)

1. Columbia (617)
2. Egypt (596)
3. Honduras (591)
4. Tunisia (586)
5. Bulgaria (582)
6. Finland (580)
7. Switzerland (576)
8. Ukraine (574)
9. Israel (568)
10. Trinidad and Tobago (566)
11. Greece (563)
12. New Zealand (562)
13. Australia (557)
14. Jamaica (555)
15. Iraq (554)
16. Wales (554)
17. Thailand (545)
18. Austria (541)
19. Slovakia (535)
20. Zimbabwe (533)
21. Hungary (532)
22. Ghana (529)
23. Scotland (528)
24. Iceland (527)
25. Estonia (525)
26. Qatar (524)
27. China PR (518)
28. Algeria (514)
29. Cote d’Ivoire (510)
30. Congo DR (509)
31. Zambia (503)
32. Venezuela (501)
33. Canada (499)
34. Jordan (499)

P.S.

By my count, UEFA has (33) teams that fall in the Elite, Good, or Average Categories! Next in line is CAF, with (12) such teams. The AFC is next with (10) such teams, while Concacaf and Conembol each have (7). The OFC, needless to say, has only (2) such teams.

[Elninho]

Originally posted by pololo
Hehe Marcelo Vega isn't he the long haired goalkeeper who looks like Batistuta,why are you talking about him he isn't even a starter for Chile.

Uh, Marcelo Vega is a midfielder. And I saw his name in the starting lineup for several World Cup qualifiers.


Ofcourse USA,South Korea and the rest did better than Peru & CHile
Peru and Chile didn't qualify in the hardest WC Elimination i bet Germany wouldn't qualify in SOuth America either so wouldn't USA*blink*

Peru and Chile didn't qualify... but Uruguay and Ecuador, who qualified over them, were hardly overwhelming. I have a hard time believing Peru and Chile would do any better than Uruguay did at the World Cup.

Side note: know what the USA's record is against Peru and Chile under Bruce Arena? 3-0-0. Including an away match in Chile.



I would love to see an all american confederation where SOuth and North emerge as one,then we wouldn't hear so much of the bulltalk from the Americans*laugh*
So would I. Judging from this World Cup, Ecuador's failure to get past Canada and Haiti at the Gold Cup, and the performances of Mexico, Honduras, and Costa Rica in recent editions of the Copa América (not to mention the USA in 1995), I think CONCACAF would do a nice job of shutting up the sudamerisnobs.

["Simply Ken"]

Here are the teams that have earned more than 500 points in FIFA's rankings, collated by region.

In doing this, it is clear to me that the one confederation which -- on merit -- deserves more berths is UEFA. They have 33 teams with more than 500 points! All the other confederations combined have only 32 such teams.

Additionally, based on the latest FIFA rankings, the top 32 teams in the world today include (17) UEFA sides, (5) from Conembol, (3) from Concacaf, (3) from the AFC, and none from the OFC.

In this regard, given the points earned by the teams immediately preceding the top 32, I can't say that even Conembol's recently reduced allocation is unfair, given that 2 of their teams in the top 32 have points very comparable to many teams outside the top 32, while they have only one other team with even 500 points.

On merit, UEFA's allocation is the one that is hard to justify. However, I am quite content with UEFA having its guaranteed quota even reduced, indicating that merit alone is not the sole criteria for me or many other fans.

Anyway, here are the numbers, with teams below the bar (---) falling outside the top 32 numerically. Personally, my ideal system would divide the numbers so that the teams with more than 500 points would be able to compete in intercontinental qualifiers, save a few from each region who would be given guaranteed spots.

AFC

COUNTRY----RANK--------POINTS

1. KOREA REP. 20 668
2. JAPAN 24 648
3. IRAN 32 627
---
4. S.ARABIA 38 610
5. IRAQ 52 552
6. THAILAND 54 543
7. CHINA PR 63 517
8. QATAR 64 516

CAF

1. CAMEROON 17 682
2. SENEGAL 27 644
3. NIGERIA 29 640
4. S. AFRICA 30 633
---
5. MOROCCO 35 620
6. EGYPT 39 593
7. TUNISIA 42 586
8. ZIMBABWE 58 531
9. GHANA 59 526
10. ALGERIA 65 514
11. CONGO 67 507
12. ZAMBIA 68 501

CONCACAF

1. MEXICO 9 729
2. USA 10 721
3. COSTA RICA 21 650
---
4. HONDURAS 40 589
5. T & T 47 564
6. JAMAICA 51 553

CONEMBOL

1. BRAZIL 1 852
2. ARGENTINA 4 768
3. PARAGUAY 18 676
4. URAGUAY 28 641
5. ECUADOR 31 632
---
6. COLUMBIA 37 616

OFC

---
1. AUSTRALIA 47 575
2. NEW ZELAND 49 560

UEFA

1. FRANCE 2 784
2. SPAIN 3 783
3. GERMANY 5 762
4. NETHERLANDS 6 754
5. TURKEY 7 735
6. ENGLAND 8 731
7. DENMARK 11 707
8. PORTUGAL 11 707
9. ITALY 13 702
10. IRELAND REP 14 697
11. CZECH REP 15 686
12. BELGIUM 16 684
13. SERBIA 19 674
14. RUSSIA 21 694
15. ROMANIA 23 649
16. NORWAY 24 648
17. SWEDEN 26 646
----

18. CROATIA 33 626
19. POLAND 33 626
20. SLOVENIA 36 617
21. SWITZERLAND 40 589
22. FINLAND 43 581
23. BULGARIA 44 580
24. ISRAEL 45 579
25. UKRAINE 46 576
26. GREECE 47 575
27. WALES 52 552
28. AUSTRIA 55 538
29. HUNGARY 55 538
30. SLOVAKIA 57 533
31. ICELAND 60 525
32. SCOTLAND 60 525
33. ESTONIA 62 523

[Crowdie]

Your system is statistically flawed as it requires all the countries to have played approximately the same number of games. Countries in the smaller confederations, like the OFC, have played considerably less games than the majority of the countries in the larger onfederations, like UEFA. Your logic is the same as saying that team A in the table below is better than team B:

A - Played 8, Won 4, Drawn 0, Lost 3 - Points 12
B - Played 2, Won 2, Drawn 0, Lost 0 - Points 6

Obviously you can't compare these two teams until they have played the same number of games against the same opposition.

Crowdie.

["Simply Ken"]

Crowdie,

The points assigned aren't mine, but the points used by FIFA in their rankings. They do take into account opposition, as well as the nature of the game, by assigning different coeficients and points for results that are obtained in one game (say a friendly against a weaker team) as opposed to another game (say a competitive match against a stronger side). You can visit the FIFA site for to further study the formula they use.

However, there is no doubt that FIFA's point system is not perfect. For instance, the number of games you play does affect the points you earn. In a few cases, it hugely under or overstates the strength of some teams. In many cases, it does so merely within a reasonably acceptable margin of error.

The real point of my post was to suggest that the numerical rankings alone aren't a good guide, often overstating the difference between teams that have earned comparable points. The points that decide those rankings should IMO be consulted as well, giving greater understanding about how football rates in various confederations.

[Heist]

Originally posted by Crowdie
Your system is statistically flawed as it requires all the countries to have played approximately the same number of games. Countries in the smaller confederations, like the OFC, have played considerably less games than the majority of the countries in the larger onfederations, like UEFA. Your logic is the same as saying that team A in the table below is better than team B:

A - Played 8, Won 4, Drawn 0, Lost 3 - Points 12
B - Played 2, Won 2, Drawn 0, Lost 0 - Points 6

Obviously you can't compare these two teams until they have played the same number of games against the same opposition.

Crowdie.

The System isn't perfect. Duh!
But I do believe the FIFA ranking system knows about and does its best to deal with the issue of different confederations and different numbers of games.

Here's the problem with your last point. All teams can't all play the same number of games against all the same opponents. It just doesn't work like that and there has to be some way of ranking them somehow, even if it isn't perfect.

["Simply Ken"]

What I should add is that the points earned under FIFA's rankings provide a reasonable (not perfect) guide to how teams have been doing until today. With a new World Cup cycle starting after the conclusion of the last World Cup, many teams are changing in their composition -- as well as their strength. Thus, no one should believe that what held (more or less) true yesterday, is ipso facto what will show tomorrow.

[vico]

Ken you cannot use the FIFA ranking as a measure stick on how good the teams are. Many teams in CONMEBOL like Colombia, Peru and Chile didn't play a single friendly during the entire 2002 which meant that they fell well behind in the FIFA ranks. I read that Peru ranked lower than Haiti and Peru defeated them 5-1 in their first match for almost 1,5 years time recently. I am not saying that Peru is great but better than Haiti for sure.

I just cannot understand how people can justify 4,5 slots for Asia. It is totally undeserving and most Asian football fans agree with me on this. OK both Japan and Korea did pretty well in the WC but they were both host countries with huge crowd support and noone can deny that the koreans were very lucky with some ref decisions. They wouldn't have done as good if the WC would have been played somewhere else. And what can I say about the other 2 asian teams Saudi Arabia and China? They were the 2 worst teams in the WC by margin! Are Asia going to have more slots? Before this WC Asia could only sum up 4 WC wins in total.

Ken listen, if Venezuela who are considered being the worst team in Conmebol would play in the AFC quals instead of your team Iran they would easily qualify with 4,5 spots. Believe me. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia will easily qualify to the next WC as well. And we all saw in the WC what a lousy team Saudi Arabia was. Do you think that Iran and Saudi Arabia would qualify from the Conmebol quals? We also saw what a poor team China was and I remember them winning ther WC-qual group very very easily several points ahead of the closest contender which make me wonder just how good Chinas contenders were. The Faroe islands would probably have qualified from that group if they would have played there instead of China.

4,5 to Asia is nothing else but charity. On football merits there is no way Asia should have 4,5 slots.

["Simply Ken"]

vico,
I know Iran's team well. It is stronger than many sides you compare it to. We have played many games, against all sorts of opponents outside of Asia, and the results don't support your assumptions. Additionally, even the club pedigree offered by Iran's team is better than many other countries.

As for Saudi Arabia, they were an embarrasment to Asia, even though they are also a team that made it to the Round of 16 in WC94. I can't defend their performance, as it was indefensible. But I know they can do better, and they have done better in many games.

Let me give you this example to understand the Saudi team. In the last Asian Cup, they opened up with a terrible match against Japan, being lucky to lose 4:1. Yet, the same team that had looked worth spit recovered to make the final of the Asian Cup (beating S.Korea in the way), and outplayed Japan (missing numerous chances, including an early penalty) on their way to losing 1:0 to the same team that had earlier whipped them bad.

It was somewhat a similar story in the 1996 Asian Cup. In the group stage, the Saudis lost 3:0 to Iran. Yet they won the 1996 Asian Cup after they beat Iran on penalties in the semifinal match (although they were still totally outplayed and helped by a unfair disallowed goal during regular time).

Personally, I don't like the Saudi team. They can play well only if they are not vigorously pressed. When pressed, or when facing a side that is stronger, they often suffer meltdowns, leading to embarrasment beyond the level of difference between them and their foes. It has happened to them many times, even as they have had other results to the contrary. In 1999, they finished 4th in the Confederations Cup despite losing 5:1 to Mexico and 8:2 to Brazil.

As for China, they will be among the top Asian teams in a short while. But even in 2002, they were not quite there, having been given an easy group to qualify for the World Cup in order to help this populous country reach its potential in soccer.

[vico]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
vico,
I know Iran's team well. It is stronger than many sides you compare it to. We have played many games, against all sorts of opponents outside of Asia, and the results don't support your assumptions. Additionally, even the club pedigree offered by Iran's team is better than many other countries.



I have no doubt you know about your team. But just as I tend to be biased in favour of my teams I guess you are biased in favour of yours. But I am not saying Iran is bad. Just that they would have huge difficulties qualifying from Conmebol. Saudi arabia wouldn't stand a chance I think.

And most of the games you have played against opponents outside of Asia has been friendly games and we all know that most teams don't field their a-team in friendlies and that they cannot compare to competitive matches.

When you are going to judge Asia's potential you must look on the results they have achieved in the world cup. They can win as many friendlies as they want but as long as asian teams continue to perform bad in the WC they don't deserve more slots! A friendly game really doesn't say much I am sorry. My favourite club team Alianza Lima recently thrashed Argentine champs Indepentiente 4-0 in a friendly but that doesn't mean Alianza are as good.

["Simply Ken"]

vico,

I agree that the best matches to look at our those involving competitive games. The problem is that the World Cup is played only once every 4 years, offering a very limited sample from a time frame that is not always relevant.

If you read my posts carefully, you will see that what I propose is not a particular quota for any region. Except for a few such quotas to insure diversity, I want the rest of the places to be decided in intercontinental qualfiying games in the manner I have described elsewhere in this board.

P.S.

BTW, I judge Iran's team based on the totality of factors, having watched Iran in various competitive matches against non-Asian sides (e.g. WC98, Ireland playoffs this time around), many many full squad friendlies away from home, as well as less than full squad friendlies featuring the next layer of players on both sides.

I also know the club pedigree on Iran's team is rather good, with more than a dozen players who have played in the top divisons in Europe as well as several who have also played in the Champions League and the UEFA Cup. For instance, I take pleasure that the number one assist giver in the entire Bundesliga the past 3 years has been Hamburg's Iranian international Mahdavikia. Or that Mahdavikia, Daei, and even Minavand, have won MOTM honors even in the Champions League. I also take pride in the fact that Iran's new crop of talent seems in some ways even more promising, lessening my worries with the veterans from our past teams nearing their retirement.

Anyway, I nonetheless want intercontinental qualifying, because the merit of teams should be decided on the playing field -- not on message boards or otherwise on paper.

["Simply Ken"]

Originally posted by vico
Ken you cannot use the FIFA ranking as a measure stick on how good the teams are. Many teams in CONMEBOL like Colombia, Peru and Chile didn't play a single friendly during the entire 2002 which meant that they fell well behind in the FIFA ranks. I read that Peru ranked lower than Haiti and Peru defeated them 5-1 in their first match for almost 1,5 years time recently. I am not saying that Peru is great but better than Haiti for sure.

BTW, I checked the list of friendlies for some of these Conembol countries. Chile did play 2 friendly matches in 2002. It hosted Palestine in Santiago, beating them 3:1. It traveled to Turkey, losing 2:0. Columbia also played 3 Concacaf sides in that period, losing to Honduras and Mexico; beating Costa Rica 2:1.

As for Haiti and Peru, I wouldn't doubt that Peru are stronger than Haiti. However, I do recall Peru struggling against Haiti in the Gold Cup in 2000, having to come from behind to draw 1:1

[Crowdie]

The point that the FIFA World Rankings are not ideal is valid. Countries from the smaller confederations play fewer games so the system is stacked against them.

Crowdie.