4.5 for Asia

["Simply Ken"]

Originally posted by 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.


I agree the rankings are flawed. If it was up to me, their formula would be fined tuned a little. However, when speaking broadly and in generalities, as many do here, I prefer those rankings to the biased judgments made about various teams here.

[vico]

Originally posted by "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.

I doesn't matter. The only way for a confederation to earn more slots in the world cup is to perform well in the world cup. I don't care if China defeats Costa Rica in the Mickey Mouse Cup in Calcutta. As long as they lose to Costa Rica in the world cup they are not to be considered being as good as Costa Rica.


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.


Ken, you will be surprised if you knew how much I know about Iran's football. Believe me. I know about Esteglal/Taj and Persepolis. I know players like Kavianpour, Karimi and of course Mahdavikia, Ali Daei and Khodadad "Jackie Chan" Azizi.

You see I live in a suburb of Stockholm were there are a lot of iranians living so I have several iranian friends. Some of my closest friends are iranian. So I can say that I know that Iran has had several players in Europe and that in comparison to other asian players they have done very well. But if you compare the iranian players in Europe the last years with the peruvian players in Europe then you will see that even a team like Peru who are nowhere close to the top of Conmebol at the moment can easily compete with Iran on that term. We have at the moment Nolberto Solano in Newcastle and Claudio Pizarro in Bayern Munich who has been one of the best goalscorers the last 3 years of the bundesliga. We also have Andres Mendoza who is one of the best forwards of the belgian league. We have Rebosio who is a fix starter in Real Zaragoza in Spain. And the past 3-4 years we have had players who have been first team regulars in clubs like Celta Vigo, Las Palmas and Panathinaikos for example. Yet Peru isn't close to for example Uruguay who has players like Alvaro Recoba, Paolo Montero, Fabian O'Neill, Dario Silva and Diego Forlan just naming a few. A team that is more on Peru's level like Chile has Marcelo Salas and David Pizarro who is the best player of Udinese and one of the best offensive midfielders in Serie A amongst others.

So you can see that Iran may stand out in Asia when it comes to having players shining in european leagues. But compared to the other teams in Conmebol there really isn't much to brag about.

P.S I am not saying Iran isn't a good team. I am just saying that Asia shouldn't have 4.5 slots. And Oceania doesn't deserve an own slot either. With 4,5 slots teams like S. Korea, Japan and Iran will have an easy route to the world cup while south american and european teams that are at least as good if not better like Paraguay, Uruguay, Sweden and Romania will have to fight hard to be able to make it and it will still be high possibilty that they will miss it. If those teams would play in the asian quals they would qualify without problem.

To me that is a bit unfair that's all.

[Heist]

Originally posted by vico
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.
How about if someone "impartial" jumps into this discussion.
I think Iran is a top 3 team in Asia and could compete with the bottom 8 in CONMEBOL. They've shown that in various tournaments and friendlies and in the '98 WC by beating the US and not looking bad in their other games. They would have no more difficulty qualifying form CONMEBOL than Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay or Uruguay.
The impression I get from a lot of fans of any individual south american side is that they also think the whole continent is better than it is. Yes, some of the best teams in the world come from there (Brazil and Argentina). Yes, it is a relatively balanced Confederation. Its certainly way more balanced than any other confed as far as having no "minnows". My problem is, those factors don't make the poor teams in the conference automatically better. As good as Chile was, they are a horrible side right now. Peru, Bolivia, and Venezuela would be outclassed in the World Cup.
Saudi Arabia seems to have a lot of trouble in big games, just as Ken said.
China is currently a pretty bad team as well, but they have a chance to become good relatively quickly I think.

Still, 3.5 would be fair for Asia (or 4 if Australia and New Zealand were added into the mix)

I agree with Ken, the rankings are the best tool we have to compare teams that don't play each other very often.

[vico]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"

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.

My fault. I didn't knew that Colombia and Chile played matches. But I can still guarantee you that Peru didn't play a single match during the entire year of 2002 which is one of the reasons why they have fallen so far behind in the ranks. The other Conmebol teams haven't played many matches either compared to asian sides like for example iran who is a very active team playing loads of friendlies.

[vico]

Originally posted by Heist
Saudi Arabia seems to have a lot of trouble in big games, just as Ken said.

The reason why have trouble in big international games is because they are a lousy team. They do well in Asia only because the competition is so poor.

Same thing with China.

[vico]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"

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


Listen Ken. I haven't been bragging about how good my team is on the contrary I have said that they Peru is poor right now.

But look here, I don't doubt that Iran is stronger than Bahrain but I do recall them losing 3-1 in the WCQ. I don't doubt that Iran is stronger than Thailand but I do recall Iran barely coming out with a 0-0 draw in the WCQ. Do you get my point? A 1-1 draw with Haiti in Gold Cup of 2000 seems pretty irrelevant. Just like Peru's thrashing of Iran with 4-1 in world cup 1978. ;)

[vico]

Originally posted by Heist

Still, 3.5 would be fair for Asia (or 4 if Australia and New Zealand were added into the mix)


Fine! Then Heist agrees with me completely! 3.5 to Asia is enough.

[Heist]

Originally posted by vico
Fine! Then Heist agrees with me completely! 3.5 to Asia is enough.
I do, although I think 4 is okay too (but only as a means to get more parts of the world more into soccer, not on the basis of actual likelihood of making the Cup Finals more competitive). Luckily the 4th place team from CONCACAF will probably have an easy time with the 5th place team from Asia so there won't be 5 teams from Asia. I'd much rather have the 4th place team from CONCACAF play the 5th place from CONMEBOL. That would be a good game. It could be something like Honduras or Jamaica or El Salvador against Colombia, Ecuador, or Paraguay. I think the winner of that game would definitely deserve to go. Honduas beating Saudi Arabia or China (who I agree aren't good teams although China could be okay by 2006) to get into the cup doesn't seem like a fair test.

I just still really feel like CONMEBOL tries to ride the coattails for Brazil and Argentina and the fact that the conference (besides those two) is relatively balanced to get more credit than it deserves. A lot of the world is catching up to South American football in the past couple of decades. Witness what has happened in CONCACAF and Africa.

[vico]

Originally posted by Heist
I just still really feel like CONMEBOL tries to ride the coattails for Brazil and Argentina and the fact that the conference (besides those two) is relatively balanced to get more credit than it deserves. A lot of the world is catching up to South American football in the past couple of decades. Witness what has happened in CONCACAF and Africa.

I believe that a team like Paraguay is better than all asian teams including Korea. That is what I truly believe. Uruguay and Colombia are probably at least as good as any asian team also.

Asia shouldn't have more slots than South America, it is nothing but an insult to football. When was the last time a southamerican team made a performance like China and Saudi Arabia in the WC?

[Heist]

Originally posted by vico
I believe that a team like Paraguay is better than all asian teams including Korea. That is what I truly believe. Uruguay and Colombia are probably at least as good as any asian team also.

Asia shouldn't have more slots than South America, it is nothing but an insult to football. When was the last time a southamerican team made a performance like China and Saudi Arabia in the WC?

I think Paraguay might be a little better than Korea and Japan, but that's really hard to say at this point. Let's wait till Paraguay beats some good teams at a Cup.
They only got out of their group because South Africa and Slovenia were very weak sides.
Ecuador wasn't as bad as China and the Saudi's at the 2002 cup, but they certainly were never a threat of any kind in their group. Colombia performed poorly in '98 and '94. They are a team that gets more mileage out of their past and their big name than their present skill or record. Still, while Uruguay and Colombia would probably both make it through as a top 5 team in Asia, as I said, both Confederations will likely send the same number of teams to Germany because I don't see any 5th place team from Asia beating the 4th place team from CONCACAF.

["Simply Ken"]

vico,

My disagreement with you is not based on your subjective beliefs regarding the worth of various sides. Nor do I disagree that 3.5 spots would be sufficient for Asia if merit was the criteria. In that sense, I agree with both you and Heist, although I personally find 4.5 the best number if AFC and OFC are combined.

My disagreement with you, instead, is on the methodology you use. I don't like the issue to be decided the way it has been, preferring instead that World Cup allocations be decided (not by quotas) but based on contempraneous results from the playing field. By that I mean in intercontinental qualifying.

As far as your knowledge of Iran's team, I am impressed. As for Peru, I didn't put down your team, and in fact, noted in that passage you posted that I had no doubt Peru were stronger than Haiti. As you mentioned, many teams suffer results that (viewed in isolation) don't accurately reflect on their merit.

But even though I believe that to be the case with regard to the result I mentioned with regard to Peru and Haiti, I was doing so merely because you had posted another result against Haiti that didn't give the complete picture.

P.S.

BTW, Iran's gold medal in the Asian Games didn't help it in the FIFA rankings as that tourney was an age restricted tournament following the format of the Olympics. Hence, those games didn't count:-). Besides, Iran was ranked #1 in Asia before the World Cup qualifiers based on FIFA's rankings, and was so rated at the time when the World Cup started. Hence, its ranking is not based on its recent 'activity' alone.

[vico]

Originally posted by Heist
I think Paraguay might be a little better than Korea and Japan, but that's really hard to say at this point. Let's wait till Paraguay beats some good teams at a Cup. They only got out of their group because South Africa and Slovenia were very weak sides.


In WC 1998 Paraguay eliminated Spain from the so called group of death. Just to lose to France on a golden goal. So you could say that they prooved themselves in 1998.

Originally posted by Heist
Ecuador wasn't as bad as China and the Saudi's at the 2002 cup, but they certainly were never a threat of any kind in their group. Colombia performed poorly in '98 and '94. They are a team that gets more mileage out of their past and their big name than their present skill or record. Still, while Uruguay and Colombia would probably both make it through as a top 5 team in Asia, as I said, both Confederations will likely send the same number of teams to Germany because I don't see any 5th place team from Asia beating the 4th place team from CONCACAF.

I agree that Colombia performed poorly in WC 1998 but still they performed better than what 3 out of 4 asian teams did that year. They did exactly what the best asian team of 1998 did, 1 win and 2 losses and keep in mind that Colombia was the only southamerican team to not advance from the groupstage that WC. So the best asian team of WC98 (Iran) performed on pair with the worst south american team of WC98 (Colombia). Unfortunately both Paraguay and Chile who advanced from strong groups had the bad luck of facing the 2 finalists in the round of 16 (Brazil and France) and thus they couldn't make it any further.

I still say that it is an insult to give Asia more slots than South America.

["Simply Ken"]

Originally posted by vico
The reason why have trouble in big international games is because they are a lousy team. They do well in Asia only because the competition is so poor.

Same thing with China.

I agree that Saudi Arabia is in some ways a lousy team. But the enormous differences in their results from one match to the next cannot be about the level of Asian competition. That swing was evident even if you compare how they did against Germany as opposed to Cameroon in the same tournament in the last World Cup. Or how they made the semifinals of the Confederations Cup in 1999, despite having lost 5:1 to Mexico and 8:2 to Brazil. Yet, in that tournament, they outplayed Bolivia in their draw, and defeated Egypt.

As I mentioned, the enormous swings in their fortunes is not confined to 'international games', as they have shown such swings even in Asia even against the very same teams in the same tournament. That was evident in their 1996 and 2000 Asian Cup campaign, when they had been toyed with by Iran in 96 and Japan in 2000 losing 3:0 and 4:1 respectively. In both tourneys, they played the same teams later on and did much better afterwards.

The case with China is even clearer. First, so far China has not done that well in Asia, reflecting in their poor ranking even in the continent. Secondly and relatedly, Iran has thrashed China like no team has anywhere. Even when Brazil beat them 4:0 in the last World Cup, it wasn't nearly as one sided as when Iran beat them 4:0 in our last match in 2001. That defeat by China followed losing to Iran twice in the 1998 Asian Games, and being thrashed twice in the 1998 World Cup qualifiers. Hence, how Costa Rica did against them to me is not dispositive on the issue of how the entire AFC confederation rates, particularly since China World Cup qualifying group missed all the top ranked Asian teams.

[vico]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
My disagreement with you, instead, is on the methodology you use. I don't like the issue to be decided the way it has been, preferring instead that World Cup allocations be decided (not by quotas) but based on contempraneous results from the playing field. By that I mean in intercontinental qualifying.

The problem with intercontinental qualifying is the travel distance so it is not functional in practice. There would be possible with more intercontinental play-offs though.

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
BTW, Iran's gold medal in the Asian Games didn't help it in the FIFA rankings as that tourney was an age restricted tournament following the format of the Olympics. Hence, those games didn't count:-). Besides, Iran was ranked #1 in Asia before the World Cup qualifiers based on FIFA's rankings, and was so rated at the time when the World Cup started. Hence, its ranking is not based on its recent 'activity' alone.

Yes but still you cannot deny that asian teams plays a much higher number of matches every year than most Conmebol sides do. That is partly because Conmebol is a small confederation with only 10 members. As I said Peru didn't play a single match for almost 1,5 years before defeating Haiti recently. And as you should also know the fewer games you play the less points you get with this ranking criteria. The ranking criteria that FIFA uses benfits teams who plays a high number of matches annually.

Thus the FIFA ranking is not a good measurestick. Epecially not when you compare teams from different confederations.

["Simply Ken"]

Originally posted by vico
The problem with intercontinental qualifying is the travel distance so it is not functional in practice. There would be possible with more intercontinental play-offs though.

I have a proposal that I feel is practical (in fact, beneficial for the growth of the game), and takes care of that issue. I have posted it in one of these threads.

Until a system like the one I have proposed, we should have more play-offs, not less. Alternatively, we need to see some of the confederations merge in the final rounds (Concacaf and Conembol; AFC and OFC), with their runnerups also forced into playoffs against one another.

Otherwise, I don't find arguing about results that are from years past as being so dispositive. The same Saudi team that you rightly deride, after all, beat Belgium and Morocco, losing only 2:1 to the Netherlands, in 1994 -- when it qualified to the Round of 16. But those results didn't help them from getting thrashed 8:0 by Germany!

[vico]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
I agree that Saudi Arabia is in some ways a lousy team. But the enormous differences in their results from one match to the next cannot be about the level of Asian competition. That swing was evident even if you compare how they did against Germany as opposed to Cameroon in the same tournament in the last World Cup. Or how they made the semifinals of the Confederations Cup in 1999, despite having lost 5:1 to Mexico and 8:2 to Brazil. Yet, in that tournament, they outplayed Bolivia in their draw, and defeated Egypt.

I cannot speak about confederations cup cause I didn't watch that tournament but I saw all Saudi Arabia's world cup matches and yes they are a lousy team. I saw the match against Cameroon and Cameroon was in my view much much stronger than Saudi Arabia and should have won by a wider margin. Saudi Arabia was a lousy team in all 3 world cup matches they had just like China

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
The case with China is even clearer. First, so far China has not done that well in Asia, reflecting in their poor ranking even in the continent. Secondly and relatedly, Iran has thrashed China like no team has anywhere. Even when Brazil beat them 4:0 in the last World Cup, it wasn't nearly as one sided as when Iran beat them 4:0 in our last match in 2001. That defeat by China followed losing to Iran twice in the 1998 Asian Games, and being thrashed twice in the 1998 World Cup qualifiers. Hence, how Costa Rica did against them to me is not dispositive on the issue of how the entire AFC confederation rates, particularly since China World Cup qualifying group missed all the top ranked Asian teams.

The difference is that Costa Rica defeated China in a competitive match. Last time Iran played China in an competitive a-match was in the quals to WC98 judging by your post. That must have been in 1997 which is about 6 years ago now. I do believe that Iran is better than China however but I remember China taking a medal in Asian Cup of 2000 if I'm not mistaken so they have been performing as one of the better sides of Asia. Which I guess is why they managed to qualify to the WC. And in my book they were slightly better than Saudi Arabia in the WC so I wouldn't say that Saudi Arabia is better than China.

I DO belive Iran is stronger than both China and Saudi Arabia. Teams like China and Saudi Arabia shouldn't be anywhere near a World Cup. Honduras would have made a better performance.

["Simply Ken"]

vico,

The 1998 Asian Games were an official, non age restricted tournament. Iran played China twice in that tournament, and beat them twice. They also medalled in that tourney as well, but looked decidedly second class compared to Iran.

When they faced Iran in 2001, the Chinese remembered all their recent losses and certainly wanted some revenge. Instead, they got whipped 4:0. It was a friendly, but it presented a picture consistent with the competitive matches played.

As for Saudi Arabia vs Cameroon, I saw it too. You are being unfair. Cameroon won 1:0. Not an unfair scoreline. But both teams could have scored goals, with the Saudis looking sharp creating some chances of their own. In any case, that was nothing like the 8:0 game against Germany.

[vico]

Ken, with the exception of the Cameroon vs Saudi Arabia game you are talking about matches that I haven't seen or hardly even heard about so how do you expect me comment them?

Whether Iran is better than China or not is not what this thread is about. Judging from the 2 latest competitive tournaments in Asia (Asian Cup 2000 and the WC quals) it is clear that both China and Saudi Arabia are among the stronger teams in the region. Yet these teams perform very bad when facing teams from other continents in the WC. That is my point.

We relly shouldn't argue anymore since I have alredy said that I think that Iran is better than China and you have also agreed with me that 4.5 world cup slots for Asia is too much.

And that 4.5 slots is too much for Asia is what this discussion is all about. I am glad that you as an asian are with me on this issue.

Thank you.

["Simply Ken"]

Originally posted by vico

And that 4.5 slots is too much for Asia is what this discussion is all about. I am glad that you as an asian are with me on this issue.

Thank you.

And I would also agree that 4, 4.5 or 5 guaranteed spots (as opposed to those that might be earned from competition against other confederations) for Conembol is too many! Unfortunately, you wouldn't!

I am not about to judge how many competitive sides can be fielded from each of the confederations based merely on the criteria you use. Those criteria are the problem, with the sample too small and the results too distant in time.

The whole system that decides World Cup berths IMO needs to be fixed, not merely the allocation for one confederation as opposed to another. Until the flaws in the system used to decide allocations is fixed, every confederation will use its influence to get the most spots. And I can't blame them for it, and fully support the AFC doing so as well.

[vico]

Originally posted by "Simply Ken"
I am not about to judge how many competitive sides can be fielded from each of the confederations based merely on the criteria you use. Those criteria are the problem, with the sample too small and the results too distant in time.



The argument that World Cup results can't be used to allocate the number of slots for each continent because the World Cup is only held every 4th year is not valid. The number of slots for each confederation are not decided the year the WC starts since they must be decided well before the start of the WC qualifications. Therefore the number of slots for each confederation should be finally decided very soon especially since the quals in Conmebol are about to start in August. Keeping that in mind WC 2002 should be a good measure stick which should be used to allocate the number of slots. The slots in the WC should be decided by World Cup performances only and nothing else. The FIFA ranking is not valid when it comes to compare countries from different confederations.