Difficult Qualifications(Africa)

[happii20]

Comparing the the Americas/Europe and Africa, I must confess that it is very difficult to qualify from the African continent. Look at this table and let me know what you think? I have posted only those from Africa and North/Central America. I guess best three African runners-up team should be given the chance to play some of the teams in Europe for QUALIFICATION to the world cup. This year it would have been very interesting. The teams from Africa would have been Senegal, Nigeria, and Cameroun.

Group 1
1.TOGO 10 7 2 1 20- 8 23
2.Senegal 10 6 3 1 21- 8 21
3.Zambia 10 6 1 3 16-10 19
4.Congo-Brazz. 19 3 1 6 10-14 10
5.Mali 10 2 2 6 11-14 8
6.Liberia 10 1 1 8 3-27 4

Group 2
1.GHANA 10 6 3 1 17- 4 21
2.Congo-Kinsh. 10 4 4 2 14-10 16 [2 1 1 0 3-2 4]
3.South Africa 10 5 1 4 12-14 16 [2 0 1 1 2-3 1]
4.Burkina Faso 10 4 1 5 14-13 13
5.Cape Verde 10 3 1 6 8-15 10
6.Uganda 10 2 2 6 6-15 8

Group 3
1.IVORY COAST 10 7 1 2 20- 7 22
2.Cameroon 10 6 3 1 18-10 21
3.Egypt 10 5 2 3 26-15 17
4.Libya 10 3 3 4 8-10 12
5.Sudan 10 1 3 6 6-22 6
6.Benin 10 1 2 7 9-23 5

Group 4
1.ANGOLA 10 6 3 1 12- 6 21 [2 1 1 0 2-1 4]
2.Nigeria 10 6 3 1 21- 7 21 [2 0 1 1 1-2 1]
3.Zimbabwe 10 4 3 3 13-14 15
4.Gabon 10 2 4 4 11-13 10
5.Algeria 10 1 5 4 8-15 8
6.Rwanda 10 1 2 7 6-16 5

Group 5
1.TUNISIA 10 6 3 1 25- 9 21
2.Morocco 10 5 5 0 17- 7 20
3.Guinea 10 5 2 3 15-10 17
4.Kenya 10 3 1 6 8-17 10
5.Botswana 10 3 0 7 10-18 9
6.Malawi 10 1 3 6 12-26 6


Final Stage

1.USA 10 7 1 2 16- 6 22 [2 1 0 1 3-2 3]
2.MEXICO 10 7 1 2 22- 9 22 [2 1 0 1 2-3 3]
3.COSTA RICA 10 5 1 4 15-14 16
4.Trinidad/T. 10 4 1 5 10-15 13
5.Guatemala 10 3 2 5 16-18 11
6.Panama 10 0 2 8 4-21 2

[Beckham7]

Comparing the the Americas/Europe and Africa, I must confess that it is very difficult to qualify from the African continent. Look at this table and let me know what you think? I have posted only those from Africa and North/Central America. I guess best three African runners-up team should be given the chance to play some of the teams in Europe for QUALIFICATION to the world cup. This year it would have been very interesting. The teams from Africa would have been Senegal, Nigeria, and Cameroun.

Group 1
1.TOGO 10 7 2 1 20- 8 23
2.Senegal 10 6 3 1 21- 8 21
3.Zambia 10 6 1 3 16-10 19
4.Congo-Brazz. 19 3 1 6 10-14 10
5.Mali 10 2 2 6 11-14 8
6.Liberia 10 1 1 8 3-27 4

Group 2
1.GHANA 10 6 3 1 17- 4 21
2.Congo-Kinsh. 10 4 4 2 14-10 16 [2 1 1 0 3-2 4]
3.South Africa 10 5 1 4 12-14 16 [2 0 1 1 2-3 1]
4.Burkina Faso 10 4 1 5 14-13 13
5.Cape Verde 10 3 1 6 8-15 10
6.Uganda 10 2 2 6 6-15 8

Group 3
1.IVORY COAST 10 7 1 2 20- 7 22
2.Cameroon 10 6 3 1 18-10 21
3.Egypt 10 5 2 3 26-15 17
4.Libya 10 3 3 4 8-10 12
5.Sudan 10 1 3 6 6-22 6
6.Benin 10 1 2 7 9-23 5

Group 4
1.ANGOLA 10 6 3 1 12- 6 21 [2 1 1 0 2-1 4]
2.Nigeria 10 6 3 1 21- 7 21 [2 0 1 1 1-2 1]
3.Zimbabwe 10 4 3 3 13-14 15
4.Gabon 10 2 4 4 11-13 10
5.Algeria 10 1 5 4 8-15 8
6.Rwanda 10 1 2 7 6-16 5

Group 5
1.TUNISIA 10 6 3 1 25- 9 21
2.Morocco 10 5 5 0 17- 7 20
3.Guinea 10 5 2 3 15-10 17
4.Kenya 10 3 1 6 8-17 10
5.Botswana 10 3 0 7 10-18 9
6.Malawi 10 1 3 6 12-26 6


Final Stage

1.USA 10 7 1 2 16- 6 22 [2 1 0 1 3-2 3]
2.MEXICO 10 7 1 2 22- 9 22 [2 1 0 1 2-3 3]
3.COSTA RICA 10 5 1 4 15-14 16
4.Trinidad/T. 10 4 1 5 10-15 13
5.Guatemala 10 3 2 5 16-18 11
6.Panama 10 0 2 8 4-21 2

Concacaf plays alot more games than that. That's just the teams that were still standing after the other teams were knocked out in earler group stages.

[ZeekLTK]

Concacaf plays alot more games than that. That's just the teams that were still standing after the other teams were knocked out in earler group stages.

Yeah, USA had to defeat the winner of Guyana/Grenada (which was Grenada) to reach the group stage, then it had to qualify from a group including Jamaica, Panama, and El Salvador just to get into the group posted above.

[happii20]

Ofcourse I agree with you guys. Ghana had to beat Somalia before qualifying into the group stage. Africa has 52 countries, hence to form a group of 5 with 6 countries, there should be eliminations. Once eliminated, you have no chance to be roped in again. Panama was given a second chance.
Unlike Africa, America main challengers are Mexico, and to some extent Panama and Costa Rica. Should Nigeria/Cameroun/Senegal/Egypt/Ghana be in your group, they will qualify for each tournament.
Nevertheless, I have no qualms with North/Central America. I believe that the African teams should be given the chance for play-off with the Europeans, not with North/Central America. I am sure at least one of them (Senegal/Nigeria/Cameroun) would have been able to beat an European team to qualify for this world cup. What do you think about this statement?

[Beckham7]

Ofcourse I agree with you guys. Ghana had to beat Somalia before qualifying into the group stage. Africa has 52 countries, hence to form a group of 5 with 6 countries, there should be eliminations. Once eliminated, you have no chance to be roped in again. Panama was given a second chance.
Unlike Africa, America main challengers are Mexico, and to some extent Panama and Costa Rica. Should Nigeria/Cameroun/Senegal/Egypt/Ghana be in your group, they will qualify for each tournament.
Nevertheless, I have no qualms with North/Central America. I believe that the African teams should be given the chance for play-off with the Europeans, not with North/Central America. I am sure at least one of them (Senegal/Nigeria/Cameroun) would have been able to beat an European team to qualify for this world cup. What do you think about this statement?
I doubt they could beat the Czech republic(one of the teams that had to play a playoff in order to qualify), but they probably could beat some European teams. There are already alot of European teams trying to qualify. So there is no reason for them to play a team in a different continent to try and qualify for the world cup.

[happii20]

The Czech is a good team. On the record, I just want you to remeber me saying that Ghana will beat them. Have you forgotten that Senegal beat France, Cameroun beat Argentina, and why do you think these African teams can't beat Czech. Anyway for European teams to have over 13 places in the world cup is ridiculous. I feel that the best 3 runners up in those confederations should meet and the best should proceed to world cup. Don't you think this is fair?

[nutbar]

Africa has only gotten difficult to qualify from very recently, I think. We're only now beginning to see a crop of new good teams, instead of mostly the same teams that have dominated Africa since the 60's and 70's.

[Beckham7]

The Czech is a good team. On the record, I just want you to remeber me saying that Ghana will beat them. Have you forgotten that Senegal beat France, Cameroun beat Argentina, and why do you think these African teams can't beat Czech. Anyway for European teams to have over 13 places in the world cup is ridiculous. I feel that the best 3 runners up in those confederations should meet and the best should proceed to world cup. Don't you think this is fair?
Yea I see what you are saying.But there are more quality European sides then African sides. Cameroon and Senegal are inconsistant and didn't make this WC. If you look at the '02 world cup and the one in '06 it's basically a toss up on who will make it in Africa.

Where is in Europe almost the same teams qualify each time around but with a few here and there who don't. Most of the European teams who make it deserve to. Ireland and Norway are two solid sides who failed to qualify.

[Rakim_22]

Cameroon and Senegal are inconsistant and didn't make this WC.
No Cameroon were just unlucky they missed a penalty in stoppage time. They should have made it.

[tomwilhelm]

The Czech is a good team. On the record, I just want you to remeber me saying that Ghana will beat them. Have you forgotten that Senegal beat France, Cameroun beat Argentina, and why do you think these African teams can't beat Czech. Anyway for European teams to have over 13 places in the world cup is ridiculous. I feel that the best 3 runners up in those confederations should meet and the best should proceed to world cup. Don't you think this is fair?
Other than Asia, Africa is the last confederation deserving of additional automatic or playoff spots in the WC. For every Senegal '02 and Cameroon '98, there are 4 teams that are quickly eliminated.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7018508&postcount=49

Europe regularly sends a greater percentage of it's representatives into the 2nd and subsequent rounds than Africa and it's lower tier teams are generally more competitive in the WC than African sides.

Difficulty of qualification just shouldn't be relevant to the number of qualifications spots given. Results count, and Africa just doesn't get results when it counts, in the World Cup.

[happii20]

You guys seem to be knowledgeable in the world cup events. However, I have to point it out here that until 1986 Africa was bringing only one team. In 1990 Africa brought only 2 teams and one of them went all the way to the quarter finals. They were leading England 2:1 until two dubious penalties were awarded against them within the last 10 minutes of the game which ended their semi-final dream.

In 1994, 3 teams from Africa ie. Nigeria, Cameroun, Morocco took part in the world cup. Nigeria went ahead to top Group D including Argentina and Bulgaria. They were eliminated by Italians who went all the way to final. True the rest went out in the first round. Guess what, around this time Ghana ranked higher on the FIFA list 16th in the world(1996) and yet could not qualify for 1998.

In 1998 5 teams came from Africa. They are Nigeria, Cameroun, Tunisia, Morocco and South Africa. Again Nigeria went ahead to top its group including Spain, Paraguay and Bulgaria. The rest could not go onto the next round.

In 2002, Senegal after shocking France in the first game went all the way to the quarter finals. The rest did go to the next round.

To any African team that did not make it to the second round there is an European that could not also. For a balanced game let them play the play-off. Many a time the best from Africa do not make it to the world cup. You have seen the first batch of African teams the years gone by, 2006 is introducing you to 2nd batch and hopefully you will see the third batch someday. This world cup will prove it and 2010 will confirm the story. Have a good day.

[ZeekLTK]

Europe regularly sends a greater percentage of it's representatives into the 2nd and subsequent rounds than Africa and it's lower tier teams are generally more competitive in the WC than African sides.

Difficulty of qualification just shouldn't be relevant to the number of qualifications spots given. Results count, and Africa just doesn't get results when it counts, in the World Cup.

I think if Africa sent 14 teams (as many as Europe sends) that they would be able to put just as many into the 2nd round as Europe does.

Last World Cup 9 Europeans reached the 2nd round and only 1 African team did. However, Europe sent 14 teams and Africa only sent 5. Which teams would Europe have sent if it could only send 5?

Based on the FIFA rankings at the time I think it would have sent: France, Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Germany. This creates a completely different field, and in such a field maybe teams like Nigeria (who were eliminated by England and Sweden, two teams who wouldn't have qualified if UEFA only had 5 spots) would have made it past the group round and gone far in the tournament. Of those 5 teams, 3 took on African teams in the World Cup and it was fairly close. Germany beat Cameroon 2-0, France lost to Senegal 0-1, and Spain narrowly beat South Africa, 3-2.

But this is using UEFA's Top 5. Africa only qualified their top 4 and then #6 Senegal (#5 Morocco failed to qualify). If you take Europe's #6 instead of #5 Germany, you get England, who drew 0-0 to Nigeria. So Europe would either be 2-0-1 against Africa, or 1-1-1 depending on if England or Germany qualified. Not a significant advantage at all, and based on that, who's to say they would have had more overall success than Africa? The same can be said in reverse, if Africa could qualify Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal, Zambia, South Africa, Morocco, Guinea, Kenya, and Congo DR for Germany as well as the 5 teams who made it (to replace all but 5 of Europe's qualified teams), who is to say a good portion of those teams won't have just as much success, if not more so, than the European teams will have this summer?

Also, it is fair to make this comparison because Africa and Europe each have the same number of countries (both have 52). The Olympics gives its bids based on size and nothing else (unlike FIFA). This means Europe and Africa get the same number of bids for the Olympics... look at how the last 3 Olympics have gone. Africa has won two of the last three Olympics and Europe haven't won any of them. Maybe it's because the field was actually level and Europe didn't have 3 times as many teams in the event as everyone else like they do for the World Cup?

[happii20]

ZeeLTK.
Thank you for explaining my case better even to me. I realized that this forum is full of genuine football funs with deep knowledge in the game. I can't wait till June. Have a nice day.

[Cannon]

Europe regularly sends a greater percentage of it's representatives into the 2nd and subsequent rounds than Africa and it's lower tier teams are generally more competitive in the WC than African sides.

Difficulty of qualification just shouldn't be relevant to the number of qualifications spots given. Results count, and Africa just doesn't get results when it counts, in the World Cup.Your post ignores the role that experience plays in doing well at the World Cup. Even average UEFA nations get to the WC on a regular basis because Europe gets so many spots. Is it really that surprising that they then do better than an African nation that has never been to a WC before? If you add in the benefits of playing against a high level of competition in things like Euro04 and its clear that nations from CAF, AFC, and Concacaf are at a disadvantage when they first (or after a long period out) get to a World Cup. That is why I expect the African nations to be a bit of a disappointment in WC06. They are quality sides but with so many newbies just getting 2 out of the group stage would be a great showing.

BTW the post you linked to is pretty silly. Obviously using average number of points is distorted by the presence of some of the best teams in UEFA and Conmebol. When judging how many spots to award to each federation, you want to compare the teams that are at the lower end and thus likely to be effected by the changes. Median points scored would be more telling. You also have to take the draw into account. Having nearly half the spots and the majority of the seeds would be expected to have a significant impact on average points earned and of course a large impact on the numbers that advance past the group stage. Take out the seeded teams and compare the median points gained to get a better view of each federations performance in prior World Cups. I could go on to point out the other relevant stats but that's really a different thread.

[ZeekLTK]

ZeeLTK.
Thank you for explaining my case better even to me. I realized that this forum is full of genuine football funs with deep knowledge in the game. I can't wait till June. Have a nice day.

No problem. People always point out that Europe always puts a lot of teams in the 2nd round, but they don't take into account that European teams make up almost 50% of the field. Imagine if the groups looked like this, how many European teams would get through, and how many African teams would get through? I would guess a lot more African teams than European teams.

Group A: Germany, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Senegal

Group B: England, Guinea, Paraguay, South Africa

Group C: Argentina, Cote d'Ivoire, Trinidad & Tobago*, Zambia

Group D: Mexico, Angola, Cameroon, Iran

Group E: Italy, Ghana, United States, Egypt

Group F: Brazil, Japan, Australia, Morocco

Group G: France, Togo, South Korea, Nigeria

Group H: Spain, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia

*Moved to avoid more than 2 African teams per group.


IMO, out of those groups, Africa would send quite a few teams to the next round. Does anyone disagree? And I even benefitted Europe by giving them all of their seeded teams. If Europe could really only qualify 5 teams, I highly doubt all of those teams would make it. There would be an upset like Angola over Nigeria somewhere along the line where someone like Ukraine knocks out Italy or something.

[tomwilhelm]

I think if Africa sent 14 teams (as many as Europe sends) that they would be able to put just as many into the 2nd round as Europe does.

Last World Cup 9 Europeans reached the 2nd round and only 1 African team did. However, Europe sent 14 teams and Africa only sent 5. Which teams would Europe have sent if it could only send 5?
You understand that the reason that Europe gets 14 teams is that 9-10 of them usually advance. 9/14. That's almost 2/3s of all qualified teams advancing. Not to mention the fact they often eliminate each other, something African teams don't have to worry about. If World Cup qualification was really based on who the best 32 teams in the world are and FIFA wasn't actively making sure all confederations were represented, then Europe would get even more teams.

If only 5 European teams made the World Cup, barring a serious upset all 5 would advance to the 2nd round. The World Cup being what it is, chances are 4 out of 5 would advance.

The same can be said in reverse, if Africa could qualify Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal, Zambia, South Africa, Morocco, Guinea, Kenya, and Congo DR for Germany as well as the 5 teams who made it (to replace all but 5 of Europe's qualified teams), who is to say a good portion of those teams won't have just as much success, if not more so, than the European teams will have this summer?
I would say they wouldn't have just as much success, because they are inferior teams. If your 2nd and 3rd best teams aren't advancing out of the group stages, what makes you think your 10th or 11th best will? With 14 teams, my guess is that Africa would advance 3 or 4, mostly due to the diluted competition.

Also, it is fair to make this comparison because Africa and Europe each have the same number of countries (both have 52). The Olympics gives its bids based on size and nothing else (unlike FIFA). This means Europe and Africa get the same number of bids for the Olympics... look at how the last 3 Olympics have gone. Africa has won two of the last three Olympics and Europe haven't won any of them. Maybe it's because the field was actually level and Europe didn't have 3 times as many teams in the event as everyone else like they do for the World Cup?
I completely agree on principle and think this is the direction things will eventually go as the world soccer playing level continues to even out. But we're nowhere near that now. The smaller confederations have made great strides in recent years and will continue to do so, but to effectively ruin the competitive level of the tournament by arbitrarily giving them more spots than their skill and performance deserve would be terrible folly.

[tomwilhelm]

Your post ignores the role that experience plays in doing well at the World Cup. Even average UEFA nations get to the WC on a regular basis because Europe gets so many spots. Is it really that surprising that they then do better than an African nation that has never been to a WC before? If you add in the benefits of playing against a high level of competition in things like Euro04 and its clear that nations from CAF, AFC, and Concacaf are at a disadvantage when they first (or after a long period out) get to a World Cup. That is why I expect the African nations to be a bit of a disappointment in WC06. They are quality sides but with so many newbies just getting 2 out of the group stage would be a great showing.
Of course it's the case that the smaller confederations are at a disadvantage. They are starting from inferior teams. They have inferior competition much of the time. They improve slowly. Over time their performance improves and they get more spots in the World Cup. That's how it works. Why do people seem to think it should be the other way around?

As far as "average" European teams making it to the world cup "regularly" because there are so many spots... That's just not true.

European World Cup '06 qualifiers:
3+ consecutive world cups
France
Croatia (serious props to them for this)
Spain
Germany
Italy
England

2 consecutive world cups
Poland
Sweden
Portugal

DNQ for '02
Serbia
Netherlands
Czech Rep
Switzerland
Ukraine

Other qualifiers since '98
Scotland
Austria
Denmark
Bulgaria
Belgium
Romania
Slovenia
Turkey
Ireland
Russia
Yugoslavia (same as Serbia, don't count)

How exactly is UEFA qualifying easy for the "average" European team?

BTW the post you linked to is pretty silly. Obviously using average number of points is distorted by the presence of some of the best teams in UEFA and Conmebol. When judging how many spots to award to each federation, you want to compare the teams that are at the lower end and thus likely to be effected by the changes. Median points scored would be more telling. You also have to take the draw into account. Having nearly half the spots and the majority of the seeds would be expected to have a significant impact on average points earned and of course a large impact on the numbers that advance past the group stage. Take out the seeded teams and compare the median points gained to get a better view of each federations performance in prior World Cups. I could go on to point out the other relevant stats but that's really a different thread.
It may be incomplete, but calling it silly is a bit much no? I agree median points would be a better gauge, but taking the draw into account? That's just an invitation into murky subjectivity land again. Unless you really think there's a conspiracy of some sort, we have to assume the random inequities of group play wash out over time and that more often than not, the cream rises to the top.

I have a meeting shortly, so I'll leave the median analysis to someone else, but I will at least point out that even discounting the seeded teams, Europe's lesser teams fare better than all African teams:

'02
Seeded: France, Spain, Italy, Germany
Non-seeded Europeans in 2nd round: 6/10
Africa's Best 5: 1/5

'98
Seeded: Italy, France, Spain, Netherlands, Germany, England
Non-seeded Europeans in 2nd round: 5/9
Africa's best 5: 1/5

To sum up: Results get you spots. Spots don't get you results.

[Rafael Hernandez]

You guys seem to be knowledgeable in the world cup events. However, I have to point it out here that until 1986 Africa was bringing only one team.

In 1982 they had two african teams: Cameroon and Algeria.

[almango]

Your post ignores the role that experience plays in doing well at the World Cup. Even average UEFA nations get to the WC on a regular basis because Europe gets so many spots. Is it really that surprising that they then do better than an African nation that has never been to a WC before? If you add in the benefits of playing against a high level of competition in things like Euro04 and its clear that nations from CAF, AFC, and Concacaf are at a disadvantage when they first (or after a long period out) get to a World Cup. That is why I expect the African nations to be a bit of a disappointment in WC06. They are quality sides but with so many newbies just getting 2 out of the group stage would be a great showing.
Getting two out of the group stage would not only be a good performance, it would be the best Africa has ever done. In my opinion until Africa begins to perform at this level consistantly they can forget about extra spots. If they want more playoff spots I say let them have them. They can have two playoff spots for every spot they give up. I have no objection to them having three guaranteed spots and 4 playoff spots.
BTW the post you linked to is pretty silly. Obviously using average number of points is distorted by the presence of some of the best teams in UEFA and Conmebol. When judging how many spots to award to each federation, you want to compare the teams that are at the lower end and thus likely to be effected by the changes. Median points scored would be more telling.
I think the performance of the worst teams is more telling. CONCACAF deserved their extra playoff spot based on the performance of their worst team last time. I don't think Asia did, but then they lost the playoff so didn't get an extra place.

[almango]

No problem. People always point out that Europe always puts a lot of teams in the 2nd round, but they don't take into account that European teams make up almost 50% of the field. Imagine if the groups looked like this, how many European teams would get through, and how many African teams would get through? I would guess a lot more African teams than European teams.

Group A: Germany, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Senegal

Group B: England, Guinea, Paraguay, South Africa

Group C: Argentina, Cote d'Ivoire, Trinidad & Tobago*, Zambia

Group D: Mexico, Angola, Cameroon, Iran

Group E: Italy, Ghana, United States, Egypt

Group F: Brazil, Japan, Australia, Morocco

Group G: France, Togo, South Korea, Nigeria

Group H: Spain, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia

*Moved to avoid more than 2 African teams per group.


IMO, out of those groups, Africa would send quite a few teams to the next round. Does anyone disagree? And I even benefitted Europe by giving them all of their seeded teams. If Europe could really only qualify 5 teams, I highly doubt all of those teams would make it. There would be an upset like Angola over Nigeria somewhere along the line where someone like Ukraine knocks out Italy or something.

I think on your rigged draw Europe would send 5 and Africa 4 to the second round. There would still be plentry of Euro sides not there who would beat those Africans that did get through. The biggest flaw in your argument is that the worst performed African sides at each world cup do not suggest that they are worthy of more spots. They are over represented now in terms of performance, but as they are a large confederation I can live with the 5 teams. They need to improve a bit more before they get more spots. However if they want the chance for more playoffs, I say let them have 2 playoff spots for every guaranteed spot they give up. I'm sure Europe would allow this if it meant the chance of more Euro teams.