2006 Qualification Process Announced

[TIKY]

I agree with Desertfox2. I also believe 20 games is way too many. 10 is great and 15 is pushing it, but 20?! I wouldn't mind opening up the Hex to a couple more minnows--let THEM play 20 games.

With regard to injuries, I've played on some horrible fields and I'll take fieldturf over rocks covered with crabgrass anyday.

If CONCACAF wants minnows playing the big dogs then let them do it in the Gold Cup.

[OBartleby]

Originally posted by cmonaco
Yes, there will be some blowouts in the earlier rounds. It's not a perfect system. But there's more of an injury risk on the FieldTurf of MLS or the overloaded schedule in Europe than there is in adding 2 or 3 matches to the qualifiers. That's a ridiculous argument.

Look at Asia: S. Korea has to play a minnow like Laos in qualifying. Look at Europe: France has to play San Marino. Look at Africa: Cameroon has to play Chad. The system is like this all over the world. It is fairer to all involved, and the higher seeded teams shouldn't even have to field an A-level squad to throughly outplay the minnows.

The positives outweigh the negatives. This is a fairer, simpler qualifying system for ALL teams in CONCACAF.
I don't think the issue of the quality of fields is a ridiculous argument at all. A crappy field is a crappy field - and we're talking about WCQ, not MLS, so bringing up FieldTurf obfuscates the issues, which is that there is a danger posed when the US (or any other nation) travels to whichever minnow country and plays on their excuse for a soccer pitch.

I'm not against adding qualifying games to the schedule - ultimately these extra qualifiers will give MLS players more caps while our European players are left with their clubs.

And so what if UEFA and the others play the Lichtensteins and Luxembourgs of the world? Does that necessarily validate their system of qualifying?

[OBartleby]

Originally posted by TIKY
If CONCACAF wants minnows playing the big dogs then let them do it in the Gold Cup.
But only if they're good enough to make it out of a pre-tournement qualifying series, kinda how the tennis world works where a non-ranked player is able to qualify fo the US Open or whichever Grand Slam event.

Actually, the more I think about this new qualifying format the less I like it.

Am I correct in that FIFA may yet shoot it down?

[Crazy_Yank]

Originally posted by OBartleby
I don't think the issue of the quality of fields is a ridiculous argument at all. A crappy field is a crappy field - and we're talking about WCQ, not MLS, so bringing up FieldTurf obfuscates the issues, which is that there is a danger posed when the US (or any other nation) travels to whichever minnow country and plays on their excuse for a soccer pitch.

I'm not against adding qualifying games to the schedule - ultimately these extra qualifiers will give MLS players more caps while our European players are left with their clubs.

And so what if UEFA and the others play the Lichtensteins and Luxembourgs of the world? Does that necessarily validate their system of qualifying?



Exactly!! I also don't understand how spanking Puerto Rico 20-0 would help the sport.

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by Crazy_Yank
Exactly!! I also don't understand how spanking Puerto Rico 20-0 would help the sport.

I guess Warner thinks that if teams like Mexico & the US show up to these countries, that they will generate a lot of cash and therefore have more funding for them to develop.

But I dont see it like that. Like you said, spanking PR 20-0 is not going to help. It will have a reverse effect. It will bring the moral down and the fans will not want to show up to see thier team get spanked in double digits. In some cases, some of these countries have had thier funding cut by their own sports ministrys due to lack of results and decreased attendance

most of these teams cant even do well in the Gold Cup and lets not forget that the last 2 editions, most of the potential teams have used B- C teams. So if they cant even hang with B teams, what makes them think they will hang with A teams.

Sorry, but they are not going to get better by just being thrown out on the field against Mexico, US, Mexico, or Honduras. They need to build from the ground up. They need to worry about setting up legit leagues, financing sports facilties (stadiums and practice grounds), market thier leagues and players. Do you honestly think that they will get loans to build if they are getting spanked in double digits and attendance decreases.

In Mexico, they absolutely hate the proposed qual. process. Most coaches are irate with the FMF oficials. They are mad that they lost power in CONCACAF from an administrative standpoint. NOt only are we dishing out money and our services to the Central American leagues to build them up (Warner and Blatter told us to do so), but now we have to travel to rock pastures and stadiums with no hotwater. Truely sad. Dishing out our money and time and we have no say in the matter...

I am not against the level of Central America, Cariebean, or Canada improving, just as long as its not at the expense of others against thier will. I think it is only fair that the potent federations do have some say since they have the dough.

[Daniel from Montréal]

This system puts EVERYONE on equal footing with seeding based on past performance. The only ones complaining are those that got a free ride last time to the semis.

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by Daniel from Montréal
This system puts EVERYONE on equal footing with seeding based on past performance. The only ones complaining are those that got a free ride last time to the semis.

Robin Hood may seem like a hero, but the reality of it all is that he is a common thief. Saying that, We have every right to complain. Warner once again screws over Mexico.

I dont see why we should use the World Cup qualifiers as a way to level out the competition. Why bother with all the confederation events then? We have the Gold Cup, UNCAF cup, Shell Cup as well as the CHampons Cup and other Central American and Cariebean Club tournaments to do that dont we?

This new format will hurt the US, Honduras, Costa Rica, but more so Mexico.

Not only do we participate in CONCACAF tournaments, we also participate in Copa America, Copa Libertadores, Copa Pre Libertadores, & Copa Pre-pre Libertadores. And lets not forget that Mexico has the longest season which is already divided in two. We also participate in other invitational tournaments both at the club and national team level. Also, Mexico is trying to start up their Cup Cup championship tournament again.

[tcmahoney]

Originally posted by Daniel from Montréal
This system puts EVERYONE on equal footing with seeding based on past performance. The only ones complaining are those that got a free ride last time to the semis.

Let's see if Montserrat complains after going to Edmonton in February to get spanked 8-0, or having the US go into double digits against them in similarly frosty conditions at Foxboro.

OTOH, Caribbean tourist boards are probably rubbing their hands with glee. Hey, St. Kitts and Nevis sounds like a great trip in February, especially if you get to watch your national team play.

[Rafael Hernandez]

Originally posted by Crazy_Yank
Exactly!! I also don't understand how spanking Puerto Rico 20-0 would help the sport.

If Mexico comes here to PR at least I will see them live again. That is the only positive. Nobody here gives a damn about soccer and people really don't care if they will see Costa Rica or whatever. If Mexico plays PR, it will only be good for those players who will never get a cap anywhere else. So if Mexico plays it can bring Gilbero Adame, Moctezuma Serrato or even Gusano Napoles. Maybe Chivas Martinez will get a cap after all.

[Daniel from Montréal]

Originally posted by rdl674
Warner once again screws over Mexico.

I dont see why we should use the World Cup qualifiers as a way to level out the competition. Why bother with all the confederation events then? We have the Gold Cup, UNCAF cup, Shell Cup as well as the CHampons Cup and other Central American and Cariebean Club tournaments to do that dont we?

This new format will hurt the US, Honduras, Costa Rica, but more so Mexico.

Not only do we participate in CONCACAF tournaments, we also participate in Copa America, Copa Libertadores, Copa Pre Libertadores, & Copa Pre-pre Libertadores. And lets not forget that Mexico has the longest season which is already divided in two. We also participate in other invitational tournaments both at the club and national team level. Also, Mexico is trying to start up their Cup Cup championship tournament again.

Well enter less competitions then! You guys are the one playing 365/24/7 or whatever! There are 30+ countries in the Confederation and you'd think that the Carribean minnows voted for this, which discredits the theory that they're gonna hate the format.

Playing Canada in Edmonton in March is experience for them like playing Panama in July in PC is for us.

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by Daniel from Montréal
Well enter less competitions then! You guys are the one playing 365/24/7 or whatever!

And whats wrong with that? We are making the initiative to progress without putting the burden on anyone else. It didnt come easy and it sure as hell didnt come for free for the FMF and its sponsors to want to participate and play against better teams. We went to them and paid them, NOT the other way around

Warner is putting the burden on us and expects us to go to them. We have nothing to gain and everything to lose . Last time we went to Panama, one of our players tore his ACL due to the piss poor conditions. And lets not forget that asz stopping we put on T&T... and as a result we lost our best player for 2 years. After you allow 7 + goals, you tend to play dirty and thats what they did. There is a difference between rough play and playing rough.

IF the Canadian Fed is content using US universities, A-League, Dual Canadian Euro citizens to progress.. thats their business. Consider you dont play a hectic schedule, those 20+ games may not be a problem for your fed...but I promise for those Euro based players that Canada has... they too may feel like its a burden and may find themselves out of a starting job in Europe due to the fact that have to play so many meaningless teams.

There are 30+ countries in the Confederation and you'd think that the Carribean minnows voted for this, which discredits the theory that they're gonna hate the format.

Playing Canada in Edmonton in March is experience for them like playing Panama in July in PC is for us.

We have Gold Cup, Champions Cup, UNCAF, Shell Cup to develop the minnows....no need to use the WCQ to level out the playing field especially at the expense of others

[BennyDee19]

Does anyone feel nervous about qualifying.....I just don't want to go from the quarterfinals to nothing for the States....

-PB20

[hobbes]

I don't like the breadth of 20 games, but for the first time TFC is actually introduced an equitable qualifying system — and they only had to add two or four games to the qualifying format for the big teams. This actually gurantees less games than previous systems (how many games did it take Jamaica in 98? It was 22 or 24 I believe).

For the big teams it's a pain to have to travel to some small island to play an international, but this qualifying format is about the small and medium sized teams and in the end is good for all but a small few nations in TFC.

How much better does a Carribean nation get by playing a jamaican C team in the Shell Cup? Sure there are many competitions in the region, but this is the big one and hopefully it will help spark interest and give teams and programs a reasonable game.

Sure someone will lose by 20 in Azteca, but a Bermuda will get a nice test against a full strength El Salvador or Haiti. Maybe St. Kitts scares Panama. It's those games that make this worthwhile for those nations. There will be some games where a minnow shows their competitive with a Pot C team and they never had those chances before.

I appreciate that the fixture schedule is already packed, but at the same time this WORLD CUP QUALIFYING. It's the big one. Being busy with Pre-Copa Libertadores shouldn't mean you're too busy to play four more WCQs. Canada has it as bad as anyone else, pretty close to our whole squad is Euro-based. You know they won't be looking forward to telling their managers they're off to Montserrat.

Qualifying was going to take 16-18 games minimum with a hex and 12-14 games minimum with two final pools of four. No one on here seemed to like the two pools of four nad I think we have a better system, it just requires a few more games.

Plus, I am really looking forward to the road trip for the first round. I'll be pinching pennies and hoping we get drawn somewhere nice.

cheers,
hobbes

[RalRhino]

I'd be willing to bet that in order to make this less of a "burden" on the teams like Mexico, USA, Costa Rica, they will let them schedule thier first round games over a period of 2 weeks.

Home on wednesday and saturday away the following wednesday and saturday. Playing 4 games in 12 days shouldn't be a problem based on the level of competition they'll be facing.

[Sachin]

I would have preferred a format like this:

First Round: 5 groups of 4 teams each, plus 1 group of 3.

Pot A: USA, Mexico, CR, Honduras, Jamaica, T&T
Pot B: Canada, Barbados, El Salvador, Guatemala, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Panama
Pot C: The best 6 from the remaining teams
Pot D: The remaining 5 teams

Draw would have 1 team from each pot in a group, except for the final group which would have only teams from Pot A, B, C. All teams would face their opposing group memebers in a home and home league.

All six group winners would advance to the Final Round.

Final Round: All six teams would face each other in a home and home league. Top three teams advance directly to the World Cup finals while the 4th place teams goes to the playoffs.

Direct qualifiers would play 14 or16 games, while the playoff team would play 16 or 18.

This system would have provided the minnows with a chance to play against the big boys while limiting the overall number of games.

Sachin

[OBartleby]

The story on the CONCACAF site has been fixed to correctly show which nations belong in which pot, according to WCQ 2002, not 1998.

Pot A (3): Costa Rica, Mexico, USA

Pot B (3): Honduras, Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica

Pot C (6): Barbados, Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, St Vincent/Grenadine

Pot D (23): Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Is., Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti , Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Saint Lucia, St Kitts & Nevis, Surinam, Turks and Caicos Islands, US Virgin Islands

Also, if you want to look at a cluster-farq, check out the full schedule for WCQ 2002:

http://footballmundial.tripod.com/concacaf/qualifying2002.htm

You have to scroll to the bottom and then go up to follow the path that the Caribbean and Central American nations took. True, the new system is simpler, but I'm not sure it's any better.

I like Sachin’s suggested format, but it does have the drawback of having only one nation advance out of each group in the first round. Goal difference as a points tie-breaker would be a huge incentive for the big guns to run up 20-0 score lines, to insure they finish first in their group....

[Gary V]

Originally posted by desertfox2
OFC region in the 2002 WC qualifiers where Australia destroyed weak minnows like Tonga (22:0) and American Samoa (31:0). And with teams like the US, Mexico, Costa Rica, etc. having to possibly play teams like Anguilla, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos Isl., etc., expect to see similiar results.

The reason Australia ran up the scores is because there was a fairly good chance that they might enter the last game in their bracket with a record equal to their opponent (was it Tahiti?). In the event of the remote chance that this final game was drawn, they needed the goal differential to assure advancement.

Given that in the first round of the CONMEBOL WCQ one would expect the A and B seeded teams to go 4-0-0, with a slight possibility of a 3-0-1 or 3-1-0 result, there would be no need to run up a huge goal differential. If one of the seeded teams should happen to fall to one of the "minnows", there would always be the rematch.

My guess on the Pot A/B/C thing is that the definition of the second round groups will be made at the time of the first round draw. It would be set up that no Pot A team could meet another until the final round. That is, if the winners of Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 are to meet in the second round, Group1 would have a draw from PotA, Group2 from PotB, and Groups 3 and 4 from PotC. (Filled out, of course, from PotD.)

[cmonaco]

Originally posted by OBartleby
I don't think the issue of the quality of fields is a ridiculous argument at all. A crappy field is a crappy field - and we're talking about WCQ, not MLS, so bringing up FieldTurf obfuscates the issues, which is that there is a danger posed when the US (or any other nation) travels to whichever minnow country and plays on their excuse for a soccer pitch.

I'm not against adding qualifying games to the schedule - ultimately these extra qualifiers will give MLS players more caps while our European players are left with their clubs.

And so what if UEFA and the others play the Lichtensteins and Luxembourgs of the world? Does that necessarily validate their system of qualifying?

Any field that a WCQ is played on should be required to meet strict FIFA standards. If a nation cannot meet these standards, their home matches should have to be played elsewhere. My point in bringing up FieldTurf etc. was to point out that injury risk is a part of soccer, and if you are really worried about injuries, there are some much bigger problems than adding 4 matches (only 2 away) to WC Qualifying.

My point in mentioning UEFA, Asia, and Africa was merely to show how other confederations with similar issues have manged to structure their qualifiers. Big boys playing minnows has not been much of a problem for them. CONCACAF has now moved to be more in line with these other confederations. I still believe it's fairer than the previous system for the entire confederation, since all teams will have to go through the same process and will not be separated by region.

[Daniel from Montréal]

Well if Mexico's so busy, maybe we should give them a free bye to the WC.... ;)

And with all of 4 (WOW!) games against such minnows, shouldn't such a powerhouse like Mexico NOT be complaining since they could just send out "F" squads and just annihilate their poor opponents 89-0 anyways?

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by Daniel from Montréal
Well if Mexico's so busy, maybe we should give them a free bye to the WC.... ;)

And with all of 4 (WOW!) games against such minnows, shouldn't such a powerhouse like Mexico NOT be complaining since they could just send out "F" squads and just annihilate their poor opponents 89-0 anyways?

Maybe we should. Afterall, we still managed to qualify using 3 different coaches & 3 sets of teams.

Now why would we want to destoy the minnows 89-0? Arent we trying to help them? We wouldnt want thier sports ministries to cut thier funding 60% ala Jamaica for poor results and decreased attendance.

I just hope they dont get mad at us when we send them B-C teams for the Gold Cup and Champions Cup. After all, we will help them out in the WCQ. Ohh wait... the Gold Cup, Champions Cup is held in the US... damn... they do want us to bring our full squads..

Concacaf gave us one Gold Cup (atually a couple games) and we ran the score like 11-1..... Thats no fun for them....and no money for them