2006 Qualification Process Announced

[cmonaco]

Originally posted by OBartleby
Let's not forget Costa Rica.... [cough]Azteca[cough, cough]

I'm not the one claiming the vast superiority of my country over the rest of the region. IMO, Mexico, US, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica... even El Salvador, Guatemala, Trinidad, and Canada... any of these teams could beat any other on any given day. CONCACAF has much more parity as a region than is generally thought, and the Central American nations have a particular advantage playing in front of raucous home crowds.

Perhaps a slew of 20-0 score lines will take care of that. As it should.

No one has proposed a fairer qualification system that accomplishes the goals of giving strong teams a bye AND keeping the final "hexagonal" round robin AND keeping matches at 20 games or less for all teams. The final round-robin round doesn't mean much to me, but others seem to consider it important. But this system does accomplish these three important goals, and at the devastating cost of 2 away games (probably) to the balmy Caribbean in the winter or spring of next year. Boo-hoo. Just go out and win.

[OBartleby]

Originally posted by cmonaco
No one has proposed a fairer qualification system that accomplishes the goals of giving strong teams a bye AND keeping the final "hexagonal" round robin AND keeping matches at 20 games or less for all teams. The final round-robin round doesn't mean much to me, but others seem to consider it important. But this system does accomplish these three important goals, and at the devastating cost of 2 away games (probably) to the balmy Caribbean in the winter or spring of next year. Boo-hoo. Just go out and win.
Oh, we will. For once the US will enjoy what it's like to go on a nice vacation with a soccer match thrown in between.

Again, I don't have any major problems with the new proposed system (and it still may yet be shot down by FIFA) as long as the fields are up to FIFA regulations (or played at an alternate location) and the minnows don’t expect to have the bigger nations foot their bills. Of course, the USSF will likely pay their way anyway.... because we’re just that nice.

[Guinho]

Originally posted by cmonaco
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.

Actually, playing the minnow is fine, if you have enough dates. UEFA qualifying is FAR from a good system when it comes to sending the best European teams.

Can you imagine any US international getting a job in Europe if they will get released for 20 qualifying dates? That's got trouble written all over it.

Guinho

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by OBartleby
I have been reading these posts with interest. They seem to typify the friction between the “haves” and “have-nots” we find in CONCACAF. I do, however, tend to side with rdl674 in the respect that each of the established nations should not have to bear the financial burdens of the minnow nations when it comes to travel, lodging and all that. I’m not sure I see exactly how each of the established nations would be paying for the development of the minnows, as some have directly and indirectly claimed. Maybe rdl674 can shed some light on how exactly FMF would be paying for the development of the minnows.

Shed some light..okay

Directly. Recently, after having some meetings with Warner and Blatter, Mexico "agreed" to support the central american leagues. And i dont mean support like cheering them on and say "you can do it buddy!" I am talking about offering support and programs that includes coaches, youth players, marketing, administration, and development of infrastructure. This meeting with the central american officials was held late january in Cancun. This is not the first time we do something like this and this is the most recent one.

Indirectly. Well where do you want me to start???

And while it is undoubtedly true that Mexico has pulled itself up by its own proverbial bootstraps, it is equally true that their success was helped along by hosting two World Cups. The US Soccer Federation experienced a similar bulging of the coffers when we hosted WC ’94.

Yes, we did help ourselves by wanting to host 2 world cups. And Mexico at that time was experiencing a substantial debt and its economy was bad, but it pulled itself together. It would be alot easier for Mexico to host another WC in this day considering MExico has one of the better markets and economies in the World. I know that a federation cant do it all alone and depends on the economic policies its government has set up, but even though, federation execs can still do thier part. If private or corporate sponsors can cough up the bill...Great. If no one wants to cough it up , then it is up to the execs to propose to their lawmakers to want to build. They dont have to build a 100K stadium.

And Mexico is in the process of wanting to host another WC (2010, 2014, 2018). Recently, some corporate executives along with federation execs flew to Zurich and wanted to talk to Blatter and propose to host the WC in 2010. A few weeks ago, Blatter flew to Mexico to discuss it further. They asked if Mexico could have a legitimate shot to host it in 2010...he said we will see, Africa does have its turn. Then some of the feds asked, what do you want us to do? They have already stated that they are willing to build new hotels, build a couple more Stadiums, remodel the older ones. Blatter was impressed with the new FMF HQs. Its a 7 story building and he inaugurated the building. Blatter did say that he expected to have Mexico bid for the next World Club Championships.

Daniel, the Canadian who is posting a more extreme opposition to rdl674, seems to be showing his socialist colors – or maybe because he has grown up in a socialist nation he doesn’t realize the degree to which the “fairness” and “equity” principles of socialism have affected his worldview, including how soccer should be treated. Eh?

That might have some truth to it.

Equal treatment and equal footing is nice, but when you have some feds give a little more and you have others take a little more.... there is nothing equal about that.

I do think that our region’s playing ground should be level and fair, at least in principle, but I don’t think that this should happen at the expense of other nations.

Well, they make us out to be the bad guys when he have petitioned another federation's ground.

When the FMF sent in video and pictures of the ground, Warner was irate. He tried to turned it around saying that we wanted to choose our homefield.

I personally thought it was very unprofessional of Warner to say that he was trinidadian first and that he would allow the match to be played there to give T&T the advantage. They said if we agreed to move our return leg match to another stadium other than Aztec Stadium, they would consider moving to another stadium in T&T. Anybody who complains about Azteca stadium is crazy. It is one of the best stadiums in the world. If it was good enough for Pele, Maradona, Bekenbaur, Sanchez, Platini, surely its good enough for the T&T team. But i would have moved the game to another stadium in Mexico. The CONCACAF president does not have the luxury of playing favoritism to his home country nor to any country.

When this happens, it’s not fairness at all but rather an economic version of the USA’s Affirmative Action, and in the states we have another word for that program which the auto-censor will convert to asterisks. ‘Nuff said.

True.

[IASocFan]

20 qualifying dates shouldn't be a problem. We had 10 in 2001. Trinidad had 10 in 2001 and 12 in 2000. I suspect CONCACAF will use some of the same dates for 2004 & 2005 as they did in 2000 & 2001.

The biggest difference between 2004 and 2000 is that most everyone will half a 4 game preliminary round games, instead of the 0 that the seeded teams had or the 8 games that Haiti, Cuba, and St. Lucia had.

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by cmonaco
Seriously, though. Do you really think this qualification system is indicative of a CONCACAF conspiracy to hold Mexico back?

Not just the qualifications sytem, but our presence in Gold Cup, Champions Cup, Giants Cup, Copa America, Copa Libertadores, etc.

If we are not being exploited, we are being detained and punished.

Mexico has no duty to CONCACAF other than the duty every other member nation has to their confederation: to compete fairly against the rest of the confederation in all serious competitions.

Who chooses your team's roster? Warner or your head coach?

Do you get criticized for sending an experimental side? Do you get criticized for sending a B team? we do

Mexico's progress is in no way inversely related to building the rest of CONCACAF.

Then why try to take our ticket away from Copa America and Copa libertadores and give them to the winner of Champions Cup and Gold Cup? Why didnt they support Mexico in 91-92 when they wanted to participate in Copa America? Why wait after Mexico does well in Copa America and try to take something we paid for?

Why take a 3 million dollar ticket away from us from the Copa Libertadores and try to give it to your people?

Are you sure they are not related? Warner did say that Mexico would no longer play the Copa America. THe winner and runner up of the Gold Cup would represent the CONCACAF in Copa America. Then shortly thereafter, CONMEBOL president said..." wait a minute, I am the president of CONMEBOL and we decide who is in our tournaments. Mexico is our guest and they will continue to be our permanant guest in Copa America

Your problem is you at CONMEBOL as a model, and CONMEBOL is a very unusual confederation, as it has very few teams who are all very competetive. No other confederation on the globe is like this.

I am not trying to model ourselves after CONMEBOL. You just cant have the same type of qualification system they have.

In every other confedeation, you have the big-time nations competing against the minnows, and they don't complain, they just go out and win.

Yes, but UEFA have 9-12 groups and the winners of each group go directly to the WC. They too have a big confederation, but they are also more developed. We could use thier type of format either. I am not trying to use another confederation's format since we are all so different in terms of quality, economic & financial postiion, geography, etc.

Prove that Mexico, Costa Rica, and the USA are heads and shoulders above every other team in the region over the next few years, and maybe next time the powers that be will decide they will get byes for the first round... Or else forfeit the away matches to island nations and see if you can still win your first round group.

So I guess we havent proved ourselves in thie confederation yet then.

[Thomas Flannigan]

RDL has it right and our friends from Canada have it wrong. FIFA should swat this proposal down. Some of the teams in pot d don't even have a decent pitch. FIFA won't allow a qualifier in state of the art stadiums that have artifiical turf; why would they allow a qualifiers on a glorified parking lot?
Seedings are pairings are based on merit. That is why Mexico gets seeded and Antigua does not get seeded. Mexico earned it. I am against a communist system that fails to recognize merit.
Making the teams from the 3 pots play tiny nations 4 times does no one any good. Blancos may get maimed, Curacaos may get skunked 19-0. A better solution would be to return to the format for 2002 and get a few countries, such as Mexico and the U.S., to agree to a winter friendly each year in one of the super minnow nations. That way the small nations can make some money, showcase their charms to potential tourists, and give their national team the chance to play a World Cup quality team.
What if the U.S. is in the 12th group with one other nation, and it ends up being Cuba or Haiti? Or a group of 3 with those two tough teams? What if we get Rodolfo Sibrian (we got this guy 3 times in the last 2 years) or Peter Predergast as referee? Before you know it we will be talking about 2010.
Very short knockout rounds of 2 or 4 games make it easier to engineer the early departure of a superior team.
Just my opinions.

[cmonaco]

Not just the qualifications sytem, but our presence in Gold Cup, Champions Cup, Giants Cup, Copa America, Copa Libertadores, etc.

If we are not being exploited, we are being detained and punished.

You'll get no argument from me that CONCACAF competitions are ridiculously mismangaged, and the entire confederation (Warner included) could use a good housecleaning. The difference is that I see this new qualifying system as a step towards better structuring of comepetitions, while you see it as a continuation of CONCACAF's mistakes.

Who chooses your team's roster? Warner or your head coach? Do you get criticized for sending an experimental side? Do you get criticized for sending a B team? we do

When there's money involved, there will always be these pressures. But again, to refocus on WCQ's, I don't think the new format really puts that much more of a strain on any of the top teams, Mexico included. And no one will complain if Mexico sends a C-team and whacks Antigua and Belize in round 1.

Then why try to take our ticket away from Copa America and Copa libertadores and give them to the winner of Champions Cup and Gold Cup? Why didnt they support Mexico in 91-92 when they wanted to participate in Copa America? Why wait after Mexico does well in Copa America and try to take something we paid for?

As I said, you are looking towards Copa America and Copa Libertadores, and CONMEBOL in general, as an example. Like it or not, Mexico is in a different region, and has to compete mainly in that region. CONCACAF is paranoid that Mexico will try to bolt for CONMEBOL, and has made some irrational and unfair decsions as a result. They want Mexico working within their system, which is why they've pulled the crap you describe above.

So I guess we havent proved ourselves in thie confederation yet then.

As i said, I truly believe the competition in CONCACAF has gotten much closer in the last 10 years. At least 6 or 8 teams can beat each other on any given day. Any one of 3 teams can be called the "powerhouse" whereas before it was Mexico #1, followed by everyone else. Even the Azteca has lost its invincibility. The time seems right for a more equitable qualification system. Middle-range teams like Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Trinidad, and Jamaica deserve a fairer shot at qualifying, and everyone should play the same number of games.

If Mexico, USA, and Costa Rica basically run the table in the first *and second* rounds, and prove my parity argument wrong, then I'm sure CONCACAF will consider giving byes to the top 3 next time around. But I don't think you'll see this happen. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see one of the big 3 go out before the hexagonal...

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
Very short knockout rounds of 2 or 4 games make it easier to engineer the early departure of a superior team.
Just my opinions.

I was talking to one of my friends about this... he fears that too.

He said that he fears that an outside factor may make the difference to give preference to another team. A mysterous handball? An offsides? A different referee than the one originally assigned?

[RalRhino]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
FIFA should swat this proposal down.

I don't think that will happen based on the support Blatter got from the region in the last election. I don't know if there is any precedence for FIFA rejecting a region's proposed qulaification process, but I don't think CONCACAF would have released it publicly if they weren't pretty sure it would meet FIFA's approval. At most, FIFA may recommend some minor changes.

Frankly, I like this structure for future Gold Cup qualifying, but think that we won't be seeing it again for WC 2010.

In the meantime, I'm going to try to get myself in shape and let Coach Arena know I'm available to play when the US goes on the road to Aruba.

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by cmonaco
You'll get no argument from me that CONCACAF competitions are ridiculously mismangaged, and the entire confederation (Warner included) could use a good housecleaning. The difference is that I see this new qualifying system as a step towards better structuring of comepetitions, while you see it as a continuation of CONCACAF's mistakes.

Its real easy for you to say that it is a step foward. Sure, when a federation does not have a legitimate league and doesnt have the prior engagements that some of the other federations have... it may seem fair to some, but to us few who have them they are totally unfair. But what about those who do have legit leagues. Who play year round? Who play other international tournaments? Who have national Cup tournaments?

Who is to say that Barbados wont cancel and pull out due to the fact they dont have money? They almost pulled out last time during the semifinals. Some of the teams dont have the money but have the time. Others have the money but dont have the time. And in our particular case, we may even lose money...

When there's money involved, there will always be these pressures. But again, to refocus on WCQ's, I don't think the new format really puts that much more of a strain on any of the top teams, Mexico included. And no one will complain if Mexico sends a C-team and whacks Antigua and Belize in round 1.

It does put a strain. Between now and 2006, we are suppose to play 40-50 non sanctioned matches (against quality national teams or world class clubs). Our federation set it up that way and we cant defualt to our sponsors. You dont think our club owners have the right to complian a little? Afterall, they are the ones coughing up the millions.

Yes, they do complain when we send lesser teams. In fact, in these instances, that is when we are exploited. Why threaten to sanction the FMF for not sending its full team? The US, Guatemala, etc did not send thier full team? Could it be because they want a full stadium in Los Angeles? Why not let Mexico, or Central America, or Canada host the Gold Cup? Mexico has hosted 2 WCs and a Confederation Cup... I am sure we can host a Gold Cup as well. They let us host a couple games back in 93, but after that 11-0 spanking....


As I said, you are looking towards Copa America and Copa Libertadores, and CONMEBOL in general, as an example. Like it or not, Mexico is in a different region, and has to compete mainly in that region.

Who said we only had to stick to this region and compete? We tried that for many years and where did it get us? Dead last in 2 World Cups, thats where it got us playing the power house teams of CONCACAF.

CONCACAF is paranoid that Mexico will try to bolt for CONMEBOL, and has made some irrational and unfair decsions as a result.

Maybe if they started treating us the way we deserve to be treated, we would have different relationship with them.

When an other CONCACAF team wants to play another Euro team and passes up the opportunity to play a fellow concacaf team... no one says anything.... when we do it.. we are snooty

They want Mexico working within their system, which is why they've pulled the crap you describe above.

Actually, they dont want us working for them. They want us to build other so they stop having to depend on us froma financial standpoint.

[TopDogg]

Originally posted by rdl674
Its real easy for you to say that it is a step foward. Sure, when a federation does not have a legitimate league and doesnt have the prior engagements that some of the other federations have... it may seem fair to some, but to us few who have them they are totally unfair.
Uh, cmonaco is from New York. I'm pretty sure he's part of the "few" that you are talking about.

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by TopDogg
Uh, cmonaco is from New York. I'm pretty sure he's part of the "few" that you are talking about.

The MLS is not a year long season and have a substantial break. Some of thier players do try to go else where when the MLS season is in recess.

The Mexican league is split into to miniseasons. Depening on the calendar (If it is World Cup year or WCQ year) is what determines the break in between seasons. 80% of the teams took a couple days off during the christmas holidays. THe most time a team took for a vacation was a week and a half.

The 2-4 extra matches will affect our clubs.

[Alex_1]

Well, for the US, if this does happen, Eric Wynalda's scoring record could be oblitherated in a matter of months. ;)

I guess it could work in that for the larger confederations, they won't need to always recall the players in Europe against the sides that aren't of the highest football pedigree. But that would be a lot of matches.

[Daniel from Montréal]

Of course me growing up in a somewhat socialist nation has formed my way of thinking, just like Americans have their own way of thinking. What do you expect?

I agree that no one should fit the bill for another team. If a team misses a game (because they can't pay for 2 away games), then they should forfeit their chance at WCQ and their points.

And while talking about "pitch standards" (which, btw, in the Laws of the Game are very basic), maybe there should be "air quality standards". If Aruba isn't allowed to have a home advantage by playing on a bad field (to which I would agree), then why should Mexico be allowed to kick games off at noon at Azteca in heat and smog?

Some people just automatically reason that all the "minnows" will be playing on jagged rocks. MAYBE by instituting pitch standards AND having these teams comply to compete, CONCACAF would improve the level of the region.

This is turning into something of a bunch of vendettas, where the Mexicans are pissed at Warner because of the Trinidad game and me (and some other Canadians) are pissed at Mexico complaining (I don't see the US or Costa Rica complaining...)...

Like someone said: just go out and win.

[Thomas Flannigan]

Daniel, who is going to pay for all these countries to have decent soccer pitches? www.worldstadiums.com doesn't even list stadiums for most of the minnows. I found a site on the Internet alleging that Guyana's effort to build a stadium were thwarted when someone stole the land that had been set aside.
Climate and altitude cannot really be changed; a pitch can be. FIFA bans artifical surfaces but many are quite good, preferable to dangerous hellholes like Queen's Park Oval in Trinidad.
Twenty games for qualifying is too much. It is bad for all of the seeded teams, including Canada. It may also be bad for some of the minnows when they keep losing 22 to nil. Friendlies would be a better way to help these countries build up programs as visitors would have no incentive to humiliate them with goal differential.
Also, keep in mind that some of these countries have tiny populations and it is unlikely that they can ever do much in football no matter how many times Costa Rica hammers them. There aren't enough people to develop a good team.

[RalRhino]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
Climate and altitude cannot really be changed; a pitch can be.Games could be restricted from fields that don't meet FIFA standards for air quality.

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
Twenty games for qualifying is too much.20 games is less than what Honduras or T&T had to play last time.

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
I found a site on the Internet alleging that Guyana's effort to build a stadium were thwarted when someone stole the land that had been set aside.I bet if they looked hard enough, they'd see that the land was still there.;)


I'm just being a devil's advocate on this. I'm not excited about the new format and thought the old one was fine. However, 4 extra games is not going to kill anyone and I would be very suprised if Lavolpe, or whoever is coaching the Mexican team at the time, would have a hard time finding 11 player who cannot beat Anguilla on short notice.

P.S. Thanks for the worldstadiums link. I hadn't seen that before.

[Heist]

Couldn't they also play the games an neutral sites if the "home" pitch of some of these countries isn't good enough? Not that that would help too much cause it would defeat part of the purpose of having the games and it would force those countries to travel.

But even Barbados had a pretty bad pitch when we went there during 2002 Qualification. Just think what some of the other countries must have. I think I play on better pitches at my local elementary school!

[bert patenaude]

Lavolpe's negative reaction. . .

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=257781&cc=5901

[Daniel from Montréal]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
Daniel, who is going to pay for all these countries to have decent soccer pitches?

Well, that's their problem, ain't it?

Hell, if the high school behind my house can grow something half-decent, then these countries can surely do the same with a little effort (money is not always the solution).