View Full Version : Europe gets too many slots [R]
Guinho
16 Jun 2006, 11:27 AM
After Saudi Arabia's 8-0 demolition in the last WC we heard a chorus of how Asia didn't deserve so many slots, etc. so now after the Argies bashed Serbia 6-0, I hope in fairness we can have a chorus about how unfair it is that Europe sends so many squads that stink up the pitch. THis 6-0 loss is of course the only one that outdoes the 4-0 loss by the Ukraine. The bottom of the table:
As of today, the bottom:
32 Serbia 0-0-2 0pts 0GF 7 GA -7GD
31 Costa Rica 0-0-2 0 pts 2GF 7 GA -5 GD
30 Ukraine 0-0-1 o pts -4 GD
29 Poland 0-0-2 -3 GD
29 US 0-0-1 -3 GD
27 Paraguay 0-0-2 -2 GD
26 Ghana 0-0-1 -2 GD
25 Iran and Japan (tie) 0-0-1 -2 GD (one goal scored)
As you can see, three of the five bottom slots are European sides. Clearly, there's no need for more of these cruddy sides.
Now, I'm think the current allocation is reasonable, really, but since we're always subjected to this kind of argument about the rest of the world, I thought this point needed to be pointed out for the purposes of illustration.
With almost half the qualifiers, logically they should have almost half the last place finishers. They'll probably end up with two in this WC: Serbia and Poland. Plus they are, I think, W7 D1 L3 against non-European teams. Compare and contrast to some other confederations...
leg_breaker
16 Jun 2006, 12:27 PM
Argentina would have thrashed anyone playing like that, including Brazil.
Also the large number of European teams means they often end up taking points from each other or cancelling each other out, i.e. German 1 Poland 0, Holland 1 Serbia 0, France 0 Italy 0, Spain 1 Ukraine 0.
Guinho
16 Jun 2006, 12:38 PM
Argentina would have thrashed anyone playing like that, including Brazil.
Also the large number of European teams means they often end up taking points from each other or cancelling each other out, i.e. German 1 Poland 0, Holland 1 Serbia 0, France 0 Italy 0, Spain 1 Ukraine 0.
Ah, the two usual Eurofallacies make their entrance early.
1) "They got beat by European teams" So somehow if Ukraine get blown out by Spain it doesn't count, but if Trinidad does it does? Curious. It doesn't matter who you lose to, a blow out is a blow out. It is an indication of not being as strong as the big dogs.
2) "The confederation as a whole is..." This isn't about the confederation as a whole, it's about who would be let in if there were more slots. if UEFA qualifying were decent, then the top teams would be in, meaning extra slots wouldn't go to the Netherlands, since they're already in, but to teams that lost out to teams like Serbia and Ukraine and so are presumably not markedly better than these teams.
Furthermore, if you aim to have the confederations have similar averages, then any confederation with good teams would have to also bring much worse than average teams too to bring their average down. In essence, this is an argument that bad European teams have a stronger claim to being in the world cup than better (but still weak) teams from elsewhere solely because of their geographic proximity to Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, England and France. Piss poor argument.
I don't think (really) that UEFA deserves fewer slots, but I'd love to slay these canards that UEFA deserves more or that one has to be great to qualify. Clearly, some pretty dodgy teams always make it out of Europe.
|--LdC--|
16 Jun 2006, 02:07 PM
Guinho, when Argentina was eliminated by 2 european teams in the last wc did SA had to many slots?
Its football, sometimes Serbia has this things, in the Euro 2000 they were crushed by Holland 6-0 in the quarter finals if i am not mistaken.
Furthermore, if you aim to have the confederations have similar averages, then any confederation with good teams would have to also bring much worse than average teams too to bring their average down. In essence, this is an argument that bad European teams have a stronger claim to being in the world cup than better (but still weak) teams from elsewhere solely because of their geographic proximity to Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, England and France. Piss poor argument.
I don't think (really) that UEFA deserves fewer slots, but I'd love to slay these canards that UEFA deserves more or that one has to be great to qualify. Clearly, some pretty dodgy teams always make it out of Europe.
And just as clearly, they are typically underrepresented in dodgy teams.
galileo
16 Jun 2006, 02:16 PM
Ah, the two usual Eurofallacies make their entrance early.
1) "They got beat by European teams" So somehow if Ukraine get blown out by Spain it doesn't count, but if Trinidad does it does? Curious. It doesn't matter who you lose to, a blow out is a blow out. It is an indication of not being as strong as the big dogs.
2) "The confederation as a whole is..." This isn't about the confederation as a whole, it's about who would be let in if there were more slots. if UEFA qualifying were decent, then the top teams would be in, meaning extra slots wouldn't go to the Netherlands, since they're already in, but to teams that lost out to teams like Serbia and Ukraine and so are presumably not markedly better than these teams.
Furthermore, if you aim to have the confederations have similar averages, then any confederation with good teams would have to also bring much worse than average teams too to bring their average down. In essence, this is an argument that bad European teams have a stronger claim to being in the world cup than better (but still weak) teams from elsewhere solely because of their geographic proximity to Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, England and France. Piss poor argument.
I don't think (really) that UEFA deserves fewer slots, but I'd love to slay these canards that UEFA deserves more or that one has to be great to qualify. Clearly, some pretty dodgy teams always make it out of Europe.
I would like to agree you but the last statement, I don't. Africa deserves more spots! How many countries are in Africa? It is only through playing in big tournaments do teams really get to test their metal. Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon, Morroco, and Egypt could have all shown well in this edition of the World Cup. I know they (FIFA) are not going to give Africa (CAF) say 4 more sports and take them from Europe (UEFA) because we have a Eurocentric attitude and that choice is also current ecomonics. What I would suggest as a solution is that Europe gets 8 or 9 automatic bids and the other 5 or 6 become playoff games where maybe three teams vie for one of those spots. That would be a good transition into seeing which conferations 'deserve' more teams (i.e. you could have had a group with Denmark, Cameroon, and China playing for one spot). :cool:
El CHarro_NEgro....
16 Jun 2006, 02:28 PM
Africa deserves more spots! How many countries are in Africa? It is only through playing in big tournaments do teams really get to test their metal. Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon, Morroco, and Egypt could have all shown well in this edition of the World Cup.
??? Why does africa deserves more spots? His performance at this World Cup have been piss poor. If the teams that stayed at home are better than the ones current playing, then that is just a sign of how poor is Africa's qual system is. Same with Europe.
holgers_heroes
16 Jun 2006, 02:33 PM
Ah, the two usual Eurofallacies make their entrance early.
1) "They got beat by European teams" So somehow if Ukraine get blown out by Spain it doesn't count, but if Trinidad does it does? Curious. It doesn't matter who you lose to, a blow out is a blow out. It is an indication of not being as strong as the big dogs.
2) "The confederation as a whole is..." This isn't about the confederation as a whole, it's about who would be let in if there were more slots. if UEFA qualifying were decent, then the top teams would be in, meaning extra slots wouldn't go to the Netherlands, since they're already in, but to teams that lost out to teams like Serbia and Ukraine and so are presumably not markedly better than these teams.
Furthermore, if you aim to have the confederations have similar averages, then any confederation with good teams would have to also bring much worse than average teams too to bring their average down. In essence, this is an argument that bad European teams have a stronger claim to being in the world cup than better (but still weak) teams from elsewhere solely because of their geographic proximity to Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, England and France. Piss poor argument.
Very good rebuttals. VERY good.
GRBomber
16 Jun 2006, 04:41 PM
I think the WC is fine with 32 teams, but clearly the euro qualifiers are too easy.
Too many minnows.
I think we should have more playoffs like Uruguay x Australia or T&T x Bahrain (was that it?).
lanman
16 Jun 2006, 04:52 PM
Simple statistics do not back up this claim whatsoever.
Over the past 3 teams UEFA has provided 50% of the 88 teams to take part, 60% (29 out of 48) of the teams to progress to the 2nd round and 71% (17 out of 24) teams in the Quarter Finals.
Can you spot a trend here?
Also worth noting that they have had 12 different teams reach the last 8 over the past three tournaments.
GRBomber
16 Jun 2006, 04:55 PM
Are those statistics really relevant?
We all know that the smaller teams are only getting better, like the Concacaf or African ones.
Even some south americans, like Ecuador!
Europe should have some 0.5 spots.
lanman
16 Jun 2006, 05:05 PM
Are those statistics really relevant?
OK - how about of the 23 different sides UEFA has sent to the last 3 World Cups 15 have advanced to the 2nd round on at least 1 occassion.
I would be more than happy for UEFA to have some half spots. If they trade 1 full spot for 2 half spots then I don't think anyone would really complain.
lanman
16 Jun 2006, 05:13 PM
OK - how about of the 23 different sides UEFA has sent to the last 3 World Cups 15 have advanced to the 2nd round on at least 1 occassion.
That works out at 65%.
Compared to CONMEBOL 50%, CONCACAF 50%, Africa 28% and Asia 60% (which includes only 1 country outside of hosts).
GRBomber
16 Jun 2006, 05:16 PM
OK - how about of the 23 different sides UEFA has sent to the last 3 World Cups 15 have advanced to the 2nd round on at least 1 occassion.
I would be more than happy for UEFA to have some half spots. If they trade 1 full spot for 2 half spots then I don't think anyone would really complain.
I'll be happy with that.
S&M conceded 1 goal during the qualifiers. There is something wrong with that.
Poland lost to Equador!!
What about Ukrain?
Sure these nations are no worse than Korea or T&T, but there are other teams that should get better chances of getting to the WC.
Like Chile, Colombia, Belgium or Denmark. Even Uruguay!
edit: forgot about Cameroon and Nigeria.
Joe Bauer
16 Jun 2006, 05:18 PM
Of games played so far against teams from other continents the winning percentage (draw counts as 0.5) is as follows:
Europa 68%
South America 67%
Asia 38%
Concacaf 30%
Africa 8%
Based on this evidence Europa and South America there should be more and not fewer teams from Europa at the World Cup.
lanman
16 Jun 2006, 05:20 PM
S&M conceded 1 goal during the qualifiers. There is something wrong with that.
But they never played anyone as good as an on-song Argentina. By the same token Mexico scored 67 goals in 18 qualifying games but none against Angola today.
GRBomber
16 Jun 2006, 05:21 PM
From South America, only Paraguay was bad but they still were hard to beat.
Maybe SA could be given 1 more half spot.
Europe should have 2 spots turned into 2 half spots. One would play against SA and the other against Africa.
Guinho
16 Jun 2006, 05:22 PM
Guinho, when Argentina was eliminated by 2 european teams in the last wc did SA had to many slots?
Its football, sometimes Serbia has this things, in the Euro 2000 they were crushed by Holland 6-0 in the quarter finals if i am not mistaken.
And this is relevant how?
Guinho
16 Jun 2006, 05:23 PM
And just as clearly, they are typically underrepresented in dodgy teams.
Err. Actually not. Europe sends the same number as anyone else.
It would help if you folks would learn a little math, though.