Taking the defending champions' berth away. Do you agree?

[MIGkiller]

What was FIFA's excuse for taking away the defending champion's authomatic spot at the World Cup again? The pathetic performance of France in Korea/Japan' 02 shows that lack of competitive matches can harm one team's competitiveness at the WC, right? So what about Argentina's also poor run last time after an almost perfect qualification campaign, how do you explain it? Why not taking away the host berth too then? Is the home advantage enough for one team's competitiveness?

IMO the lack of competitive matches is flawed. After winning the 94' WC Brazil played the following tournaments trying to bring the best roster they could:

Stanley Rous(sp) Cup in England' 95: champions;
Copa America in Uruguay' 95: runner-ups;
Pre-Olympic tournamet in Argentina' 96: champions;
Olympics in Atlanta' 96: bronze medal;
France Tournamet' 97: runner-ups;
Copa America in Bolivia' 97: champions;
Confederations Cup in Saudi Arabia' 97: champions;

Then Brazil ended the 98' WC in France as runner-ups and could have won it if the history was different.

France also had their competitive matches of their own before the WC 2002, playing Euro' 2000 qualifyers, winning the tournament finals and the Confederations Cup' 01. Could also have played other small tournaments that I don't recall right now, so they cannot use the excuse of lack of competitiveness.

So why take now the authomatic berth that has always been a tradition of the World Cup and risk losing the defending champions who help adding some of the brilliance to the tournament?

Discuss.

[QuakeAttack]

Excuse. Stupidity, if that is an excuse...

Otherwise, I don't agree with taking the defending champions berth away. There should be a benefit for winning the previous World Cup.

[beachesl]

In the early winter of 2002, the then French coach
publicly complained about the lack of serious preparation for the coming WC. He half-jokingly said that France should have had to qualify. It turned out to be doubly prophetic.

In the days before the May 31 match, the FIFA executive committee unexpectedly brought in an undiscussed (typically horrendous) ruling that the WC winner would no longer automaticall qualify. No one seriously complained (partly because no one knew who the winner was going to be). Even after Brazil won, there was no complaint. It became an issue when FIFA unexpectedly eliminated Suth America's half-spot. Suddenly it became an issue again because of the rage from South America. Now the issue has lost some of its fire, but is still there.

I agree that the winner should have to qualify. With more equality, the winner is no longer the theat for the next cup that it once was. Let them show they still belong. Brazil may not be as big a force in 3 years time (they were a bit of a suprise in 2002, and have been mediocre before) And after some qualifying, they'll be sharper. If the qualifying process is too long, as it obviously is in CONEMBOL, then change it. As well, with more countries competing and joining FIFA all over, qualifying spots become more valuable and should be put on the table for all to earn. Brazil may not deserve to be there as much as another country, for a hypothetical example a rejuvenated Colombia or or Czechoslovakia, whose spot might have been taken by an automatically qualified previous winner.

If France would had not qualified, it would not have been a loss to the tournament. It France would have, it might not have done so poorly due to lack of sharpness.

I also agree that a host has to automatically qualify. It would create a flat environment in the country hosting without a home team there.

This is one decision by FIFA that most can agree with, although it should have been discussed before.

[beachesl]

"Then Brazil ended the 98' WC in France as runner- ups and could have won it if the history was different."

Brazil didn't have the type of preparation necessary for 1998. Minor tournaments are not the same thing. As Canada found out to it's chagrin after winning the gold Cup in 2000, it means nothing when it comes to the World Cup Qualifying tournaments in the years leading up to the WC.

Brazil lost in 1998 due to overconfidence and the lack of steel (it might have gained in qualifying against desperate opposition in South America) when things started unravelling.

France offered no brilliance in 2002, Brazil offered no brilliance in 1966 and 1974, and Argentina offered only blackness in 1990. Some traditions should die when they detract from brilliance.

[Premium Hamatachi redded]

Originally posted by MIGkiller

Then Brazil ended the 98' WC in France as runner-ups and could have won it if the history was different.


what history was different?

[MIGkiller]

France offered no brilliance in 2002, Brazil offered no brilliance in 1966 and 1974, and Argentina offered only blackness in 1990. Some traditions should die when they detract from brilliance.

So how do you explain Brazil winning '62 after winning in '58? Or even Italy's '34 and '38 consecutive championships?

[MIGkiller]

Originally posted by Premium Hamatachi
what history was different?

I'm just saying that Brazil was just 1 victory away from winning the World Cup and throwing away this theory that teams that don't play qualifiers cannot have a good tournament. Some people say that just because Brazil was runner-ups in '98 they had a bad WC.

[beachesl]

Brazil's main preparation for France 1998 was Andorra. All they could do was nervously avoid making mistakes. They looked pretty shaky against Scotland for awhile also. And, what about against Norway? They didn't start to really fire until the second round.

Brazil's last preparation for 1994 was at least Canada. Remember Ongaro's glorious goal? They would have lost to Canada and maybe in the WC without the sharpness from the previous preparation from their South American brethern. Remeber the brilliance of Colombia and Bolivia during the qualifiers? Even mighty Brazil learned from that.

I have read from several sources that Brazil won in Chile in 1962 because of inferior oppositon available. The European nations were going through a mini-slump (the Soviet Union won the Euro Champions in 1960, for god's sake!). Brazil (or anyone else) has never been able to repeat as champions since then. Subsequent history might have well been different if they and other champions had had to requalify.

[tomvandamn]

This is a good thing.
even if they got in without having to qualify they still have to play friendlies so it might be competitive as well

portugal is playing friendlies know whenver euro qualifiers are on--since theyr hosting euro 2004


look at france in 02 no qualifying--- and they bombed

for euro 2004 their group is a joke but atleast their matches have a purpose in winning

[beachesl]

Yes, some friendlies CAN be competitive, but never as competitive as a World Cup qualifier. Especially qualifiers in South America. I lived in Colombia during the qualifiers for 1998. It was SOOOOOOO
intense.

Portugal has the advantage of actually being at home for Euro 2004, so there is natural fire in their belly, not to mention the desperation of the "Golden Generation" to finally succeed at their last chance. The preparation of qualifiers are less important there, and the friendlies have more of a quest factor to them. And Portugai has never won anything.

[pololo]

FIFA really sucks

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by beachesl

Brazil's last preparation for 1994 was at least Canada. Remember Ongaro's glorious goal? They would have lost to Canada and maybe in the WC without the sharpness from the previous preparation from their South American brethern. Remeber the brilliance of Colombia and Bolivia during the qualifiers? Even mighty Brazil learned from that.


The goal was from Eddie Berdusco. It certainly lit a fire under the Brazilians.

[DavidPablo]

The defending champion should definitely qualify automatically. In fact, this may be crazy, but I think the top three teams should qualify automatically. That would give some recogniton to the top teams, and would bring meaning that is now missing to the match for third place.

[DavidPablo]

Originally posted by tomvandamn


look at france in 02 no qualifying--- and they bombed


Yeah, but that is an exception to the rule. Two of the last four champions made the final the following world cup (Brasil 98 and Argentina 90 although they both lost). But before France when was the last time a defending champion did not make at least the second round? I go back in time up to the fifties and I cannot think of anybody. Maybe 02 is the first time it happened.

[fishbiproduct]

Originally posted by DavidPablo
But before France when was the last time a defending champion did not make at least the second round? I go back in time up to the fifties and I cannot think of anybody

Brazil, 1966.

[Excape Goat]

Originally posted by beachesl
In the early winter of 2002, the then French coach
publicly complained about the lack of serious preparation for the coming WC. He half-jokingly said that France should have had to qualify. It turned out to be doubly prophetic.

.

The French did not have to qualify in 1998 and won it.

[Excape Goat]

2002: France: France was horrible. Althrough they hit the post at least 3 times in all their games.....

1998: Brazil: Brazil played one poor game against France. The game against Norway was meaningless for Brazil. The PK was a bad call. It was not a bad WC Finals becasue they lost to the host in the Final.

1994: Germany lackeds new and younger players. Effenburg and Andy Muller were perhaps the only new faces. Muller had a long history for poor performance with the NT.

1990: Argentina also lacked good new players. Canniga was the only exception. Maradona was not the same player he was in 1986. Althrough they reached the Final, they were not impressive.

1986: Italy had a weak team. They were eliminated by a hot team, France.

1982: Argentina made one chance from 1978. It meant 4 years older. Maradona, the only new face, was too immature. Plus, they were eliminated by Brazil and Italy.

[MikeyPez]

I agree with taking away champs berth. I mean if you are a true champion you would qualify without that help. what other sport does the champ automatically qualify for the playoffs?

The host berth is for eniroment and gie the crowd sumin to cheer for. it also helps promote the game like it did in 94 here in the US. 02 like what it did for korea's and japans team!

[XaviusX]

I say, if they're going to take the defending Champions automatic Berth away, then they should take away the automatic Berth of the Host Country!!!! It's as simple as that!

[IASocFan]

The defending champion needs the competition to stay sharp. The host will have lots of opportunities for competition, because the qualifying countries will want experience playing in the host country. Remember the USA wanted to play Korea, even after they were drawn into the same group. I think it's wrong for the host country not to play in the World Cup - that should be one of the reasons they don't need to qualify, and also why the awarding of host countries is passed around.