[goliath74]

Originally Posted by scotch17

Judging by your WCQs (and I watched several games including Iceland and Norway) you would have struggled to make it through round 3 of AFC (depends on the draw) and *at best* would be in Bahrains current situation.
Getting beat by Macedonia, failing to be Norway when you had them on the ropes, then getting pumped by Norway because of Caldwell... you wouldn't have directly qualified for WC through AFC.
Scotland is about the same level as Bahrain (when Bahrain isn't being jammy).

Since I have seen both Scotland and Bahrain, let me assure you, Bahrain is far below Scotland. In fact, Latvia and, possibly, Lithuania, would have been favorites to beat Bahrain, as well...

[scotch17]

Originally Posted by goliath74

Since I have seen both Scotland and Bahrain, let me assure you, Bahrain is far below Scotland. In fact, Latvia and, possibly, Lithuania, would have been favorites to beat Bahrain, as well...

Tell me again what accomplishment or result Scotland has in the last campaign that Bahrain couldn't duplicate.

[goliath74]

Originally Posted by scotch17

Tell me again what accomplishment or result Scotland has in the last campaign that Bahrain couldn't duplicate.

Like defeating Iceland IN ICELAND, drawing Norway, beating Macedonia, losing to netherlands only 0:1, drawing Croatia in a friendly, losing to Argentina only 0:1 in a friendly.

Compare these with Bahrain's last 20 or so matches.

[vancity eagle]

saying Bahrain is equal to Scotland is ridiculous, are we really arguing that a team who couldn't beat New Zealand at home is better than or equal to a team who beat France home and away in the euro qualifying.

[scotch17]

Originally Posted by goliath74

Like defeating Iceland IN ICELAND, drawing Norway, beating Macedonia, losing to netherlands only 0:1, drawing Croatia in a friendly, losing to Argentina only 0:1 in a friendly.

Compare these with Bahrain's last 20 or so matches.

Truly impressive feats to lose by 1 goal. When you play like Scotland or Bahrain you rarely lose by 2 goals or more.
No I think Bahrain could match all of those.

But here is the scenario I already lined up for you -- let's say Scotland replaces Bahrain in WCQs. They'd be, at best, in the same spot as Bahrain right now. Just like Bahrain, Australia and Japan both would've taken 6 points off you.

[goliath74]

Originally Posted by scotch17

Truly impressive feats to lose by 1 goal. When you play like Scotland or Bahrain you rarely lose by 2 goals or more.
No I think Bahrain could match all of those.

But here is the scenario I already lined up for you -- let's say Scotland replaces Bahrain in WCQs. They'd be, at best, in the same spot as Bahrain right now. Just like Bahrain, Australia and Japan both would've taken 6 points off you.

I think Scotland splits with Australia and takes 4-6 points off Japan.

[scotch17]

Originally Posted by goliath74

I think Scotland splits with Australia and takes 4-6 points off Japan.

Australia took 4 points off Netherlands. How did Scotland do against them again?
Japans B side blew Scotlands' B side to pieces. 2-0, something like 70% possession and 17 shots to 1.
That may not say a whole lot to you -- but in AFC, countries often play with their B sides because some WCQs and ACQs fall on non-FIFA dates and/or because the NTs are trying to keep amicable relationships with Euro players clubs. If you can't win with your B side, you won't progress in AFC. That's a fact.

[Suyuntuy]

Originally Posted by goliath74

Since I have seen both Scotland and Bahrain, let me assure you, Bahrain is far below Scotland. In fact, Latvia and, possibly, Lithuania, would have been favorites to beat Bahrain, as well...

I have also seen both play.

Scotland a year ago would have been better than Bahrein.

Right now, they are even, IMO.

Some people follow circular logic here:

1) Federation X is stronger than Federation Y because Federation X has stronger countries.

2) Country A is part of Federation X, Country B is part of Federation Y.

3) From 1) and 2), it follows Country A is stronger than Country B.

Well, no, it doesn't work that way. They have to play each other to know. At best, we can venture a guess.

[Dr. Gamera]

Originally Posted by tomwilhelm

All true. But they could at least develop a less irritating qualification system.

What less-irritating qualification system for CAF would you propose? I am genuinely curious. CAF does not seem to be like UEFA, where one can greatly improve the qualification system (in theory -- ignoring political and financial considerations) by just greatly reducing the number of games against minnows.

[goliath74]

Originally Posted by scotch17

Australia took 4 points off Netherlands. How did Scotland do against them again?
Japans B side blew Scotlands' B side to pieces. 2-0, something like 70% possession and 17 shots to 1.
That may not say a whole lot to you -- but in AFC, countries often play with their B sides because some WCQs and ACQs fall on non-FIFA dates and/or because the NTs are trying to keep amicable relationships with Euro players clubs. If you can't win with your B side, you won't progress in AFC. That's a fact.

Scotland beat France twice in the 2008 Euro qualification. How do you think Australia or Japan would have done? Not well, that's how.

And let's not bring B sides into the question. B sides mean absolutely nothing. Everything is decided by the first teams.

Also, when did Australia take 4 points off Netherlands? Please name a tournament(s) where that happened.