More so, on respect to both of those teams : For Copa América 2015, played here in Chile, Bolivia made it to quarters, basicly by defeating Ecuador and getting a draw against Mexico, at group phase. For Copa America Centenario (2016), played in the USA, Venezuela defeated both Uruguay and Jamaica, and still got a draw against Mexico (playing in USA, for Mexico is almost like playing at home), only to lose at quarters vs. Argentina (a few months later they scraped a 2 goal draw against them playing at qualifiers). I agree that New Zeland's performance during the 2010 WC, was great, but that's not their normal performance, (reasons why that particular performance was outstanding). Their most normal performance is how they did against Mexico for the 2014 WC, results that hardly ever both Bolivia or Venezuela would get playing Mexico.
With 55 teams qualifying ... 9 groups (1 with 7 teams) is a big no-no ... so yes, it will probably be 10 group winners + 5 playoff winners among second-place teams, like you said BocaFan ... however I'm guessing Uefa will get 17 berths with some "you know it could have been worse/16" nonsense ... Infantino, Mr. Inclusivity, didn't sound too keen on Uefa minnows diluting his expanded WC monstrosity ... still he might let 2 in "as a sweetener" ... instead of 4 qualifying play-offs berths, like for EURO2020, 2 berths for teams that are in the top divisions and failed to qualify via the regular Qs. Ceferin: "UEFA was the only confederation that didn’t want expansion but we had no chance. So we’ve decided to fight for as many European slots as possible. We’re calling for at least 16 slots, that would be the worst-case scenario." I'm starting to warm to this fella ... Ceferin: "You know, I didn’t come here so that everyone says: ‘Čeferin changed this and that, he was very important.’ Why should we change the most beautiful game in the world? Hearing all these suggestions, we can only hope that FIFA leaves us the ball. Or at least that the ball remains round."
recent NZ's participation in youth WCs NZ in U20 WCs 2007 - last in our group - 3 losses 2009 - Tahiti qualified - NZ finished behind New Caledonia 2011 - 3rd in group - 2 draws vs Uruguay and Cameroon - finished ahead of Uruguay 2013 - last in our group - 3 losses 2015 - Host nation - 3rd in group (1 draw v Ukr, 1 win vs Myammar) - qualified as one of third best teams and lost to Portugal 2-1 we have been to 4 out of the past 5 U20 WCs in 4 attempts we have finished last twice in our groups and managed to get past group stage once (on home soil and as best 3rd place team) I would be interested to see if in 2017 we can repeat what we did at home in 2015...but something tells me it will be a repeat of 2013 NZ in U17 WCs 2007 - last in our group - 3 losses 2009 - 3rd in our group above CR - qualified as one of the 3rd best teams to R16 - lost 5-0 to Nigeria 2011 - 3rd in our group - qualified as one of the 3rd best teams to R16 - lost 6-0 to Japan 2013 - last in our group - 3 losses 2015 - 2nd in our group - lost 1-0 to Brazil in R16 5 attempts usually 3rd or 4th in group - usually trashed in R16, however 2015 was a good year (this team will probably go to next U20 WC) lets see what 2017 brings in U17 esentially NZ has played in 9 out of the last 10 youth world cups...we have finished above 3rd place in one occasion, have we improved with our constant participation? hard to say....
I would only agree that every region of the world should be represented at the World Cup. But confederations shouldn't be confused with geographical regions. OFC is probably the most OVER-represented region in FIFA tournaments already. No need to exaggerate the problem even further. The middle-east - a region with many bigger countries and stronger football nations compared to OFC are given no guarantees of representation at the WC, or any FIFA tournament for that matter. Ditto for the Caribbean, eastern Europe, central Asia, heck, even North America!
nope put NZ in the conmebol qualification and they would finish dead last, we dont even have a profesional league
they played Mexico (a bad Mexico) and got a beating in last Confed cup participation (prior to 2010 WC) they got a beating from Spain, could not match a mediocre South Africa and drew with Iraq 2010 WC was a anomaly in NZ football
I have a fairly good knowledge of New Zealand football and will agree that the performance in 2010 was at the peak of their cycle, but I also think their performance against Mexico was at the bottom end and not their average. I think you are wrong when you say that is their normal level of performance. When we were in OFC we traded championships with them. On average they are better than you believe, but then as its only opinions I think that is far as I take this argument. I don't think we will persuade each other as there just aren't enough comparative results to make a solid argument.
I think you are down rating your abilities. The world cup in 2010 was your peak, but your down periods aren't your average performance. You may come last today, but I don't think you will do so always.
Whether you like it or not, FIFA recognises OFC as a Confederation and not a region. It was almost a unanimous vote to do so with only one country voting against.
They have had some big wins in qualifying matches but as they are in group play maybe you don't notice them as much. Poor results in 2013 hex but the two previous qualifying campaigns include home away results of 6-2 (2009 Honduras who qualified), 5-0 (2009 Costa Rica who lost a playoff against Uruguay). 7-2 (2005 Guatemala who finished fifth) 6-1 (2005 Panama who came 6th). You would have to go to earlier rounds to find wins that match the six goal margin against New Zealand, but there are plenty of big results in the Hex, which are the better teams, as you can see.
The irony being that every other country then acted like it was the fault of that country from then on. Until we quit. J
And anyway, the difference between 1 and 1.5 really only affects NZ. Anybody else will lose in a play-off (and if they win, the whole "OFC sux" point is sort of invalidated) - and so it's only in the event that (like that Confed Cup time) NZ lose the OFC section they would be getting a second chance that they might be expected to be competitive in. J
It's a fair argument, which I can accept. Anyhow, after doing some research, the only match I found between New Zeland vs. any of the other 2 Conmebol teams, actually was vs. Venezuela, from not too long ago (March 2007), a friendly match played in Venezuela, which finished with the home team "creaming" the kiwi's by 5 - 0.
Yes, which is why I don't see the logic that every confederation should be represented at the WC. Why?
Then why did you specifically refer to it as a region (and underlined it), rather than what it is. You also stated each region should be represented. You know exactly why each Confederation should be represented, its just that you think that OFC shouldn't because they are the weakest and their teams wont always be competitive. Just about every Confederation sends teams that turn out not to be competitive at almost every world Cup. (Conmebol rarely does but they are the exception). Why do you set the bar higher for OFC?
It is - Wilson is a great writer. However, it sort of explains why this is happening - greed. And not greed in the sense of bribes and stuff, but greed in the sense of 'greed is good' mentality. In the corporate world, if something isn't getting bigger it is going backwards and risking its relevance. A company makes record profits, but if there isn't scope for it to make even more profits next years its management will be called into question and its share price fall. If something 'could' make more money then people will act to ensure that it does make more money - often regardless of whether those who need or consume the product currently want that or will be made worse off. The pressures are there in everything these organisations face every day. You might think it's crazy that FIFA would risk its 'golden goose' by bloating it up to 48 teams - and in many ways you are right - but don't think that they haven't been bombarded with analysis and spreadsheets and outside advisers who will point to the need to maximise revenues from every point of the globe. As the article points out, the old FA Cup 3rd round used to be 32 games played largely over just 2 hours on a Saturday afternoon in January. Now those games are spread out over close to a week and a number of time slots - bloat, bloat - but you extract revenue multiple times. Premier League matches run from mid-day to 8pm Friday to Monday - bloat - but you extract revenue multiple times - and play in better times for other markets around the globe, expansion is vital. World Cup - bloat, bloat, bloat - but again, you can expect it's backed up by someone telling them it will make more money. The only point I disagree with here is that expansion is the nail in the coffin of the international game. The nail in the coffin will be irrelevance. And not irrelevance to you and me, but irrelevance to those that hold the purse strings. The important point is not quality (or even fairness) it's revenue potential. J
Because I see the logic behind every region of the world being represented in the *World* cup. I just don't see the same need to have every confederation represented. When OFC members and countries in Oceania were the same group of countries it made sense. But if countries in Oceania are playing in other confederations that's where the need to have a representative from OFC stops, imo.
Exactly - and like it or not, we aren't anywhere near that point yet. I remember when Jamie Trecker was writing on FOX Sports a decade ago claiming that national-team football had one foot in the grave, to say nothing of the journalists ready to label the WCs in South Africa and Brazil as unmitigated disasters, before FIFA went and squeezed ridiculous profits and TV ratings out of both.