World Cup 2014 berths from each federation

Spain 1982 Worldcup
(For CONMEBOL, second tier teams)

Peru, had a better performance, they had a draw against Cameroon, a draw against Italy (World Champion, afterwards that year), and lost to Poland (Third, that year). Of course eliminated, but for their behalf against two of the teams that won the two final games that WC.

Chile, one word..
Disappointing........

Although for those qualifications we won 7 points out of 8 possibles, we all felt as we were Gods, afterwards the Federation made a route of friendlies of almost 25 games, where we won most of them too, by high scores, but we all let our federation fool us all, since most of those games were against weak teams that didn`t put any dificulty in achieving victories against them.

82, was our worst WC presentation ever.
it`s a shame we lost the 3 games there and one of our greatest striker from all times, Mr. Caszely missed a pk (he kicked it out), in the first match against Austria, when the score was still on zero on both sides.

After that game against Austria, which we lost 0-1, we started waking up and realized we were only living a dream, but since 2 games were left we were going to revert the odds in our favor. Our next game was against West Germany, and once the game started we showed everybody that we were going to play our game, attack that is. It felt good to attack West Germany during the whole game, I think that the West German players that day were part of the spectators, but each time we lost the ball, Mr. Rummenigge and friends with absolute ease scored on us...... we lost 1-4. At the final game, despite our will, most of the alternative players had their chance, since for us that WC was over, Algeria also showed us that our dream was a very good one, since we lost 2-3, both of our goals made by Juan C. Letelier, Mr.Caszely`s substitute, but for Algeria`s disgrace, Austria and W.Germany, knowing in advance the result of our game, arranged a 1-0 result with W.Germany over Austria, that would eliminate Algeria, who was probably one of the best teams of that WC, who beat the West Germans 2-1 at the begining. Fortunately for us, if there was any good thing good about it, its that we didn`t have any involvement in that lousy anti-football, anti sportsmanship attitude taken by those teams. We lost them all.
I guess that after that game, is when FIFA decided that final games in group phase within a group, must be played at the same time.

 

Overall, Asia, South America and North America did good job so they deserve extra berths no matter what.
I can't understan why there are some people who disagree with that.

 

Anyways, World Cup 2014 berths should be revised.

There should be less berths allocated to UEFA and CAF.
Instead AFC, COMMEBOL, and CONCACAF deserve one extra each.

 

I actually disagree with you on your last comment, but I'm not quoting it to argue. Rather I think we are on similar trains of thought, and it is pretty much what lead to Conmebol's current qualifying format.

Let's use club competitions as an example. A 38 game double round robin is more likely to result in an accurate ranking of top 8 teams, then say a direct elimination cup. Somewhere in the middle of such a range, if you still have a double round robin, but this time in 4 small groups of 5 (identifying the top 8 as the 2 best in each group), you run the risk of having unbalanced groups, and a few quality teams not making it. And you can imagine many different variations on this format.

So in this case, while Chile over Brazil might have been a bad example, it certainly is possible. The Conmebol qualifiers for 1994 resulted in Colombia over Argentina in one group due to the famous 5-0 in Buenos Aires (with Argentina going to a playoff vs Concacaf/OFC). Meanwhile Brazil lead their group, but suffered their first qualifying loss, and finished only 1 point ahead of Bolivia and 2 ahead of Uruguay. Lo and behold, Conmebol adopted the long round robin format for 1998. In small groups, anything can happen. And unfortunately with evenly matched teams, qualifying can come down to whether you beat the minnows by 7 goals instead of 6 (as Rickdog can attest to- think of 1990 qualifiers, if the Roberto Rojas incident hadn't happened).

All of this to say while I am sympathetic to the logistical nightmare of trying to impose anything close to a full round robin with large confederations, I also think that UEFA, AFC, etc. will continue to leave strong teams at home if they keep their current group formats. The biggest problem is fitting in a longer format while still accounting for qualifying matches for Confederation tournaments as well.

As a secondary solution, I do agree with (your agreement) on intercontinental playoffs involving UEFA. In keeping with Fifa's "spirit of globalization" I'd say they shouldn't allow more than 16 UEFA teams in a 32 team WC, but having a 10-16 slot range, with 6 half-spots earned through intercontinental matches, seems reasonable.

 

Yes for those qualifiers (1990), Chile had to play in Group 3 of CONMEBOL, against Brazil and Venezuela, where strangely, only 2.5 spots were asigned for CONMEBOL out of 24 , besides Argentina who classified as past World champion, so from groups 1 and 3 who won classified directly, while the winner of group 2 had to play against the winner of OFC a play-off.

Many irregular things happened those qualifiers, which passed to a second level, after the bengal incident, that this time I will tell you some.

Nobody expected that Chile would do such a good performance against Brazil, but there was always a ghost about what happened in the America Cup of 1987, where in group phase the same opponents were faced against each other (Brazil, Chile and Venezuela), where the unexpected occured, when Chile beat Brazil by 4-0 , so the mood for those qualifiers was strange. Against Venezuela as visitors Brazil won 4-0 while Chile won 3-1, then came the match in Chile against Brazil, where the first half of the game was more like a boxing ring than a football match, which ended with both teams with 10 players. At the begining of the second half, a stupid play among two Chilean defenders (where have I seen something similar ? ...... Oh yes, against Spain this WC ), ended with a goal on Brazils favor, but 7 minutes till the end of the game, in a foul made by the Brazilians near their goal, most of their defenders started arguing with the referee, but the Chileans played fast the ball and we scored the goal. The match ended 1-1. For the last round and due to the many incidents in the Santiago match, CONMEBOL and/or FIFA, in one of the most bizarre decissions, which many Chileans, me included, think that it was more to favor Brazil in order to not have a WC without Brazil in it, than to punish Chile, punished Chile by not letting it play the final game against Venezuela in Chile, so we were forced to play in a neutral stadium. Before that game, Brazil playing in Brazil beat Venezuela by 6-0, and when it was Chile`s turn, in the game played at Mendoza, Argentina, Chile despite the odds beat Venezuela by 5-0, so for the last match against Brazil in Brazil, the only score that can classify Chile would have to be, a win. Once the game among us started, it was obvious that Chile didn`t have it, Brazil superiority over Chile was overwhelming, so no one got surprised when they made the goal. Then came the bengal incident and the biggest shame that the Worlds Football had to suffer through it, and of course we were eliminated and punished after that for the next 5 years to come, included our participation in the next qualifiers.

 

I'd have trouble accepting an argument over multiple World Cups which focused on lucky draws. The team you face in the round of 16 is partly determined by how you do in the group stage and every one of the tough draws mentioned above stemmed from a team finishing second in their group (actually third in the case of Uruguay in 1986). Even Colombia in 1990 finished third in their group, got a fairly fortunate draw and then lost.

Obviously UEFA has more teams, so it would be pretty unlikely for UEFA not to have both more successful second tier teams over the years and more badly performing ones. The post was to counteract this notion that second tier UEFA teams never do anything and second tier CONMEBOL teams tend to go far in the tournament - something that was true in 2010, but not in the 7 previous World Cups.

 

The other fact that you always seem to forget, its that usually whenever the WC is held in a CONMEBOL country, always 2 of the semifinalists have been from CONMEBOL, which at least have won at least two of the final games against UEFA teams, exception 1930, where only one game was disputed, which was won by the CONMEBOL team. When actually since the begining of WC history, this has happened only four times (Uruguay 1930; Brazil 1950; Chile 1962; Argentina 1978), being almost half of all the WC disputed in Europe, which adds another favourable issue on UEFA in disregard to CONMEBOL. For every WC disputed since 1978 till now (82; 86; 90; 94; 98; 02; 06; 10; = 8 WC`s), none of the recent WC`s where more than 16 teams participated in them, was disputed in a CONMEBOL country. While as always, half of them has been played in an UEFA country.

 

This is something a lot of people forget. Conmebol have a good record in playoffs, only losing one in 2006 in recent times, but that is mainly due to being very strong at home. Uruguay's win in Costa Rica is the only away playoff win I can remember, and I can't remember any in recent times where the CONMEBOL nation won both legs. It may be tougher for the 6th nation, but if they win a playoff its hard to argue they don't deserve the spot.

 

It is not all luck, but there is some luck involved. Let look at some of the second round draws second and third place Uefa teams who made the quarters have received. In 86, third place Belgium gets Soviet Union. In 90, second place Czecks get Costa Rica, second place Ireland gets Romania. In 94, second places Sweden and Bulgaria get Saudia Arabia and Mexico. In 98, second place Denmark get Nigeria, second place Croatia gets Romania. In 02, second place Turkey gets Japan. In 06 second place Ukraine gets Switzerland. Not one world power. Not one previous or future WC winner.

Now compare the above to the second round draws littered with finalists and world powers in my first post. Other than the Colombia-Cameroon game, every Euro second and third place Euro above received an easier draw and any of the second tier R16 Conmebol teams. Now I suspect if you flip flop the second round opponents above with the those in my first post you would see more Conmebol QF teams and fewer Eufa QF teams. Surely you can agree that the draw has been much kinder to second and third place second tier Euros than it has been to second and third place second tier Conmebol teams. Just as I can agree that until this WC, second tier Eufa teams have advanced further than second tier Conmebol teams and whomever suggested otherwise was obviously wrong.

 

But for examples like these you can look at the opposite side of the coin and have, for instance, Romania winning their group in 1994 and drawing Argentina in the second round (who they beat), or Denmark winning their 1986 group and getting Spain in the second round, or Denmark winning their 2002 group and getting England.

You're also only looking at games that second tier UEFA sides won. There are countless examples of second tier UEFA sides drawing a tough team in the second round and losing (just like the CONMEBOL sides did) so there's not much justification for saying that the draw overall has been kinder.

Luck plays a part in a given tournament, no doubt about it, but over the course of numerous World Cups it tends to even itself out.

 

I was specifically replying to you comment that because those Conmebol teams did not win their group, that naturally they would have tough second round games. It is under that hypothesis you should read my post. I demonstrated that many Eufa teams who did not win their group and made the quarters had much "easier" second round games.

Yes there is. It is true that many non-group winning second tier Euro did get a tough team in the second round and lose. It is also true that many got "easy" games as I demonstrated. The same criteria Conmebol teams have only had ONE "easy" game in that time period, against Cameroon. Seven opportunities and only one "easy" game.

The Euros we are discussing have had enough teams in the tournaments to get every matchup imaginable. So yes luck has evened out for Europe, but not Conmebol, who have seen, except for Cameroon, only world powers in their second round games. Please demonstrate to me where second tier non group winning Conmebol teams have run into any second tier team in the second round, like several Euros have. Out of seven games, six world powers and Cameroon. That distribution is really skewed against them.

Ideally over several WC things will even out. But Conmebol is a statistical anomaly in this case. To summarize here are the four possible categories of second round matches with the experimental group of the criteria in question listed first.

Euro-"easy" team
Euro-World power
Conmebol-"easy" team
Conmebol-World Power

Only the Conmebol-"easy" team is a population of 1. All others have many examples.

 

Ultimately if you're making an argument here, you're trying to argue either that CONMEBOL teams have been unlucky with their draws. I don't think it's particularly unlucky to finish second/third and get a tough draw - if things went according to seedings then it would happen almost every time.

Rather, it's lucky to finish second and not get a top team in the R16. However if we were to move the argument on to UEFA teams being fortunate with their draws, then there is some relevance in the fact that several teams who did top their group ended up with tough matches regardless (i.e. they were unlucky). As you said, the UEFA pattern generally evens itself out.

I don't know what the overall rate of second/third placed teams getting tough draws would be, but ultimately you can't complain if it happens to your team in a given world cup. It's essentially the tournament going according to seeding. Cameroon is obviously an exception in that regard.

 

I agree. I was speaking relatively, but yes, the expected baseline should be a tough draw. And yes, some Euro group winners have been unlucky. With the Euros, the pattern sas evened out, some lucky teams and some unlucky teams. Conmebol has yet to experience any of the good luck.

I agree, one cannot complain about a tough draw if not topping the group. But one can recognize that a combination of smaller sample size and a statistical anomaly has not given this subset of Conmebol teams the same range of opponents as their second place Euro peers. Perhaps over the next few cups things will even out for them. Though it is less likely now that we have 8 groups instead of 6, no more second-second matchups.

 

I quote myself here, since nobody took in account the facts I posted here, which also puts things in retrospective, too.

 

I don't really subscribe to these ideas that whichever continent a World Cup is played in greatly favours all of the countries from that continent. I mean 1994 had 7 UEFA sides in the quarter final despite being in the US, which is more than there were in 1990 and 1998 (in UEFA hosted World Cups).

It undoubtedly benefits the host country, but all of the host countries in UEFA during this period have been top nations (Spain, Italy, France, Germany) and we're discussing second tier nations here. It could have some effect in terms of similar weather conditions/how easy it is for fans to travel, but as far as I'm concerned far too much weight tends to be placed on these things.

Maybe in the past it had more relevance because of travel/other issues. In 1930, for instance (one of your examples) hardly any UEFA sides actually went to the tournament, whilst most of CONMEBOL competed. In 1950 Europe was a warzone. These are hardly particularly fair examples or evidence for a "home continent" advantage in CONMEBOL.

In modern tournaments the "home continent" advantage, if it ever existed, has lessened. Travel is much less of an issue and countless South American players live and play in Europe in any case (so are travelling from the same place).

 

Exactly, my friend. The travel issue was decissive in the past for a better performance, together with the change of conditioning for the players that made the trip for both Conferences. Remember that, northen and south hemysphere are in opposite seasons too, which also means that there is a period of adaptation. Sometimes it is not only the players, but the possibility of each team to have decent numbers of fans in the stadium to cheer you up what makes the diference. Of course this was more relevant in the past, but for now days it has been minimized, but still exists, but as for the last 8 WC disputed, none have been held in South America, so the odds in modern day WC (with more than 16 teams in it) have never been favourable for CONMEBOL teams. Take also in account, that from all the WC disputed, only the ones of CONMEBOL and this last one in South Africa, actually have been the only ones played in the Southern hemysphere, all the rest have been in the Northen hemysphere. It still remains the fact, that no team diferent from CONMEBOL have won in any WC disputed within South America.

Btw, if it depended on me, Spain only recently due to their recent WC title won the condition of top tier. Before 2010, it was another second tier team, who even when the WC was played in their home was unable to qualify to semifinals, an issue that only CONMEBOL countries that have had the possibility to organize a WC, have achieved. The same goes for Uruguay, who has lost this condition, since from 1970 till only this WC had a long period where they literally disapppeared from being at least present regularly in the WC. The same could be said about other countries who never won the WC, but only were top tier in part of football history, like Hungary and Checoslovaquia. No one can deny that both of these teams were among the best in their times, if not the best, but were unable to win a WC when they should have (1954 and 1934 respectively).

I`m not going to say that always there has been equilibrium among both Conferences, because that would be absurd. from the beginning of Football history, there has always been more UEFA top tiers teams, reason also why it has been fair to have a bigger representation in every WC, but for the reasons of this topic, what is important its not about them what matters, but more in relation to the teams that weren`t top tier, as it is now, where second tier CONMEBOL countries outclassed clearly in the 2010 WC, their counterparts of UEFA, which should be taken in account at the time FIFA decides to give the berhs for each Conference for the next WC.

The issue were we most agree, is that more Interconference berths should be available as what has been in the past, to minimize the diference among the diferent Conferences.

 

Boy, its dificult to understand FIFA.

Maybe the only explanation I find about this info, is that the girls from CAF must be more pretty than their counterparts from UEFA .

 

Your claim is totally unilateral. Actually very illogical and unreasonable too.

In 2014, even if 3 European teams rached in the semi, 7 out of 13 European teams have gone home before Round 16. That means more than half of European participants were not good enough to participate in World Cup.
Such result decisively proves that UEFa should get their berths decreased from World Cup 2014.