So the draw takes place on 25 July, 2015. This thread is intended to discuss the draw procedure and the implications for each of the six regions (not to bicker about which region deserves more/less spots ). Feel free too to speculate about potential groups of death/life based on the seeding. Here is the format for CAF: Round 1: Lowest ranked 26 teams. 13 winners advance to the next round. Round 2: Top 27 teams + 13 winners from Round 1 = 40 teams. Round 3: Five groups of four teams = 20 teams. Presumably they will have the draw for the first 2 rounds on 25 July, but I'm not sure(?). Logically the seeding for the third round draw will only be determined when the second round is finished, but it isn't clear if that will indeed be the case. Since 5 teams ultimately qualify for the World Cup it means that only the group winners in Round 3 will make it to Russia.
CAF was posted above. I'll type about the other five confederations. AFC won't have anything done at the draw. They already started their first of two group stages. OFC changed the format from what was originally announced. The seven countries who don't have to play in Round 1 will make two groups of 4, with one group having a vacant spot for the Round 1 winner. CONCACAF will draw six aggregate series and determine who goes in what Semifinal group. The Semifinals have three groups of 4, with 2 teams in each group starting in the Semifinals. CONMEBOL needs to determine the order of matches but has only one group and it is already known that everybody will play everybody else twice. UEFA will make nine groups of 5 or 6 with most of them having 6. The first thing done at the draw will be the pairings for the November 2017 interconfederational playoffs.
For UEFA, the seeding for the group-stage draw would be based on FIFA rankings. Notables who are not in the highest-seeded pot include Italy & France. Notables who are in pot 1 include Romania & Wales. Notables in pot 3 include Poland & Ukraine. Turkey is probably the best in pot 4. So potential group of death would be: Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey. Potential group of life: Wales, Iceland, No. Ireland, Estonia, Moldova, San Marino (Gibraltar is not a FIFA member) Remember the worst second-place finisher get eliminated, so will be interesting to see where France and Italy end up.
And this is why UEFA needs to figure out how to run a prelim qual stage around Euro for non-qualifying teams. More teams out earlier=fewer groups=more talent concentration=less probability of FIFA rankings messing with relative group strengths. Putting the top 20 or so in 6 groups provides for a greater likelihood for the groups to balance one another out.
Top 20 wouldn't do it because then there would be a strong liklihood that big teams wouldn't advance to that final stage, which is even worse. But yeah... I get your thinking and I agree. Top 42 would be around the optimal number for the final stage to reduce the impact of the FIFA rankings. Seven groups of six, top 2 qualify from each group.
Great idea, but direct that give 14 teams qualifying? Need 13? 36 teams. 6*6, with top 2 advancing, plus the top 2 3rd place teams play off for the last spot?
I didn't explain myself well. Top 20 is pretty much where 85% of the final WC teams come from in UEFA. With 9 groups, you're at the mercy of a bad ranking system and a lottery. The odds were 1/3 last time of a group containing a big team from Pot A + France in B + real quality in C like Bosnia, Belgium, etc. At least one would have NQ'd before quals started. Those are unacceptably high odds. I'd actually be in favor of taking the 29 non Euro qualifiers and culling them to 6 in initial group stages run prior to and during Euro when those teams aren't playing anyway. You might get unlucky and not qual for Euro16, but if you can't win a depleted group to get to the main qual round, you're not WC worthy anyway. That would leave 5 groups of 6 for the end. Top 2 get in. Best third place also in. Bottom 4 3rds in a home-away playoff. There still might be a case where there are 4 really good teams for 2.5 spots, but the odds are halved. Kind of like flipping a coin heads 4 times in a row rather than 3. Also, with better group depth, teams finishing 4th don't have as much to complain about as a 3rd place team now. They're getting 10 matches v quality to make a case. Currently, teams are getting as few as 4-6 quality matches to do the same. Bigger match sample vs WC caliber teams = more chances to make your case.
Yes, that is an ideal format. The only issue I can think of is that there aren't enough int'l matchdays to pull it off. This format would require 14 matchdays (1o for the group stage and 4 for the playoff) not counting the preliminary phase and there are only 12 available between September 2016 and the World Cup draw in late-2017.
The playoff would need only 2 matchdays. The four third place teams other than the best one would have two spots in the World Cup (2 + best third place + top two in each group = 13), so they would only need one round of playoffs. There are 16 available matchdays, with 2 during each of these 8 periods according to http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/Tou.../IMC2014-2018FIFAversionv1Apr2015_Neutral.pdf 29 August-6 September 2016 3-11 October 2016 7-15 November 2016 20-28 March 2017 5-13 June 2017 28 August-5 September 2017 2-10 October 2017 6-14 November 2017
The main group stage and playoffs would use the current dates (10 for group and two for playoffs). The initial group phase would need FIFA approval for non-Euro teams to use dates around the Euro: 3 matches Euro qualifiers use pre tourney plus the open dates during the actual tourney. There are 4 pairs of those. Considering these teams aren't playing in the major tournament and 75% of them wouldn't get the normal 10 match qualifiers post Euro for WC, it's not placing an undue burden on the players themselves. It would kind of suck for a good team that trips on qualifying for Euro, but if you're a top 10 UEFA team and you get yourself into a mess by not qualifying for a 24-team tourney, you have only yourself to blame.
Something similar might end up happening for 2022. Multiple stage formatting was on the UEFA agenda last year, and leadership said they'd bring it up again next year. I think they've come to the realization that they can't take shortcuts to identify the last 3-4 teams in a WC given the relative performance declines the last couple WCs. It's important to them to get a system that does a better job of getting the best teams in the 32, because the days of just any team coming out of teams 11-20, getting to the WC, and having a legit shot at R16 are probably over. They can't reasonably expect that anymore without the luck if a weak draw in a group in the WC.
Another piece of info: England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands have to be placed in 6-team groups (in bold are the countries in pot #2). As a reminder, there will be 7 groups of six a and 2 groups of five. So England, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands will be the top seed in 4 out of 7 six-team groups. This increases the chances of a group of death: i.e. France and/or Italy being paired with Germany, the Netherlands or Spain. Although, I guess that depends on who you view as the best top seeded teams. But now there is a 1-in-7 chance of Italy drawing Germany, for instance (rather than 1-in-9).
Boca, I am ignorant as to why this would be. I assume it has to do with FIFA world rankings. Could you be so kind as to elaborate a little, please? Thanks.
The 6-team group rule for those teams has to do with commercialization opportunities rather than the rankings. They're the most followed teams, so 10 matches rather than 8 is good for UEFA broadcast rights. It's also good for the gate receipts of minnow opponents in that 6th pot. A home match vs. France can bring a lot of cash for the Andorras of the world.
Inter Continental Playoffs: CONCACAF v AFC, OFC v CONMEBOL. This is the most fair it could get in my opinion.
considering what would be the lightest possible group in UEFA something among these lines? Wales Iceland Northern Ireland Faroe Islands Moldova Andorra anyone lighter?
Why would Israel/Turkey join the Europe draw if they dont have to? Wouldnt their chances be better if they belonged to the African or Asian federations? Kazakhstan shares a border with China, yet is part of the Europe draw
Group I is the lightest possible for Ukraine to advance from I think. We might win this one. Croatia and Turkey are tricky but every opponent is well beatable. I do not want to see us fail at the play-off stage for 6th time...
Africa (CAF) obviously wasn't an option for any of them. The former Soviet countries could choose between AFC and UEFA. Kazakhstan wanted to stay in UEFA. Maybe because of the more attractive opponents? Israel wasn't wanted in AFC anymore. Several other middle eastern countries refused to play against them. Turkey prefers the better competition in UEFA.
Well, Kazakhstan could choose (like Turkey, by the way) because a portion of that country is geographically in Europe. This option was not available to Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, or Uzbekistan.
From a Newby here. I agree. Especially A. Netherlands, France and Sweden. That's a group of death. Netherlands as a nation doesn't seem to stay way up for long periods. So, if they fall a little, France is ?? right now. Sweden missed in the UEFA playoff last time. One of them will be out. One will need a playoff. Wow. D, E, I the ones where anything could happen and some little country end up in the UEFA playoff or even win the group. C, H the clearest open door for the big dogs. Right? Interesting that the Doomsday Scenario happened and both France and Italy were drawn into groups with other big nations.