It is enough to be sub-par just one cycle and you miss major finals. I like to point at Poland. Trhoughout the 70s-80s they had some very good WC performances. Yet, they just couldn't qualify for the EC.
When reading your arguments it sounds like being seeded is equal to a free pass to the World Cup. That's not true. If France or Portugal are indeed not as good as they used to and proved by reaching the semis of the last WC in matches against top teams, then "smaller" teams like Bosnia or Slovenia should be able to beat them. If they aren't, that just means that Bosnia and Slovenia are not good enough yet.
I agree with Neeskens. It strikes me as very interesting how fluid the pro-seededs opinions of the rankings actually are. When Slovenia finishes above a much higher ranked Czech Republic or Boznia beat the higher ranked Belgium and we use this as an example of achievement and of overcoming a challenge, we are quickly informed that these higher seeds are really poor teams and that finishing above them is of no consequence. Suddenly we're into the playoffs and the argument is that we absolutely must seed this part of the contest because the lower ranked teams need to "prove themselves" against "decent opposition". Even though one could legitimately argue that they've already achieved as much right at a shot in the WC as the seeded teams.
You sort of answered your question. But here is another couple of points: - There is a higher chance that a team like France or Portugal will actually get their act together by next year and play well thus elevating the whole level of the competition in quality and public interest. In the end, FIFA (and the game) is a business and we all know it. Interest #1`is making money. - And if teams like Bosnia and Slovenia and playing so well (and the French and Portuguese struggling so much) then they should have a decent chance.
Back then it was very hard to qualify for the EC, because it only featured 4 or 8 teams in the final round. Even Germany, the masters of qualification, failed to qualify for the EC once. Currently Bosnia is in a higher pot than Belgium. Not only because they beat them twice, but because Belgium lost to heavy weights Estonia and Armenia. In other words, Belgium now suck for several years and can't be considered a good pot 3 team. Beating them is not a great achievement. Also Bosnia only got 1 single point vs the pot 1 & 2 teams in their group. And again, if Bosnia and Slovenia etc. are so great and fantastic teams, you should be happy, that they can't draw each other but can instead play crappy France and even crappier Portugal and supper crappy Greece. But you aren't happy, because you know that the unseeded teams ARE weaker. And you only want the seeded teams losing, because of schadenfreude.
I think this entire thread is nonsense! Its UEFA's right and in its best interest to send to the World Cup their best 13 sides. If they seed teams based on FIFA's Ranking, then so be it. The fact is (perhaps opinions would have it) that France, Russia, and Portugal are probably the best sides not to qualify outright to the WC. Perhaps the real problem is the seeding is a bit unfair to Greece, Ukraine, and Bosnia- Herzegovina. All three could rightfully claim that "4th spot" in the seeding. All and all, R. Ireland and Slovenia will not be easy to by either. Its all a crap shoot. I guess by seeding the "top 3," UEFA can sleep good at night knowing they did everything to ensure the best presentation. If this still results in one or all being eliminated, so much the better. It may be a sign of a new era in European football. After all, WC'94 did just fine without the likes of France & ENGLAND. No to mention, Romania, Bulgaria and Ireland represented Europe extremely well. Overall, Europe does a pretty fair job of ensuring every nation an opportunity to qualify. If you want a true cutthroat conference, look no further than Africa. There is no reprieve! Pike
Equus caballus anus spillage. Fact is, as I previously pointed out, all seeds apart from the bottom ones are granted an advantageous position. I am clearly not essentially suggesting whatever the hell it is you're talking about; please do not put words into my mouth to try and prove your point-that's barroldinho's job. Yes because we know that FIFA want the football juggernauts of Greece and Portugal to stay on top. Yes because we all know what a global phenomenon Theofanis Gekas is. Or try to get to the top with results and stuff, y'know like Greece did. First of all, it's theoretically opponents who are tougher than them not theoretically tougher opponents. There's a difference. Secondly, this is all pointless theory. Football is about sea changes. The draw was made in 2007! Some teams will under-perform, some will over-perform, some will remain the same. Point being, it's impossible to tell which description applies to each second-placed candidate on the basis of what pot they came of and a meagre ten-game span. For example, France finished behind a pot C team, yet finished ahead of a pot B team...so what can be concluded from that? In my opinion, NOTHING. Thirdly, and in the same vein, just because teams are in the same pot, it does not mean they are of equal strength. Croatia got England and Ukraine in pots B and C, while I believe Macedonia got Scotland and Norway? Now I believe that Ukraine and England were higher ranked than the Scottish and Norwegians; even if I'm mistaken the point stands: you cannot ignore the disparity between sides from the same pot and you must stop overrating the top seeds' advantage based solely on theory. Fourthly, why reward the likes of Bosnia for overcoming a nation theoretically better placed based on the rankings and seeding system; yet ignore the fact that based on this same ranking and seeding system, France are better than Bosnia, Ireland, Ukraine and Slovenia and not reward them appropriately? CONTRADICTION! Finally, when the likes of Bosnia or Ireland outpoint higher seeds you label it an achievement on their part; Serbia and Denmark outpointing France and Portugal all of sudden is French and Portuguese failure. Bosnia 2-5 Spain. Those two Bosnian goals came in the 90th minute too. Any team that gets beaten 5-2 at home by overrated Spain are a joke. One point against Turkey. No points against Spain. What an outstanding qualifying campaign from the Bosnians! They've really upped their game! Seeding does not dictate(you mean indicate?) whom outperformed whom, it is an index system that does not watch football. Presumably Montenegro (bottom seeds/fifth) outperformed the Czech Republic (top seeds/third) too? And Switzerland outperformed Russia by usurping a first seed despite gaining less points? Or is this all worthless theory again? Non-seeding would just screw up the whole system; the domino effect would give us imbalanced qualifying groups down the line, then crappy teams showing up at World Cups more often, resulting in more mediocre World Cups. Putting aside dubious 'achievements', everything in qualifying worldwide is discounted apart from position; it's insignificant whom you finished above or below; it's insignificant how many points you have and it's insignificant which pot from which you emerged. Italy and Denmark each finished top of their groups but only Italy will be seeded at next year's World Cup. Similarly, France and Slovenia's positions corresponded, but they aren't treated equally and in fact to treat them equally would contradict the rankings, contradict the seedings for the next Euro qualifiers and contradict the World Cup seedings; in short, undermine the whole seeding and ranking project willy-nilly because some Eastern minnow had a spate of decent results. BAD. BAD. BAD. Of the 18 best placed, 16 were Pot A, B or C. Of the 18 best placed, 10 were Pot A or B. 12 out of 15 of FIFA's top Europeans have a chance of qualifying. Accurate, in the only slightly deviating sense of the word. It's not anywhere near the money. It's Valencia's transfer kitty. I did not imply. You hastily and cheekily inferred, sir. No. You have besmirched my reputation with your slander... But behind lower-ranked Slovakia...we have what exactly? And... Slovenia 0-0 Czech Rep. Czech Rep. 1-0 Slovenia Color me unimpressed. They'll all be shown up in a direct encounter. I'll make a wager with you. If all four seeds go through, you tip your hat to me. If two seeds go out, I'll tip my hat to you. If it's 3-1, we'll both tip our hats and be on our merry way. What do you say, old chum?
i think that group 1 was the hardest to qulifie from all the 9 in uefa denmark portugal sweden hugary albania malta portugal just about did well to finnish 2 cr7 missing few games injured
Yes, but it's also true that all candidates played crappy throughout the campaign. CR was also a non-factor. Barely decided games... We might become solid in the playoffs if CQ doesn't screw again and I still don't get what is the drama over this.
It's not about France being crappier than Slovenia, its about them not proving they are better. I'd like to hear your response to barroldinho's point above. You quoted this post but didn't address his point. I mean you must have a problem with the fact that the Czech Republic are eliminated, right?
Overall I'm pretty indifferent, because my country has already qualified. I don't know that the unseeded teams are weaker. I've seen Ukraine & Ireland put in some very good performances in this campaign and see nothing to say they can't get past any of the seeded teams. I'm not saying France and Portugal are crappy or that Boznia and Slovenia are fantastic, I'm saying that they have all achieved the same in qualifying. Doesn't the fact that Belgium lost to Pot E and F teams despite being drawn from Pot C just support that the seedings are flawed? Like I've said repeatedly: seeded or unseeded, the playoff would probably see a similar quality of team progress regardless, so in practice it makes little difference. In principal though, I think it's harsh to seed as it suggests a set of teams are more worthy of progress than the others, despite all finishing the same in the contest. So a draw designed to put the top seeds in groups where the rest are weaker is advantageous to the others how exactly? Like I've said, seeding groups at the start of a cycle of process is highly appropriate and while flawed, the groups should more-or-less even themselves out as the teams are selected. This doesn't change the fact though, that every Pot B, C, D, E & F team is participating in a group with at least one team ranked higher than them, competing for one automatic slot. No there isn't. The draw was made in 2007? This makes the results less relevant? Yet Frances efforts from 2006 are more relevant? Because based on recent success rates for that particular team, that's the only reason they are ranked high enough to be seeded. It's impossible to say who has under-performed, overperformed or stayed the same? A 1.5 year, ten game span is "meagre" to you? Which is it to be? Nothing? You can conclude that France didn't perform as well as Serbia and that Romania have been attrocious in this qualifying campaign. Again, very fluid assessment of the rankings. Ukraine and Norway were close, but I believe Norway were in front. However, Croatia were higher than both and had just dominated England in the Euro qualifiers. Interesting that you chose that group because Ukraine actually progressed from it. Yet Portugal barely got through a group containing Denmark and Sweden and you think it appropriate that Portugal get seeded in the following round? Discarding rankings altogether, that's a good case in itself for making this an open draw. As for your highlighted bit, I'm overrating nothing. I'm just using it as a demonstration of the fact that Boznia, Slovenia, Ireland and Ukraine's second places are as valid and valuable as France, Russia, Portugal and Greece's and that as a result an open draw would be fairer in the context of the competition. I didn't say to reward the unseeded teams, I've said to not reward the higher seeded teams. I've said do an open draw which treats everybody equally. Stop using semantics every post. You yourself are placing the unseeded in a position of inferiority. All I'm saying is that those teams have achieved a second place position. The seeded teams did no better than that. By finishing above the higher seeded teams, they have improved their standing whereas the Pot As that finished second have not. And regardless of group, qualifying for the WC in first place was and achievement. Don't be ridiculous. It's two games against teams of a fairly similar standard. It would barely dent the rankings unless the qualifying teams did well at the Finals, in which case it would be deserved. That's different; it's the tournament-proper, where 19 other teams are added to the pot and will be split into groups. That's a more valid use of seeding. However, once those groups have been decided, nobody will be seeded again and will advance based on results. Sounds fair. I'll take that.
They didn't reach the second place, so they are of no concern to me. No, I only quoted a small part of it.
With your second paragraph you were responding to the entire post without really grasping the whole point of it though.
The seedings for the groups are just. You don't see anyone complaining about them. It's just more than a bit weird that there's a second seeding put in place to favour specific national teams the second time around in the same qualifying process. It's hard enough for unseeded teams in the UEFA zone to get a look in to start off with, and then they're not even rewarded for their performance in said qualifying process and get doubly hit. It just more than reeks of the powers that be favouring the traditional established football nations, and again I say that as a fan of a somewhat established football nation that has more than once been in a play off situation itself. If I don't think it's fair, then what the hell are the Slovenians of this world are going to think. Reputations shouldn't matter in a qualifying process. Current form should.
The world cup finalists weren't good enough at Euro 2008 even. Why should France be rewarded not once but doubly in a qualifying process for a performance they put in three years ago? If they are that good they should've ended top of their group. The seeding for the groups should've made it easy enough but it didn't. A tournament is a snapshot of a team's current form. If you're not going to take current form into account then why even bother with the qualifying process in the first place, just send teams on the basis of their reputation. This is turning pretty much into a farce if you ask me. FIFA wants the most marketable teams to be there, and for good measure they also want a couple of minnows there to prove their political correctness and to make sure that a bunch of people in obsure nations that Nike hasn't fully exploited yet get excited about the world cup, and everybody who doesn't fit into either of those two categories basically gets screwed. It's just a corrupt über commercialised mess where tier 2 European nations always lose out. And that in itself is highly ironic considering that UEFA is the be all and end all of the world cup in general.
At least the seeded teams aren't getting the second-leg at home. So its rigged but it could be worse.
They're not being rewarded for a performance three years ago. And where the hell were Slovenia, Bosnia, Ireland and Ukraine at Euro 2008? Conspiracy nut. Yes, a tad but that's football. It would be pretty miraculous if all the teams lived up to their seeding. I demonstrated how earlier but you ignored it to suit your own agenda... There is a difference. A)Teams theoretically tougher than them. B)Teams theoretically tougher. First poster to spot it gets repped! The seeding from 2007 is less relevant; because a lot has changed since then. In fact, I don't think the draw should have been made before Euro 2008, but that's neither here nor there. Yes, as I've said countless times. I would dispute that. True. But the point being, for example, if a pot D team finishes ahead of a pot B team and behind a pot E team, then there's no way of telling whether they've improved or not based on the pot seedings, is there? It's not a good method to evaluate teams so don't do it! They are not of a fairly similar standard I assure you, and if an open draw were to be the norm now and in the future then the rankings and seedings would be in danger of becoming quite skewed. It's actually weighted in favour of you if the teams are fairly equal...but are they?
So what exactly are they being rewarded for then? Since the World Cup they have finished second in two qualification competitions and last with no wins in the only competitive finals since then. As for where those teams were: Neeskens and I are not arguing for seeding at this stage, so where those teams were is not relevant. France's moderate performances over recent years have been amply rewarded in the form of a Pot A seeding. I didn't ignore it to suit my agenda. It was a ridiculous point. In an open draw, sure Bulgaria might get a group of higher ranked teams, but there's just as much chance of them getting a pool of lower ranked teams and easy qualification. Based on the fact that they only had a dozen or so teams ranked above them, the law of averages would give them good odds of drawing more lower ranked than higher. In the current format, they are guaranteed to get a higher ranked team who would be likely be favourites to progress from that group ahead of them, if not to be in contention to win the final tournament. I actually put "theoretically tougher teams" and anybody reading the actual post in context would realise that I was referring to difficulty as a relationship between one set of teams and another. Stop wasting thread space with your nitpicking. I'm no longer going to get bogged down answering every solitary sentence you write. Half the time you split individual sentences so you can respond out of context anyway. You agree with seeding the playoff, I don't. I don't believe that qualifying is just about ensuring the alleged "best teams" go through. It is a competitive contest in itself. The teams that get the best results compared to the teams in their seeded group win a place in the Word Cup Finals. It doesn't matter if they're Bosnia, Luxembourg or Germany. In the spirit of competition, I personally believe that in the same way that all the first place teams were treated equally (as well as the third-to-sixth), the second place teams should be treated likewise. You argue that France vs Portugal would rob the World Cup of a great team. These would be, in this instance, "great teams" that had finished second to Serbia and Denmark, teams that you would be demanding be unseeded if they were in the playoff stage. How are we to know that France are not fading fast, while Bosnia, with players like Dzeko and Misimovic are not a few internationals-worth of experience away from becoming the Romania of 1994 or the Czech republic of 96? If there's a genuinely stronger team among the seeds or a genuine weak outfit among the non-seeds, why shouldn't Bosnia or Ireland get as much of a chance to avoid or meet them respectively? It is my personal view that all second place teams have earned that right. Seeding at this point is a lottery in itself. I look at the draw as it stands and I don't see any especially easy games. Like I've said all along - it is the principal of trying to reward a team twice based on seeding that I object to. You've said nothing that demonstrates that France at this point deserve to be in the WC anymore than Slovenia do. PS, When I say "performance" I mean in terms of points won, not how "attractive" your style of football was, how your in-game stats compared to the others, how many star names you have or any other factor besides the numbers on the scoreboard. EDIT: What the hell - if 3 out of 4 seeds progress, I'll still tip my hat to you.
Consistency. It was relevant to Neeskens' irrelevant point. Ah, but an open draw would favour the bigger teams times two using your reasoning above! Actually FIFA could make it a lot easier for the big nations by rejigging the format and then giving them only Pot F and Pot E teams; but they don't in the interests of fairness. Guaranteed to have four lower ranked behind them too. Not an advantage? It was obfuscated. Technically, I am wasting post space, not thread space, as threads are wont to be closed once the post quota has been reached. Therefore, it is my own space I am wasting and it is of no concern of yours. I 'm still here. I have plenty more. Some of it has been very pro. That's very courteous sir, but I wouldn't dare take advantage of a misguided soul. T'wager shall stay as it is, and whate'er will be, will be. Can't say fairer than that by Jove!
Viola Star, is your resolution set to 320x240? Or is your font extremely huge? I'd love to know why you insist on posting your replies as if they were prose, because your posts are usually the manure beneath the rose.
Come on. You know there's no way an open draw would "favour" the top seeds anymore than now. Sure, one or two might get an easy draw, but for every easy team one group gets, thats another tough opponent left in the bag. Every group that doesn't have a top seed means that there's a group somewhere with more than one.