A WC-B in the same period seems to me like cannibalizing the main product. Anyways, if a tournament like that will be played, could be with no more than 16 teams.
Doesn't really tell the whole picture (it's a bit misleading and one-sided). First, you have to consider the quality of the groups (each group in every World Cup). FIFA always (favoured) seed the teams of UEFA and CONMEBOL in a comfortable positions to put them already in the driving seat, meant having a great chance at advancing of the knockout stages with at least one "a mediocre/minnow team" from AFC or CONCACAF in their group. CAF, AFC (mostly) facing three strong teams meant toughest challenge in comparison to many in order to advance the knockout rounds. For Example, Cote d'Ivoire in 2006 had to face Argentina and Holland, while around that time Ecuador had to face Poland and Costa Rica (see no comparison). Ecuador achieve better global results in a rather easy looking group than Cote d'Ivoire, watched quality wise even though it was in a losing cause. Ecuador gave a lacklustre performance against Germany, and (underperforming) England held on comfortably against them. Cote d'Ivoire on the other hand dished up a dazzling display of football in their group stage still not enough to see them advancing because it was against two of the tournament stronger teams Argentina and Holland. Both Cote d'Ivoire vs Argentina/Cote d'Ivoire vs Holland are entertaining games which saw both sides play attractive, attacking football. In 2002 Argentina earning first position of CONMEBOL qualifying campaign, they are the best team pre-tournament in South America but facing three quality teams in Sweden, England and Nigeria at the group play which means the more the chances not making it out of the group stage. It's just one example or two, A group's strength must consider of every World Cup. Getting much easier oppositions in comparison at the group stage can take an easier route potentially. Secondly, it looks more like specific countries/teams than confederations performances. All time quarter finals performances show it all; Brazil (18), Germany (17), Italy (10), Argentina (10), England (10), France (8), Uruguay (7), Sweden (7), Spain (6), Holland (6). That's leave the rest in an exception position. So in conclusion, literally so to speak, UEFA's 2nd/3rd tier teams carried by Germany, Italy, England, France, Spain and Holland. CONMEBOL's 2nd tier teams carried by Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. The traditional powerhouses show even decent levels of consistency and performance from generation to generation, while other countries are more of a golden generation thing like today with Belgium, Croatia and Chile. Belgium in the 1990s for example not exactly like Belgium's today, they were at the same level as Saudi Arabia and South Korea. Croatia in 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014 on the same level as top AFC teams. Peru and Chile both have golden generations, yet Uruguay managed to do it better in 1970 and 2010/2018. Colombia and Paraguay reached a similar level of Peru and Chile only recently at the World Cup. In Africa, the strength in depth is far greater than many people think but basically has always been West (Nigeria, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon) vs North (Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) the past 60 years in that sense. In Asia, only South Korea, Japan, Iran and Australia, with a long football history there, in both historic and modern era. And Mexico, US and Costa Rica from CONCACAF So? Does tradition matter? Answer: Yes. When it happens again and again, in every continent, on the global stage. Not a coincidence. Small details change games seems familiar to traditional teams a bit more, because the history, tradition, the most successful teams whether on the continent/global. Having said that, I already said it before. This is the best period ever in South American football history. Colombia and Ecuador have vastly improved in recent years, Paraguay reached the quarter final for the first time, Chile's best team ever have got top players for each position, Uruguay a fantastic team again and there's Brazil and Argentina as always. Great work though.
Colombia showed positive things because all teams in the group stage are on the same level because it was against Japan and Senegal. Colombia played a defensive for obvious reason because this time it was against England.
Mainly because of James being injured and Pekerman, again when it matters the most, being a little too cautious for his own good.
What people don't consider about who advances past the First round is seeding. this tournament of the 16 top seeds, 13 of them made it through. Only Germany, Poland, and Peru who were top 2 seeds didn't advance. I don't think people understand the advantage of being a top 2 seed. It means you will basically have at least one possibly 2 inferior opponents you should beat. The rankings used for the seeding were total garbage. They discriminated against CAF and AFC sides. Teams like Nigeria and Morocco as fourth seeds is laughable. Then you get teams like Poland as first seeds and teams like Switzerland almost getting in at first seeds. It makes it so much easier to have this benefit.
I don't really understand this argument. If Nigeria had been made a 2nd seed, due to the rules about spreading out the confederations, they still would have had at least two teams from UEFA, or a UEFA/CONMEBOL pairing in their group. How would that be any better? In Iceland, you already had what turned out to be the weakest UEFA side in your group.
You could have had an AFC, concacaf, Uefa, side. I don't think Iceland was the weakest UEFA side. I think there are about 5 or 6 Uefa sides at the bottom that are all about equal. Frankly I didn't see much difference between Iceland, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark. I think all those sides are roughly the same level. The point is being a second seed you would avoid playing both a Croatia and Argentina in your group
As I mentioned, the Conmebol sides are close to the ceiling of what is added to a side because of experience and the other factors. For that reason, a small, poor, not very athletically gifted, country like Bolivia is still probably better than China in football. My interest isn't to raise the level of play for Bolivia but for many others such China etc which have a lot more ground to improve. And a lot more (including $) to bring to the game. To understand my viewpoint better, I see many Conmebol sides (and also Mexico) having limited athletic potential which they haven't already reached in football. They are not CAF. Most of them aren't even Iran. Whether you look at the physical traits of their players, or look at how they are doing in other sports, or in the Olympics, that should be clear. In football, they have had a huge head start and have been reaping its benefits. They are close to their ceiling, while many others haven't even approached first base in that regard. As for your question on sparring partners for World Cup teams, there would be even more interest in such friendlies for the March friendlies. That is because the next 32 would also want to prepare for the Intercontinental Cup. For the May friendlies, those would be either against fellow World Cup finalists from other groups or for those not in the list of teams I mentioned.
Some, like Italy, would have little to gain and probably wouldn't be interested. As this competition isn't about bragging rights as much as it is about giving more teams more experience and also, in the process, giving us a larger sample of games between teams from other confederations, if Italy chose not to participate, no problem. Someone else from UEFA could take their place.
The concurrent part, which wouldn't be the group stage, could be even more limited if the idea of having only 16 teams (as opposed to 32) mentioned here was how it got started. Or we could take all the knock out round games in this tournament for after the World Cup.
This is why I thought the old seeding format was better. When it was regional seeding We could have had a winnable group like Argentina Nigeria Iceland and Japan. Would have gave us a good chance to advance.
There has never been a World Cup group that looks like that. Ever. There are simply too many UEFA/Conmebol teams. Moreover, you can't have one group with only one UEFA/Conmebol team and others with three. And if it did happen, the non-UEFA/Conmebol teams stuck in the groups with three UEFA/Conmebol teams would scream bloody murder.
Your point is well taken, and I agree with you generally, but maybe it has happened once or twice in the past. World Cup 2006 was a nightmare for me because Iran had actually a group like that and yet achieved zilch. Our group had Portugal, Mexico, Iran and Angola. In any case, I am alright with using Fifa rankings to decide the pots and draw in the way it was done this time. But I am also looking forward to those rankings being improved.
You are right, IM, that did happen in 2006, probably because there were only 4 Conmebol teams as Uruguay had lost the IC playoff to Australia. I'm pretty sure that is the only time though.
Sure for one team. Even so Croatia was last in pot 2 so if Nigeria took their place the group becomes possible again But if all the seconds seeds are from CAF/AFC nothing changes. Pot 4 that is not becomes pot 2 PS Nigeria can't beat Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark the same way as Iceland
Football becomes a very weird place once we go down the "physical traits" road. Gotta show some data where "many Conmebol sides + Mexico have limited athletic potential, in comparison to CAF + Iran". Hopefully, this is not based on stereotypes. Olympics? Iran's medals come from weightlifting+wrestling+taekwondo. Even Mexico has wider Olympic success than Iran: 3 MEX medals vs 1 IRN medal for Athletics. The Olympics is a dead end anyways. Cuba is a powerhouse at the Olympics, while its football program is a joke. How does its national poverty explain both success and failure at Cuban sports? Maybe the explanation lies in sustained sport investment. The Chinese FA is getting there, instead of waiting for a 2nd tier WC. Paying Uruguay for football training, while keeping sustained investment on youth development. Very similar to what Cuba did with the Soviet Union, for Cuban Olympic programs' development. I do hope China is successful. It will help dissipate genetics/football history myths once more. The Chinese FA must realize that political antics do not help, though.
No the new seeding format is better, its just that the FIFA rankings used to seed are garbage. the new format actually makes it less likely for uneven groups and GOD's if the ranking formula is accurate. You can still have the confederational spread along with seeding all 4 pots.
First lest someone is misled by what you posted about Iran's Olympic record compared to Mexico, lets be clear. The sports Iran excels are relevant to show its physical strength and prowess. And Iran's total medal count in 2016 was 8 medals (3G, 1S, 4B) well above Mexico (as well as almost all of the Conmebol crowd). Mexico, for instance, finished 66th in the standings; Iran finished 25th in 2016. We did even much better in 2012, with 13 medals, finishing 15th (actually above even Cuba, which are quite good in Olympic sports). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics_medal_table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics_medal_table But you could be right that I am relying on stereotypes. I just find Iran's athletic pool, including its football team, to be physically bigger, taller and stronger. Regardless, however, my real point and focus was to compare and contrast Bolivia's place in football compared to China and see what lessons we can learn from it. And then to compare those two in other relevant criteria, including athletic accomplishments in other sports, and ask if the fact that Bolivia is actually better (or comparable) to China in football doesn't show you that is because of their greater experience and head-start playing the game for many more years. And playing it against good quality opponents in Conmebol, learning in the process? I also look at football related sports where you don't find the same difference in experience between these Conmebol sides and a team like Iran. For instance, take futsal. We rank #6 in futsal, still below Brazil and Argentina, but above the rest of the sides in Conmebol. Or take Beach football. Here we rank #2 in the world, right below Brazil, but above the rest of the sides in Conmebol. But unlike these other sports, which aren't much in the limelight and don't have the same traditions, football is actually a very segregated sport in some ways. Teams like Iran just get to play 3 game at the World Cup every 4 years and a few 2nd tier friendlies in between to learn and test themselves against top qualify opponents. That makes bridging the differences hard, especially in the kind of mental and psychological issues that account for most of the split second decisions football players make. And which make some look like heroes and others not so.
Portugal, Iran, Angola, Mexico Anyways I'm cool with seeding 4 pots and keeping no more than 2 uefa sides in a group, and separating the rest. Let them just get those damned FIFA rankings right.
Croatia shouldn't have been the last Pot 2 team, frankly I'm not even suggesting we deserved to be a Pot 2 team, I mean we missed the last 2 ANC's, but then we did have a very good WCQ. We certainly should have at least been a Pot 3 though. As for Nigeria not being able to beat Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Sweden, or Denmark same way as Iceland, I say nonsense Iceland did better than ALL of those teams at the last Euro. Before this Worldcup Iceland was being hyped more than all of those teams except for Poland. They pretty much did better than all of those teams in WCQ. Now all of a sudden just because we beat them handily you just assume they are garbage. I love how that works. No maybe Nigeria is just a good team. Like I said I didn't see much of a difference between any of these teams. Hell through Russia in there as well. and I'm not saying those teams cannot beat us either, its all based on how the ball bounces from day to day to be honest.
In football, from one match to the next, a football team will show a different form and get a different result. A team like Nigeria is clearly at a level to get results against many UEFA 2nd tier sides, including Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and Serbia. But they could very well lose to them as well, even to Poland which Senegal schooled. In reality, unless the level of football between two sides is quite apart, or unless they match up in a very lopsided way where one side's weaknesses are glaring and run into another side's strengths, at this level predicting how anyone would do against someone else is usually guess work and speculation. In the meantime, the CAF teams in this tournament ended up with a worse record head-to-head and overall compared to the AFC. But, frankly, I still know that Senegal, Nigeria and Morocco are probably slightly stronger than their AFC counterparts. Not as much as CAF fans wanted to believe or pretend, and not so much stronger that they could predict their results with the same level of confidence some did, but slightly better overall. But for some reason, the football gods wanted to give this round to the AFC. The results next time around could be the exact opposite.
I think this WC has shown to me how results can be different from day to day. Replay this exact same WC with the exact same groups and I think its highly likely that the 4 semi finalists are completely different. To be frank I haven't seen very many dominating displays. I've seen mostly highly tactical affairs that could really go one way or another depending on the bounce of the ball on that particular day. I think I've seen some very good displays from Belgium and France, Brazil at times but not very much beyond that to be honest. This has been the wierdest WC in my opinion because I dont think it really establishes any world hierarchy, as other WCs have in the past. I think at the end of this WC there will be far more questions than answers in terms of a world hierarchy.
Iran olympic record's is relatively good, especially in power/strength sport, you also have to take in account that in Iran (and many other countries) sport is disproportionaly a "male" affair. The more succesful olympic countries get a large part of their medals from female athletes (it is generally split 50/50, sometimes more). This is not a criticism, just a remark. But in some countries (probably the majority of the World) females are not pushed towards physical activities or pro sports the same way they are in other due to various cultural factor I won't explain here.
Hmm... Olympics must be a red herring then. Winning Olympic medals at weightlifting+wrestling+taekwondo do not translate into FIFA WC success. Somewhat expected, though. Same with beach football: Tahiti is now world runner-up for the last 2 world tournaments (2017+2015). Glad to see beach OFC doing well, though. Could you explain how "football is actually a very segregated sport in some ways"? I don't see AFC segregated from the world, in terms of past friendlies. Qatar, South Korea, Japan, Australia and China played a nice set of friendlies, before AFC qualification was over. Hopefully the new FIFA ranking format will convince more non-AFC teams to play with AFC: confed coefficients are eliminated. Friendlies since 2014 WC: (matches before + after Oct 2017; non-AFC teams prior to Oct 2017) JAP: 12 + 9; (6) URU, VEN, JAM, BRA, HON, TUN. KSA: 10 + 11; (2) URU, SVN. IRN: 11 + 10; (5) CHI, SWE, MKD, PNG, MNE. KOR: 16 + 13; (9) VEN, URU, PAR, CRC, NZL, JAM, ESP, CZE, CAN. AUS: 11 + 4; (7) BEL, GER, MKD, ENG, GRE(2x), BRA. SYR: 16 + 3; none. UAE: 17 + 2; (4) NOR, LTU, PAR, ISL. UZB: 21 + 5; (3) CAN, BFA, GEO. IRQ: 20 + 6; (2) PER, CGO. CHN: 15 + 4; (6) PAR, NZL, HON, HAI, TUN, TRI, QAT: 25 + 7; (13) MAR, PER, EST, ALG, SVN, NIR, SCO, TUR, ALB, RUS, MDA, AZE, AND. THA: 14 + 3; (2) NZL, CMR.
When I said football is a somewhat segregated sport, I was referring to the fact that competitive matches between teams from different confederations are rare. The World Cup is every 4 years and you have the Confederations Cup for the continental champions. In other sports, you have a lot more such games played. Friendlies are, of course, a partial remedy but for Iran, they are partial indeed. Our situation makes arranging friendlies very difficult. The games that are arranged are often cancelled. Others are played in almost secret, without much marketing and few spectators. High caliber teams that may play teams of similar or lesser caliber than Iran will often avoid us mainly for the issues we face. But even if we could play top quality opponents in friendlies, they would be friendly matches. And I wrote my message in the larger context of why I am particularly interested in any tournament (including the Intercontinental Cup being discussed here) or formula that will increase the number of more meaningful games against non-Asian sides for teams from the AFC.