Concacaf U-17 qualifiers

The groups and schedule are set:
Group A: Nicaragua (host), Mexico, Haiti, Puerto Rico
Group B: USA, Costa Rica, Bermuda, Canada

Schedule (all times local, and all 16 games at Managua's Estadio Nacional):
April 19, 2018: Group A
17:30 Puerto Rico v Haiti
20:00 Nicaragua v Mexico

April 20, 2018: Group B
17:30 Canada v Bermuda
20:00 USA v Costa Rica

April 21, 2018: Group A
17:30 Mexico v Puerto Rico
20:00 Nicaragua v Haiti

April 22, 2018: Group B
17:30 Costa Rica v Canada
20:00 USA v Bermuda

April 23, 2018: Group A
17:30 Mexico v Haiti
20:00 Nicaragua v Puerto Rico

April 24, 2018: Group B
17:30 Costa Rica v Bermuda
20:00 USA v Canada

April 27, 2018 – Semifinals
17:30 Group B Winner v Group A 2nd Place
20:00 Group A Winner v Group B 2nd Place

April 29, 2018 – 3rd Place Match & Final
17:30 3rd place match
20:00 Final

Like the U20s, the top three teams qualify for the U-17 WWC Uruguay 2018.

 

Will Haiti top group B and become one of these three?

 

Haiti did make it to the 3rd place match in the 2016 tournament, and several of the 2018 U-20 team are age eligible for the U-17 tournament as well. Plus, the US hasn't done as well at this level, failing to qualify twice (albeit in previous years when only the top 2 teams qualified. The US finished in 3rd both of those years.) All that to say, anything can happen, and I certainly wouldn't be as surprised by it as I was by the U-20s.

But I'd be keeping my eye on the Mexico team. They're finally putting some effort into youth development in the women's program with the Liga MX Femenil, and I think the win at the U20 tournament is a direct reflection of that. Each Liga MX team has 4 U-17 players, so it could definitely affect this level as well.

 

Haiti should advance out of Group B. They'll likely have the same matches in the semis & third place matches against the USA & Canada.

 

Guessing since Canada u20s failed to qualify that Huitema will play for the 17s. USA could have some trouble. Not sure how this specific team is but Costa Rica is developing women's soccer a bit.looking forward to USA Canada if Canada has all of its 16/17 year olds in action.

 

Wonder who'll step up to finish the tournament?

http://www.concacaf.com/en/under-17...=facebook&utm_campaign=CONCACAF&sf187518734=1

 

I wonder if FIFA will use any disciplinary actions toward CONCACAF or Nicaragua FA. Somebody had given green light for this tourney to happen and knowing beforehand about civil unrest in the country...

 

The draw for the U-17 WWC is set for May 30. So there isn't much time to organize something.

 

This is probably the largest uprising in Nicaragua since the civil war there 30 years ago, and it was sparked by the announcement of the president just a few days ago. There has been growing discontent under the current president, but when the soccer tournament was planned, I don't think anyone could have foreseen something of this scale.

 

Well of course it would've been hard to predict during tournament planning phase, but the strikes are now weeks old and riots (and killings) already were happening on the day when teams arrived. I don't believe that all participating countries came to Nicaragua without no word of warrning from their foreign office desk's. I can olny guess but it looks like tourney organizers were only hoping for the best and didn't think it thru (or perhaps they did? - tournament abandoned, stranded internationals in hotel - all that are blows to gov. image).
8 teams that is ca. 300 people. Quite a lot of security forces now is needed in order guarntee their safety. Any news when teams are due to depart?

 

I said this on another board, the U.S. and Canada and maybe Mexico too should get out of Concacaf. You've got two/three big countries and then, what, 35 tiny countries in central America and the Caribbean--more than a few of them unstable. Our U17s playing a qualifying match the other night against a bad team in a city where there is rioting, in front of almost no fans. I also don't think there is any need for a U17 "World Cup." It just seems silly--not worth all the trouble, frankly. Organize some smaller tournaments and be done with it. An U20 WC and senior WC is all you need. And last year they played the U20 world cup in Papua New Guinea. Really? Of all the places to play, that is the place they picked? Good grief. It's all got a bit excessive and dumb.

 

Costa Rica has been a viable opponent in CONCACAF. Trinidad and Tobago almost qualified for the 2015 WWC. Having the North American teams separate is pointless.

Back to the tournament. Group A has basically been decided. So whoever takes over the tournament, does Nicaragua and Puerto Rico still travel for their final game against each other? I'm sure CONCACAF is scrambling to find a solution quickly.

 

Shots in the U.S.-Costa Rica game were 14-0, according to USSF. That's viable? Ha. And forgive me if I don't take Trinidad and Tobago too seriously either--or anyone else in Concacaf except for Canada (and maybe, Mexico) for that matter. I think I heard that we've never lost an U17 WC Concacaf qualifying match, but correct me if I'm wrong. That would strongly suggest that Concacaf is /not/ viable, and I say again that having a U17 World Cup is silly--more trouble than it is worth.

 

Toad455 was referring to the senior level in regards to Costa Rica and T&T. And as for the US at the U17 WWC, I guess technically we've never lost. But we have failed to qualify twice for the U17 WWC, after losing in penalty kicks during qualifying.

There are a lot of bumps in the road to progress and greater competitiveness, but we won't see federations invest in their women's teams if those teams don't have places to play. There's no progress to be made in just scrapping entire tournaments.

 

and form what?....COTPNAF? (Confederation of Three Privileged North American Association Football)

what's a bad team? I don't get it...aren't they worthy to play the ball ...or something? What the civil unrest has to do with young Nicaragua girls wanting to play the ball? Granted, mistakes perhaps were made by people who gave green light for this tourney knowing that there's tension in country but jumping into:

is in my opinion very ingnorant view that doesn't take into account all the serious impact and improvment that FIFA tournaments bring globaly thru sport on various levels into society, advertising ie. equal develeopement and opportunities for boys and girls. And more is the better.

...I'm lost for words here...really.
Did you know that violence against women in Papua New Guinea is common to the point of 70% of all women there beeing afflicted. 30% of all 15 year old girls are sexualy assaulted. On the provinces of PNG, inside of many villages women are tormented to death when accused of practicing magick. Rite of passage for boys is to kill a pig. There are no pigs in the city, so girls and women are substituted in gang initiations. 40% of adult males in PNG openly says that they rape women. 60% are forcing their partners toi sex.
...and you call it dumb when FIFA organizes youth WWC tourney in country like that. Really? isn't better for their youth - whom one day will be adults shaping their country - to have good memories and examples of young girls beeing equal to boys, an example that is seriously lacking from their day by day life..

AFC Cup just finished in Jordan. As it was during U-17 WWC in 2016 in this country, outside of 3 matches of the hosts the stadiums were mostly empty.
But in those three matches I saw muslim women on the stands wearing jeans and colorful jumpers and sure some of them had covers on their heads but tell me... how often you see hundreds of happy muslim womens with "Girls Power" transparents on the stadiums. 2 years ago young girls from around the world were playin soccer in muslim country. Last week it was best adult women in Asia. Next month all women in Jordan gonna be allowed to drive the cars...

So yeah plaing WWC U-17 in corner of the wolrd do matters.

 

An U-17 World Cup is precious as gold for a lot of countries who don't have the same developing system as US. And even when they have a good development system, the international experience is invaluable for those girls: just ask teams who had successful U-17 teams, as France, Germany, Japan, and later managed to translate that into Senior level.

Heck, even a middle-range National Team (at least in women's football) as Italy is now reaping the fruits from U-17 WWC in Costa Rica (yes, a central American country ), where they got an unexpected third place: some of those players are now the backbone or a Senior team that most probably will manage to qualify to WWC for the first time in 20 years!

So, please, don't under-estimate the value of U-17 WWC. It's not silly: it's silly to ignore it, if a country really wants to develop its young players.

 

Thanks. In my response to @L'orange i was basically tackling the technical aspect of U-17 WWC's usefulness, but I of course had in mind what you said also, that's even more important!

 

I'm not saying that U17s don't need, or wouldn't benefit from, some international experience: Yea, go overseas and play, say, three teams in Europe and/or play three in South America, and/or let three come to USA to play--play some good opponents--and then be done with it. You don't need a full-blown WC for U17 to develop players or a system--it's absurd. It takes too long, and you're playing more than a few matches that offer little benefit. It's a total waste of time for the U.S. to go to Nicaragua to play qualifying matches against very weak opponents. Teams should be playing reasonably comparable competition.

 

this is an old argument.

yes you can do away with the u17 tournament. but that would be short sighted. the aspirational aspect of the camaraderie and competition with girls one's own age as a 15-17 year old is immeasurable if you want to grow woso in more places other than in the countries with good teams.

 

It seems you're missing the point. That's not a World Cup. If you only let the top teams compete, the teams from places like Honduras and Ecuador and even mid-table teams like Romania or Argentina will not continue to invest in their women's programs. It might make the top 10 teams stronger, but it'll do nothing for the rest.

Also just curious if you feel the same way about the men's U-17 WC, which arguably has even less of a "point," considering the myriad avenues of high-level development opportunities outside of the national teams that boys have available, but girls do not (yet). And I'd also be curious if you feel the same way about the men's U-17 WC being held in India as you did about the women's U-20 being in Papua New Guinea...because those places were chosen for the same reasons: to promote the game of football and bring the game to all people. FIFA does have its faults but at least in choosing locations at the youth level, it does attempt to fulfill its vision of growing the game for all.

 

First, the purpose of a competition is to determine which team is best--NOT to promote a sport. You want to promote the sport in Papua New Guinea or Niger? Then have Australia or New Zealand play the PNG team in PNG or have an exhibition in Niger. Exhibitions are ideal for promoting a sport. You don't need a tournament to do that. Who's going to go to Papua New Guinea to watch a tournament other than family members--and I venture to say that many if not most family members didn't make that trip. The NFL doesn't hold Super Bowls in South Dakota to promote football in that area.

Second, the sport doesn't really need promoting; everyone is quite well aware of football; the issue is whether a particular country, or government entities within a country, wants to devote resources to the sport. Fifa can do a lot to promote football on its own. I don't believe that established teams should be made to play on patchy fields in front of 70 people in remote corners of the world to promote the sport. If a country is stable and safe and has the fields/facilities/logistics to put on a good tournament, then, yes, have it there, but be practical about it.

I do believe that Fifa should ditch the u17 World Cup--not worth all the qualifying time and travel and expense. It's not needed. I also believe that Fifa should institute a tiered competition system--let the small (less populated) countries have their own competitions; they'd surely enjoy it lots more. Even if T&T tied the United States men in a WC qualifying match, neither T&T nor any other tiny nation is ever going to win the WC, so why pretend otherwise? Nobody in Concacaf other than the U.S., Canada or Mexico is ever going to win a WC--it would be like tiny Our Lady of Mercy in one-horse town America winning the NCAA championship, and of course that isn't even possible because our college competition system is wisely tiered---as are pro leagues in most sports. The World Cup(s) are too big and bloated and ridiculous--qualification at all levels takes far too long (drags on for years because /everybody/ must have a chance--and of course at the senior level the whole process has been rife with rampant corruption for decades. I got to thinking about how absurd some of this is when I actually tuned in to watch our U17 women's team play in Managua--a half-dark stadium, almost no one there, a bad opponent, rioting nearby.

 

No, a world competition must not enact barriers against world regions because of prejudices/geopolitics.

Question 1: do you agree with FIFA's prior stance where both Asia + Africa must share 1 WC ticket? FIFA argued that football in Africa and Asia was in its infancy, thus the WC was fine without their presence.
1966 WC: FIFA enforced 0.5 WC tickets for both continents.
The African continent boycotted that WC.
North Korea reached quarterfinals; taken out by lead goalscorer Eusebio, an African playing for Portugal.

Today, we look at history, and understand why certain world regions must compete at every WC.
Until the 1970s, FIFA leadership had undermined access to international competition for various countries. Plenty, ugly reasons why that happened.
The Eurocentric FIFA president lost the 1974 FIFA elections against a Brazilian candidate, because his challenger ran on a campaign to bring underrepresented world regions into the WC.

Question 2: what is your cutoff criteria for a *small nation*? Population? International titles? GDP?
It would seem that the best cutoff criteria is already in place: a sports criteria, called WC qualifiers.

Too bad you feel that the United States team is inconvenienced for playing against members of its confederation. Need a better reason for scrapping WC qualifiers, though.

I can see a good point for moving up the age bracket. However, UEFA currently holds events at multiple youth brackets. Thus, UEFA might be unwilling to scrap the U17 WC.

 

Doubt they would, they would probably be unwilling to scrap the U17 Euro but i doubt they would protest (not much anyway) about the WC.
The normal view among UEFA and it's countries and sponsors tend to be that unless there are an actual WC Champion the Champion that counts is the UEFA one.

 

A regional tournament for U17 might work if it could be organized and played within a reasonable period of time and doesn't drag out for months. That's precisely why an U17 WC is absurd, ridiculous--takes far too long and is not at all needed. I assume the U17 has (far?) fewer participants than the senior WC; if not, the U17s would be playing U19 by the time the whole thing got finished. Still, it seems silly. Play some other national teams of similar caliber and be done.

I'm all for every region being represented at the senior World Cup--but the tournament is a bloated, commercial monstrosity with a qualification process that takes, what, two years or more to complete, and then the tourney itself lasts for two months or longer. Absurd. I don't believe months should be wasted to see if Aruba or New Caledonia or Niger should qualify for the tournament. A system should be created to determine which nations are eligible to compete in the qualifying process for the World Cup. All other nations--those that are too small or don't have a sufficient record of achievement--would be excluded. The eligibility system would require thought but would contain, I presume, several criteria. You'd basically create a rating system for everybody and the top, say, 70 teams, would be eligible to participate in qualifying. The overarching idea would be to make the whole process more expeditious and manageable. In America we don't have little christian colleges competing with the Big 5 league universities in football, basketball or anything, and it makes perfect sense. They compete with other tiny christian/private colleges. In the same way FIFA shouldn't waste time trying to give every country in the world a chance. It's a noble idea, I suppose, but impractical. If a small nation has a record of competence or competitiveness in football, then great, it become eligible to participate in the qualifying. If not, sorry. I'm quite sure two thirds of the countries in the world have no delusions of qualifying for, much less winning, the World Cup. So why not streamline the thing?