FIFA makes no changes to allotment of World Cup qualifying slots for 2014

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by jonny63, Mar 3, 2011.

  1. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Oh yes, but through a lousy unfair playoff system you can also put in risk the possibility to have an early elimination, of who eventually can come in as 4th in the WC. Which is a much more undesired issue than losing one of the top 8-10 UEFA team.
    :p
     
  2. Ramos037

    Ramos037 Member

    Dec 19, 2010
    Club:
    RSC Anderlecht
    Turkey finished 3rd in WC 2002, yet they were among the teams in Europe that didn't directly qualify from the group, in other words the "weaker" uefa teams. So risking losing Turkey in 2002 > risking losing Uruguay in 2010. :p

    In all seriousness, i get your point. But there's not really the need to make it because i haven't met that many people here who don't agree that if there is a confederation that needs to get rewarded for its results, it's CONMEBOL.
     
  3. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Like I always say, the benefit to any given Confed must come in better opportunities to make it. For the purposes of this thread, a playoff instance currently is the best way of how to settle diferences. Granting a direct allocation is too much of a reward to whom gets it, or a punishment to whom loses it. Let the best team win....
    :)
     
  4. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    I agree. We should have more playoffs. Each Confederation should lose 1 guaranteed spot (except UEFA and OFC) and add two playoff spots. In Uefa's case I would take off 2 spots and add 4 playoffs. For OFC I would leave them at 1 playoff. This gives

    UEFA 11 places + 4 playoffs
    CONMEBOL 3 places + 3 play offs
    CONCACAF 2 + 3
    AFC 3 + 3
    CAF 4 + 2
    OFC 0 + 1
    Host 1

    24 spots through direct allocation with the final 8 through playoffs. Do a seeded draw based on the FIFA rankings of the nations involved (top half v bottom half) with the added restriction of all playoffs being inter continental. Every region has the ability to increase their representation from what they have now.

    QUlifying systems don't need to change that much. UEFA can keep the same system, but would have to determine who goes into a UEFA playoff and who goes into an intercontinental playoff. Conmebol, CONCACAF and OFC don't need to change at all. AFC need a tweak, 2nd place final group teams would need to playoff for a place in the finals with the loser going to a playoff (3rd place teams now playoff for a playoff spot) and only AFrica needs a revamp to accomodate this system.
     
  5. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 14, 2007
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    If they would keep the qualifying system with 9 groups we would have:
    9 group winners -> directly qualified
    4 best runners-up -> intercontinental play-offs
    4 next best runners-up -> UEFA play-offs for the last 2 direct spots
    worst runner-up -> out :(

    8 groups:
    8 group winners -> directly qualified
    2 best runners-up -> directly qualified
    runners-up 3-6 -> intercontinental play-offs
    runners-up 7-8 -> UEFA play-offs


    Hmm, I don't like the idea at all. E.g. looking at the example with 8 groups UEFA will send one of the two worst runners-up for sure!
    If we would switch the play-offs (best runners-up play UEFA play-offs, worst intercontinental play-offs) then we would let the best runners-up eliminate each other while all worse runners-up could qualify.
     
  6. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    You could have best two play worst two for UEFA spots with the middle four going to inter continental playoffs. I'm sure some will still complain about the draw however you do it.
     
  7. Pyros

    Pyros Member

    Sep 6, 2009
    La Coruña
    Club:
    Valencia CF
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    I quite like that idea of 4 intercontinental playoffs for Europe, it would make things interesting for sure. How do you suggest the draws for the intercontinental playoffs are made? By rank (ie. best ranked faces worst ranked, 2nd bes faces 2nd worst, etc), at random?
     
  8. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Right. Is anyone suggesting this? Almost all of the argument is how to allocate spots between AFC, CAF, and CONCACAF. The only reason UEFA and SA are in the discussion is that posters from UEFA (and 1 from CONMEBOL) are getting all paranoid that FIFA is going to take spots away from them.

    It's amazing how easy it is to get Europeans all butt-hurt.
    We can't plan anything around "preventing possibilities." You have to just make the best situation possible. UEFA's qualifying system is something they control, and it's beyond dispute that it does a very poor job of "preventing possibilities." Who should bear the burden of that stubbornnes, UEFA, or the ROTW?

    The answer is obvious, to me. It's UEFA's burden. If Holland 2002 doesn't make it because they can't beat out Ireland and Portugal, while Poland wins its group with ease, tough shit.
     
  9. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Almost all, but not all. For e.g.:" So overall if any change it would be OFC and C-Bol gaining with UEFA then CAF losing" - Gold is the Colour

    Well its not stubbornness. Maybe one reason why Latvia, Montenegro, etc play better than the sum of their parts is because they are getting lots of competitive matches in. Whereas Canada continues to be shit because they go 3 years between playing together in big games.

    Also the way UEFA is set-up just makes their task of sending the best teams to the WC more difficult. I don't know why people have so much trouble understanding this. :confused: Replace the 30 tiny banana republics in CONCACAF with 30 NT's of the quality of Guatemala or T&T and suddenly things would get more complicated. It would no longer be acceptable to eliminate the field by 75% in just 2-4 matches.
     
  10. Ramos037

    Ramos037 Member

    Dec 19, 2010
    Club:
    RSC Anderlecht
    Exactly. I'm glad someone points this out. You can not make teams like Ukraine, Ireland, Romania, Poland and so on directly eliminate each other in a two-legged tie before the group stage even commences like someone proposed here a few pages ago. You would also give those players, some of which playing for the most succesfull professional clubs in the world, 2 competitive international games in 2 years time.
     
  11. ZeekLTK

    ZeekLTK Member

    Mar 5, 2004
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    Norway
    One thing that is misleading about UEFA only having 9/57 last place is that there are usually 2 UEFA teams per group, so it is impossible for them BOTH to finish last place.

    So for example, in a scenario where there are 8 groups and each have 2 UEFA teams, the worst they could possibly do is 8/16 from the start (before any game is even played 8 have already secured "not last place" just because it's not possible for them both to have it).
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    Then count the number of times the two UEFA teams have finished 3rd and 4th. It's happened twice since 1998.
     
  13. ZeekLTK

    ZeekLTK Member

    Mar 5, 2004
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    Norway
    Yeah but that's the whole problem with trying to compare... the situations are different. If CAF had 2 teams per group, how likely is it that they would both get 3rd and 4th? Probably not likely at all either.

    Especially because in those cases, one team gets points from the other. So a UEFA team may get 2nd because they beat the team who got 4th. Same in a similar situation with any confederation, a CAF team might get second just because they were able to beat the CAF team who got 4th, etc.

    Basically it's difficult to compare because every other confederation plays against 3 "outside" teams (aka, teams that are not from their continent) whereas UEFA usually only plays against 2 "outside" teams and then 1 other UEFA team... it's not the same situation so it's hard to compare the results.
     
  14. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    Happened twice. Poland and Portugal in 2002. Spain and Bulgaria in 1998.
     
  15. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    That's why the comparison between UEFA and ROW (Rest of World) is a good place to start. Most of the groups have 2 teams from each category so the absolute numbers and percentages are comparable (within a reasonable order of magnitude).
     
  16. Deleted Account

    Deleted Account Red Card

    Dec 31, 2004
    If these guys are playing for some of the most successful professional clubs in the world, what does it matter how many competitive international games they get? Is that really stunting their development?

    Also, they'll make up for it with all of the competitive international games they get in the other 2 years of every 4-year cycle, during Euro qualifying.

    Also^2, you know that players from CONMEBOL (even those who play for some of the most successful professional clubs in the world) essentially don't play any competitive international matches for about 2 years out of every 4-year cycle. They seem to be doing fine.
     
  17. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Those aren't the nations people are talking about...well, maybe Romania, they haven't been too good lately.

    What UEFA needs to do to avoid this problem of groups being more important than play, is to create, say, 4 groups of 8 teams each, with the top 3 in each group advancing and the 4th place teams play against each other for the 13th spot. Something of that nature. That would mean eliminating, I think, 18 teams before the group stage proper. Liechtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, Faroe Islands, Luxembourg, and a few others get you halfway to 18. The next 8-10 teams would be relatively decent. Still, you'd be talking, I think, about nations like Finland and Macedonia and Wales, a portion of teams of that quality being eliminated.

    Now, if UEFA doesn't want to do that, I see the logic. But, again, that's UEFA's choice. The downside of that choice is that occasionally, you'll have a Holland 2002. That's UEFA's problem, tho. The ROTW shouldn't have to give something up just to reduce the chance of that happening.
     
  18. Ramos037

    Ramos037 Member

    Dec 19, 2010
    Club:
    RSC Anderlecht
    Wouldn't you use your proposed format for the qualifiers to the European championships? Because now it's pretty much the same.

    As for CONMEBOL teams, they play no less than 18 games each to qualify for the World Cup which keeps them pretty busy i think. Compensates the slower period untill Copa America, with about half of them playing the World Cup in that period. Plus unlike Uefa teams for their continental cup they are all guaranteed to participate in the Copa America every 4 years.
     
  19. Ramos037

    Ramos037 Member

    Dec 19, 2010
    Club:
    RSC Anderlecht
    I chose those countries because none of them are currently in the Uefa top 20 according to the FIFA world ranking. Some are surprisingly low. Poland is for example ranked 35 out of all UEFA countries. It was a reaction to the earlier proposition that the 33 lowest ranked UEFA countries would have to eliminate each other in a two-legged tie before the group stage.

    If i got it right, you want to have like 32 teams competing in the group stage phase. Seems reasonable. Problem is how to get to those 32 teams. Playoffs? An earlier group stage? Some of those 32 countries will have to be doing the eliminating of the nations ranked between 33-53. That's why i gave those examples. Ultimately some good teams are going to have to play those very risky games, while others (say Norway or Greece who are in the top10) won't. It's just seems a bit random to me.



    They shouldn't. It's just that not everyone is convinced format changes would make it more probable the best European teams qualify. The way i look at it these propostions would make it more probable the higher ranked countries qualify. However i'm not against change, it's just not as easy as it may seem. It's a tricky confederation.
     
  20. england66

    england66 Member+

    Jan 6, 2004
    dallas, texas
    Just piles on more "International" dates to an already (from the clubs point of view) crowded calender. The top clubs would have a fit.
     
  21. Gold is the Colour

    Dec 17, 2005
    Perth Australia
    Club:
    Perth Glory
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    There are enough international dates for C-Bol to have 18 rounds, and then a couple more. UEFA teams currently only use about 10-12 of these but the majority of teams play friendlies on the other dates anyway. Why not have 6 groups of 8 (meaning 14 rounds in the groups) so you only have to eliminate 5 teams - involving 10 teams in original playoffs.

    Top 2 from each group would qualify with a playoff between best two 3rd place finishers (I generally don't like "best finishers" but having it at third place with equal groups is better than 2nd place with uneven groups)

    Even if a playoff winner originally then had to playoff at the end as a best 3rd place it would still only be 18 games to qualify - same as C-Bol teams with much less travelling.
     
  22. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    What is the benefit of this over the current system?

    You have more games, to get to the same number of teams by virtually the same process. Again the question will be over the placing of teams into groups.

    Almost inevitably there will be a group with 3 heavyweights in it. There will then be another group which has only one good team in it.

    It just always happens.
     
  23. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    It actually wouldn't. The international dates already exist. There are 16 international dates from September 2010 to November 2011 (excluding the one in August which acts as a preseason warm-up). That means you can have groups of 8 (ie 14 matches each plus a playoff round of 2 games max)

    That said, I don't agree with reducing the field to 32 with a preliminary round. Due to the inevitability of upsets in a short KO prelim round, that means you'll have some top 20 UEFA teams out real early.
     
  24. england66

    england66 Member+

    Jan 6, 2004
    dallas, texas
    BIG difference between "friendly" Internationals and competitive Euro qualifiers.....so actually it would...and the BIG Euro clubs would not be happy at all.
     
  25. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    14 games. Aren't current groups 6 or 7? Only 2 or 4 extra games. Then throw in that there will be 18 teams with NO matches, I disagree with you.

    Yeah, most of those 18 teams will be Andorra or Faroe, but Wales is the caliber of nation that might not make it, and Wales has a few quality players.
    That only happens if you define "heavyweight" rather loosely. :D
     

Share This Page