I think Croatia in pot 2 with Peru's elimination would sort of even things out. Also if Sweden beats Italy (much more likely IMO), Croatia would move to Pot 2. As for Serbia it really is all about the luck of the draw. There are teams in pot 4 that are better than teams in pot 3. I think Nigeria is better than any pot 3 team which Serbia could avoid. Morocco is also better than Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Iceland, Costa Rica, Denmark/Ireland IMO. I'm with Nico777, as a Nigeria fan I dont care anymore about the draw. The only thing about the draw I care is that we dont draw Spain in Pot 2 and Brazil in Pot 1 after that I say bring it on.
CONCACAF has a huge drop-off in quality after the top 3 teams. So you can't just look at WC results to understand how good/bad CONCACAF is overall. In fact I think we may be finally starting to see AFC catch-up (surpass?) CONCACAF. Up until now I wasn't totally convinced that AFC deserved more spots in the WC finals from a pure merit-standpoint.
Your views might be meritorious and have some other (more or less subjective) basis, but they are a bit more strident and emphatic than justified by any objective ranking or comparative analysis of results by these teams. For instance, never mind FIFA's rankings, ELO rankings also put Iran (#21) well above both Nigeria (#46) and Morocco (#42). Anyway, on the issue of the different pots and the draw, like you, I would hate for Iran to get Spain as a pot 2 side and wouldn't want Brazil as our pot 1 opponent either. There are 3-4 other sides which I prefer that Iran avoid in these pots, while there are several teams (e.g., Poland, Russia and Belgium among the top seeds) who I would rate as better opponents. But I share your overall view on this issue.
folks, you are talking about even numbered pots as if that is fixed. but i guess that it is the backdoor for fifa. they could easily give pot 3 nine teams and pot 4 seven teams. they did similarily in 2014. Or the pot put 3 and 4 together, which might be valid as the differences are nimb.
All teams will be allocated to pots 1 to 4 based on sporting principles with each pot containing eight teams.
while Elo rankings are certainly better than FIFA, I dont really take much stock in them either. Nigeria qualified in a group last WC that had Iran in it. It seems Iran has probably improved since last WC, but so has Nigeria. There is no doubt in my mind that Nigeria is by far the strongest African team that will be in Russia. As for Iran being ranked 20 spots ahead of Nigeria. That is ridiculous. Anybody who knows their soccer would agree. So Elo rankings, meh, not much better than FIFA to be honest. I dont really see that as "objective analysis" I think more important is how we easily qualified from by far the hardest African qualifying group which included current african champs Cameroon, Algeria (who made the knockouts of the last wC) and Zambia who won the african cup back in 2012. You'd have to go back to our WC debut in 1994 to see a time when we were so dominant in WCQ. Iran hasn't faced any quality sides in qualifying. S. Korea is a shadow of their former selves. You failed to beat a hapless Russia side last month who has made a habit of losing to teams at home lately. So I dont really see what basis you think Iran is seriously better just because of some silly rankings. Do you really think beating S. Korea and Syria makes you better than the best team in AFrica ?
by the way I also think Serbia in pot 4 is better than most teams in pot 3 and if we can avoid them by being in the same pot that would be good. I'd much rather play Iran, Iceland, Denmark/Ireland, Costa Rica, than Serbia.
If Italy and Croatia end up in pot 2, that would be quite a strong pot. If it's Peru, they would be the weakest team in that pot, playing like relegation fodder. Source: http://www.footballseeding.com/international-tournaments/world-cup-2018/
No I think Switzerland is weaker than Peru. As bad as Peru played in the first round vs NZ I think you forget that they have played matches in South America and are battle tested against some of the best sides in the world and beat out Chile, Paraguay, Ecuador. Switzerland look very mediocre to be honest, they are the team everyone wants in Pot 2, followed by Peru. I do hope Croatia ends up in Pot 2 somehow it will even things up.
Nigeria are better than Peru and the odds back this up. Funny thing is, if one of the draws in October had been a win for Peru, they would have been gifted a top seed, that's laughable. Let's see first if they can get a win against lowly New Zealand.
Italy out. FIFA on suicide watch. Together with Holland they're two of biggest money-spinners. Croatia in pot 2. Peru, Denmark or Iceland can still grab that last pot 2 spot.
The thing is Iran hasn't lost any single competitive game since the world cup 2014. Neither in world cup qualifiers nor in the AFC Asian Cup. So naturally its Elo rating never ceased to increase: http://www.international-football.net/country?team=Iran&datemin=2014-08-01 On the other hand, Nigeria did perform well at these WC qualifiers, but it failed to qualify for both 2015 and 2017 African Nations Cup, and last june it lost again a qualifier against South Africa for next edition: http://www.international-football.net/country?team=Nigeria&datemin=2014-08-01 Now of course, Elo ratings don't take into account the fantastic Nigerian youngsters generation, but for a ranking based on past results, it's really as good as it can be.
I did not say Iran is better, or worse, than Nigeria right now. I honestly would not know and I am certain you wouldn't either. But the difference between using an objective system and a subjective system to decide these issues is illustrated by your post. In a more or less objective system, you have a formula and system that guides how teams are ranked. In a subjective system, you allude to apples and oranges and right an essay about it to justify your preconceptions or biases. The one thing about Iran that has become rather amazing has been its consistency the past few years, even if its opponents have generally not been all that stellar. Not only Iran has not lost an official match to any Asian team since before World Cup 2014, it hasn't (with one exception, Sweden in Sweden) lost to any non-Asian side since World Cup 2014 in the friendly matches we have had either. During this time, Iran has defeated Chile (2:0), Montenegro (2:1), Panama (2:1), Venezuela (1:0) in friendlies away from home or in neutral turf. We also defeated Togo (2:0) in Iran and tied Russia (1:1) in Russia. As its World Cup qualifying campaign, Iran clinched its qualification to the World Cup (and top position in its group) without even conceding a single goal. We beat Uzbekistan 1:0 away and 2:0 in Tehran; beat Qatar 2:0 in Tehran and 1:0 in Qatar; beat China 1:0 in Tehran, while drawing them 0:0 in China; beat S.Korea 1:0 in Korea but drew them 0:0 in Korea after we had already clinched and playing a man down the entire 2nd half. The only team that actually managed to score on us was Syria, which drew us 2:2 in our last game but that was after Iran had clinched and could afford to be a bit sloppy and unfocused. Anyway, and to be clear, I am not rating Iran above anyone at the World Cup that is not in our own confederation. There aren't enough games between teams from different confederations to be sure about the issue. I just think people like you, besides your obvious pro-Africa/Nigeria bias, have a habit of using your impressions from past World Cups (each once every 4 years) and try hard to make everything fit those preconceptions. The fact that teams with football history and pedigree often do continue to do better than those not enjoying the same pedigree and history allows you to find some of the confirmation you need in that method, although ultimately none of what is available to rank teams is really sufficient for that purpose.
Yeah, Iran's main strength in defensive performances as far as I recall. They are pretty disciplined, and hard to break.
Our defensive discipline was amazing during Iran's peak during the last World Cup qualifiers. We have declined a bit although that is partly due to the fact that we had been experimenting ever since clinching our qualification and have had a few injuries and absences on defense. But there was a time when none of our opponents would get even a real shot against Iran, much less a goal!
I could say, Iran is somehow reminding me of Greece 2004 - also able to wither offensive storms of other teams, and then strike when least expected.
A ranking system is only as good as the formula it uses. Clearly the formula for FIFA is crap, Elo rankings slightly less so. Lets be completely objective for a second. In reality you are only better than a team u can beat, you can only be as good as teams you have defeated. It matters not if you have been undefeated for decades if the best team you have beaten in competition is South Korea. It matters not what your rank by some stupid system is again if all you have proven is that you are better than South Korea. Nigeria has beaten the current African champs Cameroon 5-1 on aggregate, and the only other African side to make the knockouts in Brazil 4-1 on aggregate during WCQ. Iran has beaten S Korea. Now that IS 100% objective, nothing subjective about it. In fact it is the ELO and Fifa rankings that are actually far more subjective because these rankings make all sorts of assumptions based on their crappy formulas. It is clear to me that both FIFA and elo place too much emphasis on simply winning or not losing matches irregardless of the quality of opposition, and that IMO is a major flaw.
You can be better than a team that beats you. If you don't know that, you don't know football. Trying to come up with an "objective" ranking system is pointless and impossible.
That's precisely the whole concept of Elo ratings. As a matter of fact, Iran doesn't win a lot of points each time it beats a lower-ranked Asian team. However, it would lose a lot of point in case of a loss against such a team. And that's exactly what happened to Nigeria on June 10th, 2017 when it has lost 0-2 at home against South Africa. That game alone cost to Nigeria 44 points. Now I know nothing about that game, maybe it was Nigerian B team I don't know, it was still a African Nations Cup qualifier. Yes. And Nigeria gained 35 points out of the 2 games against Cameroon, but it wasn't enough to compensate the loss against South Africa. The Elo formula may not be perfect. It gives the exact same weight to a continental qualifier than it does to a world cup qualifier. Maybe the world cup qualifiers should matter more. No matter what, past results is only the best clue we could get about the current shape of a team, but the future will be written on the pitch. So let's see what will happen in Russia.
ELO and FIFA ranking systems may have their flaws, but I doubt that Nigeria or anyone else in CAF would have produced the consistent results Iran has achieved the past few years even against the same (so-called crappy) opponents. But then again I can't prove it no more than you can prove the opposite. All I know is that Iran has been getting the job done regardless of who it has faced the past few years and that has included facing non-Asian sides in friendlies.
Thanks for your post and explanation. Besides what you mention, one reason ELO rankings might work better for chess than football is because in football it is more likely for a better team to lose to even a crappy opponent. First, the nature of the game is such that sometimes such results happen. Second, unlike in chess where the individual is the same, in football you can field different teams depending on the nature of the opponent and seriousness of the game. But all in all, until we have more intercontinental matches, and perhaps a better ranking formula than offered by FIFA or ELO, we are stuck with either our subjective assessments or the rankings we have. Our subjective assessments are subjective regardless of how strident or adamant we are about it and my only admonition to @vancity eagle was to be a bit less sure and insistent on his own individualized/personal rankings. After all, I recall vancity was very much disgusted with how FIFA's rankings had placed Algeria on top (or among the very top) of CAF before World Cup 2014, claiming Algeria sucked. As it turned out, Algeria became CAF's best team in World Cup 2014.
I wouldn't compare Iran to Greece 2004. The Iran team that qualified and played in World Cup 2014 was like Greece 2004. But this Iranian team is different. More dynamic even if defensively rather stellar.
You may be right, as I haven't seen it in play yet. I will try to watch you guys during WC, hope for some good tactical play.