the other african teams are one hit wonders though. none of them have the consistency of Iran. for example ivory coast and ghana. they had a few golden years, boosted by a few european-trained superstars who pulled their team up and got a few good games. but where are ghana and ivory coast now? even egypt.. they dominate africa but they qualified to the world cup only twice (not counting 1934), and meanwhile Iran has been a top 40 internationally respected team consistently for decades and decades.
Let's press the Reset button on this thread and continue the banter and discussion without the ad hominem attacks, ok everyone? Any incidents from this point forward will warrant the issuing of warnings and further corrective measures.
1) The idea that the 2nd tier teams in the AFC aren't able to get results against the 1st tier as often as 2nd tier CAF teams get against 1st tier CAF sides isn't correct. Take S.Korea for instance who despite its unbelievable success qualifying to the World Cup, has nonetheless often failed to win its World Cup qualifying group, finishing behind Iran in Wc2018 qualifiers, behind Iran in Wc2014 qualifiers, behind Saudi Arabia in Wc2006 qualifiers, behind Saudi Arabia in Wc94 qualifiers. Besides losing to Iran and Saudi Arabia, they have often lost and lost points to the other (i.e., AFC 2nd tier) teams in the group as well. Maybe never has bad as this time, but usually (with 2010 the exception) that has been the case. It is the same record for the Koreans in the Asian Cup, which is a tournament they haven't won since 1960. In the Asian Cup, Iran and S.Korea had a regular appointment at the quarterfinal stage 5 successive times between 1996 and 2010 (1996, 2000, 2004, 2007, and 2010 Asian Cup). The reason we met each other regularly at stage was because, with one exception, the Koreans would always fail to win their group and would be the runner up team in their group that Iran - as the winner of its group -- had to face! While in 2010 the finished runner-up behind a 1st tier side (Australia), in other tournaments they would finish 2nd (and sometimes even 3rd) behind teams like Kuwait or UAE etc. 2) On balance, I admit CAF has done better than the AFC in the World Cup. But your comments exaggerate the differences and pretend things which aren't true. In the last World Cup, which was quite unfavorable to the AFC otherwise, Cameroon was nonetheless worse than any AFC team and finished pointless. Overall, as mentioned, the head-to-head record between the two confederations at the World Cup is even. South Korea's semifinal finish in 2002 is still the best finish for any team outside of Conmebol and UEFA, including any CAF side. And there are 5 different AFC teams (S.Korea twice, Japan twice, Australia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea) with experience qualifying out of the group stage, compared to 6 (?) CAF teams that have done so by my count (Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Cameroon, Morocco). 3) The truth is that there isn't a single narrative for African football nor a single one for Asian football. The AFC is, in reality, 2 different confederations. East Asia represents the advantages that can accrue from superior development, planning, organization, management, and financial resources. Japan in particular, but even S.Korea, but with China ironically failing despite pouring the money and these things into its game. West Asia itself has 2 stories: Iran, which is somewhat sui generis and combines genuine grass route interest in the game with a large population and a more or less "European physique" compared to the petro dollar states which have invested heavily and had their own different development paths. CAF, also, has 2 different teams: north Africans which are similar to the west Asians Arab states except (geographically and relationship wise) closer to Europe and more opportunities as a result, and the sub-Saharan African sides which are famous for having strong physique, greatly talented players, but who suffer from what their states they represent suffer more generically. Lumping all these divergent stories together and using them against one another isn't going to produce a real narrative, even if it might feed some egos.
Asia has the potential. I think what should worry the continent is the short talent pool. Past South Korea, Japan, Australia and Iran, Asian teams have been whipping boys. Asia lately seems to have entered a tendency of performing every other cup. They were overall disappointing in 2014. Africa have a consistent history of at least one team performingevery cup. It remains to be seen but I do worry that save for Iran each Asian team seems weaker than in 2014. Not many give any Asian team a chance given the groups. Iran need to beat out Spain or Portugal. Japan is the outsider in an equal group. Korea have two teams renowned for World Cup consistency. I guess Australia got the best draw. Well and then there is Saudi Arabia. I don't think anyone can argue CAF is in better from heading into the World Cup. That does not mean they will perform better but they surely are expected to. Btw 7 countries. You forgot Morocco.
I must have forgotten some other team, since Morocco was in my list. As for AFC teams having declined, that is something I tended to think as well. Now I am not so sure and think perhaps their less convincing results were due to greater parity and closing of the gap between the AFC 2nd tier and the rest of the gang. Otherwise, Australia didn't seem too troubled dispensing with Honduras. S.Korea lost to Morocco and Russia, but did beat Colombia and draw Serbia in recent friendlies. And Iran's record has been as consistent as it can get. Both within the AFC and in our friendlies. What's more, unlike our Wc2014 side, this one is a bit more pleading to the eye. Indeed, it can actually impress and make a 1:0 win look like it was a breeze.
Whether fair or not, the general stereotype of sub-Saharan African teams is that given most of them don't have very stable institutions and many of them don't have a lot of financial resources, any success they enjoy will be ultimately due the physical attributes in their respective player pools combined with the kind of pure raw talent that you will seldom find in Asia. Those strengths naturally are far more reliant on individuals and, hence, are going to fluctuate a bit more than those whose football structure is built on infrastructure, facilities, management and training, financial resources, a strong league, and such things. But ultimately even if there will be greater fluctuation in the fortunes of individual African sides, I believe there were will almost always been one or two that will be alright and catch people's attention.
Both AFC & CAF are right now, clearly not as good as UEFA or CONMEBOL, however I would ranked CAF above AFC. It is relatively common to see every AFC teams crash in the first round in World Cup. The last time it happened for CAF was back in 1982 where both Algeria & Cameroon did not make it , without being ridiculous, with Algeria elimination triggering a change of rule and Cameroon ending up unbeaten while facing Italy (future winner) and Poland (3rd). Since then, WC wihout AFC teams in the 2nd round were witnessed more often than not : 1986,1990,1998,2006 and 2014. Your comment here, seems to confirm my point. Ghana made it to the WC for the first time in 2006 and qualified to the round of 16 from a very difficult group, while Iran in the same WC finished last in their group behind Angola, a team that was never seen before or after this tournament. IC has a disappointment at WC, but they never finished last of their group and always racked a win. Both "inconsistent" teams that you quoted have a better WC record than "internationally respected" Iran despite tasting the joy of international football for the first time in the mid-2000s. As for Egypt,they might have made it more often had they been an AFC member. I do not believe that past dictates future, if so, then the World Cup should be reserved to a very few number of selected countries. However I think that Iranian fans seem to be a little delusional about the true historical level of their team. Even at continental level, there is a couple of teams, I would place above them (SK & Japan).
Totally agree with the first sentence I highlighted. But how are Iranian fans delusional? Nothing you said until the last sentence, which I understand someone saying but needs to be explored for greater context, was all that contentious to me. CAF being slightly above the AFC and doing better, overall, than the AFC isn't much in contention. I, at least, accept it as long as the picture isn't exaggerated beyond recognition. As for Iran, and how it rates "historically", well it depends what you use to measure things? But certainly, when it comes to our record outside of Asia, in the World Cup and such, compared to South Korea and Japan, we definitely are behind them. No doubt about it. Within Asia, the picture is a lot more complicated than non-Asian fans realize. I can expand on that if necessary, but take it from me, there has almost never been a time when either have face-to-face, showed themselves better than us. The few times they might have is dwarfed by the many more times when the reverse was shown.
Talking about the historical ranking, ELO actually had a historical rating of teams as well. Not that I necessarily agree with those rankings, but they should put some things in context. Especially the difference between overall results and achievements in a tournament held every 4 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings ... Highest average ratings since 1970 14 Mexico 1790.4 ... 25 Australia 1699.9 ... 30 South Korea 1682.0 31 Iran 1673.8 ... 34 Egypt 1660.9 35 Nigeria 1660.3 ... 40 Cameroon 1639.6 41 Morocco 1636.0 42 Ivory Coast 1631.1 43 United States 1619.8 44 Ghana 1615.9 ... 46 Iraq 1606.7 47 Costa Rica 1606.1 48 Japan 1604.5 ... 50 Tunisia 1599.3 51 China PR 1591.0 p.s. I didn't find Saudi Arabia in the top 51 list on the wiki page, which is a bit surprising and even inexplicable to me. As for Japan rating so low in Asia, that is because Japan were (if not a minnow, an outsider) before the 1990s in Asian football. Until then, the kings of the east in the AFC were South Korea and the Koreans basically totally dominated the eastern zone in the AFC. But since the 1990s, Japan have actually enjoyed a lot more continental success at the national level in Asia than S.Korea.
This is a perfect example of how the Elo rankings are absolute garbage, the more I think about it , their methodology might actually be worse than FIFA's. Since 1970 Iran has never progressed beyond the 1st round of a world cup and have only won their continental tournament ONCE, yet they are on average ranked higher than Egypt - who won continental tournaments 5 times Nigeria - who won continental tournaments 3 times, made the WC 2nd round 3 times Cameroon- who won continental tournament 5 times, made the WC quarter finals once Morocco- won continental tournament once and made it to the WC 2nd round once Ghana - won continental tournament 2 times, made the WC quarters once and 2nd round once USA- who have won countless Gold cups, made the WC knockouts countless times. Every one of these teams records is better than Irans, again by some magical reason you claim Iran has a higher average elo rankings since 1970 A clear case of why Elo rankings are pathetic, and you keep quoting them as if it should mean anything, yet all these teams below Iran have actually done something on the world stage. Yet you have the nerve to argue about my rankings for page after page and post this rubbish. I do not care what so called "respect" elo ratings have, they are clearly rubbish and have a very deep seeded flaw in them. They show no sort of accuracy what so ever, and people only have to look at a team's results to determine something is way off about them.
Actually Iran has 3 Asian Cup titles earned consecutively between 1968-1976, two of them after 1970. More significantly, though, since ELO doesn't give points for trophies but results, Iran has the best win/loss/points record of any team in the AFC. And I am absolutely sure no side enjoys that sort of a record in CAF in their continental championship either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFC_Asian_Cup_records_and_statistics ... All-time table ...................................(Wins) (Draws) (Losses) ...(Points) 1 Iran ................13 62 37 18 7 119 45 74 129 2.08 2 South Korea ...13 62 32 16 14 100 62 38 112 1.81 3 Japan ................8 41 24 12 5 80 38 42 84 2.05 4 China PR.......... 11 51 20 13 18 81 58 23 73 1.43 5 Saudi Arabia ......9 44 19 13 12 63 45 18 70 1.59
You don't understand ELO rankings or its methodology. False. See above post: Iran has 3 Asian Cup titles, with 2 of them since 1970 (1972, 1976). Trophies don't earn points. Only results earn points. This might actually be a flaw in all the ranking systems, as I believe that besides results, certain trophies, milestones, and achievements should earn separate additional points. Nothing magical. None have Iran's overall record in terms of points per game. To understand Iran's record, just look at our win/draw/loss record in the Asian Cup which I posted above. In 50 years, 13 tournaments which we have participated, and over 64 matches played, Iran has only 7 losses in the Asian Cup in total. That is roughly only one loss every 2 tournaments. In general, that is how Iran's record looks in Asia. Very few losses. The few have been costly and some of the games that statistically count as a draw have been very costly penalty-kick losses. But any system that looks to compute points on actual results would give Iran high marks. Your rankings only exist in your own mind and I find it funny that you even pretend otherwise. I use the opportunity given by rankings such as yours to educate people better as it relates to Iran and its actual record, while also learning about other teams. I am not here to sell ELO's rankings to you. You can judge teams based on anything you wish, as other fans do, but clearly there are 2 rankings that (despite their flaws and the criticisms) anyone pays any attention to: FIFA and ELO. Between them, incidentally, ELO has been shown to be superior in terms of predicting results.
Points per game is a meaningless statistic when you don't account for the quality of teams you are playing. Unless everybody has the same schedule, ie (play the exact same teams) then trying to evaluate teams based on points per match is 100% useless. Even within AFC one final wcq group was far heavier than the other. Iran found themself in the far easier group. In CAF you cannot compare Nigeria's group to Tunisians. Far different in terms of quality. Every team in Nigeria's group is literally better than every team in Tunisians group. So even comparing teams strictly on a point per game basis within the same confederation is a useless statistic. It becomes even more useless when you compare teams across confederation. Like I have said before. You are only as good as a team you can beat. If you win 199 games and lose zero, yet the best team you have beaten is New Zealand, well that doesn't prove a damn thing in my books. Both FIFA and Elo would likely rank that team very high, while my rankings wouldn't. It seems to me that this is a major problem with elo rankings.
@vancity eagle, ELO definitely considers the quality of the opponents. But in light of your comment, I suppose somehow, in around 50 years in the Asian Cup, Iran has always managed to get supposedly "easy" groups then! As for our World Cup qualifying group, never mind that before Iran easily dispatched of them, no one rated South Korea and Uzbekistan as easy opponents in Asia. We will pretend that groups were significantly different. Iran's overall points per game, including in the Asian Cup, are one factor among many that would tell you the same story. Even the other elite teams in Asia don't really have our record within Asia itself. Otherwise, even the head-to-head record between Iran and South Korea or Japan or Australia favors Iran historically. We have not played Australia in a long time, but in the historical context, our record against Australia in World Cup qualifiers is 3 wins, 2 draws, and 1 loss. To be sure, none of these results are recent and the last match between Iran and Australia was the 2:2 draw in Melbourne in 1997 which booked Iran's ticket to France 98 on the away goal rule. The head-to-head record against Japan also favors Iran. However, even if we focused on more recent matches, still the two sides have basically shown even with our last match ending 1:1 in 2015. Overall, our last 4 games against them have either ended in draws or involved our 2 games against one another in the 2006 World Cup qualifiers, where Iran won 2:1 in Tehran (when everything was on the line) and Japan won 2:1 in Japan when Iran had already clinched its qualification. The two teams also played to a scoreless draw in the 2004 Asian Cup and most observers would have said Iran was the slightly better side in that draw. Japan, of course, went on to win the 2004 Asian Cup beating China in the final, with China getting to the final after a controversial penalty-kick win over Iran in the semifinal. As for our head-to-head record against South Korea, that also favors Iran. It used be rather even (usually slight edge to Iran still), which is why the two sides were quite intense rivals in Asia. But that has changed since 2013 and the record is now decidedly in our favor given the fact that Iran won 4 of the last 5 matches between us, the only one we didn't win our last game which ended in a draw. Even the draw in our last match (with Iran reduced to 10 men playing a game that was meaningless for us but could have meant everything for Korea who were desperate for 3 points) however was more to Iran's credit than to Korea's. Anyway, the one thing I cannot argue with and is true: while Iran has never been a shabby or pushover side in the World Cup either, and since Wc98 until our last match against Bosnia the results in none of our matches were against us at halftime, there is no denying that when it comes to World Cup achievements (and recent trophies in Asia) we lag behind the other teams in the AFC. That doesn't mean Iran has ever been really weaker than any of them, but it means we have not been able to show as well overall when it has mattered the most at the world stage.
What is your logic behind this thinking. The draws were seeded, and in the only recent competitive match between teams from the groups the third placed finishers played two 1-1 draws after 90 minutes, with the winner being determined after extra time.
The pots for the draw were as follows - if I recall correctly: Pot 1: Iran, Australia Pot 2: South Korea, Japan Pot 3: Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia Pot 4: Qatar, UAE Pot 5: China, Iraq Pot 6: Syria, Thailand Even before Syria totally out performed expectations, most people rated them stronger than Thailand. And while I definitely preferred the Uzbeks over the Saudis (not all for football related reasons), I was pretty agnostic when it came to getting South Korea/Japan or the rest.
Despite Syria being the only team Iran didn't defeat in the qualifies, I should add that I don't rate them the 3rd best side in Group A even after they finished 3rd. Sure: the Syrians acquitted themselves well enough in the playoff against Australia. But the Syrians made the playoffs at the expense of the Uzbeks mostly because of fortunate circumstances in their 2 games against Iran which both ended in draws (which gave them more points against Iran than anyone else in the group earned). Of our two matches, one was played under horrid conditions in Malaysia with heavy rainfall turning the field into pure mud: that wasn't football but mud-ball and the game would have been called off if it was't for the fact that arranging any games for Syria to "host" was itself a huge task. The other was after Iran had clinched its qualification and while Iran didn't tank that match and tried to win for sure, we didn't play the game the way we would play a game where we had something on the line. To be frank, under Querioz in particular, there is no way (in a match that mattered) that you would find Iran leading a game 2:1 and have most of its players venturing far from from our goal with only seconds remaining in the game, to be caught off guard in the sequence that led to Syria's dramatic injury time equalizer. Of course, it is also true that Syria never really hosted any games and perhaps if they had, they would have done much better still!
Btw, I really wish Iran and Australia would play one another in a friendly before the World Cup. I actually like to see the two sides go against each other as it is rather perverse that we haven't faced Australia is so long. Indeed, we have never faced Australia since they joined the AFC and all of our matches between them are from when they were in the OFC!
But if you recall, Algeria wasn't rated by African fans before Wc2014 either. Yet, they ended up being the best side from Africa and the one that caught people's attention. And, frankly, they were also a side much better rated by FIFA than by CAF fans. I haven't seen Tunisia lately and I can accept that they aren't that good. But the real problem with CAF is the way it organizes all its games, from the continental championship (every 2 years) to the domestic CHAN games, to the way its World Cup qualifying groups are arranged. Africa should use the system we have in the AFC as that is much better than what you have in CAF.
They were rated much higher than in 2010 and much higher than Tunisia. No one was expecting much from them but they had a much better squad and continental performances that overshadowed that of Tunisia. Tunisia meanwhile even during qualifying look like a weaker side than Congo. But Tunisia eked out the results they needed while Congo snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I don’t get how someone can seriously claim that Iran’s WCQ Group was “easier” in hindsight after Iran dominated the group. If anything , Iran’s Group was the more difficult group on the paper and at the end it ended up being the more competitive group for all the teams that weren’t named Iran, with the 6th seed Syria taking the 3rd spot with a very late goal, in a dramatic fashion, and every other team having a chance to qualify until the last match day, while in the other group, Iraq, Thailand and UAE were all basically eliminated with 2-3 rounds to go. Before the draw, from pot A, Iran and Australia were fairly equal on paper with Australia having an edge having just won the Asian Cup. From pot B, Japan and Korea were fairly equal as well with Korea having an edge having just finished runner-up in the Asian Cup. From pot C, Uzbekistan was clearly seen as the better side than Saudi Arabia at the time and was universally regarded as the 5th best Asian side by all the fans. From pot D, UAE and Qatar were fairly equal with UAE having an edge having had the better recent results. From pot E, China was a side on the rise and a better team than Iraq who had struggled against Thailand and were lucky to even make it to the last round of WCQs. And finally from pot F, Syria was a head and shoulder above Thailand. So overall, Iran’s group was more balanced from top to bottom and more difficilt on paper. Now just because Iran dominated the group, it doesn’t make the group easier as we all saw how the 6th seed Syria went toe to toe with 1st seed Australia in the payoff. Iran was just in great form during the qualifiers and would have most likely dominated the other group as well, had Iran been placed there instead of Australia.
Tunisia's best chance at qualifying is their talent for eking out results. Getting two draws or one freak win. With two three points headinf into the lpast Panama game... You just know they will get they result they need.
I thought I had already repped this post, but good post. Pretty fair summary of how the groups looked at the time. As you mention, if there was any suggestion that Group A was weaker than Group B, it was in the idea that Australia (the Asian Cup champs) would be a tougher team than Iran (no major accomplishments, but the best record in Asia) as the top seed in Group A and B respectively. Otherwise, most of the other seeds were considered comparable. Now, if the idea that Iran is a weaker top seed than Australia had merit, then it would have been Iran which would have struggled instead of breezing through its qualifying group.