So lowly Russia made themselves look great against a team I remember embarrassing themselves against Germany in years past. This had me wondering why Asia gets 4 spots. So I looked through all the results of all the group stages of the 32-team tournaments that have existed since 1998 and discovered some stuff. Of the 160 World Cup spots in the past 5 tournaments, 70 have gone to Europe, 25 have gone to South America, 17 to North America, 26 to Africa, and 21 to Asia (I've included Australia as an Asian country even when it was in Oceana.) There have been 40 first place spots and 40 4th place spots in the group stages. 22 of those first place finishes have been won by UEFA sides, 12 by Conmebol, 3 by Concacaf, 1 by CAF, 2 by AFC. Of the 4th place finishers: 10 UEFA, 1 Conmebol, 6 Concacaf, 10 CAF, and 13 AFC. The worst teams in the World Cup are generally from Asia, and the confederation most screwed by current allocations is clearly South America. 62% of the time that an Asian team makes the tournament, it is dead last in its group. The corresponding rate for Conmebol is 4%. (Also of note, the two first place finishes Asia has earned were the Korea-Japan games in 2002.) We're not seeing Chile this summer, but we have to watch Saudia Arabia pee themselves three times. I suspect Uruguay have a great chance to produce the most lopsided WC result in history.
You should clarify home field advantage for all regions not just in 2002... First place group phase finishes... CONCACAF AWAY = 3 USA 2010 Costa Rica 2014 Mexico 2002 UEFA HOME = 11 Germany 2006, 1998 Italy 2006, 1998 England 2006 Portugal 2006 Switzerland 2006 Spain 2006 Netherlands 1998 Romania 1998 France 1998 AWAY = 11 Germany 2014, 2010, 2002 Netherlands 2014, 2010 Spain 2010, 2002 France 2014 Belgium 2014 Denmark 2002 Sweden 2002 CONMEBOL HOME = 3 Brazil 2014 Colombia 2014 Argentina 2014 AWAY = 9 Brazil 2006, 2010, 2002, 1998 Argentina 2006, 2010, 1998 Uruguay 2010 Paraguay 2010 CAF AWAY = 1 Nigeria 1998 AFC HOME = 2 Japan 2002 S Korea 2002 Looking at this a little e deeper it's the big teams that mostly win groups away. Take away Brazil and Argentina in CONMEBOL and CONMEBOL has just 2 away group phase wins since 1998. Take away Spain, Netherlands and Germany and UEFA has 4 away wins and one of them is France. This shows that it is difficult to get away results in the World Cup, and the big teams are mostly the teams that can pull off these kinds of results. These are the only teams besides the big teams (mentioned above) to achieve an away group phase win... Nigeria in 1998 Denmark in 2002 Sweden in 2002 Mexico in 2002 Uruguay in 2010 Paraguay in 2010 USA in 2010 Belgium in 2014 Costa Rica in 2014 France in 2014 (They are a big team, but only have 1 away group phase win) Italy, England, Portugal, Colombia and Chile have never finished first in an away group since 1998.
For all the hilarious butthurt we're going to have to endure in this thread - there is a broader issue with qualification that we still have to deal with. Basically, we currently see a number of teams qualify almost entirely on their strength in home qualifiers - a skill that is utterly useless once you progress to the final tournament. J
I'm not the one to do this analysis--and it's probably already been done anyway--but this issue of home field advantage at the World Cup is huge. How significant has has HCA been for teams with qualifying campaigns that relied on HFA? Note: C for Confederation... OK, well, I looked. What about Home Hemisphere Advantage? In 2010, in South Africa, all five South American teams that qualified won their groups! That's a North South thing. Mexico's hosted twice so far, and Brazil beat Italy in 1970, and Argentina beat Germany in '86. When the US hosted in '94, Brazil beat Italy again! That's an East West thing...
Oh well, may as well lob a few in here - keep the fans bois lit. Actually we got five spots. Australia* defeated Honduras (even though we were told we would be "destroyed by the hostile atmosphere in San Pedro Sula that no-one besides hardened Concacaf veterans could even possibly hope to cope with") Well, that's novel, no-one ever thought of doing that before. Well, kudos for that. Usually people don't because it doesn't help their argument. (BTW Oceania) Okay, I snipped it because we've all read it all before. And it's not that the conclusion (South America loses out, Asia is advantaged) is wrong, it's two other points - I'll highlight them below - that people seriously need to be reminded of. More importantly (in general) but less relevant (to this argument) is that: The people who give AFC 4.5 spots don't actually care - so you're wasting your breath/preaching to the converted (take your pick). But more relevantly, the analysis as presented doesn't actually prove your point Sure it might still be true/obviously is true (again, take your pick) - but the analysis doesn't prove it. At best it only proves that the AFC teams aren't in the best 24 teams**. And I don't think anyone is arguing against that. Anyway, because the usual misinterpretations of data will no doubt be trotted out again, let the flame war commence. J * who, we must remember, finished behind Saudi Arabia in qualifying - largely due to the performance of the Saudis at home. ** I was going to say it showed that AFC teams weren't getting any better in relative terms, but it actually doesn't show that either, for the same reasons.
Exactly, Conmebol *strength* is really dependent of whatever Brazil and Argentina has achieved. Other Conmebol teams need to do better, in order to justify a higher allocation for Conmebol.
Huh??? My data is about each confederation's likelihood of finishing last in the group. Brazil and Argentina almost never finish last in their groups. In fact, over the last two decades, only ONE Conmebol nation has finished last in the group stage. Meanwhile, 5/8 of the time an Asian team does finish last. It is clear that from a sporting perspective, the relative allocations between Asia and South America are out of whack. It's also clear that FIFA is more interested in money than quality. Proof of that argument only needs 5 letters: QATAR.
Agree with the observation about AFC's overrepresentation and CONMEBOL's having a case for more spots. I think UEFA may have a case, as well, though their problems might have more to do with the bizarre seeding system than with having too few spots. On another note, has anyone else noticed the poor performance of CAF in this tournament? Granted, there have only been three matches involving CAF teams so far, but all the CAF teams are goalless and pointless. Morocco, I think, is basically out. I don't see them getting anything against either Portugal or Spain, especially after seeing the match between the latter two yesterday evening. Egypt might be able to advance if Salah shows up in their remaining two matches, but Russia are still favored at this point. Nigeria are not looking good after a loss against Croatia and a match against Argentina still remaining. Senegal is in a pretty open group, but are not favorites to advance. Tunisia is obviously a massive underdog in its group. I think Senegal probably has the best chance, followed by Egypt. Nigeria might have a chance if Argentina flops. TL; DR: CAF has not had a good World Cup so far, and their remaining teams are not favored either. Could this be a historically bad World Cup for CAF? Keep in mind the last time no CAF team made it to the second round was 1982.
That is not the half of your data I referred to. The other half of your data talks about 1st-placed teams at group stage. For Conmebol, they were: 1998: Argentina + Brazil. 2002: Brazil. 2006: Argentina + Brazil. 2010: Argentina + Brazil + Paraguay + Uruguay. 2014: Argentina + Brazil + Colombia. Only since 2010, you see anything different than the Conmebol duo ARG+BRA. In 2010, even USA finished as group leader. Either: a) we need more historical samples, or b) wait for 2018 WC results, or c) look at Andean squads' records at the WC. a) Historical bias: Conmebol has had multiple group slots since 1930 (4.2 slots on average). Is it fair to take away AFC slots considering that AFC started getting 4 WC slots since 1998? b) Jury is out on this one. Neither ARG nor PER will top their groups now. c) If you let more Conmebol teams into the WC, you will get squads that rely on high-altitude bases for WC qualification: Bolivia and Ecuador. Just accept the fact that Asia now rules FIFA sponsorship, in fact saving Russia 2018 from being a financial disaster. FIFA is not taking away WC slots from anyone, much less from AFC.
At this point after every team has played one match, every confederation has notched a win. AFC has 2 while CONCACAF and CAF each have 1. Mighty CONMEBOL only has one win as well. Early days obviously but I do think there should be a little less shitting on everyone that isn't in Europe or S. America.
All of your points are rather sound, but this last one is really the point. (Although there was a very interesting result this morning ...) I'll admit there's some sour grapes here. Usual arrangement of the pots put Asian and North American teams together, so that no Concacaf team could ever face an AFC opponent in the group stage, 'cept when Korea hosted.
Correct, although that was only possible because Mexico was seeded by FIFA. The other CONCACAF countries were placed in the same pot as the AFC teams.
Aren't we one of those? We've only lost one World Cup qualifying match at home since 1981, and in that one we were already through to the next stage and fielded our Olympic Squad rather than bring players back from Europe during the summer break.
Egypt, S Arabia, Costa Rica, Tunisia, Panama 2 games 2 losses each Iran and Morocco 1 loss Australia 1 draw Nigeria, Mexico, Japan, Senegal 1 win All vs UEFA/CONMEBOL To which we add 1 more win for Mexico and Iran For a 6-1-12 record
No African teams in the knockout rounds and only one Asian team. Why are we expanding the World Cup again?
Because we need to ensure that Italy and USA can make it to the WC soon. More cannon fodder for the group stage.
So, if you aren't in the best 16 you can't be in the best 32? 16 teams will always go out in the group phase. J
My point is that the purpose of the World Cup should be to determine the best team in the world. Thus participation should be limited to teams that have a realistic chance of winning the tournament. So I'd have a 16-team tournament, as follows: UEFA: 5+3 CONMEBOL: 3+2 ASIA: 2+1 AFRCIA 2+1 CONCACAF: 2+1 Fourteen teams qualify automatically, with eight teams in a two-round interconfederational playoff for the final two spots.
On the one hand - the whole idea seems a bit like asking McDonalds to shut half their "restaurants" and just focus on making a better burger. On the other hand, this tournament would still be filled with teams with no chance of winning - so after a couple of goes through we would see the logical imperative of cutting it down to a more manageable 8 team tournament, as follows: UEFA: 4 + 2 CONMEBOL: 2 + 1 REST OF THE WORLD: 0 + 1 Six teams qualify automatically with 4 teams in global playoffs for the final two spots. J
Due to its length, I highlighted what I thought were the most important points of my post. Personally, I think 24 strikes a balance between making qualification too difficult and exclusionary, and allowing too many teams that don't belong at this level (although 16 makes for a better format). That being said, I could live with a 16-team WC if done right. My main concern about a 16-team WC is that such a reduction makes it all the more important that we have a qualifying system that makes sure that the best teams go and doesn't depend heavily on luck of the draw, as is often the case now, particularly in UEFA. Personally, I think if we were go to 16, we should just drop the confederation allocations altogether and just take the best 15 teams from some sort of World Nations League + the hosts. This is the best way to ensure the best teams go. Something like this: There are 211 FIFA members. Given that many of the smaller national federations have issues with travel costs and such, it is obviously not possible for every team in the world to play in a World Nations League. In order to address this issue, each of the confederations could run preliminary rounds to reduce the number of teams to 128 (they'd have to work out the number of teams from each confederation, of course). Once we have 128 teams, we divide them into Leagues A, B, C, and D, with the best 32 teams in League A, the next best 32 in League B, and so on. In each league, the 32 teams would be divided into 8 groups of 4 teams each. Unfortunately, we probably would have to use the shitty FIFA rankings for the first cycle, but this would probably sort itself out after a couple of cycles as teams get promoted and relegated. The FIFA rankings might also become more accurate over time if we have regular intercontinental matches. To reduce plane travel, in Leagues B-D, teams in North and South America could be separated from teams in Europe, Africa, and Asia/Oceania. In League A, there would be no geographical restrictions, but this would only involve the top 32 teams, anyway, so it shouldn't be as much of an issue. Also, keep in mind that the Nations League would be taking the place of the regional qualifiers that are currently played, so we're really only talking about 6 matches (home and away against 3 group opponents) over the course of a two to three-year period. And in UEFA, at least, most players would not be traveling much for the three home matches. That leaves the issue of how to allocate the spots. I wouldn't want teams to be eliminated right from the get-go simply because of what league they ended up in. As such, I would allocate the spots as follows: League A: 11 direct spots + 4 playoff spots League B: 3 playoff spots League C: 0.5 playoff spots League D: 0.5 playoff spots Winners of Leagues C and D playoff for a spot in the main playoff round. If match congestion is an issue (since there would presumably be playoffs in each of the leagues after the group stage), we could have all the playoffs be one-legged fixtures on neutral ground in the host country. In each of the leagues, there would be (one-legged) playoffs involving the top 8 teams (i.e. the 8 group winners). These playoff "Final 8" tournaments would preferably be held on neutral ground in a country that is not involved in the tournament. This means 9 matches over the course of a cycle for a team that wins its group and makes the playoff final/third-place match in its league. In League A, these playoffs would have no effect on WC qualification, as all the involved teams would already be qualified, but would simply be played to determine the Nations League champion. WC spots would be determined as follows: League A: The 8 group winners would qualify automatically. The best 6 runners-up would then playoff for the remaining 3 direct spots. Again, we could have the playoffs be one-legged neutral ground fixtures, perhaps in the same country as the "Final 8" tournament. The three losers would then advance to the playoffs against the teams from Leagues B and C/D. The winner of a playoff between the two worst runners-up would also advance to the inter-league playoffs. The exception would be if the hosts finish in the top two of a League A group. In this case, League A gets 12 direct spots including the host. If they finish first, then the 8 group winners (including the hosts) automatically qualify. All 8 runners-up then playoff for the remaining 4 direct spots. The 4 losers advance to the inter-league playoffs. If the hosts finish runners-up in their group, then they qualify automatically along with the 8 group winners, leaving seven runners-up to fight for three direct spots and four playoff spots. The worst of the seven runners-up advances to the inter-league playoffs. The remaining 6 then play-off for the three remaining direct spots, with the losers advancing to the inter-league playoffs. League B: Top 3 teams in Final 8 tournament (i.e. the finalists and the winner of the third-place match) advance to the inter-league playoffs. Leagues C and D: Winners from the two leagues playoff for a spot in the inter-league playoffs. Inter-league playoffs: 8 teams playoff for 4 WC spots. Host spot This format ensures that the teams that advance to the WC are, for the most part, the best teams, while still theoretically allowing a team from the lower leagues to qualify if they have a great run. Haha. Another really long-winded post from me. Thanks for reading if you actually managed to get this far. Would love to hear if anyone has any thoughts on this idea. Cheers.