Do you think that San Marino's small population is not the main reason why their team is so terrible?
Oh, God. Not this argument again. Population is a clear factor, just not the only factor. i don't think anyone ever claimed that population of a country entirely determines the strength of that country's football NT.
I agree. But they have. We all agree, so I won't argue if you guys are saying population is a factor. It is one. One factor, most often than not proved not to be the most important in national teams competition. But it is a factor, i'm not an extremist. A country of 100.000 people would have a hard time having a strong football NT, sure... But when you say the population of China, India, or USA or whatever other hugely populated country on earth would make them potential World Powers if another "x" factor (like interest, like money, like a strong league, and a ton of other things tossed here and there) came into play, then i disagree cause you're making the population the main and most important factor to make a statement about that country potential.
Agree with this, population is a factor but nowhere near as important as the footballing culture of the nation. Croatia and Russia have similar passion for the game, Russia has 143m inhabitants to Croatia's 4m yet Croatia consistently produces more elite footballers and does at least as well in international tournaments.
Horrible example of what you pretend to show. According to FIFA's database, regarding their direct confrontations in "A" matches since the beginings (1872), England has won 47 matches, there have been 25 draws, Scotland has won 41 matches. If you look in more detail when these 6 matches of diference occured, these were achieved in the last 20 years, as before it, their numbers were pretty even, through time. Are you going to tell us now, that England's population only got bigger to Scotland's population in the last 20 years, and before it, they were pretty much the same one to the other (take in mind that at present times, Scotland only has the 10 % of population that England has)..... I don't think so.
But they didn't say that did they? They said India would have the largest pool of players, not that they would be a world power. Yes. of course you can assume that would mean a higher level of play for the best of that 1%, but not necessarily. In part I agree with you that without good expertise and coaching at all levels, the best of that pool of players may not be all that great no matter how big the pool of players is. But you're arguing against a point that wasn't being made. India would have the largest pool of players if 1% played the game, that is undeniably true. They may of course still be useless - that is also true.
The head-to-head being close doesn't mean Scotland is almost as good as England. England is expected to qualify for every World Cup and Scotland doesn't have much chance. England has more finishes in the top eight of a World Cup (10 out of 14 appearances) than Scotland has World Cup appearances (8).
That doesn't mean Scotland could never match England and never will. They clearly did match them throughout the 1970s.
I never said they were same as good or as worse neither. I said that till 20 years ago and before it, their direct confrontations had them, at a similar level. At the WC qualifiers and in the Euro, England has performed better (2 victories at WC qualifiers and 1 victory in the Euro), but in qualifiers to the Euro, Scotland has performed better than England (2 victories for the scotch vs. 1 for the english). At the WC, Scotland has never made it pass group phase. But the fact still remains : among themselves, despite their population numbers being so diferent (Scotland's has only about 10 % of England's total population), their achievements against each other are quite similar (6 matches among 106 direct confrontations, is a diference so low, you can't say that among them there is such an overwhelming diference at all). If it only depended on total populations, as both share exactly the same traditions regarding the sport, for every 10 victories for Scotland, England should have 90, and therefore their actual diference is not even close to it.
I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. First of all, I said that Scotland can't consistently compete with England, and no, we're not talking about a bunch of friendlys in which half are in Glasgow before a roaring crowd, I'm talking about accomplishing something on the international level. As the other guy said, Scotland has never even reached the second round at the World Cup, and has only qualified for the Euros twice, going out in the first round there as well. England has probably the 7th or 8th best international record in the world, while I doubt that Scotland is even in the Top 50. They might as well be on different planets in terms of tangible results. The sad truth is that countries like Scotland (or for that matter 17 million population Chile or 5 million Denmark) will almost certainly not win the World Cup in our lifetimes.* However, both Chile and Denmark punch above their weight, so you should probably do what I did, and learn to be satisfied with that. *Holland is the only country that seems to defy this paradigm.
Not only during that time. At the beginings, Scotland was lots superior to England, and it took England almost 40 years to put themselves at their same level, which happened at about 1920, after which Scotland once again established a big diference over England during the 30's, which took England another 30 years to equalize them, only after which they started to put a diference over their northen neighbors. Their rivalry is epic.
Between England and Scotland, there have never been any friendly games, the way you or almost anyone not being brittish would ever understand. Their match-ups, have always been disputed, as there is a lot of pride within it. And btw, I was whom said that they never passed group phase at the WC. About your last parragraph, mmm.... who knows ?. Uruguay was the world's top performer for almost 25 years (2 WC's and 2 olimpic golds from the time when the Olimpics were considered to be world championships at the same level of the WC, when this last one didn't exist yet), and their population has always been lots lower than those examples you posted. In my case, I would never say never, regarding it. (maybe yes on Denmark's case, but don't doubt it, our (Chile's) time will come sooner or later)
And Hungary (twice finalists) and Czechoslovaquia (twice finalists, when they existed), both with less than 15 million inhabitants. We could also include Sweden whom has had more than one great performance at the WC (finalists once, and twice 3rd), with less than 10 million
Most of those achievements by low inhabited countries were before this was a global game and before World Cup were actually contested by all interested parties. Most of Sweden's success was pre-1958, while Czechoslovakia's successes were 1934 and 1962, Hungary 1938 and 1954. Since 1966 the only countries with low population in the semis were: - 1966 Portugal 3rd place (although I would argue that Portugal's colonies added to their success, vide Eusebio, so their population at the time wasn't 10 mln, but some 25 mln). - 1970 Uruguay 4th place - 1974 Netherlands 2nd place - 1978 Netherlands 2nd place - 1986 Belgium 4th place - 1994 Sweden 3rd, Bulgaria 4th - 1998 Croatia 3rd, Netherlands 4th - 2006 Portugal 4th - 2010 Netherlands 2nd, Uruguay 4th - 2014 Netherlands 3rd As you can see Netherlands and to a lesser extent Uruguay consistently punch above their weight. The rest are golden generation types of successes.
So ? As it is, nothing is written on stone regarding it. If they did it before, why can't others do it themselves in the future..... In my case, I don't buy the population factor as being a determining factor to achieve a great success in football.
It certainly did early on. I don't think it does any more. Over the last 10 World Cups, nothing above R16 for Uruguay except 2010, which was a pretty charmed path to the semis (no UEFA or other CONMEBOL teams to overcome, not to mention the incredibly lucky advance from the Ghana quarterfinal). It is close, but I think Paraguay has the slightly better argument they have been the 3rd best SA side over the last 10 World Cups. Uruguay may be better if you add in the Copa America, or CONMEBOL WC qualifying. I don't know a lot about those results.
Why should we care so much about the head-to-head games? According to how many games ELO says they have played, 106 games is 11.2% of England's all-time games and 14.5% of Scotland's all-time games.
I think the balance is about right at the moment (in terms of how they were distributed for 2014), apart from perhaps taking a place away from Asia. It's a hard question and one that can be debated, though. If you go off performances CONCACAF should get more slots next time comparing Mexico, USA and Costa Rica's display to CAF's showing. However the drop off after those 3 is significant; I'd say Honduras were the worst team at the World Cup. CAF while its teams have underperformed in recent tournaments you can't really argue that they have significant depth throughout the continent that deserves a chance at making it. Like I say, I think at the moment they've got it about right.
Maybe but 3.5 spots in the field of 32 seems a bit low when 3 teams are making the round of 16. Of course that was only accomplished in 2014, so I would wait 4 more years. If they can send another 3 teams to the R16 in 2018 then CONCACAF should get at least 4.0 spots in 2022. Remember its just by luck that Mexico avoided Uruguay in the inter-continental playoff last time. It could have been Mexico v Uruguay in one playoff and Jordan v New Zealand in the other. And in 2010 it was Uruguay v Costa Rica while 2 rubbish sides met out east. That strikes me as a bit uneven and unfair which kind of points to a misallocation of spots somewhere.
They couldn't be so rubbish, if the one who made it to the WC among them (New Zeland), actually went back home after the WC had ended, with 3 draws without losing a single match to one team from Conmebol (Paraguay), and 2 teams from Uefa (Slovakia and whom were at the time, the WC champion, Italy). The only undefeated team in that WC. If you want to make an example out of someone, better pick another team.
Sure, I guess the other 3 teams that went to the playoff from those 2 confederations (i.e. AFC and OFC) in 2010 and 2014 were worse. Still they failed to progress from a weak group and I would put my money on Costa Rica beating New Zealand over two legs.
That is simply your opinion, which is fair, but still only your opinion. And you can't present an opinion, as a proven fact to stand a point. For the case, as they didn't play each other, we will never know whom was better.
I agree on the number of spots for Concacaf. About the intercontinental play-offs, I consider them something to wipe out asap!
While I accept that FIFA rankings aren't perfect, they are used for seeding through most of the WC qualifying draws. Unfortunately, it is NOT used for seeding in the inter-continental playoff because in 2013... Uruguay #7 Mexico #20 --------- Jordan #65 New Zealand #90 ... and in 2009: Uruguay #20 Costa Rica #44 ---------- Bahrain #60-80 New Zealand #82 Ironically, in the one round where seeding is probably needed the most it is not used.