I think the slot allocations are mostly alright as they are. The only changes I'd definitely make if it were up to me are that I'd give CONCACAF 4 full slots and CONMEBOL 5 full slots and reduce Asia to 3.5. On the basis of their dreadful performance at Brazil 2014, they really don't deserve any more that that. The playoff would always be between AFC and OFC. Alternately, you could reduce Asia to 4 instead of 3.5 and take the remaining half slot from Africa, another overrepresented confederation (performance-wise). Playoff between CAF and OFC.
Why such drastic measures because of one WC. AFC was dreadful in 2014, but just in 2010, they sent half of their teams to the 2nd round. In 2014 CAF sent pretty much the same ratio of teams into the second round as UEFA, and that is without all the benefits of seeding a whole bunch of euro teams got. If they are overrepresented, then so is UEFA.
Fair enough about AFC. If AFC can return to its 2010 level in 2018, I suppose they warrant their current allocation. If they perform at the same level as in 2014, then a reduction is fair. My comment about CAF was about their general level of performance since the 32-team format was introduced, not about 2014 specifically. 2014 did see an improvement in performance (2 teams in the round of 16 for the first time). It is unclear whether this signals a long-term improvement at all in performance. FWIW, UEFA's worst ever performance in terms of advancement to the round of 16 (6/13 teams in 2010 and 2014 - so a little over 46%) is still better (if only marginally) than Africa's best performance (2/5 teams = 40% in 2014).
Got the benefit of a terrible call. CAF doesn't deserve more spots at this moment - perhaps less. Would like to see Egypt, Morocco, Senegal, Algeria, & Tunisia make it to WC 2018.
AFC should be stripped of the half berth they have and it should be given to CONCACAF. CONCACAF has consistently done better than AFC for the last seven or eight World Cups.
Agree completely. It's only by luck that Mexico avoided Uruguay in the playoffs last time. A New Zealand-Jordan playoff would have been absolutely ridiculous. AFC doesn't deserve 4.5 spots. I actually don't think it would be unreasonable to give CONMEBOL a fifth full spot also. AFC could be reduced to 3.5. It wouldn't have made too much difference last time around anyway. Mexico and Uruguay would have qualified directly without the formality of an intercontinental playoff. South Korea and Australia would have played off to determine AFC's third automatic qualifier. Whoever lost would have played New Zealand for the final spot and most probably won. I believe something like this was done for the 1998 World Cup. Iran played Japan for AFC's third spot, lost, and then played Australia (OFC's winner) and won (on away goals) to qualify for the World Cup.
Current WC berths, are frozen for 2018 and 2022. FIFA has already decided it, and its not going to change. If anything happens regarding WC berths, it will only be for 2026 and the WC's to come after it.
What I meant was the playoff in 2018 is between CONCACAF and AFC so CONCACAF can take the half spot (if the team in the playoff is good enough). I don't think FIFA will affect the result.
I think Conmebol put up a much stronger case for an extra 0.5 if Asia loses it. To be honest though I wouldn't change the numbers overall. I would just have more playoff spots so the numbers at a world cup will more reflect current strength rather than historical strength. I would covert one spot from each of Africa, Asia, North America and South America to 2 playoff spots. I would even let Europe participate by having some of their existing internal playoff spots converted to intercontinental spots.
I actually kind of like this idea. But this would never happen because, in practice, this would probably just mean 6 South American teams, maybe 15 or 16 European teams, and one less for each of the other confederations. FIFA politics won't allow it. I like the concept though. In 2014, we had some very decent UEFA teams like Ukraine and Sweden miss out, while rubbish teams like Cameroon, Honduras, etc. qualified.
As long as UEFA consistently sends crap teams like Italy, England in 2014 I have no understanding whatsoever for bashing other confeds. I also think intercontinental playoffs are good and fully expect CONCACAF and CAF to benefit with additional slots thanks to thiss.
Oh brother. You want to call Greece or Bosnia crap teams at WC 2014 go ahead (although even Bosnia seems a bit unfair, given they played Argentina toe to toe), but England and Italy? "Crap teams" don't usually lose against the run of play as these two did. Both had most of the possession against Costa Rica and Uruguay, even though Italy was down a man against Uruguay for the 2nd half (and should have been level, but referee Rodriguez missed the "Bite"). Not to mention that calling a side that was World Cup champions only two WC's before, and another that had made the knockout round four World Cups in a row before Brazil, seems a bit over the top.
UEFA 14 S. AMERICA 5 CONCACAF 3 AFRICA 3 ASIA 3 I believe that the fourth and fifth teams in Asia, CONCACAF and Africa in addition to S. America #6 and OFC #1 should have an 8 team tourney for the last four spots. You could have two groups of four with the top two in each group qualifying or two groups of four and only winners qualify directly. The 2nd place team from Group A would play the 3rd in Group B and vice versa. This would allow for more fairness in case the draw was skewed.
Sounds like an okay idea. Just one thing though. You forgot about the host nation's spot, so you'll have to take that from somewhere.
Ball possession, England 62-38. Dangerous attacks, England 46-31. Total attempts England 13-10. Shots on target England 8-6. Passes completed England 415 to 185. "Easily the better team"?
Stats can be misleading as they hide quality of chances. England's half chances weren't comparable to Uruguay's gilt edged chances. If you watch the official full highlights in the first half Uruguay had 5 chances worth mention to England's 3. Even in the second half with England chasing you have 3 to 3. Quantity does not equal quality.
Heh. I find the official stats to be a bit more objective than your game summary. I'll go with what the stats say. In any case, the numbers show that Uruguay was not "easily the better team", as Pip stated.
You forgot this stat: goals. Of course, you will never give any credit to a South American side not named Brazil or Argentina, so it's useless to argue with you. What an ugly, lucky bounces goal the one England scored, by the way.
Now you're changing your tune. No longer "easily the better team" but "Look! More goals! Scoreboard!" No one here suggested that Uruguay didn't deserve the win. But it was a close, competitive match that could have gone either way.