Who knows FIFA may want to put Asian teams with South American teams and African teams with CONCACAF teams. They could also put the Americas teams in one pot giving them 6 non seeded teams and put the 5 african teams in one pot and 5 asian teams in the other pot. Then the groups with South American teams as the seeded teams would draw once from the European pot, once from the Asian pot, and once from the African pot. Then for South Africa as a seeded team they would draw once from the European pot, once from the Asian pot, and once from the Americas pot. This would ensure that no team from the same confederation other than europe is drawn together. The six non seeded Americas teams would go into groups with Euro teams or South Africa as the seeded group. Here's how it would look: Pot A (Seeded Teams) South Africa Italy Brazil Argentina England France Germany Spain Pot B (African Teams) Cameroon Egpyt Nigeria Ghana Ivory Coast Pot C (Americas Teams) USA Mexico Costa Rica Uruguay Paraguay Chile Pot D (Asian Teams) Korea Republic Australia Japan Saudi Arabia North Korea Pot E (European Teams) Denmark Greece Slovakia Netherlands Rep. of Ireland Serbia Russia Croatia So then you would go to drawing procedure. Group A would be South Africa and Italy would be group F because they are the current champ. Every other teams would be drawn in order alphabetically. After the seeded teams are drawn. Then you could either draw teams into a group all at once designating group A to draw teams from Europe pot, Asian pot, and Americas pot. Or you could draw them once at a time which is a little more confusing for me to explain. But it's similar to all draw procedures that you see. So since Group A is designated you then go to the groups with the South American seeded teams Argentina and Brazil which must be teams from Africa, Asia, and Europe. At this point you will have 8 European teams which are not designated and in Pot E. Each group would select one team from here. Then you will have 3 teams left from Africa, 5 teams left from the Americas, and 2 teams left from Asia. You would have a pot that has these pot names set aside and you would draw from that pot to see which pot you draw from so that way teams are put into groups on a drawn basis to spead out the teams better. But here are the results of what I got from my draw procedure. Group A - South Africa - Uruguay - Japan - Netherlands Group B - England - Ghana - Costa Rica - Greece Group C - Germany - Croatia - North Korea - USA Group D - France - Cameroon - Mexico - Serbia Group E - Argentina - Egypt - Saudi Arabia - Russia Group F - Italy - Slovakia - Chile - Ivory Coast Group G - Spain - Korea Republic - Paraguay - Denmark Group H - Brazil - Australia - Nigeria - Rep. of Ireland
Nice idea - but I fear it would be too complicated for FIFA. Also C-Caf and AFC would most likely be in the same pot as they are (rightly or wrongly) considerred the easy confeds, thus their pot becomes the lowest ranked
Or there may be only 3 pots - seeded (8), European (8) and the rest (16). Then in each group there will be 2 teams from the last pot. The only difference is that CONCACAF teams could meet SA teams.
But that would be pretty circuitous. There is a high chance, that two teams from the same confederation would end in the same group and you would need to relocate them.
this question is kind of off topic, but im going to ask it. with the all the speculation that fifa's draws are rigged, with some evidence leading to easy host groups, and tough groups for other teams, why dont they venture away from hand picking the balls and go to how they pick the mega balls in lotteries. there is no way to rig that type of draw and it could get rid of all conspirators. anyone else think they should go to an automatic system in determining draws, because at times im even suspicious.
I don;t see FIFA reacting to speculation on Big Soccer, I don't see any wider speculation. At the end of the day it would be hard enough to rig it now anyway. In 1998 France had what what wasn't considered an easy ride (Denmark, South Africa and Saudi Arabia). Denmark obviusoly had Schmeichal, the Laudrap brother and a host of other good players. Saudi Arabia had been impressive in WC 1994 and South Africa had a good set of players. Japan had what was considered an easy draw in 2002, but South Korea had what was considered quite a tough draw (facing Portgual's golden generation and Poland who had been very impressive in qualification, though at the time not much was expected of the USA who had been poor in 1998). In 2006 Germany had a fairly easy, but not exceptionally easy group.
Can someone please explain to me the benefits of seperating teams from the same confederation? I have never been able to understand it. I have always thought it would be more fair to rank all of the teams in the World Cup and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe it is just because I am a US fan, but I think seperating teams from the same confederations just serves to benefit the stronger confederations like CONEMBOL AND CAF and hurt the weaker confederations of CONCACAF and AFC. (UEFA excluded because they can play each other.) I would love to see a draw done based on all teams being ranked somehow. I think that these groups would appear much more even.
The idea is to make sure each group has a global flavour, otherwise it's quite likely you'll get groups where all the teams are from UEFA. The weaker confederations gain from the attempts to make the WC have a truly global lfavour by the fact that it's far easier for them to qualify than it is for the teams in the stronger confederations, so I don't think they can rightly cry foul if it slightly disadvantages them when it comes to the group draw.
But wouldn't a team like Italy rather play a weaker team from UEFA (i.e. Slovakia or Hungary) then a team like Mexico or the USA? I think that the fact that FIFA tries to spread the teams out globally can even at times bite big teams in the butt. Look at the 2002 World Cup where there was a group made up of Nigeria, Sweden, England, and Argentina. Argentina failed to make it out of their group despite being seeded. Had the teams been spread out, they may have been placed in a group with China, Ireland, and England. I believe that this would have provided Argenitna with a greater opportunity to make the next round because this group would have been more evenly spread out.
Obviously more comphrehensive seeding would in theory benefit the best teams, but to be honest until the seeding procedure is more accurate then the difference it made wouldn'tof been that huge. Look at the last WC: some teams stronger teams were relatively low seeds (Czceh Republic 16, Portugual 17, Ivory Coast 27, Australia 28) and some of the weaker temas were relatively high seeds (USA 9, Japan 12 Costa Rica 18, Saudi Arabia 19).
What's your problem? A group like Argentina, China, England and Ireland was totally possible in 2002. The purpose of the pots is (should be) to ensure equal groups with the most possible variety. 2002 had a bad seeding structure, because there were two hosts and both of them relatively weak, so you had many very strong unseeded UEFA teams. Same case in EURO 2008, two rather weak hosts and a weak title holder, so pot 1 was actually not the strongest but the weakest pot! As a result Germany and Netherlands desperately tried to avoid pot one so they lost/drew games on purpose.
I think it's quite telling that a fan of England and a fan of Germany, two teams who would in theory benefit from comphrehensive seeding, are both lukewarm to the idea. For me any benefit of changing the system for me is outweighed by the risk of being drawn in an all-UEFA group. I want to see Englaqnd playing teams from outside of UEFA in meaningful compettion and the WC is the only time that happens. I also want to see as many inter-confederation matches as possible, again for the only reason that it's the only time that teams from different confederations play each other in meaningful competition (okay you've got the Confederations Cup and guest teams at the Gold Cup and the Copa America, but the meaningfulness of that competition is highly variable)
I just viewed the seeding list (the one based on current FIFA ranking). If this seeding was used, the chance of an all European group would be 0%, as no European teams would be number 4 seeds. The chance of 3 European teams in the same group would be 15%. So there would certainly be lots of teams playing teams from other confederations.
May 2009 update 2010 FIFA World Cup seeding based on current standings. 2010 FIFA World Cup seeding based on the latest FIFA Ranking. 2010 FIFA World Cup seeding based on qualification chances.
June 2009 update 2010 FIFA World Cup seeding based on current standings. 2010 FIFA World Cup seeding based on the latest FIFA Ranking. 2010 FIFA World Cup seeding based on qualification chances.
If only... Though we (Scotland) would probably still draw with Zambia/Saudi Arabia and go out on goal difference or some such.
All I can do is laugh. I know the reality of the odds, but to see it so clearly displayed over and over again, draw after draw... I really need to be better mentally prepared for another 3 and out by our boys. And, after this weekend, maybe not even making the Cup.
Hmm lets see which method I prefer better based on what matchups I'd have tickets for... Current Standings - France v. Swiss, Spain v. Korea Rep., Argentina v. USA FIFA Rankings - Brazil v. Czech Rep., Argentina v. Iran, England v. Saudi Arabia Qualification Chances - Brazil v. Swiss, England v. Japan, Argentina v. Australia I might have to go with option #3 as my favorite. =)
Unlike a lot of other bright-eyed young things on these boards (not that you're one of them, tom), I thought the odds were stacked high against us for anything other than a loss in Saprissa. We just always lose there. It was seeing reports of over 50,000 tickets sold in Chicago that started giving me DC '02 qualifying flashbacks and led to my post. I'm concerned about this one tonight. But I just looked at the standings again, and if we can pull off a win, then we're in good shape. Even a tie would probably not be too bad. Granted, I haven't done a thorough analysis of what's left, so, yeah, maybe I was overreacting. I'm just acutely aware that if we lose today (and it's a very real possibility), then we have Azteca next. And another loss there. Then things will suddenly not look so rosy. And I've been saying this even before Wednesday night's embarrassment.
That was close. And I agree. Anything other than a win would have made a lot of people question the priorities of the USSF. So glad they took the game over though. Should quiet the worst of the chicken little brigade. ESPECIALLY after El Tri screwed the pooch against the Salvies.