Re: These are the seeds!!!!!! I agree. I don't see why they should use two different systems, that's a bit ridiculous, I feel. What's more, had they used that second system for the whole draw, Italy and England would not have been seeded (the Czechs and the Dutch would've). Why be nice to Italy and England, but cruel to Serbia? Hmm... way too political (soccer-wise) to my taste.
It really seems to me that Serbia got screwed. FIFA decides to determine the seeds using a formula combining 1998 and 2002 WC results and 2003, 2004, and 2005 World Rankings, but for determining which UEFA team goes into a special pot, FIFA uses 2005 WR only. Why different criteria? If FIFA used the seeding formula to determine which UEFA team went into the special pot, then Ukraine would have been chosen.
I found it interesting that FIFA changed the World Cup Results portion of the seeding formula. 2002 Formula = (1990 WC Result + 2*1994 WCR + 3*1998 WCR)/6 + (1999 World Ranking + 2000 WR + 2001 WR)/3 Past WCRs provide the following percent of the total: 1990 WCR = 8% 1994 WCR = 17% 1998 WCR = 25% 2006 Formula = (1998 WCR + 2*2002 WCR)/3 + (2003 WR + 2004 WR + 2005 WR)/3 Past WCR now provide the follwowing percent: 1998 WCR = 17% (same as before) 2002 WCR = 33% (increased weight of 8%) How does this affect the USA if the same formula is used in 2010? Our poor result from 1998 will not count against us at all. Our result from this WC will be even more important. Anyone care to speculate on why FIFA made the change?
Since the teams that get the #1 seeds aren't any different under the old formula I'd have to say that FIFA felt they could tweak the formula (make it more realistic) without being accused of manipulating the formula for one team or another. By "making it more realistic" I mean going back three world cups (to 94) brings in results with players who aren't playing anymore (other than Ronaldo).
You could say they are thinking forward , To aspire to a seed in 2010 a team must do good in this cup . This will keep 2 Concacaf teams from being seeded in 2010, and if it doesn't, they can always fudge with the formula again.
Re: These are the seeds!!!!!! They do the draw back to front. They write down who they want to be seeded then adjust the rules accordingly. Happens everytime.
Re: These are the seeds!!!!!! I don't see what this means for the Serbs Does it mean that Serbia can only be in a group headed by Mexico Argentine Brazil + another European team ? If thats the case, then I do think they are being treated unfairly , The teams such as Portugal, Holland should take their chances like everyone else not seaded from Europe.
A few general thoughts: 1) I think it's good that FIFA's scrapped the portion of the formula where a World Cup 12 years ago is counted. As others have speculated, I think they've done it because they can without manipulating the final results. 2) That change, if maintained, means that France and Argentina need to seriously perform (at least quarterfinals) if they want to keep a seed for 2010. And the Netherlands might need a Final appearance just to have a chance. Remember, South Africa is automatically going to bump one seed. The seeds for 2010 could look vastly different from usual if the USA, Korea and Japan all perform well in Germany. 3) I'm usually not so blunt, but there's no other way to put it: Serbia got screwed. I have no idea why the formula used to determine the seeds was not used to determine the "weakest" European team. In fact, why shift from the policy whereby all 9 European teams were ranked equally and the "9th" Euro team was literally the 9th drawn from the pot? If any European team was going to get the treatment that Serbia got, it should have been Ukraine. And even that, I think, would have been unfair. 4) The US's position: first, I think the US obviously benefits from Serbia being placed in a special pot. For one, we avoid facing two non European seeds and Brazil or Argentina. We also avoid Serbia, which I consider to be one of the stronger darkhorses in the field. Finally, our chances of drawing Argentina or Brazil period are significantly reduced, as there is a 2 in 3 chance Serbia will drawn with one of them. Overall, this draw makes it statistically most likely that we draw a European seed, a second European team, and an African side. Still, here are the best case and worst case scenarioes in my opinion (if you follow the principles that Germany will be extremely tough at home and that the US does not do well against European competition in Europe): a) US best case scenario: Argentina Togo Switzerland USA b) US worst case scenario: Germany Paraguay or Ivory Coast Netherlands USA 5) Conspiracy theorists are going to be out in force if Serbia gets drawn into Mexico's group. If that happens (remember, Serbia will be drawn into its group immediately after the Pot 3 is drawn), it will guarantee that the rest of the draw goes smoothly and the USA, T&T or Costa Rica doesn't have to be bumped out of Mexico's group. It's a 33% chance that it will happen without any rigging, but if it does happen, that will be what the conspiracy theorists harp on, because it will make Mexico's group most difficult, while clearing a path for Argentina and Brazil. 6) The tweaking of the procedure re-work the possibilities for the best and worst groups. The nightmare scenario of Brazil or Argentina being grouped with the Dutch and Czechs in no longer possible. The way I see it, a Brazilian led group with 2 European teams might be the "strongest" group, but it won't fit the label of "Group of Death", which I think is applied when 4 teams of relatively equal strength that are all expected to perform well are grouped together (ie. England/Nigeria/Argentina/Sweden...no real outright favorites to win the WC, but all 4 were considered legitimate semifinalist contenders) In my mind, the extreme possibilities along with a the possible combinations for a Group of Death are: a) Possible strongest group Brazil Ivory Coast Netherlands Serbia & Montenegro b) Possible weakest group Mexico Togo Switzerland Saudi Arabia c) Possible "Group of Death" comes from... England/Italy/France/Spain (any Euro seed other than Germany) Paraguay/Ivory Coast Portugal/Sweden/Czech Republic USA/Korea/Japan
Re: These are the seeds!!!!!! Yes, it is peculiar the way that they did it. If I understand this correctly, Serbia has no choiced but to be paired with one of three top seeds: Brazil, Argentina or Mexico. Yeah, it kind of sucks for Serbia, but also for whoever gets them. I wouldn't want them in my group. I'd rather get a team from pot four.
Truer words.... What kind of sports organization says "play the games and we'll come up with the ranking criteria when it's done"
As I wrote upthread, Serbia got jobbed. They're guaranteed to face Bra/Arg/Mex--that's a 2/3 chance to face one of the top teams in the tournament (and no chance at facing the two on poorest form, Spain and France). Add to that a guaranteed Euro side--5 of the 8 are very difficult (Holland, Czech, Portugal, Sweden, Croatia)--and a 50% chance of a tough team from Pot 2 (Iv. Coast, Ghana, Aus., Paraguay (in Mex's group)) and this reads like a nightmare. Of course, if they get drawn with Mexico, Tunisia and Switzerland, for example, all this will quickly be forgotten.
Re: Well! The only difference being that they didn't use the 94 results. Remember, we were predicting it would be 1/6 94, 1/6 98, 1/6 02, 1/6 Dec. 03, 1/6 Dec. 04, 1/6 Nov. 05. Instead, its 1/4 98, 1/4 02, and 1/6 each 03, 04, 05. This might be good news for USA in 2010 as it suggests that the 1998 #32 (8 points) result will not factor into the seeding that year. If we do as well in 06 as we did in 02 (8th place, 25 points), and we remain in 8th in the world rankings in 2007, 08 and 09, we will be somewhere around 49 or 50 seeding points for 2010, near where England/Spain/Germany are this year. Let's take a moment to thank El Diablito for guiding us on what was almost the precise path all these months, (and as well as he could be expected to do, we could not have expected FIFA just to dump the 94 results), and let's take a moment to recognize that by any measure, USA Soccer is on a major upswing. We barely missed a seed this time, and if we keep to our form over the past 5 years, we will surely earn one next time.
Re: Well! oops. Everything I said in this post was either wrong or previously covered. This is what happens when you live on the west coast, something happens in Europe, everyone discusses it, and you post before reading everything through. Well, I stand by the last paragraph anyway. Good progress by USA and great work all year by ElDiablito.
Re: Well! Indeed! I guess we can just take comfort in the "fact" that we're smarter than everybody. One puzzling thought: Why would FIFA change the seeding formula after 3 world cups--just to get the same 8 teams? Two ideas that come from that thought: 1. Is this a giant F U to Holland for supposedly claiming rather heavy-handedly that they deserve a seed? Think about it: if FIFA should keep this formula for the next world cup, Holland will still get screwed a bit for missing out on 2002. 2. Scary how the press release shows USA just missing a seed. Remember how 2002's press release showed Mexico just missing. Is this a veiled attempt of FIFA paving the way for USA to get seeded next time? After all, the catastrophe that was France98 will be wiped away for 2006. hmmm...
MassachusettsRef said: Did you mean two non-seeded European teams? How could we have two seeds in one group?