I agree with everything that MassRef said, but particularly these first three points. Changing the WC performance part of the formula to the last two instead of the last three is a positive development. It still makes consistent WC performance important but doesn't allow 12 year old results to skew things for a team that is almost certainly 99% different. Having that change not affect this year's seeds allows the change to be made with a minimum of complaining. The change also makes getting a good result extremely important for teams that didn't qualify for 2002 or didn't advance out of the group stage since they won't have a 1998 result to help cushion the fall in their WC performance coefficient. Most importantly I don't know why they decided to job Serbia (or any of the 9 unseeded Euros) by making them into a special pot instead of just drawing the the first 8 and then drawing the 9th into the 4th slot of the Arg/Bra/Mex group.
Re: Well! Here's my speculation: they expect 2006 to follow form. That is, it's in Europe, they expect European teams to do well. This would mean that in 2010 the traditional seeds would not be displaced by the US and maybe Mexico would be knocked out, because the Euros would all reinforce their seeding position. Of course, even one upset could throw a wrench into things. Imagine if South Korea gets to the quarters? Or the US? Then FIFA might reinstate the old system (looking at past 3 World Cups) to try to tweak the results a little.
Re: Well! i want holland, czech rep, and Ivory Coast on our group, lets beeatttt them all, no one cannn stop us.
I'm not sure I like dropping the third most recent World Cup. While it is true that very few if any 1994 players will be playing in 2006, is there *something* to be said for respecting a country's historical achievements? I can also see the counterargument, that we should not base the results on anything that happened 11 years ago. Just wondering. Again, it would benefit USA in 2010 to ignore 1998. Should a host country lose seeding points in the next world cup seeding? Meaning, if being the host helps Germany to a better-than-normally-expected result in 2006, is it fair to allow Germany to continue to leverage its 2006 home field advantage into 2010 and 2014? Note that France still benefits from its 1998 HOME victory today. If being seeded helps it do well enough to be in position for a 2010 seed, the system seems to be perpetuating itself. Having thought this through, I think I do like the idea of dropping the third most recent WC result.
Re: These are the seeds!!!!!! But Serbia ARE in Pot 4. What is the difference of them not being able to draw a european seed and the concacaf teams in 4 not being able to draw Mexico. Nothing. They are in Pot 4. What a farce. They`ve beaten topseeded spain in qualifiers and are in Pot 4. Maybe that is revenge for them being the ONLY team European who was able to leave one of the now seeded (France, England, Italy, Spain) behind them in their qualifying group. What a farce !!
Re: These are the seeds!!!!!! It's not farce. They were ranked dead last out of the European teams. Beaten Spain once in qualifying doesn't really mean anything. Serbia-Montenegro is a small country with great soccer, but won't ever be ranked as high as Spain or France. Get over it. Hell, relish the darkhorse/underdog position.
FWIW, FIFA seems to have been logical in placing the Intercontinental play-off winners (AUS and T&T) in groups containing their own continents AND their opposing continents. AUS (OCEANIA) was placed in Group 2 with the non-seeded South American (CONMEBOL) teams. T&T (CONCACAF) was placed in Group 4 with the non-seeded teams of Asia (AFC) and North/Central America (CONCACAF).
Looking at how FIFA did this, I have to applaud them and give them two thumbs up. There can be no mathematical or logical complaints made. Serbia is where it is at because it was ranked last, and FIFA avoided possible ugly matchups of Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica and Trinidad & Tobago. In the end, this is going to be a big country (big soccer) dominated tournament. Saudi Arabia, Trinidad, and Australia are just going to be destroyed. There games are going to be 5-0 embarassments. I'm going to hate to watch it, but it's going to happen. The same could even happen to some of the African teams, including even Tunisia. So it's going to be good to see some big time round of 16 powerhouse matchups. Good job FIFA!
Re: Well! IIRC, there was some tweaking of the formula the last two WCs as well. In 1994 they couldn't have used 3 years of FIFA ranking since FIFA ranking started in 1993. In 1998 they added 3 years of FIFA ranking and the weighting was 60/40 (I can't find the reference, so maybe my mind is playing tricks on me). In 2002 the weighting changed to 50/50. I think that they changed it this time just because they can . This way when they change it next time (just to exclude someone) they'll be able to say "the seeding formula is adjusted every 4 years, it has nothing to do with team xyz" .
Just read about another reason for scrapping 1994 results from the formula: 1994 had 24 teams, 1998 and 2002 had 32 teams In other words, consistency in assigning points for results from those tournaments. There are teams that didn't qualify in 1994 (England, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Uruguay) that very well might have or even probably would have qualified for the tournament and been capable of progressing deep into the knockout stages and racking up points towards their seeding score. If that's the case, it's not out of the realm of possibility for FIFA to bring 1998 back into the 2010 formula. I, for the reasons I stated above, however, think that that would be a mistake.
Re: Well! ding ding ding We have a winner. I agree 100% with you. They want the ability to seed whoever they gosh darn want--and tweaking it each time allows for this.
Assuming that 45pts will get you a seed in 2010, it appears that the US would need a 13th place finish. Why is Italy after Argentina? They got 44.3pts to Argie's 44. And, why do they not use FIFA pts, instead of rankings? This devalues Brazil's pts, and also messes with teams that are bunched closely together in pts, like the ones from 9th to 4th, iirc.
The Kremian eh? Oh the Crimea even... Which is technically an autonomous republic full of Russians, so maybe they don't want to actually go there....
Some interesting speculation. Here are the suggested possibilities so far: 1. Ursula [post 208], IASocFan [post 214], MassachusettsRef [post 215],and NateP [post 226]: It improves/makes more realistic the formula by excluding 12-year-old results from players who are almost all retired. Also, since the seeds are the same regardless of whether the old or new formula is used, there is little controversy making the change this cycle. [Comment: I see the arguments in favor of using the past 3 WCs instead of the past 2, but they've been apparent since the seeding formula was first used; did FIFA suddenly see the light? I'm skeptical.] 2. eldiablito [post 224]: A F U to Holland for supposedly claiming rather heavy-handedly that they deserve a seed and they did not qualify in 2002. [Comment: This is not supported by the change because the 2002 WC results are weighted the exact same whether the old or new seeding formula is used in 2010.] 3. eldiablito [post 224]: A veiled attempt by FIFA to pave the way for USA to get seeded next time, since FIFA's press release shows the USA just missing a seed, just like its press release in 2002 showed Mexico just missing a seed. [Comment: As noted, under the new formula, the USA's poor 1998 result is disregarded, while it still factors in under the old formula, so the change in formula would appear to favor the USA.] 4. Ombak [post 227]: FIFA made the change to favor European teams by increasing the weight of the most recent WC results in anticipation of the European teams doing well while playing in Europe. [Comment: I like your way of thinking and this was my original opinion when I first posted, but the change will probably not create this result because, under the new formula, the 1998 WC results will not count at all, and European teams predominated at that WC. This hurts teams that did well in 1998 (France, Brazil, Croatia, Netherland, Italy, Argentina, Germany, England, and Serbia) while helping teams that performed poorly (USA, S. Korea, Japan, Spain). As a group, the European teams are much more hurt by the change than the non-Euros. The Euros will have to dominate in 2006 as much as they did in 1998 just to stay even under the new formula.] 5. Sagy [post 237]: Just because they can. This way when they change it next time (just to exclude someone) they'll be able to say "the seeding formula is adjusted every 4 years, it has nothing to do with team xyz." [Comment: I think we have a winner!]
Eldiabilito's point, I think, was that it really screws Holland for 2010. They really have to make the final in 2006 just to be in the mix for a seed in 2010 if the same formula is used. It doesn't affect Holland this time because Holland wouldn't have been seeded under either formula. A very insteresting argument (and astute observation), but one that I ultimately don't buy into.
what the hell u guys talking about???? all theese numbers and such HELP!!!! so Argentina and the others teams seeded does that mean that they are already in a group?
man shutthe ********up u stupid scottish drunk, i just got a yellow card taken away and now some other retard wants to start sh!t
Don't you hate it when that happens? Just come on the computer and look at your name and see a yellow card. To all mods, at least send a PM when you card somebody so they know who gave it to them and why.
The change does nothing pro or con for Netherlands seeding chances in 2010. Under old formula, 2002 results would be weighted as follows: (1998 + 2*2002 + 3*2006)/6. Thus, 2002 = 2/6 or 1/3. Under new formula: (2002 + 2006*2)/3, 2002 still counts 1/3. The change is to increase the weight of the most recent WC results and eliminate the WC results from 12 years ago. Yes, I agree Netherlands will have a difficult time to be seeded in 2010 because of their failure to qualify in 2002, but the change in seeding formula does not increase (or decrease) that difficulty.