I have no argument on anything you’ve stated. The key phrase in your comments is “at the group stage”. But others want to add the result of a penalty kick shootout during the qualification phase into the equation and that’s simply a non-factor. Besides, the Australia-Peru result officially goes down as a draw, not a win/loss.
Whats your point ? New Zealand drew all 3 matches in 2010 and still DID NOT QUALIFY FOR 2ND ROUND. And that counted as zero teams out of one. O% qualification rate for Oceania.
No point. Just continuing the trend of posting meaningless qualifying stats that are of little to no value.
Actually, seeing as how I was replying to someone else's post and not yours, there was a point to be made... although I misinterpreted what @Iranian Monitor was suggesting (which I feel is a fair suggestion).. If one was to base "inter-confederation strength" based on results of matches that involved teams from different regions, AFC and CONMEBOL would have each earned 1 point based on the Peru-Australia result of 0-0. Similar to the result of the 1994 World Cup final. One team was richly rewarded but it was only achieved after 120 minutes of open play could not produce a winner. Thus the match was officially recorded as a draw between CONMEBOL v UEFA. Continuing my point, in regards to 2010 New Zealand, they achieved 2 points v UEFA and 1 point v CONMEBOL. They didn't advance out of their group due to the results from other matches within the group that they had no control over. (Slovakia 0-2 Paraguay... Slovakia 3-2 Italy) Given OFC's status in comparison to those other two confederations, I would think that both the Kiwis and OFC as a whole were quite pleased with their results in South Africa. Results-wise, they were no better and no worse against UEFA and CONMEBOL. How often have they been able to say that?
So if I include too many WCs the data is outdated but if I only look at the past two WCs the sample size is too small? Ok. As regards to making the litmus test reaching the KO stage, that's the main goal for teams when they start their WC. Teams don't walk into a WC trying to collect 3 points. Or 4 points. They aim to advance to the next stage. In any case, you are using this as a distraction tactic because no matter what data we use AFC will look bad.
I gotta say, that part was savage. Sadly for both AFC and Concacaf, both intercontinental playoff winners will be destroyed in WC matches. Whatever draw they get in the dead-rubber 3rd match will be constructed as *progress* in their respective confederations. At least we will see worse teams entering 2026 WC. It will be like Oprah giving away WC slots instead of cars.
This discussion will get extra spicy in 2026 because it will be interesting to see the make-up of the 32 teams that reach the knockout phase and how that compares to the allocation of spots pre-expansion.
This. It's one thing to have Japan and South Korea at the World Cup instead of Sweden and Ukraine. Sure, you can argue that Sweden and Ukraine might objectively be slightly better, but the difference is negligible. It's another thing entirely to have the likes of Trinidad and Tobago and Oman in the WC instead of teams like Austria and Scotland. I would be absolutely shocked if more than one or two UEFA teams failed to advance under the new format.
I'll predict 20 UEFA and CONMEBOL teams in the final 32. Right now its 17.5. Careful what you wish for, rest of world.