I believe Edgar's update says that this will actually happen (subject to rounding). http://www.football-rankings.info/2009/08/fifa-ranking-september-2009-preview-ii.html J
Pot 1 by FIFA ranks (+host) and other pots by geographic zones would probably be in line with FIFA's requirement about draw seedings. That would be a turn-up. J
It sure would. Current top 7 are: Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Russia, England. Using Edgar's projection for this month's ranking, the top 7 would be: Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, England, Croatia. Either way, there'd be a surprising seed or two. But it seems to me that the comment suggests that they'll make their decision based on a way that will give Argentina seed if they qualify. If they don't, then they can just use FIFA ranking. If they do, then they'll use the method from the previous cup.
Or it means they aren't sure how they will split everybody else until they know how many from each confed they are dealing with. There are larger questions involved here than what BS obsess about. H
I am not familiar with the term "turn-up". Is that a good thing? And if it is, would you have supported that method giving a seed to USA and the Czecks in 06? Two teams in the top 8 who combined for a total of 1 win, against each other. If FIFA were to only use FIFA rankings, I would prefer they take into account the last 3 years and not just one snapshot in December of 09.
I was going to post that, but using only the last FIFA rankings before the draw (NOV 2005), the USA still wouldn't have been seeded. There would've been two differences: Czech Republic & Netherlands seeded instead of England & Italy.
The FIFA comments (as transcribed by Edgar at www.football-ranking.info) regarding the use of the FIFA Rankings for the 2010 World Cup draw may be a hint that FIFA is looking at novel ways of using the Rankings for seeding and the draw. Here’s a couple reasons why this may be the case. (A) FIFA may desire South Africa as host to advance past the group stage. (B) Arguably there are 9 “top” teams that have or may qualify for the World Cup, with these 9 being based on four sets of criteria (the first three again using Edgar’s World Cup Seeding work): (1) the 2006 World Cup seeding calculation puts these 9 above all other teams, with a sizeable gap between #9 (Netherlands @ 43 points) and #10 (Mexico @ 38 points); (2) the “prior WC performance” half of the 2006 calculation, which has 8 of these teams at the top (Netherlands is not in the top 8); (3) the “prior Rankings” half of the 2006 calculation, which also has 8 of these teams at the top (Portugal is not in the top 8); (4) the current “projected” (projected by Edgar, whose work is great) FIFA Rankings which has all these 9 in the top 12 spots. These 9 are Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, England, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Argentina. Subjectively, these names are also the ones most popularly discussed for 2010 seedings. Combining (A) and (B), FIFA may want to avoid having any of these top 9 teams from being in South Africa’s group. What to do, what to do… A new approach! For many reasons, rank all 32 teams by their November 2009 FIFA Ranking (which covers four years of matches, doesn’t employ the “double- and triple-counting” of years which the 2006 calculation did, and it both eliminates the WC results from 8 years ago, as well as the one from only four years ago), and place South Africa at the top. Then place the top 16 teams into four pots of four teams: Pot 1 is teams 1-4; Pot 2 is teams 5-8; Pot 3 is teams 9-12, and Pot 4 is teams 13-16. In Pot 1 (let’s say South Africa, Brazil, Spain, Netherlands), put South Africa in Group A (position 1), and place Brazil in Group G (position 1, reflecting three of the four largest stadiums where G1 plays). The other two teams are drawn in Group C and Group E (meaning South Africa couldn’t meet any of these teams in the Round of 16. Pot 2 (let’s say England, Italy, Germany, Russia) are drawn into Groups B, D, F, and H (the “even” groups). Pot 3 (let’s say Switzerland, France, Portugal, Argentina) are also drawn into Groups B, D, F, and H. Then Pot 4 (let’s say USA, Serbia, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire) are drawn into Groups A, C, E, and G. Clearly FIFA would prefer any of these four teams in their group over any of the top 9. So far, seeding the top 15 teams (plus host) would also address criticism from past World Cups that not enough seeding was done. Plus the two “top 9” teams that wouldn’t get one of the 7 non-host seeds under other methods would now be part of a set of eight teams (#5 through #12) that are placed into just the “even” (B, D, F, H) groups where being one of the top two seeds in each group would be what was important. From here, many approaches could take care of the remaining 16 teams. Here’s just one approach: Use two “special” pots – like the Serbia pot from WC2006 – a Pot 5 with the remaining European teams (perhaps 2-4 teams), and a Pot 6 with the remaining South American teams (perhaps 2-3 teams). For Pot 5, draw 1 team, then draw a ball from a Pot “L” which contains 8 balls lettered A to H; draw without replacement until a group with less than two European teams is drawn and place the team in that Group. (For example, if Russia and France are in Group H, and South Africa and Serbia are in Group A, then drawing an “H” would require drawing another lettered ball, while drawing an “A” would put the European team in Group A. For Pot 6, replace all 8 balls into Pot “L” and use the same approach as Pot 5 would ensure that no group had more than one South America team. When done with Pots 5 and 6, some groups would have two teams, some would have three teams, and some may have four teams. Because Europe and South America are viewed as the two strongest confederations, Pot 5 and Pot 6 ensure diversification for these teams. While its possible to put the remaining teams (from Africa, Asia, North America) into three pots, then work out some combinatorical brainteaser), it would also be possible to put all remaining teams into a final Pot 7, to fill in all the remaining spots. So, there would be some likelihood that a group could have two teams from either Africa (who wouldn’t have played each other in the Qualifiers), Asia, or North America – and possibly three teams from a confederation (although I imagine the probability would be only around 1%), but as long as there are no more than 2 European teams in a group, and no more than 1 South America team in a group, I believe there is enough geographic diversification. Plus, it might be fun to see some intra-confederation matchups on neutral ground in the group stage (e.g. US-Mexico, Australia-Japan, Côte d'Ivoire-Ghana). If FIFA wants to use just its November 2009 Rankings (and eliminate the double- and triple-counting from using stale Rankings), increase the number of teams being seeded from 8 to 16, eliminate the likelihood of South Africa being grouped with one of the “top 9” (or for that matter, eliminate the likelihood of South Africa being grouped with a team with a FIFA Ranking above 12), and increase some (but not much) intra-confederation drama into the group stages, then I hope tries something novel like the approach above.
For some reason, they seem to think it's better to know all the teams that are going to be in the tournament before they announce it.
Maybe FIFA would get more credibility if they announced the formula BEFORE the WCQ's started... ....not too much to ask, is it?
We all know why FIFA does this. Its to manipulate a system to get the seeded teams they want. I would feel much better if they just hand selected the seeded teams instead of coming up with bogus formulas that they change when need be to get their teams they want as seeds.
Ironic comment seeing that of the three confeds - UEFA, AFC and CAF - the only one that has followed the rules and NOT changed announced seedings mid-race is the one copping the most flak. Seems the best way to keep people happy IS to change the rules. J
I realize they leave themselves wide open to this charge, but realistically their seedings in the last few WCs seemed pretty much spot on to me. Has there been a glaring example of a team having a plausible argument for having been unfairly non-seeded?
No not at all. There is about 7 countries most everyone wouldn't argue against being a seed those are Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. Then there are a few others that people wouldn't be surprised at all if they were seeds like Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal. FIFA just wants to make sure that their strongest perceived teams are protected. I have no problem with it. I'm just pointing out what they do.
France or Portugal? If France and Portugal both qualify, which gets the seed? It's going to be extremely close, per Edgar (see here and here). The exact results of the UEFA playoffs will matter: they will affect not only France and Portugal's November 2009 ranking points, but also what teams end up between France and Portugal in the November 2009 ranking, and whether those teams qualify. (Curiously, France's and Portugal's point differential from the December 2007 and December 2008 FIFA rankings are set, as France was one place ahead of Portugal in December 2007, and France and Portugal were tied in December 2008). I would guess (though I haven't done the analysis) that it's mathematically possible for Cameroon or Côte d'Ivoire to climb ahead of one or both teams. It's probably also mathematically possible for Uruguay to climb ahead of one or both teams, but that would probably require winning both games in the CONCACAF-CONMEBOL playoff (not just winning the playoff, but indeed winning both individual games in the two-game playoff.)
Re: France or Portugal? It will be decided in the usual fashion ...... by FIFA politics, with France & Michelle Platypus having all the right cards up their sleeves.