I don't see how you need more planning or more games, if we had the playoffs from UEFA right now organized instead as suggested by almango as follows: The 8 UEFA runner ups would go to the playoffs. 3 teams from Conembol would go to the playoffs, while 3 would qualify directly (adds to the same 4.5 Conembol has now). That would mean Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela would go to the playoffs. The 8 UEFA and the 3 Conembol teams would be in one pot consisting 11 teams. These 11 teams would face teams from the other confederations, with the allocations for the other confederations converted into playoffs as follows: AFC instead of 4.5 would have 3 direct plus 3 playoffs (adds to the same 4.5) CAF instead of 5 direct would have 3 direct and 3 playoffs (adds to the same 5) Concacaf instead of 3.5 would have 2 direct plus 3 playoffs (adds to the same 3.5) OFC would have its 1 playoff side You could then have home-away playoffs that might look something like the following, instead of the UEFA playoffs and the others we have now. There would be no more games required, no greater planning required, and in fact for some confederations (e.g., AFC) fewer games since we won't need the extra intra AFC playoff that we had between Uzbekistan and Jordan. New Zealand v Ecuador Honduras v Uruguay Uzbekistan v Venezuela Mexico v France Australia v Ukraine Jordan v Greece Panama v Romania Burkino Faso v Iceland Cameroon v Croatia Algeria v Portugal Tunisia v Sweden
True they had some poor result, and maybe some of the teams in their group are past glory. Objectively it still looks pretty tough to me, especially with Czech republic (granted no longer the Czechs of 1996-2004, but still decent) and Italy in there, and Bulgaria is a team that has experienced growth in the past few years as well. Armenia may not look like much on paper, but their results prove otherwise, pretty fun to watch also. It wouldn't surprise me if they qualified for a future tournament. Still the way how Denmark got there isn't that relevant, they finished 2nd in their group, they should get the same chance all other runners up get. It's completely inexplicable and it's only caused by the silly notion UEFA lacks that 9th .5 spot and cannot come up with a better system. So they just arbitrarily cut off some team's hopes for a world cup. As for Iceland, pretty happy they made it to the play offs, and I know some of their players to be pretty talented. But let's get real, the rankings at the time of draw don't always depict the actual strength in the qualification campaign. Norway are fairly crap right now, as is Slovenia, both have taken a huge downturn on any rankings out there. That's probably the reason Iceland and even Albania had decent chances to end in second spot in that group.
For it to be fair I think you would have to divise 2 stage playoffs. Otherwise the draw will decide "luck" too much. But that's just my opinion. Also intercontinental games will mean more jet lag, getting accustomed to other climates etc. You will need more days and planning for sure.
Perhaps, but (1) luck of the draw is always significant in all these things, including even in the World Cup itself, (2) Pot 1 teams are all wild card teams from UEFA and Conembol, while Pot 2 teams are all wild cards from the so-called lesser confederations (AFC, Concacaf, CAF, OFC), giving us some balance in the match ups, and (3) if we had another layer, you would then object that the format requires too many games! Otherwise, I would not mind adding another layer, but what I do mind is any confederation having too many guaranteed (direct) allocations to the World Cup. Any confederation that has too many such direct spots presumably has them because it claims to be stronger, a proposition that should be regularly tested contemporaneously on the playing field.
Incidentally, you could take the above format, but to factor out the "luck of the draw" issue, you might then have the strongest Pot 1 teams (based on FIFA's rankings) pitted against the weakest Pot 2 teams (based on FIFA rankings).
Yeh I agree, it's still possible in the old format, it wouldn't be that different from what we have now. But when changing things you might as well do it good entirerely. I very much like how this would at least to some extent eliminate the endless discussions on confederational strength. Added layers would be a bonus. I think it would even be interesting from a marketing stance. Not sure how practical it all would be though. That's why the suggestion of cutting down the minnows by half or so beforehand that would save out a couple of matchdays for sure.
Using the FIFA rankings to minimize the ‘luck of the draw’ issue, and using the same teams that were listed above (all based on actual qualifying in the different confederations except for CAF, whose qualifiers have not concluded and whose teams are chosen from those who might end up as wild cards), you would get the following 11 playoffs to pick the last 11 teams to qualify to the World Cup: Uruguay (6) v New Zealand (79) Portugal (14) v Jordan (70) Greece (15) v Cameroon (59) Croatia (18) v Australia (57) Ukraine (20) v Uzbekistan (55) France (21) v Burkina Faso (52) Ecuador (22) v Tunisia (47) Sweden (25) v Panama (36) Romania (29) v Honduras (34) Venezuela (37) v Algeria (32) Iceland (46) v Mexico (24) P.S. I have highlighted the sides that I would favor in these playoff matches, with the ones without a highlighted team too close to call in my book.
CAF is 3 plus 4 playoffs, which was typo when I put 3+3 instead. Each playoff 0.5, meaning the same 5. The rest of the numbers are as noted. The teams would be the same as well.
That's 4 CAF teams instead of 3 in the play-offs ... maybe change 1 to the 9th UEFA runners-up Denmark.
The correct number is actually 4 CAF teams. I had just made a typo. While you can change these numbers, I didn't want to change the present allocations. Since CAF has 5, that translates to 3+4 playoffs.
In comparison with what we have now it's still a giant improvement, I would still like to see an extra layer to get rid of the bold text some more, but I could live with that. Couple of those non-bold pairings seem like really interesting matches too.
That's strictly an issue for UEFA to handle. What I was responding to was the idea that we couldn't have intercontinental playoffs without messing up the schedule and other such issues.
The problem is that I don't want the weeding out to occur with teams from the lesser confederations. While the attraction of these playoffs for the stronger confederations is the chance to get even more teams qualify, the attraction for the lesser confederations would be twofold: first, they too will have a similar chance to qualify more sides if they prove meritorious on the playing field (as opposed to having to live with a quota that puts a lower ceiling on how many sides they can have in the tournament regardless), and secondly, they will see more of their sides get the chance to play meaningful matches against stronger teams from better confederations and thereby improve their level. Incidentally, some of these match ups above aren't all that interesting simply because upsets happen in football or you have sides with better pedigree give there place to those without the same pedigree. For instance, in the AFC, we have teams like Saudi Arabia or China or even North Korea, not even qualify for the final rounds of Asian World Cup qualifying, or you have Iceland from UEFA make the playoffs while a side like Denmark misses out.
I think we can all agree that the qualifying systems for CONCACAF, AFC and CONMEBOL are sound and just. UEFA is a bit messed up, but still nowhere near as bad as what takes place in CAF.
Good points and yes, Denmark got the short end of the straw. And of course Bolivia are no minnow like San Marino. In fact there are even big differences in the quality of European minnows with San Marino probably the worst of them while Faroe Islands are a good bit more competitive and harder to beat ( while of course still being a minnow). It's strange that the Belgium group had no real minnow this time while the Germany group had two ( the annoying thing for a team like Germany in such a group is by the way that having two minnows gifts your competitors 12 points from the outset which makes it much harder to qualify early). The weird thing is that there might be more in the future. Soon we have Gibraltar and it's only a matter of time before Greenland or Vatican City apply for FiFA membership. I dislike the current UEFA format which of course is partly explained by the influx of so many new nations in the Nineties
One advantage for Conmebol here needs to be highlighted. The only reason they can play in that round robin group for three years is that they don't have qualifiers for their regional championship. In Uefa the teams spend 2010- 2011 in Euro qualifiers and can only start their WC qualifiers in 2012 after the Euros hence the smaller groups.
I liked more this format that given pot 1 to UEFA and Conmebol per-se. In this format, the "weaker" UEFA/Conmebol sides are 3/4 teams, more and less the same number of "stronger" sides in the rest confeds. The best will be that most better team will qualify to WC and using the ranking will minimize the impact. btw, i think that making groups to qualify the better two will be a better option. Considering maybe a netral venue or home-away matches, not placing two geographically distant countries in the same group.
There are several different ways of doing this and I could live with most of them. What I care about the most is increasing, and increasing substantially overtime, the number of intercontinental qualifying matches.
Here are a few points and questions I would like to add in the seeding/overall draw discussion: 1) Friendlies are not just "friendlies" anymore (this is true right now really) - They are used for gaining positioning on FIFA rankings.... along with qualifying games, and other (confederation) tournaments. So teams need to treat them as almost the "regular season" before palyoffs 2) How is UEFA Champions leage matches/TEAMS seeded? 3) Use fifa ranking to seed all teams in the groups - eliminate the draw altogther Thus you have: POT 1 : Seeded 7 teams - IN ORDER of fifa ranking + host POT 2 : seeded 8 UEFA teams - they will bee seeded in reverse order into the groups - top seeded team of pot 2 goes into group H with lowest seeded team of POT 1 ...and repeat for rest of POTs and team This way you have FIFA ranking working so that your position in the ranking "helps" you position/seed properly within a group and WC bracket - this gives the benift of ranking say 12th a purpose....where as now it makes no difference [what the NT's fifa rank is] once pot 1 seeded teams are selected Although you do have the issue that the host team does'nt deserve a top seed, and thus in turn a "lucky" NT ranked 8th-15th could get them in their group...but that depends on the host (i.e this WC its Brazil) This system also boasts the importance of FIFA ranking itself and gives it more purpose - especially from 8th on... Reward the NTs that placed 8th, 9th, 10 th etc....not just "luck" - there is enough of that in the games itself as is....bad calls, lucky bounce, penalties..etc. Finaly this also boost the importnace (and viewership) of the friendlies and qualifyign etc - as the seeding deadline comes to a draw and NT's are fighting for final positioning. (as happened top 5-7 seeds last week!) While were at it, seed the whole bracket so its not just ramdom group winners vs ramdom 2nd place of the other group - but instead higest fifa ranked NT vs Lowest etc... This gives FIFA rankings a whole NEW meaning and importance!..just like Tennis, Hockey and many other playoff systems that eliminate LUCK and reward teams with previous results 4) Why has FIFA still not have a consistent way of seeding POT A after all these decades?? all other sports seem to not tinker with it, although I do understand its a challange as WC is played every 4 yrs
Nice idea, except I think it's important to consider geography too. No one wants the possibility of a group with 3 or 4 UEFA countries, or with 2 countries from any other confederation. The World Cup is a spectator sport, and the spectators want the countries from different confederations to mix it up a bit. My post #1489 in this thread offers a good compromise between seeding and geography in order to maximize balance. The other problem with seeding solely based on FIFA ranking is that the current method of FIFA ranking has some woeful shortcomings. That's another thread entirely.
I would also point out that it is the World CUP we are talking about, so there should be some chance of a group of death and a group of life in each cup. I like the idea of seeding pots, although maybe the bottom two could be combined, but it should be a random draw from then on (geographic considerations aside). The teams that are disadvantaged the way it is ATM are the better teams from C-CAF and AFC, as they don't get a chance at weaker teams in their group. (Of say 4 weak teams in each cup, 2-3 would be from AFC and C-CAF with 1-2 from CAF and UEFA) so it would be fairer to allow a USA or Japan to move up to pot 2. Of course this does depend on FIFA rankings becoming better.
In my example groups would still be arranged by geographical, BUT the order/placement is via fifa ranking - so picture a regular draw, but instead of selecting or drawing a ramdom NT to palce in a group, you start with lowest ranked NTs and move up....same with the next POT- this way the top seeded TEAM (fifa #2 rank - As I propose to give the host the "best" group) gets the lowest ranked UEAFA team in pot 2...and so on... Each pot is still divided and composed of geograhical considerrations etc. an quick exmaple would be lets say Spain is in Group B- which is seond highest, as spain is ranked #1, they would get a the second lowest ranked NT form UEAFA POT (pot #2), and 2nd lowest ranked team in COMENBAL/AFR POT etc etc... As this system would work the same for filling in the groups with the rest of the POTS, but instead of a draw, the group that next needs a NT gets the next NT in line [in that given POT] based on ranking... Nothing much would change in terms of POT forming, just that instead of each of thsoe teams placed via a draw they would get allocated into the eight groups (which themselves are ranked) I'll post an example base don current fifa rankings once I have a chance - or if anyone else can that would be great.
Here are the four POTS listed per fifa ranking - TOP is highest rank to lowest bottom: *Brazil get honorary 1st group **Assuming some countries qualify POT 1 Brazil Spain Germany Argentina Colombia Belgium Uruguay Swiss POT 2 Netherlands Italy England Portugal Greece Bosnia Croatia Russia Pot 3 Chile Ivery coast France Ecuador Ghana Algeria Niegira Cameron Pot 4 USA Mexico Costa Rica Hondoras Japan Iran South Korea Australia