How is it possible that Asia deserves 4 or 5 spots? South Korea and Japan definitely are worthy. China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, North Korea fighting for 2.5 spots. They'd probably go to Saudi Arabia and China, two of the whipping boys of the most recent tournament. I'm stretching at this point If the home and away series wasn't the way qualification worked i'd tell the Israeli federation to get itself into Asia qualifying instead of UEFA. They can certainly hang with the 7 nations above and they could even finish behind one of them and get a secured spot in Germany. Politically I just don't think it would work though.
Asia has a large population. The AFC has 43 active members. At home, their best teams compete well against Europeans and South Americans. There is a huge potential for the growth of the sport in Asia, China in particular. Its possible that Asia deserves 4.5 spots.
Some so-called remedies seem worst than the problem!! I agree that 4.5 spots for Asia is generous. But 2.5 for Asia would be ludicrous. There is no guarantee that in a confederation that large, with so many sides of enough ability to pull upsets, which teams would end up qualifying from Asia with only 2.5 spots. It would all depend on how the draw was made, and even then, luck would have to be on the side of the favorites. The allocation for the AFC in my opinion should have been 3.5 -- the same as in 1998. Even better would have been 4.5 or even 5 for a combined AFC/OFC group. Nonetheless, also I see merit in giving Asia 4.5 based on the fact that FIFA would have an incentive in promoting the sport in what is potentially a huge market. Such considerations are appropriate in allocating World Cup berths, although due attention should be given in making sure the competition is not watered down too much.
My remedy isn't 2.5, although if was based on competitiveness of the countries involved you could argue it. I disagree about the draw in that case. If they seeded South Korea, and Japan in the two groups, maybe with China and Iran also seperated three of the top 4 teams. They should have the Concacaf version or many rounds for the small teams, rather than the UEFA version, and I think they already do. I also agree with your final comment, although they don't seem to lean too far to promotion and far from competition in the case of Asia and Africa. Take a half from one of those guys and give it to South America. Actually a better system would have many more half-berths, but that would just turn it into a pre WC with teams from all over the world playing each other for a chance to go to the Finals. That would make for excitement for sure, and incent more teams to improve themselves. More countries would have a real shot, but they would have to prove themselves against teams other than Bahrain or Fiji or San Marino to make it to the Finals. What do people think about some system like that?
Heist, I believe in intercontinental qualifying. I have a proposal that I would like to see one day come to frution. The proposal would allow regional preliminary qualifiers to get rid of real minnows. The final rounds however would be mixed, with different countries in each region hosting these "mini-World Cups" that would serve to select the final 32. That way countries and regions with less experience will gain the necessary experience, as well as attention, by playing (and occasionally hosting) meaningful international games. In my system, each region would be given a FEW guaranteed spots. The rest would be decided in accordance with results on the field.
This sounds intruiging, but i'm a little confused. The CONCACAF region would get 8 spots or something? CONMEBOL would get 7 or something, UEFA would get 30. And from those lets say 64 teams they go to mini-cups all around the world. Would countries like the US and Mexico, clearly the top 2 in their region have to even play in preliminary qualifiers? If so, this would decrease the excitement in qualifying I think. What i'd propose is something I mentioned in another board. Or maybe something more extreme. The 32 or so countries who just missed automatic bids from their confederation, would play in a mini-cup resulting in the last 8 teams to enter the cup Finals. So, only 23 bids (plus the host) would be guaranteed for each Finals. This is a *little* like what UEFA does, 9 group winners and the top second place goes in. The next 8 second place qualifiers have a playoff to see who goes. In this proposed case the 32 would play a whole tourney instead of a home and away. The problem is, I don't see how FIFA fits this in the calendar. Maybe if this group was smaller, 16 teams playing for 4 or 6 spots. That'd be exciting.
It is true that during the 2002 World Cup, neither played a South American team. I meant competitions in general such as friendlies and other competitions like the Confederations Cup and World Cup Qualifiers. The best remedy for South America's loss of allocations is to win matches. If all four CONMEBOL teams advance out of the group phase in 2006 then there would be rock solid evidence that they deserve more spots. Until then I'll go out on a limb and say a team that finishes fifth in the CONMEBOL round robin qualifiers is not going to win the World Cup. The same cannot be said of UEFA, CAF and AFC teams because qualifications are organized into groups using random selection. The higher membership of these confederations requires them to do it this way.
It's a sad day for soccer and show Fifa for what they are, and the world cup will continue to lessen in quality by the decade.
It's been lessening in quality since 1930..... the only thing keeping it alive is that people grew to be obsessed with the cup... if people could go work for FIFA, i doubt they would enjoy the cup 1/8th as much as before they realized how corrupt FIFA is...
Cheer up greatscott, there have been some improvements over the years. Back in the good old days, the World Cup had sixteen finalists where whole confederations like CONCACAF, AFC and CAF each held qualifiers for their solitary allotment. The structure sometimes enabled teams to play for a draw or even throw a game if both were assured of advancing. In the 1930's, the finals were a single elimination tournament, half the participants would show up, play against one other team and go home. Drawn matches were resolved with replays on the following day or with a flip of a coin after extra time. It has gotten better, at least in some ways.
Re: Re: 4.5 for Asia about AFC teams you can say that not even the team that finishes 1st in the qualifiers is going to win the WC. Then the fifth team of South America has a bigger chance the WC2002 was won by the team that finished 3rd in the South American qualifiers. And there wasn't a big margin to the team that finished fifth. Brazil didn't secure their advancement until the last game. you are not talking about Asia here are you?
anybody who says that Asia deserves more than 3 has a screw loose............FIFA releastically take away spots after what Korea and Japan did, but they will see, all 4 or 5 of the Asian teams will go home after round 1 and they will return to nothing more than role of the filler
Thats a good point, vico. However, if you say that eventual champions Brazil earned a place in the finals albeit by the skin of their teeth, you should also leave open the possibility that the third place Asian finisher Iran could've performed well in the finals even after stumbling during the AFC qualifiers. Had Asia been allocated five (including the cohosts) and Europe thirteen we have a hypothetical scenario where Ireland trumps Slovenia instead of Iran for a spot in the finals. Iran joins Spain, Paraguay and South Africa in the group Slovenia was in. Just as Brazil found its form during the finals, Iran also could've to edge out Paraguay and South Africa. I agree that an Asian team is not going to win the WC any time soon. It remains that a tournament is not only meant to display who everyone thinks are the best teams but also to test the best from every region. Unfortunately for South America, confederations with high number of members deserve more slack in allocations because of the complexities inherent in randomly subdivided groups and play-off elimination systems. When that happens, it will be a strong case for a reduction of AFC's allocation.
Brazil came third, and had it pretty much wrapped up before that final game I think. Wasn't it against someone easy, and some other team had to beat a great team to jump over them or something. Also, they would have crushed Australia in a home and home. If I remember how they draw groups Iran wouldn't have necessarily been in the same group as Slovenia. I forget what the breakdown is, but they draw them from different groups and Iran might have been somewhere else. That being said Iran could have put on a respectable show in the finals. They did in 1998, and do well at the asian games pretty often. I'd much rather see them than Slovenia, but seeing a cinderella story is always fun too. I certainly think Iran is a better side than Saudi Arabia, no Saudis play outside the country. Ali Daei and Medevikhia have both played in Europe, Germany and Italy I think... Anyway, I still like the idea of some kind of mini-cup for all the teams that almost make it out of their regions. That way all teams have a chance, but no one has a "easy pass" to Germany '06.
4.5 spots for Asia is terrible. IMHO WC level of soccer has declined in the last few decades and this decision only reinforces this trend.
At its peak, Iran used to have a dozen players in Germany, along with half a dozen elsewhere. The German based players once included Daei, Azizi, Bagheri, Mahdavikia, Hashemian, Mousavi, Pashazadeh, Yazdani, DinMohammadi, Mansourian and more. Their records in Germany were mixed, but many of them had some very good seasons even if they had poorer ones as well. Their clubs included the likes of Bayern Munich, Hamburg SV, Bayer Leverkusen, and lesser known ones such as Arminia Bielefeld, FC Koln, St Pauli, VFL Bochum and the like. Among them, Daei and Mahdavikia also played in the Champions League, each having a couple of MVP games in that tournament. In this list, however, only Mahdavikia (Hamburg SV) and Vahid Hashemian (VFL Bochum) remain in Germany today. Iran has also had many players with clubs elsewhere in Europe. Those included Mehrdad Minavand, who played in 3 Champions League seasons with Strum Graz, as well as Ali Samereh and Rahman Rezaie who played in the Serie A with Perugia. Bagheri also had a brief spell in the EPL with the Charlton Athletic, although repeated injuries made that a very unsuccessful move for him. There were also a dozen other Iranians who played for various other clubs, in Austria, Belgium, and several other countries. On this list, a few (minor) players remain in Belgium, while Iranian defender Rezaie is still with Perugia. (Rezaie had a great season with Perugia last year, but is not doing as well this year). Iran's team is going through a transition, with a crop of very talented youngsters replacing many of our veterans who had European experience. Nonetheless, at its peak, Iran had more players in Europe than all of the other Asian countries combined! P.S. It is admitedly speculative to say how Iran would have done in the World Cup if it had qualified. But I have seen Iran in many games, against many teams, from other regions. Iran were a good team and though the blame for the failure ultimately rests with Iran, for my money, Iran was as good if not better than many countries that did qualify for the World Cup.
This is similar to the way the other thread was. And I agree with this. The level of football at this WC certainly wasn't up to par - and I think it's saturated - thanks to the not up to par teams. I suppose that is the World Cup though - in true definition, it should include teams from all over. However the sacrifice has to be made somewhere and apparently, it is in the overall quality of football. Asia should not have 4.5 spots. How do I measure? By current results, past results, strength of confederation through and through and head to head with other confeds + growth potential. Yes, S. Korea did well (thoguh not without controversy) as did Japan. However Asia also had the two worst performers by far in Saudi Arabia and China. Asia should get at most, 4 spots. Here is the way I think it should be for a competitive "world cup". UEFA: 16 CONMEBOL: 5 CONCACAF: 3 Asia: 2.5 CAF: 4 Oceana:.5 And for a, well, "FIFA" world cup, why not do a bit of a "warm-up" by having more playoffs? UEFA: 15.5 CONMEBOL: 4.5 CONCACAF: 3.5 Asia: 4 CAF: 4 Oceana: .5 In that plan, UEFA, CONMEBOL lose half a spot, Oceana and CAF stays the same (I feel like this is still generous to CAF), and Asia and CONCACAF make full gains. Oceana a full spot? They couldn't get past the fringe teams from Asia and CONMEBOL. In their defense, it is difficult to organize for tougher opponents - but still....
No one can dispute the poor record left by Saudi Arabia and China in the last World Cup. However, conceptually, I find the whole exercise of trying to come up with the "right quota", relying on results from 4 years before to judge football in an entire continent, to be logically absurd. Take Saudi Arabia as an example. In 1994, they advanced to the round of 16 after beating Belgium and Morocco, losing merely 2:1 to Holland. 4 years later they were poor, and in the last World Cup, they were aweful. Yet, who knows where they would be 4 years from now, much less how the entire Asian federation would rate then?! Moreover, to say <b>all</b> Asian teams (other the hosts) are aweful, basically because Costa Rica, Brazil and Turkey beat China seems illogical to me when you look at how an Asian team like Iran has done against the Chinese for example. Last time Iran played China, in 2001, Iran beat them 4:0. In the 1998 qualifiers, Iran beat China 4:2 in China, and 4:1 in Iran. (We also beat them twice in the 1998 Asian Games). True, we didn't beat up on Saudi Arabia 8:0 like Germany did, but we did nonetheless beat the Saudis 4:2 on aggregates in the last qualifiers. That is just your opinion. I don't agree with those numbers at all. Instead, I prefer those numbers to be drawn, not based on anyone's opinion, but on actual results in intercontinental qualifying. In the meantime, if Conmebol ever get 5 automatic entries to the World Cup, I would puke!! Not only are most Conembol sides merely average, the whole confederation consists of only 10 teams! Even if 5 of them belong to the World Cup, they would need to show they do by first beating teams from other regions! I still don't like your numbers. To me, they seem drawn willy nilly out of a hat! My own proposal, listed elsewhere, is different, allocating numbers based on results between teams from the various confederations. However, an alternative I could live with in the meantime would combine all the spots for Conembol and Concacaf on the one hand, and the spots for OFC and AFC on the other hand.
Sure dude. whatever you say. They would look that way if you haven't read the thread I referred to or even understood my post. So knock yourself out!