Or it could be done the same way FIFA chose the site for the tiebreaking match between Egypt and Algeria in '09: have each team nominate a neutral country, then draw a winner between the nominees. The only wrinkle would be that each team would have to choose a site in Europe or Africa (the non-participating confederations).
With his constituency getting more restless with each defeat vis-à-vis FIFA, bringing back USA-MEX games would be a good idea.
What a crock of crap. Basically, what they are saying is that the whole thing was a stunt to get the extra .5 spot, and now that they didn't get it, they won't change a thing, especially if it means USA/Mex might actually have a play a match that matters before they get to the WC. On the evidence, that might not be such a bad idea. Come on, you didn't know there wasn't enough room? Bull crap. And there are actually the same number of matches as before, so how can it make a difference? Old: Round 1 (2 games) + Group 1 (6 Games) + Hex (10 games) = 18 games. Proposed: Round 1 (6 games) + Round 2 (6 games) + Round 3 (6 games) = 18 games. There are really on 2 differences: 1) There is a preliminary round for the bottom 6 teams in the new format (2 games), but it's not like Aruba is going to run the table and play 20 games. 2) There will have to be one extra set of playoff games between the two second place teams in the group final round to determine who goes to the playoffs. Still, hard to imagine this was either unforeseen or there isn't space for it. My god, it isn't as if there has to be a full international match day, just let FIFA decree that teams have to release players for the playoffs. It's all a play to get more international match dates.
I'm not sure where you get those numbers from, but I believe them to be off. Being in Rio in June on 3 separate occasions over the last 5 years (and having researched temps for the trips), I would say that the daytime high average is about 25 C (or 77 F) in Rio in June.
Play them all at the site of the future World Cup the 10 days before the draw. It'd be a perfect addition to the WC draw!
On evidence, its a great idea. I'm annoyed that CONCACAF pulled this stunt, but I'll be happy if they go back to a hex. Its a great rivalry. Both teams should pretty easily qualify if they play their best, but they can both really use another tough game in the region. I hope they see the error of their ways and perhaps a little bit more revenue sharing in CONCACAF will make the minnows happy and USA at Azteca and Mexico at Rio Tinto in February (instead of Columbus maybe?) can be restored.
Play the games where the WC draw is going to be... in this case, Brazil. Yeah, the CONMEBOL team would have a home continent advantage, but let's face it, the playoff team from CONMEBOL is likely to come out on top in this situation anyway.
I got them from Wiki, in which the article referenced INMET. INMET is the National Insitute of Meteorology in Brazil. Even at 77 F high, prime time soccer would be very comfortable in Rio.
Two dates in November are already set aside for playoffs, it wouldn't be that much of an inconvenience to add two dates in Dec. and two more in January. Then push the draw back to late January or February.
If it's Europe vs. CONMEBOL, you might as well stage it half way - in the US (come on, throw Blazer a bone here), to cut down on all the travel. Younger folks don't remember the olden days when the UEFA Champions Cup winner played the CONMEBOL Libertadores winner in the earlier version of the WCC, the travel from the to/fro Netherlands or Germany to/fro Uruguay or Argentina was the reason these competitions weren't really taken seriously. And who can forget the infamous Chile-USSR playoff for the 1974 WC.
Rio is definitely pleasant in June. Porto Alegre, on the other hand, can get chilly that time of year, with temps falling below freezing on occasion. And Recife will be steaming hot year round. It's a big country, stretching from tropics to southern temperate zone, so one can't really generalize about their weather.
Its just 4 extra dates for 4 nations. Aside from domestic leagues, its unlikely that any club would miss more than 1 player. It would be alot less intrusive than African Nations or AFC Cups.
I'm definitely in favor of going back to the Hex for several reasons: 1) It'll be easier to qualify. You're more likely to make a false step and end up in 2nd or 3rd place over a six game stretch. With the 10 games played in the Hex the cream will generally rise to the top and getting 3 automatic bids ensures that half the teams automatically advance. Throw in another .5 spot against hopefully AFC or OFC and you have a good chance at 4 teams 2) Not playing a truly meaningful game against Mexico would be ridiculous. CONCACAF needs to have these games played in qualifying if for no other reason for the fans and the rivalry.
What I don't get vis-á-vis Blazer's excuse is this: Let's assume that FIFA will provide as many FIFA Match Days for this WC qualifying cycle as for 2010 (if I'm wrong, it's probably because we have more this time around). As has been discussed, in the new format we're still talking about the same 18-20 matchdays as before. Yet instead of starting qualifying in the summer of the WC-2 year (e.g. 2004, 2008), this time we'll start in the fall of the WC-3 year (2011). How exactly are there not enough FIFA days to get this new system done (with the 3rd-place playoff) before the intercontinental playoffs? And besides, I have a hard time believing that the Caribbean majority would consider giving up the cashcow games they can get, at least in the Second Round (of 32).
4 extra dates on the FIFA international calendar is a lot. clubs will be very reluctant to add them. that will be another two weeks that domestic leagues cant play matches adding to an even more congested schedule.
Something like this happened at the 1934 World Cup in Italy. The 1934 WC was the first to hold qualifiers. The United States and Mexico had to travel by boat to Italy (about a month-long voyage in those days), to play the final qualifier in Rome (where Mussolini was in attendance). It was the only qualifying match the US had to play, while Mexico had already defeated Cuba three times. In this last qualifier the US prevailed, 4-2, with Aldo "Buff" Donelli scoring all four US goals. Only three days later, the US lost to Italy, 7-1, and were out of the WC finals as it was a single elimination tournament at the time. {This was the first match ever played between the United States and Mexico. After this match, Mexico would not lose to the United States in 25 straight matches spanning a total of 46 years!}
World Cup - Blazer slams FIFA decision http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04032011/58/world-cup-blazer-slams-fifa-decision.html
I think you misunderstand. The match date will only be for those 4 teams. All domestic leagues keep playing. Lets consider who is likely to be playing these games. I doubt the Uzbek, New Zealand, and Honduran leagues would mind losing players for such an important purpose. The most resistance may come from some 7-8 mid-to-upper table teams in Europe that might each miss one Uruguayan each for a couple of domestic games. This is minor compared to the African nations cup, and more important. Not knocking the ANC, but WC qualifying is more important.
no, i understand, but that is not how the match dates work. if a team is obligated to release a player then it must be a date on the international calendar. if it is not a date on the international calendar then a team is not obligated to release a player. the US has friendlies every january and they use players who are in leagues that are on break because they cant force a club to release a player like tim howard. if you are going to have world cup playoffs then any country has to be able call up any of its players that it would choose. this cannot be done unless new dates are added to the calendar.
Pretty much. FIFA almost always does what they think benefits FIFA, regardless of their own rules or past/current policy.