I heard some rumours today about UEFA planning to increase the qualifying groups to 7 or 8 teams and cut back on friendlies.
They have to. For 02, they had 50 countries and 13.5 slots + one for holder France. They did nine groups of 5 or 6 with winners qualifying and second place into playoffs. For 06, they will have 51 countries and 13 slots + one for host Germany. The old process won't work.
Today they've anounced they will do it in this format: 3 groups of 7 teams 5 groups of 6 teams 8 groupwinners and best 2 runners-up will qualify. Other 6 runners-up will play in the play-off's for the remaining 3 spots. For Euro 2008 they even plan to have 1 group of 8 teams, together with 6 groups of 7 teams. Then all the runners-up will qualify directly. See: http://www.uefa.com/uefa/news/Kind=128/newsId=80544.html
I just wonder about the criteria for determining the two best runners-up. I mean, 3 have 12 games and 5 have 10 games - you can't easily go for the number of points. Do they go for the average, do they wipe out the points against the worst team or - maybe the most probable solution - did they not see the problem at all?
Wow, this is exactly the format I'd suggested might be used in this other thread on the same topic: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=57799 They must've read my post and like my idea Olaf, they used a similar "best second-placed" team format in qualifying before (1998, I think), and they just counted games against the 1st, 3rd and 4th placed teams in each group to determine the best 2nd-place team. It made it very confusing to track who was "ahead" among the 2nd-place teams because precisely which games counted were not known until everything was done. I guess the best idea is to finish 1st.
Yes, Sue, that's exactly what they did in '98, and how Scotland got in without a play-off. They were lucky to be in a relatively weak group where three minnows (for the time) cancelled each other out (se.
Yes, Sue, that's exactly what they did in '98, and how Scotland got in without a play-off. They were lucky to be in a relatively weak group where three minnows (for the time) cancelled each other out (see excerpt below from rsssf). It's not perfectly fair, as it depends on your opposition, but it's as fair as possible in the circumstances. I bet the bigger Euro nations tried to have an early round for elimination of the minnows (such as Africa is doing) so that the Groups would be more manageable. They may do that now. Given that teams may have to play as many as 16 games to qualify between September 2004 and November 2005 (in combo with more club Euro ties too!), we may see it brought in for WC2010 qualifying, especially if Europe loses a place. So much for reducing fixture congestion. I wonder: 1. If players from big ocuntries will complain sbout playing so many minnows, like some did when the Euro 2004 Qualifying schedule was released. 2. if FIFA will raise some interference about this during their appoval process (like I hope they do to CONCANAF....Canada can't get out our players for a 20 to 22 game WCQ). -------------------------------------------------- Europe Runners-Up Table [Scotland] The 8 worst runners-up (w.r.t. results against countries who finished 1st, 3rd and 4th in the group) play off home and away for 4 places in France. The best runners-up qualify automatically. Final Classification of Group Runners' Up: 1.SCOTLAND 6 4 1 1 8- 2 13 2.Italy 6 3 3 0 5- 0 12 3.Belgium 6 4 0 2 11-11 12 4.Russia 6 3 2 1 12- 5 11 5.Croatia 6 3 2 1 11- 8 11 6.Yugoslavia 6 3 2 1 7- 5 11 7.Ireland 6 2 2 2 8- 6 8 8.Ukraine 6 2 2 2 5- 5 8 9.Hungary 6 1 3 2 4- 7 6 Scotland are qualified as best runners-up.
They didn't mention which criteria they will use. You could only dismiss the results versus the 7th placed team, or versus the 6th and 7th placed teams or versus the 5th, 6th and 7th placed teams. I think the 1st is the most clear, as you only have 3 groups in which it's a little unclear how the situation is.
BTW, I didn't see it in the UEFA announcement, but an article I saw on Italian teletext said that the "highest rated" top seeds would be placed in the 6-team groups. Not clear on the criteria for determining this; probably the same as used to determine the top seeds in the first place, I guess.
With 8 groups, they will probably put teams in pots of 8 by seedings, and draw 1 from each pot into the groups. By current FIFA rankings, the first 4 pots would be (I left Germany in to show where they're ranked): POT A France, Spain, Netherlands, -G-e-r-m-a-n-y-, Turkey, England, Czech Republic, Italy, Denmark POT B Ireland Republic, Portugal, Belgium, Sweden, Romania, Norway, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro POT C Slovenia, Russia, Poland, Greece, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Israel, Finland, POT D Ukraine, Hungary, Wales, Austria, Slovakia, Scotland, Iceland, Estonia
But if my memory serves me (and god knows it doesn't always) UEFA usually uses the results from the most recent WC and Euro qualifying to determine ranking. I think that was the reason for England playing Germany in the last WC qualifiers, which would not have happened if they had used the FIFA ranking. That would also be the reason behind Sweden's not very tough competition in their present Euro qualifying group - Sweden won their groups both for Euro2000 and WC2002.
Indeed they never use the FIFA-ranking. They take the avarage of points per match (only the groupmatches) of the last 2 qualifying rounds. So for WC 2006 they take the qualifying for WC 2002 and Euro 2004. For France only Euro 2004 counts and for Portugal WC 2002, because they didn't play in the other qualifying.
Correct. I did some checking and, if UEFA uses the same regulations for the WC06 qualifications as for Euro04, seeding looks like this at the moment, using present results from the Euro qualifings: First seed: Germany (automatic) France Sweden Portugal England Italy Turkey Spain Second: Czech Republic Netherlands Denmark Croatia Ireland Russia Slovenia Belgium Third: Bulgaria Poland Romania Scotland Austria Switzerland Ukraine Serbia-Montenegro Fourth: Israel Wales Iceland Slovakia Greece Hungary Norway Finland Fifth: Belarus Bosnia-Herzegovina Georgia Latvia Estonia Cyprus Northern Ireland Macedonia Sixth: Lithuania Armenia Albania Azerbaijan Moldova Faroe Islands Liechtenstein San Marino Seventh: Malta Andorra Luxembourg
Well, it'll be really interesting to see which 5 teams get placed in the advantageous 6-team groups. If you have them in order, Italy and Spain - home to arguable the top two leagues in Europe - are not in the top five, but Sweden is. I can hear the complaints from the Italian and Spanish leagues and clubs coming already. Of course, there is still some more Euro2004 qualifying to go, so these rankings could change a bit.
Well, the seeds at this point in Euro qualifying based on how I've been told they will figure the seedings: Rank Team PPG 1 France 3.00 POT A 2 Sweden 2.40 3 Portugal 2.40 4 England 2.36 5 CzechRep 2.30 5 Holland 2.30 5 Turkey 2.30 8 Italy 2.25 9 Denmark 2.18 POT B 10 Spain 2.17 11 Germany 2.16 ------- 12 Croatia 2.13 13 Ireland 2.03 14 Slovenia 2.00 15 Bulgaria 1.95 16 Wales 1.95 17 Belgium 1.90 18 Russia 1.85 POT C 19 Romania 1.83 20 Poland 1.75 21 Scotland 1.74 22 Switzerld 1.70 23 Austria 1.69 24 Ukraine 1.60 25 Iceland 1.55
Dandal has a few flaws. Germany will not have to qualify so they will not be in one of the pots. Kazakstan is now in UEFA and eligible. They will probably by default be put into the lowest pot.
Well, there are some discrepancies between your numbers and mine, but that's just minor details. We both made the same mistake though - there should be no Germany in the qualifications for WC06. They are, after all, hosting the event. Remove Germany and yank everybody below them up one step. Italy and Spain definitely is below what they're used to, Spain in pot B even. But hey, that's what you get if you allow yourself to be spanked by Wales and Greece. And nobody in their right mind would give Sweden a top three seeding in Europe. But they've not lost a single qualification game since 1997. That pays off. And Kazachstan - I tend to agree with IASocFan. The case is not covered in the UEFA regulations as far as I can see.
There has been a group of 7 teams only 1 time in qualifying history. For the WC 1994 qualifying there were 6 groups of which 1 group of 7 teams, 4 groups of 6 teams and 1 group of 5 teams (because Yugoslavia was in this group but was banned later). This was the group of 7 teams: 1.Spain 12 8 3 1 19 (27- 4) 2.Ireland 12 7 4 1 18 (19- 6) 3.Denmark 12 7 4 1 18 (15- 2) 4.Northern Ireland 12 5 3 4 13 (14-13) 5.Lithuania 12 2 3 7 7 ( 8-21) 6.Latvia 12 0 5 7 5 ( 4-21) 7.Albania 12 1 2 9 4 ( 6-26) Spain and Ireland qualified from this group.
I guess Peter Schmeichel was quite bitter for not making it to the World Cup with that defensive record.
I have done it, the perfect UEFA WCQ set up. 14 births, including Germany 50 teams battle for the other 13. PHASE I Ten groups of three teams and two groups of four, round robin home and away, one group winner advances. If two teams tie, then two more games, home and away aggriget (sp?) goal to find the winner. If all three teams tie, then two of the teams in a draw play one game, golden goal PK to get a winner, then the winner of that game plays the third team in a one time, golden goal (or silver) with PK to find the winner. If all four teams tie, then a mini knock out between the four teams. PHASE II The twelve group winners join with twelve seeded teams and form six groups of four. Home and away round robin. group winners and runners up advance to the WC Finals, also the best third place team also advances to the WC Finals. Up-side, fewer games for the big nations, kind of a good faith effort on the parts of the FAs to the clubs to reduce the fixture calander. Most possible games is 14, but that is very unlikly, but they play 12 now. Most nations will play 8 games with the big nations playing only 6 Down side, the smaller nations like playing the big nations for the money. So I say leave EURO Champs Qualifing the way it is. Little bit of philosophy here but in the European championship you should play all of the smaller nations to be the true European champion. But in the World Cup you need not play all the smaller nations because this is a World tournament. This is done in Asia, Africa, Oceania, and until recently CONCACAF. Now that I think about it, big nations like playing lots of game because of the money. But the clubs like playing lots of games too because of the money. Maybe this would pass a part of a deal with UEFA, FIFA, the F.A.s and the G-14 as part of a fixture reduction plan.
Regarding UEFA WC and EC qualifiers: German Bundesliga thinks about a striker and wants the other nations to join in. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=1340424#post1340424
I knew there had to be something wrong if Holland and Chzech Republic would be ahead of Spain in the seeding. I'm guessing they would use the same seeding as used for making the groups for Euro 2004, which is divide the number of points gained in the previous WC and EC qualifying by the number of games...which so far would arrange your top 10 like this: Don't know if they would use WC98 qualifying stats for France, or EC2000 for Portugal, don't think so, so....... France. 15/5 = 3.000 Sweden. 37/15 = 2.467 Portugal. 24/10 = 2.400 Italy. 30/13 = 2.308 Turkey. 36/16 = 2.250 Spain. 31/14 = 2.215 Chzech Republic. 33/15 = 2.200 Holland. 33/15 = 2.200 Denmark. 35/16 = 2.189 England. 30/14 = 2.143 Including Chzech Republic being seeded over Holland because they are doing better than Holland so far in the latest qualifying. I didn't bother checking the teams outside that top 10, so some of them might have a better coefficient than some of these teams, I doubt it though.