I would argue that Australia is at least our caliber. They're subjected to much worse. It seems like your complaint rests on the fact that the seeding allows the possiblity that we face a team like Cuba or Haiti. In that respect, I agree with you. Still, two games is plenty of time for our team to differentiate itself. I also agree that more games is better. However, I don't like your proposed system at all. The team that finishes 8th gets relegated and has zero chance of qualifying in the next cycle. Presumably, that would mean no Canada in qualifying for 2006.
Bring Cuba on... Didn't we just wax them 5-0 a few months ago? If you guys are seriously sweating a home and home series versus Cuba/Haiti, then with all due respect, you have no faith in your coach or his National Team.. I understand the rationale of thinking that disaster could loom if we draw either Haiti or Cuba, but seriously, when have they [/] ever [I/] been a threat to us? Let's say hypothetically that we do draw Haiti and we have the first leg in Port au Prince.. Let's say we lose 1-0... What are the chances that we lose or draw the next match on home soil? Pretty slim I would venture to say.. Besides, we'll probably draw some donkey team like Puerto Rico and wax them by 20-0 aggregate anyway.. Relax, we'll be ready whomever it may be......
They have a chance. All they have to do is finish on top of the 24 teams in the lower bracket and then win the two home and homes. Plus if it's too severe, then only one team could get relegated and only one team promoted (I don't think two would work under the system). And this 'deserve to go' line of thinking doesn't fly with me. I want to go to Germany whether we deserve to or not. More to the point, my problem with the setup is that it makes it more likely that a team that does deserve to go won't go. We already know what a cockeyed system can do to qualifying. We saw a top 10, possibly top 5 team miss last time around because of an overstuffed group in Euro qualifying, while Slovenia and Poland coasted. And us getting only a minimum of one game is ludicrous and unthinkably dangerous. Our federation survives off of money from qualifiers. I mean the three minimum we had last time ain't great, and the two minimum we were supposed to have this time is worse. But one? One qualifier? It's a recipe for complete disaster for somebody. Let's hope it isn't us.
On January 21, 2002 we beat Cuba 1-0 at home in the Gold Cup. Since that time they've: Tied Soith Korea Beaten Jamaica twice and tied them once (one win was on the road) Beaten T&T in T&T Beaten Canada Not to mention the absolute nightmare we could be facing in Havana. We're not well liked down there. Also, your examination misses the fact that if we lose 1-0 in Havana, then if they score a single goal in the US, we would need three or else we miss Germany. No thanks. We just struggled to beat Haiti's U23s at home. This is a little too close to be screwing around with. If we eventually don't qualify, so be it, but no way in hell I want qualifying over after two freakin' games. Even if we have a 98% chance of getting past this round, it's still absurd that we face a 2% chance of going home after two games.
How is it worse? Sure it's a single home and home against a potential good team or they're eliminated. But it's also a single home and home and they're in the World Cup. If they gave Oceania a full spot, Australia would have the easiest qualification road in the world. Basically, we're being asked to participate in preliminary qualifiers before the real qualifying begins.
home and away I know I digress but it's home and away. Home and home makes it sound like you are playing two home games. Ok.....back to the topic.
In a ten-team group with only one relegated, you're likely to have an awful lot of meaningless games. With any more teams relegated, you risk throwing one that would've been a strong contender in the next cycle. Basically, Concacaf needs to test out at least 12 contenders each cycle, and the semis-hex system are a great way to do that. The play-in round is a reasonable way to winnow out the no-hopers; I just wish they seeded it better. Regardless, we'll never see it adversely affect the US in our lifetimes. Also, the 2002 Gold Cup game against Cuba is a dubious example ... we were fielding an under-strength squad that had beaten Korea in a tough game 48 hours earlier and was conserving its energy for the next round. IIRC, that was also Josh Wolff's first game back from a major injury.
Doesn't matter, struggling with a good excuse is still struggling. Whos to say we won't face an obstacle of a similar nature this time around? And as far as the system, I'm not sure you're following that one of the other 24 teams can still qualify for the World Cup. They just have to do it by beatung the 4th finisher out of the 10, and then either by beating the Asian 5th, or by us getting another half a spot.
Come on ... this doesn't make any sense. We wouldn't play a WC Qualifier with one rest day after a difficult game; we wouldn't leave our top healthy players out of the line-up; we wouldn't use the game as a player's first appearance after a long injury lay-off; we wouldn't be resting up for a series of 3 games up ahead. It's not a comparable situation at all. (And anyway, we got an early goal and cruised to a win, when all we needed was a tie.) I hadn't noticed that little wrinkle. Unfortunately, it seems to cause more problems than it fixes. 1) Fixture congestion -- Now there have to be 22 matchdates. That's even more than South America has. 2) Relegation a bonus? -- If I'm Guatemala, I have a better chance of qualifying out of the relegation zone than I do from the top ten. 3) Crapshoot -- You want to schedule a whole slew of games, and then at the end it comes right back down to a measly two-game playoff? The semis and hex are much less arbitrary.
Yeah, but that's just for the final half slot which is a crapshoot slot anyway since you have to win the Asia playoff to go. And at least everybody gets to play some games this way. As it stands right now two-thirds of our Confed will play four games or less and at least a third will only play two. That's my problem. There should be a minimum number of qualifiers we are guaranteed to play, and it sure as hell should be more than two. The more games that are played, the more likely the cream will rise to the top. Us and Mexico and Costa Rica have done enough to where we should be allowed to play a series of games against the best in our Confed for the right to go to the World Cup. Instead we have to play a few round of Russian Roulette first before we do. If someone gave you a pair of dice and told you that if you rolled anything other than snake eyes, you'd win a million dollars, but if you rolled snake eyes he'd shoot you in the head... ...how confident would you be when you rolled those dice? This is an extremely risky situation for the USMNT, and I don't like it one bit.
Agreed. The odds of getting struck by lightining are long indeed, even if you wave a golf club in the air in the middle of the fairway. Don't think it can't happen??...well, it CAN.
Injuries are part of any competition ... in that Cuba game we were missing guys like Pope, Mathis, Olsen, Klein, and Llamosa due to injury. But on top of that, there were a whole slew of players we didn't call up -- Stewart, Regis, Friedel, Sanneh, Vanney, O'Brien, Reyna, Joe-Max, Kirovski, and Cherundolo. If this had been a serious game, we would've seen many of those guys. Of course, we still won the game without them. on fixture congestion... Under the current set-up, a team will only play 22 games if there are some colossal upsets. on relegation being a bonus... Who cares how many "match-ups" you have to win? At the end of the day, Guatemala would be a longshot to finish in the top four of the final group, but they'd be a heavy favorite to win the rest of Concacaf. on having "earned" more than two games... That reasoning only takes you so far. There are plenty of Europeans who thought that Concacaf hadn't earned three bids to WC02. The competition is set up to give everyone a fighting chance, and that's a good thing. on rolling the dice... Rolling the dice is part of the excitement. As best I can tell, the preliminary round makes only a negligible change to our overall chance of qualifying.
The basic point I come down to is that getting a grand total of one home qualifier is an unacceptable risk for us to have to take no matter how remote the chances are of it happening. I mean it would be an epic disaster if it happened. This is way too risky. Qualifying hasn't even started yet and our next qualifier is already a "must win" situation. I understand your point, but this is a recipe for someone (not just us) to have a very bad qualifying experience. It's a lousy structure to use for qualifying and furthermore it's particular galling that they've chosen to change the whole process at the last minute.
Ah, a smart man. My point was that a two leg playoff that could end things ain't great. But for it to be at the BEGINNING instead of the end really truly Lewinskys.
Re: Re: CONCACAF to change WC qualifying format? Not really. If they win their home and home, that's it, they're in. If we do, we've still got two rounds of qualifying to go.
Um, if this is the match I'm thinking of, it was OUR U-23s (actually, U-20s I think) against the Haitian seniors.
Re: Re: CONCACAF to change WC qualifying format? It was our U-23's, and I'm pretty sure it was theirs too...the USSF website doesn't have a Haiti roster, but all the Haitian players mentioned in the Fort Lauderdale paper's match report played in the Olympic qualifier against the Dominican Republic.
Seems to me the 3 previous WC qualifiers should get a free ride into the semis. A home-and-home to qualify is just wrong. A home-and-home pre-qualifier has two possible outcomes: 99%: formality 1%: travesty. Either way it's a loser. I don't think the bottom 3 hex finishers should get a free ride into the semis because T&T has lost to teams that didn't make the last semis. I think our semis and hex are one of the best systems in the world, I hope we don't screw it up.
I agree. The semis and hex are outstanding. At the same time, there are 34 teams in our confederation. In order to preserve the semis and hex, we need to throw out the minnows quickly. We only have four matchdates to go from 34 down to 12. Given those constraints, it's tough to argue with Concacaf's decision. As an aside... If you need to include home-and-home playoffs, the sensible place to put them is the beginning of the tournament, where teams are less evenly balanced. After all, a two-game series with Barbados is a mismatch, but a two-game series with Honduras would be up in the air. And in the end, let's get our priorities straight. Who cares how many qualifiers we're guaranteed to play, if we end up watching Germany 2006 from home? Bottom line: this extra round doesn't significantly affect our chances to qualify, and it preserves a good overall system. People ought to praise this decision.
Re: Re: CONCACAF to change WC qualifying format? Didn't we barely eke out a victory against them in the 2001 Gold Cup?
Re: Re: Re: CONCACAF to change WC qualifying format? As has already been discussed, the US didn't treat the 2001 match as anything close to a competitive game. Cuba did, and still trailed for almost the entire game while never coming close to equalizing.
With all due respect to voros's posts, I just think it's a little "chicken little' posturing.. Is the inherent danger there in losing out to a minnow in qualifying? Absolutely.... What is the actual likelyhood that we would lose in a 2 game series to Haiti or Cuba? Very little to none despite some very good arguments from your side.. One thing that needs to be considered is that when this team (the USA) has to get results, they generally do the job that is required no matter the situation.. If the situation arises that we do indeed draw either Haiti or Cuba in the first round, Bruce Arena will have our team ready to play.. But in all likelyhood, we will draw someone like Puerto Rico or Antigua and wax them with our "D" team should it be necessary...
I really don't like the system but let's not forget that its more likely that a competitor gets shocked in the first round than us. US and Mexico have great depth and I think are highly unlikely to get upset. But countries like Jamaica, Guat and even Costa Rica (didn't they lose a '02 qualifier at Barbados ?) are vulnerable if they have a few star players injured and some bad luck (i.e., a bad call, a red card, a flukey PK to their minnow opponent). In the end this could end up making the 2nd and 3rd rounds easier for us.