Confederation Cup Draw [R]

Comparatively speaking, France got it much easier. That's a tough group for the US, but it should mean we get three really good games. I just hope the momentum from the WC run continues.

 

It might be easier for the US if all the super clubs pull their stars like they are threatening...Let's hope this thing actually goes on, it will be good in getting us ready for WCQ next year...

 

I don't think we should be rooting for "easier"--better to have the US face challenging opponents so the games are meaningful in terms of preparation. That said, we'll see some interesting styles of play and highly skilled opponents, so while being in this group doesn't exactly make me hopeful of our chances for advancing in the tournament, it does make me think it'll be a great test for the nats. And the confeds cup always has more than its share of upsets, which gives the underdogs some hope.

 

I missed this...why exactly are they threatening to pull their stars?

 

UEFA says that the top players need some rest between club seasons.

 

Because the Europeans who control those clubs don't like to allow any tournament that doesn't involve European teams only to go forward. Frankly, I think they'd eliminate the World Cup if they could and just declare the European Champion the default world champion like they almost do for clubs. At least in that case they have the balls to at least allow one team from another confederation to allow to play.

Guinho

 

Actually, the people who control the clubs don't give a shít how the national teams do at this Cup. Nice try though.

Whoa, 2 for 2. They don't 'almost' declare the European Champion the world champion at all.

Guinho, you're doing pretty good man. Pretty soon you'll surpass pololo's level of making the most ridiculous claims. Try and try again is my advice, I have faith in you.

 

Pretty much what Crewdust stated. Clubs aren't willing to sacrifice their investments for the international game as much anymore - and they have the payroll sheets to explain why. It can be seen as a "risk" on their investment.

What is weird though is that the tournament is in France... where many of the best of the top teams play. Still managers will complain of the lack of rest which is valid to be honest. I just wish the European seasons didn't start until September. There are just too many matches. In the United States, sports there have a good formula for off-seasons, but then again in the US, there are multiple "big name" sports.

As for the cup itself, easily the Brazil, Cameroon, US and Turkey group is the toughest. For Brazil, the threats are US and Turkey - ever since the 2000 Olympics, Brazil has always done well against Cameroon. I wouldn't be surprised to see Turkey pull the result against Brazil.

In the other group - France has the edge - and will definitely go through. Their toughest opponent will probably be Colombia - thanks to the distance for Japan and New Zealand. Otherwise, I'd say Japan.

In the end who cares, really. France will probably win it anyway.

 

UEFA will always look after itself first and that is what you would expect. If UEFA doesn't want to have it's teams in the Confederations Cup then maybe it is time for the other confederations to display their concern at UEFA's attitude at the FIFA voting table.

Crowdie.

 

Unlike the other federations of course

Like how? Take away even more spots for the WC? Seeing as they already did this when the UEFA teams did take part in these meaningless tournaments...nothing really changes.

 

just because colombia didn't qualify doesn't mean they are not good. look at holland.

anyway i would expect the US to come out with a draw or win at most. the only team i see them being able to get a result from is cameroon and that is only if they play like they did at the WC. if cameroon play up to their potential the US gets a nice goose egg 0

 

All the confederations will look after their own interests. The larger the confederation the more influence they have.

UEFA may feel that the Confederations Cup is a "meaningless" tournament but for the smaller confederations it is extremely important. It is a rare chance for them to get experience against the larger confederations. This leads to the smaller confederations getting better and lifs the standard of football in the world.

By trying to stop the Confederations Cup, as UEFA is trying to do, it is kicking the smaller confederations in the teeth by saying "We are important and you are not."

Crowdie.

PS. I thought Holland did really well on Wednesday at the Cricket World Cup. I don't know if you saw the game but the Dutch bowlers really took it to the Indians (who are the third seeds at the tournament). The Dutch are not going to win the Cricket World Cup and will not make it past the first round but it is really important to have them at the World Cup so cricket can grow in Holland.

 

I'm not Dutch, and even if I was I still wouldn't care about the Dutch cricket team.

You already agree that all the federations look after themselves - as shown by them taking away spots from UEFA and CONMEBOL to give out between themselves - why should UEFA care about other feds? Did those other feds care when they took away WC spots, something UEFA actually gives a hoot about, from the European Federation? Of course not. Why the Hell then should UEFA care if they don't 'help' the teams from other regions 'get better'?

 

Sorry. I just read the bottom part of your profile that said you were in Holland. I should have taken the time to read your full profile and noted you are Spanish. Again my apologies.

Why? They would be your countrymen representing your country very well on the international sporting stage.

The point was that the Dutch cricket team are welcome at the Cricket World Cup even though they have no chance of winning or progressing. Why is it that soccer does not welcome smaller nations to their World Cup? All I see is supporters bitching at each other making offensive comments about each other's confederations and countries. Maybe soccer supporters have something to learn from the cricket world.

The WC spots were heavily baised towards the traditional confederations making it almost impossible for the smaller confederations to grow. Where was UEFA when Oceania tried to get automatic entry into the WC thirty years ago? UEFA kept quiet.

In UEFA's defence they supported Oceania in the vote for automatic entry into the WC - this was a FIFA vote BEFORE the rest of the WC positions were decided on.

UEFA is part of the soccer world. If the conferations don't work together then we will keep seeing games where two teams from different confederations play two completely forms of football with a referee from another confederation enforcing the laws of another form of football. We had this at the last WC and it lead to frustration from the teams, supporters and officials.

Sport is about more than winning. If you don't believe that then you need to rethink what you get out of soccer.

Crowdie.

 

China & Saudi Arabia? Next time there will be more teams like these at the expense of teams from confederations that performed the best at the WC.

You're saying that like it's a bad thing

Again, unlike the other federations? Why do people on this board use a different measuring stick for UEFA? All the federations look out for #1, which is themselves. UEFA doesn't do anything different.

And you can say that CONMEBOL and UEFA have too many spots, which is fine and dandy since it's your opinion, but I would say the overall results of both these federations show that they deserve those spots.

I don't really see what's so bad about this; to see 2 teams with completely different styles play each other is a bad thing?

The referees all have to abide to the same rules by the by, what led to frustration at this WC was that many refs didn't do it right.

I agree, football is about more than just winning. It should be more than just about making money as well.

Making players play more matches in an already busy season because FIFA wants to earn some money from this meaningless Cup isn't right either. Moreso when the clubs who actually pay the high salaries of these players aren't even compensated by the national federations for the services of these players, plus they get to begin their season with fatigued and possibly injured players. Yay?

 

I don't like to agree with the guy who tried to stick up for Rivaldo and his embarrassing show of sportsmanship against Turkey, but...

For one, Arsene Wenger has already complained about this tournament because he has so many French players. For example.

Look up hyperbole in the dictionary.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but in case you were trying to make a point against what I said:

"Because the Europeans who control those clubs don't like to allow any tournament that doesn't involve European teams only to go forward"

European clubs don't give a shít if only the European teams make it to the 2nd round of the Confed Cup. They don't give a shít how the European teams do at the Confed Cup at all. They'd rather keep their players fresh and healthy for the start of the season instead of an European team winning the Confed Cup.

I didn't know 'hyperbole' meant 'being full of it' in American English. Learn something new every day I guess.

 

Giving a bit if stick is OK but when you have UEFA sanctioning clubs because of racist abuse of players you have to wonder where modern soccer is going.

That said, well done to UEFA for acting so swiftly against these racists.

I didn't aim that comment directly at UEFA. It was aimed at all the large confederations.

When the WC was expained to 32 teams that was when the smaller confederations should have been given their automatic places. Now the larger confederations are used to having almost all the places and object to losing them to the smaller confederations. FIFA should have given the smaller confederations automatic entry a long time ago and this problem wouldn't be happening now.

I will explain myself better. Did you see the Arsenal vs Newcastle game from the weekend? Arsenal had the free kick and took it early. A Newcastle player was 30cm (by his own admission) from where the free kick was taken and the ball hit him. The referee issued the Newcastle player a yellow card - his second of the game so he was sent off. The Newcastle player is abusing the Arsenal player because he says that delaying free kicks is acceptable in the English Premiership and his manager is backing him up on this. The rulebook states that all opposing player must be 10 yards (9.15m) from the ball when a free kick is taken. Why are Newcastle attacking the Arsenal player?

A World Cup example:

Turkey vs Brazil. Turkish player kicks the ball back to Rivaldo who is by the corner flag waiting to take a corner kick. You know the incident. I have spoken to several Brazilian supporters who say that gamesmanship is part of the South American game. I think England supporters who remember the "Hand Of God" incident will agree. In the Oceania confederation we have another name for "gamesmanship" - "cheating".

Both games were played under the same rules but yet we have two incidents that caused some very strong debate from supporters and officials with two very different views.

My understanding of the rules for international players is that their clubs must release them for a certain number of games per year. I think it is six but I could be wrong.

The issue for UEFA (and other large confederations) is that they have a number of internal tournaments that players are released from club duty for. So when the inter-confederation tournaments occur these international players are already well above their six (I think) internationals in that year and the clubs don't want to release them.

The question is what is more important - internal tournaments or inter-confederation tournaments? UEFA have made their feelings known.

Finally, points to Scotland for agreeing to play New Zealand on the 27th of March in Edinburgh and Croatia for the 4th of June game in Zagreb. Here's two UEFA countries looking after the smaller nations.

Crowdie.

 

Every federation except Oceania did have automatic places; Oceania didn't get one probably because it's a 2 team fed with said 2 teams not being that great (at the time)

He would be wrong, if the Arsenal player shot the free kick while the Newcastle player intentionally blocked it from 30 cm away...he deserved the yellow card.

And the Turkish player got his deserved yellow card for kicking the ball at another player, what's the problem? The fact that Rivaldo fell down like a little girl and pretended that he was hit in the head doesn't change that the Turkish guy deserved the yellow card, which he received.

The tournament that actually matters is more important, which the Confed Cup doesn't and isn't.

You seem to be under the impression that just because European teams don't take part in the confed cup, they won't play against international opposition; which they do as the Australia, Ecuador, Tunisia and Argentina games this week show. This week's games were meant as preparation for the EC qualifying games, and are necessary for the National teams as opposed to the Confed Cup.

 

The point is the Turkish player didn't deserve a yellow card. He kicked the ball back so Rivaldo wouldn't have to walk all the way out to get the ball and walk all the way back to the corner. With this ruling any player who tries to speed the game up and give the ball to the opposition is mad. Where is the fair play is that!

I think that the problem is caused by FIFA not having a proper plan for Internationals (except the World Cup). FIFA should take a leaf out of the International Cricket Council and International Rugby Board's hat and organise a proper world league so that over several years teams all get to play against quality opposition from other confederations. It makes promotion of the games easier, managers know what games are coming up and know exactly what countries they will be playing at least a year ahead. It also means the supporters can save to travel to the games they really want to see.

FIFA has to stop being a loose group of competing confederations and become a proper governing body.

Crowdie.

 

FIFA will never have absolute power as the G14 clubs in Europe will always hold the power because they pay the biggest wages to the players.
G14 this week I believe asked for meetings with FIFA to discuss (among other things) countries paying the players' wages and insuring them while on international duty. Currently these bills are paid by the clubs.

 

Again money is the problem. Money appears to always be the problem with soccer. In the WC teams want to progress further as they get paid more as they progress.

The "super clubs" are now in a situation where the salaries they pay players are so rediculous that anything that threatens their revenue has to be killed as it threatens their club. Should be interesting over the next few years as the television companies stop paying the clubs rediculous sums to broadcast their games.

Crowdie.

 

Please, I saw the game.
The Turkish player got what he deserved.

I don't really see a reason for this.

If teams like Australia etc. want to play against European teams or whoever, then the Australian federation can try to agree to a match with the other fed. There's no need for the Confed Cup or some world league or whatnot for international games with European teams or other teams, indeed European teams have been playing non-European teams in between World Cups for a long time now.