If I remember it correctly Denmark didn`t got any points deduction when they refused to play in Sweden in WWC 2019 qualifier except from the points they lost because the game was rated as a 0:3 loss. Mauritius has so many points less than every other team that a 0:3 loss can`t have a big negative effect on their ranking points.
Yes indeed: "The CEDB has declared the UEFA European qualifying competition match for the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup between Sweden and Denmark as a forfeit, which saw Denmark being deemed to have lost the match 3-0. Denmark women’s national team is excluded from participating in UEFA competition matches for which it would otherwise qualify, and the sanction is deferred for a probationary period of four (4) years. The Danish Football Association is also fined with €20,000." They have a four years probation as well, which means if they do it again they will get excluded from participating in qualifying / tournament in the next cycle. Basically if they do it again they are out of the Euros 2022.
Alright, just found this thread because it was referenced elsewhere xD. Personally, I'd go with: UEFA 11 (+3) AFC 6 (+1) CAF 4 (+1) CONCACAF 4.5 (+1) CONMEBOL 4 (+1.5) OFC 1.5 (+.5) Host 1 I just don't think OFC deserves more than 1 full spot. 3 extra spots is reasonable for UEFA, I don't see anything objectionable about that, they could arguably even get 4 but it would not fly with the other confeds. The others all get one extra spot apiece except CONMEBOL which I feel is a little underrated under the current allocation, so they go to 4 full spots here from 2.5. For this edition due to the cohosting situation, I'd adjust to: UEFA 11 AFC 5.5 (6.5 with Australia) CAF 4 CONCACAF 4.5 CONMEBOL 4 OFC 1 (2 with NZ)
🚨 2023 #FIFAWWC Update 🚨🌏 Allocation of slots for confederations confirmed🌏 10-team play-off tournament to decide last 3 placesℹ️👉 https://t.co/xseuDV6F4j pic.twitter.com/y9k50qQZ4p— FIFA Women's World Cup (@FIFAWWC) December 24, 2020
Seems pretty fair overall. The haggling over the last few spots is sorted out by simply throwing them into a playoff tournament. The playoff format is pretty unconventional but makes sense to me. All in all, FIFA showed more thought about this than I honestly expected. Some reduction in quality is inevitable, but this format keeps it to an acceptable level.
Really glad to see FIFA adopting extra intraconfederation playoffs for this! I agree it's a bit of an unconventional format to go with 10 teams, but once you take that number into account I guess it's a good setup. And although it wasn't stated directly in the above post, the link says that the host slot(s) from here on our are just going to be taken from the 29 permanent non-playoff slots, so that this year OFC effectively has 0 direct slots and AFC effectively has 5 direct slots, instead of the stated 1 and 6 respectively. In case anyone was wondering and didn't click though! Now, it's just up to the confederations to decide how to make tournament that give these numbers. With the exception of OFC, those 8-team tournament will make very little sense with 6-8 teams either getting direct qualification or going to the playoff tournament.
I like the play-in tournament for the final three slots. This also avoids giving OFC an automatic slot. Now, CAF & CONCACAF can potentially have 6 teams qualify while CONMEBOL can have potentially have 5 teams.
Early Prediction (play-in teams): AFC(6+2): Australia(host), Japan, China, South Korea, North Korea, Thailand, (Chinese Taipei, Vietnam). UEFA(11+1): Germany, England, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Scotland, France, Switzerland, (Iceland). CONCACAF(4+2): USA, Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, (Costa Rica, Haiti). CAF(4+2): South Africa, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ghana (Malawi, Zambia). CONMEBOL(3+2): Brazil, Argentina, Chile, (Colombia, Venezuela). OFC(1+1): New Zealand(host), (Papua New Guinea).
I agree with most of your post, but I would bet that one of the Philippines+Myanmar+Jordan gets in instead.
Fidji in OFC were on a good path when my friend was over there. Don't know if they have carried on investing with him.gone now.
Based on the latest World Ranking at least nine teams from the Top 32 would not qualify (all from UEFA). If the Play-off winners would be according the World Ranking they would be from UEFA, CONMEBOL and AFC. Expected World Cup participants outside Top 32 World Ranking: CAF:4(37,51,53,58) AFC:2(34,38) (included not ranked North Korea) CONCACAF:1(35) CONMEBOL:1(36) Only three CAF teams have more than 70 points less than WR32. We have discussed the problem of CAF teams World Ranking so that FIFA`s distribution of the World Cup places doesn`t seem illogical. On the other side: Is it fair if a team like Austria (WR20) doesn`t qualify that is 200 points better than Thailand (WR38)? Points difference between lowest ranked team expected to qualify and WR Top 24 (2019) respectively Top 32 (2023) from each confederation at the time of FIFA`s slot allocation: AFC: +87(2019), -63(2023) CAF: -272(2019), -256(2023) CONCACAF: -98(2019), -15(2023) CONMEBOL: 0(2019), -31(2023) OFC: +90(2019), +98(2023) UEFA:+93(2019), +149(2023) Highest ranked team expected not to qualify: AFC: -122(2019), -70(2023) CAF: -278(2019), -267(2023) CONCACAF: -262(2019), -199(2023) CONMEBOL: -135(2019/included Argentina), -169(2023) OFC: -283(2019), -155(2023) UEFA: +91(2019), +137(2023)
You're giving too much credit to Chinese Taipei: I am aware that they are now 7th-placed in Asia according to FIFA's rankings, but I follow Asian football and I can tell you that they mostly look hopeless in tournaments. In my opinion, below 30th place or such, FIFA's rankings are mostly a toss-up: I'd see Myanmar or Philippines (or even India) as more likely to take one of those play-off spots than Chinese Taipei.
Yes, there are several teams in Europe that could be deserving of a WWC place and I am almost sure that the 12th UEFA teams will grab one of the remaining three spots through the qualifying toutnament in Australia/NZ. @toad455 has put Scotland in his selection but, as good as they can look on paper, Scotland looked plain bad at least in the latest pair of years: there are many teams that could do better than them. Not only Iceland, that you mentioned, but also Belgium, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic.... Heck, Scotland even lost to Portugal at Euro 2017, so it would not be out of the realm of possible to see them qualify at their expense!
I wonder what kind of qualifying system UEFA comes up with this time. With 11 direct spots plus one play-off spot available, it seems reasonable with a system with six groups of six teams where all group winners and the five best second placed teams qualify directly and sixth and weakest second placed team goes to the intercontinental play-offs. We need a preliminary round to get rid of the weakest minnows first though, trimming the field from 50-something UEFA teams to 36.
I disagree with blissett's opinion on Chinese Taipei. Based on what I've seen Taiwanese team is making noticable progress. Outside of AFC big 5 - Australia, Japan, China, Korea DPR, Korea Rep - last ticket and two play-offs spots are more or less equal game for Vietnam, Thailand, Philipines, Chinese Taipei, Uzbekistan and Myanmar. In the long run I'd expect India, Chinese Taipei, Uzbekistan and Philipines to raise as AFC "2nd basket" teams. UEFA has 7-8 teams sure of qualification and another 8 that will battle for last 4-5 tickets.
By the way: Korea DPR withdrew from most competitions, lately, and were dropped from FIFA rankings. I even have to wonder if they're going to show up for these quallifyers.
The AFC qualifiers are supposed to start next Sept. So let's see where AFC slots them, if they enter.
The AFC qualifiers are supposed to start next September. It'll be interesting if they enter and where AFC would rank them.
UEFA should use a similar system like in Euro qualifiers. Nine groups of five or six teams. Teams which play at the Olympics Games should be in a group of 5 teams. The group winners qualify for the World Cup. The best second placed team plays in the intercontinental play-off and the other 8 second placed teams will play for the remaining two slots in two play-off tournaments.
Actually, I think UEFA could probably just keep their current WWCQ format. It actually works better with 11 + 1 playoff spot than it does with 8. 7 groups of 5 or 6 teams, depending on how many teams you want to eliminate in the preliminary round. 7 group winners + 2 best runners-up qualify directly. 3rd best goes to intercontinental playoff. Remaining 4 runners-up play off for the last 2 spots.
Conmebol will have to make a total change in its format. I would use the one similar to that of the men's qualifiers: 10 countries in the round-robin system, 3 first places go to the World Cup and positions 4 and 5 in the play-off. I hope to have the pleasure of finally seeing Deyna Castellanos play in the World Cup, (at least there is more chance )
Actually I could see the current format working out fairly well with a simple change for the second phase... After the two five-team groups finish, you have three more single games: 1's play for the continental title 2's play for the third direct spot (loser to playoffs) 3's play for the second playoff spot That said, I agree that having the ten-team round-robin would be AMAZING. However, that would mean all teams would now by playing at least 18 games per 4yr cycle, while about half of the continent currently gets away with 4 games per cycle. It'd probably be like pulling teeth from the bigwigs.
I need to somewhat correct myself here: while C'BOL teams have historically gotten away with just 4g/cycle, I somehow missed (or didn't recall) the fact that the C'BOL championships are supposedly going to be every 2yrs instead of every 4yrs moving forward, (similar to the men's C'CAF championship,) doubling the minimum number of games played each cycle. As such, adding more games may not be as big of an ask as I suggested in my previous post! (That said, with two championships per cycle, they probably don't want to increase the size of each individual tournament much anyway.)