For those who have been following along, lo these many months, this is the FINAL world cup seeding thread (for Germany 06). All of the variables of the formula are now known, so it is just a matter of whether or not FIFA should change the formula/criteria they have used for the last 3 world cups. No real surprises: Code: [B]Brazil 63.67 Spain 49.50 Germany 48.83 Mexico 47.00 Italy 46.50 Argentina 46.33 England 46.17 France 44.67[/B] Netherlands 42.67 USA 41.67 Sweden 35.33 South Korea 34.17 Japan 32.00 Croatia 31.50 Czech 29.00 Paraguay 28.33 Portugal 27.00 Saudi A. 22.83 Costa Rica 21.33 Iran 19.33 Poland 19.00 Tunisia 17.67 Serbia&Montenegro 15.33 Ecuador 14.50 Switzerland 11.67 Cote d'Ivoire 7.17 Ukraine 6.67 Trinidad&Tobago 4.83 Australia 4.00 Ghana 3.33 Angola 2.00 Togo 1.33
For some reason I feel a little sad that these threads are coming to an end. This thread will be stickied thru the group drawing or until FIFA says it no longer applies. Oh- el diablito should be repped incessantly for these threads. Other major posters like Sagy, California Jack, VioletCrown, etc should be repped too. With them BigSoccer has been kept more informed on this issue than anyone else in the soccer world.
the F.A.Q. (updated again) pertinent information Why is this list different than FIFA's coke rankings? Because Fifa's coke rankings are only part of the complex seeding formula. What is the seeding formula used for? The seeding formula is used to determine which 8 countries receive seeds. Those 8 teams are heads of each of the 8 groups in the world cup. By being seeded, they get the luxury of not having to play another seeded team until the knockout stage. What is the seeding formula exactly? The complex formula takes into account the performance at the last 3 world cups and the FIFA coca-cola rankings of the last three years. Specifically: [1(wc94) + 2(wc98) + 3(wc02)]/6 = Part A (FIFA ranking 12/03 + FIFA ranking 12/04 + FIFA ranking 11/05)/3 = Part B Part A + Part B = world cup seeding formula How is the world cup performance determined? 0 points are awarded if the country failed to qualify that year. 8 points are awarded if the country finished last in their group. 9 points are awarded if the country finished 3rd in their group. All the countries that advanced to the knockout stage are placed from 1st place to 16th place. 1st place (champs) receives 32 points. 2nd place receives 31 points. 3rd place receives 30 points. etc. All the way to 16th place which receives 17 points. How are the points for FIFA ranking awarded? Similarly to above. First, all 32 teams that qualify are ranked by their FIFA ranking. The best is given 32 points. The worst 1 point. Are all 32 teams seeded? NO! Only the top 8 are seeded. Historically, the femaining NON-seeded teams are grouped by region/confederation for purposes of the draw. This is important because I don't want to accidentally misinform. Only the top 8 teams receive seeds. Teams 9-16 are not placed in a second tier. Are you sure that FIFA will use this seeding formula? No. However, the last world cup this was the specific formula used. World cups '98 and '94 used a formula extremely similar--possibly identical, but the details of those formulas were never spelled out as specifically as the one used in '02. It is possible that FIFA could change the formula or alter it, but because the last three world cups used this formula, it is a good projection of which teams will be seeded.
Don't be too surprised if you see another seeding thread in late July 2006--especially if the US reaches the knockout stage. I'm sure some bozo will start one up.
Just wanting to ask if FIFA have descided who will be the seeds because they've said they might change the formular etc.. or haven't they announced it yet?
Expect an announcement December 6 (but be on the lookout for something before then). December 6 is when they have scheduled to announce thte seeds, the pots, and all the rules of the draw.
Check out this article written in July 2002 entitled "Who Will Be Seeded at Germany 2006." http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/paul20020709.html Using the 2002 seeding formula, the author correctly identified the 8 highest ranked teams following the 2002 WC, which remain the 8 teams that are currently the highest ranked under the seeding formula. Perhaps this is not that surprising because the seeding formula is 50% WC results (info will be known in July 2006) and 50% FIFA Rankings (most of this data going into the 2008, 2009, and 2010 FIFA rankings will be known since Rankings take into account past 8 years results). So, sometime in July 2006, I'll definitely be interested in seeing how the USA's seeding prospects for 2010 look. If that makes me a bozo, then I'm guilty.
Is it true that the only 2 seeding formulas FIFA are considering are: 1) stick with the old format 2) base it purely on the FIFA rankings ??
Dear Fellow Bozo, Dear Fellow Bozo, Actually, that's the article that spawned all these seeding threads. WorldSoccer-Jeff started these threads almost immediately after the last world cup. At that point, it was in the USMNT news&analysis board. And one can just imagine the merciless mocking he received for suggesting, at that time, that USA could be seeded in Germany2006. (Honestly, I think he got tired of trying to defend his position each month FIFA released their dubious rankings--that he basically disappeared). Those of us that actually investigated the data he presented, continued the threads--but astutely moved the topic to the FIFA board, therefore reducing the amount of mouthbreathers. Seriously, try digging up some of those threads from two+ years ago... Anyway, I'm sure I'll be seeing you on these boards in July2006. There will probably be a lot of interest if USA advances past the group stage. Keep in mind that the formula has 6 variables--and the one with the heftiest weight will be wc2006 performance. When the first thread started, it looked like it would be a VERY tight race for the 8 seeds. Turkey and Denmark were above or very close to the USA and Holland for a while. Now, because Turkey and Denmark have both failed to qualify, their chances of being seeded for 2010 and 2014 are slim to none.
Honestly, I have no idea. It's more realistic to believe that FIFA could be exploring a host of different criteria in addition to what you've mentioned. Nobody really knows. One thing seems obvious though: FIFA likes the whole cloud of uncertainty. They like the power they have over the situation--and they appear to relish all the hand-wringing that goes on. Blatter's coments only seem to exacerbate the situation. He seems like a petulant child on the playgound shouting, "I know a secret and I won't tell you. Nanny nanny boo boo." etc. My opinion is that the 8 teams the formula produces appear deserving. I cannot see FIFA deciding the teams based solely on FIFA ranking. World over, the FIFA rankings are scorned. I don't think they are as bad as many do--but it would be a highly controversial and provocative way to award the seeds. Both England and Italy would be denied a seed in that case. They would be replaced by Holland and the Czech Republic. Despite the fact that those teams are highly impressive, there is something to be said for rewarding past experience in the world cup. Many were expecting Portugal to be seeded for 2002. But why? They were impressive in Euro2000 (semifinalists), highly ranked, and they tore through qualifying. However, the team had not reached the World Cup since 1986--and then they went out in the group stage. I think that has to factor in FIFA's minds if they think about using just the FIFA rankings. Should they award a country like the Czech Republic (#2) a seed, even though they haven't qualified for the world cup since 1990? It looks remarkably similar to Portugal last time around.
Some little devil, you mean? Rep would be given, but I've got to spread some around. I even tried giving fake rep to ursula so I could get you too, but no go. There was some mention a couple months ago about a new ranking procedure that might come into effect after WC'06. Has everyone seen the article from KICKER that bltleo posted? https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=270362&page=1&pp=15 The German mag seems to think pots will be based top 8, next 8, next 8, bottom 8. (Even though they don't get the rankings correct - but then, they were probably working with a prior Coke ranking.)
I really hope FIFA uses the old system. Mexico does deserve to be seeded for what they've done in the last 3 World Cups. I'd be a milestone for Concacaf. It'd be the first time in World Cup history that a team from a confederation other than UEFA and Conmebol gets seeded on merit, rather than for being the host nation.
They're not going to change anything. They've been using this system for the past two tournaments, and it's just not going to happen. If they do anything, they might change the percentage of the ranking and preformance towards the final total. It was previously 40/60 in 1998, last time it was 50/50, IIRC. But there's no reason to believe any drastic changes are going to happen, unless you believe everything that comes out of Blatter's mouth.
Does this article by World Soccer's editor Gavin Hamilton shed any light? He seems to think the matter is clear ............. http://www.worldsoccer.com/editor/
Has he got some conspiracy theories about Kennedy, world domination by the bankers, the sinking of the Titanic, and the Holy Grail too? First, he mentions the last-3 WC performances being part of the formula, and then totally dismisses them in favor of straight Coca-Cola rankings. And then "conspires" to get the top European teams in the seeded pot - totally oblivious of the fact that these exact teams are those who would be seeded based on the formula! Economic factors? Certainly. We've discussed before that Germany will be A1 and Brazil F1, for economic factors. That way, they will not meet until the latest possible matchups in the knockout stages, and they will be playing in the largest stadia. That's the type of economic factors being considered.
um. Sure! OK! Happy to take any rep, considering that I almost have none But seriously, I usually just ask questions. And theorize utterly randomly without any effort at calculations whatsoever. The other folks on your list are far more deserving of rep. Wow. It's weird. The LAST seeding thread for this go-round. Interesting to look at them now historically. And especially interesting that it has turned out, after three years, that the seeds (assuming all those assumptions we've been assuming) were actually determinable right after the last World Cup. Huge thanks to everyone for all the calculations and discussion. It's been a blast. Just a couple more weeks now!
I've been lurking the seeding and mock draw boards for some months now, and I'm repping eldiablito (though he doesn't need it) for his hard work. This is all fascinating stuff. Seems to me that after the seedings are announced and the draw is done that there'll be plenty left to discuss on the 06 WC Boards...Can't wait.
The rumour in the English press at the moment is that due to “geographic and economic factor” I have no idea what that means but the result is Mexico will be replaced by Holland in the top eight resulting in seeds/pots that look like this. Pot One: Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Italy, Spain, England, France, Holland. Pot Two: Sweden, Ukraine, Serbia & Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Croatia. Pot Three: Mexico, United States, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Ecuador, Japan, South Korea, Australia. Pot Four: Trinidad and Tobago, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Angola, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Ghana, Togo. Great work Eldiablito, I enjoy these posts
This is what I've been predicting for the past 3 1/2 years. FIFA cann't afford to have Mexico head a group of teams that don't have much fan support. If Mexico is a top seed it would be possible for them to be in a group with Serbia, Togo, and Ecuador. And this group would be a recipe for alot of empty seats in Germany. Having Holland as a top seed guarantees full stadiums in at least three games in that group. FIFA also will want to spread out the big gate drawers all over the country.
I'm sorry. That's just absurd. Hilarious. The draw would be a fiasco with so much 'We can't put that team here because of some reason that the viewer can't comprehend' that it would be blatantly apparent to everyone that it was all a sham. Seriously, there's NO WAY the pots will be like that. With all the possible changes, the one I can not believe FIFA would make is allowing two teams from the same confederation (except UEFA) in the same first round group. The pots listed above would have all sorts of possible conflicts with that rule. Sorry, I can believe that they might decide to make the Holland/Mexico change ONLY if they really want the symmetry of N America in a pot with Asia. And I can only believe that would happen if they come up with some bizarre rule that allows Mexico to pick the seeded team they want to play. But then it's not a draw, is it? Upshot -- sorry, it's some pure speculative garbage article. I don't buy it.
FIFA are trying to make football as non-political as they can, so I do believe that you are right. Politics in Cyprus runs football. Maybe that's why the teams here are so damn useless.
The English footballing press is always rampant with rumour and speculation. They notch it up to full throttle this time every four years. So I take that info with a grain of salt. I would like to see how they justify the switch of Mexico and Holland (although that wouldn't surprise me terribly). However, those pots 3 and 4 go beyond justification. It looks like someone's subjective criteria for which teams are better. There's no objective possibility to split up concacaf and Asia. Why should Sauidi Arabia be below Australia for example? No offense to Aussies--and congrats btw for beating Uruguay--but what objective reason would put Australia over either KSA or Iran?