WC '06 Seeded Teams

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by VioletCrown, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I finally got around to noticing where Mexico stands in the FIFA rankings since their two wins over 'Brazil' in the Gold Cup. Sitting pretty at #5 after being knocked down one notch because of a rash of Euro Cup qualifiers.

    Not that this has anything directly to do with the US, but I do recall a thread right after '02 finished about whether the US could be a seeded team... assuming FIFA uses the same seeding method as in '02.

    So, we're getting close to the end of '03. December's rankings shouldn't be drastically different than these -- the US and Mexico will get nudged down again because of more Euro qualifiers. Still, we should have most of the data now to be able to make guesses (baring Dutch-style qualifying flame-outs) as to who will be seeded in '06.

    I haven't done the calculations (haven't been able to track down the relevant thread yet to tell me what I need to do), but as a rough guess, it looks to me like Mexico is in very good shape.

    Assuming Mexico did get seeded, and we don't (with one more Gold Cup available to us, we might get a chance to go up some in the standings), are we in better shape, randomly, than we would be if Mexico were NOT seeded? I'd think it'd all come out in the wash. But I don't know statistics at all.

    Anyway, pointless ramblings from a semi-out-of-touch Texan.
     
  2. worldsoccer-Jeff

    Mar 4, 2000
    Atlanta
    I have done the calculations, and Mexico does look in good shape for a seed, but it's not a done deal.

    I'm getting tired of having to fight the same battles with all those who belive that the USA, Mexico or some other team that is not one of the "name" footballing nations will ever be seeded. Some people simply refuse to accept it. So I wont be posting a whole lot about this here.

    Come to the FIFA Forum a few days after the next Coca-Cola Rankings come out and you will see a post with the updated standing their.
     
  3. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ...So, tired of fighting folks here who don't believe the US or Mexico can get a seed, you're going to post to the FIFA Forum? Why, you're sure to get a more receptive audience there! ;)

    Thanks for the head's up. Hopefully, I'll be able to remember in a month. Don't expect I will, though. My wedding will be just a couple weeks away at that point, and I'll be thinking of other things.

    Maybe your post will draw enough ire that replies will keep it around on the 'latest posts' list so I can notice it.

    Oh, and thanks in advance for the analysis. I really did enjoy the previous ones.
     
  4. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Interesting insight...right now, TFC and Africa are put into one 8 team pot. If Mexico is seeded, that's only an 8 team pot if TFC's 4th team wins its playoff. So if they do, I would think there's no change, except that they'd probably fix it so that Mexico wouldn't be in our group, which is bad for us. Mexico is gonna be a weak #1 seed. Of course, with Germany hosting, there weren't likely going to be any weak #1s anyway.

    But suppose our #4 team loses in the playoff. Who knows what they would do at that point. It would be good for the US if somehow TFC ended up in the same pot as CONMEBOL...I'd rather face Tunisia or South Africa than Uruguay.

    Oh, one more thought...if the TFC 4th loses its playoff, but Oceania wins, then the solution is obvious...just put that team into the TFC/Africa pot, for 8 teams.
     
  5. Various Styles

    Various Styles Member+

    Mar 1, 2000
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Originally posted by worldsoccer-Jeff

    I have done the calculations, and Mexico does look in good shape for a seed, but it's not a done deal.

    Mexico will get to host yet again another Gold Cup (confirmed) and with their participations in Copa America and Confederations Cup, add to that TFC WCQ and id say Mexico has more than a good chance to get seeded..


    Originally posted by superdave

    Mexico is gonna be a weak #1 seed.

    Yeah, they have only advanced past group stage in the last three World Cups and won their Group Twice. Including a Group of Death (94) and over Italy and Croatia (02) I guess comming from behind two goals to tie the likes of Holland (98) is just another sign of weakness..

    Check yo Self :)
     
  6. worldsoccer-Jeff

    Mar 4, 2000
    Atlanta
    No, not really, but its just a more approriate place to discuss it. The folks in the FIFA Forum are just as thickheaded for the most part.

    To VS, what I mean when I say its not a done deal is that they could still loose it. The only teams that ar assured a seed, at this point, just for showing up are Germany, Brazil and Spain. Everyone else can still loose it. Not likely but possible.
     
  7. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    VS, let's compare Mexico's record to the other nations likely to be #1s.

    Italy, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, France. Don't know who the other two might be. In any event, VS, you've gotta admit that Mexico sticks out as weak IN THAT CONTEXT. Has Mexico ever made the quarters outside of when it hosted? Hell, even the US has, twice, and the US would be an insanely weak #1 seed.

    VS, I didn't say Mexico sucked. I merely said they suck in the company of Italy, Brazil, et al. Which they do.
     
  8. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Member+

    Real Madrid, DC United
    Aug 3, 2000
    Raleigh, NC
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Hey Dave,

    Mexico outplayed Italy in WC2002 in nearly every way possible.
     
  9. Various Styles

    Various Styles Member+

    Mar 1, 2000
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Originally posted by superdave

    Italy, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, France. Don't know who the other two might be. In any event, VS, you've gotta admit that Mexico sticks out as weak IN THAT CONTEXT.

    Obviously you cant compare Mexico to past World Cup Winners. Still there have been comparable seeds in the past. Im not too sure on These but me thinks Spain or Nigeria (same Group) as well as Romania were seeded (98)..

    Has Mexico ever made the quarters outside of when it hosted? Hell, even the US has, twice, and the US would be an insanely weak #1 seed.

    Those are Not Fifas rules for selecting a seeded team. :)

    VS, I didn't say Mexico sucked. I merely said they suck in the company of Italy, Brazil, et al. Which they do.

    The last two times that Mexico and Italy have been in the same World Cup group (94/02) Mexico ended up winning the group and both games against Italy ended in 1-1 draws. So i dont think we suck in comparison to them..
     
  10. M

    M Member+

    Feb 18, 2000
    Via Ventisette


    Until you compare the two teams achievements in the last three World Cups. Italy: final, QF, Round of 16;Mexico: Round of 16, Round of 16, Round of 16. Quite a difference there.
     
  11. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Words I'd never thought I'd write

    M gets it.
     
  12. Bruce S

    Bruce S Member+

    Sep 10, 1999
    never ever hapen in 06. They don't just use rankings but also use results from last 3 WCs. And since Mexico had not even made the last 8 in ANY of these WCs it will not happen.Seeding for the USA is also impossible because even though we made last 8 in 02, we didn't get out of the first round in 1998. Both are unrealiastic dreams.
     
  13. kenosha

    kenosha New Member

    Sep 19, 2001
    West Vancouver, BC
    Yeah, they have only advanced past group stage in the last three World Cups and won their Group Twice. Including a Group of Death (94) and over Italy and Croatia (02) I guess comming from behind two goals to tie the likes of Holland (98) is just another sign of weakness..

    Check yo Self :) [/B][/QUOTE]

    Good point. We forget how successful Mexico has been in the last three World Cups. In fact, if you go back to 86, their last Cup before 94, they did quite well at home.

    One thing to keep in mind is no matter which country is on a roll at the time (Mexico or USA), any match, any time, is likely to be a tight, grind-it-out affair.
     
  14. divingheader

    divingheader Member

    Nov 10, 2001
    St John, NB, Canada
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't see Mexico as a weak #1 seed. Hey, if they meet the criteria, that is all that is required. The WC isn't about history, its about the team at the time. That's why it looks to me like being in a group with Holland, Italy or Portugal as a #1 seed is a break. Being in Germany's group in Germany will be painful...
    Many of the 'top' soccer nations are having lean spells. I'd say, in a rash, rude and tottaly
    BS-appropriate thumbnail summation of an entire nations soccer program:
    -Germany is in trouble, has almost no attack, but is otherwise very tough
    -Portugal is going to be a very old team with a history of disapointing performances
    -I don't know what is wrong with the Dutch, but more importantly they don't either. How can those guys keep losing?
    -Italy is unable to convince anybody they are as good as they keep telling themselves they are. They play ugly, they get beat, they point the finger. They never say they will get better or work harder. They will never do better.

    I'd much rather play those guys than the USA, a program that seems to be taking one more step each time the WC comes around. Or Mexico, for that matter, who want to win so bad they are likely to do anything, including playing well on occasion, to make it happen. Or England, who are attaining some stability and have some exciting young players. Or Brasil, who are likely to still be Brasil.
     
  15. StymieG

    StymieG New Member

    Oct 9, 2000
    Ann Arbor, MI
    I should probably follow Jeff's lead and not jump in with numbers, but what the hell. If FIFA determines the seeds in 2006 the way they did in 2002, these are the teams with at least a snowball's chance in hell of being seeded, and their points from recent World Cups (1/2 the criteria):

    Brazil (31.7)
    Germany (28.8)
    Italy (23.5)
    England (21.5)
    Spain (21.2)
    Mexico (21.0)
    Denmark (19.8)
    South Korea (18.7)
    USA (18.3)
    Argentina (17.3)
    Belgium (16.2)
    Turkey (15.0)
    Sweden (15.0)
    Nigeria (15.0)
    Paraguay (14.8)
    France (14.7)
    Japan (14.7)
    Croatia (14.5)
    Netherlands (14.0)

    Many countries below us (e.g. Argentina, France, Netherlands) have a high enough FIFA ranking to push countries like USA, Korea, and Denmark down in contention for a seed, at least given the current rankings. However, the top 6 on the list seem to have a high enough ranking, at least now, to make them near-locks for a seed. And this includes Mexico, who is currently ranked #5.

    Would Mexico be a weak seed? Maybe. But they would certainly deserve to be one. The only other countries to advance from the group stages in the last 3 cups are Brazil, Germany, and Italy.
     
  16. divingheader

    divingheader Member

    Nov 10, 2001
    St John, NB, Canada
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The numbers game is so confusing. For instance, how can England and Spain have more points from 'recent' WCs than Mexico if Mexico has made it out of group play and they have not (at least once).

    I think FIFA will do whatever they think is appropriate in setting up the groups. I'd rather FIFA say "This is the formula we will use for seeding in Germany" and stick by it. That way, nations who think they have a shot at a #1 seed will try to maximize points according to the formula, making a nice little sub-plot during qualifying. We might even see some interesting friendlies as 'major' nations try to gaurantee a #1 seed. As it is now, FIFA will just do whatever Sepp pleases.

    My "Approved Formula" idea plays into my desire to see the USA or Mexico or S Korea or somebody else new get a #1 seed. The hungrier nations, and do not doubt that our beloved Bruce is not hungry, would go after that bone like a starving hound.
     
  17. Craig P

    Craig P BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 26, 1999
    Eastern MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The way points are awarded, doing better in this past WC can overcome a weaker performance in 1998 or 1994, due to the weighting. For example, although England failed to advance to the WC in 1994, they went farther than Mexico in 2002 and I think in 1998 as well. The 1994 performance isn't worth all that much now.
     
  18. Sachin

    Sachin New Member

    Jan 14, 2000
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Re: Re: WC '06 Seeded Teams

    But if WC 02 had only been in one country then Mexico would have been a #1 seed. According to FIFA's formula, Mexico finished ninth, and that included missing Italia '90.

    Sachin
     
  19. eldiablito

    eldiablito New Member

    Jun 8, 2000
    in Sagy's shadow
    For Violet Crown's sake,
    here are the numbers for getting a seed using FIFA's formula for the past two world cups and considering the most recent FIFA coke rankings:

    63.67 Brazil
    54.83 Germany
    51.17 Spain
    48.50 England
    48.50 Italy
    46.33 Argentina
    45.67 France
    45.50 Mexico
    --------------
    42.00 Netherlands
    40.00 Turkey
    39.33 USA
    38.83 Denmark


    With USA choosing not to go to Copa America next year, the chance of getting a seed is extremely remote MATHEMATICALLY.
     
  20. divingheader

    divingheader Member

    Nov 10, 2001
    St John, NB, Canada
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ah, nice post... But consider that the Netherlands, Spain and Turkey are all struggling to make Euro'04, and the USA has another entire Gold Cup to play. So won't the USA have a shot at some more points while maybe the above three have only one more big game (beside all 4 nations WC qualifying campaigns) to score?

    Hope springs eternal.
     
  21. Craig P

    Craig P BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 26, 1999
    Eastern MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The problem is, the FIFA rankings at the end of this year (i.e. before the U.S. plays another Gold Cup) will get locked into the seeding formula. And the FIFA rankings at the end of next year (when the U.S. has started playing WCQs but the Euro teams potentially have Euro '04) will get locked in before the U.S. plays another Gold Cup. The '05 Gold Cup could be great for the U.S. ranking in '05, but by then it will be too late.
     
  22. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thank you , el!

    Oh, well. Not that I ever thought the US deserved getting seeded. It was just a fun game.

    I am interested in what happens to the draw assuming Mexico ends up seeded. That will make for a slightly more interesting draw come Dec. '05.

    And despite the rivalry, I'm all for Mexico getting the seed. I'd be quite unhappy if the seeding formula changed, and the new system takes Mexico out of the running.

    Ah, the politics! Got to talk about something until qualifiers start!
     
  23. divingheader

    divingheader Member

    Nov 10, 2001
    St John, NB, Canada
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    VC is right on, it would be cool if Mexico got a seed. Continue to raise CONCACAF's profile and all. Even if it is rightly the US's seed cause we keep whupping them.

    I, however, am probably not paying close enough attention, having digested Craig Ps post. Is it not the ranking at the time of the draw that is important? If we are lower at the end of '03 and '04, too bad but so what? As long as we are top 8 when the draw gets drew. Like I say, I probably have it wrong cause thats way to straight forward.
     
  24. divingheader

    divingheader Member

    Nov 10, 2001
    St John, NB, Canada
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And looking at the FIFA site and rankings, much is made of the--- "The crush building up behind the three leading teams has intensified, with fewer than ten points separating fourth-placed Argentina and the Czech Republic occupying the 11th slot." by FIFA.

    But... the USA trails the Czechs by only 8 points, and leads #13 Cameroon by 20. We are closer to the teams ahead than the teams behind by a lot.

    And Mexico is dropping like a rock.

    Not dead yet...
     
  25. NateP

    NateP Member

    Mar 28, 2001
    Plainfield, NH, USA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Half the formula is past World Cup performance, which has already been determined and posted by StymieG. The other half is based on the FIFA Rankings over the next three years:

     

Share This Page