WC '06 Seeded Teams

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

  1. eldiablito

    eldiablito New Member

    Jun 8, 2000
    in Sagy's shadow
    I agree that Mexico should get a seed, if they deserve it from the data. However, it truly would make the draw very interesting--and most likely, extremely difficult for the US.

    For example:

    If Mexico gets seeded and a fourth Concacaf team qualifies (think Honduras beating Kuwait to qualify), then the draw (pots) would pretty much stay the same as previous world cups. Previously all 5 Africa teams and 3 Concacaf teams would comprise USA's pot. Mexico gets seeded and 4 Concacaf teams qualify, it stays the same--only making sure that no Concacaf teams get placed in Mexico's group.

    This would most likely mean that whichever group has Cameroon or the USA would be considered the group of death. (Historically whichever group had Mexico or Nigeria would get that accolade).

    For example Pot A

    and Pot B (hypothetically, of course--but historically Europe)
    Czech Rep

    and Pot C (usually Africa and Concacaf)
    Costa Rica
    South Africa

    and Pot D (usually the rest)
    Saudi Arabia
    left-over European team from pot B

    The possibility of USA getting two really tough teams looks probable.

    Again, like you said, something to talk about until qualifiers start. By the way, I believe congratulations are in order for your nuptials.
  2. Father Ted

    Father Ted BigSoccer Supporter

    Manchester United, Galway United, New York Red Bulls
    Nov 2, 2001
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    That sounds like last time :D
    Either way it doesnt matter much because the draw is mostly fixed. For example is Mexico does end up as a first seed and a team like Netherlands isnt, FIFA will make sure the Netherlands ends up in a "weaker" group like Mexico.
    True enough, VS & co have been making the case about how well Mexico have done in the first round, beaten Italy, etc. But in the end, they havent done the business in the second round. The funny thing is that if they did beat the US and had gotten in to the quarters, they would probably be certainties for a #1 seeds and would have lost their title of "second round perennial losers".
  3. NateP

    NateP Member

    Mar 28, 2001
    Plainfield, NH, USA
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The problem is that we don't have a lot of chances to make up points relative to our competition in the top 20.

    The nations ahead of us are all playing in (or likely to play in) a Confederation Championship (Euro 2004 or Copa America). They are also likely to start WCQ the same as us. The teams behind us are in a similar situation, only Ireland and Belgium are not playing in (or likely to play in) a Confed Championship, but they should start WCQ (I think).

    Next year we will have WCQ and friendlies as our only source of points. While Mexico and Costa Rica can add points from Copa America; the CONMEBOL teams get Copa America and WCQ; Cameroon gets African Nations Cup and WCQ; and the Euro's get EURO 2004 and I think will start WCQ (I can't find a date for them anywhere). At best we will be able to stay about where we are for next year which puts us on the outside looking in 2 out of the 3 years. Oh well, it was a longshot to begin with.
  4. Kevin Etzel

    Kevin Etzel Member

    Jul 18, 2000
    New York
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Minor Point:
    It is true that Mexico did well in 2002 group play by finishing first, but they didn't beat Italy. It was a 1-1 tied.
  5. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member

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

    How much of a soccer geek am I? I'm going to the Texas - Texas A&M women's soccer game for my bachelor party. Figure that's close enough to watching hot young women to pass as a bachelor party for my age:)

    But, back to the topic. I'm going to have to look again, but it sure seems like the CONCACAF teams, because of our maor event cycles, are losing out on the rankings. We drop right before December, while the Euro teams get a boost. Seems like CONCACAF ought to pay attention to that and see about gaming the system a little more.
  6. worldsoccer-Jeff

    Mar 4, 2000
    First, I would like to add my congrats to VC.

    Next, Many of you know my previous post on the subject and I dont want to rehash them if I can help it.

    I will say that eldiablito has hit the nail on the head for the USA in Germany 06. The odds of a group of death draw for the USA are higher this time around than in previous years. This is mainly because the USA is now good enough that most of the better nations will look to avoid us.

    Look at it like this.

    The average group at the WC has two teams from UEFA and two more teams from diffrent confederations. Historicly only teams from UEFA and CONMEBOL do well at the WC. So, if your one of the big boys from UEFA, your group is going to be some other team from that is second best, and two nations from one of the other regions that should be an easy win. You know you wont get Brazil or Argintina because they are also seeded. So you just want to avoid another CONMEBOL team, which isnt to hard since their are only a couple others, and they're generaly not that great. Wins over any team from Concacaf, AFC, CAF, or OFC should be a given.

    The problem is that there are a few teams in Concacaf, CAF, and AFC that are as good as another UEFA team. The big guys will want to avoid this crowd like the plague. Before, Mexico was the prime example of this. In the next WC it will be the USA.

    Now, the USA's point of view look at the Finals Draw. We know going into the event that we will get two UEFA team, at least. We pray that we wont get one of the big guys (like Germany in 98) or worse, get Brazil/Argentina AND two UEFA teams. The K/J 02 draw was good for the USA, of our two UEFA teams, neither was a major player (Portugal was good, but not Italy/Germany/Spain/France good). The best draw for the USA is to get the worst of the eight seeded teams. We got that in K/J.

    In the next WC I predict that the USA will NOT be seeded. Are rankings just wont be good enough. We had a real shot at it, but not now.

    Anyway. Mexico, however, will be seeded. Mexico will likly be the worst seeded team. We cannot be put in the same group. We could hope for a repeat of 2002 and get a sub par host nation, but not in 2006. So the odds of us getting a major nation are very high.

    The USA is may be the best non seeded team outside of UEFA. So we are to be avoid in the final draw.

    That, my friends, is the making of a group of death.

    How about this for a group, for example.
    1.Seed- Italy or France
    2.other UEFA- Netherlands or Czech Rep.
    3. USA
    4. Uruguay, Japan

  7. Kevin in Louisiana

    Kevin in Louisiana New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Metairie, LA
    Group of death, indeed. But I have to disagree with saying that we got a lucky draw in 2002. We had one of the pre-tournament favorites in Portugal (golden generation this, golden generation that) and a host country. Poland were a somewhat weak team, admittedly.

    You're never really gonna get an easy draw at a WC.

    Look at the other draws the US could've gotten (now we were in a pot with the African teams, right?):

    A: France, Denmark, Uruguay
    B: Spain, Paraguay, Slovenia
    C: Brazil, Turkey, China
    E: Germany, Ireland, Saudi Arabia
    F: Sweden, Engand, Argentina
    G: Italy, Croatia, Ecuador
    H: Japan, Belgium, Russia

    I wouldn't have wanted to be in groups C or F (it's nasty to get Brazil or Argnentina and a good European side like England or Turkey) and maybe A, but I'd have felt pretty good anywhere else.
  8. divingheader

    divingheader Member

    Nov 10, 2001
    St John, NB, Canada
    Newcastle United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    OK Ok, so we are going to have to start accepting the fact that we are good, and ionstead of hoping to avoid the 'stronger' teams we have to resign ourselves to spanking them from time to time, and occasionally getting spanked back.

    There are some gross inequities in the ranking and seeding systems. No way should Mexico be above the USA based on recent head to head matches. Maybe the head to head thing amoung top teams needs to be incorporated somehow. Maybe less stress on regional groupings at the finals and more accounting for who's hot and who's not.

    And as for the 'strong' teams Portugal has to find another generation before Germany"06. The netherlands are looking like they are taking thier rightful place as a really tiny nation and are no longer a major power with thier poor showing in Euro qualifying. And France have yet to redeem their JK'02 performance, although they are making progress in Europe. Argentina is in chaos, both politically and in football.
    In three years Boca, Donovan, Convey, Beasley, and Howard should be holding down starting jobs in Europe. The USA will, I believe, have thrashed Mexico about 3 more times (out of 4, damn Azteca). There is no reason the USMNT won't be a feared and respected oponent and deserving of a top seed.

    Thats my world and I'm living in it as long as I can make it last.

Share This Page