FIFA shuffles around Football World Cup berths - Page 2

Imran Siddiqui · June 28, 2003, 20:44

I'd rather see a 3rd or 4th NA team go than a 15th or 16th European team go. They've got enough teams in the competition already. If you can't be in the top 14 of your area, then you don't deserve to go. Yeah, sad for Holland, but come on... they weren't in the Top 15 in Europe.

At some point the 'World' Cup has to live up to its name because in this case 'World' stands for the globe and not the name of a newspaper (like the American 'World' Series does).

Dauphin · June 28, 2003, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever

Youre looking at a draw, that was my point!

eg

Group A

Brazil
Italy
Canada
Honduas
Equador
Wales

if Brazil and Italy draw then the group is a joke?

(Sorry, I misread your post before.)

How so? If Brazil and Italy draw and perform equally (i.e win all other games) then how is using goals scored or goal difference an unfair method to seperate the teams. I don't think it any more unfair than the current method of penalty shootout in the knockout phase.

Imran Siddiqui · June 28, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

How so? If Brazil and Italy draw and perform equally (i.e win all other games) then how is using goals scored or goal difference an unfair method to seperate the teams. I don't think it any more unfair than the current method of penalty shootout in the knockout phase.

Well, one problem I would have with this (it is similar, but much lessened currently) is that it entices teams to just kick the **** out of the lower level teams by 8-0 or some unGodly score. Doesn't promote good sportsmanship, ya know?

Dauphin · June 28, 2003, 20:56

Germany-Saudi Arabia ring a bell?

reds4ever · June 28, 2003, 20:56

When has a penalty shoot out decided who qualifies from group? that happenens in the knock out stages, not the group stages. (let me guess, youre a Yank?)

The point is you havn't separated the two teams effectively! The 'who kicks the sh1t out of the little counties best' system will never catch on ;O) and a spare wink for the yank bit (in brackets)

yavoon · June 28, 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

How so? If Brazil and Italy draw and perform equally (i.e win all other games) then how is using goals scored or goal difference an unfair method to seperate the teams. I don't think it any more unfair than the current method of penalty shootout in the knockout phase.

Well, one problem I would have with this (it is similar, but much lessened currently) is that it entices teams to just kick the **** out of the lower level teams by 8-0 or some unGodly score. Doesn't promote good sportsmanship, ya know?

I consider holding back in real competition(not friendlies) to be insulting to the team being beatan. and 8-0 scores are infinitely more interesting than 2-0.

Dauphin · June 28, 2003, 21:01

Quote:

The 'who kicks the sh1t out of the little counties best' system will never catch on

What system do you prefer?

I'm always being told that there are no easy games in international football. Or is that just an excuse for England's poor performances against the minnows of world football?

reds4ever · June 28, 2003, 21:10

No, Crunch, England are top 10 AT BEST, but the groups need to allow for two strong teams. Otherwise, if you seed the teams,under your system, the best teams will be split up into their own groups and qualify easily.( even less chance for the 'minnows') You always need that second qualifiying spot no matter what system you decide on if only to keep the group lively throughout! Heres one for your system

Brazil
Canada
Mexico
Wales
NZ

Brazil wins her first 2 games, wheres the competition in the group after that? Remeber fans have travelled half the world to watch these games

Dauphin · June 28, 2003, 21:16

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever
No, Crunch, England are top 10 AT BEST, but the groups need to allow for two strong teams. Otherwise, if you seed the teams,under your system, the best teams will be split up into their own groups and qualify easily.( even less chance for the 'minnows') You always need that second qualifiying spot no matter what system you decide on if only to keep the group lively throughout! Heres one for your system

Brazil
Canada
Mexico
Wales
NZ

Brazil wins her first 2 games, wheres the competition in the group after that? Remeber fans have travelled half the world to watch these games

I'll just point out now that my system is an alternative, NOT what I think we should do. I think 32 teams is more than enough. Any more and whatever system you have will leave it a Mickey Mouse system with the worse teams playing without hope of qualifying for the later rounds. If you want the top two qualifying in a system with 6 teams you have too many games for a team to play. I suggested only the top go through so as to reduce the number of games a team plays.

reds4ever · June 28, 2003, 21:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

I'll just point out now that my system is an alternative, NOT what I think we should do. I think 32 teams is more than enough. Any more and whatever system you have will leave it a Mickey Mouse system with the worse teams playing without hope of qualifying for the later rounds. If you want the top two qualifying in a system with 6 teams you have too many games for a team to play. I suggested only the top go through so as to reduce the number of games a team plays.

Does it? You play the same number of group games whether you qualify or not!

Dauphin · June 28, 2003, 21:31

Any team that reaches the final will have to play an extra game. (i.e 9: 5 group and 4 knockout vs 5 group and 3 knockout). Presently the finalists have to play 7 games and I think 9 is too many for a month long tournament.

Dauphin · June 28, 2003, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever
(let me guess, youre a Yank?)

No.

Imran Siddiqui · June 28, 2003, 21:41

I'm suprised you didn't run and clock him, BC

. I'd imagine in football being called a Yank isn't a good thing to a Brit

.

Dauphin · June 28, 2003, 21:46

I didn't correct him earlier as I was interested in seeing how him thinking I was a Yank influenced his opinion of my opinions.

reds4ever · June 28, 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I didn't correct him earlier as I was interested in seeing how him thinking I was a Yank influenced his opinion of my opinions.

Alright, alright, so I jumped to conclusions

But to save 2 teams 2 games each at the expense of knocking out (6? or 8? it's on the other page) second place teams seems a bit excessive!

Again, sorry for calling you a Yank, such drastic changes in the rules are usually suggested by our colonial friends

ie. no offsides, bigger goals, wide recievers etc

Imran Siddiqui · June 28, 2003, 21:57

wide recievers?

If you are going to mock Americans at least be accurate in your portrayls

.

reds4ever · June 28, 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
wide recievers?

If you are going to mock Americans at least be accurate in your portrayls

.

Theres nothing like a characature (sp) to bring the point home! Even the bigger goal suggestion was considered sacrilidge (another SP) here in the UK!

Mr. President · June 29, 2003, 03:44

I think Oceania never deserved a direct qualification spot. Australia sets goalscoring records . . . against teams like Palau and American Samoa.

Games like that are worse than meaningless.

But what the hell was FIFA doing by declaring that they'd get a direct spot and then rescinding it?

Re Europe vs. South America,

When I watch Brazil on a good day, it renews my faith in God. When I watch Germany or Italy on a good day, it almost sends me to meet my God.

Wernazuma III · June 29, 2003, 04:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The quality of play in CONACAF is getting much better these days.
Secondly, THERE IS NO WAY NORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICAN CAN GET FIVE SPOTS! Thank you

. They can only get 4 spots, if their #4 team beats Asia's #5. They can get five only if they win out against Asia. If not, it will be 3, as it has been.

Well, that seems a bit more rational then. Yet still, if CONCACAF is getting so much better it'd be really good to see them compete with SA countries. I'm pretty sure, USA and Mexico still have a good chance to classify when there are 8 spots

Quote:

If you are going to lump America together why not lump Asia and Afica together? There is a reason they are seperate continents.

Not quite. Africa and Asia both do have a large amount of competitors, so that would create a mess. One could as well play a global classification then.

In the other case we have South America with only 10 competitors in one federation!

C0ckney · June 29, 2003, 05:08

i think expanding the number of teams would be a bad idea, if the competition had to be made longer, the football season over here ends in the middle of may and starts again in early august, imagine 6 weeks taken out of the already short summer break!

it is nice to see more teams from around the world play, but you still have to question whether some are good enough to be there, when you see saudi lose 8-0 to germany you do think to yourself that against any half decent european team, germany would never have got that result.

yavoon · June 29, 2003, 05:22

Quote:

Originally posted by C0ckney
i think expanding the number of teams would be a bad idea, if the competition had to be made longer, the football season over here ends in the middle of may and starts again in early august, imagine 6 weeks taken out of the already short summer break!

it is nice to see more teams from around the world play, but you still have to question whether some are good enough to be there, when you see saudi lose 8-0 to germany you do think to yourself that against any half decent european team, germany would never have got that result.

I hardly think the european season takes precedent over the world cup. why not just end it a few weeks earlier every 4 years? you ppl are so insanely inflexible in all ur methodology.

and its already been pointed out that FIFA sets aside a certain # of spots at every worldcup for the development of soccer globally. so I dont see how ur second point is anything but moot.

Ecthy · June 29, 2003, 05:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
(and the US almost knocked off the finals loser, Germany).

Solly · June 29, 2003, 08:16

Cockney

Quote:

i think expanding the number of teams would be a bad idea, if the competition had to be made longer, the football season over here ends in the middle of may and starts again in early august, imagine 6 weeks taken out of the already short summer break!

Footballers should not require a break. other manual workers aren't allowed the same comfort are they, and you don't hear them or their trade unions complaining.

A break makes thing worse for footballers - most injuries are sustained in pre-season training, for the precise reason that there has been a break. Re-gaining crucial fitness is the main cause of injury - with no break in the summer, players do not lose their match fitness.

Quote:

I hardly think the european season takes precedent over the world cup. why not just end it a few weeks earlier every 4 years? you ppl are so insanely inflexible in all ur methodology.

Club football is more important and exciting than national games.

Not to mention it's where the money is...

C0ckney · June 29, 2003, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

I hardly think the european season takes precedent over the world cup. why not just end it a few weeks earlier every 4 years? you ppl are so insanely inflexible in all ur methodology.

and its already been pointed out that FIFA sets aside a certain # of spots at every worldcup for the development of soccer globally. so I dont see how ur second point is anything but moot.

it's not a matter of taking precedent, it's a matter of peaceful co-existance. it would unreasonable to expect the FA, and other european leagues to change their entire program for the world cup, just as it would be unreasonable for every european FA to start having games in june/july, and therefore making most players unavailable for the world cup.

yes the development of soccer globally is important, but to let in teams that simply aren't good enough only damages the competition.

C0ckney · June 29, 2003, 08:43

bods, think about it, the average worker doesn't work weekends, has a week or 10 days off at christmas and a week or 2 in the summer, plus of course bank holidays and the easter weekend. a footballer only gets time off in the summer, and while they get on average a 4-6 week break it's hardly more than the people you were describing.

i disagree with you on the need for a break, while you may be right in saying that most injuries are caused in pre-season training (although personally, i think you overstate the problem), imagine the kind of mental problems it would cause if footballers were not allowed a break from football, in any job, you need time to switch off, to un-wind and basically chill out, what is so different about football?

MRT144 · June 29, 2003, 08:43

heres my system

16 teams from europe
8 from south america
3 from central america
2 from asia
2 from africa
1 from north america

everyone else can go to hell

Solly · June 29, 2003, 08:45

Cockney - footballers don't train every day of the week.

C0ckney · June 29, 2003, 08:53

well not every day, but you won't find two days on the trot when they don't.

reds4ever · June 29, 2003, 09:11

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
heres my system

16 teams from europe
8 from south america
3 from central america
2 from asia
2 from africa
1 from north america

everyone else can go to hell

8 from South America? Take away Argentina and Brazil and who have you got?

I think only 2 from Africa is a bit harsh as well.

Dauphin · June 29, 2003, 09:19

The biggest that I would like to change about the competition is the time of day games are played. I think it madness to be playing games at midday in the height of summer after a full club season.

The games should be played early morning (~9am) or much more preferably only after ~5-6pm.