FIFA shuffles around Football World Cup berths

[MRT144]

Originally posted by reds4ever


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.

no one cares about the other countries! i just want to see europe VS south america.

[Solly]

The timing of the games wouldn't be a problem if the authorities didn't decide to play the game in terrible climates for sport.

Personally I think it's great having three games back-to-back to watch and this necessitates afternoon playing.

I realise this means some countries will never get a chance to hold the summer World Cup, but that is tough as I would rather see the games played on a level playing field and all players at their best rather than suffering heat exhaustion and dehydration.

No-one can seriously tell me that Brazilians will have trouble playing in 60-75F temperatures..

[MRT144]

i think bods is right on this. when i played in my younger teens on a travelling team i played in varying climates and the worst climates were the ridiculously hot places. and i always played better after coming back to cooler places after that.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boddington's
The timing of the games wouldn't be a problem if the authorities didn't decide to play the game in terrible climates for sport.

Personally I think it's great having three games back-to-back to watch and this necessitates afternoon playing.

Not really, kick offs at 5pm, 7pm and 9pm are certainly doable. If you only have 2 games that day 6pm and 8pm are good times to play.

[Solly]

Actually they should have the kick-offs at whatever time it is that makes them watchable with a few pints in the evening in Europe.

[*End Is Forever*]

I got woken up by all the bastards watching the football last year...

[C0ckney]

yeah, and i was forced to brake my solemn vow never to drink before 9am

[Solly]

Hehe, we were plastered by midday that day. Not a nice feeling in the afternoon.

[GePap]

Originally posted by reds4ever


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.

Well, Colombia made it to the semi's of the Confederation Cup, and Uruguay was once a very important soccer power, and is still good. Venezuela can have it's moments.

I think 4-5 SA spots is fine. If Oceania is good enough to tae a fifth spot from South America, good for them.
16 Teams from Eurpe is nonsense. And Arica deserves more than 2.

[*End Is Forever*]

The World Cup should comprise the 32 best teams. If half or more of them are in Europe, then so be it. The last thing we need is "affirmative action" to allow **** teams to play in the World Cup.

[GePap]

Please. FIFA devides itself into confederations. the only way to know which were the 32 best teams would be to have al eams play all other teams all the time, which means frican teams go to Europe to pay, Europeans teams go to South America to play, so forth and so on. That is not going to happen, so things are done by confederations.

This confederation cup, 2 European semifinalists, one from africa, one from SA.
Last World Cup: 2 from Europe, 1 from SA, one from Asia. (and the second from Europe was Turkey both times).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Mr. President
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.

Hell yes. Too many European teams lack the flair and vitality that a team like Brazil displays. There is a reason Pele and Maradona are so famous. Mr. beckham will probably never know what it is like to win a World Cup.

[GePap]

And France wins the Confederation Cup with a Golden Goal in the 97th minute.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, Colombia made it to the semi's of the Confederation Cup, and Uruguay was once a very important soccer power, and is still good. Venezuela can have it's moments.

I think 4-5 SA spots is fine. If Oceania is good enough to tae a fifth spot from South America, good for them.
16 Teams from Eurpe is nonsense. And Arica deserves more than 2.

Venezuela can have its moments? In the last classification it was the first time in a long period that they didn't finish last in SA. Are you sure you don't confuse football with baseball?
But I also think that 4 spots for SA are OK.
But I also think that 16 spots for Europe would be one too much
Europe simply - on the average scale - has the strongest football. I mean, still in the classifications you have sometimes even excellent teams not going to the WC, like the Netherlands last time - and lots of other countries who would surely do better than the average asian competitor...
And 2 for Africa IS nonsense, their football is much stronger.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by C0ckney


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.

peaceful coexistance is codeword for "i dont want change." which is the predominant attitude in all fo european sports. the health and popularity of the worldcup is so much vastly more important than a few weeks of european competition every 4 years that its a joke.

and lets look at all the damage the 8-0 win did. first it actually had scoring so it was inherently more interesting to watch. second millions of arabs got to root for someone, not only in that game but in several more games. third it created a lot of things to talk about because it was anomolous.

what did it do bad? someone got blown out? OH MY GOD NO. help!

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Sava
FIFA IS BLASPHEMY... ITS SOCCER DAMMIT!

Actually its called "Fußball"

[C0ckney]

could you explain to me why exactly it is so important to have more teams in the world cup?

how did letting a team like saudi in damage the world cup? well although the thinngs you listed are positive (well not the thing about 8-0 but about the arab supporters anyway), it made the group much, much less of a competition. look at england's group in 2002, sweden, argentina and nigeria, all pretty competant and respectable teams, while there might have been favorites for who was to go through there was a real competition for the two qualification spots. in germany's group there wasn't, it wasn't a case that any team could go through, quite the opposite in fact, it was as good as giving germany a by to the second round. that is why it is bad.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by C0ckney
could you explain to me why exactly it is so important to have more teams in the world cup?

how did letting a team like saudi in damage the world cup? well although the thinngs you listed are positive (well not the thing about 8-0 but about the arab supporters anyway), it made the group much, much less of a competition. look at england's group in 2002, sweden, argentina and nigeria, all pretty competant and respectable teams, while there might have been favorites for who was to go through there was a real competition for the two qualification spots. in germany's group there wasn't, it wasn't a case that any team could go through, quite the opposite in fact, it was as good as giving germany a by to the second round. that is why it is bad.

so ur upset germany had an easier road to the second round? this is always going to happen. there will always be weak groups and strong groups. I think one thing u severely lack perspective on is how important it is for a relatively unknown nation to make a worldcup appearance and how much they get hyped for that. it is amazingly good for soccer everytime south korea/japan/saudi arabia appear in the worldcup, it turns the entire nation into a frenzy. sure sometimes the teams they field aren't as competitive as snobs in europe like. but FIFA is smart enough to realize that fielding 20 teams from europe is detrimental to soccer.

while giving other nations births is an amazing bonus and catalyst for the proliferation of global soccer.

[C0ckney]

i have no problem with weak groups and strong groups, but this went beyond that, it was, in effect giving germany a by to the second round. it was like my local pub team playing manchester united.

not that i'm against giving other nations a chance, but that can't be at the expense of the competitivness of the...errr...competition.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i have no problem with weak groups and strong groups, but this went beyond that, it was, in effect giving germany a by to the second round. it was like my local pub team playing manchester united.

not that i'm against giving other nations a chance, but that can't be at the expense of the competitivness of the...errr...competition.

FIFA disagrees. FIFA has this enormous stage that is the worldcup. and uses that stage to promote soccer globally. one of the ways(and by far one of the most effective) is to let newer/weaker countries enter. I'm sorry u disagree w/ that. I'm sure if u ran it there would be 25 european teams and 7 south american. but thats just not how it is.

[C0ckney]

well i can see this is going to be worthwhile...

off to bed anyway

[Imran Siddiqui]

it would unreasonable to expect the FA, and other european leagues to change their entire program for the world cup

Well the NHL does it for Olympic Hockey .

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

Who's in North America then? Just US and Canada? Mexico and the US, who are both considered North America are much better than any team in 'Central America'.

2 from Africa is too harsh as well... make it more. They have some really good sides, such as Nigeria, Cameroon, Morocco, etc.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by C0ckney
well i can see this is going to be worthwhile...

off to bed anyway

yes it is hard to get europeans to realize many things. much less such bold and brash concepts as actively trying to proflierate soccer using the world cup. it just all goes back to one thing. to europeans sports aren't changable, touchable in anyway. to americans they are.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by yavoon


FIFA disagrees. FIFA has this enormous stage that is the worldcup. and uses that stage to promote soccer globally. one of the ways(and by far one of the most effective) is to let newer/weaker countries enter. I'm sorry u disagree w/ that. I'm sure if u ran it there would be 25 european teams and 7 south american. but thats just not how it is.

correct, it's the only way to encourage countries to develop

As for the NFL and the NBA.....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please. FIFA devides itself into confederations. the only way to know which were the 32 best teams would be to have al eams play all other teams all the time, which means frican teams go to Europe to pay, Europeans teams go to South America to play, so forth and so on.

Correct. To make it the 'best in the world' would be a nightmare qualification run.

not that i'm against giving other nations a chance, but that can't be at the expense of the competitivness of the...errr...competition.

The Germany / Saudi thing was definetly an outlier. Sometimes you'll have weak sides sneak in by some madness, when more deserving teams are left out in their confederation... such as Poland going to the WC, but Holland left out. It happens.

My division would be:

15 Europe
5 South America
3 North America
4 Africa
3 Asia/Oceania
1 - Asia/Oceania 4 v. Africa 5
1 - North America 4 v. South America 6

So Europe gets one team less than half (but that's all), but there is ample amount of diversity.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by yavoon
it just all goes back to one thing. to europeans sports aren't changable, touchable in anyway. to americans they are.

I know this is a sweeping statement to say the least, but the reason Americans think FOOTBALL rules are easily changeable is that you don't really understand the game and it's nuances

[reds4ever]

Imran, having said that..;O)

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for the NFL and the NBA.....

Is there a reason you have to diss American sports?

Oh, and we do understand the game and its nuances, but American sports have had some drastic changes (Basketball added the 3 point line, AmiFootball moved the endposts to the back of the endzone, etc), and you can be sure we know the nuances of them.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by reds4ever


I know this is a sweeping statement to say the least, but the reason Americans think FOOTBALL rules are easily changeable is that you don't really understand the game and it's nuances

we've also changed lots of things about baseball. our national past time. we've tightened the strike zone, lowered the mound, made the parks smaller, brought in the DH.

we are much more accepting of change we perceive as good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ugh... DH sucks! So do smaller parks .

I'm a fan of increasing the strike zone, having larger parks (like Comerca or Pac Bell), eliminating the DH.