2014 World cup qualifiers

[shen]

Why do Italy deserve to be a pot 1 team? Have I missed something?

 

Italy were in an easier group than England, played the same amount of games, accumulated the same amount of points, both teams won 6 and drew 4, England scored more and conceded less in a tougher group and yet Italy deserve to be in pot 1? My mind boggles.

 

Yeah I know they reached the Final of Euro 2012 but again that doesn't mean you're a pot 1 team.

 

Italy's and England's groups are perfectly comparable. In fact, I'd even say England's group was easier.

[Alexikokopops]

If we hadn't have played Ireland in a friendly this year we would have been sixth best in the world - an interesting insight into the FIFA world rankings. If we'd have played no friendlies this year we would have been ranked 4th in the world.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/oct/17/england-seeded-switzerland-world-cup-draw-friendlies

[Jordan]

If we hadn't have played Ireland in a friendly this year we would have been sixth best in the world - an interesting insight into the FIFA world rankings. If we'd have played no friendlies this year we would have been ranked 4th in the world.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/oct/17/england-seeded-switzerland-world-cup-draw-friendlies

If UEFA doesn't go with their "Nations League" plan, I can see FIFA renaming "friendlies" as "Official FIFA World Ranking Matches," or something like that.

I'm only half-joking here.

[MC Prussian]

For the 2006 winners and the 2010 runners up not to be seeded is disgraceful particularly as they have both qualified with ease. Seeds should be I believe

Brazil as hosts

Spain as holders

Holland as the beaten Finalists

Italy as 2006 winners.

Then the next 4 highest ranked teams

Germany

Argentina

Columbia and

Belgium.

No disrespect to Uruguay or Switzerland both I am sure will be competitive but on the biggest stage I would rather play those two than The Dutch or Italians.

Dream group would be:

Switzerland

Australia

New Zealand

England

Unfortunately, FIFA have abandoned the eight-year ratings system a while ago - and deservedly so. Right now, only the results from the past four (4) years are considered.

Hence no chance of Italy sneaking in with that Finals win in 2006 (or Spain with winning EURO 2008).

 

And why should losers in previous finals to be considered seeded?

[MC Prussian]

If UEFA doesn't go with their "Nations League" plan, I can see FIFA renaming "friendlies" as "Official FIFA World Ranking Matches," or something like that.

I'm only half-joking here.

It could simply be that FIFA are urging national football associations to take friendlies more seriously by implementing such a rule. *Ahem*

[Uncle Albert]

Unless I'm missing something the latest rankings include the last round of the group stages and not the play-off games. Hence it's the current top 7 plus Brazil that are the seeds. I could just be slightly confused by what you're trying to say though.

 

 

 

Anyway, whatever you say about the rankings they put far too much on results in the past year. You have two teams in the top five who haven't made it to a World Cup in over 10 years, and we managed to move up seven places just by beating Montenegro and Poland while Montenegro have slipped 27 places

 

Yeah I know they have taken into account the last round of group stage games, all I'm saying is why didn't FIFA wait for these games to have been played before announcing the seedings, we already knew who the 7 teams were going to be before the games had even been played.

 

I said even with these results that England still wouldn't be in the top 7, I just don't understand the FIFA ranking system and their logic in not including the last round of games.

 

And Shen don't kid yourself into thinking the Italians were in a difficult group, that group was poor and much easier than the challenge England faced. Hence Denmark not getting a play off spot because they finished 6 points behind Italy and the worse runners up out of all the groups.

[MC Prussian]

Yeah I know they have taken into account the last round of group stage games, all I'm saying is why didn't FIFA wait for these games to have been played before announcing the seedings, we already knew who the 7 teams were going to be before the games had even been played.

 

I said even with these results that England still wouldn't be in the top 7, I just don't understand the FIFA ranking system and their logic in not including the last round of games.

 

And Shen don't kid yourself into thinking the Italians were in a difficult group, that group was poor and much easier than the challenge England faced. Hence Denmark not getting a play off spot because they finished 6 points behind Italy and the worse runners up out of all the groups.

That's easy to say now that both teams have qualified for the World Cup.

 

If Italy's/Denmarks's group was so much easier, then why are the 2nd to 5th-placed teams so close to each other in the standings?

[Guest MattP]

If Italy's/Denmarks's group was so much easier, then why are the 2nd to 5th-placed teams so close to each other in the standings?

 

All as bad as each other?

 

I don't think out group was strong as all, but I don't think Poland would have finished fourth in that one.

[shen]

And Shen don't kid yourself into thinking the Italians were in a difficult group, that group was poor and much easier than the challenge England faced. Hence Denmark not getting a play off spot because they finished 6 points behind Italy and the worse runners up out of all the groups.

 

I'm not kidding myself. Firstly, I didn't say Italy were in a difficult group, I just said England's was easier. England had two absolutely woeful teams in their group, compared to one in Italy's. Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro are comparable to Denmark, Czech Rep and Bulgaria.

 

All as bad as each other?

 

I don't think out group was strong as all, but I don't think Poland would have finished fourth in that one.

 

See above point about two terrible sides vs one.

[Finnegan]

Why do Italy deserve to be a pot 1 team? Have I missed something?

Italy were in an easier group than England, played the same amount of games, accumulated the same amount of points, both teams won 6 and drew 4, England scored more and conceded less in a tougher group and yet Italy deserve to be in pot 1? My mind boggles.

Yeah I know they reached the Final of Euro 2012 but again that doesn't mean you're a pot 1 team.

Finalists at the last Euros, won the last but one world cup, good showing at the confeds, what the fvck do you have to do to be pot one?

You think you're more deserving than them?

[Donut]

I still cant believe Italy are not in pot 1. And ill never understand either, so im not going to bother pursuing the issue

[Jordan]

I still cant believe Italy are not in pot 1. And ill never understand either, so im not going to bother pursuing the issue

I'm guessing Silvio Berlusconi did something inappropriate at a recent FIFA function.

[Kitchandro]

Unfortunately, FIFA have abandoned the eight-year ratings system a while ago - and deservedly so. Right now, only the results from the past four (4) years are considered.

Hence no chance of Italy sneaking in with that Finals win in 2006 (or Spain with winning EURO 2008).

 

And why should losers in previous finals to be considered seeded?

 

Why shouldn't they? Being seeded is based on performance in past games. Italy reached the final of the last major tournament, it's absolute madness if they're not seeded.

 

Switzerland haven't qualified since 2006, Belgium haven't since 2002 and Colombia haven't since 1998.

 

Imagine a group where Switzerland are the strongest team. It would be a shit group.

[Donut]

Why shouldn't they? Being seeded is based on performance in past games. Italy reached the final of the last major tournament, it's absolute madness if they're not seeded.

 

Switzerland haven't qualified since 2006, Belgium haven't since 2002 and Colombia haven't since 1998.

 

Imagine a group where Switzerland are the strongest team. It would be a shit group.

 

Could have a pot 4 team stronger than them, because thats the rest of Europe pot i believe?

[MC Prussian]

Why shouldn't they? Being seeded is based on performance in past games. Italy reached the final of the last major tournament, it's absolute madness if they're not seeded.

Switzerland haven't qualified since 2006, Belgium haven't since 2002 and Colombia haven't since 1998.

Imagine a group where Switzerland are the strongest team. It would be a shit group.

Switzerland were at the 2010 World Cup.

And I find the recent consensus on here that we must be sh*t just because a tad bit irritating. Switzerland still has a decent team with little to no starpower (and is maybe slightly short on the striker side). But I'd argue team effort gets you places, not star players.

It's not like England hasn't won a major trophy in 47 years, is it?

[Guest MattP]

Switzerland were at the 2010 World Cup.

And I find the recent consensus on here that we must be sh*t just because a tad bit irritating. Switzerland still has a decent team with little to no starpower (and is maybe slightly short on the striker side). But I'd argue team effort gets you places, not star players.

It's not like England hasn't won a major trophy in 47 years, is it?

 

I hope anyone hasn't called you shit because it's not true.

 

People are right to be peeved and be asking questions why Holland, Italy, France etc have been overlooked though behind them.

 

As I've said the only reason I can think of is that Switzerland is the country of Blatter's birth.

[MC Prussian]

I hope anyone hasn't called you shit because it's not true.

People are right to be peeved and be asking questions why Holland, Italy, France etc have been overlooked though behind them.

As I've said the only reason I can think of is that Switzerland is the country of Blatter's birth.

Next thing you're telling me is that our group was rigged because we didn't lose once and finished first.

Keep those conspiracy theories coming.

[Guest MattP]

I have immense respect for you battling through that tough group. And that's coming from an Englishman.

 

Norway, Iceland, Slovenia, Cypus and Albania? You've got to be up there with the favourites for next year. That's far tougher than France had it.

 

When was the last time you actually got past the Group Stage of a major tournament?

 

 

edit; Last 16 of the World Cup twice since 1966. Never done it in the Euros, this seeding is even worse than I thought it was at first glance

[MC Prussian]

I have immense respect for you battling through that tough group. And that's coming from an Englishman.

Norway, Iceland, Slovenia, Cyrpus and Albania?

You've got to be up there with the favourites for next year.

Congratulations on winning the World Cup already.

[Guest MattP]

Congratulations on winning the World Cup already.

 

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying.

[MC Prussian]

I have immense respect for you battling through that tough group. And that's coming from an Englishman.

 

Norway, Iceland, Slovenia, Cypus and Albania? You've got to be up there with the favourites for next year. That's far tougher than France had it.

 

When was the last time you actually got past the Group Stage of a major tournament?

 

 

edit; Last 16 of the World Cup twice since 1966. Never done it in the Euros, this seeding is even worse than I thought it was at first glance

You can also go way further back to the glory days of English and Scottish football in the 1880ies to justify how glorious and what an achievement our participation in 2014 is.

 

FIFA rankings are based on the results in the past four years.

I don't really agree with some of the seedings myself and have also pointed to the World Football Elo ratings before for a fairer reflection of the current state of affairs.

 

The draw for the qualification groups in the UEFA zone was known since late July 2011. Were you already complaining about "easy" and "tough" groups back then?

[Guest MattP]

The draw for the qualification groups in the UEFA zone was known since late July 2011. Were you already complaining about "easy" and "tough" groups back then?

 

We were all having a good laugh at how a team in pot 3 could end up in a Group like that. Even Sepp was struggling to pass it off.

[ADK]

I assume the ranking system uses a known set of calculations to determine the rankings. I'd be interested to know what that is. I'd have thought the last 2 major tournaments and their qualifying periods would be used. In that case it's difficult to see how the Dutch could be behind Switzerland when you consider they out performed them in both tournaments and have cruised through their group.

 

Really the Swiss are probably barely top 20 let alone top 8.

 

England are probably not Top 8, we made the last 16 of the world cup and last 8 of the euro cup, we are probably about right in the 8th-16th range.

[Uncle Albert]

Finalists at the last Euros, won the last but one world cup, good showing at the confeds, what the fvck do you have to do to be pot one?

You think you're more deserving than them?

 

They won a World Cup 8 years ago, they've declined in the last year since Euro 2012 and the Confederations Cup was nothing to go on, they just beat Mexico and remember the Japan game? Went out on penalties. They're a good side, better than England but I don't see why they should be in the top seeds of a World Cup on previous tournaments, that's not how it works.

 

England aren't more deserving than them, because in the last year we haven't done enough to warrant a place in the top seeds. Neither have Italy.

[Jordan]

If there is a silver lining to FIFA's decision on how to seed the Pot 1 teams, it's that several teams that had already qualified for the WC and had nothing to play for in the final game (or final two games) had an incentive to go out and win. In a way, it's unfair to the rest of a WCQ group if one team doesn't play hard in a game. People aren't going to decide to not watch the World Cup because Switzerland is a Pot 1 team instead of Italy, but a lot less people will be interested in dead rubber matches on the final day of group stage qualifying.

Switzerland knew they had a shot at getting into Pot 1 if they won out, which they did. And had the Swiss had relaxed after they qualified with one game to go, we may be talking about Slovenia in the playoff instead of Iceland.

I don't think this is the perfect way to seed teams, not by a long way. But this makes a little more sense if you look at the entire WCQ process (preparation in the form of friendlies as well as the qualification itself) of not just a way to fill in 31 spots, but as a way to seed the top 7 teams besides the host.

(For the record, I think Italy have done plenty enough in recent years to warrant a Pot 1 place).