theessexfox Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 I'd definitely extend the continental playoffs - in this day and age they shouldn't be difficult to coordinate. Perhaps have as many as 8/9 spots at the World Cup dependent on them. Would mean only the best sides from each federation qualify and then the rest have to prove themselves against other sides not in their federation. Don't you want England in the World Cup?
pjckmen Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 Very interesting and exciting. Which team will be the most world cup.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 Remember those people who said it was harder to win the Euros than it was to win the World Cup
purpleronnie Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 Well I hope England draw Antartica FC - we might pick up 3 points. We'd probably lose and then blame the conditions.
Aus Fox Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 Asia get 4.5 places at the World Cup and have so far amassed 3 points with each team bottom of their group, the standard of football in Asia is pretty low at the minute with Australia, Japan and South Koeea pretty much gaurenteed a trip to the finals each year. In Oceania now Australia have moved to Asia, New Zealand win every game comfortably, so a place in the World Cup would be gaurenteed each year. There best bet would be to follow Australia to the Asian confederation and have a chance if qualifying, at the minute they play either South America on concaf play off team, who are usually too good. On this I don't think you can can give oceana a place and Asia has to be in danger if anyone loses a place. On Europe it could well be 7/13 through to the knock out phase holland, Germany, France Switzerland, Greece, Belgium and possibly Russia. Of the 6 who are out Spain and Italy have won the World Cup recently so surly deserve their spot at the World Cup. Bosnia were undone by a shocking refereeing decision and I thought Croatia played some wonderful football but were unlucky. Portugal and a England simply haven't turned up. So I don't think it's as bad for Europe as we are making out. South American sides haven't really produced amazing performances but have got through their groups Argentina and Brazil have been disappointing so far and had a touch of luck. Columbia have been a revelation and well Uruguay have benefited from England and Italy under performing, with Equador on the way home. I think the concaf teams are the only federation to put their hands up and say we have performed well (Honduras excluded) Mexico USA and Costa Rica have played brilliantly so far and all got further than I predicted. Anyway for me the balance is about right, just bring in the intercontinental play offs to ensue the best 32 are in the World Cup.
lc4lcfc Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 I agree that the intercontinental playoffs is the best way to go about the situation. But how long before FIFA decide to do seeds etc? Or just try to get their favoured teams through?
RonnieTodger Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 I just think you have to have a representative of each continent. We do really, with Australia being there. It's not like they're really Asian. Agree with Africa or Asia losing a spot to South America. I do enjoy the novelty of some mad bastard team showing up every four years though.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 26 June 2014 Posted 26 June 2014 When the FIFA cvnts make it a 57 team tournament and pay per view on their own dedicated channels you won't have to worry.
Strokes Posted 26 June 2014 Posted 26 June 2014 Is there room in the football calendar for a continental world cup? Would it be competitive or interesting? Just a thought.
Nalis Posted 26 June 2014 Posted 26 June 2014 Is there room in the football calendar for a continental world cup? Would it be competitive or interesting? Just a thought. The European league championship or whatever its called has probably eaten up all the dates. The idea you put forward is good on paper but you just know federations such as Europe wouldnt give a shit resulting in the likes of Asia winning as a result...
Dan Posted 26 June 2014 Posted 26 June 2014 Why are we losing so many teams in the group stage in two consecutive world cups then. Why should we keep taking 13 teams when over half are eliminated by the likes of Costa Rica, Mexico, and more than likely the USA and Algeria. South America I agree probably do deserve another space, most probably at our expense. I see a lot of people making claims that Europe would be taking the lions share of teams to a World Cup finals if it was quality based, but not one scrap of evidence. Confed points are decided by results not who's got the best team on paper. What about Africa who've had 2 out of 5 qualify and Asia who were all out in the groups - every one of them in 4th for that matter. I'm not doubting Europe has under-performed but as Europe-centric as the World Cup seems to be, it's hardly unfair. Ukraine, Poland & Sweden are surely better than the likes of Honduras, Cameroon and Iran.
pjckmen Posted 27 June 2014 Posted 27 June 2014 Oh Yes! I'm glad I found your article today. I recommend it to everyone .. Thank you for your work!
Manwell Pablo Posted 27 June 2014 Author Posted 27 June 2014 What about Africa who've had 2 out of 5 qualify and Asia who were all out in the groups - every one of them in 4th for that matter. I'm not doubting Europe has under-performed but as Europe-centric as the World Cup seems to be, it's hardly unfair. Ukraine, Poland & Sweden are surely better than the likes of Honduras, Cameroon and Iran. The Asians have had a dire tournament, but going back to my orginal point (people seem to be only looking at half of my orginal post for some odd reason) for two key reasons they shouldn't lose a place this is the second tournament in a row we've been bad for getting teams out of the group, that's the point, Japan and South Korea managed to get through in 2010 and made a decent fist of the knockout games giving them a 50% qualificaiton rate. As I've said several times, they only take four teams anyway, this is a World Cup. In order to take such an uneven amount of teams in our favour, surely we should be justifying it with a qualificaiton rate of 50% at least. The Africans are a better example of a team that should perhaps lose a place and go down to four after their second pretty bad showing but lets face it they've only done as bad as we have. It's quite easy to mock the teams that have done badly at this tournament now you have the benefit of hindsight, Honduras are a poor example, USA and Mexico are through and Costa Rica topped our group so the fact that Honduras have had a crap tournament doesn't prove that the perhaps Pannama couldn't have made a fist of this competition given they were minutes away from qualification. I've not seen Iran embarrased this tournament I've seen them draw with Nigeria and give Argentina a great game, Cameroon are just a team thats in transition they have had and will have good sides again in the future but at the moment yes their crap and would get turned over by most decent European sides, it was a suprise they qualified to be honest they weren't seeded in the final stage of qualifying but came through it regardless.
Nalis Posted 27 June 2014 Posted 27 June 2014 In a tournament where half the teams play just 3 games, you can make a case for each team underperforming/overperforming/being lucky/being unlucky (Delete as appropriate). Perhaps the undernoted might work: 1 Host Nation 8 European 3 Asia 3 Africa 2 North America 4 South American 1 Oceania Then to get the other 10, intercontinental play offs consisting of the following... 9 European 3 South America 3 North America 3 African 2 Asia No 2 teams from the same federation to play each other. Simples!
leicsmac Posted 28 June 2014 Posted 28 June 2014 Like that idea, except I'd have the Oceania qualifier in a playoff too, as it is now.
Aus Fox Posted 28 June 2014 Posted 28 June 2014 In a tournament where half the teams play just 3 games, you can make a case for each team underperforming/overperforming/being lucky/being unlucky (Delete as appropriate). Perhaps the undernoted might work: 1 Host Nation 8 European 3 Asia 3 Africa 2 North America 4 South American 1 Oceania Then to get the other 10, intercontinental play offs consisting of the following... 9 European 3 South America 3 North America 3 African 2 Asia No 2 teams from the same federation to play each other. Simples! I like that, except I wouldn't have no two teams from the same federation play each other, just have the 20 teams in an unseeded FA Cup style draw, 2 legs first out plays at home first. If that's England v France or Denmark v Australia then so be it. I would also put Oceana into the play offs and give the previous winner a free ride into the next World Cup.
Leeds Fox Posted 9 July 2014 Posted 9 July 2014 Does anyone think that because CONCACAF teams, and African teams play against such poor teams in qualifying, that they gain a higher FIFA Ranking, therefore are likely to be seeded, without justification. Meaning they unfairly have a better chance of progressing through the group stages. I could be completely wrong, mind.
Jimothy Posted 9 July 2014 Posted 9 July 2014 Does anyone think that because CONCACAF teams, and African teams play against such poor teams in qualifying, that they gain a higher FIFA Ranking, therefore are likely to be seeded, without justification. Meaning they unfairly have a better chance of progressing through the group stages. I could be completely wrong, mind. How many African or North American teams were seeded at this World Cup? Find that answer and you'll find out if you're right or wrong. By the way, the answer is none.
ADK Posted 9 July 2014 Posted 9 July 2014 If anything it's harder to be seeded if you play bad teams all the time.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.