South Africa 2010 - Thread the first

[Padraig]

And if they are trying to launch club football in the USA ( all stories I hear about it make it sound so very strange) they would benefit in exposure for a chance to compete in the libertadores cup.

Mexican teams already compete in the Libertadores Cup. While both Mexico and the US are invited to compete in the South American championship. Its not a huge step to combine the 2 confederations altogether. Make things a lot more competitive. Not that I think it will ever happen.

Anyhow, it will just take one English victory over a big team and all this will be forgotten.

[cteresa]

Mexican teams already compete in the Libertadores Cup. While both Mexico and the US are invited to compete in the South American championship.

You are talking of the Copa America? They only have 10 countries for it meaning no pre qualification and that they have to invite a couple others. They can invite whoever they want, it does not have to be Mexico and the USA, it´s just that those want to be invited. They sometimes invite other central american teams and IIRC Japan has been invited in the past and there was talks of inviting Portugal and Spain for cultural reasons but it has never happened yet - mostly because uhuh, their schedule is not at all convenient for european national teams which got hard qualifications every two years and would not consider the copa america anything to brag about.

Its not a huge step to combine the 2 confederations altogether. Make things a lot more competitive. Not that I think it will ever happen.

well, they are much better off as it is right, south america that is. Ten countries and you can place 4th to go, or even 5th for a play off with another continent. And who would want to mess around with anything Jack Warner is involved? Also, logistically complicated, say argentina-canada games could involve a lot of travelling.

Anyhow, it will just take one English victory over a big team and all this will be forgotten.

I was just reading today´s paper and they mention in passing that Bobby Robson was hounded and mocked all 8 years he was coach of England I had no idea! And he was probably the best they had in memory, and he was english, and he had phlegm, that man! Has, sorry, wrong verbal tense.

[Padraig]

They sometimes invite other central american teams and IIRC Japan has been invited in the past

All true. I didn't mean to indicate that the US and Mexico had a right to compete in the Copa America, just that there are already strong ties between the 2 confederations, with the US and Mexico appearing in the last 3 or 4 competitions. Similarly Mexican teams appearing in the Libertadores.

The distance thing isn't that big a problem also since most of the best players play in Europe anyhow, so whether they have to travel to Chile or Canada, its the same for everyone.

[cteresa]

All true. I didn't mean to indicate that the US and Mexico had a right to compete in the Copa America, just that there are already strong ties between the 2 confederations, with the US and Mexico appearing in the last 3 or 4 competitions. Similarly Mexican teams appearing in the Libertadores.

by invitation, not right.

The distance thing isn't that big a problem also since most of the best players play in Europe anyhow, so whether they have to travel to Chile or Canada, its the same for everyone.

I don´t understand what you mean? Usually players concentrate on their own country for what-you-call-it training and preparation before travelling. For players in Europe that will always mean two travels, but I would say it still makes a difference if second flight is a 2-4 hour flight to chile or 12-14 hours to canada. It´s not like they are likely to fly directly to Canada or Chile or whatever.

[Jon AS]

was just reading today´s paper and they mention in passing that Bobby Robson was hounded and mocked all 8 years he was coach of England I had no idea! And he was probably the best they had in memory, and he was english, and he had phlegm, that man! Has, sorry, wrong verbal tense.

Not that unusual, really. Berti Vogts was never given a break by German media (though that probably had to a lot to do with his negative charisma). The only time people in the press were not thinking up witty new ways to make fun of him was during a few short weeks in the summer of 1996.

Aimé Jaquet was criticised for not being up to the task by the French press (I think the term was "antiquated tactics") right up to the '98 World Cup (and if France had lost that final he would have never heard the end of it).

Most recently the German media were not very fond of Klinsmann: BILD, our fabulous tabloid rag, hated his guts since his time as a player (he actually had the nerve to sue them when they were spreading false information about him!) and a lot of German football journalists prided themselves on their good connections to more conservative elements in the federation and as those hated any reforms (and some of them lost their cushy retirement "jobs") he made a very tempting target. After the defeat in a friendly against Italy people called for his head and BILD basically demanded that he be replaced by Beckenbauer...

Needless to say everyone forgot they had ever said anything bad about him the very second Oliver Neuville scored against Poland.

I don´t understand what you mean? Usually players concentrate on their own country for what-you-call-it training and preparation before travelling. For players in Europe that will always mean two travels, but I would say it still makes a difference if second flight is a 2-4 hour flight to chile or 12-14 hours to canada. It´s not like they are likely to fly directly to Canada or Chile or whatever.

I agree with Padraig here. Just shorten the time they spend preparing in their own country and have them depart for the host country earlier. It would even help them getting used to the local climate.

[Padraig]

by invitation, not right.

That's what I said. Are you trying to find something to disagree with me.

I don´t understand what you mean? Usually players concentrate on their own country for what-you-call-it training and preparation before travelling.

Course you know what I mean. As you said yourself "usually". If its a serious problem the team can get together in another country. Everytime Brazil play some friendly in Dubai or Hong Kong or Wembly, they don't go down to Brazil first. What's the big deal about that? And if its not a serious problem, then jolly good.

All I was doing was showing examples of close ties between the 2 confederations already, after you mentioned that it would be good for US clubs to take part in the Libertadores Cup.

[Third Knight on the Left]

I arbirtrarily think that Europe and Africa should be in the same group. I mean they're kind of close to each other right, straight of Gibraltar and all that.

[Jon AS]

I arbirtrarily think that Europe and Africa should be in the same group. I mean they're kind of close to each other right, straight of Gibraltar and all that.

The differences are that both UEFA and CAF have 53 members each and that both have quite a few competitive members, while CONMEBOL has only 10 members and most of CONCACAF's 40 members are hardly competitive (AFC probably has more strength in depth). Combining them and slightly reducing their number of WC spots makes sense when you consider this, IMO.

[cteresa]

That's what I said. Are you trying to find something to disagree with me.

Actually no. I am trying to see the pro and cons, who would have something to win or lose and how they would think about it. I don´ t really care about concacaf to be honest, or the prestige of american clubs In the end if Conmebol or Concacaf have a little bit more world cup places than their quality merits, that could be just a nice bonus for the other world cup participants from other confederations.

Course you know what I mean. As you said yourself "usually". If its a serious problem the team can get together in another country. Everytime Brazil play some friendly in Dubai or Hong Kong or Wembly, they don't go down to Brazil first. What's the big deal about that?

It´s a friendly. they do not play that well usually or need to. Also going directly to a place would be pricey,and difficult to set up. as things are right now, a team usually arrives a day or two earlier and has a right to a training session in the stadium the day before. I don´t think your proposal is that ideal.

All I was doing was showing examples of close ties between the 2 confederations already, after you mentioned that it would be good for US clubs to take part in the Libertadores Cup.

as I said, trying to see the pros and cons of both sides.

[Third Knight on the Left]

The differences are that both UEFA and CAF have 53 members each and that both have quite a few competitive members, while CONMEBOL has only 10 members and most of CONCACAF's 40 members are hardly competitive (AFC probably has more strength in depth). Combining them and slightly reducing their number of WC spots makes sense when you consider this, IMO.

Eh let it be actually a 'World' Cup. Or is the 14th European really team going to be a threat? Wasn't T&T the 4th CONCACAF?

[cteresa]

Eh let it be actually a 'World' Cup. Or is the 14th European really team going to be a threat?

Yes, of course. Duh. The 14th european team can conceivably win the world cup or at least make it to the finals, far more likely than say the 4th north american team. Mixing examples from the world cup and euro ( because numbers regarding qualification are similar, 14/15 teams qualifying for the euro, 13 for the world cup), in 1992 Denmark won the euro despite having missed qualification just by a smidgeon ( war in yugoslavia) so arguably teams which nearly qualify can contend for titles. In 2002 Holland did not qualify for the world cup, despite in 2000 and 2004 being semifinalist. France did not qualify for 94, but they were world champions in 98 with basically the same players, so arguably they could have contended the title. European champions Greece did not qualify for 2006. And so on. European qualification is very very tough. 53 member states of which maybe 20-25 can put up a team which can conceivably make it to the semifinals, and then 13/14 places and groups of death. I can not recall there ever being less than 2 european semifinalists, or less than 50% of the quarter finalists being european.

Wasn't T&T the 4th CONCACAF?

ahem? was in 06 you mean? T&T was concacaf notsure if it was 3rd or 4th.

[Maltaran]

ahem? was in 06 you mean? T&T was concacaf notsure if it was 3rd or 4th.

4th, I believe. Costa Rica was the third.

[Jon AS]

I can not recall there ever being less than 2 european semifinalists, or less than 50% of the quarter finalists being european.

I looked it up (yes, I am avoiding work) in 1930 the semifinalists were Uruguay, USA, Argentina and Yougoslavia, but that was the only time.

[Horus Ex Machina]

Eh let it be actually a 'World' Cup. Or is the 14th European really team going to be a threat? Wasn't T&T the 4th CONCACAF?

Good point. I remember how happy I was to finally see Uruguay and Ghana in the Cup. Africa and South America each deserve 7 spots and maybe give Asia a couple of extra spots seeing as how soccer in places like Korea and Japan is growing.

Perhaps the overall field for the tournament could be expanded.

[Jon AS]

Good point. I remember how happy I was to finally see Uruguay and Ghana in the Cup. Africa and South America each deserve 7 spots and maybe give Asia a couple of extra spots seeing as how soccer in places like Korea and Japan is growing.

You want seven out of ten South American teams qulifying? Brazil and Argentina could afford to not even show up for several games with so many places available. And honestly, how many African and Asian teams are there that could do more than take up space in the group stages? It's the World Cup, but the heart of the game is in Europe and as Teresa said, there are many more quality teams in UEFA than any other confederation. That's just the way it is. Would you exclude a team placed in the top 20 of the FIFA rankings in favour of one ranked 60th or 70th?

Perhaps the overall field for the tournament could be expanded.

No. 7 games is enough. But I could maybe agree to adding a few more cross-confederation play-off games to the qualification campaign. Would turn them into more of a world wide competition. Though the amount of travel that could be involved might make that a very bad idea. On second thought qualifying by confederation is probably the best solution.

[cteresa]

4th, I believe. Costa Rica was the third.

South America 7 spots?!? lol, what do they do, instead of games have a draw to decide which 3 countries do not qualify? Sorry, but qualifying 5th out of ten and still having a playoff is incredibly generous already. I want the same percentage as well, why not have 70% of european teams qualify. or maybe just 50 percent always, yeah, good one. And Jon, ok, let´s ignore 1930 BTW if we count the number of finalists by continent, it is also biased more than 50% towards Europe.

So, does the 14th best team in Europe deserve to be in the world cup more than the 4th best North American one? Let me see, it was apparently Trinidad&Tobago. Right now the qualification for euro 2008 has been wrapped up, arguably the 14th team to assure qualification was Russia. England and Scotland did not qualify. For what I have seen of said teams, yes, I *might* be eurocentric, but I will go out and say either Russia, England, Scotland or even teams like Bulgaria or Serbia (or even Belgium could outplay trinidad and tobago. very ugly but they could) are of better quality, and more serious world cup contenders than T&T. Or Costa Rica either. Mileage varies and all that. But historical records of performance do hint that there is a much larger amount of competitive teams in Europe than in any other continent.

[DJDonegal]

Good point. I remember how happy I was to finally see Uruguay and Ghana in the Cup. Africa and South America each deserve 7 spots and maybe give Asia a couple of extra spots seeing as how soccer in places like Korea and Japan is growing.

Perhaps the overall field for the tournament could be expanded.

Ugh. No. It's a bad point.

Finally see Uruguay in the cup? They've won it. Twice. 1930 and 1950. South America do not need or warrant 7 spots. 4.5 is good (that's what they have, right?) and I would have even backed an idea that reduced them to 4 while giving one to Oceania and having the playoff scrapped.

Korea and Japan. Well, Japan have always been a big player in the Asian market. They were ranked 9th by FIFA in 1998 and have won 3 of the last 5 Asian Cups.

TKL - your point of making this a "World" Cup would be a valid argument only when applied to the fact that Oceania actually gets 0 automatic places. In all other circumstances, it comes down to strength of continent and number of countries in the continent that should decide how many places go to each continent. For me, as long as all the inhabited continents are represented by someone then I have no problem - after that it should be allocated to the strongest footballing continents.

I like the suggestion of merging SA and NA into one. It would definitely keep FIFA happy by helping promote the game in the largest untapped market in the world (USA) with possible qualifying games against Argentina and/or Brazil to look forward to. It would also mix things up in SA instead of having every team in the same group every single time. Bo-ring.

[Horus Ex Machina]

You want seven out of ten South American teams qulifying? Brazil and Argentina could afford to not even show up for several games with so many places available. And honestly, how many African and Asian teams are there that could do more than take up space in the group stages? It's the World Cup, but the heart of the game is in Europe and as Teresa said, there are many more quality teams in UEFA than any other confederation. That's just the way it is. Would you exclude a team placed in the top 20 of the FIFA rankings in favour of one ranked 60th or 70th?

No. 7 games is enough. But I could maybe agree to adding a few more cross-confederation play-off games to the qualification campaign. Would turn them into more of a world wide competition. Though the amount of travel that could be involved might make that a very bad idea. On second thought qualifying by confederation is probably the best solution.

Perhaps have the bottom two or four out of the European Federation can compete in a cross-continental qualifier competition with the two left out of the African and S. American Federations. Teams that didn't play in the last cup like Nigeria, S. Africa, Cameroon, Uruguay, and Columbia. These are teams that have talent that can compete at the World Cup. None made the last World Cup. A few back even Brazil was in danger of not making the field of 5. That should never happen.

Now being from Nigeria, I admit a personal bias, but I think that there are African teams with the talent to even win a Cup. And being "at home" in Africa may be our best shot.

[Padraig]

One doesn't even have to be Eurocentric about this. Take a place off the Americas and give it to Africa. Or even Asia. Personally I think Europe should be allowed 14 positions but I can admit bias there. But i'm sure that the Americas don't deserve 8 positions. Giving everyone a chance only goes so far.

32 teams in the WC is more than enough. You don't want to dilute the competition with lots more inferior teams.

Also going directly to a place would be pricey,and difficult to set up.

You'd be amazed at how competent people can be these days. People travel all round the world. I'm not saying that it would be ideal but ideal solutions are impossible to find. Half the teams qualifying from South America is not ideal either.

Horus, I don't think I can agree that Brazil has to be in the WC. If they are not good enough then they shouldn't be allowed. You are right that they struggled in 2002 but it was always going to be difficult for them not to qualify. They didn't even have to go through the play-offs in the end. Its that easy.

Nigeria and Cameroon were probably a lot better than the teams that did qualify. But the question is, why didn't Nigeria and Cameroon qualify? I don't believe anyone has a right to qualify. Its internal problems mainly that stop them.

OTOH, I wouldn't be against having some sort of World play-offs before deciding the top 32 teams. Not that some teams may make it through those matches either.

[cteresa]

Perhaps have the bottom two or four out of the European Federation can compete in a cross-continental qualifier competition with the two left out of the African and S. American Federations. Teams that didn't play in the last cup like Nigeria, S. Africa, Cameroon, Uruguay, and Columbia. These are teams that have talent that can compete at the World Cup.

Neither did the current european champion then. So more places, to Europe please.

A few back even Brazil was in danger of not making the field of 5. That should never happen.

ah, that was just Scolari. And sorry, but Brazil can not be given an automatic place in every world cup. They got to earn it. And being 4th best out of 10, or even 5th best and beating the best team in oceania *rolleyes* is not asking too much of their royal highnesses. If they can not manage that, tough luck theirs, it has happened before to european champions and european greats you know. Their qualification is far easier than in europe.

Automatic place to oceania? bloody bad idea even if australia was still around. Their champion has got the right to an automatic playoff which is far more than the worst european 2nd placee has. Like how many millions of people does oceania have compared to africa or europe, why should automatic representation be due to geography ( with some weird confederation jumping the boat to the mix...). I don+ t get it. It should be about talent. In theory the 32 best teams in the world, or 31 best plus host.

If people are for more play offs between different confederations, I think it´s fair. Some underdogs will, due to the nature of football, qualify. But on average, we got to assume quality will on average win and be a better world cup. And it would improve FIFA rankings - some of the major flaws it has are the just-assume-so constants given to rank different confederations which do not seem at all realistic. More data for games between different confederations would be useful and arguably could maybe lead to enough data for dynamic values for those confederation normalizing constants. ( another problem the ranking has is overvaluing friendlies, but that is for another day...)