Football - City Bid the Wrong Type of Sterling

[polishgenius]

It should be noted that NI aren't literally guaranteed a playoff spot yet I don't think, but they would have to be extraordinarily unlucky to miss out from here, needing to lose both their remaining games and all of the other second-spot teams to make it to at least 13 points (in the playoff table) with a better goal difference, which would include Bosnia winning both their games, one of which is against Belgium.

[Jordan La Cabra]

6 hours ago, polishgenius said:

It should be noted that NI aren't literally guaranteed a playoff spot yet I don't think, but they would have to be extraordinarily unlucky to miss out from here, needing to lose both their remaining games and all of the other second-spot teams to make it to at least 13 points (in the playoff table) with a better goal difference, which would include Bosnia winning both their games, one of which is against Belgium.

Do some of the second placed teams miss out on a play off place, then?

Don't rain on our parade! Lol.

[Calibandar]

Nice work from Rashford last night. You know you can never hope for anything with England's football team but with Kane, Dele Alli and Rashford they do have a very strong forward line.

[Consigliere]

7 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

Do some of the second placed teams miss out on a play off place, then?

Don't rain on our parade! Lol.

One second placed team misses out since there are nine groups and only eight runners up spots. Extremely unlikely that NI misses out but it is mathematically possible.

[mormont]

37 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

Do some of the second placed teams miss out on a play off place, then?

One of the second-placed teams misses out, the lowest-ranked. Currently that's Bosnia.

[Jordan La Cabra]

We would have to really mess the last two games up, then. Hopefully we can keep the concentration levels high and see it through. 

What is very interesting is the prospect of NI and the ROI facing off in a play off for the World Cup. That would be quite a game, for many reasons.

The ROI finishing top or even second in their group is no guarantee at the moment. They performed embarrassingly poorly away to Georgia the other night. Scored after 4 minutes then immediately reverted to park the bus tactics with a bank of 4 and 5 sitting deep in their own half. Quite deservedly, Georgia equalised and could well have won the game.

Huge game for the ROI tonight at home to first placed Serbia. After the performance the other night, I would be very surprised to see ROI win.

 

[Calibandar]

Looking at the WC qualifying groups, there are once again a few things that stand out to me in the context of how relatively difficult it is for a European team to qualify. To think there are still people who say Europe is over represented.

Why is Australia lobbed in with "Asia" instead of Oceania? Is it because they always won that group with ease and FIFA finally wants to give New Zealand a chance? So Australia is in Asia but the neighbor is in Oceania. Where they could just play the Solomon Islands and have qualified for playoffs against Latin America's no. 5.

Australia is in a mediocre 6 team group of which 2 teams automatically qualify for the WC, and the 3rd team still goes on to do playoffs against Concacaf. In other words, in this way both the Aussies and NZ have an easy path to the WC. Worse, the US is in a Concacaf group where no less than 3 teams out of 6 automatically qualify. And there are only 3 football teams of *any* repute in that group anyway. And the no. 4 still goes through to play playoffs against Asia. Come on. Meanwhile, we're playing France, Sweden and Bulgaria with the hope that you finish second and face another tough opponent in the playoffs.

I know why it's being done ( needs to be representative of "the world" ) but it still seems a little bit imbalanced to me.

Looking at the Africans, tickets go to the 5 group winners. It's interesting to note that there doesn't seem to be any African countries anymore that stand out from the pack, whereas previously teams like Nigeria, Cameroon , Egypt South Africa and Ghana seemed well ahead of the rest. It's not unfair btw ( 5 teams seems right), just noting the level.

 

[Philokles]

Syria beating Iran 1-0. If things stay as they are they will qualify for Russia. 70 minutes to go. It would surely be one of the great against all odds sporting stories if they can do it.

[mormont]

3 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Why is Australia lobbed in with "Asia" instead of Oceania?

Hot takes from ten years ago, get 'em while they're stale!

[Philokles]

8 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Why is Australia lobbed in with "Asia" instead of Oceania? Is it because they always won that group with ease and FIFA finally wants to give New Zealand a chance? So Australia is in Asia but the neighbor is in Oceania. Where they could just play the Solomon Islands and have qualified for playoffs against Latin America's no. 5.

Australia is in a mediocre 6 team group of which 2 teams automatically qualify for the WC, and the 3rd team still goes on to do playoffs against Concacaf. In other words, in this way both the Aussies and NZ have an easy path to the WC.

Having to beat the 5th best team in South America over two legs - currently Argentina, is a pretty unique definition of an easy path.

 

8 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Worse, the US is in a Concacaf group where no less than 3 teams out of 6 automatically qualify. And there are only 3 football teams of *any* repute in that group anyway. And the no. 4 still goes through to play playoffs against Asia.

USA, Costa Rica and Mexico certainly have squads worthy of a World Cup. All three made the knockouts last time round and CR were a shootout away from the semis. Honduras are level with the US so can hardly be written off as substandard and Jamaica would not be out of place but were even knocked out in the last round.

[The Wedge]

15 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Worse, the US is in a Concacaf group where no less than 3 teams out of 6 automatically qualify. And there are only 3 football teams of *any* repute in that group anyway. And the no. 4 still goes through to play playoffs against Asia. Come on.

Not that CONCACAF quality is any great shakes vis-à-vis UEFA or CONMEBOL, but 3 of the 4 teams it sent to Brazil in 2014 did make it to the knockout stages. Costa Rica was a penalty shootout away from the semi-finals. That's not bad.

I'm guessing you already know this, but there are more than 6 teams in CONCACAF.  The final 6 nations ("The Hex") had to qualify from earlier group stages over the past year.  So 3, possibly 4, nations make it out of the 30+.

It'll be interesting to see what each confederation is allotted when the finals expand from 32 to 48.

[Calibandar]

5 minutes ago, Horse of Kent said:

Having to beat the 5th best team in South America over two legs - currently Argentina, is a pretty unique definition of an easy path.

 

USA, Costa Rica and Mexico certainly have squads worthy of a World Cup. All three made the knockouts last time round and CR were a shootout away from the semis. Honduras are level with the US so can hardly be written off as substandard and Jamaica would not be out of place but were even knocked out in the last round.

New Zealand plays nobody and then play Latin America's no.5, which could well be Ecuador, Paraguay or Peru. 

Playing only 1 worthwhile opponent on the entire road to the world cup is indeed a soft path.

As for the US, what I'm saying is here, they are playing very poorly this qualifying series, losing games left and right, and still they're going to qualify because 3 teams are seeded automatically, and even the no. 4 gets a rematch, and that in a group of only 6. Realistically, that is 1 team too many that is seeded automatically, it means Mexico Costa Rica and US simply cannot miss the World Cup.

[Iskaral Pust]

18 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

New Zealand plays nobody and then play Latin America's no.5, which could well be Ecuador, Paraguay or Peru. 

Playing only 1 worthwhile opponent on the entire road to the world cup is indeed a soft path.

As for the US, what I'm saying is here, they are playing very poorly this qualifying series, losing games left and right, and still they're going to qualify because 3 teams are seeded automatically, and even the no. 4 gets a rematch, and that in a group of only 6. Realistically, that is 1 team too many that is seeded automatically, it means Mexico Costa Rica and US simply cannot miss the World Cup.

You're very late to this crusade.  It does feel like the qualification slots were amended to assist the US and Aussies with their WC qualification -- two very large markets for global advertising where soccer was struggling to gain a foothold relative to more popular incumbents.  And that nations outside UEFA and perhaps CONMEBOL are purposely over-represented relative to how they would fare without regional qualifying.

Although it's much tougher for second or third tier European national teams to qualify, the reality is that the super power teams -- Germany, Italy, Spain, France (occasionally), England (a notch below all the others) -- qualify and reach the knock-out stages very consistently while the more variable European teams -- Netherlands, Russia, Portugal as a reasonably consistent second tier and all others tend to be highly variable -- are hit and miss in their success at the group stages and the tournament isn't much changed, except that it matters to those individual nations.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

29 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Although it's much tougher for second or third tier European national teams to qualify, the reality is that the super power teams -- Germany, Italy, Spain, France (occasionally), England (a notch below all the others) -- qualify and reach the knock-out stages very consistently while the more variable European teams -- Netherlands, Russia, Portugal as a reasonably consistent second tier and all others tend to be highly variable -- are hit and miss in their success at the group stages and the tournament isn't much changed, except that it matters to those individual nations.

I think somewhere Cruyff is spinning in his grave. The Netherlands have been a European Power House in football for well over 40 years. To place them below England on that list is pretty close to an insult imo.

While I often mock my Dutch friends for their failure to actually win a World Cup (I name that as a sign of the impending apocalpyse, the Dutch actually winning a WC), they came awfully close a few times. They were the best team in the 70s with their golden generation around Cruyff and Neeskens, and made it to the WC final twice (in Germany 1974, and in Argentina 1978) and lost both times to the hosts. The 1980s had another very strong Dutch generation of players, which actually resulted in silverware with the victory at the Euros 1988. Players from that generation included Rijkaard, Gulllit and van Basten. The next generation was a bit weaker, but still quite strong, with players like Davids, Seedorf, Kluivert, van Nistelrooy and van Persie. Now this is arguably the first real generation of Dutch footballers in over 40 years, that is utterly useless, and that's why the Dutch still need to rely heavily on an aging Robben (who is still a class player). While the English FA had produced teams that were not as good as the Dutchies. Spain has only emerged as a real powerhouse during the 2000s.

[Winterfell is Burning]

2 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Looking at the WC qualifying groups, there are once again a few things that stand out to me in the context of how relatively difficult it is for a European team to qualify. To think there are still people who say Europe is over represented.

Why is Australia lobbed in with "Asia" instead of Oceania? Is it because they always won that group with ease and FIFA finally wants to give New Zealand a chance? So Australia is in Asia but the neighbor is in Oceania. Where they could just play the Solomon Islands and have qualified for playoffs against Latin America's no. 5.

Australia is in a mediocre 6 team group of which 2 teams automatically qualify for the WC, and the 3rd team still goes on to do playoffs against Concacaf. In other words, in this way both the Aussies and NZ have an easy path to the WC. Worse, the US is in a Concacaf group where no less than 3 teams out of 6 automatically qualify. And there are only 3 football teams of *any* repute in that group anyway. And the no. 4 still goes through to play playoffs against Asia. Come on. Meanwhile, we're playing France, Sweden and Bulgaria with the hope that you finish second and face another tough opponent in the playoffs.

 

Australia plays in Asia because they wanted to and transferred their membership to the Asian Confederation.

And yes, Australia likely would have faced South America's 5th placed team...and almost certainly would lose, like they did multiple times.

And of course the 5th placed team could be Ecuador, Peru or Paraguay...but all of those are stronger than Australia or New Zealand anyway.

[baxus]

7 hours ago, JordanJH1993 said:

Huge game for the ROI tonight at home to first placed Serbia. After the performance the other night, I would be very surprised to see ROI win.

I'm divided on this subject. Of course I'd like my country to beat Ireland tonight and take that huge step toward qualifying for the WC in Russia but if that happens, and we do make it to Russia, we're more than likely to embarrass ourselves there with the cowardly approach and mentality.

The last time we played properly in the WC was almost 20 years ago, in France. We've had a great generation of players - Stojkovic, Jugovic, Savicevic, Mijatovic, Stankovic as an up and coming youngster etc. We were knocked out in the round of 16 by Netherlands after Mijatovic shot a penalty to the crossbar and Davids scoring an unlikely goal in stoppage time. After that, we were beaten by Netherlands and Ivory Coast and stomped by Argentina in 2006 after conceding only one goal in the qualifiers for that tournament. Four years later, we lost to Ghana and Australia. The only bright spot in our World Cups this century was beating Germany in group stages in 2010, though that was more dumb luck than anything else with Germany somehow failing to score despite dominating the entire second half.

It's more than frustrating to see your team just turn to shit on the biggest stage there is.

[Iskaral Pust]

1 hour ago, Notone said:

I think somewhere Cruyff is spinning in his grave. The Netherlands have been a European Power House in football for well over 40 years. To place them below England on that list is pretty close to an insult imo.

While I often mock my Dutch friends for their failure to actually win a World Cup (I name that as a sign of the impending apocalpyse, the Dutch actually winning a WC), they came awfully close a few times. They were the best team in the 70s with their golden generation around Cruyff and Neeskens, and made it to the WC final twice (in Germany 1974, and in Argentina 1978) and lost both times to the hosts. The 1980s had another very strong Dutch generation of players, which actually resulted in silverware with the victory at the Euros 1988. Players from that generation included Rijkaard, Gulllit and van Basten. The next generation was a bit weaker, but still quite strong, with players like Davids, Seedorf, Kluivert, van Nistelrooy and van Persie. Now this is arguably the first real generation of Dutch footballers in over 40 years, that is utterly useless, and that's why the Dutch still need to rely heavily on an aging Robben (who is still a class player). While the English FA had produced teams that were not as good as the Dutchies. Spain has only emerged as a real powerhouse during the 2000s.

They were a super power of world football for a very long time, but the past decade has seen a pretty steep decline in their talent base IMO despite containing some successes (if you can call the 2010 WC a success after the way they "played" to the final).  If you want to go back to 1970-2000 then the Russians would be a super power football team too, despite drifting into irrelevance since.

Germany, France (quite recently), Spain, Italy and England (a big step behind the others, as I said already) have been the European super power teams of the past decade.  England aren't very good and WC 2014 was a disaster, but they have been pretty consistent at maintaining their general level: qualify comfortably and then get eliminated in the quarters (with the last two tournaments seeing them exit from a group of death and then at round of 16).  Portugal and Netherlands are the next tier because they rely heavily on one or two stars and the rest are pretty workman-like in defending and getting the ball to the couple of stars; sometimes the get lucky with an injection of extra talent (e.g. Portugal 2016) and they can outperform until it fizzles because they can't replace it.  Russia are second tier just on history and being reasonably consistent in their talent base despite lacking real star players (they really miss the USSR days).

Other teams like Belgium, Iceland, Greece, Romania, Sweden, Poland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech, etc can do really well when they get lucky with a great generation but then tend to fall quickly again.  There's usually a rotating sample of these reaching any given WC, often doing pretty well.

 

[Jordan La Cabra]

44 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm divided on this subject. Of course I'd like my country to beat Ireland tonight and take that huge step toward qualifying for the WC in Russia but if that happens, and we do make it to Russia, we're more than likely to embarrass ourselves there with the cowardly approach and mentality.

The last time we played properly in the WC was almost 20 years ago, in France. We've had a great generation of players - Stojkovic, Jugovic, Savicevic, Mijatovic, Stankovic as an up and coming youngster etc. We were knocked out in the round of 16 by Netherlands after Mijatovic shot a penalty to the crossbar and Davids scoring an unlikely goal in stoppage time. After that, we were beaten by Netherlands and Ivory Coast and stomped by Argentina in 2006 after conceding only one goal in the qualifiers for that tournament. Four years later, we lost to Ghana and Australia. The only bright spot in our World Cups this century was beating Germany in group stages in 2010, though that was more dumb luck than anything else with Germany somehow failing to score despite dominating the entire second half.

It's more than frustrating to see your team just turn to shit on the biggest stage there is.

I look at the current crop of Serbian players and consider them a very strong team. The likes of Ivanovic, Matic, Kolorov, Mitrovic etc are all very good players. In their qualifying group, take Gareth Bale out of Wales and Serbia have the best squad, by far.

I do see what you mean, though. It can be very difficult for 'smaller' national teams to make their mark on a competition. Looking back on NI qualifying for the Euros, as we had never qualified before, any game there was a success, even if we lost. So getting to the knock out stages was seen as a massive success here. If we somehow get to the World Cup, just being there will be success enough. Say, then, we make the next Euros and get knocked out at the group stage or the first round of knock outs, it won't be looked upon as a success anymore. It will just be seen as turning up to get knocked out. The allure of just qualifying alone will start to fade.

It's a weird set up in Northern Ireland, due to the political issues, but the Catholics and nationalists of our country actually support ROI as opposed to the NI team. Some of my friends support ROI over NI despite being born and bred in NI. In fact, I am watching the game with one right now. 

ROI qualify for tournaments quite regularly, so despite them reaching the same stage in the last Euros as NI did, their fans didn't look at it as a success, just another case of turning up and getting knocked out, which is similar to what you are saying about Serbia. But then again, even if it is only the three group games, as someone who has only seen their nation qualifying for one international tournament, I can assure you it felt a lot better watching the Euros with NI in it as opposed to watching all the previous tournaments without them competing.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

36 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

They were a super power of world football for a very long time, but the past decade has seen a pretty steep decline in their talent base IMO despite containing some successes (if you can call the 2010 WC a success after the way they "played" to the final).  If you want to go back to 1970-2000 then the Russians would be a super power football team too, despite drifting into irrelevance since.

Germany, France (quite recently), Spain, Italy and England (a big step behind the others, as I said already) have been the European super power teams of the past decade.  England aren't very good and WC 2014 was a disaster, but they have been pretty consistent at maintaining their general level: qualify comfortably and then get eliminated in the quarters (with the last two tournaments seeing them exit from a group of death and then at round of 16).  Portugal and Netherlands are the next tier because they rely heavily on one or two stars and the rest are pretty workman-like in defending and getting the ball to the couple of stars; sometimes the get lucky with an injection of extra talent (e.g. Portugal 2016) and they can outperform until it fizzles because they can't replace it.  Russia are second tier just on history and being reasonably consistent in their talent base despite lacking real star players (they really miss the USSR days).

Other teams like Belgium, Iceland, Greece, Romania, Sweden, Poland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech, etc can do really well when they get lucky with a great generation but then tend to fall quickly again.  There's usually a rotating sample of these reaching any given WC, often doing pretty well.

 

Russia, not really imo. They had a decentish team in '94 not great by any standard (ironically that was also the WC England missed out on), but they were not that great after the collapse of the SU. But even before then they were hardly exceptional (at least not in my book). The three lions have lived on their reputation, for most parts. I don't want to sound mean, but it's kinda telling that their biggest player of the past 20 years or so is an obese alcoholic, who spend a good deal of his career in Scotland.

Yes, Portugal is a one player show. And as for the Dutch as I said, this is the first time in a long while that they're stuck with a pretty useless generation of footballers, those who were supposed to take over and carry the torch have been disappointments for most parts (Ryan Babel comes to mind again). But overall they were more successful than England even if their new generation lacked any greatness. Anyway, couple of stars with regards to past Netherland teams is really an understatement. They are right now in roughly the same spot Germany was in the late 90s and the beginning of the 2000s.

Overall the outlook for England is much better right now (with quite a bit of talent coming through the system) than it is for the Netherlands. We can agree on that. On a seperate note, I am somewhat curious if the next generation of Italian footballers is any good.

As for your other examples. Romania had one good generation I think, that was the mid-nineties team around Hagi and Popescu, same with Bulgaria with Stoichkov. Poland, I assume you mean the old generation around 1974?

[Iskaral Pust]

32 minutes ago, Notone said:

As for your other examples. Romania had one good generation I think, that was the mid-nineties team around Hagi and Popescu, same with Bulgaria with Stoichkov. Poland, I assume you mean the old generation around 1974?

For Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech, etc that's exactly what I had in mind.  They each had a brief period with a great generation.  Belgium and Poland (even Iceland) today (and in 1986) are like what Bulgaria and Romania were in the 90s.  Because there are so many teams in Europe, there's usually at least a couple that are currently experiencing their greatest generation.

 

With Ireland losing today at home to Serbia, on top of a disappointing draw with Georgia, their WC chances are dwindling fast.  Similar to Baxus' sentiment above, I actually prefer it now when they don't qualify because their last few tournament appearances have included embarrassing football and ignoble defeats.  It's a long way from the heady days of Italia '90.

Ben Woodburn's cross created Wales' opening goal.  Rashford who?