World Cup 2010 - The draw is settled

[Datepalm]

Are you aware that this is the only time Wales have ever qualified for the World Cup?

They made it to the second round, which means they have a better record than Scotland.

I don't know if that makes it better or worse. Israel might be contentious, but at least we very surely do exist - the only qualification here was 1970, after winning against New Zealand and Australia, and managing two draws against Sweden and Italy. It has apparently been called the single greatest achievment of Israeli sport ever.

Digging around wikipedia finds some funny thing*, like the 1964 Asian Football Championship played in Israel where 3 of the 4 finalists qualified without playing a single game.

* I am easily amused, I admit.

[Horza]

More stats geekery from the omniscient Nate Silver.

I think he gets the progession odds mostly right.

[ljkeane]

More stats geekery from the omniscient Nate Silver.

I think he gets the progession odds mostly right.

I've only had a quick look so I don't know how he's gone about calculating those odds but I do find the fact that he only has Spain as 2% more likely to win their group than Brazil a bit strange. Comparing the two groups Brazil's looks a lot more difficult and in my opinion Spain are the stronger team.

ETA: And if the off statistic is meant to signify their relative attacking strengths then I'm not convinced that Brazil should be ranked higher than Spain.

[Horza]

He really rates Brazil and proves it with the power of maths.

[lessthanluke]

You will all be eating your word when Wales win the 2018 world cup!

[Padraig]

Only problem is it effectively wipes out Oceania's .5 and hence there's no way they'll accept it.

Time to roll over them. :P Blatter hardly needs Oceania's votes given that he sowed up Africa by giving them the WC.

Digging around wikipedia finds some funny thing*, like the 1964 Asian Football Championship played in Israel where 3 of the 4 finalists qualified without playing a single game.

:lol: It is funny. In a sad way.

[Calibandar]

Belated reply, but here's my pick for the 1st round at this point:

Group A;

1. France

2. Mexico

3. Uruguay

4. South Africa

Comments: Yes France is fairly weak and struggling right now and I don't they will walk easy in this group. They might as well finish last, in fact. This group is tight. But I could not say in advance that Mexico and Uruguy are likely to be better than France either. South Africa, despite the history of the home nation making it past the group stage, I don't see them do it. The opponents are too good for them, they're quite the mediocre side.

Group B:

1. Argentina

2. Nigeria

3. South Korea

4. Greece

Group C:

1. England

2. USA

3. Slovenia

4. Algeria

Good draw for the English. USA might make it hard on them with their tenacity.

Group D:

1. Germany

2. Ghana

3. Australia

4. Serbia

Serbia's a good side and this is a group of death. Very hard group. Ghana is a tough side, so is Australia but I guess Ghana might be slightly better. Serbia tends to poorly so I list them 4th even though they won their qualifying group with flair. Germany is the best side here, the current team is simply very good and a tournament favorite.

Group E:

1. Netherlands

2. Denmark

3. Cameroon

4. Japan

Not a bad draw for us. None of the 3 teams are bad sides but all are teams we should be able to beat if we're in fine form on the day. Denmark and Cameroon for 2nd spot, very hard to call. Japan will fall short here.

Group F:

1. Italy

2. Paraguay

3. Slovakia

4. New Zealand

Good group for Italy. Paraguay will make a decent no. 2

Group G:

1. Brazil

2. Portugal

3. Ivory Coast

4. North Korea.

EVen tougher Group of Death than Germany's Group D. I pick Portugal as no.2 after a Brazil which I can only see win this group. Why? As strange as it would seem to have Africa's best side go out in the first round, I just don't think Portugal will allow them to throw them out. They can play for result, they can and do play hard and dirty, and they have plenty of skill to score goals, especially now that they have Liedson. Ronaldo will be back then, his level for country is not as good as for club but still. It's going to be very close, and this is just a hunch on my part, Ivory Coast probably look stronger right now.

Group H;

1. Spain

2. Chile

3. Switzerland

4. Honduras

Easy group for Spain.

[Alcibiades]

Chicago looses out in USA world cup bid for 2018/2022.

http://www.gousabid.com/blog/entry/18-cities-included-in-the-us-bid-for-the-fifa-world-cup-in-2018-2022

On ESPN, they were saying that the total seating capacity will be 33% above 1994 levels, which was still the best attended and most profitable World Cup. Also, apparently people complained about the heat at the 1994 World Cup, so we're trying to get the southern games into stadia with roofs.

[Celtigo]

Chicago looses out in USA world cup bid for 2018/2022.

http://www.gousabid.com/blog/entry/18-cities-included-in-the-us-bid-for-the-fifa-world-cup-in-2018-2022

On ESPN, they were saying that the total seating capacity will be 33% above 1994 levels, which was still the best attended and most profitable World Cup. Also, apparently people complained about the heat at the 1994 World Cup, so we're trying to get the southern games into stadia with roofs.

I'm going to try and be diplomatic, but excluding Chicago and the Bay Area in favor of Indy, Baltimore, Tampa, Phoenix, and KC is mind-numbingly stupid for a tournament 13 years out. They both have some issues (Chicago weather and Bay Area stadium), but we've made a swap that will impress no one internationally. I'm rooting for Australia in 2022, the bid committee screwed up in a huge way imo.

Seriously, Phoenix? Its air conditioned but the fans eventually have to go outside and deal with the June heat. San Diego? They play in the same rundown stadium the teams in the Bay Area do and is far less appealing internationally? Really wtf were they thinking?

[Alcibiades]

This is bad enough to make you root for the Aussies, Celtigo?

Apparently the list will be reduced again to 12, but I think it will be FIFA who does that. I don't imagine anyone outside this country has heard of Kansas City or Pheonix.

I agree that not having Chicago was daft. They didn't provide any insight about why they didn't make it on CNN. Just some inane joke comment from Lalas about Chicago having been too busy with their failed Olympic bid.

[Celtigo]

This is bad enough to make you root for the Aussies, Celtigo?

Apparently the list will be reduced again to 12, but I think it will be FIFA who does that. I don't imagine anyone outside this country has heard of Kansas City or Pheonix.

I agree that not having Chicago was daft. They didn't provide any insight about why they didn't make it on CNN. Just some inane joke comment from Lalas about Chicago having been too busy with their failed Olympic bid.

I look at it this way. I'm in my late twenties now, theres a good chance 2022 would be the last American World Cup I'll see in my lifetime. If the Aussies win 2022, 2026 is wide open with us facing off against (under current rules) countries from South America minus Brazil and Africa minus South Africa. Assuming there isn't a late charge from Mexico or the rules don't revert to allowing UEFA to get back in the running, we walk away with that title. Hopefully that bid would rectify the glaring errors in this one.

I just can't see this as a good move to tell delegates and fans around the world that we've kicked Chicago and the Bay Area to the curb, but hey have you ever been to Tampa! No, huh. How bout Nashville! Sorry and no disrespect to those towns, but if this is about putting 12 of our most appealing venues together for the world. Those might not even make the "B" list of cities.

[The Wedge]

Chicago didn't do itself any favors when it DECREASED the seating capacity of Soldier Field when it was renovated back in 2003.

Nashville and Tampa both have NFL stadiums that hold more fans.

One thing about any U.S. bid is that there are so many major cities and potential venues from which to choose.

Plus, any American city, especially in the South or Midwest can have stifling heat and humidity in the summer. But I've been in the south in August when it's been in the 80's and low humidity, too. It's a crapshoot there.

[Celtigo]

Chicago didn't do itself any favors when it DECREASED the seating capacity of Soldier Field when it was renovated back in 2003.

Nashville and Tampa both have NFL stadiums that hold more fans.

One thing about any U.S. bid is that there are so many major cities and potential venues from which to choose.

Plus, any American city, especially in the South or Midwest can have stifling heat and humidity in the summer. But I've been in the south in August when it's been in the 80's and low humidity, too. It's a crapshoot there.

yeah but we're dealing with maybe having 5-7,000 fewer seats than some other venues? Is that really a beaking point? I figured they wouldn't get the opening game, the final, or a semi because of the capacity, but excluded entirely?

[The Wedge]

yeah but we're dealing with maybe having 5-7,000 fewer seats than some other venues? Is that really a beaking point? I figured they wouldn't get the opening game, the final, or a semi because of the capacity, but excluded entirely?

I'm surprised, too, being that I lived in Chicago and am still in the Chicagoland area, but sometimes it's nice to see the city get shafted for this kind of thing that it feels like it deserves.

Chicago got the opener in 1994. It's okay if other cities get a chance to showcase what they can for the world.

[Alcibiades]

Chicago has weather problems during the summer? I guess it's very humid? I know their winters are dire, lake effect snow and all that.

I've never been, unfortunately.

[Celtigo]

Chicago has weather problems during the summer? I guess it's very humid? I know their winters are dire, lake effect snow and all that.

I've never been, unfortunately.

Tampa(outdoors) and Miami(outdoors) are still on the list.

Making this even more bizarre is that USSF is headquartered in Chicago. And I don't really believe the Bullshit Gulati is shoveling about Olympic fatigue. Being a World Cup venue and an Olympic host are such vastly different commitments, its barely worth noting. Fire up Soldier Field and a fan zone five or six times with at most some touch up work and maybe a few thousand additional seats added versus complete construction of multiple venues and a solid two weeks of 24 hour security, clean up, and travelers. Its just a travesty for two very different reasons Minneapolis and Chicago, the jewels of the midwest, were cut at various points in the process. FIFA has left the bid committee with no guaranteed venues in that region and its possible they'd cut both Indy and KC out of the final 12.

[Padraig]

Intertesting. I'd imagine that Australia have a reasonable shot at winning (they are good at holding sporting events and they've never had the WC before), so the US bid would need to be very good. Although, as Celtigo said, whoever loses should have a great chance in 2026.

One thing that strikes me is that Asia gets no favours from this system. (Its better than the previous system of course). With the addition of Australia, countries in Asia are going to have to wait a long time to get their next chance. And with Korea and Japan eager to hold their own singular competition and China bound to want to do so eventually, most other continents don't have the same number of obvious continents. (Except for Europe. But Europe is relatively small, so holding a tournament in Spain is no big deal for most of the rest of Europe. Compare that to China v Australia).

[DJDonegal]

2026 is wide open with us facing off against (under current rules) countries from South America minus Brazil and Africa minus South Africa. Assuming there isn't a late charge from Mexico or the rules don't revert to allowing UEFA to get back in the running, we walk away with that title. Hopefully that bid would rectify the glaring errors in this one.

I'm fairly (not completely) sure that FIFA is planning to revert back to the old system.

I think it stems from the fact that nobody went up against Brazil to host the 2014 World Cup.

[Padraig]

I'm fairly (not completely) sure that FIFA is planning to revert back to the old system.

We've had the original free-for-all system, the "give Africa a WC" system and the new system, which involves allowing any country to bid, as long as a country in that confederation hasn't held one of the last 2 WCs. Are you suggesting there is another new system on the way? I'd be surprised given that FIFA wouldn't have to make another WC decision for a long time after the bids for 2018 and 2022 are decided. Doubt they are looking at reviewing the system again.

[Celtigo]

We've had the original free-for-all system, the "give Africa a WC" system and the new system, which involves allowing any country to bid, as long as a country in that confederation hasn't held one of the last 2 WCs. Are you suggesting there is another new system on the way? I'd be surprised given that FIFA wouldn't have to make another WC decision for a long time after the bids for 2018 and 2022 are decided. Doubt they are looking at reviewing the system again.

If DJDOngeal is referring to the system that handed Brazil a WC on a silver platter, its already been changed. FIFA used a "rotation" system for about 5 seconds that limited bids to one confederation. Brazil is the first, second, and third choice for a World Cup in CONEMBOL and had no competition. But without Brazil and South Africa, 2026 might as well be a one confederation bid under the current system.