amacpher Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Blatter thinks that Africa (arguably the most over-represented confederation at World Cups as it is) should get a 6th spot allocated for them in the 2010 world cup. http://www.soccerway.com/news/2006/january/19/blatter-wants-extra-african-spot-at-2006-world-cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 If the spot is taken away from Asia, I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 We'll have to wait and see. I'm predicting that the Asian qualifyers will perform worse than the CONCACAF ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 This WC: Asia 4.5 CONCACAF 3.5 Oceania 0.5 CONMEBOL 4.5 CAF 5 That Oceania half-spot better become a quarter-spot. 6 countries from African in 2010 seems alright including SAf, and I'd say 6 after that. Keep in mind it's the only confederation with Oceania to never place a team in the semis. I could see Asia losing some depending on Oz and the others' results. Maybe we'll lose our half-spot or get a harder playoff in 2010 depending on how our teams do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Two things: As for Asia remember that Australia is joining that confederation after the world cup. Because they are too strong for Oceania. The next world cup is in South Africa, so politically for Blatter it makes more sense for more African teams to qualify. Maybe what Fifa should do is make a WC allocation a 'host spot allocation' where as whatever continent that is hosting the WC gets an extra allocation. So when the tournament is held in Africa they get an extra spot. I guess the results in Germany will dictate the way things go. At the very least they should change who plays who for that half spot. The americas should play each other, and have Asia/Oceana play their half spot. It just makes more sense. Since our fourth place team will almost always be in the Caribbean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack If the spot is taken away from Asia, I'm all for it. Right, but I just don't see that happening. With Australia joining AFC, if anything AFC will get 5.0 or 4.5 spots. Not less now. So if Africa gets 6, I see CONCACAF as being the victim of losing half a spot. Simply said, Africa doesn't deserve 6. Very few CAF teams make the second-round of the WC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 The crap teams in the last World Cup did not come from CONCACAF or for the most part CAF. France was the crap team in Group A (1 pt). Slovenia was the crap team in Group B (0 pts). China was the crap team in Group C (0 pts). Portugal and Poland were crap in Group D (3 pts). Saudi Arabia were the crap team in Group E (0 pts). Nigeria were crap in Group F (1 pt). Ecuador and Croatia were crap in Group G (3 pts). Tunisia were crap in Group H (1 pt). Based on results, take spots away from UEFA and AFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrison Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Let the AFC swallow up the rest of oceania. But that half spot should now go to africa. if the current oceania qualifying method remains without australia participating, it will be an utter joke. or at least incorporate some sort of final oceania group within the second from last asian group stage. the one where teams like Japan/Korea/etc... face off against three others such as Lebanon, Thailand and Sri Lanka. I mean Bahrain beat China at that stage and they almost made it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Hi, I don't think the USA making it to the semis in 1930 is really valid at this point. quote:Originally posted by Daniel Keep in mind it's the only confederation with Oceania to never place a team in the semis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masster Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I don't think South Korea making the semis is very valid either. quote:Originally posted by Paddy Hi, I don't think the USA making it to the semis in 1930 is really valid at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 concacaf should have 2 or 2.5 spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Consigliere concacaf should have 2 or 2.5 spots. Are you nuts! Even 3.5 is insufficient. 4.0 is what it should be at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by masster I don't think South Korea making the semis is very valid either. Very true. If Africa got the extra place I wouldn't mind as they have (arguebly) since 1986 been bringing the freshest, most unique, soccer to the WC. My only digression is that 'most' established teams have had their initial success at home, so why not Korea or Japan? Confidence goes along way. Argentina winning in 78, is by most pundits accounts, is a travesty. Many have suggested that outside of Argentina they would have been out after the first round, but look at them now. Honestly, I do not expect a final four Asian team this WC, nor do I expect the same from Africa. Either confederation making it out of the first round is a victory that I will applaud - especially if they bring down an 'established' team on the way. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolando Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I dunno...I'm inclined to think that the most recent WC rsults SHOULD in fact has some bearing on the allotment of WC spots by confederation. Exciting football doesn't amount to much in terms of results. It sounds like an argument for letting poorer, but exciting playing club teams into the playoffs (in the NHL or NBA or into Champion's League qualifying for that matter) just on the merit of their style. I think the proof is in the pudding, and if a country's result in the World Cup doesn't signify the "pudding" in world football, I don't know what does. I also think that if the whole Asian Oceania situation doesnt get resolved it opens the door for other countries to jump to other confederations. Mexico plays in the Libertadores. Could Canada ask to play WCQ in the South American group to at least guarantee a large number of qualifying games and maybe even have a outside chance of getting in? Before you laugh, think of Ecuador qualifying two years in a row with almost an entire squad of domestics. North and South America are hardly separate continents anyways. Asia and Oceania should be united or you should go back to the old style, with the exception that you give Oceania a full spot. Oceania without Australia looks a lot a group of Caribbean minnows. Throw the Oceania leftovers in with a bigger, more solid group (ASIA)like they with do with the Caribbean minnows and be finished with the whole argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 If anything, Canada should join Oceania and take its chances . I don't think CONCACAF deserves 4 automatics. 3-3.5 is where the confederation is at now. That .5 is actually a bit generous, but we'll see how it pans out in Deutschland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Ed The crap teams in the last World Cup did not come from CONCACAF or for the most part CAF. France was the crap team in Group A (1 pt). Slovenia was the crap team in Group B (0 pts). China was the crap team in Group C (0 pts). Portugal and Poland were crap in Group D (3 pts). Saudi Arabia were the crap team in Group E (0 pts). Nigeria were crap in Group F (1 pt). Ecuador and Croatia were crap in Group G (3 pts). Tunisia were crap in Group H (1 pt). Based on results, take spots away from UEFA and AFC. Uhhh..no! Nice analysis, wrong conclusion. Based on those results, take spots away from AFC and Africa. Hello! 40% of the AFC and Africa teams that qualified finished with one point or less. For UEFA its only about 15%. But like I said earlier, with AFC and Oceania joining together (sort of) it's not reasonable to take spots away from AFC at this stage</u>. It's just not gonna happen. If Africa gets a 6th spot, CONCACAF will lose at least 0.5 (UEFA maybe the other 0.5), especially if that 4th CONCACAF nation (T&T) gets pounded in Germany as expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by nolando I dunno...I'm inclined to think that the most recent WC rsults SHOULD in fact has some bearing on the allotment of WC spots by confederation. Exciting football doesn't amount to much in terms of results. It sounds like an argument for letting poorer, but exciting playing club teams into the playoffs (in the NHL or NBA or into Champion's League qualifying for that matter) just on the merit of their style. I think the proof is in the pudding, and if a country's result in the World Cup doesn't signify the "pudding" in world football, I don't know what does. Agreed. Basing spots on style is ridiculous. Why not let Cameroon and Nigeria go to Germany? Afterall they're more exciting than Togo and Ghana. *sarcasm* quote: I also think that if the whole Asian Oceania situation doesnt get resolved it opens the door for other countries to jump to other confederations. Mexico plays in the Libertadores. Could Canada ask to play WCQ in the South American group to at least guarantee a large number of qualifying games and maybe even have a outside chance of getting in? Before you laugh, think of Ecuador qualifying two years in a row with almost an entire squad of domestics. North and South America are hardly separate continents anyways. Could happen, but make no mistake about it: Canada would be fvcked if that happened! Ecuador relies on home-advantage (high altitude) to qualify for the World Cup. They were 7-2-0 (undefeated) in the past qualification. Canada could not pull-off that kind of home record and they'll get murdered in places like Bolivia and Ecuador, nevermind the bigger nations. CONCACAF (as it exists now) is the easist place for Canada to qualify as they've got as good a chance as anyone for that 4th available place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Basing spots on style is ridiculous. 1982 - Algeria - cheated out of the second round by an agreement betwenn Austria and Germany. FIFA has since changed the rules on when final opening round games are played. 1986 - Morocco: won their group, round of 16 1990 - Cameroon: won their group final 8 1994 - Nigeria: won their group, round of 16 1998 - Nigeria: won their group, round of 16 2002 - Senegal: second in their group, final 8 Please explain to me what is 'ridiculous' about these 'results' played with an 'entertaining style'. Only one CONCACAF team has ever made it to the final 8 away from home - USA (I am not going to count 1930 as it was a bunch of Brits). Only 3 CONCACAF teams have ever made it to the second round - Mexico, USA, Coasta Rica. Only two Asian teams have made it to the second round away from home - North Korea and Saudi Arabia. My vote goes to Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Paddy 1986 - Morocco: won their group, round of 16 1990 - Cameroon: won their group final 8 1994 - Nigeria: won their group, round of 16 1998 - Nigeria: won their group, round of 16 2002 - Senegal: second in their group, final 8 Please explain to me what is 'ridiculous' about these 'results' played with 'an entertaining style'. My argument was that the # of WC spots should be determined by results and results only. Style-of-play should not enter the equation. If the African teams combined good results with fun sytle, then great! But they haven't for the most part. Yes, there are some exceptions. PS... At the risk of confusing matters, what was so exciting about Morocco in 1986?? They didn't score in 75% of their WC matches. [V] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by amacpher PS... At the risk of confusing matters, what was so exciting about Morocco in 1986?? They didn't score in 75% of their WC matches. [V] First African team in the second round. 3-1 defeat of Portugal. Narrow loss to Germany in the second round. I found it exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Paddy First African team in the second round. 3-1 defeat of Portugal. Narrow loss to Germany in the second round. I found it exciting. Yeah, I'll admit I didn't watch those matches. The only reason I googled the 1986 World Cup was because I never considered Morocco to be an exciting NT to watch. At least not today. Maybe 20 years ago they were. (Though I'm skeptical when I see that their first two matches ending 0:0). ... I know the other 3 (Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon are) were exciting to watch though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 I think the big problem is a question of what do you want the world cup to be? I get the impression (I'll make sure I ask him if I see him again) from Blatter that he would like to see a selection of 32 teams from around the world at the world cup over the definitive 32 best teams. I have to agree with him. If the qualification spots were allocated completely based on the quality of the nations present North America would have two teams, South America would have three teams, Asia would have two, Africa would have one and Europe would have 24 teams. And for me thats just not really a 'World Cup' I mean we already have eurocup to see the european teams go at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.