CONCACAF Bid for a 4th WC Spot Fails, Qualification Process To Change Again *sigh*...

[CanadianSoccerFan]

Last time they played all the Hex games in 2009. So they should be able to do 6 + 2 extra playoff games which would be 2 less... Blazer must be battling amnesia or FIFA told him they can't start this September.

The way Blazer laid out the qualifying schedule in the article I posted above is a clear indication that CONCACAF wanted to get away from playing qualifying matches on midweek friendly dates. These dates are a logistical pain in the @ss and with more and more players being based overseas I'm sure there was pressure from the federations to make this change. This along with the fact the intercontinental playoff will now be played over two windows as opposed to one window would explain his claim there is not enough dates.

If you look at the FIFA match calendar below there is a shortage of four official match dates. From September 2011 through November 2013 there are a total of 20 official match dates over 10 windows. The last two windows have been taken up by the intercontinental playoff which Blazer was complaining about on twitter. That leaves only 16 official match dates over 8 windows. Playing 20 matches (three group stages plus crossover playoff) with only 16 official match dates would likely mean resorting to using friendly dates once again. Either that or playing additional games in June on non FIFA dates. This is what Asia does.

It should be noted that for some bizarre reason FIFA has not scheduled any official match dates for June 2012. This is weird because there were official matches in June in 2004 and 2008 and being the club off-season it's the ideal time to play games. This was when we played Belize and St. VAG.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/calendar&live/51/52/61/internationalmc-fifa-dates-2008-2014-updateoctober2008-e.pdf

[Lurker]

Thanks for all the info. I'm still trying to rationalize the need to use 4 friendly dates against abandoning the new format? Seems like we'd have to abandon either way, because the old format had more than 16 as well (unless they come up with a new format that is really reduced).

P.S. I didn't even think to look for Blazer on twitter, thanks for that.

[Rivaldo]

There were reports yesterday from South American newspapers stating CONMEBOL being happy to retain 4.5 WC spots. I think there's definitely a link with the news posted in this thread.

Montopoli implied that CONCACAF was expecting to get the 0.5 from CONMEBOL because in 2014 they have the host spot. Morons.

[yomurphy1]

Montopoli implied that CONCACAF was expecting to get the 0.5 from CONMEBOL because in 2014 they have the host spot. Morons.

I don't get that. CONMEBOL deserves every spot they have. On the other hand the AFC and OFC have far two many spots for the quality of their confederation.

eg. New Zealand beat New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanatu, and Bahrain to get to the World Cup.

[TFCRegina]

I don't get that. CONMEBOL deserves every spot they have. On the other hand the AFC and OFC have far two many spots for the quality of their confederation.

eg. New Zealand beat New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanatu, and Bahrain to get to the World Cup.

CONMEBOL might deserve every spot it has, but it's kind of ridiculous 6 of 10 countries in the region are making the World Cup.

[canucklefan]

Montopoli implied that CONCACAF was expecting to get the 0.5 from CONMEBOL because in 2014 they have the host spot. Morons.

Since there are 3 WC spots in CONCACAF there were only two countries who represent well CONCACAF, Mexico and USA, never the third country qualified to the round of 16. Last year, the lowest ranked nation from CONMEBOL lost in the round of 16 while the lowest ranked nation from CONCACAF couldn't even score a goal during the WC.

I don't understand why people are still arguing about CONCACAF deserving additional spots. If CONMEBOL was to lose the 0.5 spot because of the host spot, then it should have been given to CAF, there are a lot competitive nations who didn't qualify to the WC (Togo, Senegal, Egypt who won the Africa Cup nations in 2008 and 2010).

[Keegan]

Since there are 3 WC spots in CONCACAF there were only two countries who represent well CONCACAF, Mexico and USA, never the third country qualified to the round of 16. Last year, the lowest ranked nation from CONMEBOL lost in the round of 16 while the lowest ranked nation from CONCACAF couldn't even score a goal during the WC.

I don't understand why people are still arguing about CONCACAF deserving additional spots. If CONMEBOL was to lose the 0.5 spot because of the host spot, then it should have been given to CAF, there are a lot competitive nations who didn't qualify to the WC (Togo, Senegal, Egypt who won the Africa Cup nations in 2008 and 2010).

Honduras didn't score a goal but they didn't have a bad showing either. You can't credit CONMEBOL's performance on one hand and then discredit the fact that Honduras lost to Chile on a late goal, lost to the champs 2-0 and then drew the only team to beat the champs 0-0.

[canucklefan]

Honduras didn't score a goal but they didn't have a bad showing either. You can't credit CONMEBOL's performance on one hand and then discredit the fact that Honduras lost to Chile on a late goal, lost to the champs 2-0 and then drew the only team to beat the champs 0-0.

I don't disagree but my point is who deserves more? Uruguay were 5th qualified team from CONMEBOL and one can't argue at all that Honduras did better than Uruguay (BTW, Chile scored during the first half against Honduras).

[Blackdude]

I'm honnestly happy that the 4th team in CONCACAF has a better chance to qualify.

I'm reading this and seeing people who think that we lost something. We have a better shot to qualify to Brazil than to South Africa. CONCACAF should be happy.

[Rivaldo]

there were only two countries who represent well CONCACAF, Mexico and USA, ...

And they didn't do particularly well in 2010. Both went out in the round of 16.

[jonovision]

^ By the numbers, CONCACAF countries have been more successful than Africa or Asia over the last 4 or 5 World Cups (since the switch to 32 teams). As for 2010, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if 2 of 3 teams are in the final 16 of a 32 team tournament, they've done better than the average of all teams.

[Rivaldo]

Slightly better than average isn't going to take a spot away from South America, who had four teams in the quarter-finals.

[killgod]

Since there are 3 WC spots in CONCACAF there were only two countries who represent well CONCACAF, Mexico and USA, never the third country qualified to the round of 16. Last year, the lowest ranked nation from CONMEBOL lost in the round of 16 while the lowest ranked nation from CONCACAF couldn't even score a goal during the WC.

I don't understand why people are still arguing about CONCACAF deserving additional spots. If CONMEBOL was to lose the 0.5 spot because of the host spot, then it should have been given to CAF, there are a lot competitive nations who didn't qualify to the WC (Togo, Senegal, Egypt who won the Africa Cup nations in 2008 and 2010).

I wish people would stop comparing CONCACAF to just CONMEBOL in discussing this argument.

The CAF was pretty poor during their own continental event and the AFC is a worse confederation than CONCACAF is IMO. Sure two AFC clubs made the knockout stage, but lets be friggin real here. South Korea made it by being the best of 3 weak teams in Group B, Greece and Nigeria were bloody laughable. (Lets not forget that lowly Canada can hang with Greece either).

It's bad enough the entire world ****s on our Confederation, no need for us to join in. We're not that damn poor. Looking at the ELO rankings, there's 7 CAF, 6 AFC and 6 CONCACAF teams in the top 60. I'd give those rankings more credit than whatever the most corrupt organization in the world throws at us.

/rant

[jonovision]

^ Exactly right. CAF and AFC have been dismal at World Cups, except for Japan and Korea when the event was hosted in these countries. By the numbers, CONCACAF teams have been better.

[Drillers81]

The only confederation that has more WC berths than it deserves is CAF. The fact remains that, while a few CAF nations have pulled some upsets (Senegal in 2004, Cameroons in the 1980s and 90s), but overally CAF has been cannon fodder for UEFA and CONMEBOL nations, much like CONCACAF and AFC, with the only difference that they get 5 berths to AFC's 4.5 and CONCACAF's 3.5. Sepp Blatter has been trying hard to promote CAF as the up-and-coming confederation when in reality they may very well have already peaked.

With consistency of Mexico and the US, as well as surprise performances by other CONCACAF nations, I can understand why a move to get this confederation to 4 berths was at foot.

CONCACAF and CONMEBOL have the highest level of cooperation amongst the confederations, with both Mexican clubs participating in the Copa Libertadores, and the occasional appearance of CONCACAF nations in the Copa America and CONMEBOL nations in the Gold Cup. Additionally, the Pan-Am Games Football competition is the longest running competition featuring nations from both confederations.

I personally would love to see a Western Hemisphere Super Cup between the Copa Libertadores and CONCACAF Champions League winners.

[Edgar]

The way Blazer laid out the qualifying schedule in the article I posted above is a clear indication that CONCACAF wanted to get away from playing qualifying matches on midweek friendly dates. These dates are a logistical pain in the @ss and with more and more players being based overseas I'm sure there was pressure from the federations to make this change. This along with the fact the intercontinental playoff will now be played over two windows as opposed to one window would explain his claim there is not enough dates.

If you look at the FIFA match calendar below there is a shortage of four official match dates. From September 2011 through November 2013 there are a total of 20 official match dates over 10 windows. The last two windows have been taken up by the intercontinental playoff which Blazer was complaining about on twitter. That leaves only 16 official match dates over 8 windows. Playing 20 matches (three group stages plus crossover playoff) with only 16 official match dates would likely mean resorting to using friendly dates once again. Either that or playing additional games in June on non FIFA dates. This is what Asia does.

It should be noted that for some bizarre reason FIFA has not scheduled any official match dates for June 2012. This is weird because there were official matches in June in 2004 and 2008 and being the club off-season it's the ideal time to play games. This was when we played Belize and St. VAG.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/calendar&live/51/52/61/internationalmc-fifa-dates-2008-2014-updateoctober2008-e.pdf

You're looking at an old calendar. Here's the new one:

FIFA Calendar (June 2010)

[CanadianSoccerFan]

You're looking at an old calendar. Here's the new one:

FIFA Calendar (June 2010)

Thanks. Well that certainly changes things. Lurker was right. There ARE enough dates. Maybe Blazer was looking at the same out of date calendar I was.