Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Blackdude

What do you think of the CONCACAF WCQ for 2022?

What do you think of the CONCACAF WCQ for 2022?  

83 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the CONCACAF WCQ for 2022?

    • It's bad
      66
    • It's good
      3
    • Somewhere in the middle
      14


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Free kick said:

Thanks for the clarification.   I was trying to look it up to see if Europe was one of the four but couldn’t find anything.    If it actually was,  then I would have said we have literally no chance what so ever given that the top concacaf side (Mexico) would have been a significant underdog against the potential 15th qualifier from Europe.  

Going from what we saw at recent World Cup qualifiers,  that last team that just barely finished out of qualifying in UEFA could have been a side like Holland,  Ireland or Italy.  Not even Mexico would stand chance.  Mexico might even be hard pressed against the hypothetical South American side. 

Ya but in the last cycle, Mexico got New Zealand!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Blizzard said:

Ya but in the last cycle, Mexico got New Zealand!

 

2014 they did. 

2018 last cycle it was Honduras vs Australia and Australia advanced (Australia had a rough qualifying campaign in Asia but managed to get the .5 spot). 

2010 - South America

2014 - Oceania

2018 - Asia

2022 - look at pattern ^ hopefully it changes....? But it is Fifa, so who knows.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Agreed, this format is BS. 

The ranking that will be used is from June 2020? That will give us time to get into the top 6 providing we perform well in the Nations league. That would be our best chance, I think. 

After the upcoming Nations League matches what other opportunities will we have to increase our ranking? 

Would the likes of Honduras or El Salvador want to have friendlies with us in early 2020 or is there too much to lose for them? 

If we had nothing to lose and played a couple of friendlies against top 40 nations and we manage a draw or win, could that not help us? 

Nations League Groups that could impact our ranking. Who improves? Who goes backward? 

Honduras, T and T, Martinique

El Salvador, St. Lucia, Montserrat, Dominican Republic

Panama, Mexico, Bermuda 

Curacao, Haiti, Costa Rica

Jamaica, Guyana, Antigua, Aruba

Lots of questions for me. 

I have only a vague idea of how FIFA rankings even work. Another reason this is a bad idea. 

 

 

Edited by Vancouver Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 12:31 AM, BearcatSA said:

I'd like to hear Montagliani's thoughts on this.  Perhaps a TSN feature as part of the TFC-Impact broadcast this weekend?

I'll take a stab at that, on his behalf. And my thoughts will be unfiltered.

1. The CONCACAF minnows wanted more matches than just a single two legged knock out before being eliminated. This format, with an initial group stage for everybody, accomplishes that. And I particularly want to keep these minnows happy because they control a lot of votes.

2. The heavyweights do not want to be burdened playing a bunch of useless matches against minnows they are going to thrash. This format accomplishes that. And that is good for CONCACAF because we want our best teams playing challenging opponents rather than cannon fodder.

3. I said that the CNL would affect WCQ. CNL gives teams an opportunity to play meaningful matches worth enough ranking points to elevate their ranking into the CONCACAF top 6 and thus gain automatic entry into the hexagonal (editorial comment: I don't agree with this because the FIFA ranking system is seriously flawed; but if the FIFA ranking system were credible, this point would be important).

4. We have always complained that all but 6 teams were eliminated far too early. This keeps more teams playing longer and provides more competitive matches for the teams ranked just outside the top 6 and does so until late in the qualification process.

5. Yes, the path to qualification for teams outside the top 6 seems long, but if you count the matches you will see that it is either the same as or only two matches longer than for the team that finishes 4th in the hexagonal. The key point is that teams outside the top 6 will be getting more competitive matches than before and will still be in the hunt for a place in the finals for longer than before, and after the hexagonal has started, indeed long after for some.

6. To summarize, this format gives everybody more meaningful and competitive matches and keeps qualification hopes alive for more teams for longer. And teams that want to play in the hexagonal have the chance to get there by getting good results in the CNL.

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lofty said:

1. The CONCACAF minnows wanted more matches than just a single two legged knock out before being eliminated. This format, with an initial group stage for everybody, accomplishes that. And I particularly want to keep these minnows happy because they control a lot of votes.

I don't get this point ... I hear it A LOT.  But the format for Brazil 2014 had a group stage that most minnows played.  There were a handful of knockout matches in an initial stage among the real minnows of minnows.  Then a group stage with Canada level teams playing in a group ... then the SF round where the top ranked teams entered.  Finally, the HEX.  I never understood what was so wrong with this format ... it seemed fine to me!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Addona said:

I don't get this point ... I hear it A LOT.  But the format for Brazil 2014 had a group stage that most minnows played.  There were a handful of knockout matches in an initial stage among the real minnows of minnows.  Then a group stage with Canada level teams playing in a group ... then the SF round where the top ranked teams entered.  Finally, the HEX.  I never understood what was so wrong with this format ... it seemed fine to me!

I think if you are specifically comparing those two formats, you need to look to all the other points for the advantages of this new format.

Although, the 5 summarily jettisoned tiny minnows (in 2014 WCQ) may consider this point important, and it does provide for a more even distribution of matches played in that early phase (4/6 for everybody vs. 2/6/8 depending on seeding and success).

Of course the WCQ format for 2018 was different and the minnows all played only 2 or 4 matches, and this new format clearly improves upon that.

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the "giving minnows more games" part there is a solution to this.  It's called Gold Cup qualifying.  Give the minnows an extended campaign in that, a competition they actually have a faint hope of qualifying for.  This is how Asia does it and it keeps everyone active throughout the 4 year cycle in spite of them only having one Asian Cup every 4 years.  With a Gold Cup every 2 years the possibilities are endless. 

The lesson is that this whole Nations League was the wrong solution to the problem of minnow inactivity.  Now it's eating up all the match days needed for the one thing that truly matters, World Cup Qualifying.  To me, it's like the head of the Premier League saying "Well, we have to shorten the Premier League to only 4 months because we need to make room for 6 months of League Cup, preseason tours, and overseas friendlies ($hit that doesn't matter).

Edited by CanadianSoccerFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in the 2014 WC, all minnows except 5 got a minimum of 6 games, and 5 got at least 8 games: 2 in the 1st play-in round, and 6 in the 2nd round (where Canada entered) ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Addona said:

But in the 2014 WC, all minnows except 5 got a minimum of 6 games, and 5 got at least 8 games: 2 in the 1st play-in round, and 6 in the 2nd round (where Canada entered) ...

I think we agree that when compared to the 2014 WCQ, the new format is a wash regarding extra matches for minnows.

But I think it is an improvement when compared to 2018 WCQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

With respect to the "giving minnows more games" part there is a solution to this.  It's called Gold Cup qualifying.  Give the minnows an extended campaign in that, a competition they actually have a faint hope of qualifying for.  This is how Asia does it and it keeps everyone active throughout the 4 year cycle in spite of them only having one Asian Cup every 4 years.  With a Gold Cup every 2 years the possibilities are endless. 

The lesson is that this whole Nations League was the wrong solution to the problem of minnow inactivity.  Now it's eating up all the match days needed for the one thing that truly matters, World Cup Qualifying.  To me, it's like the head of the Premier League saying "Well, we have to shorten the Premier League to only 4 months because we need to make room for 6 months of League Cup, preseason tours, and overseas friendlies ($hit that doesn't matter).

Just throwing this out there, but if I were a minnow I'd be a lot more excited to play in World Cup Q rather than the Q for the substantially less prestigious Gold Cup, regardless of my chances of actually qualifying.

My understanding was than CNL was introduced to provide ALL CONCACAF nations with more competitive matches, but particularly the bigger teams rather than the minnows. The irony being that one of the driving forces was to improve rankings by playing more competitive matches, and now FIFA have changed the system so that more competitive matches is no longer a quick way to boost your ranking.

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 6:05 PM, Binky said:

Like really! What did you expect from Mt. Vic? Thank God he's not the president of the CSA any longer. He isn't, isn't he? No wonder he kept it a secret so long. Very typical for his kind.

Very typical for his kind? What are you trying to say exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure if countries get funding for WCQ, but wasn't one of the issues that some of these minnows couldn't afford Nations league qualifying? How are they now going to afford a trip to Canada + 2 other countries if they had a hard time travelling twice before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 9:31 PM, Kent said:

I'm getting off topic now, but in my opinion the half spot for CONMEBOL is tougher than a hypothetical half spot from UEFA. And I don't think Mexico would be the underdog against a UEFA 15th qualifier. Based on World Cup results, Mexico is very firmly in the 9th to 16th best country in the world range. They have made it to exactly the round of 16, 7 World Cups in a row. In that time they have finished ahead of the following European teams in the group stage. 1994 Ireland, Italy and Norway, 1998 Belgium, 2002 Italy, 2010 France, 2014 Croatia, 2018 Germany. For completeness, in that time span the following European teams finished ahead of Mexico. 1998 Netherlands, 2006 Portugal, 2018 Sweden.

As for why I think CONMEBOL has a stronger half spot than UEFA would. A few years ago I tried taking some pretty simple metrics to determine the strength of the different confederations at the World Cup. CONMEBOL was the clear winner. They had the best points per game, so they were the best on average, but they were also the only confederation to never have a team go 0-3 in the group stage in the 32 team World Cup era (from 1998 through 2018. I know I said I did it a few years ago, but I added 2018 numbers since then) so they are never sending weak teams, wheras UEFA has had 2 teams go 0-3 in that time period.

I don't have numbers on how many make it to the knockout round. Maybe someday I'll look into that, but not right now.

Its depends on how you look at it.   If you look only at the performance at the WC, then i completely agree.  I have mentioned before here that, yes, Mexico has shown that they are very much competitive or better than many of the 10-15 ranked (hypothetically) qualifiers from Europe.  But i was looking at it in different way and from the perspective of who Canada might be facing in that mini tournament. And, based on history, it NOT the kind of side that Mexico might have previously beaten at the WC finals. 

In Europe the final qualifier come from the final phase involving a two legged tie involving the second place finishers. In the first phase its something like 9 groups of 6 teams give or take.  In those groups of six you have guarantee of 2 minnows or near minnows in each group.  There might be 1 clear cut favourite and a clear second who is a solid side and every now and then the teams 2 to to 3 might be realistic contenders. Occasionally there are three good sides but never where three are truly on par in terms of pedigree.  So in 95-98 percent of the time all games result in a “Clockwork” predicability.  

But in the second phase of the two legged tie everything changes because of this:   The pairings are determined via random draw.  Hence, unlike the group stage,  the strong sides and weaker sides are not even distributed (like the group stage) in order to ensure a seeding-like matchups.  You will see two of the weaker second place sides matched up and vice versa.  Getting back to the group stage for a moment,  recall i said that there is often a generally accepted top seed.  If that top seed,  for example, slips on a banana peel for what ever reason (ie.; overconfidence , bad ref calls, poor preparation etc) and earns, say, a draw in the home leg on their matchup against the second strongest side (ie.: the 2-5 percent) then, given that all the rest of the group results are always predictable like a clock and that means that you will almost always have a superpower team or two that slips in into that second  phase.  And it might or often does get paired with a decent or even good side.   Or they will get paired with just a good or decent who decides to parks the bus. 

All this to say this: what i described above explains why in past world cups, sides like France, Italy, Holland, England, Portugal etc have failed to qualify.  Do we really believe  that Mexico are this level?  Or even the fifth place Conmebol side? And thats the kind of side that you would see in an intercontinental play off.  Not sides like Slovenia or Poland or Ireland whereby we believe that Mexico can matchup well against.    In other words,  the 10-14 ranked Euro sides at the WC are seldom stronger than one or two that just missed out because that random draw has alot to do with it.   Also, the emergence of Belgium has complicated things as far as group seedings.   

Also dont forget,  since nine is not devisable by two,  one of those randomly drawn second placers might be the one gets sent to the intercontinental playoff.  I recall that Ireland was one of those sides once.  Because the draw is random, it could easily be one of the superpowers.

Edited by Free kick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ UEFA WCQ is always messed up. You need to win your group to automatically qualify. But the seriously flawed FIFA rankings are used for seeding so the groups are often quite unbalanced, and it is often pretty clear that the second seed in one group would be the best team in another. However, in the end I kind of like it. It makes qualifying more interesting and tends to introduce more variety into which "second tier" countries make it. But the net result is that the 13 UEFA representatives are NOT usually the 13 best teams in Europe. This would certainly contribute to CONMEBOL having a better record in the finals (since CONMEBOL use a league system for WCQ, they always send their best teams).

By the way, if two "good" teams end up in the 8 team play offs then UEFA seed the draw.

I think it would be a toss up whether it would be harder to play UEFA or CONMEBOL for a half place.

e.g. 2018:

UEFA Play-off losers (presumably the best of these would compete for the half place): Northern Ireland, Greece, Republic of Ireland, Italy.

CONMEBOL 5th: Peru.

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are top 6 by 2020 June, we get into the hex. If not, we go into a round robin and playoffs for a chance to play the fourth placed team in the hex before facing another confederation's opponent? Flawed but not too bad IMO.

Edited by Macksam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Macksam said:

If we are top 6 by 2020 June, we get into the hex. If not, we go into a round robin and playoffs for a chance to play the fourth placed team in the hex before facing another confederation's opponent? Flawed but not too bad IMO.

As long as it is not CONMEBOL (South America). 

1978 - Hungary(UEFA) over Bolivia

2006 - Australia in PKs over Uruguay (before Australia joined Asia)

^ Those are the only two times South American countries have ever lost an inter-continental playoff. 

I read somewhere else the inter continental playoff would "rotate" between federations, but I couldn't find the link, it made sense with the last 3 WC's rotating in fairness.

On paper it's CONCACAF turn to play CONMEBOL. For the sake of all of CONCACAF let's hope it's an actual real draw for the inter-continental playoff. 

Does anyone know the date when it's announced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alex said:

I remember the last couple World Cup preliminary draws. They had an actual draw for the intercontinental playoff. It was televised. 

Thanks, everywhere online just says "at a later date". Let's hope they are not hot and cold balls this time.

https://en.as.com/en/2016/06/13/football/1465851727_136465.html

So that gives our region a 66% to avoid CONMEBOL. Mind you, Asian region is no easy task anymore (Australia fully dominated Honduras in the playoff last qualifying, even got an away result in Honduras).

I'm curious if the draw will happen before June 2020 fifa rankings, but I don't think so (which is fair).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year, it was being reported that the intercontinental playoff draw would happen 2 days from now, on July 17th, when they draw the groups for the early rounds of the AFC qualifiers. Back in February 2018, an outlet in New Zealand published an article saying pencil in July 2019 on your calendars because that's when we'll know who the winner of the Oceania region plays in the intercontinental playoff. It seems like all of that has changed now as everything I've been able to find recently on the intercontinental playoff draw says it will be determined at a later date. I don't know why a placeholder draw would need to be pushed back, but maybe they want the dust to settle a bit first from the changes to our region's qualifying format.

Edited by jtpc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way FIFA seems to make things up as they go along these days, Infantino may change things up for the Intercontinental playoff.  FIFA already announced that the 2026 Intercontinental playoff will be at a neutral site involving all competitors. 

For 2022, the most fair thing to do would be to delay the World Cup draw (scheduled for April) and get all 4 teams at a neutral site in June.  Play 3 games and the top two teams qualify.  I also wouldn't mind if it was a 4 team home and away group played over March and June.  There are 4 FIFA dates in June of 2022.  Would be massive travel but nobody could complain about drawing CONMEBOL.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

For 2022, the most fair thing to do would be to delay the World Cup draw (scheduled for April) and get all 4 teams at a neutral site in June.  Play 3 games and the top two teams qualify.  I also wouldn't mind if it was a 4 team home and away group played over March and June.  There are 4 FIFA dates in June of 2022.  Would be massive travel but nobody could complain about drawing CONMEBOL.  

Was that just your thinking or did you read that somewhere? 

Good for you if you thought about it, could def work and make alot of sense.

I hope Fifa has thought about it.

A mini tourney would be really cool & "the last 2 world Cup qualifying spots" as international/intercontinental spots would pretty much have the entire world's eyes on it and watching it.  Would be huge for Fifa, interest and $ wise.

Other option you mentioned good also, but def massive travel for 6 more games.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...