World Cup Qualifiers.

[Rohit]

You shouldn't!

It is a great day for New Zealand.

 

[Thommybhoy]

Lost 2 places, it should have been 15 as it was in 98.

 

[USArsenal]

only reason they had 15 in 1998 was because France hosted and qualified automatically.. if it was hosted somewhere else besides Europe, they would have only had 14

same reason Africa has 6 places this year..

why are you so pissed off about 1 extra place being lost? you dont think its fair that Asia get 4 automatic places this year?

 

[Thommybhoy]

You think it's fair for Asia to have eaqual amount of places as South America?
I'd want it like this, IMO it would be most fair:
15 Europe
3 North America
0/1 Oceania since Australia joined Asian quals
5 South America
3/4 Asian
5 Africa.
Host in certain continent gives one less contender from quals from that continent.
I'm affraid it will go even worse if Blatter stays in change.
We might see even more teams from which nobody knows a single player in their team if they are not from that particular country.

 

[irishgunnerz]

the number of countries has steadily increased since 1990 though Drevak. The breakup of Yugoslavia for example must have added 4 new teams alone.

That said , it IS a World Cup, an its not all about the quality of football, its about what football can bring on a broader level - the buzz, th excitement, tension and just sheer public happiness. It is, to be cliched, much more than just the 90 minutes on the pitch , especially for those of us in sammer countries so I'm not gonna begrudge a team from a smaller nation in a non fancied continent simply because no one knos anyone on their team

 

[USArsenal]

You think it's fair for Asia to have eaqual amount of places as South America?
I'd want it like this, IMO it would be most fair:
15 Europe
3 North America
0/1 Oceania since Australia joined Asian quals
5 South America
3/4 Asian
5 Africa.
Host in certain continent gives one less contender from quals from that continent.
I'm afraid it will go even worse if Blatter stays in change.
We might see even more teams from which nobody knows a single player in their team if they are not from that particular country.

again, the ONLY reason Europe had 15 was because one was a host nation.. by your rationale, France hosting and qualifying automatically should have lessened the UEFA spot by 1 and they would have only had 13 qualified nations and a host

as for not knowing any players on a team, when was the last time "most" knew of any Saudi players, or Korean players (at the time), or Iranian players, or Trinidadian players, or even Costa Rican players?

it's been that way since they expanded it to 32 teams from 24.. i've no problem with it..

your just upset because Croatia didnt qualify... :wink:

 

[N!]

New Zealand, probably the ****test team to qualify for the World Cup.

North Korea.

 

[Thommybhoy]

You think it's fair for Asia to have eaqual amount of places as South America?
I'd want it like this, IMO it would be most fair:
15 Europe
3 North America
0/1 Oceania since Australia joined Asian quals
5 South America
3/4 Asian
5 Africa.
Host in certain continent gives one less contender from quals from that continent.
I'm afraid it will go even worse if Blatter stays in change.
We might see even more teams from which nobody knows a single player in their team if they are not from that particular country.

again, the ONLY reason Europe had 15 was because one was a host nation.. by your rationale, France hosting and qualifying automatically should have lessened the UEFA spot by 1 and they would have only had 13 qualified nations and a host

as for not knowing any players on a team, when was the last time "most" knew of any Saudi players, or Korean players (at the time), or Iranian players, or Trinidadian players, or even Costa Rican players?

it's been that way since they expanded it to 32 teams from 24.. i've no problem with it..

your just upset because Croatia didnt qualify... :wink:

Is not cause of that, I didn't like it even in 06 when it stared to happen. My idea was that when lets say Euro country is host Europe still has 15 with 14 through quals and 1 host, same for let's say North America 3 through quals or in case host is let's say Mexico 2 through quals and 1 directly.
Come on with this trend going worst there would be teams at World Cup without major trouble that would probably be 2nd worst in most Euro qual groups.

 

[Clrnc]

I have thought about this for a long time in the past too. But I think the current slots allocated are just about right. Maybe South America should have one more and North America have one less, but thats just it.

Imo, A world cup is only interesting because you see the different countries from different continent against each other. Even as i was watching reviews of WC 06 back then, it was still intruiging to see matches like Togo vs South Korea where there are no quality on paper but proved to be a good match.

Currently, there are poor teams like N.Korea and NZ qualified, but don't you think it would be interesting to see them on the world stage? Think about the people there? Some might not even dream that they can see their country in the WC in their lifetime. It would be incredibly boring to see more europes team in a WC tbh, might as well make it euros in that case.

Thommy, Asia is the largest continent in the world and yet only have a meagre 4.5 places as compared to Europe who have 13 places. Why are you still complaining? There are better quality teams like Iran, Saudi, Uzbekistan who lost places in Asia because of the Aussies joining, yet FIFA still only maintain 4.5 places which is fair tbh. The unknown teams you are talking about produced some quality players in the leagues in europe anyway.

 

[qs]

f**k you John O'Shea you useless Utd c**t. How the f**k did he get MOTM?

We threw away qualification. Andrews is a useless Blackburn lump of s**t.

:x

Agree on O'Shea. Disagree on Andrews, not a fan usually but I thought him and Whelan did as much as you could ask of them. Keane, Duff, St.Ledger, O'Shea can all go **** themselves though.

Lassana Diarra went from being a player I dislike to one I hate with a passion last night. Hope the **** breaks his legs and never plays again, classless midget.

 

[Del Boy]

f**k you John O'Shea you useless Utd c**t. How the f**k did he get MOTM?

We threw away qualification. Andrews is a useless Blackburn lump of s**t.

:x

Agree on O'Shea. Disagree on Andrews, not a fan usually but I thought him and Whelan did as much as you could ask of them. Keane, Duff, St.Ledger, O'Shea can all go f**k themselves though.

Lassana Diarra went from being a player I dislike to one I hate with a passion last night. Hope the c**t breaks his legs and never plays again, classless midget.

You have mistaken me, I made that post after the last Italy game not last night.
Andrews was good I agree, and yes Diarra was a ****. Glad we got rid of him, he has issues.

 

[Del Boy]

Also seeing you were at the match, I take it you missed Dunphy's usual rant.
He spouted some amount of **** about Gallas and proceeded to show highlights some of which were 2-3 years old(eg Birmingham and Fulham) to show he was a weak link, and that Doyle and Keane can take advantage.

Just like they did in the PL then.. :roll:
Done the usual Andy Reid routine afterwards and said we gave them the game.

 

[Biggus]

You think it's fair for Asia to have eaqual amount of places as South America?
I'd want it like this, IMO it would be most fair:
15 Europe
3 North America
0/1 Oceania since Australia joined Asian quals
5 South America
3/4 Asian
5 Africa.
Host in certain continent gives one less contender from quals from that continent.
I'm affraid it will go even worse if Blatter stays in change.
We might see even more teams from which nobody knows a single player in their team if they are not from that particular country.

3 places for Concacaf is a disgrace it amounts to a free passage for the USA & Mexico.
They should come out and admit that its global representation they want to achieve and not the highest standard of football because if it was an open unseeded draw 90% of the qualifiers would be from Europe.

 

[fabo]

Also seeing you were at the match, I take it you missed Dunphy's usual rant.
He spouted some amount of s**t about Gallas and proceeded to show highlights some of which were 2-3 years old(eg Birmingham and Fulham) to show he was a weak link, and that Doyle and Keane can take advantage.

Just like they did in the PL then.. :roll:
Done the usual Andy Reid routine afterwards and said we gave them the game.

I laughed at the Gallas part when I seen it. What was the point in showing Hangeland beating him at a corner last season - the guy has been quality this year.

As for Robbie Keane, the guy is a bottler. Rarely delivers when you need him.

 

[USArsenal]

3 places for Concacaf is a disgrace it amounts to a free passage for the USA & Mexico.
They should come out and admit that its global representation they want to achieve and not the highest standard of football because if it was an open unseeded draw 90% of the qualifiers would be from Europe.

Bigg - well duh, its called the WORLD Cup, not the Euros with a sprinkling of South American teams (Brazil, Argentina and maybe someone like Paraguay).. if it were simply the top teams by ranking, half the teams that annually make it to the WC would never make it.. (can you imagine seeing T&T or N. Korea or New Zealand in a WC that was based on seeding?)

even if there were only 2 places for CONCACAF, dont you think it would still be a free passage for the US and Mexico? they have been 1 & 2 for 3 of the last 4 world cups (Costa Rica was tops in 2002 and of course the US hosted 1994)

the US and Mexico will almost always make it.. i personally enjoy seeing different teams make to to the WC.. makes it more global and interesting

even with that, there are only 7 teams to have ever won it.. and Uruguay not since 1950.. seems like its almost always Brazil, Italy, Germany or France (since '98) getting to the finals or winning..

 

[Thommybhoy]

Then CONCACAF can play with South America, and they together get 8 places let's say.
Oceania can with Asia for 4.
Anyway this is pointless since it won't happen soon.
What will happen is that Europe will lose more and more places. I got really pissed after watching one documentary on how the FIFA leaders wanted World Cup to look and Blatter wants it to look. And I'm pretty sure other continents will get more places while Europe will lose places.
Apart from silly 2002 World Cup (there were 4/8 Europeans) only Brasil and Argentina see quarterfinals while rest is Europe, so if 13 teams in 2006 were European, half of them saw 1/4 final.
2006 6 Euro teams in 1/4 final
2002 4 Euro teams in 1/4 final
1998 6 Euro teams in 1/4 final
1994 7 Euro teams in 1/4 final
1990 6 Euro teams in 1/4 final
1986 5 Euro teams in 1/4 final
1982 10/12 Euro teams in 4 groups of 3 teams each
Apart from Brasil and Argentina only Mexico saw 1/4 finals in 1986, Cameroon in 1990, USA, Senegal and South Korea in 2002. So in 7 World Cups only 5 teams that are not European, Brasil or Argentina played in 1/4 finals of World Cup.
Every confederation sends their best teams, so it definitely is World Cup, but there is no need to see team that wouldn't even qualify through other quals, not just European. Just some federation get too many places and will get even so that are not and will not be best teams by any standard.
Premier League is the best league in Europe and it's so cause it is based on success in Euro competitions. We are all pissed when Platini tries to cut down number of English teams just so that small countries can have their champion in CL, based on no quality and no success, just cause he wants that and he promised them that and now he has to at least try to do so.
Well he can **** off with that, CL is popular cause best team play there. When Artmedia gets in they deserved it and they play well in it, when Apoel it's the same,.... if some team that would never get in now gets in cause Platini allowed them to they'd have 0-20 goal difference and slowly CL would start to suck.
Same is with World Cup.

 

[irishgunnerz]

i think Biggus and Thommy youre missing the point. Its a World Cup...not a Champions Cup. It's not all about the quality of the teams or the quality of the play on the pitch. It's about the best teams in their region, representing both their country and that region. Its also about the development of the game in those regions. both your views are extremely narrow. Europe is already over represented in ways. The likes of Jamaica, Korea, some of the smaller african countries have every much right to be there as a european country. In fact it means more to alot of those countries than it does to the likes of some of the european countries. to do what you both would like would rule out intriguing ties like iran vs us or the chances of upsets like senegal beating france, korea beating spain etc..

 

[Thommybhoy]

Yes, every team has the right to be there if they have the quality, and quality is to be get the top 5 spots in South America, or 3rd in North America etc.
I wrote how many teams each continent would have, it's more or less like it was in France 98. Iran v USA was in France 98 so was Jamaica. And if Senegal can be top 5 in Africa they'd also be able to play France and other big countries that also had enough quality to qualify.
It's not like I wouldn't give them chance. In example Jamaica has a chance to be in top 3 in North America if they can't do that they don't see World Cup, there are 3 teams on their continent that are better and that can present their continent better. They were top3 in 98 and deserved to see World Cup later they weren't.
Is same 3 teams qualify for World Cup from some continent and do nothing at World Cup, that's not the reason to give that continent more spots.
Pretty similar to CL. Country X always has team A and occasionally team B in CL quals, and never reach CL. Should X then be given 2 spots in quals just so some other team represents it's town and experience CL? Big fat no! When some team does something and get better stats ok before that no!

 

[ivansen]

I think it is right and important to have a broad inclusion of nations at the world cup. It isn't all about the total quality of the tournament participants, it is also about universal competition, brotherhood and understanding. Besides, the best teams are usually present, no?

Norway, my country, would probably benefit hugely from added slots from Europe as we seem to always end up right on the verge of qualifying, but I'd still want the WC to be a true world event.

 

[irishgunnerz]

exactly. Youre dismissing teams thatat may do poorly at the world cup as enough reason to stop their region getting any more slots ...but thats just looking at it in a purely results driven way. For all bar a select few, there's no hope of winning it anyway. For those teams its representing your country, its how it affects the people back home, its what it brings to the country at large that matters. From a Fifa point of view its about the development of the game in those countries. Thats a huge element youre dismissing as irrelevant thommy. its all very well saying europe should have more slots, hell, maybe we'd have qualified straight out....but we already have the euros, the wc is a global event