By dasilva -
November 19th 2009 @ 2:26am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
A better system to determine the World Cup Qualifiers
Portugal's Christiano Ronaldo reacts after the drawn World Cup group 1 qualifying soccer match against Denmark at Parken in Copenhagen, Denmark, Saturday Sept. 5, 2009. (AP Photo/Tariq Mikkel Khan/POLFOTO)
New Zealand’s qualification to the World Cup has brought up questions about whether they actually deserved a spot. This isn’t the first time where seemingly weak sides are questioned for their value to the World Cup.
It’s one of the perennial questions that is asked in every World Cup. Is the process meritocratic? Do sides that qualify deserve to be there over sides that missed out?
To me, it’s always been a bother that the determination of how many sides from each Confederation make the World Cup are done by politicians instead of teams earning it from the pitch.
This is the reason why there will always be mumbling that this Confederation deserves more spots or this Confederation should have less teams at the World Cup.
I believe the root of this problem is that World Cup qualification is segregated between Confederations. I don’t believe it’s a good idea that, to qualify to the World Cup, you only have to beat teams from your own region with the exception of the few Intercontinental Playoffs.
It’s such a shame that aside from the World Cup we don’t play against teams outside our Confederation in a competitive match.
So here I’ll present a new World Cup qualifying system that is radically different to the current system. In this system, no one can complain that their Confederation had too little, or not enough teams at the World Cup.
I will admit that I did not invent this idea. It was discussed on the Roar years ago and worked on by bloggers like Pippinu and others.
But there was never an article written about it, despite numerous suggestion that someone should do it.
The frst requirement is that there are only Four Confederations. So it will be the Americans, Europe, Africa and the Asian Pacific.
Second, we merge the Continental Championships with World Cup Qualifications.
Each Confederation will have their continental tournament with 16 teams, and whoever does not qualify to the Continental Championship gets eliminated from the World Cup early.
Third, the semi finalist of each continent will qualify directly to the World Cup. This means that it’s still a World Cup by ensuring that each Confederation has a minimum of 4 teams.
However, for the team that finishes 5th to 16th, they will go to the second round of World Cup qualifications.
So the 48 nations remaining from the four different Confederations are now allocated to 8 groups with 6 teams in them. Each group will not contain more then 2 teams from the same Confederation.
They will play home and away, and the top team of each group and the Top 7 second place team will qualify to the World Cup.
The 16 automatic qualifiers are placed in group of 4 to determine the top 7 seeds to ensure they get match practice before the World Cup.
I think despite any logistical issues, this will be a fairer and meritocratic system.
A Confederation could have as low as 4 teams in the World Cup to up to 17 (if the host was from that Confederation). So no Confederation can complain that they didn’t get enough spots than they deserve as they end up playing against teams from each Confederation to get there.
This will also finally end any debate about the relative strength of each Confederation.
Instead of one side boasting that their region is superior to other, they actually have to go out on the pitch and prove it. This can either confirm the European/South American dominance in world football, or it can give opportunities for lesser known countries from less fashionable regions to upstage and break the European/South American hegemony.
We can finally have a World Cup where we can’t really question the 32 teams that qualified there.
If you guys are not happy with this system, feel free to post up your own alternative non-segregated World Cup Qualifying system.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(97)
albe said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:46am | Report comment
the whole point of qualifying through regions is to make the Cup finals representative of the football world.
I don’t see any problem with the system as is, though i reckon Asia could do with an extra spot
There’s already fair representation from Europe and South America. I don’t see what changing the system would achieve. Can’t see any major calls for change tbh, the teams that miss out in 2010 probably don’t deserve to qualify.
Robbos said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:03am | Report comment
I totally agree, teams that miss out in 2010 either from Europe or Sth America probably don’t deserve to be there anyway, so why not help the emerging nations in the other regions.
Just because France or Portugal (which I think would be ashame because of Ronaldo) did not quality is because they did not deserve to, nothing to do with New Zealand or Houndras. I’m all for the minows qualifying, look at how Australia captured the imagination of the footballing world in 06 & it’s public over here, this is the REAL world cup.
Robbos said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:56am | Report comment
Viva la Nova Zealander. Well Done New Zealand. Enough said.
K B said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
I’ll second that… Well done New Zealand and I love their nick name “All Whites” anything but Sokkahwhites — just for the record I also love the Rugby nick name “All Blacks” that’s a real cool tag…
~~~~~~~~
KB
midfield general said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
I wonder how the nickname `All Whites’ will be received by South Africans….I know skin colour is the last thing Kiwis are implying here but may not be the case in some other places in the world. You can’t order a long black in the US, for example.
KB said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:10pm | Report comment
I agree, it could be tricky and totally misunderstood … I hope not, it would be a travesty
albe said | November 20th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
did u guys see the ‘WHITE POWER’ sign being held up at the NZ game on saturday? caught a quick glimpse in a crowd shot but they cut away pretty fast !!!
hope they don’t take that one with em to SA
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:07am | Report comment
albe
to be honest my main motivating reason for wanting this change in system simply because I just want to see Australia play sides from another confederation in a competitive match. I do not want to wait until it’s the world cup to take on the rest of the world
One of the things I hate is when Eurosnobs look down on anything outside Europe and South America and say we have an easy route, asia is an easy confederation.
Even if we beat those sides in friendly like we did against England and Holland and IReland. They will still say it’s just a friendly
In any case, wouldn’t you want to see Australia taking on Holland one week, USA the other week and lets say Egypt or Algeria the week after.
“it can give opportunities for lesser known countries from less fashionable regions to upstage and break the European/South American hegemony.”
This is what I firmly believe this system will do. I am absolutely convince that Europeans sides would not get 16-17 spots if this system is in place and that Africans, Asians will be able to stand on their two feets and get far more then 4 spots for the World Cup.
In any case, Africa and Asia are already guarantee 4 places in this system. They could get a lot more spots in this system if they are good enough. I believe Africa and Asia is good enough but I don’t have any proof and this change could prove me right or wrong whether my faith in the less reputable region is right.
This separation of confederation is just reinforcing European and South American dominance. I also don’t like politicians determining who gets how many spots as well.
Freud of Football said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
“In any case, wouldn’t you want to see Australia taking on Holland one week, USA the other week and lets say Egypt or Algeria the week after.” – Dasilva, while you are obviously Anti-European you might as well be Anti-Asian or Anti-Oceania.
How is Fiji or Samoa meant to afford what you propose? Flying to Holland one week, USA the next?
If you are worried about reinforcing the power of Europe and South America, then split the condfederations to spread the power, you’ve done exactly the opposite in your hypothesis.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
how could Fiji and Samoa be good enough to be top 16 in the Asia/Pacific region?
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
I’m not anti-european. I just like to see sides proving it out on the pitch rather then just looking down on a nation and assuming they are crap because of reputation
Whoever gets in deserves it.
Darwin hammer said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
The problem with the argument DS is it’s not all about Australia …. just because you or anyone else wants Aussie to be pitted against the world – doesn’t mean the whole footballing world should be reconfigured … and before that happens surely Australia should prove themselves in Asia first – like performing in the Asian Cup …
the world cup is a chance for all nations to get a sniff of what it’s like … never in my wildest dreams did I ever think NZ would qualify again – but they have and for them and the supporters they off again on a great journey – similar to possibly yourself in germany last time out … why deny them or Houndras, or T & T, Cameroon etc their chance to join the party – that’s what the W/cup is all about – it’s never been about the top 32 ….
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Darwin hammer
I think New Zealand will be beneficiary to this as much as all the other nations. They will probably get to have 10 matches against decent opposition
I’m not denying opportunity. I’m giving team from Africa and Asia who are 5th to 16th best side a challenge by bitting them against the 5th-6th best side of Americans and Europeans. I like to think I’m giving them more opportunity then less especially when Asia and Africa will already be guaranteed 4 spots in my system
The North American sides will probably be pissed with this system but Asian and Africans got nothing to complain about as it just gives them more opportunities to qualify
Darwin hammer said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Dasilva – i’m all for giving NZ a more meaningful qualification process – but I just don’t think the whole W/cup system needs to be revamped in order for it to happen or to satisfy those (and I’m not implying that this is you) who think the W/cup should try and get the best 32 teams in the world there ….
Oceania needs to lobby to be omitted into the 2nd round of Asian qualifiers thereby Asia has a firm 5 spots from the outset – and Oceania teams have a meaningful home and away qualification pathway …. NZ need to capitalise on the Wgtn crowd and try and ensure that they replicate that in the future
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
The main reason why I want this. Is I want to see Asia and Africa to show the world what they are made off.
What they made off may well be good or bad. I don’t know. I like to find out.
The thing is what happens if the depth of the confederation improves.
Let say that there has been a large improvement in the last 10 years in Africa. I strongly suspect that the 5th-16th best team are actually quite strong and give the europeans a run for their money
Well we’ll never know because they don’t play against each other in a competitive match. Only this system will find out.
Like I said before. who to say that Europe has too many places in the world cup. They may only deserve 10 instead of 13.
Well this will find out.
I like to think that this got the balance between meritocracy and world represention
I also believe that this is more of a globalised society and I think that the qualification should reflect that.
I also don’t like politicians in FIFA executives determining how many places a confederation should get
These things should be resolve on the field
Freud of Football said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:41am | Report comment
Dasilva, what do you mean we don’t play games against teams from other confederations??? Didn’t you hear that England played Brazil in Qatar? A pointless money making exercise but exactly what people like yourself seem to crave and not dissimilar to the dutch playing against Australia (I mean really, like they care, if we didn’t have Pim they wouldn’t even talk to Australia).
Further, combining the Federations into 4 would be about the worst thing that could happen to football – ok Blatter’s “WC every 2 years” was worse, but that is certainly up there.
The Confederations must to an extent remain in place as there is no point in Australia having to play Luxembourg in qualifiers, remember there are still a lot of poor nations in world football and not everyone can jet around the world with their amateur sides to get thumped by the powerhouses of the game which is what would happen if Fiji enters Asia.
Further, by diluting the power you will simply further corruption and ruin the sport even more.
I’d prefer to see a version of the “Sub-Federations” – ASEAN, WAFF etc. – be used for qualifications. As they stand, most are comprised of 10-20 teams which is enough to stage qualifying. Further, this would give some more of the “lesser” nations more of the power, as it stands the smaller countries get sucked into the massive federations who aren’t there to look out for their interests and while they still have their vote, those votes are generally cast as part of the federation who all vote one way.
The only problem would be dividing Europe up “fairly”, most other areas could be divided along geographic/cultural/ethnic lines without to much of a problem and we’d lose the “unfairness” of having Australia fly all the way to Bahrain when many other countries don’t have to travel more than 2 hours for their entire campaign.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment
I said we don’t play COMPETITIVE matches against other confederation – eg. WCQ not friendlys
Again I said that the initial stages will be done via geographics term
Just the second round will there be separation.
In any case its very unlikely that Australia will play Luxembourg.
when has Luxembourg ever been a top 16 side in Europe.
Quite frankly Freud. I’m not even too sure you even actually read what I’m saying.
If you read my comments I realise before that we play friendly against European sides that don’t mean anything. Quite frankly I want competitive matches not exhibition matches that are meaningless
Combining Confederation in to 4 – I’m not particularly fussed either way. I just did that out of convenience sake. If someone can create a better system without that then fine. I just would like to see a WCQ where teams get to play regularly against other confederation.
To be honest I believe this system would not humiliate other confederation. I don’t believe the gap of let say France or whatever to San Marino is as big as gap as France to Bahrain etc
We only using the top 16 sides of each confederation. Therefore I don’t forsee massive floggings on a regular basis.
Freud of Football said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Well conveniences sake might just ruin the game of football. You’d end up with a pure dictatorship and dilute the power even more than it is now, to the detriment of smaller nations and the benefit of the FIFA officials lining their pockets.
On San Marino. I think the European micro-nations are far more likely to receive the floggings, they only get accepted because it provides extra votes for UEFA.
How often do you hear of good players coming from these little countries? Very rarely mainly because their population is equivalent to that of a small city. I’m not saying Bahrain would flog San Marino but my money would certainly not be on SM.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
Look Bahrain will never play San Marino in this system
The top 16 sides from each confederation will face each other off for WCQ
Every team from each confederation will have opportunities to become the top 16 from each confederation
I’m taking WCQ positions out of the politicians hands and onto the field like it should be
Freud of Football said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
You’re removing everyone who isn’t a power nation is what you’re doing. You would basically be excluding Australia because their FIFA rank doesn’t tell the real story.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
How?
The Top 4 will automatically 4 qualify
That’s already how much Asian teams have at the world cup.
So we are not taking away spots from Asia. We are only taking 1-2 spots from Africa. however those african teams can get more if they are good enough. if they aren’t then they get 4
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
I’m not removing anyone
If you are San Marino, Latvia and Fiji or Samoa. You will have to qualify to to become the top 16 of your confederation
You are not excluded from WCQ. It just WCQ takes part earlier.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
My point on San Marino is this
The 2nd round of WCQ in my system (although I didn’t thought it up)
The weakest team in European group will be San Marino, Kazahstan etc
The weakest team in my system
Will be Oman, Kuwait etc
Therefore it will actually be a bit more difficult for the Europeans side to qualify. It will be like Croatia, Venezuela, Oman, Algeria, USA, Bahrain
That’s a pretty tough group and the top 2 qualifies to the world cup. I wouldn’t say it’s a guarantee that the European or South American side will make it.
Luke W said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Like Jesse Fink wrote in his TWG blog, its the best teams OF the world, not the best teams IN the world. No one wants to see 32 teams from Europe and South America.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Come on Luke W
Did you actually read the article
Did you actually read my following comments that I believe that this is opportunities for Africa and Asia to get more spots if they are good enough.
32 teams from south america and europe will be impossible in this system.
The only way Asia and Africa can get better is by standing on their two feet and taking on sides on different confederation on a regular basis.
Freud of Football said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:10am | Report comment
Dasilva, Africa and Asia AREN’T good enough. Look at the teams from Europe and South America that have missed out. They’d likely wipe the floor with the Asian and African teams that did qualify, let alone those who weren’t good enough to make the cut.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
If they aren’t good enough so be it. they will have 4 teams at the world cup as minimum
However they will have opportunities to take on other teams and get more if they are good enough. If they aren’t then the realise they have target to improved on by playing against them regularly.
If the european sides are so much better then Asian and Africans. They they have to prove it.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Really the only sides that lose by this system is probably north america due to their merger with south america. I admit the merger may not be ideal. L
Really Africa and Asia really only stands to gain. They don’t lose anything and they just get opportunities for more
Robbos said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
What like Ireland & Australia?
Tom said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Bit tough on Africa.
Ghana, Ivory Coast, NIgeria and Cameroon would at least be on a par with any of the European countries that didn’t qualify. In terms of the quality of the players, at any rate.
Robbos said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Russia is out of the World cup, can we have Guus back now.
Robbos said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Ronaldo will grace the World cup, fitness permitting as Portugal advances with 1-0 win over Bosnia. But Arshavin will not.
Fisher Price said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
And neither will John O’Shea.
AndyRoo said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
I think Dasilva’s system is quite good but I am happy enough with the status quo except I don’t think NZ got a fair run. Every team should be allowed at least 6 comeptitive games to show they deserve an automatic spot (i am aware some of the really small nations go straight to a playoff before the group stage even though).
Europe get plenty of spots. It’s very important that Asia some how comes up with a competition to rival the ECL. When the top club competiton in the world remains set up so that each team starts with 8 european plyers and at most 3 non european players they are going to have the advantage.
Either the AFC leagues have to keep developing or the AFC have to do something radical like form a petro dollar funded super league in the middle east.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Thanks Andyroo. At least you actually read it and understood it.
My system is based on curiosity in how sides will go ahead.
This status quo isn’t bad but I don’t like how WC spots are determine in the board room by FIFA executives
I like to see the Confederation becoming closer together and competing together more often more often
I like to see stuff like Global Champions Leagues in club football as well where we have clubs from different confederation duking it out. But that’s another article
People look down on a region even though they never or seldomly play against each other.
This will finally settle the debate one way or the other. Maybe I’m too optimistic and overate the 5-16 best sides of Africa and Asia. I’ll know they will not disgrace themselves.
Fisher Price said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
I like the idea of just four conferations instead of the current six.
Not sure the CONCACAF nations would concur.
K B said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Dasilva,
it’s not broke, no need to change the system… What we have works very well logistically and the smaller minnows get to share in the billions of TV dollars from the current system… NZ the 5th best team from Asia/Oceania are going to get $10m to grow their football at grass roots level…
Besides we have the FIFA Confederation’s cup which is not too dissimilar to what you have put forward and no one gets too excited over that tournament—although it grabs my attention…
With the current system; every 208 member nations/states gets its chance to rise through the ranks, to get to the final 32 spots, which gives each country in each confederation a real chance of sharing in the multi billion dollar pot..
More importantly, for those minnows, a sense of real participation to celebrate football in a true global sense…
It does make me wonder if only the top nations compete in the final 32 spots how many George Bests, Ryan Giggs, or our own Harry Kewell would have wanted to turn out for their native countries—they would all be trying to find a distant relative to play for Brazil, England, or who ever…
Then who could blame Craig Johnston for not wanting to play for Australia..
Everyone should know by know that, the real business end of the WC tournament doesn’t start until the final sixteen are sorted out, and those who get that far really do deserve to be there…
~~~~~~~
KB
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
KB
In this system 208 member states get a chance as well
Also we will have a far more exotic and diverse match up.
Maybe it ain’t broke, but there’s no harm speculating alternative system.
With globalisation the world is coming more and more close and I like to think that the World Cup Qualifiers should reflect that.
K B said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Fair enough Das, not totally dismissing the concept… However, how would the clubs view the increase travel, of their top players being jet lagged and such … not sure if there would be much difference, but I suspect there would be more cross continent flying from one to the other… If this is so, then the players, will not be in good shape, for their respective clubs, and in the end, it’s the clubs that pay the wages to perform at their very peak fitness for the club, not the player’s country..
I would hate to be a manager under that system, with my top players flying all over the world, only to have them turn up jet lagged for an important club match; not saying that, that does not already happen with our own, but the European managers and their CEOs will have a lot to say about it I’m sure… I couldn’t see them agreeing to the new structure without heatedly protesting to such a radical new system…
~~~~~~
KB
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
Well they all have to experience what the Socceroos have to experience everytime they play for Australia so I don’t have much sympathy to the club managers.
KB said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Das, I think you just answered your own thoughts … and that’s why it wouldn’t come to pass
Ben of Phnom Penh said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
The unknown teams create the magic of the World Cup. I’m going to be cheering on Slovenia (provided they don’t play us). The current system allows for meritocracy to be tempered with romance, and that’s what cup competitions are about are they not.
Darwin hammer said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
well said Ben
Tom said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Yeah I tend to agree.
For their own sake, I hope Slovenia can be more competitive than they were last time.
Will also be interesting to see how Honduras, Algeria, N.Korea and of course New Zealand go after pretty long absences.
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there is a country who’ll be competing at their first world cup, unless you count Slovakia.
aubgraham said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
That’s right. In fact, FIFA considers both the Czech Republic and Slovakia as successor teams of Czechoslovakia, so no team making its first World Cup appearances for the first time ever。
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
If anything else, this system will create more magic in the unknown teams
Imagine the profile of countries like Benin, Mozambique, Kuwait gets visited by teams like England, Holland, France etc
Imagine if there is an upset.
Don’t say that’s impossible. I’ll tell you what, this system will be more difficult for the european qualifiers then what they already have. There will be no minnows like San Marino, Kazahstan, Luxenbourg etc.
aubgraham said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
I am always torn on this issue. In my heart, I want the World Cup to representative of the World but, in my head, I think it is only fair that the best teams are represented. On a theoretical level I your suggestion a lot since it seems to strike a reasonable balance between the two objectives. Certainly, Asia and Africa couldn’t really lose with this system. But I don’t think there is anyway CONCACAF or CONMEBOL (or UEFA) would ever go for it. The Americas would go from 8 guaranteed spots under the current system to 4 and Europe would go from 13 to 4. Of course, they have a chance to get even more through the ensuing qualification process, but only by 3 in the case of Europe. In fact, you would probably get similar complaints to the ones you get know – UEFA doesn’t get enough teams in the round of 48 (Based on ELO ratings here is the group that would miss out on the round of 48 – Romania, Greece, Ireland, Norway) .
But ignoring these considerations the rest is easy to implement. OFC could be absorbed into Asia fairly easily and there are 14 FIFA official match day between summer 2012 and December 2014.
Two suggested changes
1. The automatic qualifiers to playoff in 4 groups of 4 with the top 2 then qualifying for the 8 team Confederations cup held in 2013. There are 6 official FIFA match days between summer 2012 and April 2013 so it could be done. To be honest I think it would be a UEFA/Americas affair but I am sure it would generate more interest than the current version. It would viewed much more like a mini World Cup. Actually, I think it would be a real money spinner for FIFA. And imagine if Australia qualified in this way. An example group could be Australia, Cameroon, Mexico, Spain (very tasty).
2. Penalise the home confederation one of their automatic spots (this would also be able to incorporate dual host bids). Just a personal preference, I guess but I think ‘home’ confederation advantage is already advantage enough.
Does the small nation get screwed in this, yep. But I hardly think more than now. If you only have a million people you are always going to struggle against larger nations. Maybe FIFA could run a secondary invitational tournament (Plate) for teams that don’t make their regional qualifiers, maybe a FA style tournament with regional knockout until the last 16.
One other suggestion from somewhere else I read that had merit and was also based on the four confederation system was to guarantee 4 places to each region and then award the remaining places based on the last 16 at the previous World Cup. It is remarkable how little the composition changes from year to year based on this system and how close they are to the current system – Europe gets one more, Asia gets one less. This would require little change to the current setup, except for the one big issue of merging CONCACAF and CONMEBOL.
Ah, it’s fun to speculate
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Thanks Aubgraham
Yeah penalising the home nation by taking an automatic qualifer seems a good idea. It certainly makes thing simple in the round of 48 where the top 2 teams qualify.
I think the big problem with my system is the merger of the two Americans which is a pretty strong regions. People can argue that CONCACAF has more football pedigree then Asia and yet they wll be penalised the most. I’m not too sure how to get around that. Unless we have 20 automatic qualifiers top 4 from each confederation.
12 spots to qualify from 48 teams in the 2nd round qualifiers (same system except the 2nd place team play off. the Americans allocation will have 6 CONMEBOL and 6 CONCACAF). However I’m absolutely sure that the European sides will be livid with this arrangement and will never go for it.
In any case, I remember reading about USA being inspired by Australia moving into Asia and them and Mexico are thinking about moving to qualifying through South America as well. SO why not. I think USA and Mexico, costa rica and honduras have competed in Copa America in the past so it’s already a combined CONCACAF and CONMEBOL competition.
To be honest I think the small nations have more to benefit from my system
Teams who currently have no chance of qualifying to the world cup (such as the 15th and 16 best Asian, African and even american sides) get to play against each other and against European teams. It will be a great experience to them and they may actually develop and improve.
I think when Saudi Arabia got hammered last two world cups. I don’t particular believe it was because they were that bad of a team. I just think they were just inexperience playing against European or differents style of opposition and couldn’t handle it. This will raise the standards of other confederation I believe.
aubgraham said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
I agree that combining CONCACAF and CONMEBOL has merit and that there is a quasi-union already in place through the Copa America. The financial aspect could be the one thing that makes it work. If the U.S. have enough confidence that they will consistently be in the top 8 then it could happen.
However, South America is quite fond of its current qualifying format – single table, and Jack Warner is fond if his position as the head of CONCACAF, so I don’t see any merger any time soon. When Australia move to AFC it had OFC blessing. I don’t see Mr Warner being so generous.
Another practical problem with all this is that of different time zones. Travel for the teams is not a problem but you lose money by playing in a timezone that is in the middle of the night back home. The current system avoids (almost) all this by keeping things regional.
As for the small nations, I think you need to distinguish between 50-100 and the rest. I agree nations like Saudi Arabia, China, New Zealand, Honduras, Senegal would benefit. The rest would be out of the running before they started. That’s why I like the FA cup idea – an international Europa League if you like. Maybe I’m wrong but I imagine teams like India or Jamaica would be interested (what else do they have to play for). Each confederation submits 2 or 4 teams to the quarterfinals or round of 16. Given there are approx. 200 nations and only 5 possible pieces of silverware (under the 4 confed system) one more piece of silverware wouldn’t go astray.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
It’s true that some of the nations will be out of the running at the start. however that’s true in every WCQ system.
It’s no worst then the minnows who are destine to finish last in any euro group.
HOwever saying that . I don’t think there will be many 100+ ranking sides who will make the final 48.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
I’ll say this I’m not anti-minnow
I also think that New Zealand deserve to get to the world cup
Nevertheless if you think about it. If this system gets implemented
New Zealand will be a benefactor of this
Firstly they get regular matches. They get to qualify to the Asian Pacific Cup
If they don’t get automatic qualification to the world cup by reaching the semi finals (which is not impossible for New Zealand)
They go to the second round qualification playing 10 matches against world class opposition. I’m quite the New Zealand public will get behind them and they will all be high profile matches for that team
So how am I anti-minnow
How often do Oman, Kuwait, Algeria, Mozambique, Trinadad Tobago get to play competitive matches against European and South American opponent. It will be a great opportunity for them.
Freud of Football said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Dasilva, you mightn’t be anti-minnow or anti-European or anti-anything-anti. However the system you have prescribed shows a strong bias towards those who already hold the power, both in football politics and on the field.
You basically want to dilute that power further and give less people more power and that in turn will force the lesser nations out of qualification (an avenue where they earn a lot of their revenue) and they will never improve.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
This is what I’m doing
I’m reducing the guaranteed europeans side from 13 sides to the world cup to 4.
I’m reducing the guaranteed american side of 8 to 4
Asia and Africa has nothing to complain about my system. They are both guaranteed 4 spots in the world cup. Which is not much dfference to what they already have. Now I’m giving them the opportunity to win more spots if they are good enough. IN this system England would be knocked out of WCQ two years ago
As noted by other posters on the board, It’s the europeans and the americans who have most to lose. It’s the europeans who have less to gain as well. This will be pretty much them gambling 7 world cup spots to win another 3 more which I don’t think they will win any more..
The smaller confederation have everything to gain by this.
Freud of Football said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
What you are doing is essentially going from 6 federations with their own qualification processes which generally filter in the best of that region to 4 federations.
Immediately you are taking power out of some very powerful people’s hands and putting more into other already very powerful hands.
You go from 6 to 4. Then we decides Western Hemisphere vs. Eastern and have just 2 supreme beings in football. Then no federations and we have a football dictatorship.
It’s hard enough as it is with 6 federation to keep the game free of corruption, why would we want to give less people more power?
It makes a lot more sense to spread the current power bases out further so rather than Jack Warner having his 30-odd votes to back Blatter to get re-elected (which include various minnow-nations who are forced to do what Warner wants) or the 40 or 50 odd Asian nations, who vote in a block as delegated by Bin Hammam so as to not rub those in their own federation the wrong way.
You will only increase the gap – both on and off the field – by diluting the power even more.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
Fair enough
That your biggest issues is with cutting the number of confederation down. I admit that’s the biggest issue in doing this
In any case, one of the biggest influence that the fifa executive have is how many spots does a nation have at the world cup. This would take that decision out of hte hands of the fifa board and put it into the players on the pitch. Therefore the FIFA executive does actually lose some of its power. Honestly I don’t really see a big deal with merging.
However my main point of this article is more about the need of confederation playing each other in competitive matches rather then cutting the confederation down.
If you want an alternative system with no merger between north and south america
20 automatic qualifiers top 4 from the 5 confederation, .48 teams split in 8 groups of 6 in the 2nd round qualifiers (the Americans allocation will have 6 CONMEBOL and 6 CONCACAF).
The top team of each group qualifies. 2nd place team will play off.
There you go, each confederation guarantee 4 places at the world cup. The rest is up for grabs and the europeans will be really pissed with this arrangement as it’s quite likely they’ll get less spots for the world cup. no mergers between CONCACAF and CONMEBOL.
Is that better?
Chuq said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
If this system was in place now, who would be the qualifiers?
The top 4 from the last Asian, European, South American and Africa championships: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Korea, Japan, Egypt, Cameroon, Ghana, Cote d’Iviore, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Uruguay, Spain, Germany, Russia, Turkey.
I’m assuming no OFC nation would make it to the top 4, and conveniently enough the Copa America has “invitees” to their tournaments, one of which in the most recent tournament was 3rd placed Mexico, a CONCACAF member.
The other 12 from each group:
Asia and Europe, easy – the 12 remaining qualifiers for the continental comps.
America – I included the other 7 CONMEBOL teams, the other top 3 CONCACAF teams from the last gold cup, and have two more spaces to fill – just called “America 15″ and “America 16″ for now.
Africa – South Africa, who qualify as hosts, were one of the 16 teams, so they must be replaced, just called “Africa 16″ for now.
A bit of randomness and the eight groups are:
Australia (24), Benin, Colombia, Netherlands (3), Bahrain, Guinea
Costa Rica (43), Poland, China, Mali, Ecuador (44), Portugal (10)
Indonesia, Morocco, Honduras (35), Romania (36), Iran, Namibia
Paraguay (21), Sweden, Malaysia, Nigeria (32), Peru, Switzerland
Oman, Senegal, United States (11), Austria (58), Qatar, Sudan
Venezuela, Croatia (8), Thailand, Tunisia, Bolivia, Czech Republic (15)
United Arab Emirates, Zambia, [America 15], France (9), Uzbekistan (80), [Africa 16]
[America 16], Greece (16), Vietnam, Angola, Chile (17), Italy (4)
Top two FIFA Ranked teams in each group are marked (plus Chile and Ecuador, for interests sake, since they came so close). Using these as a basis as to who would come first and second in the group and the top two in the group, the 15 qualifiers would be:
Australia, Netherlands, Portugal, Costa Rica, Honduras, Romania, Paraguay, Nigeria, US, Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Greece.
Now what does this give us?
5 Asia-Oceania
5 Africa + host
8 America
13 Europe
Well what do you know? That is EXACTLY what we have now. (ignoring the continental merges – of the 8 Americas it is a 4/4 split rather than 5/3 as we have now)
Rather funny, as I always thought the only imbalance with the current split is that North America has too many, and they would actually be better off under this “more fair” version.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
It’s nice to see someone put some effort in it.
It may end up exactly the same qualifiers. however it will be a far more interesting qualification process especially to see continental match up.
Also if it does bring out exactly like we have now. We will have no more complaining from Europe that they have not enough spots.
AndyRoo said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
Just looking at the probable Uefa Pot for SA2010
Pot 2 (UEFA)
Denmark
Greece
Netherlands
Portugal
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Switzerland
That has to be the least scary that the UEFA pot has ever looked. Especially since there is a good chance Ronldo would be out injured.
They are all decent teams that have had to beat other teams to qualify but hardly of the quality that makes me go “Europe needs more places!”
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
That’s why I think this new system will be good. It’s quite possible they will get even less places and that we underate the other confederation.
I actually think 13 is about right for Europe for the World cup
However no matter how many places a teams get, they can’t say it’s unfair.
I’m pretty astounded that people think this system will lead to some sort of Euro dominance. If any thing the european sides will complain the most about this system.
In any case, unless we get neterlands and portugal. I believe Australia got more to worry about from the CAF/CONMEBOL pot then the European pot. I don’t fance us taking on any african sides and the South Americans sides are pretty strong as well.
Tom said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Not sure why you’d say that AndyRoo. Apart from Slovenia and possibly Greece, they’re all very strong footballing nations who’ll have squads full of players from Europe’s top leagues.
AndyRoo said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
Their decent teams, they got through (apart from Switzerland) very tough qualifying groups. But compared to previous years they don’t look as intimidating.
Perhaps because the rest of the world are a little better but the gap between teams seems much smaller now. It might just be me personally but I think apart from avoiding Holland you are eqaully concerned about who you could get in the Afica/Sth American pot which is a first for me.
Tom said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Yeah, thats probably a fair call. At least four of the African teams have very strong squads.
Chile are the dark horse from South America. Did superbly in qualifying, but on paper their squad isn’t really all that special.
They managed to beat Slovakia in a friendly the other day I see.
Art Sapphire said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
dasilva – Each confederation wants a guaranteed number of places at the WC. These are the golden tickets that they squabble for on behalf of their members when they go to FIFA. Sorry to say, but all the alternate scenarios that are being presented here are pretty much dead in the water.
The real discussion point today is Ireland being denied a fair chance to go the the WC by a terrible refereeing blunder.
Unfortunately, The Roar has not posted an article today in regards to this massive story.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
I know this scenario will have next to zero chance in making it because of it’s pretty radical
I doubt europe will be happy reducing their guaranteed places from 13 to 4 even if they could potentially get 16 by playing well.
However, I think it’s ok to present alternative system. I don’t like the confederation segregation in football. I would like to see a global champions league in club football. It’s about time the world see what other confederation has to offer whether that is good or bad. I don’t like politcians squabbling over World Cup places. Leave it to the pitch not the politician, That’s how sport should be
Alas it will never happen but there’s no harm presenting a new idea,
_____________
Yeah saw the hand ball. It was a disgrace
But no article can be written until the next day art. They only update their website about 4-5 o’clock every morning.
AndyRoo said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
It was fun day dreaming about the potential match ups and I really enjoyed Chuqs work at forming groups.
Art Sapphire said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
The Roar has in the past published breaking stories during the day – not from us posters but sourced from News Agencies.
Its disappointing that they missed Henry – Hand of Frog.
Brian said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
Why not just get rid of the confederations altogether. Take the top 186 teams in the rankings (No one below this ranking has ever made the World Cup) and have 31 global groups with 6 teams each, winners go through + hosts to make 32. Obviously that would be harsh on whoever drew Brazil but then coming 2nd to the world cup winner, then copping the runner-up in a take all playoff and being denied by a ridiculuos refereeing blunder isn’t all that different.
Art Sapphire said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
Brian – so in effect you would like to see a group like this
Mali, Bolivia, North Korea, Germany, Canada, New Zealand
If you can’t see why your suggestion is ridiculous – please seek advice
Brian said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Actually I would keep the confederation but in any event I can see your still bitter about your misunderstanding of how FIFA will allocate the pots for the 2010 draw.
Art Sapphire said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
I am not bitter Brian,
I was just making a quick witty point which you understood straight away. So it worked.
Anyone can make a mistake and I will admit as much if FIFA draw up there pots as you described. Unlike some other posters, I don’t have pretensions of infallibility.
Mick of Newie said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Well done Das a great suggestion. I feel your frustration that so few posters actually read it.
You have identified the major weakness in that there is not much upside for Europe. The Americas would also go from 8 to 4 guaranteed spots. For Asia and Africa there is only upside. The other weaknesses are that the 16 pre qualified teams don’t play a competitive match for 2 years and some of the logistics would be problematic.
It would be good for Asia and Australia.
On a related topic 2012 will be a big world cup for Asia, the 5th placed team did not come through the playoff, if no Asian team goes to the second round quesrtions will again be asked why Asia deserves 4.5 spots.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Thanks Mick for realising that this actually benefits the underdog confederation more then the superpowers. Can’t believe I was accused of being anti-asian for this.
I just hope that Europe will feel confident in their own ability. They keep on saying they are the best confederation in the world and they should have more spots. They can prove it as well by getting more spots if they are good enough. However, I admit that people like the safety of guarantees.
Well I did say the teams who qualified directly get divided to groups of 4 for battle for world cup seeding (although aub graham suggest perhaps they should battle to qualify for the confederation cup). It may not be as competitive as a real WCQ but I don’t think they will be detrimented to much by it as it never stops host from doing well without competitive matches.
I think one thing I had to worry about is that teams that miss out for the top 16 in a confederation will not play any competitive for 2 years. I think that will get this idea shot down more then anything and I believe the european countries will complaint vehemantly about this. Imagine England getting knocked out from Euro and then they have nothing to do until the next cycle. I’m liking this idea even more.
Brian said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
One problem with any kind of global group is the potential political problems if the US is drawn with Iran or England with Zimbabwe or Israel with any Arab nation. The Algerian teams bus was attacked before their clash in Cairo last week, can you imagine if that was the German or US team bus?
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Not forgetting Israel and virtually any Arab country. Israel vs Iran will be a cracker (although israel did play Iran numerous times before they were kicked out of Asia. So if they can handle it then any country should be able to)
There’s an option of playing on neutral territory in times like this. It could be overcome. ALthough that is admittingly a huge obstacle
Chuq said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
I’ve been a bit bored at work so have created a spreadsheet that automates my previous calculations.
Direct entry to WC:
1st-4th from last Asian Cup
1st-4th from last African Nations Cup
1st-4th from last Copa America (includes 3 CONMEBOL and 1 CONCACAF nation)
1st-4th from last Euros
Qualifer groups of 12 nations each:
1: 5th-16th from last Asian Cup, exclude lowest ranked (Malaysia #150) add highest OFC nation (New Zealand #83)
2: 5th-16th from last African Cup, exclude South Africa (hosts), add highest ranked nation that didn’t compete (Algeria #29)
3: All 7 remaining CONMEBOL nations and 5 highest ranked CONCACAF nations (USA #11 through to Jamaica #69)
4: 5th-16th from last Euros
Note: “ranked” refers to latest (Oct 2009) FIFA Rankings.
Randomise above nations into eight groups of six.
Take the eight group winners, and the eight runner-ups, exclude the lowest ranked of the eight runner ups.
Count how many of the six EXISTING confederation nations end up with the 15 qualifier spots. Add four to Europe, Africa, Asia’s totals; Add three to CONMEBOL and one to CONCACAF (as per the “Direct entry to WC” info above). Total should come to 31. (On the odd occasion it didn’t, it was usually because two nations had the same rank and my “find lowest ranked nation” didn’t allow for that, and I just re-ran the simulation)
I ran the simulation 30 times and got the following results – numbers refer to the average number of spots allocated to each existing confederation, as well as the min/max range:
Eu – 12.9 (12-15)
Af – 5.33 (4-7)
As – 4.57 (4-5)
SA – 5.03 (3-7)
NA – 3.17 (2-5)
Oc – 0
New Zealand didn’t make it once – from observation, the highest they made it in any group was 4th place. I could probably swap out the lowest ranked Asian nation (Vietnam #134) for Fiji #108 to give them a bit more of a chance but I don’t think it would make much difference.
Apart from that, the end results look EXTREMELY close to the existing method!
Of course this doesn’t allow for:
a) upsets
b) some nations ranks are due to the fact that they play higher ranked nations more often – regular international competition may change the rankings
If I had the time I would run a simulator for each match in each qualifier round, rather than just going by FIFA Rank, but I think I’ve spent enough time on this already
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
I’m glad you are putting a lot of effort into this.
I believe the point b) is pertinent
If you are in a less well known confederation. You rarely have the opportunity to play against good sides in a competitive match therefore no opportunities to advance the rankings. Therefore the sides qualities will be underrepresented.
Australia was rank 87 in the world when we were in Oceania. We were no where that bad.
If this system get in place. The FIFA ranking will actually mean something
Ben of Phnom Penh said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
One issue for a system like this is the devaluation of the confederation cups, which are currently tournaments in their own right. This would reduce the number of competitive fixtures that smaller, developing football nations currently enjoy. Cambodia is a good example, it would halve the meagre amount of continental fixtures that it already has. That may not be an issue for Japanese or French television viewers however for Cambodians it is a real issue. Why should they not be able to turn up to the rough concrete benches of the national stadium in the blazing heat and cheer on their team with Don Quixote-esqe zeal? The Asian system usually means that they’re playing a Macau or a Turkmenistan in an early elimination round anyway.
The continental competitions are also about participation, not just winning. There are both entertainment and development factors that would suffer under the proposed system. The benefits of effectively halving the qualification rounds would have a direct and detrimental effect upon football development.
dasilva said | November 21st 2009 @ 11:44pm | Report comment
I’m not too sure about the point you are making hiere
Cambodia currently plays about 5 competitive matches every 4 years now anyway (not including the South East Asian games). 3 in terms of qualification ot the AFC challenge cup and about 2 in the WCQ.
So really you are just taking away about 2 games from their itinerary. THis can be made up at the beginning of the 4 year cycle
I’m quite sure if there is turning the continental championship into a pseudo WCQ the AFC will restructure the qualifying process to make it more intensive to qualify to the Asia Cup and will make up the loss of games for Cambodia in the beginning.
I also think that turning the Asia cup in to a pseudo WCQ will actually increase the prestige of the Asia Cup more then anything else.
There will
Rock lobster said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
hey dasilva! first of all congrats for throwing it out there, u cop some flack but no-one can come up with a hair cut everyone likes, let alone the biggest sporting event in the world! at first i was sceptical but i see good points and bad! firstly, congrats to new zealand, they have ensured this will be the most truly WORLD cup. No-one can deny them their spot yet i find it strange everyone is focused on them so much when theyre not the lowest ranked team to qualify(nz-83, korea dpr-91). With a fair draw and some determination there is nothing to say they wont be competitive(for anyone who didnt see their qualifing matches, there defence was exceptional). in agreence with your format it would be great to see countrys that are lucky to play a decent side once a decade get more of an opportunity to play some quality teams. Even though they might get spanked, from my own experiences, i and my team learn 100x more getting beaten 10-0 than winning 10-0. no-one can deny the australians have increased 10 fold since playing better teams more often. how ever on the other hand, i think it will take time for some of the lower teams to catch up. looking at the rankings i would suggest the remaining 16 spots would be taken by mainly european and south american teams this world cup( lowest ranked european team to qualify is equal to the 3rd highest asian team to qualify)so even under your proposal, i would doubt the 5th place asian or african teams would qualify leaving 4 asian, 4 african,16 european and 8 south american teams(at a guess) which would no doubt have a huge impact on veiwing ratings and massively on team parafanalia(?) sold in countries who can make it under the current system but would fall short under your proposal. living in australia, 10 years ago people who said they liked soccer(football) were called poofters and alienated as weak or not strong enough to play afl. that all changed when we made the last world cup, now there is no shame in being a football player. while i think your idea is great on merit i think more teams from the smaller continents need to progress slightley more until your idea can be truly succsessful. mabey 2022? under any circumstances whats the point of getting to the world cup if you cant finish in the top 2 of 6 teams in a european group. if ya cant do that ya might as well stay at home anyway and let teams like nz, honduras or korea have a go, get a great experience and inspire a nation to back there team, have kids admire and aspire to be the next great player of there country and hopefully this game will become the true world game.
dasilva said | November 21st 2009 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
Thanks Rock Lobster
I seriously doubt that Europeans are good enough to get 16 spots in the World Cup. If a side such as greece is poolled in the same group as Paraguay, Iran, Egypt etc. I will be betting that Greece will be the one that will miss out.
My suspicion is that I believe the smaller regions are better then suspected and would trouble all the sides.
It will be a great hypothetical scenario. how would European sides handling travelling to middle east in 40 degree heat to play against iraq, kuwait
How would they fair travelling to ecuador have to play in high altitude with little climatisation.
Europeans teams will have a far more difficult WCQ then they normally experience back in Europe. I suspect that if this system is in place it would show that 13 is about right or maybe less.
Remember this, no european sides has ever won the world cup outside europes.
When it comes to travelling and handling conditions, europeans are softies.
Norm said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Slightly off topic but does anyone think the FFA should be making any discrete enquires of Guus to see if he is interested in getting his old job back (which of course means sacking Pim)?
KB said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Good call Norm, I know that the CRSL Ladies Auxiliary would definitely be 100% behind it, and so would I …
~~~~~~~
KB
Norm said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
I thought you might be KB.
KB said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
Norm,
you have me now seriously thinking about Guss’s position… He’s a manager who doesn’t usually like to go over old ground…. However, if an offer came in from the NZ All Whites… That may definitely motivate him, and my bet would be he would take it up…
KB said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
In fact he would probably do it for nix (no pun intended)
AndyRoo said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
They don’t call him aussie gus for nothing….. like all good ausies he will forget his ruski friends and sign for Manche$ter city.
taught Lucas everything he noes and good on him
milhouse1 said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
croatia, ukraine russia and even ireland deserve to be at the world cup. expand the game. blah blah blah. if we really did have the best 32 teams in the world at the world cup you’d be lucky if 2 teams from africa and asia would be there. concacaf wouldnt be represented at all for mine. But thats just my opinion. I’d like o see a world cup with 25 teams from europe. then you could say you have the best teams playing. But that will never happen and ill keep dreaming!!!
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
It’s times like this that make me wish we have this system so we can prove you wrong.
Midfielder said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
Das KN & Norm
Having Guus back …..HHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMmmmmmmmm interesting and not a stuipd idea… maybe sack Arnold Out at the same time…
Das well tho out article and well written as always … I think it is just about right now with two exceptions… The winner in Oceania should go to the play offs in Asia… North Amercia get one less spot and Europe loose half a spot…
I think that Europe iis way over rated and outside the top 12 or so sides they are ordinary … they have 54 sides of which 30 are piss poor and another 12 or so not that good ….It’s about time someone had a long hard look at Europe …
KB said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
I agree with what you said about Europe… It has lost a lot of quality countries, someone at FIFA should review the real strengh of it…
Midfielder said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
KB & Norm
Foozie wants Guus … http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/grab-guus-for-socceroos-foster-20091119-iokx.html
Midfielder said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
KB & Norm
Just cannot see how Pim would be happy to hand over to Guus as Fozzie implies…and remember in ACTUAL CURRENT FACTS wants to replace the guy that qualified us top of our group, above Japan, with someone who failed to get Russia through after a playoff with Slovenia?
Must be Fozzia is in love..a song for Fozzie just for Guus ………. Fozzie Fozzie Fozzie’s in Love ( if you are old enough to remember this song change Tammy to Fozzie)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQqSdx-uljA
Norm said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:33pm | Report comment
Midfielder
I’m sure Pim would NOT be happy to hand over to Guus or anyone else.
dasilva said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
Agree with that
Also because of that. Guus will not accept the job
Guus and Pim are probably friends
Guus wouldn’t backstab his mate wouldn’t he as this is what returning to the socceroos will mean.
Shahsan said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
Good thinking, dasilva, but like all sensible ideas, you know you have no chance of it ever being implemented.
In an ideal world, there would be a system like yours — maybe not exactly like it, but something close — so that we have the best 32 teams in the world and not just 32 representatives from all the regions of the world.
If we do go with your system, i would go with top TWO from each of the four regions, for I think Asia/Oceania would be overrepresented with 4.
After that, let the cards fall where they may.
I suspect your main objectors would be the offcials of the lesser, underperforming regions, especially the likes of Jack Warner and the trough dwellers in the FIFA family, whose days at the World Cup party could be numbered.
Your other objectors would be the greenies, of course — imagine all the extra cross-continental flights!
jimbo said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
I think Guus would be more valuable to our Quest for the Holy WC Grail as a central stiker – with Viduka unlikely and Aussie Scott unable to hit the side of a Dutch milking shed – Guus would be ideal.
Pimbo could still be the manager and Guus helps out Lucas with the tactics while he is on the field.
Pair up Guus the Great with Jesus and you’ve got a WC winning striking pair up front.
Nam Turk said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
We have the Euro tournament for us all to celebrate the poor, little nations that miss out on the World Cup because of big bullies like New Zealand.