By Davidde Corran
November 22nd 2009 @ 1:34am
Related coverage
Do we need a true ‘World’ Cup qualifying process?
New Zealand coach Ricki Herbert, left, and captain Ryan Nelsen reacts after their team's 1-0 win over Bahrain in the World Cup qualifying playoff second leg soccer match at Westpac Stadium in Wellington, New Zealand, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009. (AP Photo/NZPA, Ross Setford)
What a remarkable last few days of World Cup qualifying. Such a shame it’s been tarnished by Theirry Henry’s handball and the debate that has followed it. However, that’s not what I’m interested in discussing.
Instead something has been nagging at me since mid-October when I heard BBC radio’s love/hate figure Alan Green express another one of his controversial opinions on his World Football program.
“I think that … the World Cup has for too long been too over blown. Too, for want of a better word, democratic,” Green said.
“Last weekend as I commentated on Ukraine against England, which mattered only in terms of which of two really good teams, Ukraine and Croatia, managed to get a playoff spot, I was asked to give the result out of the Asia and Oceania play-off first leg. ‘Bahrain against New Zealand, nil-nil.’
“I thought what on earth would either country contribute to the final stages apart from making up the numbers in a group and most likely not winning a game?
“The World Cup tournament in South Africa should be about an assembly of the World’s best international teams yet we went into the final games last week not knowing whether Argentina or Portugal would qualify, and that’s ridiculous.
“Either of those teams could win the World Cup. At least 24 of next year’s finalists know themselves that they’ve got no chance whatsoever. Is that really what we want?
“Qualification needs to be rethought and in these days of worldwide travel, groups should be worldwide with proper seeding.”
That’s an edited down version of Green’s rather long monologue, but he does make some reasonable points.
Now this isn’t another exercise in New Zealand bashing, there’s certainly enough Kiwi cynicism in Europe as it is, but I would like to pose the question ‘do we need to revisit the qualification process?’
Is the system in place at the moment the best way to get the most deserving 32 teams to the tournament final? Does it allow the teams not up to scratch the opportunity to develop their game?
The positives of a global draw are obvious. It would kill the issue of Oceania. Not to mention help to grow the game in CONCACAF where there is a lack of high quality opposition beyond the USA and Mexico.
The European qualification process could do with some improvements as well. The group system is uneven not just in numbers but also quality. A group won by Switzerland is as ridiculous as the continued hammering of the Faroe Islands.
Surely the Faroe Islands, San Marino and all the other smaller and low-standard European nations would be better off playing against teams at their level from across the globe? We’ve got plenty of them here in Asia.
Of course opening the process up could create the risk of the tournament being made up of even more European teams (though I don’t believe that’ll be the case – just look at how thin the talent pool gets at the Euros) but there is a solution.
To ease the transition you could seed under performing regions in a way as to help them gain the necessary experience to develop and, eventually, have a chance at qualifying.
Logistically it is not as impossible as it seems. The long distances are no longer the problems they once were. Countless European based players travel from Europe to Africa, Asia and the Americas to play for their country as it is. We’ve also seen Portugal, England and Brazil travel long distances recently to play friendlies and turn a tidy profit.
When examining the feasibility of such a concept aside, one point must not be forgotten and Jesse Fink couldn’t have said it better in his blog on Monday:
“The World Cup is not a tournament for the best football teams in the world; it’s a tournament for the best football teams of the world, an important difference,” Fink wrote.
Every country right across the globe should have a chance of developing their football to a level where they can go to the World Cup. Whether the current system is the best way to make it happen is open for debate. Still, I hope we never lose sight of that core objective. It’s what makes the World Cup truly special.
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...
(26)
sam.gilbert said | November 22nd 2009 @ 3:58am | Report comment
how is that feasible? you havent even explained how that would work.. every team in the world plays everyone? massive distances absolutely do still matter, it can affect players a lot.
and you were right, it would be a euro tournament with brazil and argentina, maybe one african team, an asian and a couple of american teams. rubbish.
Paulo Roberto Sanchotene said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:01am | Report comment
A regional qualifying makes a TRUE WORLD CUP Finals…
pete said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:12am | Report comment
I think everyone is attributing the NZ success to the fact they played Bahrain. Don’t forget NZ’s opponent could have easily been Saudi Arabia, Iran or UAE in which case I don’t think we’d be talking about this.
Croatia didn’t qualify. Portugal struggled. and France got in by a hand or fingertips… and these are all countries in the FIFA’s top 10. You could argue our host South Africa (currently ranked no.86 in the world) got a free pass too. At the end of the day it’s about beating the opponent that’s in front of you.
Freud of Football said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:24am | Report comment
Rubbish. Simply rubbish.
If you want to go by Fink’s line; “The World Cup is not a tournament for the best football teams in the world; it’s a tournament for the best football teams of the world, an important difference” then you are saying you want the minnows to play their part.
So how the hell is the team from the British Virgin Islands meant to enter into a WC Qualifying campaign if the groups are global? Do we expect them to play 5-10 away games against opposition from Europe, Asia, Africa etc.?
Of the 208 Fifa members, how many are true powerhouses? How many have full-time professional leagues? Even when they do, Australia with the A-League has an extremely expensive gig supporting the Socceroos yet Aruba, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Samoa & Chinese Taipei should be travelling around the world in a WC qualifying campaign? Countries where the football is probably at about the same level as the Australian state leagues, if not worse?
Yes the qualification needs to be re-thought but this is simply ridiculous.
Half of FIFA couldn’t afford to participate and do we really need to see Brazil vs. Brunei?
hammer said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Well cut it down to the top 10 ranked only then – in reality what chance would croatia or ukraine or for that matter Ireland have of winning it – England – don’t make me laugh, Japan, Aust, USA ? – none either …. And what about the Africian teams – nope no show ….. And really Spain only flatter to deceive – so why not just cut to the semis and bung inArgentina, Italy, Germany and brazil
these articles all because poor old NZ had the bad manners to actually put in the effort to qualify – perhaps the Irish or Russia should petition FIFA for a play off game against the kiwis so another also ran euro team can make the party
Mattay said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Exactly. I’ve had a few arguments lately about the merits of the kiwis being at the World Cup, with the argument inevitably moving towards how easy Australia has it when poor old European nations have it so hard.
Fact is, the World Cup is NOT about the best 32 nations playing each other, and as you have put it, only 6 or so teams realistically have a chance of winning it. Brazil, Spain, Italy and Argentina would be aiming for no less than winning outright. Holland, Germany and England would be aiming to make the final and who knows from there. Portugal and France may also shake things up, but outside of this elite group, no other nation has a chance. So who really cares if the next team is New Zealand, or Belgium??? They’ll only be making up the numbers anyway.
But therein lies what the World Cup is all about. Yes, we all love the top level international football, but for a lot of fans, it’s also about seeing a tactical European side against a strong, gung-ho African team. About watching a South American team with all manners of flair against a North American sides with football roots ranging from Central America to their European and English settlers. About watching quick, skillful Eastern Asian countries against the old guard, and potentially upsetting the apple cart.
For me, a World Cup of the best 32 nations in the world would ultimately be boring.
Pippinu said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Hopeless half-arsed teams have been making the WC since day one.
That one or two make it through each time is important in the sense that it gives everyone the illusion of participating, of being part of it.
From FIFA’s point of view, as long as the quarter finals start to take on a more “traditional” look – they are happy.
By that point, the World really just wants to see the very best – the refs are usually more than happy to oblige.
The Guru said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
“That one or two make it through each time is important in the sense that it gives everyone the illusion of participating, of being part of it.”
Um Pippinu, It’s not an illusion, they are participating, as you will see next year when NZ get beat 10-0 by Brazil.
Pippinu said | November 22nd 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
The Guru
Yes.
But I’m talking about the participation of the whole World (inlcuding those contries who will never make the final 32).
One or two pathetic countries in the top 32 gives the illusion that the ultimate prize is in reach of everyone – when obviously it isn’t.
This year is a good chance for us to see an African country go into the top 4 – but it’s amazing that no African country has ever made the top 8 – how is this possilble?
Who knows – maybe the unfamiliar territory of Africa will assist in throwing up at least one joker in the pack.
I hope so.
Otherwise, we are left the staggering statistic that only 5 contries have won the last 10 World Cups, and only those five (plus one other) have actually made the final in the last 40 years.
A mind-boggling statistic.
AndyRoo said | November 22nd 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Even of the top of my head I know Senegal made the final 8 in 2002.
dasilva said | November 22nd 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
I think you mean no african country made the top 4 before
Cameroon made the quarters as well (lost in a classic match to England)
Freud of Football said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
As did Cameroon in 1990 with old-man Milla but they were eliminated by two penalties to England, one of which was in extra time while Nigeria were eliminated in the Round-of-16 to guess who, Italy.
Roger Rational said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
Why is it mind-boggling?
There is a clear hierarchy in international football and there has been for some time. I think people sometimes mistakenly believe that football is more competitive than it really is simply because so many nations take the game seriously.
Pippinu said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
Ok – we’ve had 10 WC finals since 1970 – that’s 20 available spots in the final – shared amongst only six nations.
How many nations have gone through the top 10 rankings during that 39 year history?
10?
12?
15?
20?
25?
In fact – more countries have won the cricket world cup!!
dasilva said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
It’s one of the contradiction of football
For the game that celebrates the nature of the game that can easily leads to upset. Such as one mistake, one referee decision that is the difference between a side winning and losing. Where it’s quite possible minnows and hold off the sides for 90 minutes and then nick a goal to win the game. Where it’s common for a team to play the better football but still lose. Or be on the backfoot for 90 minutes and then sneak through in the penalty shootouts.
This game is so suited to upsets and yet Football is such an elitist game where only a handful of teams can win it, either at club levels or international levels.
It’s a truly bizarre contradictory aspect of football
Rob said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Davidde,
This is always an interesting topic, one I used to think more about when we were in Oceania. It always seemed unfair that at various times major european teams have failed to qualify whilst US and Mexico are virtually guaranteed a place. El Salvador made it to Spain 82 whilst in the middle of a civil war…but Holland failed. The notion that Oceania might deserve a place seemed ludicrous.
But then you start to look at the statistics and see that at any given final there are only 3-4 teams with a real chance of winning. Despite all of our dreams the rest are just there to make up the numbers..sounds harsh but statistically true.
Winners are virtually always Brasil, Germany, Italy then very occaisionally someone else. Of the 18 finals played only 2 didnt involve at least one these teams.
So throw in Argentna plus on current form maybe Spain… then outside of a notional top 5 then the question of whether a team is deserving of a place in the finals is basically irrelevent.
Crazy Dave said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
The same issue appears in the Cricket and Rugby League World Cups, where developing nations qualify to compete. The idea there is that these developing nations can gain experience by playing against the bigger countries (and sometimes getting lucky and beating them.
The current system is the best way, as it allows any team from any part of the world the right to believe that they can qualify. New Zealand might be a minnow (on the World Stage) but they were the best from Oceania.
Hammer, if you cut it down to 10 teams… where is the hope of other teams of making the World Cup? For many of the minnows, they probably realise they don’t have a hope of winning the thing, but they want to win a game in their pool… they want to have a scoreless draw with one of the top teams…
And then you get the fact that it is not always the best team, or the top-ranked team that wins… this happens in tennis too… how often does an unseeded player make it through to the final 8 or final 4 in the Tennis Opens? If they started the Opens with only 32 players (the seeded players) these unseeded players wouldn’t have a chance to show what they can do.
Of course, if you really want to play around with the format, you would need to set up a tier competition, like the English Football Premiership, like the Davis Cup in tennis… That would be the fairest way, to ensure the top teams play for the World Cup, while giving all other teams a chance to be involved.
hammer said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
I was being sarcastic – the very concept that a team such as NZ is undeserving because also ran euro teams miss out is a stupid and idiotic notion
Crazy Dave said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Sorry Hammer, I don’t always pick up sarcasm…. my bad…
dasilva said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Davidde Corran
You could always have a look at this system here http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/11/19/a-better-system-to-determine-the-world-cup-qualifiers/ for a more interconnected world cup qualifiers
NUFCMVFC said | November 22nd 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
World Cup is meant to be a mix of all thre regions regardless of quality for a reason. For the World Cup to be Euro centric or Euro/South American centric would leave a tournament that isn’t necassarily much different from the Euros.
Ironically it may be better in terms of football, but what would happen is that Football would run the risk of diluted popularity in the less developed footballing world. These people, particularly from Africa, already lose their best club football players to Europe, the result in club football being often near empty stadiums in Asia for local clubs and even countries at times, whereas if they had Man Utd or something they’d fill it up. The risk for football is that another sport can come in.
Better for FIFA to have Africans from Togo and Algeria and Trinidad and Tobago and Australia 2005 even New Zealand in a sense etc dancing in the streets fervently in celebration of qualifying, regardless of the fact they don’t have a realistic chance of winning, just to be at the party to have their national team play against some of the biggest stars means something, regardless of chances of victory and even if football wise some other country can bring more to the tournament, it helps to ensure and grow football popularity + one has to remember that football is largely a social/cultural phenomenon, moreso international football than club football these days although there are some obviously big business interests and some would say alterior motives to ensure big names make it
Let’s not forget the argument that population wise Asia represents much more people of the world, a significant proportion which gives rise to its calls for more spots, but Europe has the most given its quality and comparitively small population compared to other regions, so one can argue that the World Cup draw has been skewed enough
NUFCMVFC said | November 22nd 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
One idea perhaps, is to mix up the playoff places a bit more, make the whole thing more substantial, eg have the Euro playoff places against teams from other regions rather than against themselves, have 2 or even 4 Asian teams trying out, maybe have two South American teams, and an Oceania team. Africa has 5 groups I think, so have the 5 runners up perhaps? Mix it up a bit, maybe make something of a group stage out of it and finish the other sections earlier. Just an idea, provided it is weighted properly, the better teams genuinely should come out on top
But I mostly think it is just about fine the way it is, I just wish Australia had to play CONCACAF or AFC in 2001 and 2005, but having CONMEBOL play piss weak OFC was supposed to get them through easily I guess. At least there wasn’t any issue with KO times and travel distances this time with CONMEBOL and CONCACAF, and AFC and OFC legs were played a month apart
Pippinu said | November 22nd 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
das has written about something very similar here:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/11/19/a-better-system-to-determine-the-world-cup-qualifiers/
Roger Rational said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
There’s a simple solution. Let’s just turn the World Cup into the EUROS+BR/ARG. No more of these meaningless games involving no-hopers like Ecuador, Algeria & Australia. Just get the top powerhouses on the field and allow them to play it out. There are serious questions of player welfare to be considered. The top European players already play an outrageous number of games, and it is wrong to expose them to still more games against neanderthal opponents merely so that can people can pat themselves on the back and utter vacuous twaddle about “of the world, not in the world”.
Paulo Roberto Sanchotene said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:29pm | Report comment
Why Europe?!
Brasil, Argentina, Italy and Germany are responsible for 14 of all 18 WC titles. That would be enough…
The rest is rest. So just let them all out.
[/irony]
Paulo Roberto Sanchotene said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
The problem is that you really can’t say if a team will make an impact at the Finals BEFORE it happened.
There are plenty of underdogs surprising the world and strong favorites failing miserably…