By Adrian Musolino
December 3rd 2009 @ 3:57am
Which nations do we want to draw in the World Cup?
Australia's Tim Cahill celebrates after scoring the first goal for Australia during the World Cup qualifying soccer match between Australia and Qatar at the Brisbane stadium in Brisbane, Australia, Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2008. AP Photo/Tertius Pickard
Craig Moore wants a chance at redemption against Italy; pundits are pondering an Ashes-type match-up with England; and our South American nemesis, Uruguay, could loom once again, seeking revenge. The possibilities thrown up by the World Cup draw are teasing us as we wait and speculate.
The focus of the draw will inevitably be in terms of relative ease and difficulty for the Socceroos: which nations would give us a better chance of emerging from the group stage.
Obviously the dream draw in this regard is to be grouped with hosts South Africa, bypassing the European and South American giants in pot one; while avoiding pot four inhabitants Portugal and France will likely mean the Socceroos avoid a potential group of death.
But let’s look at the possible group stage opponents from a different perspective.
Let’s look at the three Socceroos matches as another opportunity for Australian football to penetrate the mainstream, and perhaps its consciousness, as it did in 2006, that comes along once every four years, with knock-on effects for the A-League and beyond.
Remember the scenes in pubs and cities across Australia in 2006?
Which opponents, therefore, would galvanise the Australian public, football and non-football fans alike, helping to recreate or topple the hysteria caused by the last World Cup.
From the seeded countries in pot one, England is the dream ticket.
In the tradition of the Ashes, a clash with the “mother country” would be the most likely match to tempt non-football fans to watch with its cultural and historical connotations, particularly when you consider over 30 percent of Australians have English ancestry, according to the Census.
For football fans, it would pit the stars of the most popular overseas league amongst Australians, the EPL, against our home-grown stars.
Aside from England, only a clash with New Zealand, with its A-League stars, would be as tempting. But with New Zealand in the same pot as Australia, a dream match with our Tasman neighbours is sadly unlikely.
From the pot three nations, South American rivals Uruguay would have the most appeal.
The two nations will be indefinitely linked by the consecutive qualification playoff drama that they shared, and with a genuine rivalry having been developed, there will be real meaning and feeling in the clash, particularly if we face them in a do-or-die scenario in the final match of the group stage, a la Sydney November, 2005.
From pot four, Portugal and France will provide plenty of star power, particularly a match-up with Cristiano Ronaldo, but a clash with Greece will be immensely popular with the huge number of Greeks who now call Australia home.
Like Australians of Italian descent enjoyed four years ago, the Greek communities across Australia would create a great spectacle on the night of the match.
Remember the scenes on Lonsdale Street in Melbourne when an unfancied Greece claimed Euro 2004?
Imagine what a Greece versus Australia World Cup clash would be like.
The ideal group in terms of marketability is thus: England, Australia, Uruguay and Greece.
What emerges from the pots in South Africa remains to be seen, and the excitement is building for the draw to be held in the early hours of our Saturday morning.
The World Cup draw highlights the tournament’s status as the world’s greatest sporting event.
What other sporting event generates so much discussion, speculation and excitement in a mere draw?
Let that discussion continue as we await the Socceroos’ fate.
The official pots for the 2010 FIFA World Cup draw:
Pot 1 (seeds)
South Africa, Germany, Brazil, Italy, Spain, England, Argentina, Holland.Pot 2 (Asia, Oceania and North/Central America)
Australia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, New Zealand, USA, Mexico, Honduras.Pot 3 (Africa and South America)
Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Nigeria, Algeria, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay.Pot 4 (Europe)
France, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, Greece, Serbia, Denmark, Slovakia.
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...
(112)
tifosi said | December 3rd 2009 @ 5:01am | Report comment
Greece v Australia? Put that down as a 0-0 bore draw. Greece play even more defensively than Australia !!
None of the Euro teams in pot 4 really worry me. France and Portugal might be big names but have been playing very poorly lately.
Also the best marketing is winning games.
albe said | December 3rd 2009 @ 5:28am | Report comment
Germany, Australia, Algeria, Denmark for me
ideally we’d get two very beatable and one more challenging opponent.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 5:58am | Report comment
Adrian,
Having Greece in the group would invite the Nationalists in Australia to demand our loyalty.
Tifosi… are you an Italian who, despite winnig the World Cup 3 years ago, you are still resentful of little Greece’s victory in 2004? Neverthless, I agree on your sentiment about it being a borefest. The friendly from 2006 at MCG was turgid.
Alex said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
It would also probably bore the rest of us to death.
Shahsan said | December 3rd 2009 @ 6:21am | Report comment
I suspect Adrian is Australian. And he sees it as a battle of nations, not ethnic groups.
Roo Star said | December 3rd 2009 @ 6:30am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more Shahsan about it being battles of nations not heritages!! If you call yourself an Aussie then you should support Australia full stop. If you don’t, you can cheer for whoever you like……
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
I boldly predict that Australia will meet New Zealand in the quarter finals.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
….only kidding!!!!
whiskeymac said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
it would be less likely than a second speed skating gold for Australia
having france and portugal unseeded must have a few fancied teams a little nervous about who they get.
Jameswm said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
I’d love us to be drawn with South Africa, Algeria and one of Slovenia, Slovakia and Switzerland.
Having said that you could draw a pool with Brazil, Cote D’Ivoire and Portugal.
If we play England, our players will lift and they will be shouldering a world of pressure and expectation.
Hope we don’t get a group of death.
Can’t wait to see how the balls drop, so to speak.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
We cannot draw Sth Africa and Algeria at the same time – against the rules.
Luke W said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Spain, Ivory Coast and Portugal. Best team in the world, our first competitive match against an African nation (to my knowledge anyway) and the best player in the world (well, not to me, but probably to the vast majority of non-football fans).
Luke W said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
By the way, when is the draw, AEST?
The Bear said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Draw is on around about 3 or 4 am aedst Satdee morning..there abouts. SBS are doing it live.
Tom said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Australia would probably start underdogs against any of the European qualifiers except Slovenia and Greece. Slovakia, Denmark, Switzerland and Serbia all have very strong teams.
In Pot 3, we’d be slight favourites against Algeria but our squad looks weaker than any of the other seven. I’d give us a good chance against Paraguay, though.
So that makes things very difficult, doesn’t it?
This is a very strong world cup. The only truly weak teams are North Korea and New Zealand, and they’re in our pot. In a perfect world it would hardly matter who we played because everyone would understand that getting to the second round would be a phenomenal acheivement.
But to answer Adrian’s question, there’s no doubt that a match-up against England would create the most excitement.
In some ways I’m hoping we get a tough draw with high profile opponents. Say England, Portugal and the Ivory Coast. That way it’d be no reflection on the national team if we weren’t to qualify to the round of 16, and we’d see some great football matches. You go to the world cup to play the best, after all.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
“This is a very strong world cup”
This is the one thing about this World Cup I am looking forward to.
2006 had many weak African nations. Not this time with Cameroon and Nigeria back in place of the likes of Togo and Angola.
AndyRoo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
If you get South Africa that also means you avoid Ghana, Nigeria, Ivory Coast and Cameroon. South Africa really is the golden ticket and even that would be a tough match.
keeper11 said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Yeh..definetely looks like an even stronger World Cup this time….gulp!:
So we’ll get either :
‘Group of Death’
or
‘Group of Despair’
Will there be a group of ‘ Pleasant with tad of quietly confident ‘ i wonder..??
AndyRoo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
I think we are going to get one big name team and two very good teams that unfortunately aren’t rated by the non football public….causing much despair when they see the game and realise those teams are actually quite good.
AndyRoo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
I actually think a group of Death would be ok PR wise. People enjoyed playing Brazil even though we lost.
Argentina, France and Nigeria for mine. Those teams have a lot of entertainment potential and It looks a really tough group but each team has a slight vulnerability (mostly int he coaching department) and just maybe we would get through.
The Bear said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Whatever group Australia gets in, it is not truly likely to be a G.O.D…..death or despair…as we would likely be the easiest team to beat in aforementioned group. It may be G.O.D for us, sure…but not genuinely a G.O.D for the “group”.
dasilva said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Ok out of the teams in our pot
Who do you think are the toughest teams there
Mexico, USA and then Australia and South Korea
With the exception of Mexico who have a consistent pedigree in World Cup (nevertheless, we have a pretty good record against Mexico). I don’t see any of the other sides being conclusively better then Australia.
We are one of the toughest team in the pot. Therefore we have the right to consider a tough group to be a group of death.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
On the whole, Asian teams have shown themselves to be quite flakey at WC level, so most teams would prefer to draw one of the flakey Asian teams (and NZ) rather than Australia.
Mexico has a pretty good recent record, and the US is not far different these days.
Honduras is probably capable of throwing up a surprise because very little would be known about them – but they are unlikely to make the top teams sweat.
dasilva said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
The Bear
I heard this argument before and I disagree
What team from our pot is a class above Australia
You can argue Mexico due to their pedigree in previous world cup but even then Australia has a good record against them (we beat them more then they beat us)
Australia, Mexico, South Korea and USA are one of the tougher teams from our pot.
I’m quite sure other teams would prefer to face other sides then us. We are one of the best teams from our pot and have the right to consider us part of group of death
The Bear said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Thanks das, for the inquiry. I would have that USA or mexico would likely be on a par with us. Possibly SoKorea. Depending on the draw, we have 25% to 33% of being a member of the G.O.D, imo.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
From a purely local immigrant viewpoint the following group would maximise passion in this country.
England or Italy
Australia
Chile
Greece
Italy v Greece would generate interesting reactions within Australia.
Kazama said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
If we drew Italy, Greece and Chile I think yeah that would be very interesting. Could make for some interesting interactions between myself and some of my closest friends and family during that week
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Savvas is correct that this time we have a full contingent of strong African nations (except for the host).
Outside of drawing the host nation, we are odds on to get a group as strong as our last one, but without a flakey Japan in it.
This is what will make it tough for Australia this time around.
All the top tier nations will be tough – all the 2nd tier nations are every bit as good, maybe better, than Croatia was last time (and they aren’t mugs I might add).
In place of Japan – we get either a strong African nation or a 2nd tier Sth American nation.
Drawing Sth Africa means we get the latter – all of who we’d stand an even chance on any given day – but there are no Japans, that’s for sure.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
One thing I fear is that, whereas in 2006 Australia played the most positive football of all the teams in that tournament (under Guus), we may end up playing the most negative football under Pim at this World Cup.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Savvas
yes and no.
We generally got positive when we had too (like having 5 strikers on the field in the last 10 minutes against Japan).
We were measured against Brazil until we went down 1-0 late in the first half, but I admit had some great moments before being completely exposed late in the game.
Against Croatia – we were up against it from the opening two minutes! and with butter fingers Kalac – we had no choice but to keep going for it! Luckily for us – Croatia was content to hold onto their one goal lead.
Against Italy – were we truly positive? My memory is of an opening 25 minutes when Italy was threatening at every opportunity with Toni missing three clear headers that he would normally gobble up for breakfast.
We kept the ball well when Italy went down to 10 men – but that’s hardly surprising.
People often exaggerate how well we really did play against Italy (I’m not saying you, just people generally).
Tom said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Yeah, I tend to agree with Pip’s analysis.
At this world cup, given the quality of opposition we’re likely to get, the defensive game will always be plan A. Verbeek’s idea of perfection would be three 1-0 wins.
But I think we’re all worried about what happens when we go behind. We don’t seem to have a gameplan for that.
Hiddink’s plan was to pack the front half with big, tall guys and just lob diagonal balls from the back half and the midfield wings. Not exactly beautiful football, but it was effective against Japan and Croatia.
Verbeek’s selections suggest that if we went behind he’d play more attacking midfielders, try to keep possession in the front half and create chances. In some ways people might describe that as more positive. I don’t know if it’ll work, though.
Fisher Price said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Kept ball well v 10 men, but (with one striker) offered nothing at all in the front third. Which belies Hiddink’s messiah status among some.
2006 World Cup said | December 3rd 2009 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
In the 2006 World Cup, Australia was only in a winning position in the tournament for perhaps 5 mins – OUT OF 360 MINS+ of game time across 4 matches!
Incredible really, just around 1% of our playing time at the World Cup was spent ahead. Most was spent behind, the rest level.
jaymz said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
ideally IMO we would get South Africa, Uruguay, Greece. There is enough rivalry there to build interest and all of them are beatable. For those of you who disagree i put this to you, usually a good win and a draw will get you through the group stage. So we need a good win against SA and a draw with greece and we are through (provided results go our way obviously). But we could beat all 3 of those teams
David said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:29pm | Report comment
id be happy wit dat
AGO74 said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
The African/Sth America pot concerns me more than the Euro pot (assuming you can avoid the 25% chance of getting frogs or Portugal – although I fear Serbia just as much). As mentioned previously, with no Togo’s or Angola’s all the African nations are top guns and of the Sth Americans Chile were brilliant in qualifying. Getting Uruguay again would be special! A lot of the Euro nations struggle outside of their continent (e.g. Korea/Japan in ‘02). Might sound overconfident but I think we’d be a good chance of getting a decent result against most of the Euro pot nations. The big unknown in all of this is how all 32 nations will cope with the altitute which will be in play at a lot of venues not only from a fitness persepctive but how they adapt to the passing of the football and shooting at goal from long-distance in thinner air.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
This World Cup has many factors that make it a unique event.
First World Cup to be played in Winter months since 1978. (This would surely help Northern European teams)
First World Cup in Africa
Many high altitude matches.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
That’s correct.
There will be an air of unfamiliariaty (like Japan/Korea), that will throw up surprises, that’s for sure.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
I think this is it…
Group of Death
Brazil
France
Australia
Ghana/Ivory Coast
Group of Life
South Africa
Slovenia
Australia
Algeria
Group of Interest
England
Greece
Australia
Uruguay
Group of Disinterest
South Africa
Denmark
Australia
Paraguay
BTW…getting Holland has the Pim (and Dutch mafia) factor!
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Whoops…. Algeria in Group of Life to be replaced by Paraguay due to no more than 2 African teams in a group.
AndyRoo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
I know your just being cheeky but in the disinterest group you have South Africa. I think playing the hosts is never dull their will be huge hype and it means the South Africans will all have a little bit of interest in the Socceroos. Certainly those fans going to the World cup would say that was the biggest game by far.
So probably not interesting now from a football perspective but come the world cup it would be a huge game.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Yeah, I pondered that. Perhaps Germany is the other team of least interest?
They are not the most attractive team skillwise. They lack that aura they had in the past. Normally I would have listed Spain but they are arguably the best team in the world at the moment. Argentina are also not that great but they do have Maradona as coach which creates interest.
if Argentina sack Diego before the tournament, then I woudl plump for them in the group of disinterest.
Colin N said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
As a neutral, I would find an Australia-Germany game very interesting. Most people would immediately point to a Germany win, but as you rightly said, they aren’t the most technically gifted in the world, so there would be potential for Australia to cause a ’shock.’
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Do not make the mistake of confusing Germany’s renowned dour style with not being a technical team – nothing could be further from the truth.
Do not confuse technique and flair – the Germans are sufficiently good technicians – do not worry about that.
Colin N said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
No, I know what you are saying, but I still believe this Germany side aren’t that technically proficient. They lost to England’s second team, who dominated and dictated play.
Fisher Price said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
No team will want Germany in their group. I think they’ll be semi-finalists at least.
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Agree with that, True Tah’s point is spot on.
Also it’s always good to play the host country in any tournament.
Redb
Kazama said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
I think South Africa / Paraguay / Slovenia would be a dream draw for us. Surely that’s the one we should all want.
Shahsan said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
That’s pretty funny. And probably accurate too.
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
The Group of interest is a beauty.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
A group that would match our 2006 group would probably read
Brazil (same)
Greece (instead of Croata)
Australia
Uruguay (rivalry to match Japan)
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
I reckon if Australia played France there would be considerable interest as well. Give ‘em one for the Irish.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
I only put Greece there for the immigrant population (including me) here in Oz. Other than that, they are not too inspiring. If it was the 2006 WC (2 years after winning Euro) then that would change things.
Redb said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Plus we have a soft spot for the Greek population in Melbourne.
Jim Bom said | December 3rd 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Do you mean the New Irish will give ‘em one for the Old Irish??
True Tah said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
South Africa is definitely the team we want from Pot One.
We have a good chance of beating them, better than anyone else.
Australia has a strong rivalry with South Africa in rugby and cricket, and I would like to have a similar rivalry with them in futbol.
I have a lot of South African mates, and Ive copped a lot of flack for them beating us in rugby over the recent years and them beating us in Australia at the end of 2008, and I was in South Africa at the time. Its payback time.
Mr cheese said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Are you Saffer mates even interested in football ?
They have an interesting accent and an interesting interest in rugby.
They’re not bothered, are they ?!?!?!?!?!??!?!
keeper11 said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
However South afrcia have the host country ‘factor’..
i.e. in every world cup results/decisions ’somehow’ fall into place to ensure the host nation into second round at a minimum..
wouldn’t like to play them in the 3rd and final match with winner take all to progress…
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Hmmmm….
If you think South Korea 2002, you are right. But I don’t recall any previous World Cups where the Host nation got a sweet deal from referee’s.
Then again, previous hosts have been powerhouses and didn’t need them so much. South Africa, much like South Korea, are not a power. Interesting!
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
It’s true that Sth Korea was a bit of a standout in this respect.
Spain only stumbled out of their group stage in 1982 via a series of bewildering referee decisions that favoured the host nation – and they had one of the easier groups to contend with – they jagged a 1-0 win against a very strong Yugoslavia, then bumbled their way past draws against Honduras and Nth Ireland, and with Honduras, only managed to sneak a draw very late in the game thanks to a dubious penalty.
Some very weak host nations have made it out of the group stage: US in 1994, Mexico in 1970, while Chile achieved an all time high 3rd placing in 1962 (having been allowed to literally kick Italy out of the group stage), and of course Sweden were runners up when they hosted four years earlier, at a time when they really weren’t a very strong footballing nation.
Shahsan said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Let’s not forget England’s thrid goal in the 1966 final; and Argentina getting a leg up before the final in 1978.
But I reckon we are doing South Korea a disservice. They did actually play outstandingly well, better than the other favoured host nations cited.
Mr cheese said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
The ball crossed the line, dude.
What is wrong with your ojos ? Can’t you see that it was a goooooooooooaaaaaaal ???
Seriously, you guys need to let it go. 1966 was our greatest sporting moment. Once you’ve won that, there is nothing left to win.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
South Korea did play well but they had the run of the green.
As for hosts getting favourable treatment, you are correct Pippinu. I have read and seen much of 1982, 1978, 1966, 1962. As for Sweden in 1958, unlike Spain in 1982, they were blessed to have their best team in history just as they were hosting the thing.
I suppose my point is that since 1982, bar 2002, there has not been any such dodginess.
Art Sapphire said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
These groups would look interesting
1) The Colonial Grudge Group – England, Australia, Algeria, France
2) The Spicy Latin Group – Spain, Mexico, Chile, Portugal
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
The 1982 grudge re-match group:
Germany, Algeria, France and Honduras.
Both Algeria and France were dudded by Teutonic skullduggery in 1982.
Honduras just happens to have last played in the WC in 1982 (like NZ), but it too was duped in a game against the host nation.
AndyRoo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Can’t help but think we were pretty unlucky at the 1974 World Cup Held in Germany….we had to play both of the German teams!!
Greg Russell said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Congratulations to Chuq, who two weeks ago predicted these pots with I think 100% accuracy (see http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/11/17/nz-to-world-cup/).
In today’s edition of The Press, Christchurch, there’s a great quote from Ronald de Boer, who speaks with typical Dutch frankness:
“Everyone wants to have New Zealand in the group. If they say otherwise they’re lying.”
The article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/sport/3121274/Meet-the-team-the-whole-world-wants-to-play) goes on to say that North Korea is seen in the same light.
This got me thinking. Basically what it is saying is that if you end up with NZ or North Korea in your group, then you are not going to be a “group of death”. The converse has to be that the best teams from this pot are highly likely to end up in a group of death.
Who are the best teams in this pot? I think we all know the answer. (Current world rankings: USA 14, Mexico 15, Australia 21, then a big jump to Japan 42.)
I can understand the “geographic” rationale in FIFA’s allocation to pots, i.e., to try to get groups with a geographic spread of teams. But does this override the inequity? Is it right that Mexico, USA and Australia are excluded from the chance of playing one of the minnow teams of the tournament? Is it right that because of their high ranking and geographic location, these three teams are good odds of landing in a group of death? (Australians need to be realistic about the likelihood of this fate). If anything the high ranking should serve to provide some sort of protection from such a fate.
How would people feel about the draw for a tennis grand slam being made on the basis of a combination of ranking and geography, rather than just ranking alone? Imagine if Lleyton Hewitt, as Australia’s best, was placed in a pot that increased his odds of meeting Federer or Nadal (European heavyweights) in an early round? (Actually, come to think of it, this is often poor Lleyton’s fate … but that is only by pure chance, not through any element of design.)
Finally, a couple of guys from another thread have made me paranoid, so I just want to stress that I am not trying to denigrate anyone’s national team with this comment.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Greg
it’s a good question re equitable draw versus geographic spread – and I guess the system tries to pander to both elements – at the end of the day – someone has to have NZ in their group, and someone is going to cop France or Portugal as a lower seeded country.
AndyRoo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Greg, you will enjoy this then
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/socceroos-best-placed-to-give-cup-bid-a-kick-along-says-kaiser-20091202-k6dg.html
GERMAN legend Franz Beckenbauer
Quizzed on whether he would like to see Germany paired with Australia in Friday’s 2010 World Cup draw, Beckenbauer joked: ”Australia is a very strong opponent. I prefer New Zealand.”
I also enjoyed the link from Greg with the follwoing Story
They are not the only ones who want to cash in on New Zealand’s new status in world football. Tourism stands for the different host cities bend over backwards to lure a possible All Whites armada, while others are more concerned with a reverse trade.
Ad Feedback
One very dodgy looking gentleman from Ghana claims he has got a dozen top players on his books, including some of the World Cup winning under-20 team. He obviously has not done his homework and wants to know who the top teams are in the New Zealand league and whether Waitakere City or Canterbury United might want to buy one of the young ‘Black Stars’.
When it is explained that the NZFC is an amateur league and that the country has only one professional team, the Ghanaian raises his eyebrows. “So how did you get into the World Cup?”
And apart from removing a lot of redraws why do we bother with more than two pots. One for seeds and one for the rest?
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
heh, heh – great story with the Ghanaian – thank goodness NZ has been able to provide some much need romanticsm – a pity that it will be crushed mercilessly when the tournament begins.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
The A-League should be sponsoring the All Whites!!!
AGO74 said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Agree that NZ is the obvious lightweight but I seem to recall T&T drawing against Sweden and holding the Poms for almost 80 mins before Peter Crouch pulled the dreadlocks of a T&T player of his head when finally scoring a goal to finally make the breakthrough. Yes, NZ are well and truly up against it and ok T&T had better players than NZ (although most of the T&T guys played in Divisions 2 & 3 in England). In short, T&T has shown a small nation like NZ that it can play at that level and hold their head high.
Mr cheese said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
You can denigrate away, young man.
I ain’t convinced about your tennis analogy but de Boer is right.
If either NZ or Oz meet England, the journalist Peter FitzSimons will be there cos he loves England in anything we do.
N’est-ce pas ?
Darwin hammer said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Did Ronald de Boer make that comment after finding out that the dutch were a seeded team ? … prior to that if asked and he thought they weren’t going to be a top seeded side wouldn’t he have looked at getting in South Africa’s group as being the dream option ….
sure the Kiwis and North Korea are going to viewed as bankers – but, as we’ve seen in the past, it’s the results against these that can cause problems … but in saying that a group including Brazil / Spain, France, Ivory Coast, NZ / North Korea is a group of death … the only group that won’t be is if NZ / North Korea end up in the same group as SA …
Fisher Price said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
‘Poor Lleyton’. Please. He deserves no sympathy.
Art Sapphire said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Greg – Nations from one confederation need to prove themselves against other confederations.
This is really important when FIFA decides how many spots each confederations gets.
For the Asian confederation to increase or even maintain their current quota of 4.5. It is important that Japan, Sth Korea and ourselves perform well. We are not just representing ourselves, we are representing Asia.
I agree that they do no need to tinker with the way the the pots are drawn so that higher ranking teams like USA, Mexico, Australia get a better chance of at least drawing one opponent that is ranked in the bottom 8 competing teams.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Lets compare the results of some of the earlier World Cups to more recent matches.
Only Saudi Arabia’s 8-0 walloping in 2002 matches the more horrendous scores from earlier periods.
Hungary 10-1 over El Salvador in 1982
Haiti or Zaire losing 9-0 to Yugoslavia in 1974
And numerous other shellacking’s from earleir tournaments.
So whilst it may be true to say that the World Cup is too biased against Europe and South America lets not make too much of big deal about it.
marinator 4LYF said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
me thinks holland are a big dark horse tht we’d do well to avoid atleast until the quarters
marinator4LYF said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
i wouldnt mind seeing aus actually take on the world cup and survive a group of death with say holland ghana and portugal, would really galvanise the football culture of australia to have such a strong achievment to look back on to draw inspiration from for all future generations
The Bear said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
The Bear’s true group of death
1. Spain/Italy
2. USA/Mexico (NOT Australia)
3. Chile/Nigeria
4. France/Portugal
AndyRoo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Nigeria are weaker than some of the other African teams. Chile scored quite a few goals but well lets wait and see.
I can’t see any reason for USA and Mexico to be considered stronger than Australia. They seem about the same for mine.
I want my money back, this Bear character short changed me with his “real” group of death.
Oh wait some of those nations have quite high crime rates, maybe I mistook your angle.
The Bear said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
“money back” ?… Sorry I cannot give back your time, you read my G.O.D. post, live with it, lol. Throw Cameroon back in the mix…happy?
Shahsan said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
I think Ivory Coast or Ghana are stronger than Nigeria. In fact, I tip one of those two to win it.
Savvas Tzionis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
If, back in 1990 when Cameroon made the Quarter Finals, someone was asked “Would an African team win a World Cup held on the African continent by 2010?” many people would have said yes.
Not that many people are saying that now. Still, at least this year, all the major African nations have made it. Maybe the fact that these stronger nations were aware that the World Cup was being held on their continent made them unite more than they did 4 years ago when they had their weakest representation in recent times?
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Yes – we’ve been waiting for the rise of AFrican football the whole 20 years – big names in the big comps – plenty of junior silverware – but the overall performances at WC level have been only marginally better than that of Asia.
Shahsan said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
The main difference is that African teams play unorthodox but often exhilirating football.
Asian teams, aside from Saudi Arabia in 1994 and the well organised and superfit Koreans in 2002, plus perhaps Iran in 78 and Kuwait in 92, have been pretty poor to watch.
Shahsan said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
I reckon they were good enough in 1990 (Cameroon) and 1994 (Nigeria), but they were just undone by naivity. This time, they will have a lot more experience in the ranks. Even in 1982, when Milla was at his peak, Cameroon were very strong and were eliminated by eventual champions Italy on goals scored (same goal difference).
Just for Ivory Coast alone, they wll have the Toure brothers, Eboue, Kalou, and Drogba — and that’s just the more famous ones.
But I just wonder what the upcoming African Nations Cup will do for their chances. Will it make them better units or will it make them peak at the wrong time? I am sure there will be casualties, injury wise.
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
That’s right – despite all the predictions about African football – go through the WC records, and you will see that African performances have been marginally better than Asian ones over the last 44 years (and that’s being generous).
The Bear said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
SPAIN-USA-GHANA-FRANCE
There it is even in capitals, so it must be important
cab711 said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Im with Foster and hoping that we can just get out of the group stages. After that, whatever happens is a bonus.
If I was a betting man I would put the mortgage down on Brazil to take this Cup. They didnt dominate in qualification but I just cant see any of the other teams being better. If France got rid of Domenech I would have gone for them. I cant understand why a team with a roster like Benzema, Ribery, Anelka, Gourcuff, Henry etc can be so merde. Its got to be the coach!
Also I would have backed Italy again having Lippi back but the team does not convince me.
Spain like Holland are consistant chokers and Germany/Bayern Munich need to rethink their Man-shaft.
I will stick with Brazil getting through to the end.
Kazama said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Agree – my money is on Brazil.
Number of non-South American teams to win a World Cup held outside of Europe: 0
The Bear said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
I think everyone is pretty excited about drawing a top seeded team, rather than B’Bafana, though as pointed out a lot of hype will surround the home team..so it’s win:win if we get them. The other two pots are where the margins for progression will open. Having USA, Mexico, South Korea and Australia in pot 2 AND France and Portugal as possibilities in pot 4 will make for perhaps TWO groups of death for this Cup. Pot 3 is pretty strong, especially if you consider Algeria in a group with France – lots of pride on the line in that matchup. I shall put my reputation on the line and press the claim that this is the most evenly contested *group stage* World cup, ever.
AndyRoo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
It definitely seems like the gap between teams is a lot smaller than previous cups.
keeper11 said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Don’t know why people aren’t including Argentina as a glam opponent for us…
awesome team on paper..unbeatable on a good day yet prone to implode if things not going well…
also there is the ‘wild’ Maradona aspect aswell a bit of rivalry/ history between the teams..
would ba a fab matchup for Socceroos either way…
David said | December 3rd 2009 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
I hate to say it but i reckon we arent going to make it past the Group stage i love our socceros but unles we draw South Africa we will prob lose at least 2 of our 3 matchs there is just tomuc quality opposition
dasilva said | December 3rd 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
There’s one thing that bothers me about the seeds
Why does FIFA change the seeding system from the last world cup?
for the 2006 world cup. Their ranking system was combination of previous world cup performances and fifa world ranking.
Now they just revert to simple world ranking which resulted in France losing their seed for the Netherlands.
Did they just change the seeding just to punish France for the handball controversy or what? It seems strange that they abandon a pretty decent seeding system that was used in the previous two world cups just like that.
If they had the world ranking by itself for the seeding for the last world cup. USA would have been a seeded team for the 2006 world cup which wouldn’t be to FIFA’s liking.
It seems like FIFA are changing the seeding system for it’s own political benefit
The Bear said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
It’s wierd. What’s really wierd is that pot 4 “happens” to have all the euro left overs in it. When the draw is made, is it likely that these teams will play the seeded teams in their groups last? Is that rigged or what? Please tell me I have got it all wrong.
Allen said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
Yep wrong! As I rember from Germany the seeds automatically go to position 1 in the group. For the other pots after the team is drawn they pull out a ball from a separate pot that determines their spot in the group (2, 3 or 4).
roarer101 said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
I’m not a soccer/football fan but I REALLY want the socceroos drawn against england. I would love to see them beat the english at their own game. Other than that I don’t care about soccer/football. I think I am possibly/probably indicative of the non-soccer/football loving public.
tifosi said | December 3rd 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
another aspect of the draw is not so much the group phase but the knockout rounds also.
Italy at the last world cup had, on paper, a tough group draw with USA GHANA and Czech Republic, which was the second hardest group on paper. (Behind the Arg,Holland,Serbia,Cote D’ivoire group, which also turned out to be a fizzer)
The reality was that Czech republic was poor and ghana and usa were also average.
Italy topped the group then played Australia then Ukraine to make the semi finals. As easy a run as anyone could want.
Argentina topped their group then had to play Mexico and Germany. Much much tougher and they went out to the germans in the quarters.
So be on the look out for which teams you will face later on in the tournament also. It makes a big difference too
Pippinu said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
Agree with all that.
Dickroo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
England
France
Australia
Uruguay
What a group! Great PR exposure for Australia. With an opening match against France and Henry is banned, followed by Uruguay and the final group match with England and the loser going home…
Colin N said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:44pm | Report comment
Can England get France? I’ve been looking at a few of the papers in England, and their groups don’t seem to include the likes of Portugal and France in their possible ‘group of death.’
jimbo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:50pm | Report comment
Yes England can be drawn in the same group as France – UEFA is the only confederation that can have two countries in the same group.
Don’t know how sympathetic they will be to the Irish though and exact any revenge for them. The French should’ve been kicked out of the tournament and Henry sidelined for 6 months.
Poms wishful thinking – they want New Zealand instead.
Tifosi said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:53pm | Report comment
Also if Australia can’t be in Group A, we want to be in Group B.
Why? Because the two teams that advance from Group B face the two teams that advance from Group A in the first round of the knockout matches.
Group A is the only group for which the two teams that advance are both guaranteed not to be Brazil, Spain, England, the Netherlands, Germany, Argentina, or Italy.
Even if OZ came second, they would most likely facing a chile/uruguay/serbia in the first knock out round
Shahsan said | December 4th 2009 @ 6:39am | Report comment
I dont understand this. Is South Africa guaranteed a spot ion group A, which means no other African country? But that could still mean a France or Portugal might finish first.
Tifosi said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Yes STH AFRICA will be seeded as A1.
I guess to be fair France or Portugal should end up in that group, that way it would make the draw more balanced.
Lets see what happens.
Shahsan said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
There’s no “to be fair” about it. Pure luck of the draw now.
But yes, Group B would be a good one to be in. Good point.
The Bear said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Good point, tifo. And even if it is France or Portugal (IF), then it will be likely a Domenech France or a defensively leaky Portugal.
Tifosi said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
yep, i dont think anyone will fear France or Portugal. On paper they are big names but have been playing poorly.
Midfielder said | December 4th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Anyone on the Roar going
The Bear said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Lol, to the draw or the cup? Neither on both counts…