" Upsetting " World Cup

[JohnIII]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Are Slovenia, objectively, good enough to be there? Or Croatia? Talk about makeweights.

That is Croatia, third place at the last World Cup? And Slovenia, who beat Romania and Yugoslavia to qualify? Bad two teams to pick, there.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Quote:

There should be eight more spots available, and at least seven should go to European sides.

Eight groups of five with top two qualifying would be good.

In the qualifying stages they could also widen the inter-confederation play. Have all "playoff teams" play a team from another confederation - same way Ireland played Iran and Uruguay played Australia.

I don't see the point of adding even more teams. If you cannot qualify under the present set-up, are you really that much of a contender ?? I know people talk of some of the "good" teams that did not make it but to that I say " tough ". If you did not qualify, you don't deserve to be there . period.


If they did to make the tourney even larger with additional teams, I could see keeping the proportions about the same with about half the new spots going to European teams . I do like the idea of intercontinental play to determine these spots and wouldn't object if it was set up so that all the new spots could be based on intercontinental playoffs . I do not see the need or benefit of doing this however. There are already a bunch of teams that have no realistic chance of winning the thing and adding 8 more of these doesn't help matters. All it would do is add more teams that the elite would have to try to run up the score on . . in case of tie-breaks.


In the existing system, I could see the benefit of inter-continental play-- wouldn't it be interesting if there was a "last chance" qualifier open to all the last non-qualifiers. perhaps 8 or so teams in a single elimination knock out tourney .

[Laertes]

Yes, there have been some upsets in this tournament, but a few shock results do not make a change in the world order - although I would be very pleased to see one.

USA 1-0 England, 1950. USA's last appearance for 44 years
Cameroon 1-0 Argentina 1990. Argentina get to final, Cameroon defeated in last 8.
Ireland 1-0 Italy 1994. Ireland knocked out last 16, Italy lose in final

One swallow does not make a summer.

The world cup has been expanded to give scope for the other continents to compete, not because they earned their places (except Africa).

Hopefully, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Croatia, Sweden, Argentina, Poland, and Denmark will all be eliminated, but somehow I dont see it happening.

[Solly]

Yes, make the groups each have five teams instead of four. That way we would see less negativity and fewer draws.

[Buck Birdseed]

And have ten games in each group? Isn't that a tad much? It'd take a month just for the group stage.

[Solly]

It would take a third more time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

no,
your conference should delegate 1 team at most. three is too much. also, take one team from asia and hand it over to africa

HELLO! CONCACAF is 3-0. That means we DESERVE one more . Take it away from Europe, which is already flooding the so-called 'World Cup'.

[Solly]

0.01/10

[Imran Siddiqui]

See, Boddington's agrees with me .

Take it away from England, whose time has long past .

[Mr. President]

1. How did Saudi Arabia, who would almost have done better if they had not turned up against Germany, come within three inches of defeating Cameroon in their second game?

2. How did Uruguay not defeat a French team with a pile-of-crud goalkeeper who also had to play with ten men for more than an hour?

That is Croatia, third place at the last World Cup? And Slovenia, who beat Romania and Yugoslavia to qualify?

Romania and Yugoslavia are entering a "down" period. Gheorghe Hagi and his generation have faded away, and no-one is coming up to replace them. Yugoslavia is similar. As is Croatia. I'm not saying these teams might not be good in Europe, but they haven't matched the standard of other (mostly South American, but Italy impressed me) teams at the World Cup.

[The Rusty Gamer]

What I'm wondering about is this "penalty" that Ranaldo got for playacting and thereby getting a Turkish player sent off. He was fined $15,000 which is about half a day's pay so it'a no real skin off his nose and he is quite unrepentant saying it is part of the game to him and he'll keep on doing it. My point is, shouldn't they reverse the undeserved red card decision for the Turkish player? Why should Turkey stillbe punished when they are an innocent victim?

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by LaRusso


no,
your conference should delegate 1 team at most. three is too much. also, take one team from asia and hand it over to africa

Even if Europe had spots added to it, Serbia would still suck to bad to qualify.

[TCO]

USA! USA! USA!

(insert softcore flag girl picture)

[Dr. Stiby]

I suggest more slots should go to Africa. The ratio of countries in the continent compared to the number of countries qualified for the WC is just too low. Same counts for Asia and N. America, but no team of these continents ever made a case for themselves, whereas African teams surprised on every tournament since Cameroon 1990 with attractive football.

[Bas]

Well, next WC there will be only one host, so that means one extra slot available for qualification. I suggest giving it to Africa as well.

But I'm getting a bit tired of Americans and Asians whining about more places in the WC for them. Sure, there've been some upsets, and some of the European teams lost some games. Not surprising, because ideally the weakest qualified European teams should be of the same quality as the other weak teams.But still, even Europe's numbers 13, 14 and 15 are still a very good match for the best in Asia or CONCACAF, and are better than the teams that might qualify for an eventual extra slot there.

It's true ofcourse,that the European teams that have qualified are not necessarily the best, because of possible flukes and the drawing for the qualifier groups. I think that the Netherlands, Romania and the Czech Republic are way better than Slovenia or Poland, but they didn't qualify anyway. Tough luck, but that's the charm of the game. But unless the Asian and CONCACAF teams start beating them on a somewhat regular basis, stop whining.

And no Imran, 3 games is not on a regular basis. ( for the USA though. That'll show those Portuguese bastards to kick us out.)

[Kropotkin]

African countries might be doing very well at the WC but I'm not sure that and the number of african is reasons enough to give them more places. Afterall, there's not much more african teams that can make a impression in the WC. A lot of the countries really sux.

[Bas]

Originally posted by Mr. President
1. How did Saudi Arabia, who would almost have done better if they had not turned up against Germany, come within three inches of defeating Cameroon in their second game?

2. How did Uruguay not defeat a French team with a pile-of-crud goalkeeper who also had to play with ten men for more than an hour?



Romania and Yugoslavia are entering a "down" period. Gheorghe Hagi and his generation have faded away, and no-one is coming up to replace them. Yugoslavia is similar. As is Croatia. I'm not saying these teams might not be good in Europe, but they haven't matched the standard of other (mostly South American, but Italy impressed me) teams at the World Cup.

1. The Saudi's clearly had an off-day against Germany, and Cameroon is good but overrated.

2. They were clearly too afraid of losing. Now, beating Senegal can be sufficient (depending on the scores), while losing would mean the end. They should have pushed on though, France was very vulnerable.

3. Actually, those weaker European teams were weak, but not any weaker than the traditionally weak Asians, the weak South American teams (Paraguay, Uruguay and Ecuador were unimpressive,and certainly no better than, say, Denmark, Croatia or Belgium), or the CONCACAF. The hosts were okay like always, and I'm afraid the 3-0 CONCACAF record was a fluke. Costa Rica beat China (a debutant from Asia), USA beat Portugal (great job, but Portugal is notorious for underachieving), and Mexico only won because of a penalty and a red card for Croatia. But we'll see if they can keep it up.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Take it away from England, whose time has long past .

[pchang]

Based on the Fifa Rankings, I guess you would have to add UK vs. Argentina

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Boddington's
It would take a third more time.

[Flubber]

4 games instead of 3 so 4/3 means 1/3 more time I guess.

But it would likely be more time as you would need 5 game days for each team to get 4 games and their "bye"

[Buck Birdseed]

Exactly. It goes from six games overall to ten games overall, an increase of 2/3 not 1/3.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Mr. President
1. How did Saudi Arabia, who would almost have done better if they had not turned up against Germany, come within three inches of defeating Cameroon in their second game?

2. How did Uruguay not defeat a French team with a pile-of-crud goalkeeper who also had to play with ten men for more than an hour?

1. The Saudis lost to Germany so badly for a couple of reasons. (a) They looked nervous and tight and this lead to disorganization all over the pitch. And after a goal or two, they were simply stunned and intimidated. (b) More importantly, the Saudis weakness, their small size and their weak aerial game, played directly into the Germans strengths, their considerable size and their strong aerial game. It was not coincidence that five of the 8 goals were from the head. Cameroon, while a good team, can't exploit these weaknesses the same way.

2. The French are that much better, and were that much more motivated not to go out of the tournament in humiliation. Even a man down they looked livelier on attack and far more dangerous because Uruguay does not know how to use an extra man. They put 3,4 men on Trezeguet when one of those extra men should have pushed up, or made runs in the box to take care of their numerical advantage. They do know, however, how to hack.