Qualifying to a soccer tournament and credibility.

[Ferbian]

In the Germany vs Australia LD there's right now going on a small discussion whether a team not qualifying for the world cup because of a bad mix of a group would therefore make them less worthy of actually being in there.

Even if the team is put in a group with titans of the soccer world (Brazil and France for example, at least that's the examples I used in the discussion) and the nation is a smaller team, but still good enough to make it in the world cup, perhaps even going far, would that make them less credible and deserving to be in the tournament because they had incredible opponents, as opposed to a team like (in this example Serbia) who probably didn't have the same opponents that said team had?

I feel there's teams that should have been in the world cup this year, who aren't, as opposed to teams I was scratching my head wondering "what the fuck are they doing here?"

I don't think that not qualifying for a tournament makes them less credible and deserving to be in the tournament if they truly are the larger force, and were put in front of much harder opponents, like I said in the LD, Denmark didn't qualify for the European cup in 1992, but Denmark still won it, does that make them less deserving and credible to be in there, and does that make Denmark's victory a fluke? no.

Share your opinions people, and try to keep it on topic, with no spam.

 

[a0161613]

If a smaller nation like Denmark enters a tournament and wins it then it is done on their own merits. Denmark in 1992 was a prime example but it is a one off.

I assume the discussion was based on Australia getting destroyed. They are a very good team and certainly not the worst in the tourney. Wait until you see North Korea get played off the park by Brazil.

It's the World Cup. The participants achieve their place after a pretty stringent qualifying campaign. And teams should not be discriminated because of their location.

Turkey and Romania, just like Egypt and Columbia did not do their job and get to the tournament and Australia and Serbia did. Teams can only beat the team put in front of them. The 32 teams in SA did. Everyone else didn't.

 

[DirtyJosé]

I'm a little out of touch with the past in regard to examples, so I'm sorry ahead of time if I can't cite specifics.

I don't believe a team is less credible if they don't make the qualifiers, but they don't deserve a spot if they don't progress from that point. Having the better legacy, having the bigger payroll, and having more prestige aren't what qualifies a team for the tournament; results do. Big name teams come up short in every sport. A championship, or a shot at a championship, should NEVER be a guaranteed thing in any sport.

Also, how are other nations supposed to develop a national following and make progression as a team on the world stage if only the same teams are in the big picture year in and year out? It's frustrating to see teams you know could've been beat in the tournament, I'm sure, but they did what they needed to do to get there, and those who didn't went home. The only valid exception to this I can speak of is the case of France and Ireland, and that's debatable.

 

[TheAnimal]

You can only beat who are put in front of you, so on that basis it isnt their fault in terms of 'worthiness'. You could argue that with some of the European minnows in groups that some European sides dont deserve to be there, because if a team trounces a little team, then against a bigger side goes all out defense, it manipulates the results in the group so you could argue that in that sense certain sides dont deserve to be there.

And the World Cup would cease to be a world cup, and become quite elitist. Then the smaller sides get held back and the better sides may get complacent etc.

On another note, you could argue France are not credibly there, due to the handball and any side that has simulated, or dived etc do not deserve to be there because they did not get there fairly.

 

[Super Hans]

The thing is ferbs.The seeding system for qualifying is the fairest possible way to determine who qualifiesorld for the finals.The countries past form indicates which seeding you get for example France are not the force they used to be,but because they reached the World Cup Final in 2006 thus keeping them seeded in pot 1 and in qualifying dodging another big nation like Italy or Spain etc...

I dont really see how you could change the system for the better,there will always be 1 or 2 big european nations missing out(Russia immediately springs to mind) there will always be shitty teams there like New Zealand or Algeria.But thats what makes The World Cup so special is that countries from all corners of the globe are represented.

 

[Ferbian]

If a smaller nation like Denmark enters a tournament and wins it then it is done on their own merits. Denmark in 1992 was a prime example but it is a one off.

Problem is Denmark didn't enter the tournament in 1992 because they qualified, they made it there due to Bosnia being in a civil war, and Denmark proved they have the ability to actually win it, which just shows that because you don't qualify, doesn't mean that you can't make it there.

I assume the discussion was based on Australia getting destroyed. They are a very good team and certainly not the worst in the tourney. Wait until you see North Korea get played off the park by Brazil.

It's more about the fact that a country like Serbia is in there, as I mentioned in the LD, over a country who definitely has the much bigger potential in the world cup, a country like Sweden, (Belgium), Turkey etc. there's a lot of countries who most likely has the talent to run circles around Serbia.

And the World Cup would cease to be a world cup, and become quite elitist. Then the smaller sides get held back and the better sides may get complacent etc..

That's another problem, the world cup is to determine the best in the world, The. Best. In. The. World. and therefore the whole thing should be quite elitist, we should be seeing the best teams in the world, even if it means that there's teams that are absolutely awful who doesn't get the proper chances to get there, it simply means that they are the exact team that doesn't deserve to be in there.

I want to watch a world cup, an European cup that h as the talent, and the teams that leaves me in doubt who's gonna pass through the to the knockout stages, it's called "groups of death" I'm sure you all heard of it, supposedly the World Cup 2010 doesn't have any, I wonder why.

 

[Барбоса]

If you really want all the 'best' teams in the world at the World Cup every year then few or no African, Asian or Australasian sides would ever play. You end up with a version of the European Championships plus Brazil, Argentina and maybe one or two others. That would be very elitest and even then there would be complaints of good teams going out in the early rounds.

The current system is as good as it gets for a global tournament. If you cannot qualify from your regional qualifiers then you do not deserve to be there. Yes you might have a valid claim to be better than some sides that do qualify. For example, the Russians are a better side than probably all of the African and Asian sides playing in South Africa but they could not beat the Slovenians over two legs. Yes, we might get some poorer sides in the group stages and perhaps one or two reaching the knock out stages but that is part and parcel of a global competition and part of the magic of it all. Look at South Korea reaching the semi finals in 2002. However, in the end, if you look at the role of World Cup winners and runners up, the cream always rises to the top

Also I would say that there is a "Group of Death" this year with Brazil, Portugal and Ivory Coast all in the same group.

 

[Ferbian]

If you really want all the 'best' teams in the world at the World Cup every year then few or no African, Asian or Australasian sides would ever play. You end up with a version of the European Championships plus Brazil, Argentina and maybe one or two others. That would be very elitest and even then there would be complaints of good teams going out in the early rounds.

That is very true, but it doesn't mean they are permanently out of it, because in time there will be world talent born that could qualify them properly.

I'm just saying that I think there's something odd behind watching a team like Turkey as I mentioned, how many times now? not being in the tournament as opposed to teams that would be very low on the world ranking when searching for potential winners.

And to support my claim that I believe some day there could be born world talent in a small crappy country: The Laudrup Brothers, two world class players in a country that I question how they even qualified for the 2010 World Cup when they couldn't qualify for the European cup in 2008, or the World Cup in 2006, Denmark that is.

The current system is as good as it gets for a global tournament. If you cannot qualify from your regional qualifiers then you do not deserve to be there. Yes you might have a valid claim to be better than some sides that do qualify. For example, the Russians are a better side than probably all of the African and Asian sides playing in South Africa but they could not beat the Slovenians over two legs. Yes, we might get some poorer sides in the group stages and perhaps one or two reaching the knock out stages but that is part and parcel of a global competition and part of the magic of it all. Look at South Korea reaching the semi finals in 2002. However, in the end, if you look at the role of World Cup winners and runners up, the cream always rises to the top

Sure the current system runs good, but sometimes the seedings can truly be odd, I think the while the seedings have been fair in the past, that sometimes the seedings are placed to benefit others, or lack of the other (not benefiting) when looking at the qualification groups.

Like I mentioned, France, Brazil, Spain and England in 1 seeding, someone is bound to be fucked over, and they shouldn't because of the fact that they are much more legitimate in the world cup than anything Serbia, Australia etc. could ever hope for.

Also I would say that there is a "Group of Death" this year with Brazil, Portugal and Ivory Coast all in the same group.

True, I speculated that as well, but in the end I think it could very well come down to just Brazil and Portugal, because the Ivory Coast doesn't have the same size of talent that Portugal has, I believe their bigger talent Drogba is supposedly hurt just like Nicklas Bendtner for Denmark.

 

[Барбоса]

As the seedings in Europe are determined on how well you have played in the recent past, the better sides are given every chance to qualify and I would say that they are actually protected far more than they probably should be when it comes to who they have to face to qualify.

The Danes had a difficult group with both the Swedes and the Portuguese involved as well as a half decent Hungarian side and yet they won the group to qualify without a playoff. The Serbians actually won a group that included the French and the Romanians while the Turks, despite having to deal with a rampant Spanish side, could not finish above the Bosnians or the Belgians to get a playoff spot.

I am interested as to what you would do differently, Ferbs? Give more places at the finals to the European teams by reducing the number of Asian or African sides?

 

[Dave]

The one thing that I hate about qualifying campaigns is the seedings. They are literally the only thing that is keeping a lot of the teams in the World Cup.

Look at Scotland for a prime example of this. Before the World Cup qualifying campaign, they were listed as the 12th best footballing nation in the world in the FIFA World Rankings. Yet they were drawn along with France, Italy and Norway. Now, to me, there is something very wrong with that. The seedings are actually ridiculous. It ensures that the teams who have performed well in the past that are protected and are given easier draws to ensure that they are going to make the finals. I personally think that it is a lot of shit and that a lot of good teams missed out on the finals because of the seedings. Scotland is just one example. They came 3rd in the group, I believe and beat France twice. Yet, France make the finals and Scotland don't...

How is that fair!?

Easy answer: It's not.

I am of the opinion that draws should be completely random. They shouldn't be separated by region or ranking. They should be completely fair and would allow for more transparency. I would love to see France, Spain, England and Germany drawn in the same group. However, that would just mean that worse team are getting an easier road to the finals. There is literally no winning with this.

 

[TheAnimal]

Problem is Denmark didn't enter the tournament in 1992 because they qualified, they made it there due to Bosnia being in a civil war, and Denmark proved they have the ability to actually win it, which just shows that because you don't qualify, doesn't mean that you can't make it there.



It's more about the fact that a country like Serbia is in there, as I mentioned in the LD, over a country who definitely has the much bigger potential in the world cup, a country like Sweden, (Belgium), Turkey etc. there's a lot of countries who most likely has the talent to run circles around Serbia.



That's another problem, the world cup is to determine the best in the world, The. Best. In. The. World. and therefore the whole thing should be quite elitist, we should be seeing the best teams in the world, even if it means that there's teams that are absolutely awful who doesn't get the proper chances to get there, it simply means that they are the exact team that doesn't deserve to be in there.

I want to watch a world cup, an European cup that h as the talent, and the teams that leaves me in doubt who's gonna pass through the to the knockout stages, it's called "groups of death" I'm sure you all heard of it, supposedly the World Cup 2010 doesn't have any, I wonder why.

As mentioned before, the Brazil, Portugal, Ivory Coast, N.Korea is a group of death, aside from N.Korea obviously.

Serbia won their right to qualify, Sweden failed to qualify. It is not the fault of the Serbians if another more 'worthy' team fucked up. It gets messy in the sense that they may not be among the best in Europe for the qualifying, but they could be among the best 32 in the world. I don't think mixing the teams would work because it would take some of the uniqueness of the World Cup away from it by having the say Germany fly across the world to face say Cameroon. It can also come down to a countries resources, and how much they can plough into football for a team to become successful on an international scale. This goes beyond FIFA, UEFA etc and is a bigger issue that needs addressing. Then as mentioned before, you may get 25ish European nations and then Brazil, Argentina, maybe Mexico and Urguay and maybe S.Korea or Japan.

The World Cup is supposed to be a world cup, and be representative. If you take 32 teams and put them in based on who is the best then it ceases to be a world cup. Teams go through qualifying campaigns and play a number of games to get their, they only beat who is put in front of them. It is not the fault of Australia that they have to play American Samoa, like in 2001 and they beat them 31-0.

 

[Ferbian]

I would like to start off with agreeing completely with Dave, the seedings while they come off as fair, they aren't necessarily anywhere near fair, because of the pairings that gives a great team an awful pairing, I don't believe that big nations creating masses of "group of death" teams should be put together because as I've expressed before, I don't wanna see smaller teams in there that creates squash matches, I wanna see elite level football.

I am interested as to what you would do differently, Ferbs? Give more places at the finals to the European teams by reducing the number of Asian or African sides?

The funny thing is that I don't really want to change anything, the thing is that I just don't approve too much of the seedings like I expressed above, some of the pairings creates way too many of the well known group of deaths, groups I don't want to watch, while it creates great tension in the elite level football I'm talking about, it eliminates those teams that could create the elite level feeling for the next year.

I admit I haven't followed the sport since 2006-2007, and I'm very lacking of knowledge about the players that are in many of the teams now, returning to hopefully seeing old names, I obviously didn't see that many.

So the teams could very well have improved, Serbia could very well be a world nation team to be reckoned with, I doubt it, but the fact is that they could, but seeing as they're not compared to some of the talent that I know is present in some of the other countries (hell I forgot completely about Ukraine for example, had a decent team in 2006).

As mentioned before, the Brazil, Portugal, Ivory Coast, N.Korea is a group of death, aside from N.Korea obviously.

True, it's the only one that strikes as remotely being a group of death, but even there I don't necessarily agree, cause I see the possibilities of Brazil and Portugal proceeding superior to Brazil and Ivory Coast, cause we all know Brazil won't be eliminated.

Serbia won their right to qualify, Sweden failed to qualify. It is not the fault of the Serbians if another more 'worthy' team fucked up. It gets messy in the sense that they may not be among the best in Europe for the qualifying, but they could be among the best 32 in the world. I don't think mixing the teams would work because it would take some of the uniqueness of the World Cup away from it by having the say Germany fly across the world to face say Cameroon. It can also come down to a countries resources, and how much they can plough into football for a team to become successful on an international scale. This goes beyond FIFA, UEFA etc and is a bigger issue that needs addressing. Then as mentioned before, you may get 25ish European nations and then Brazil, Argentina, maybe Mexico and Urguay and maybe S.Korea or Japan.

True, it's not their faults that more "deserving" teams gets eliminated, but as I've addressed, Dave has addressed, the seedings poses a bullshit situation for the most of times.

I don't agree with the whole "resources" thing although, cause we all know that Germany is quite a nation resource wise, but Ivory Coast who doesn't strike anybody as a nationally dependent country of massive resources at the level of Germany, but they have some great talent in a guy like Drogba for example, who could bring Germany to a defeat.

The World Cup is supposed to be a world cup, and be representative. If you take 32 teams and put them in based on who is the best then it ceases to be a world cup. Teams go through qualifying campaigns and play a number of games to get their, they only beat who is put in front of them. It is not the fault of Australia that they have to play American Samoa, like in 2001 and they beat them 31-0.

No it does not, putting the best of the best in the world together does exactly make it a world cup, a world cup is to determine the best in the world, something I've said before, I want to watch the best of the best, not someone who was in a lucky group, as opposed to watching some world class team get squashed by the slightly superior team mixed with a bit of luck as well.

 

[Super Hans]

Im curious as to why you think Turkey,Belgium and Sweden are all better than Serbia ferbs?

 

[DirtyJosé]

I guess what I'm missing is what you want done, Ferbs. To be rid of the "lesser" teams in favor of only the greats? Seeding isn't perfect, but it's the best option on the table. Going random wouldn't solve the problems, and would likely only add to them.

This tournament is about being the best in the world; being the best in the world means that you should be able to progress no matter what team is placed in front of you. Bullshit seedings or not, if a team couldn't make it past their qualifying round, they deserve to watch at home and prepare for next time.

 

[Ferbian]

Im curious as to why you think Turkey,Belgium and Sweden are all better than Serbia ferbs?

Turkey may be pushing it I realized, but I will say that Sweden and Belgium I would consider superior due to the fact that they have overall qualified for more world and European cups than Serbia has under their belt, they currently have some of the better talent, and while Serbia was in a group with France, the remainder of that seeding was absolutely bullshit.

As opposed to Sweden who had to deal with Portugal, Denmark and a half decent Hungary.

Belgium who had to deal with Spain, Bosnia (who has always been half decent) and Turkey who while they never qualify for much, still strike me as a half decent team.

Besides for the most of it, the groups between 2 and 3 were pretty close standing, some even with 1-2-3 standing with the exception of those countries who's in here, and definitely should be in here, which wouldn't happen if they had been seeded in a world class group of death.

 

[Super Hans]

You do realise that Serbia was previously Serbia and Montenegro and before that Yugoslavia.They qualified for the last world cup above Spain.

 

[Ferbian]

First off Dirty, I do agree that it probably wouldn't solve anything, but in reality wouldn't it be much more entertaining actually watching some kind of match that revolves around the best of the best, rather than someone who had a lucky draw and qualified over other junk teams?

And Caps, I thank you for proving my idiocy, I have to facepalm myself and admit that I thought Serbia was Siberia and not the old Yugoslavia, the two country names confused me there, Serbia would be a decent choice to be in the tournaments, I was talking about Siberia not being anywhere near a world class team that should be in there to actually pose a worthy competition.

The same really goes for a decent part of the countries in the tournament, I mean I literally went "who" when LUFC HBK told me about Honduras in one of our World Cup LD's, does that really say much for them in manners of "yep, they definitely pose a threat" cause they definitely do not, they got there in a lucky group.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Ferbs, what you are proposing is a tournament that only uses "threats" based off football that you admit you haven't watched in 4 years. You are proposing dropping any team that doesn't prove to you that they are worth it, when to most people progressing out of the qualifying round is proof enough. This may be great for a separate tournament, but the World Cup should not be limited only to nations that are more popular. Pairings in any sport are imperfect, there will always be some lopsided matchings, but you still haven't accounted for why certain teams just should never have the chance to play.

 

[Ferbian]

It's not about the nation being more popular, but the fact that they will most likely be having the better talent, yes I didn't follow the sport for a decent amount of years, since the last World Cup's time, but that doesn't mean that I can't think that New Zealand for example has no place in this tournament over a team like Scotland, like Sweden, yeah I've mentioned these names before, I don't need to continue about that.

The fact of a matter is that while there's still great teams that qualify, and some less great teams qualifying, it doesn't exactly scream world cup when you see every single group POPPED to the top with teams you would know "yep, they're NOT gonna pass through" and none of these groups are group of deaths, with the exception of Brazil, Ivory Coast and Portugal, which still leaves me in doubt whether that's truly a group of death.

look at the World Cup 2006 and 2002, where there were more than one group that at least to my eyes, posed as group of deaths, or close competition either way.

 

[Felderino]

The fact of the matter is the seeding system all comes down to money. If England, France, Brazil, Germany, Argentina etc fail to qualify Fifa loses millions in revenue because the populations of those countries wouldn't give a crap about the world cup, and seeing as all Fifa cares about is profit the seeding system will always be with us.

If England just got gifted a place because their a big team that would be so unfair to all the smaller nations who have to work so hard to get there.

Your ideas would kill football and make it like an american sport with the same teams year in and year out.

 

[Ferbian]

I don't necessarily think it will kill Soccer, because American sport as you said, is the same teams in and out, but they are the superior teams, and the American sport as far as I know continues to be a large success, I mean look at American football and their ratings on nights where there's Monday Night RAW.

Soccer is a large sport, the whole damn world plays it, kids plays it amateur or professional, or in recess, soccer will never die out over the same teams going.

The same teams are always on the top, with a rare occasional change in the systems every now and then in the leagues, and they continue to be wildly popular as well.

 

[Megatron]

I don't necessarily think it will kill Soccer, because American sport as you said, is the same teams in and out, but they are the superior teams, and the American sport as far as I know continues to be a large success, I mean look at American football and their ratings on nights where there's Monday Night RAW.

I'd just like to point out that in the past 4 NFL playoffs, 25 of the 32 teams (78%) have made it at least once. And normally half the teams don't make it the following year. So, yeah.

As for qualifying, if you really deserve to be in the WC, you should at least be able to qualify and not get the spot handed to you. Earn your damn spot. This isn't wrestling where opportunities are handed out. If you can't even qualify you don't deserve to be in the cup. Also, while I think seeding the teams would be the best idea so you get a nice balance of nations in each league, there'll still always be problems with the seeding of who goes where. And if you really are good enough you should be able to beat anybody that is in your group, no matter if it's Brazil or Algeria. Doesn't matter.

 

[TheAnimal]

I don't agree with the whole "resources" thing although, cause we all know that Germany is quite a nation resource wise, but Ivory Coast who doesn't strike anybody as a nationally dependent country of massive resources at the level of Germany, but they have some great talent in a guy like Drogba for example, who could bring Germany to a defeat.



No it does not, putting the best of the best in the world together does exactly make it a world cup, a world cup is to determine the best in the world, something I've said before, I want to watch the best of the best, not someone who was in a lucky group, as opposed to watching some world class team get squashed by the slightly superior team mixed with a bit of luck as well.

I know what you mean about the resources thing, but what i was trying to say is that a lot of the teams do generally come down to that, they may not necessarily have the pool of players to choose from that Germany have.

With putting the best in, they are mainly european so it wont always be representative because a lot of them are going to be European. You do get great stories of the lesser nations though. Look at the FA Cup as a prime example. You have giant killings. Although they have Premier League sides enter in the 3rd round, but a lot of them do face smaller sides and when they get far into the tournament they gain a lot of support, just like Senegal 2002.

The qualifying is a problem, as is seeding but its hard to address properly.

 

[harrythem]

This whole topic is a moot point while you've got that twat Blatter in charge of Fifa and ******** Platini with UEFA. They're both a pair of numpties that couldn't arrange a piss-up in a brewery, let alone arranging world class tournaments. The seeding does make sense as, let's face it, if it wasn't you could end up with one group having Brazil, Spain, Argentina and Italy while another has New Zealand, North Korea, Algeria and Honduras. As rankings are dependant on things like world cup results that could end up with someone like Algeria being ranked the 2nd best team in the world and automatically getting seeding for the Euro Championship draw, while a team like Italy could end up as the losers and, realistically, that's just not cricket!

The only thing I don't agree with is seeding the playoffs. I get the seeding for the qualifying groups as that still manages to throw up some surprises but, in my opinion, the play-offs should be random as, if you're good enough to get to the play-off stage as, say San Marino for example, then why should you automatically be drawn against France as you've earned your chance to have a bit of luck against a team more on your level, then being pitted against a superior nation who, realistically, will tonk you.

 

[TheAnimal]

I know, the play off thing was stupid, it was based on past achievements, but the problem was they finished 2nd in qualifying so that contradicted the point of the play offs. It also was not fair on other nations, because Ireland played an excellent qualifying campaign and got the most difficult draw due to seeding.

It is unbelievable how they make it blatantly obvious that they want the best teams in. They may as well have the world top 8 in it and have the rest play to get in.

Blatter/Platini dont have a clue.