 |
|
| Hobby Forum Index » Sport - Soccer » Europe spots for WC |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Trapper |
 Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Iceman |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Nowadays the continent's worst teams are among the weakest in the
competition - and are certainly the dullest."
That's certainly true.
2002: Slovenia, Poland
1998: Scotland, Bulgaria
1994: Russia, Greece
1990: USSR, Sweden
Part of the problem is Europe's qualifying system. The different
qualifying groups differ greatly in strength, so there are always one
or two crappy teams getting in while one or two strong teams are kept
out. That virtually never happens in the other confederations.
Europe should lose two bids to Africa. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MH |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Iceman wrote:
which there is no real way of predicting in advance. Based on
qualifying/ record in Euro 2000, France and Portugal were better than
Ireland, Sweden and Denmark in 2002
are among the weakest in the
Quote: competition - and are certainly the dullest."
That's certainly true.
2002: Slovenia, Poland
1998: Scotland, Bulgaria
1994: Russia, Greece
Were any of the above in the same class for woefullness as China and
Saudi Arabia (2002), Bolivia 1994, etc. ?
Sweden gave Brazil quite a fright actually and at least scored some
goals. They also qualified ahead of England in their group.
Russia - victim of some bizarre refereeing, but scored a pile of goals
against Cameroon. And they were finalists in Euro 1988.
So these two go to show that there's no predicting which teams from
Europe might end up last.
Quote:
Part of the problem is Europe's qualifying system. The different
qualifying groups differ greatly in strength, so there are always one
or two crappy teams getting in while one or two strong teams are kept
out.
The qualification system is far from ideal , though the chances of
crappy teams going through next time (larger groups, more games) is
smaller. But if the so-called better teams can't get the results
against weaker teams (eg. NL last time) they can hardly complain.
Quote: That virtually never happens in the other confederations.
Nonsense. which qualifying group was harder ? the one with Egypt,
Senegal, Morocco and Algeria, or the one Tunisia was in ?
And was China's group as hard as the one with Saudi arabia and Iran ?
Quote: Europe should lose two bids to Africa.
Based on what ? Europe already has lost one place (14 in 2006 including
hosts compared to 15 in 1998 including hosts, and 15 in 2000 including
champions and a playoff winner) to keep the Asians at a ridiculously
high number of spots. African teams in 1982 , 86 and 90 did well enough
to earn additional representation, but since then the rate of
qualification for the second round by africans has been
1994 1/3
1998 1/5
2002 1/5
Not any huge signs of progress, there, and the African Champions of 2000
(Cameroon) couldn't beat Ireland, a middling European team, whereas the
African champions of this year finished last in their group. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Futbolmetrix |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Iceman" <oneofcold@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ct2ec0prmo1ko5r0pni67sb9vfbgo59m35@4ax.com...
Quote:
That's certainly true.
2002: Slovenia, Poland
1998: Scotland, Bulgaria
1994: Russia, Greece
1990: USSR, Sweden
Part of the problem is Europe's qualifying system. The different
qualifying groups differ greatly in strength, so there are always one
or two crappy teams getting in while one or two strong teams are kept
out. That virtually never happens in the other confederations.
Europe should lose two bids to Africa.
Wow, what an interesting thread! Never been discussed before on RSS...
Daniele |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| anders t |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quoting Futbolmetrix in rec.sport.soccer:
Quote: "Iceman" <oneofcold@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ct2ec0prmo1ko5r0pni67sb9vfbgo59m35@4ax.com...
That's certainly true.
2002: Slovenia, Poland
1998: Scotland, Bulgaria
1994: Russia, Greece
1990: USSR, Sweden
Part of the problem is Europe's qualifying system. The different
qualifying groups differ greatly in strength, so there are always one
or two crappy teams getting in while one or two strong teams are kept
out. That virtually never happens in the other confederations.
Europe should lose two bids to Africa.
Wow, what an interesting thread! Never been discussed before on RSS...
You guys wanna get me started?
I can resend the history, got it all saved.
I'd kick Ben Smith's ass and win any posting competition.
Perhaps DKW can join in?
Just a teaser... If they were to start deleting berths from confederations
they should certainly start from the bottom. And Asia would go first.
--
On a dirty worn-out sidewalk sits a mother with a baby
In her vale of tears she sees no rainbow
And someone's singing from a window
In the mission of the sacred heart |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| anders t |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quoting MH in rec.sport.soccer:
Quote: Sweden gave Brazil quite a fright actually and at least scored some
goals. They also qualified ahead of England in their group.
Sweden were also outplaying Costa Rica in 75 minutes, especially in the
first half and should have had 3,4-0 instead of only 1-0. Then Costa Rica
had one counterattack. After this Sweden had 15 mins to score a winner, had
to open up and Costa Rica got more counterattacks and a goal.
Quote: Not any huge signs of progress, there, and the African Champions of 2000
(Cameroon) couldn't beat Ireland, a middling European team, whereas the
African champions of this year finished last in their group.
Indeed.
But ASIA (AFC) is the Confed with FAR too many berths based on actual
performance.
--
On a dirty worn-out sidewalk sits a mother with a baby
In her vale of tears she sees no rainbow
And someone's singing from a window
In the mission of the sacred heart |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MH |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
anders t wrote:
Quote: Quoting MH in rec.sport.soccer:
Sweden gave Brazil quite a fright actually and at least scored some
goals. They also qualified ahead of England in their group.
Sweden were also outplaying Costa Rica in 75 minutes, especially in the
first half and should have had 3,4-0 instead of only 1-0. Then Costa Rica
had one counterattack. After this Sweden had 15 mins to score a winner, had
to open up and Costa Rica got more counterattacks and a goal.
Since we are on the subject, Scotland - Costa Rica from 1990 was like
France - Senegal from 2002, only more so.
Quote:
Not any huge signs of progress, there, and the African Champions of 2000
(Cameroon) couldn't beat Ireland, a middling European team, whereas the
African champions of this year finished last in their group.
Indeed.
But ASIA (AFC) is the Confed with FAR too many berths based on actual
performance.
yup, no doubt about it. It is quite scandalous, really. They had three
in France, did poorly there (worst of all confederations), and managed
somehow to get to 4.5 next time by arguing they had two hosts. And now
they kept those 4.5 , in spite of China and Saudi Arabia's incompetent
performances ? The mind boggles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark V. |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Iceman <oneofcold@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ct2ec0prmo1ko5r0pni67sb9vfbgo59m35@4ax.com>...
Who should then lose one to South America and one to Oceania. When
more than just one African team per cup gets out of group play then we
can talk. Things seem to me to be just fine the way that they are.
Quote: 2002: Slovenia, Poland
Both likely better than Tunisia.
1998: Scotland, Bulgaria
Both likely better than Tunisia
1994: Russia, Greece
Russia trounced Cameroon that year.
1990: USSR, Sweden
The USSR trounced Cameroon that year. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| anders t |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quoting Mark V. in rec.sport.soccer:
Quote: Iceman <oneofcold@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ct2ec0prmo1ko5r0pni67sb9vfbgo59m35@4ax.com>...
Too many spots for Europe in WC 2004?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3788049.stm
"Nowadays the continent's worst teams are among the weakest in the
competition - and are certainly the dullest."
Europe should lose two bids to Africa.
Who should then lose one to South America and one to Oceania. When
more than just one African team per cup gets out of group play then we
can talk. Things seem to me to be just fine the way that they are.
2002: Slovenia, Poland
Both likely better than Tunisia.
1998: Scotland, Bulgaria
Both likely better than Tunisia
1994: Russia, Greece
Russia trounced Cameroon that year.
1990: USSR, Sweden
The USSR trounced Cameroon that year.
Fact is that there has only been 1 UEFA team that REALLY sucked - Greece
-94. But that's WORST case and it would not be very reasonable to judge
UEFA by that anomaly.
--
On a dirty worn-out sidewalk sits a mother with a baby
In her vale of tears she sees no rainbow
And someone's singing from a window
In the mission of the sacred heart |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mango |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"anders t" <anthu_001@No?SPaM?_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rriec0tds7lpbuol0mkk4mb9agtrjt4sri@4ax.com...
Quote: Quoting Futbolmetrix in rec.sport.soccer:
"Iceman" <oneofcold@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ct2ec0prmo1ko5r0pni67sb9vfbgo59m35@4ax.com...
That's certainly true.
2002: Slovenia, Poland
1998: Scotland, Bulgaria
1994: Russia, Greece
1990: USSR, Sweden
Part of the problem is Europe's qualifying system. The different
qualifying groups differ greatly in strength, so there are always one
or two crappy teams getting in while one or two strong teams are kept
out. That virtually never happens in the other confederations.
Europe should lose two bids to Africa.
Wow, what an interesting thread! Never been discussed before on RSS...
You guys wanna get me started?
I can resend the history, got it all saved.
Please don't. People might discover I have a slightly different position
every time it gets discussed.
Quote: I'd kick Ben Smith's ass and win any posting competition.
Perhaps DKW can join in?
Just a teaser... If they were to start deleting berths from confederations
they should certainly start from the bottom. And Asia would go first.
Not only should they delete spots but they should also add teams to the
group. 4 spots for a combined AFC/OFC is about right. CAF and CONCACAF
should also have 4 each. South America should have 5 and Europe the rest.
Quote: --
On a dirty worn-out sidewalk sits a mother with a baby
In her vale of tears she sees no rainbow
And someone's singing from a window
In the mission of the sacred heart
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| steven mcgee |
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Futbolmetrix" <futbolmetrix@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca9039$q68$1@news.iucc.ac.il...
Quote: "MH" <nopinkstuffakaspam@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:40C76498.4030008@ucalgary.ca...
yup, no doubt about it. It is quite scandalous, really. They had three
in France, did poorly there (worst of all confederations), and managed
somehow to get to 4.5 next time by arguing they had two hosts. And now
they kept those 4.5 , in spite of China and Saudi Arabia's incompetent
performances ? The mind boggles.
My mind boggles as well. Asia should have at most 2.5, and that's being
generous. Maybe three if they merge with OFC.
My optimal allocation:
UEFA 16
CONMEBOL 4.5
CAF 4.5
CONCACAF 4
AFC + OFC 3
I wonder why Africa gets so many places. Generally 4 of their 5 teams don't
even make it past the group stages although they are not as spectacularly
incompetent as the Asian teams. South America should get one of their
places. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Futbolmetrix |
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"MH" <nopinkstuffakaspam@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:40C76498.4030008@ucalgary.ca...
Quote:
yup, no doubt about it. It is quite scandalous, really. They had three
in France, did poorly there (worst of all confederations), and managed
somehow to get to 4.5 next time by arguing they had two hosts. And now
they kept those 4.5 , in spite of China and Saudi Arabia's incompetent
performances ? The mind boggles.
My mind boggles as well. Asia should have at most 2.5, and that's being
generous. Maybe three if they merge with OFC.
My optimal allocation:
UEFA 16
CONMEBOL 4.5
CAF 4.5
CONCACAF 4
AFC + OFC 3
Daniele |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MH |
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 2:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
steven mcgee wrote:
Quote: "Futbolmetrix" <futbolmetrix@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca9039$q68$1@news.iucc.ac.il...
"MH" <nopinkstuffakaspam@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:40C76498.4030008@ucalgary.ca...
yup, no doubt about it. It is quite scandalous, really. They had three
in France, did poorly there (worst of all confederations), and managed
somehow to get to 4.5 next time by arguing they had two hosts. And now
they kept those 4.5 , in spite of China and Saudi Arabia's incompetent
performances ? The mind boggles.
My mind boggles as well. Asia should have at most 2.5, and that's being
generous. Maybe three if they merge with OFC.
My optimal allocation:
UEFA 16
CONMEBOL 4.5
CAF 4.5
CONCACAF 4
AFC + OFC 3
I wonder why Africa gets so many places. Generally 4 of their 5 teams don't
even make it past the group stages although they are not as spectacularly
incompetent as the Asian teams. South America should get one of their
places.
I am less uncomfortable with giving 5 to Africa as there appears to be a
lot more strength in depth in Africa than in CONCACAF or Asia. There
are teams like Cote D'Ivoire who could be very good, and really, who had
thought much about Senegal before 2002 ?
The problem African teams have had is the last two world cups they have
all been seeded in the same pot with the CONCACAF teams. This means
every African could expect to face two Europeans, or Brazil or Argentina
plus one European, or even as for Morocco in 1998 and Nigeria in 2002,
Brazil or Argentina PLUS two Europeans. It then becomes luck of the
draw hoping you get a weaker or off-form European, and that the
remaining team in your group is Asian rather than South American.
Morocco in 1998 and Cameroon in 2002 were very close to advancing, and
none of the African teams the last two cups has been completely awful.
I kind of like Daniele's scheme above too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| sidd |
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: UEFA 16
CONMEBOL 4.5
CAF 4.5
CONCACAF 4
AFC + OFC 3
Host 1
AFC+OFC 2
CONCACAF 2
CAF 5
CONMEBOL 5
UEFA 12
The remaining 5 teams to come from playoffs
involving 10 teams from the 5 zones ( 2 best
non qualifiers ) each. Teams to be paired
randomly with the exception that intrazone
matchups are not allowed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jesper Lauridsen |
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2004-06-12, anders t <anthu_001@No€SPaM€_hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Quoting Jesper Lauridsen in rec.sport.soccer:
The other confederations have nowhere near the same depth. Most other
confederations don't even have two strong teams to keep out.
Ouch...
For suitable values of "most", "strong", "keep out" and "two", it's true.
Quote: Let's try this. When the 2006 qualification is over, you pick 5 European
teams that you think will do worse, as a group, as the African teams.
Deja vu, all over... 
I don't remember what the point of the minnows bet was, but I was amused
to see that of the 5 minnows that qualifies, 3 made it to the second round,
thereby outperforming both Africa (1/5) and South America (2/5), and being
on par with the rest of the confederations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:04 pm
|
|