WC seeds

Share
avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: WC seeds

Post by mongrel hawk on Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:51 pm

blutgraetsche wrote:
debaser wrote:I predict length will also be important.
I don't. Midgets won the last three tournaments. And Peter Crouch retired.
We have Jô though, the black Peter Crouch.
avatar
debaser

Number of posts : 22064
Age : 32
Supports : Aston Villa and Shrewsbury Town
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: WC seeds

Post by debaser on Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:26 pm

blutgraetsche wrote:
debaser wrote:I predict length will also be important.
I don't. Midgets won the last three tournaments. And Peter Crouch retired.
I said length, not height sunny 
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:35 pm

Eww. You're dirty.
avatar
Axeslammer

Number of posts : 19688
Age : 45
Supports : Leeds Utd / FC Groningen
Favourite Player : Filip Kostic, Bergkamp, Le Tiss
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: WC seeds

Post by Axeslammer on Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:20 am

So FIFA up to their old tricks : defining seeding criteria just before the tournament instead of at the start of the qualifying campaign.....and nobody thinks that's strange....
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:36 am

Newest FiFA ranking (October 2013) has been released, the relevant one for the WC seedings:


Rnk Team Pts +/- Pos
1 Spain 1513 0 Equal
2 Germany 1311 1 Up
3 Argentina 1266 -1 Down
4 Colombia 1178 1 Up
5 Belgium 1175 1 Up
6 Uruguay 1164 1 Up
7 Switzerland 1138 7 Up

8 Netherlands 1136 1 Up
8 Italy 1136 -4 Down
10 England 1080 7 Up
11 Brazil 1078 -3 Down

http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/

Top 7 plus hosts Brazil are seeded. Looks like both Holland and Italy missed out by meagre 2 points.
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:40 am

Axeslammer wrote:So FIFA up to their old tricks : defining seeding criteria just before the tournament instead of at the start of the qualifying campaign.....and nobody thinks that's strange....
That's not accurate though. It had been well known that the rankings would be used for the seedings, as decided by the FiFA executive committee.
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:43 am

Italy shot themselves in the foot by drawing their last two matches, would have been tops seeds easily by winning one of those two rather winnable matches this week. Holland have the slight hope of Uruguay bottling the play-offs, even if that's rather unlikely. Should that happen, they'll be top seeds also.

France will be in pot 3 even, so the probability of them being in a 'group of death' is very high.
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:25 pm

With a bit of planning England could have been seeded ahead of the Swiss

Switzerland will be one of eight seeds in the World Cup draw as they played three friendlies last year while England had five

So it's official, England will not be seeded in the World Cup draw. Fifa's latest world rankings, in which the world's top seven will join Brazil as seeds, puts them only 10th. But the frustration is that they might have made it, had they only tried. The difference between success and failure in this race lies not only in results on the pitch, though they obviously help, but in a bit of thought being put in off it. Sure, had England held on to their half-time lead in Montenegro in March, or beaten Ukraine last month, a place in pot one would have been theirs, but the easiest way for the Football Association to have made sure their team got seeded wasn't by getting them to actually play well – which is an awfully complicated business – but by occasionally making sure they didn't play at all.

This is going to get mildly complicated, so bear with me. The basic facts to start with: in the latest Fifa rankings there are 58 ranking points between England and Switzerland, the last of the seeded teams. England's performances this year have contributed 485.46 towards their total, the number of points won on average per match played. Switzerland have averaged 669.63 points per match this year. The Swiss had a kind qualifying draw, and played their hand admirably well, but the key difference between the teams, the reason why the Swiss will be seeded and the English will miss out, is that England have played five friendlies in the last year (W2 D2 L1), and Switzerland only three (W2 D1).

Fifa's ranking system heavily rewards competitive fixtures – a European team will get 2.5 times more points for a result in World Cup qualifying than the same result against the same team at the same time in a friendly. The most points it is possible to win in a friendly – by beating the world's No1 team – is 600, which is still below Switzerland's average. If even winning a friendly can hurt a top team's ranking, imagine the damage that drawing or losing can do.

For example, against Sweden last November England were leading 2-1 with 15 minutes to play, made a stream of second-half substitutions and eventually lost the match 4-2. The match earned them no ranking points. Had they simply not played that game they would currently be 48.55 points better off. Six months later England won a feeble 161 points by drawing with the Republic of Ireland. Had that game also never been scheduled, England would currently be ranked by Fifa as the sixth best team in the world.

A combination of pride and commercial imperatives have forced the FA to schedule a string of prestige friendlies – against the best sides on the planet, whose excellence means they are most likely to cause England to fail, or against other British or Irish nations, who will be hugely motivated by the occasion. If a place among the seeds in the World Cup finals is a priority then, in the key year before the finals draw, an association should schedule as few friendlies as possible, and if they really must arrange one they have to win it.

Play the percentages: England would have got 543 points had they won at the Maracanã in June, but there were just 181 on offer for a draw while defeat would have left them with nothing. Meanwhile you can get 483 points for beating Peru at home, or 468 for beating Honduras. In this context the FA's decision to schedule an away friendly against Brazil, or for that matter Sweden, in the year of a World Cup finals draw is unjustifiable. Even if all their other results had been unchanged, had England played no friendlies at all in the last 12 months they would be 181 ranking points better off, and officially the fourth best team in the world.

They could also have scheduled their competitive games better. Even in qualifiers a victory against one of the very worst sides in Europe, such as San Marino, is worth just 375 points. In other words, being drawn against a rank no-hoper during qualification is severely detrimental to a team's chances of being seeded once qualified. The only way of limiting the damage is by scheduling both matches against them more than a year before the finals draw, because Fifa's system massively prioritises results over the most recent 12-month period. Matches you might well lose should also go here, while games more likely to bring hefty returns – against average-to-good nations, especially at home – should never be among the first qualifiers played. .

(As an aside, France recently complained that they were disadvantaged by being in a five-team group, which gave them two fewer qualifiers and therefore fewer chances to accumulate ranking points. This is total nonsense – the addition of a feeble sixth team to their group would have enormously reduced their point-scoring potential. Had they finished qualifying with a 100% record, and taking their opponents' rankings at the point the draw was made, their matches would, on average, each have brought 1,173.62 points. The addition of San Marino, Andorra or Malta would have reduced this average by 159.72. The truth is that theirs would have been the best group of all, had they only played better.)

There is also an element of luck, because points are calculated according to a team's ranking at the moment the match takes place, which has nothing to do with the opponent. For example, when the qualifying draw was made in July 2011 Moldova had a world ranking of 85, meaning that at that moment England could have earned a handsome 862.5 points by beating them. But their ranking had been inflated by a couple of rogue victories in previous qualifying campaigns.

These results became less important as time passed, and when England actually got round to playing them for the first time, in September 2012, they had dropped down to 141, and the maximum points available for a win was a miserable 442.50.

If, when the draw was made, Armenia rather than Moldova had been placed from pot five into England's group, and if England had beaten them home and away, they would be 62.44 points better off and, even without changing their friendlies or any other results, would have usurped the Swiss as world No7. The best possible qualifying group has plenty of decent teams, with absolutely no terrible ones. The current system massively benefits the South American sides, who play more qualifiers (normally 18) than the Europeans and face no side currently ranked below 71 in the world. Whoever gets through that group is all but guaranteed a points bonanza, and the continent will duly have four seeded teams next summer.

So if England do find themselves in the group of death when the draw is made on 6 December lessons should be learned. Recent, painful history has taught us that a team of England's quality will always mess up in matches, whoever's sitting on the bench. But Fifa's system hands great power to the administrators, and gives whoever schedules matches – or refuses to – the chance to give their team a significant boost. Next time, the FA should take it.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/oct/17/england-seeded-switzerland-world-cup-draw-friendlies


Good explanation of the whole ranking system and why France's complaint is stupid. Still no fan of the FiFA rankings though.
avatar
Axeslammer

Number of posts : 19688
Age : 45
Supports : Leeds Utd / FC Groningen
Favourite Player : Filip Kostic, Bergkamp, Le Tiss
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: WC seeds

Post by Axeslammer on Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:51 am

blutgraetsche wrote:
Axeslammer wrote:So FIFA up to their old tricks : defining seeding criteria just before the tournament instead of at the start of the qualifying campaign.....and nobody thinks that's strange....
That's not accurate though. It had been well known that the rankings would be used for the seedings, as decided by the FiFA executive committee.
But the formula was not known, it was still possible that results at former WC's or results from the qualifying campaign would also count.

What's strange (nah make that criminally dubious) that FIFA does this *every* time and *every* time you can predict what the altered criteria will be (FIFA's interests are well known).

How is it possible that the exact criteria are not known at the start of the qualifying campaign ?! I don't think there's any other sport where this is possible.
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:09 am

According to the Swiss fans, the criteria were known for a long time. I don't like the FiFA rankings to begin with, I don't like the fact that you're basically being punished for playing friendlies, no matter the opposition, that South American teams are favoured heavily due to the higher number of competitive matches played. So I don't like the idea of these rankings being used for the seedings.

However, it had been known for quite a while, even to me, that FiFA intended to use these rankings for the seedings. So teams had plenty of time to deal with the situation, that's why the complaints by Italians or French are a bit rich. Italy just had to beat those minnows to be seeded, for example, so they don't have anyone else to blame but themselves.

And just because you don't like the result (I don't either - Switzerland nowhere near good enough to be a seeded team, but not just them), I don't think that you can begrudge the likes of Switzerland, Colombia or Belgium for taking advantage of the situation. They did their jobs, they qualified well and racked up the points.

Besides, is it really an advantage to be a seeded team? There is as much of a probability for the likes of Germany and Spain to be in a group of death as there is for Holland and Italy.
avatar
Axeslammer

Number of posts : 19688
Age : 45
Supports : Leeds Utd / FC Groningen
Favourite Player : Filip Kostic, Bergkamp, Le Tiss
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: WC seeds

Post by Axeslammer on Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:30 pm

blutgraetsche wrote:According to the Swiss fans, the criteria were known for a long time.
No they weren't and you don't get my point, so never mind Smile
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:36 pm

I got your point and do see where you are coming from. Your argument is that FiFA were working in the shadows again and only now making the seeding criteria public. The Swiss say it was well known for a long time (maybe they had some inside information from the compatriot Blatter?), everyone else seems 'surprised' now.

Whatever really. More often than not, the 'groups of death' on paper turn out to be the easier, more clear ones, while the real groups of death are those nobody expected.
avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: WC seeds

Post by mongrel hawk on Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:39 pm

blutgraetsche wrote:that South American teams are favoured heavily due to the higher number of competitive matches played.
What???

Europeans play 2 qualifiers: WC and EC. South Americans play only one. If you add the numbers, you'll see Europeans play more competitive matches.
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:47 pm

Read the article I posted earlier. This is about World Cup seedings, where South American teams have the advantage of playing 18 competitive matches in contrast to the 10 matches UEFA teams play.


The current system massively benefits the South American sides, who play more qualifiers (normally 18) than the Europeans and face no side currently ranked below 71 in the world. Whoever gets through that group is all but guaranteed a points bonanza, and the continent will duly have four seeded teams next summer.

Formerly known as sheva7

Number of posts : 1898
Age : 33
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: WC seeds

Post by Formerly known as sheva7 on Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:38 pm

What Colombia and Belgium did to be seeds? This system makes no sense at all. Traditional countries like Italy and Netherlands qualified with ease, reached the last World Cup and Euro finals, and will not be seeded.
avatar
Romford Pele

Number of posts : 18652
Age : 27
Supports : Arsenal (Team Progress)
Favourite Player : Ozil
Registration date : 2006-10-05

Re: WC seeds

Post by Romford Pele on Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:07 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24701131

40 teams! FFS Doh
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:25 pm

Platini is an idiot. It's more than annoying already that he is going to ruin the Euros with 24 teams competing in 2016...

Hell, I'd prefer less teams at the WC and Euros!
avatar
Fey

Number of posts : 35347
Supports : Feyenoord and Manchester United
Favourite Player : ??#$ Error, John Guidetti, Jordy Clasie
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: WC seeds

Post by Fey on Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:26 pm

Good stuff, it's Platini's way of getting rid of the qualifiers ok
avatar
Antarion

Number of posts : 3372
Age : 32
Supports : Germany, Bayern
Favourite Player : Müller, Neuer and Schürrle
Registration date : 2008-04-11

Re: WC seeds

Post by Antarion on Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:48 pm

two more from america? lol!
avatar
Puro

Number of posts : 10676
Registration date : 2006-09-12

Re: WC seeds

Post by Puro on Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:57 pm

lol!  Platini's worried that the world noticed UEFA are not worthy of 13 spots when UEFA only have around 20 football playing countries and that the rest are amateurish sides.

The Germans are worried that Paraguay (the worst team in CONMEBOL!) may have utterly destroyed the armor forever, ain't that right blut! lol! 

I "fear" you as much as Italia fear Germany. Biggrin <Ale> 
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:03 pm

Yeah, the team is shaking in their boots over the Paraguays of this world, not to mention the CONCACAF trash. Brilliant idea to give them another two spots, it's not like everything possible has been done already to make qualification for USA and Mexico as pisseasy as possible... Biggrin

Puro, this time there will be no excuses left for South America should the Europeans once again wipe the floor with them just like in the last two WCs. This time the WC is in South America. Should they bottle it again at home, there is more than enough reason to take away a few of their spots and give them to Africa and Asia. Ale
avatar
BoBo Vieri 32

Number of posts : 10187
Age : 30
Supports : Whichever Serie A team is doing best in the Champions League/Port Vale
Favourite Player : Andy Townsend, Robbie Earle
Registration date : 2006-08-13

Re: WC seeds

Post by BoBo Vieri 32 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:07 pm

Puro wrote: 

I "fear" you as much as Italia fear Germany. Biggrin <Ale> 
Very Happy 
avatar
Puro

Number of posts : 10676
Registration date : 2006-09-12

Re: WC seeds

Post by Puro on Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:11 pm

blutgraetsche wrote:Yeah, the team is shaking in their boots over the Paraguays of this world, not to mention the CONCACAF trash. Brilliant idea to give them another two spots, it's not like everything possible has been done already to make qualification for USA and Mexico as pisseasy as possible... Biggrin

Puro, this time there will be no excuses left for South America should the Europeans once again wipe the floor with them just like in the last two WCs. This time the WC is in South America. Should they bottle it again at home, there is more than enough reason to take away a few of their spots and give them to Africa and Asia. Ale
The only one shaking in their boots is Platini as seeing the prospect of UEFA losing WC spots that's why he's proposing his WC plan.

Fuck that, blut! Let's do the right thing: remove THREE spots from UEFA and give them to CONMEBOL.

Perú, Paraguay, Venezuela are much more worthy than a lot of the euro shite that 'qualifies' to the WC. I KNOW you've seen the complete joke that is some of the UEFA groups.

avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:16 pm

Yeah, right, as South America has really set the world alight in recent tournaments, let's reward them with more WC spots... Laugh

Three European teams in the semis of the last two WCs Puro, all European final in both of them. Ale
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:16 am

Non monsieur: why Michel Platini's 40-team World Cup idea is misguided

Perhaps the Uefa president does really believe that the upheaval and dilution of the World Cup is worth it, but his plan is ill conceived and smacks of politics

Another day, another wearying proposal to ruin football. This time it was Michel Platini, the Uefa president who long ago surpassed Sepp Blatter as the global game's greatest nonsense machine, who shook the kaleidoscope of self-interest and came up with a proposal to expand the World Cup finals from 32 to 40 teams. More games! More countries! More fans! More money! More votes! Hurrah!

Let nobody be in any doubt what Platini's proposal, revealed on Monday in the Times, is about. It's about the Fifa presidency, whether in 2015, when it seems increasingly likely Blatter will stand again, using the issue of the Qatar World Cup in 2022 to pressure Platini (the main cheerleader for Qatar outside of Asia), or in 2019. Blatter's pre-hustings jockeying last week saw him promising extra places at the World Cup for Asia and Africa, and so Platini replied by suggesting more places for everybody, something he presumably hopes will gain him support in Africa and Asia without losing votes back in Europe.

The argument that the African and Asian confederations are underrepresented at the World Cup is ludicrous, as explained in detail here. To sum up the argument, though, at the 2014 finals, there will be 13 teams from Uefa, 5.5 from Conmebol (South America), 5 from CAF (Africa), 4.5 from the AFC (Asia), 3.5 from Concacaf (North & Central America) and 0.5 from the OFC (Oceania). The Fifa rankings show the top 32 teams in the world consist of 20 from Uefa, six from Conmebol, three from CAF and Concacaf and none from the AFC or OFC. Or, to take the Elo rankings, which many deem a better system, the top 32 comprises 18 from Uefa, 6 from Conmebol, three from CAF and Concacaf, two from the AFC and none from the OFC.

This raises the issue of what a tournament is. If the World Cup is aimed at gathering the best 32 teams in the world to battle each other for the right to be considered supreme, it turns out Uefa is already under-represented and AFC and CAF over-represented. But of course it's not as simple as that: there is a need to create a global spectacle and to offer encouragement to football regions that are still developing – while still possessing sufficient quality that the tournament retains a competitive edge. The CAF president Issa Hayatou's whines that only a tenth of his members qualify while half of Conmebol's do would carry a lot more credibility if five of the six CAF teams hadn't been eliminated in the group stage in South Africa while four of Conmebol's five made it to the quarter-finals.

But what about the practicalities? What would a 25% increase in the number of teams, a shift from eight groups of four to eight of five with the top two going through, mean in real terms? The early rounds are already packed with matches featuring moderate sides gamely holding out against better teams – and doing so relatively successfully because a defensive system is easier to organise than an attacking one, and the better side hasn't spent the time together that it would have had at club level to find the slickness and precision to outwit a massed rearguard. So we go from 48 group games to 80. Many would be stodgy, many would be dead rubbers and, because one team would have finished its games before the other four, the possibility of collusion in the final round would be enhanced.

Platini says the extra 32 games could be accommodated in just three additional days. In Brazil, the group stage will be played over 15 days. There's one game on the first day, one day of four games (the first Saturday) and nine days of three games before the final group games, when teams in the same group play simultaneously – four games a day but only two kick-off times.

Extrapolate that and, assuming the same arrangement for the opening fixture and final group games, you would need 21 days to cram in the other group matches – so a total of 26 days. Maybe they increase the pace, so there are four matches every day. That's possible and it would mean the group stage could be completed in 16 days – actually just a day longer than will be taken in Brazil (although you wonder how many people would have the patience for the day's fourth game). Except it would increase the pressure on stadiums. Assuming a pitch needs three days to recover after a game, you'd need 16 stadiums; 12 will be used in Brazil.

And that's when the logistics start to become a little hazy. How many nations, realistically, have 16 World Cup-standard stadiums? Obviously it's great news for the building industry but given the white elephants that already stand as decaying monuments to Fifa's gigantism in Japan and South Africa, you might have hoped they'd have sought to avoid throwing up others.

How many nations could cope with the logistics of accommodating a further eight sides and their fans and media? Brazil is a huge country with a well-developed tourist infrastructure and already flights from Europe for next June have doubled in price while hostels and hotels are charging extraordinary premiums.

Perhaps the ultimate plan is to move away from a single host – that romantic ideal of a festival in which players, coaches, fans, journalists and scouts could mingle while watching games – and to host the World Cup in multiple centres, as will happen at Euro 2020. That would at least have the advantage of allowing smaller nations to bid for chunks of a World Cup, and the logistics of travel could hardly be worse than they are now, but it's a solution for a problem that need not exist.

Perhaps Platini really does believe the upheaval, the dilution of the tournament, is worth it to ensure that we can get a game on between Venezuela and Armenia or Panama and Scotland (to take just four countries who are in the top 40 in the Fifa rankings but haven't qualified), in which case he is simply misguided. It seems far more likely, though, that he is toying with what ought to be the world's greatest sporting event for the sake of his political career.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/oct/30/michel-platini-40-team-world-cup-uefa
avatar
Puro

Number of posts : 10676
Registration date : 2006-09-12

Re: WC seeds

Post by Puro on Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:34 pm

blutgraetsche wrote:Yeah, right, as South America has really set the world alight in recent tournaments, let's reward them with more WC spots... Laugh

Three European teams in the semis of the last two WCs Puro, all European final in both of them. Ale
With three times as many entries it is to be expected, blut. What is embarrassing for you -even though you don't want to admit it- is that UEFA has sent historically three times as many entries and has only won one more WC than CONMEBOL.

Ever wondered what would happen if both continents were to have the same number of teams at the beginning of the WC's? You have no fucking clue, do you? Biggrin 

Allow me to shine some light on you, take a look at FIFA competitions where both CONMEBOL and UEFA start with roughly the same number of teams like the current FIFA Youth WC. TFS, blut! It's all there throughout the history! Biggrin <Ale> 
avatar
blutgraetsche

Number of posts : 23328
Supports : Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft
Registration date : 2006-08-09

Re: WC seeds

Post by blutgraetsche on Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:05 pm

Yeah,  right,  and Africa would be a major force like they are on the youth level... :laugh:Utterly clueless nonsense,  as the timing of the U20 WC has at least as much to do with the outcome as anything else - 90% of the German U20 team didn't participate last time because the league had already begun and their clubs wouldn't let them leave,  for example.

South America has three relevant sides in the WC context: First and foremost Brazil. Then Argentina by some distance and finally Uruguay by even more of a distance. That's it. The rest is irrelevant,  they have never played a major role in any WC. True story.

Europe has five different winners plus a good number of finalists and semi-finalists,  basically all major European countries have had a major role at least once in the WC. This isn't even a contest Puro.  Without Brazil,  you'd be pretty fucked.  Take away Germany and Italy alone has won as many WCs as Argentina and Uruguay combined. Ale
avatar
Puro

Number of posts : 10676
Registration date : 2006-09-12

Re: WC seeds

Post by Puro on Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:26 pm

blutgraetsche wrote:Yeah,  right,  and Africa would be a major force like they are on the youth level... :laugh:Utterly clueless nonsense,  as the timing of the U20 WC has at least as much to do with the outcome as anything else - 90% of the German U20 team didn't participate last time because the league had already begun and their clubs wouldn't let them leave,  for example.

South America has three relevant sides in the WC context: First and foremost Brazil. Then Argentina by some distance and finally Uruguay by even more of a distance. That's it. The rest is irrelevant,  they have never played a major role in any WC. True story.

Europe has five different winners plus a good number of finalists and semi-finalists,  basically all major European countries have had a major role at least once in the WC. This isn't even a contest Puro.  Without Brazil,  you'd be pretty fucked.  Take away Germany and Italy alone has won as many WCs as Argentina and Uruguay combined. Ale
We are in agreement that it is not an even contest.

It takes CONMEBOL one third of what UEFA sends to the WC to produce basically the same success.

Just imagine for a moment the UEFA success in WCs had the WCs been one third of UEFA entries of CONMEBOL's! lol! 

WC after WC after every damn WC of only three or four of Italia/Germany/España/France against 12 American teams!!! All the experience that teams like Perú, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay would have learned from playing in WC after WC after every damn WC just because FIFA said "CONMEBOL gets three times as many entries as UEFA"

And I'm not even mentioning the fact that Germany were made to play all those WCs without performance enhancing drugs, magic juices and stuff.

avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: WC seeds

Post by mongrel hawk on Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:37 pm

Puro, you forgot the fact that most WCs were held in Europe, while only 4 in South America.

Blut, you take Itália and Germany out, what you've got? Brazil alone has won more WCs than Europe without Italia and Germany. Wink
avatar
Puro

Number of posts : 10676
Registration date : 2006-09-12

Re: WC seeds

Post by Puro on Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:53 pm

mongrel hawk wrote:Puro, you forgot the fact that most WCs were held in Europe, while only 4 in South America.

Blut, you take Itália and Germany out, what you've got? Brazil alone has won more WCs than Europe without Italia and Germany. Wink
No doubt that was a factor too, we've only hosted 4 WCs to UEFA's nine!

And, even hosting more than double the amount wasn't enough, they also had most of the refs -by a much greater margin- as well.

They even had the nerve to bring their cheating ways when we were hosting a rare WC.

Remember this gem?



Watch them euro refs in your own house, Todo!


Sponsored content

Re: WC seeds

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:44 am