Link wrote:
In any case, other than giving Europe a few too many slots
Are you serious?
In the 19 previous world cups, Europe had 25 teams in the finale, South America had 13.
North America had 0.
Africa had 0.
Asia had 0.
Oceania had 0.
If anything, Europe is underrepresented in the world cup.
GermanGuy wrote:
Link wrote:In any case, other than giving Europe a few too many slots
Are you serious?
In the 19 previous world cups, Europe had 25 teams in the finale, South America had 13.
North America had 0.
Africa had 0.
Asia had 0.
Oceania had 0.
If anything, Europe is underrepresented in the world cup.
Yes. But not 25 different teams. Having the best team in the world is not the same as being the best confederation, although UEFA is. What they are not, though, is that much better than the rest of the world that their 14th or 15th best team is better than CONCAC
What's more what imbalance there is among the confederations is to a certain extent self-perpetuating. For smaller nations, making the finals is very inspiring. More kids take up football than otherwise would. Some of those kids have talent. The national side gets better still. I think we've seen a similar affect here.
Let me also say, though, that obviously the 32 teams in the final are not always exactly the 32 best teams. However, they're not too far from it. I might have missed something, but there are only two teams whose SPI is below 40. The lowest is Australia at 53. I frankly think that that's on the low side for them, but in any event that's pretty close to top 32.
I'd say that the final 32 in the world cup are closer to being the 32 best in the world than are the 66 or 68 or whatever it is this year who make the NCAA BB tournament.
Link wrote:
Yes. But not 25 different teams.
The following South American and European teams are better than any other team from another continent:
Italy
Spain
Belgium
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Germany
Portugal
Sweden
England
France
Croatia
Argentina
Brazil
Uruguay
By that measure, I would put the first non-Euro/non-South American team at position 15 AT BEST.
Don't forget Colombia. They're 4th in the FIFA rankings, and they beat Belgium 2-0, in Brussels.
Then, there's a list of "2nd tier teams", that would scare any team in a given match, but they doesn't have the regularity and the quality in the rosters for the success in a msjor tournament.
USA
Chile
Ivory Coast
Mexico
Ecuador
Ghana
This is my "average/medium level European teams" list:
Switzerland
Russia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Greece
Croatia
The real top 10 favourites are:
Spain
Netherlands
Germany
Argentina
Brazil
Uruguay
Italy
Portugal
France
England
Ben L Wrong wrote:
England
England has been to the semifinals of two major tournaments in the past 40 years. They have not been to the finals at any of them. They are pretty good at winning games they are supposed to win and making it out of group but they are no threat to win.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
England has been to the semifinals of two major tournaments in the past 40 years. They have not been to the finals at any of them. They are pretty good at winning games they are supposed to win and making it out of group but they are no threat to win.
I know, England is not a "top 8" favourite...but for me, it's more dangerous that Colombia, Switzerland or Belgium (better FIFA ranking that England). So, I put them in the top 10.
Furthermore, for many people, England is not going to advance the group stage. Because they consider Italy and Uruguay better than England. The fact is, any of these 3 teams in the "death's group" are focused more in the 3 first games.
Other teams like Brazil, Argentina, Spain and Germany are thinking about his quarterfinal rivals.
Brazil's group is a joke. Croatia (not amongst the best European NTs), Mexico (they played very bad in the CONCACAF qualifying tournament) and Cameroon (very irregular team, not better than Ivory Coast, for example)
Argentina's group is also a joke for the Argies. Bosnia (Argentina beat 2-0 Bosnia a month ago in New Jersey, without Messi, Gago and Higuain) Iran (I smell 4 or 5 goals, at least) and Nigeria (Argentina beat Nigeria in WC's 1994, 2002 and 2010)
Nigeria is not the same powerful team of the 90's (gold medal in Atlanta 1996 against Argentina)...with the likes of Amunike, Finidi, Amokachi, Okocha, Kanu, Siasia, Babayaro, Eguavoen, etc.
If you want to compare the relative strength of the confederations, you can take a look at their progression rates:
To the 2nd round:
2010 South Africa:
Europe - 6/13
North/Central America - 2/3
South America - 5/5
Africa - 1/6
Asia - 2/4
Oceania - 0/1
2006 Germany:
Europe - 10/14
North/Central America - 1/4
South America - 3/4
Africa - 1/5
Asia - 0/4
Oceania - 1/1
2002 Japan/Korea:
Europe - 9/15
North/Central America - 2/3
South America - 2/5
Africa - 1/5
Asia - 2/4
Oceania - 0/0
1998 France:
Europe - 10/15
North/Central America - 1/3
South America - 4/5
Africa - 1/5
Asia - 0/4
Oceania - 0/0
I think you can make an argument that South America should have another spot at the expense of Africa, but FIFA is too keen on developing African football. Besides, CONMEBOL is 10 countries while CAF is 50+.
Europe probably has a fair share based on their performance, although 2010 was an anomaly where big teams like France and Italy failed to progress. And if you look at the semifinal composition Europe dominates: 3/4 in 2010, 4/4 in 2006, 2/4 in 2002 and 3/4 in 1998. So maybe one more spot for Europe would be fair. More than anything, I think UEFA needs to change their qualification process and make it a 2-stage tournament like in the other confederations. Too much depends on the draw and the system where the worst of the 2nd-placed teams doesn't even get into the playoffs is silly.
Ben L Wrong wrote:
Don't forget Colombia. They're 4th in the FIFA rankings, and they beat Belgium 2-0, in Brussels.
Then, there's a list of "2nd tier teams", that would scare any team in a given match, but they doesn't have the regularity and the quality in the rosters for the success in a msjor tournament.
USA
Chile
Ivory Coast
Mexico
Ecuador
Ghana
This is my "average/medium level European teams" list:
Switzerland
Russia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Greece
Croatia
The real top 10 favourites are:
Spain
Netherlands
Germany
Argentina
Brazil
Uruguay
Italy
Portugal
France
England
This list is asinine...England, uruguay and portugal as "favourites."
USA and Mexico and Ecuador are not scaring the spainish, netherlands, brazil, germany
Here's a radical idea: Since 50% of the teams in the World Cup progress to the 2nd round, let the allocation of spots depend on past performance, with a minimum guaranteed so all confederations are represented. If we take Word's numbers above then on average Africa has 1 team in the 2nd round so they get 2 spots. Europe's average is 8.75 to let's round them down to 17 spots. South America 3.5 so they get 7 spots. CONCACAF 1.5 so they get 3. Asia 2, Oceania 1 (and put Australia back where they belong, please). Host nation comes out of the allocation as long as there's a spot left to play for.
CONCACAF qualification is hilarious.
Oh, you managed to beat Turks and Caicos and Belize? Congrats, here's a nice trip to the World Cup.
Oh dear, you didn't manage to beat Costa Rica and Guatamala? - Oh, that's a shame. Here, have a second chance against New Zealand and you can book your place too.
(Yes, I exaggerated a little, but the point still stands.)
sfgsdfgs wrote:
This list is asinine...England, uruguay and portugal as "favourites."
USA and Mexico and Ecuador are not scaring the spainish, netherlands, brazil, germany
Uruguay was semifinalist in the last World Cup. Uruguay is the reigning American champion. Uruguay won a World Cup beating Brazil in their own soil. Finally, Uruguay has 2 World Cups, an another couple of top 4 places, and many Americas Cup.
USA beat Spain in the Confederations Cup some years ago.
Mexico always have at least 1 good game for every World Cup. Yes, they lost in 1/16 finals stage since 1994, but, heck...this is proof that they at least advanced from the group stages every time.
Ben L Wrong wrote:
Uruguay was semifinalist in the last World Cup. Uruguay is the reigning American champion. Uruguay won a World Cup beating Brazil in their own soil. Finally, Uruguay has 2 World Cups, an another couple of top 4 places, and many Americas Cup.
USA beat Spain in the Confederations Cup some years ago.
Mexico always have at least 1 good game for every World Cup. Yes, they lost in 1/16 finals stage since 1994, but, heck...this is proof that they at least advanced from the group stages every time.
I've watched a fair share Uruguay matches as a Liverpool fan. Uruguay is 4 years older, and outside of Suarez and Cavani, the team is a mess. Forlan in incredibly wasteful and Lugano is about as potent as a traffic cone. Also a lot of their young talent didn't pan out to this point(Coates, Abel Hernandez, Gaston Ramirez). Suarez is currently one of the three best players in the world at the moment, and that alone still makes them a threat, but this team isn't doing much.
As long as Hodgeson is manager, England won't do squat.
This Mexican team(Club America) is still weak. They have a crap group, but won't make it past whoever wins Group A.
rojo wrote:
Has a team ever made it going 1-2? You do realize how hard that is to happen.
Sorry my bad, Word made the correct inference from my misposting. What I should have typed was 1-0-2. So here are the final group standings:
Germany 2-0-1
USA 1-0-2
Portugal 0-1-2
Ghana 0-1-2
Belgium is waaay over-rated. The fact that Columbia beat them is nearly meaningless.
And Portugal in the top 10?? You're suffering from the unfortunately common fallacy that if some group has the very best then it must be the case that the group is the very best, too. Portugal has the best player in the world. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by a very mediocre supporting cast for the most part. Portugal will not advance to the knock-out round. Nor, frankly, will England, though that is due to an incredibly unlucky draw for them. England is a top 16 team, obviously, but not top 10. Their fans' passion for the sport does not necessarily make them any good. The US tied them in 2010 and won the group over them. Don't get me wrong, I think England wins more games than it loses in a series against the US, but not by much. I know this is football heresy, but, well... deal with it.
What's more, I would be very surprised if more than 5 of your top 10 make it to the quarterfinals.
Baresi wrote:
I've watched a fair share Uruguay matches as a Liverpool fan. Uruguay is 4 years older, and outside of Suarez and Cavani, the team is a mess. Forlan in incredibly wasteful and Lugano is about as potent as a traffic cone. Also a lot of their young talent didn't pan out to this point(Coates, Abel Hernandez, Gaston Ramirez). Suarez is currently one of the three best players in the world at the moment, and that alone still makes them a threat, but this team isn't doing much.
Lugano is in bad shape because injuries. I think he's going to go to another club for continuity.
For my argument in favor of Uruguay with chances to make the QFs i say:
-Godin is playing now, and did not play in 2010 (injured)
-"cebolla" Rodriguez also did not play in 2010, by that time he was one of the favourites for Uruguayan fans. I don't know if the decision was tactical or what.
-Their defense (Lugano-Godin-Fucile-Gargano is, in my opinion, in the top 4 defenses of the world.
-They have 2 good, veteran defensive midfielders: Arevalo Rios (playing in Chicago Fire) and Diego Perez.
-Cavani-Suarez-Forlan is in the top 5 offensive squads in the world (even if Forlan is in bad shape)
About England I don't know...I think they don't have a solid team...but if they advance to the 1/16 finals...certainly is a threat for any legit contender. I think 1/8 is their natural barrier.
Jefe in the CO wrote:
rojo wrote:Has a team ever made it going 1-2? You do realize how hard that is to happen.
Sorry my bad, Word made the correct inference from my misposting. What I should have typed was 1-0-2. So here are the final group standings:
Germany 2-0-1
USA 1-0-2
Portugal 0-1-2
Ghana 0-1-2
These standings are impossible as the total number of wins =/= the total number losses.
Link wrote:
And Portugal in the top 10?? You're suffering from the unfortunately common fallacy that if some group has the very best then it must be the case that the group is the very best, too. Portugal has the best player in the world. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by a very mediocre supporting cast for the most part. Portugal will not advance to the knock-out round. .
Another who thinks Portugal is just CR7 and no one else. Moutinho, Coentrao, Pepe, Nani et al mediocre? LOL. Don't know how the other three teams will place, but I'm willing to put money on the U.S. finishing 4th and, possibly, with 0 points. Any takers?
Link wrote:
Belgium is waaay over-rated. The fact that Columbia beat them is nearly meaningless.
And Portugal in the top 10?? You're suffering from the unfortunately common fallacy that if some group has the very best then it must be the case that the group is the very best, too. Portugal has the best player in the world. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by a very mediocre supporting cast for the most part. Portugal will not advance to the knock-out round. Nor, frankly, will England, though that is due to an incredibly unlucky draw for them. England is a top 16 team, obviously, but not top 10. Their fans' passion for the sport does not necessarily make them any good. The US tied them in 2010 and won the group over them. Don't get me wrong, I think England wins more games than it loses in a series against the US, but not by much. I know this is football heresy, but, well... deal with it.
What's more, I would be very surprised if more than 5 of your top 10 make it to the quarterfinals.
In first place, It's Colombia, not Columbia. That indicates that probably you have never seen an entire game of Colombia.
Secondly, I don't think Colombia has the potential to make the semis. I put them in 1/16 or, at best, in QFs. But...if they reach the semis, it won't be a very big surprise. I tell you what.
They have one of the best coaches in the world. José Pekerman won 3 U-20 world titles with Argentina (1995-1997 and 2001), plus, he made quarterfinals in Germany 2006, so as you can see, he knows what it takes to make the top 8 in a World Cup
Colombia doesn't have Messi, Aguero, Higuain, Di Maria, etc. So could say that "Pekerman made the QF's in a talented team, so there's no big coaching influence", but the fact is, Pekerman knows that Colombian football is very offensive, they like to have the ball posession (like Barcelona, by example), and Pekerman teams always play the Barcelona's style. The opposite to Italy "cattenaccio" and Portugal style (play the kickback style, taking advantage of CR7 and Nani's speed). This is why Colombia recovered the 90's style (remember that Colombia played in the 3 WC's of the 90's. 1990, 1994 and 1998)
And it's not only Falcao. Perea, Arnero, Guarin, Jackson Martinez, Teo Gutierrez, James Rodriguez...plus the new jewel Eder Alvarez Balanta (20 years old, he plays like a 10 years pro. He will be the replacement of Puyol in Barcelona, remember this.
Of course...Colombia never made the quarterfinals (best appearance was in 1990, reaching 1/16 finals), so for them, reaching that stage it's a national victory.
Speaking of Portugal, you think that CR7 is the only good player of the team? This is incorrect. Coentrao, Pepe, Moutinho, Nani, Meireles, Hugo Almeida, Postiga...
Moreover, CR7 is not the best player in the world. Messi is the best player in the world in the last 4-5 years.
CR7 IS the best player in the World. Messi just had a better supporting cast those 4 years. Won the Balon d' Or before Messi and had genuine cases for at least two during Messi's streak of 4 straight wins. But he has a PR problem with the media making him out to be some villainous, vain diva with a bad attitude. His work on the field speaks for itself though, and he's favourite to finally win it again in January.
El Keniano wrote:
CR7 IS the best player in the World. Messi just had a better supporting cast those 4 years. Won the Balon d' Or before Messi and had genuine cases for at least two during Messi's streak of 4 straight wins. But he has a PR problem with the media making him out to be some villainous, vain diva with a bad attitude. His work on the field speaks for itself though, and he's favourite to finally win it again in January.
better supporting cast? CR7 doesn't play for Osasuna, Real Sociedad or Rayo Vallecano. He plays for Real Madrid!!! selected the best club in the World last century!!!
It's the most powerful club in the world...CR7 doesn't play with mediocre players. Benzema, Di Maria, Modric, Bale, Xabi Alonso, Arbeloa, Marcelo, Casillas, Pepe, Isco, etc.
But again...bringing back the last 4 years...how many Champions League, Copa del Rey and La Liga tournament titles won Ronaldo with that calibre of teammates?
Do the math..