| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Yeah I get that, my point is though that the regions have vastly different levels of quality.Originally Posted by William Treseder
That’s why it’s the World Cup.. would you rather all the names went into the hat at the start and was whittled down round by round like the FA Cup? The format has worked for yrs, it’s just that the older generation like you and me in our 50’s are so used to seeing these teams at the finals it’ would be a shock to the system if they didn’t make it.
In my view, it should be a competition for the worlds best national teams to battle it out.
This isn’t that.
So your basically being elitist, and would prefer to cherry pick teams for a “glamour finals” even if at the present time some of these big names from the past are shite at the moment. You are bordering on football snobbery.
Qualification should be easy if you're a big team, particularly in Europe. Close to half the countries who qualify will be European (13 out of 31). If Italy don't make it, it's entirely their fault. They even have the advantage of seeding. South America is more difficult.
Got no sympathy with a big country failing and I don't think the competition will suffer if they're not good enough. As I said above, I'm amazed it's a Welsh person with this view. You must think we wrongly took the Dutch place in France, yeah?
13 qualifiers out of 55 countries. That means that, roughly, 1 in 4 European nations will qualify. Once you remove Gibraltar, Estonia, San Marino, Andorra, the Faroes, Liechtenstein, Finland, Cyprus, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Finland, Malta, Montenegro, Moldova those odds move up to better than 1 in 3. In many of the groups, you could pick the top 2 before it even started and you'd be right.
So, if Italy or the Dutch aren't good enough to qualify from their groups, then why do people think the finals tournament is going to be poorer without them? Would you prefer to see the Dutch instead of Iceland?
Of the 55 countries, guess how many have been in a World Cup tournament in the last 20 years (5 tournament)?
Austria 1
Belgium 3
Bosnia 1
Bulgaria 1
Croatia 4
Czech Republic 1
Denmark 3
England 5
France 5
Germany 5
Greece 2
Ireland 1
Italy 5
Netherlands 4
Norway 1
Poland 2
Portugal 4
Romania 1
Russia 2
Scotland 1
Slovakia 1
Slovenia 2
Spain 5
Sweden 2
Switzerland 3
Turkey 1
Yugoslavia/Serbia 3
In 1998, UEFA had 15 places (winners and hosts), recently lowered to 13 because the winners no longer qualify automatically. 27 countries have represented UEFA in 5 tournaments - five have qualified for all five. Realistically, it's 13 from about 25 in Europe.
As for South America, there are 4 qualifiers out of 10. Take away Venezuela and Bolivia and those odds improve to better than 1 in 2, especially considering that the fifth placed team play whoever . In South America, each team plays each other home and away, so if Argentina or Brazil miss out then that's because they were not as good as almost half of the countries on their continent. Apart from the "tradition" and the romantic notion that Argentina are always a good side to watch (they're almost always as dull as they are good in my experience), why will the tournament be worse without them if they miss out?
Countries representing CONMEBOL in last 5 tournaments?
Argentina 5
Brazil 5
Chile 3
Colombia 2
Ecuador 3
Paraguay 4
Uruguay 3
It's essentially 4 from 7. And, last world cup it was Colombia, Costa Rica and the US who were the teams I enjoyed watching the most.
Am I correct in remembering that Brazil had banned alcohol sales inside stadiums buy Budweiser's sponsorship of the tournament over-ruled that? The problem with Qatar is the heat, dodgy decision process in the initial award and shoddy employee conditions since rather than lack of alcohol. The problem in Russia being concerns over safety.
13+1 out of 54+1 European sides will make it, 4 or 5 out of 10 south American sides, 5 out of 54 African sides will make it. Compare to 3 or 4 from North and central America (35 starting) and 4 or 5 from Asia and Australasia (46 starting).
Looking at that the European and African sides are losing out far more than the South American. Still, it's a tournament for best in each region rather than best in the world and that probably is good for the world game.
Here ya go!
For anyone thinking attending a World Cup in a Moslem country is going to be a bundle of laughs. There will be plenty of stories like this one, I'm sure
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...ntral-41536636
The sooner the World Cup is taken out of Quatar's hands the better!
I believe that the World Cup is about having the best teams deciding who is the best team in the world. If that’s elitist, then I’m guilty as charged.
If it’s some kind of celebratory jamboree of football then I’m sorry, that’s just not my cup of tea.
This should be about the best of the best, not the best and the least bad.
That's what the qualifying rounds are for. Hope this helps!
The best teams do get there as they've qualified. My heart bleeds (not) for the likes of Argentina and Italy if they fail to get there.
I remember a few of the elite teams moaning about Euro 16 as 24 teams got there and the usual patronising crap about the little teams suffocating the big teams
That's football, get over it you moaning ***** I thought.
I seem to be in a minority here, but basically I believe that the 32 teams in Russia should be the best in the world and I don’t think anyone could argue with a straight face that Saudi Arabia and Syria are among the best in the world. They may be the best in the Middle East, but that’s as far as it goes.
Regarding "elitism" and past WCs:
We must remember that many of the European countries have only existed since the break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia - both teams were virtually guaranteed a place in the finals. All these new nations will obviously have an impact on the European qualifying groups, and will be seen as a weakening of the tournament by some.
But that's the point, how else will you decide who the best 32 teams are? In fact it's 31 as the hosts qualify.
Saudi Arabia and Syria (who haven't qualified yet) are from the Asia qualifying section, not just the Middle East. SA finished above Australia.
Spain and Italy were unlucky to be in the same group as each other so one was always going to go to the playoffs. It's only because a shit team like Wales was wrongly put in pot 1 that this happened, which was a complete disgrace. The seedings should reflect historical achievement, not recent merit.
All those team bar Saudi Arabia played in the last world cup.Teams already there
Russia
Brazil
Iran
Japan
Mexico
Belgium
South Korea
Saudi Arabia
Germany
England
Spain
It's England's to lose at the moment isn't it?
Historical achievements like losing to Costa Rica in the last world cup, which is what Italy did.Or Spain who lost 5-1 to the Netherlands and 2-0 to Chile.
My last two sentences were taking the piss
whoops sorryMy last two sentences were taking the piss
That is bollocks.
Why wasn't Bjorn Borg seeded for Wimbledon last year? or Fred Perry?
Recent merit is the only way to go.
See above, I guess sarcasm doesn't come out well in text.
The rest of my posts in the thread should show that I agree with recent merit.
Whooooosh!!!!!
Finishing places in Euros, Copa America etc? Stick the top-4 straight through to the World Cup finals and let the also-rans play each other to make up the numbers.
Sold.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote