Why it's the FA's fault England are not seeded

[Gwylan]

Good piece in the Guardian today explaining how Switzerland managed to be a seed and we didn't. It's simple: the Swiss FA organised fixtures well, minimised friendlies to ensure optimal points, the English FA organised too many friendlies, one that offered minimal benefits

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/oct/17/england-seeded-switzerland-world-cup-draw-friendlies

Of course, what it doesn't say is that it's the cost of Wembley that drives the need for friendlies and that's thanks to the cock-up over costs. So, ultimately it's Ken Bates' fault that we're not seeded

 

[backson]

If Switzerland want to do that, good luck to them. Why should we have to mess around with fixtures etc, just for the benefit of a ranking system, which most people don't pay much attention to any way, and a seeding which, when you get to a finals, doesn't really matter.

As demonstrated in 2010, being in an "easier" group doesn't always help. We looked a lot better in 2002 when we had a so-called group of death

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Switzerland also don't have to deal with PL clubs doing their best to get players out of international duty/matches moved off the calendar.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is interesting. Will it affect future qualification groups? I have always said the minute England lose qualification group seeding is the minute they will really struggle to make tournaments.

 

[The Large One]

This is interesting. Will it affect future qualification groups? I have always said the minute England lose qualification group seeding is the minute they will really struggle to make tournaments.

I don't think that matters so much now that in qualifying tournaments, the second-placed country gets another chance via the play-offs.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't think that matters so much now that in qualifying tournaments, the second-placed country gets another chance via the play-offs.

True, but it would mean England would always have a european big gun in their group. The current seeding keeps England away from the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. Pop one of those in the qualifying group every 2 years and then all of a sudden England's only chance is via the play-offs.

 

[brightn'ove]

Switzerland, also rather handily, have FIFA based in Zurich.

 

[Ernest]

The seeding worked well in the last World Cup

 

[WhingForPresident]

Ah well, you've got to beat the best to be the best. Not that England will.

 

[strings]

The seeding worked well in the last World Cup

I was about to post the same think. After the debacle in South Africa, I'm not too fussed over seeding any more. There will be a 'group of death' and there will be a group that appears to be weaker than the rest.

Last time out, we struggled to get to second place in the weakest group.

 

[Wozza]

Not quite the same but Italy weren't seeded in the last Euros and finished 2nd.

 

[The Large One]

Not quite the same but Italy weren't seeded in the last Euros and finished 2nd.

I don't think Greece were exactly fancied in 2004 either.

 

[Ernest]

Denmark in 1992 didn't even qualify and they still won it

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Denmark in 1992 didn't even qualify and they still won it

Maybe this is the model England should follow in the future?

 

[Gritt23]

Erm, because it is Roys fault, for not being 'Arry. We'd have been seeded if 'Arry was manager, and it was the FA who didn't appoint him.

... or some such nonsense.

 

[CP 0 3 BHA]

The joke of it is that I very much doubt we're the 10th best team on the planet, let alone the 7th!

 

[RyFish]

The obvious question this raises for me is why the hell do the rankings take into account friendly matches in the first place? Two below-strength teams, further weakened by multiple substitutions... only competitive games should count.

 

[Marxo]

The fact that Iceland reached the play-offs in Switzerland's group may be a clue and a record of W7 D3 L0 scoring only 17 goals shows how they went about qualifying against very weak opposition.

 

[joeinbrighton]

I find it hard to take the seedings for the World Cup seriously when you have Switzerland regarded as a top seed when they didn't even qualify for Euro 2012 and Belgium and Colombia who last played in the World Cup finals in 2002, yet you have Holland who reached the final in 2010 and Italy who won in 2006 and reached the final of Euro 2012 who are in the 2nd pot. Italy dropped 4 places in the last rankings on the strength of 2 draws against Denmark and Armenia when they'd pretty much already qualified and there was seemingly more riding on the outcome for their opponents.

Switzerland qualified with ease because their group was ridiculously easy. Iceland finished 2nd and the other teams in the group were Norway, Slovenia, Cyprus and Albania. Scotland would have made the play-offs if they'd been in that group! Holland also went through the qualifying campaign unbeaten and scored more goals in a significantly tougher group, yet somehow Switzerland are still above them. I can only assume that Holland's ranking got majorly damaged by them having a poor Euro 2012, which couldn't do any damage to Switzerland because they didn't turn up in the first place!