Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Which confederation has surprised you / underachieved?



Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,184
Surrey
Inspired by this quote:

USA are a decent outfit. The central American qualified teams are a lot better than most people would have thought, bar Honduras.

Aint that the truth. Costa Rica, USA and Mexico are ALL better than a middling European team like England. I think we are getting to the point where CONCACAF can be relied upon to regularly produce 2 strong teams every world cup, from their 4.5 spaces.

There was some bloke on here moaning that the Africans take too many WC spaces too, but to be honest with the exception of the shambolic Cameroon side, they've all look excellent too. Algeria ripped South Korea a new hole in the first half yesterday and were desperately unlucky/naiive to lose to Belgium beforehand. Ghana should have drawn with a strong USA team at the very least, but showed their class against Germany. The Ivory Coast have looked excellent in both games and should qualify and probably beat Italy next round too. And Nigeria started terribly, but I now fancy them to go through after beating Bosnia.

Asia - a mixed bag from them. Australia have acquitted themselves well in a tough group and probably been the best AFC team, so they've been unlucky to go out so early. South Korea, Japan and Iran are still clinging on and could all yet qualify.

Conmebol were always expected to be strong in Brazil, and so it's proving. Most are almost certainly through, with Uruguay and Ecuador both about 40/60 to do so.

That leaves Europe - On the face of it, Europe seems to have underperformed with Spain (and England) out after two games and Russia and Portugal surely about to join them. But France look good, and the Dutch found a way to beat Australia who were inspired, which augers well for them. Don't rule out Germany or Italy either.

It would be nice to see Asia produce at least one team in the last 16 because the most populous confederation needs to justify a claim to more World Cup places. Same goes for Concacaf, but they are doing more than enough to justify an extra space.

One other thought, I know it's in Brazil but the South American support has been amazing. Chile, for example, is a country of 10 million and although it borders Brazil, Santiago is nevertheless 1,800 miles from Rio. I suppose I could see a team like Sweden taking 40,000 to, say, Portugal (they took that many to Germany in 2006), but Chile is not a wealthy country like Sweden.
 




Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
57,886
hassocks
Africa always under achieve, they are built up and then flop - Ghana did well at the last world cup but that's about it since 1990, they should have a spot taken away and have a play off with another confederation for the 4th spot.

more and less always the same teams who don't really do a lot - don't they get 4 spots?
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,184
Surrey
Africa always under achieve, they are built up and then flop - Ghana did well at the last world cup but that's about it since 1990, they should have a spot taken away and have a play off with another confederation for the 4th spot.

more and less always the same teams who don't really do a lot - don't they get 4 spots?

Hmm. Ivory Coast and Ghana have looked class in this tournament, Nigeria less so but will probably qualify and Cameroon have looked an absolute shambles. I'd say Asia, with it's absolutely huge population, still underachieves. They are reliant on South Korea tournament after tournament to fly their flag - although Japan and Australia are at least threatening to lift the burden. I still think Conmebol gets too many spots, but you can't really argue when their 5th place team keeps winning the qualifying play-off spot they're given and then they proceed to nearly all get out of their groups at the tournament.
 


Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
57,886
hassocks
Hmm. Ivory Coast and Ghana have looked class in this tournament, Nigeria less so but will probably qualify and Cameroon have looked an absolute shambles. I'd say Asia, with it's absolutely huge population, still underachieves. They are reliant on South Korea tournament after tournament to fly their flag - although Japan and Australia are at least threatening to lift the burden. I still think Conmebol gets too many spots, but you can't really argue when their 5th place team keeps winning the qualifying play-off spot they're given and then they proceed to nearly all get out of their groups at the tournament.

Yeah, but the play off is a gimme - they have 5 out of 12 teams qualify.

I would like to see a restructure of the process, I would merge Oceana and Asia completely and re-do the play offs so they are tough games.

I believe this time it was Uruguay Vs Jordon and Mexico Vs New Zealand - I don't see why teams who have failed in qualifying should have easy miss- matched games, especially unfair on New Zealand who haven't had a chance to qualify automatically
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,184
Surrey
Yeah, but the play off is a gimme - they have 5 out of 12 teams qualify.

I would like to see a restructure of the process, I would merge Oceana and Asia completely and re-do the play offs so they are tough games.

I believe this time it was Uruguay Vs Jordon and Mexico Vs New Zealand - I dont see why teams who have failed in qualifying should have easy unmatched games.
Conmebol has TEN members, and with Brazil hosting, six of them are at this tournament. :ohmy:

I agree with you that Oceana should be absorbed by Asia, their two half spots become one full spot, then let Conmebol and Concacaf play-off off for that final spot.
 




Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
57,886
hassocks
Conmebol has TEN members, and with Brazil hosting, six of them are at this tournament. :ohmy:

I agree with you that Oceana should be absorbed by Asia, their two half spots become one full spot, then let Conmebol and Concacaf play-off off for that final spot.

Jesus, you are right - more than 50%

Who ever hosts the finals should have a space taken from the allocation
 


Iggle Piggle

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2010
5,318
The gap is so much smaller than it used to be. One of the often repeated football clips is a Zaire defender from their shambolic side running at top speed out of the wall to smash the ball halfway up the pitch (78, 82 maybe) before the ref has blown his whistle for the free kick. Fast forward to 2014 and each and every club is scouting the globe for talent and most of the African / American players are in a top European side playing CL / UEFA cup football rather than kicking about unnoticed in some mickey mouse league.

We didn’t have a bad side (well, going forward we didn’t, in 4 years time we will laugh about Phil Jagielka being first choice centre half when he is playing in League 1) but a capable manager, middling side, tough group, Latin conditions, improving field and a shortage of composure and luck has done for us. Similarly African and Amercian sides are reaping the benefit of the favourable conditions, a bit of luck, better couching and more exposure to top class football on a regular basis. All sides are 7/8 out of 10 now. It’s only Cameroon (who can’t have much team spirit given they wouldn’t get on the plane for more cash) and Honduras that look utter Pub league.
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,184
Surrey
I agree with what you say, [MENTION=17261]Iggle Piggle[/MENTION] - although that's harsh on Honduras comparing them to Cameroon. They were only narrowly beaten by Ecuador after scoring with a superbly well taken goal from COSTLY.
 




edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,221
Two minor points: Australia only looked good in their second game, when they had nothing to lose against the Netherlands. Sometimes, perversely, it's easier for a weak team to play against a strong one and come out with credit, because expectations are low. The Aussies looked crap in their first game, against Chile. I'm not sure they've been "unlucky" not to qualify: there are a few incredibly mediocre players in their side (and we should know). Barring veteran Cahill, no other player even looked remotely like scoring.

And I don't really share your enthusiasm for Nigeria's performances: they were part of the worst game so far against Iran, looking utterly toothless, and they hardly set the world on fire against Bosnia either, despite winning. I thought they've been a disappointment, along with Cameroon.
 


Puppet Master

non sequitur
Aug 14, 2012
4,055
I was thinking this the other night, who are the best non-European/S.American side? USA? Ivory Coast? Mexico? Tricky. For all the talk of the gap closing, I still can't see any of those sides winning the WC any time soon.
 


BigGully

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2006
7,139
I have never really accepted the relevance of comparing historic man made areas.

It takes a little more analysis.

For a generation pundits have been banging on about the football emerging African continent and its likely successes.

Africa has a billion people and quite a young population one at that.

You then see Drogba banging in the goals and Steven Pienaar banging in the goals and before you know it supporters are clamoring for their manager to buy an African player.

In most cases there is absolutely no link between players within the same continents, either politically, genetically or sharing a similar football training or playing regime usually doesnt happen.

Take Pienaar and Drogba, they are both African, but what do their footballing cultures have in common, probably none and they were brought up 5000 odd miles away from each other too, but they are lumped in as an example of African sucess.

It might be worth looking at some of the populations of these countries to, some surprisingly big ones for those that are said to be punching above their weight.

For me Holland is the one that shows real sustained successes for a country so small and they are part of errrr Europe.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,184
Surrey
Two minor points: Australia only looked good in their second game, when they had nothing to lose against the Netherlands. Sometimes, perversely, it's easier for a weak team to play against a strong one and come out with credit, because expectations are low. The Aussies looked crap in their first game, against Chile. I'm not sure they've been "unlucky" not to qualify: there are a few incredibly mediocre players in their side (and we should know). Barring veteran Cahill, no other player even looked remotely like scoring.

And I don't really share your enthusiasm for Nigeria's performances: they were part of the worst game so far against Iran, looking utterly toothless, and they hardly set the world on fire against Bosnia either, despite winning. I thought they've been a disappointment, along with Cameroon.
Australia weren't crap against Chile apart from the first 20 minutes. They battled back into the game, scored with a well taken goal, and could easily escaped with a draw in that second half against one of the tournament's surprise packages. Australia have performed very well for 75% of the 180 minutes they've played against two very good sides.

Point taken with Nigeria - although I don't think I made myself clear because I wrongly said they had all been excellent when clearly they haven't - so to clarify, I'm not enthusiastic about Nigeria, but just meant to point out that they will quite possibly still go through. Ghana and Ivory Coast are both far better teams.
 


edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,221
:thumbsup: I rather hope Nigeria don't go through as they've been extremely dull to watch.
 


Iggle Piggle

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2010
5,318
I agree with what you say, [MENTION=17261]Iggle Piggle[/MENTION] - although that's harsh on Honduras comparing them to Cameroon. They were only narrowly beaten by Ecuador after scoring with a superbly well taken goal from COSTLY.

Possibly, although I'd counter that I referred to Honduras as Pub. I'm not even sure Wilson Palacios is a regular in England’s best pub team (AKA Stoke). I think Honduras would beat Cameroon but I doubt I would open the curtains if they played in my back garden.

We underestimate some of the other confederations clearly. Costa Rica finished 7 points ahead of Mexico in qualifying but everyone wrote them off as the rag of the group. I'm annoyed that I didn't bet on them in some shape or form. With the extent of information available at our finger tips we shouldn't be surprised when these teams perform well in the tournament proper. It also made me laugh yesterday prior to the Algeria game. Strachan reckons they will set up defensively. My twitter timeline was choc full of people saying 'Does he know that Algeria play attacking football most of the time and the Belgium game was an anomaly?' Guess what. Algeria forget what defence is. Point to all this is that Strachan manages an International team but clearly has failed to research anything before the game he is an ‘expert’ on. Is it any wonder that some of the supposedly bigger European time have come unstuck if they carry similar levels of planning and arrogance into these games? (I appreciate Strachan only manages the scotch but still)
 




seagull_in_malaysia

Active member
Aug 18, 2006
910
Reading
...

I would like to see a restructure of the process, I would merge Oceana and Asia completely and re-do the play offs so they are tough games.

...

It would make it a very large confederation and add to an already long (3 knock-out rounds and 2 group rounds) qualification process. But overall still probably a good idea.
 


edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,221
It would make it a very large confederation and add to an already long (3 knock-out rounds and 2 group rounds) qualification process. But overall still probably a good idea.

Works for Europe though?
 


Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
57,886
hassocks
It would make it a very large confederation and add to an already long (3 knock-out rounds and 2 group rounds) qualification process. But overall still probably a good idea.

Realistically, how many teams would get through the Pre qualifying games?

You could do what they do in central America, have knock out rounds.
 


edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,221
Merging Asia & Oceania would also give New Zealand a chance to progress too: I know they qualified in 2010, but generally speaking, playing regular qualifying games against- with all due respect- Fiji, Tahiti and Samoa, followed by a typical defeat against a South or Central American side can hardly be aiding the development of NZ football.
 




MattBackHome

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
11,723
Australia weren't crap against Chile apart from the first 20 minutes. They battled back into the game, scored with a well taken goal, and could easily escaped with a draw in that second half against one of the tournament's surprise packages. Australia have performed very well for 75% of the 180 minutes they've played against two very good sides.

I concur with this - if nothing else they've just been so Australian, and I've thoroughly enjoyed watching them.

I suppose the thing is that any individual team let down shouldn't necessarily jeopardise the number of places available to that confederation. If, say, CONMEBOL consistently produced at least one team who NEVER got a point then it would make sense to reduce their allocation.

Totally agree that the hosts confederation should lose a spot though.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
23,528
The African teams are always a subject of frustration. They seem to be full of creative talent, dangerous, and enjoyable to watch. It seems to be their lack of discipline that costs them dearly. As far back as 1990, with the Cameroon, this has been the case. The famous quarter final against England was only lost because they couldn't keep their cool.

As for the other federations, European arrogance often deems them weak. The reality often proves different-even if they don't progress.

A South American World Cup will always be opportunity for regional teams to get that extra support that makes the difference. And why not ? Europe has lost the automatic right to every second event-and rightly so. It may take a while to create an even world, and it should be remembered that the success of national teams often reflects the resources seen within their national game. The Netherlands and England being the extreme examples in Europe of where that theory becomes questionable.

I've often wondered which country, with all factors such as population and investment, is truly the most successful World Cup side in history. I suggest Uruguay and Netherlands. I would be interested to hear other takes on this.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here