- Thread starter
- #21
They'd have to undertake qualifying regionally within the AFC. You can't expect Vanuatu to travel to Jordan for a group stage match.
Which confederation has surprised you / underachieved?
- Thread starter Simster
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
- Jul 7, 2003
- 48,782
- Thread starter
- #23
I don't think there's any controversy in your picks, there. The Uruguayans have won it twice with a population of 3.3m, and the Dutch have reached the final three times with a 13m population. Both teams have also won their own confederation competition.
Where are the new powers coming from though? The old cliché that the USA will become a major force if they ever take the game seriously is beginning to be realised. World Cup football is now mainstream, with more people tuning in last night than the final NHL and final NBA games combined. And what if Australia gets it in 2022 afterall? Can't see Australia being an also-ran for too much longer.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 28,724
Australia would have been the perfect choice for 2022. The infrastructure and the stadiums are already in place, with only a small amount of upgrading to be done. As regard the distances that people spoke of, that is a red-herring too. If the tournament is held in Brazil, and even Russia, then there is no issue.
The Qatar business makes me so angry.
Garry Nelson's Left Foot
Well-known member
Asia disappoints in it's lack of quality but I can't say it has underachieved. Australia and Iran were no hopers going into the tournament and South Korea have done as well as could be expected. The only let down has been Japan who really should have done better than the rather limp showing in their first two games.
Africa seems to have plateaued a bit. They're generally solid and you can expect one or two of them to get to the last 16 but their teams don't look like being able to kick on to the next level.
Europe and South America are just about par for the course, I think.
Central/Northern America are probably doing the best, thanks largely to Costa Rica storming a pretty tough group. The U.S and Mexico are, IMO, about as good as expected and while both could go through, both could also still get knocked out in the group stage. Personally, I fancy Croatia to beat Mexico.
If i was to pick one team that has surprised me, rather than a confederation, I'd go with Costa Rica. & points out of 6 against Uruguay and Italy is a magnificent achievement. On the other hand, one team that has disappointed so far is Belgium. Yes, they've won both games but they done so labouriously and frankly have been pretty dull. Oooh, and Spain, obviously!
Africa seems to have plateaued a bit. They're generally solid and you can expect one or two of them to get to the last 16 but their teams don't look like being able to kick on to the next level.
Europe and South America are just about par for the course, I think.
Central/Northern America are probably doing the best, thanks largely to Costa Rica storming a pretty tough group. The U.S and Mexico are, IMO, about as good as expected and while both could go through, both could also still get knocked out in the group stage. Personally, I fancy Croatia to beat Mexico.
If i was to pick one team that has surprised me, rather than a confederation, I'd go with Costa Rica. & points out of 6 against Uruguay and Italy is a magnificent achievement. On the other hand, one team that has disappointed so far is Belgium. Yes, they've won both games but they done so labouriously and frankly have been pretty dull. Oooh, and Spain, obviously!
seagull_in_malaysia
Active member
Oh, I didn't know the European qualification was over several stages, I thought it was just one group stage.
seagull_in_malaysia
Active member
The top teams receive a bye into rounds 2 and 3, so skip some/all of the initial knock-out rounds. It would probably work, but they'd need to regionalise the qualifiers too if Oceania is included I reckon. I think they should regionalise Asia even if they don't add in Oceania.
Superphil
Dismember
With the amount of money sloshing around in FIFA now there should be no confederations. Qualification for the finals should be based on global groups, put all the teams in the hat, and configure as many worldwide groups as required, you'd still probably want to seed a top team in each group, but after that let the World Cup truly mean World. The money is clearly there, consideration for fans went by the wayside any moons ago, so that can't be a factor. Then the finals would be a true representation of the best XX number of teams in the world battling it out for the trophy.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 48,782
I meant just on the sheer number of teams- there must be more UEFA teams than in any other confederation, with more joining every time another competition comes around, it seems. Not the multi-stage qualification. Surely an Asian-Oceania confederation could easily accommodate a number of small groups?
The Maharajah of Sydney
Well-known member
But the Kiwis just play against a bunch of South Pacific holiday islands - far too easy.
Your idea of merging the 2 confederations has some merit - might be difficult to implement as some smaller nations would perceive it to be a dilution of their powerbase.
The final qualifying stage for the Asian confederation is 2 groups of 5, with the Top 2 of each group qualifying and the two 3rd-placed teams playing-off for the right to face another team from a different confederation - the last 4 World Cups it's been the 5th-placed Conmebol team.
At the expense of 2 Asian teams, give the Top 2 Oceania nations a spot each in those 2 Final Asian Groups and also World Cup qualification to the winner of the 3rd-place battle, with the loser into a play-off against the South American team.
They do, that is true.
But when you consider half of UEFA is made up of poor teams that have no hope is it much different?
a tough draw for England would be a a semi decent time and an average team, if you are seeded you will always get through unless you have an idiot in charge.
- Sep 3, 2010
- 6,549
I'm not sure I agree about this. Croatia, Spain, Greece (probably), England, Bosnia, Portugal and Russia (again probably) all look like going out of groups they could conceivably have qualified from. In previous World Cups we have had 7 from 8 in the Qtr's as European teams. There is no way that will be the case in this one as only 5 or 6 will make it out the group stages (Holland, France, Belgium, Germany and possibly Italy / Switzerland).Meanwhile all the South American team could get through albeit Ecuador and Uruguay are odds against to make it. I think Europe are over par, SA under.
I'd argue that the elite teams are still the big 2 from SA and the big European teams but the middling teams have caught up with the likes of us. That said, if ever there was going to be an outsider winning the tournament its this one. I haven't seen a stand out team yet and looking at the last 16 I see no reason why Mexico can't turn over the Dutch or Chile Brazil.
- Thread starter
- #33
I'm half expecting either Ghana or USA to reach the semis, looking at the draw. Both sides have looked tidy in a strong group, and they'd probably play Belgium who have disappointed, and then Argentina who have been very heavily reliant on Lionel Messi, and who won't be able to do it all every single game.
Belgium have been very poor except for the last 20 against Russia.
Lukaku has been useless.
Garry Nelson's Left Foot
Well-known member
I agree with your second paragraph. And it's because I do that I disagree with your first. Because the gap between the middling teams and the weaker ones has shrunk it's inevitable that places in the later rounds become harder to come by. Thus you can't expect Europe to provide a huge number of quarter finalists. The last two world cups held outside Europe have seen just 3 and 4 European sides in the quarters. I'll be surprised if there are less than three this time round.
As for only five or 6 European teams getting out of the group stages, that could be argued to be the result of the draw. Germany/Portugal, Holland/Spain and England/Italy all being drawn together and all in the three toughest groups meant it was always likely there was going to be some teams getting knocked out early when if they were in another group they could have been expected to qualify. Greece were never going to get out of their group, Bosnia had an outside chance while for Croatia and Russia it was 50-50.
As for South America it was always highly likely that Brazil, Argentina and Colombia would qualify from their group. Chile have done well and the other two will have done very well if they qualify. That said, I don't think they will and I don't think we'll see more than 3 South American teams in the quarter finals.
So, everything considered, I think both confederations are doing near enough par for what I expected prior to the tournament. I'll be massively surprised if the winner doesn't come from one of those confederations and only slightly less surprised if it's not Germany, Brazil or Argentina.
I'm still slightly surprised that we've never seen an India team of even close any merit whatsoever. Now hear me out - India is a population of around a BILLION, and when I went there, all the kids were out either playing football or cricket, pretty much 50/50% (Yes, genuinely). Even with bad facilities, you'd think the sheer number of people playing and loving the game would've thrown up at least ONE quality player by now? No?
Puppet Master
non sequitur
- Aug 14, 2012
- 4,056
Same with China, they get pretty obsessive about most sports but footy just hasn't taken off there yet.
But footy HAS taken off in India at ground level - MASSIVELY. That's why I'm confused. Maybe in abother 10-20 years time...
Cian
Well-known member
Only one of their squad plays outside India - that'd ensure we don't know of their players realistically but it could also easily be down to them being crap. However there is a striker with 45 international goals in 75 appearances.
The Confederacy of Independent Systems, but the journeys to games take light years.