World Cup: ESPN Fixing The world Cup Qualification

[robertmac43]

First watch this video:

Interesting concept put fourth by the ESPN crew, one that is discussed frequently before World Cups.

Is the current set up for qualifying for the World Cup at its best right now?

Below is the current World Cup teams beside the top 32, which would make a better tournament? DO people like underdog stories more or do they want more of a true best on best tournament? I've been thinking about qualification a lot recently and how it could possibly be improved and would love to see some discussion on it:

Bodled are the countries in the top 32 that did not qualify for the World Cup.

World Cup As Is:	Top 32 Teams as Ranked by FIFA:
Germany Brazil Belgium Portugal Argentina Switzerland France Poland Spain Peru Denmark England Uruguay Mexico Columbia Croatia Tunisia Iceland Costa RIca Sweden Senegal Serbia (34) Australia (36) Iran (37) Morocco (41) Egypt (45) Nigeria (48) Panama (55) Korea Republic (57) Japan (61) Saudi Arabia (67) Russia (70)	Germany Brazil Belgium Portugal Argentina Switzerland France Poland Chile Spain Peru Denmark England Uruguay Mexico Columbia Netherlands Wales Italy Croatia Tunisia Iceland Costa Rica Sweden USA Austria Senegal Slovakia Northern Ireland Romania Republic of Ireland Paraguay

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Click to read more...

 

[Stray Wasp]

When I look at the non-qualifiers in the right-hand column, there aren't too many I consider great losses.

Chile stands out as a team I really enjoyed watching in 2010 and 2014, but they had an eighteen game qualification tournament, so it's hard to make the case they were victims of a short sprint where there was insufficient time for luck to even itself out.

A World Cup without Italy seems strange until I consider what a pedestrian outfit they've been for years now. It's not like Roberto Baggio, Vialli and Zola will be missing out.

Similarly, while the Netherlands failing to qualify for 2002 seemed a big deal, am I really struggling to cry, 'A World Cup without Janmaat, Wijnaldum and Bruno Martins Indi? Woe is me!'

It's the World Cup, not the World League. I think it's a better idea to accept that the 'right' teams will sometimes come a cropper. Why, from time to time the 'wrong' teams may prove fun.

It's only once every four years, and if you want to watch 'Everything in its right place' stacked-deck feudalism, there's always something called the Champions League.

 

[robertmac43]

I feel like the Netherlands not being there is strange because my mind has been polluted by the 2010 team. Made the finals and now I feel like they should contend every year

 

[koyvoo]

Isn’t this brought up every World Cup? The organizers know full well the discrepancy in quality this way, but they want all continents represented as equally as possible.

 

[cgf]

Stray Wasp nails it in 1!

 

[cgf]

I feel like the Netherlands not being there is strange because my mind has been polluted by the 2010 team. Made the finals and now I feel like they should contend every year

I felt this way when the Nedved & Rosicky Czechs missed, but not with the current Dutch or even Italians...who I think could have been a more interesting team and done better in qualifying if their coach had embraced the generation shift & let them really develop their style of play in qualifying, since they were pretty much locked into second behind Spain no matter what. But that's not what their coach decided to do, so they're no real lose.

As for Chile, I'm cool with them missing out. Their ticky tacky bullshit was a big part of what catapulted Peru on that run to beat them out for the final spot. So though I have enjoyed the way they play, I am enjoying the karmic justice of their absence even more...especially since we've still got spectacular SA teams: in Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia & maybe the Messi's. While that Peru team that took Chile's place is a lot of fun to watch & have that touch of destiny about them that can carry a relative minnow to the QFs...which is about as far as I saw Chile being able to get without a super soft draw, even before age started to catch up to Vidal.

 

[Stray Wasp]

I feel like the Netherlands not being there is strange because my mind has been polluted by the 2010 team. Made the finals and now I feel like they should contend every year

Which is understandable up to a point.

But remember that until 1974 the Netherlands were nothing in international football. (And they only qualified for that tournament by squeaking past a Belgium team they'd failed to beat home or away thanks to their superior ability at flat-track bullying).

The World Cup finals only consisted of 16 teams back then. By historical tradition the Dutch shouldn't have been there. Lucky for us such thoughts hadn't occurred to the organisers.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Stray Wasp nails it in 1!

You're too kind.

 

[robertmac43]

Isn’t this brought up every World Cup? The organizers know full well the discrepancy in quality this way, but they want all continents represented as equally as possible.

Every single time! But I Don't think we have gone over it on here. I may be wrong though I was not an HF user in 2014....

 

[cgf]

You're too kind.

Well you saved me writing an essay that would've ended up twice as long...and included multiple marginally-connected tangents

 

[robertmac43]

My question is if FIFA ever changed the qualification to simply the top 32 teams, how would they improve the ways in which they rank teams. A lot of the placements in the top 32 are up for debate.

 

[robertmac43]

Well you saved me writing an essay that would've ended up twice as long...and included multiple marginally-connected tangents

Your tangents are usually entertaining to read, unleash them!

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Isn’t this bright up every World Cup? The organizers know full well the discrepancy in quality this way, but they want all continents represented as equally as possible.

In the 80s UEFA typically had around 13 of 24 slots - that's 54% of slots. When they expanded the tournament to 32, basically all of those extra slots went to other confederations as the UEFA slots stayed stagnant even as the number of FAs in UEFA grew considerably in the 90s due to the political changes in Eastern Europe.

It's not a 'trendy' stance, but the simple reality is that yes Italy and the Netherlands would beat the pulp out of a good number of teams at the World Cup and yes it would be a better World Cup if the number of European qualifiers was upped by 2 or 3 to reflect the balance of power in world football. Of course, they will add 3 UEFA teams in 2026..while adding 13 more minnows from elsewhere..

 

[robertmac43]

If the 46 team format went by top 46 teams based off of FIFA rankings it would have all of the big names and also allow for some cool stories to come out of the smaller nations. Should appeal closely to everyone.

Plus that is so many more kits for people to buy

 

[koyvoo]

In the 80s UEFA typically had around 13 of 24 slots - that's 54% of slots. When they expanded the tournament to 32, basically all of those extra slots went to other confederations as the UEFA slots stayed stagnant even as the number of FAs in UEFA grew considerably in the 90s due to the political changes in Eastern Europe.

It's not a 'trendy' stance, but the simple reality is that yes Italy and the Netherlands would beat the pulp out of a good number of teams at the World Cup and yes it would be a better World Cup if the number of European qualifiers was upped by 2 or 3 to reflect the balance of power in world football. Of course, they will add 3 UEFA teams in 2026..while adding 13 more minnows from elsewhere..

I don’t disagree with you. I’m just saying it’s not an oversight. It’s by design.

 

[Stray Wasp]

In the 80s UEFA typically had around 13 of 24 slots - that's 54% of slots. When they expanded the tournament to 32, basically all of those extra slots went to other confederations as the UEFA slots stayed stagnant even as the number of FAs in UEFA grew considerably in the 90s due to the political changes in Eastern Europe.

It's not a 'trendy' stance, but the simple reality is that yes Italy and the Netherlands would beat the pulp out of a good number of teams at the World Cup and yes it would be a better World Cup if the number of European qualifiers was upped by 2 or 3 to reflect the balance of power in world football. Of course, they will add 3 UEFA teams in 2026..while adding 13 more minnows from elsewhere..

In 2010 Italy exited the tournament at the first stage with their pants around their ankles having failed to win a game, even against New Zealand. They did win a game in 2014, but lost to Costa Rica- no one's idea of a heavyweight- and out they were in the first round again. Are you using a 'simple reality' meter bought from a trusted retailer? I hear there are cheap Chinese-made versions flooding the market these days.

As for 'trends', it seemed to me like the expanded European Championships of two years ago trended towards interminable tedium. Which is something else that discourages me from leaping up on my soapbox and screeching for more European teams to be ushered into the final phase.

My own preference would be for a 16-team finals (and an 8-team European Championship finals). Out-hipster that, the lot of you.

 

[Stray Wasp]

My question is if FIFA ever changed the qualification to simply the top 32 teams, how would they improve the ways in which they rank teams. A lot of the placements in the top 32 are up for debate.

Well, there the Champions League offers a useful alternative: the 'Whoever shouts loudest and carries the biggest stick gets whatever they want' formula.

(It's a system that is applied in many walks of life, by the bye).

 

[cgf]

In the 80s UEFA typically had around 13 of 24 slots - that's 54% of slots. When they expanded the tournament to 32, basically all of those extra slots went to other confederations as the UEFA slots stayed stagnant even as the number of FAs in UEFA grew considerably in the 90s due to the political changes in Eastern Europe.

It's not a 'trendy' stance, but the simple reality is that yes Italy and the Netherlands would beat the pulp out of a good number of teams at the World Cup and yes it would be a better World Cup if the number of European qualifiers was upped by 2 or 3 to reflect the balance of power in world football. Of course, they will add 3 UEFA teams in 2026..while adding 13 more minnows from elsewhere..

Does the distribution really matter that much when the UEFA qualifying system hasn't stopped teams like Sweden & Iceland from claiming spots at the tourney this cycle, or slovenia, greece and countless other weak european teams from making it in years past? Hell in Italy's case, it's not like they can even point to the draw to explain why Sweden made it to the World Cup without Zlatan, and they failed

Your gripe seems to have more to do with how shitty Italy & the Dutch were than with the distribution of places. Cause, who says that they wouldn't have lost out to the Czechs, slovaks, turks, ukrainians, & austrians, even if we had 5 extra spots? Or f*** imagine Greece, Romania, Hungary, Ireland, Scottland, or Slovenia bunkering their way into those spots? With how few good teams actually miss, even before those 3 extra spots, giving UEFA many more is only going to result in more shitty european teams making it.

And I'd rather see minnows from across the globe than 4th tier european teams at the World Cup. We've got the ever-expanding Euros to "enjoy watching" a shitty italy play estonia.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

All confederations should have the chance to send teams to the WC, otherwise interest stagnates back to Europe and South America, and then it's not a "World" Cup anymore...again. I trust the qualification rounds where actual games determine who goes...certainly not a FIFA ranking.

 

[East Coast Bias]

The rankings on the right suck anyway.

As much as it hurts to have the US, they couldn’t finish ahead of Panama, who are awful.

I paid close attention to the Serbia/Austria/Ireland group, and Serbia were easily the best team in that group despite ranked below all.

Win your qualifiers. Simple as that.

 

[saskriders]

I think the best would be to have all confederations guaranteed spots with most of the teams having qualified by winning their confederation. But still have a significant number of cross confederation spots.

Maybe something like:

AFC - 5
CAF - 6
CONCACAF - 4
CONMEBOL - 6
OFC - 1
UEFA - 14
Host - 1 + (+if multiple hosts maybe cap co-hosts at 3)

And the rest are determined by a play-in qualification made up of teams that were eliminated in their confederation's qualifications. Haven't exactly thought out how this qualification would work, but ideally I would like to have all eliminated teams get a second chance. Maybe the rules are changed so that every confederation's qualifiers follow a similar multi-round format (CONMEBOL and OFC would have to be slightly different due to fewer teams) and the "Losers division" could have a multi-round tournament where in round 2 for example it would be made up of the teams that advanced out of round 1 in the division and the teams that were eliminated in their confederation's 3rd round.

 

[Moncherry]

My allocation would be:

AFC - 3
CAF - 6
OFC - 0.5
UEFA - 15
CONMEBOL - 5
CONCACAF - 2.5

OFC vs CONCACAF play-off for remaining spot.

 

[Theokritos]

I'd like CONMEBOL and CONCACAF have a joint qualification. AFC and OFC as well. That would improve the quality a bit and still give everyone the chance to qualify.

But if there was one single thing I could change I'd change the way UEFA determines its spots. Some of the European qualification groups are much easier than others, so in most years you get some meh-teams who qualify. You know there is something wrong with the process when a group has Norway as the top seed (2012/qualification for 2014). I'd prefer a two-tiered system with tougher and more even groups in the top tier.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I'd like CONMEBOL and CONCACAF have a joint qualification. AFC and OFC as well. That would improve the quality a bit and still give everyone the chance to qualify.

But if there was one single thing I could change I'd change the way UEFA determines its spots. Some of the European qualification groups are much easier than others, so in most years you get some meh-teams who qualify. You know there is something wrong with the process when a group has Norway as the top seed (2012/qualification for 2014). I'd prefer a two-tiered system with tougher and more even groups in the top tier.

I hear what you’re saying but CONMEBOL and CONCACAF cover a massive amount of land. NY to Rio is a 10 hour flight. 11 go Buenos Aires. About the same from Toronto. West coast is even longer to most SA countries.

Same for AFC and OFC. Abu Dhabi to Sydney is a 13-14 hour flight. Crazy travel.

Nowhere in UEFA is that far apart. Not close. People bitched about the CL final, going form Liverpool to Kyiv. That’s a what, 4 hour flight? That’s nothing.

Imagine coming back from International break playing in the Bundesliga, having played qualifiers for the US in Chile and Peru, from the base in Florida.

 

[Ivan13]

No one serious gives a toss about those rankings.