World Forums

Preliminary Draw -- November 25, 2007 Durban, South Africa



AFC: Participating Associations 43, Qualification Spots 4.5
CAF: Participating Associations 53, Qualification Spots 5
CONCACAF: Participating Associations 35, Qualification Spots 3.5
CONMEBOL: Participating Associations 10, Qualification Spots 4.5
OCEANIA: Participarting Associations 10, Qualification Spots 0.5
UEFA: Participating Associations 53, Qualification Spots 13


* Note: 4 of the 6 regions have started qualfiers and/or Preliminary Qualifiers.

yes, I know it's very early but the draw in indeed this weekend for some confederations, while already underway for others.

In Oceania, might as well just give the 0.5 spot to New Zealand right now. Who will then lose to the 5th place CONMEBOL team (insert: Uruguay, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela)

Link -- UEFA seedings for WCQ will be announced tomorrow

http://lucrurineinteresante.blogspot.com/2007/11/2010-wcq-pots-for-durban-draw.html

of note: UEFA will go back to the old system. Playoffs are returning for 2nd placed teams.

of note: suprisingly, Israel is likely a 2nd seed.

Pabs wrote:yes, I know it's very early but the draw in indeed this weekend for some confederations, while already underway for others.

In Oceania, might as well just give the 0.5 spot to New Zealand right now. Who will then lose to the 5th place CONMEBOL team (insert: Uruguay, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela)

According to the FIFA website, they will play off with the 5th placed team of Asia, not CSF. CSF #5 will play off with CONCACAF #4.

Puts New Zealand's chance into a whole new perspective. They're still the underdogs, but then again, it all depends who they play off against. Can't see them win against China, but they would certainly have a reasonable chance against the likes of Bahrain or Qatar.

of note: UEFA will go back to the old system. Playoffs are returning for 2nd placed teams.

The old system, yes, but with a twist that I think sucks: Runners-up are no longer guaranteed a chance to qualify for the World Cup. 13 qualifiers from 9 groups means there are only 4 places available for the 9 runners-up. Since there will only be one play-off round, one of the runners-up will fail, without even participating in the playoffs.

According to FIFA, the pots for the European groups will be allocated according to the FIFA World Rankings as of November 2007, which have been published today. And indeed, Israel are the 18th best European team and should therefore be in Pot 2.

Here's a link to the November rankings of all European teams:

Link

If the seeding goes according to this ranking (as the PFD file about the UEFA qualifying format says), the seeding pots are as follows:

Pot 1: ITA, SPA, GER, CZE, FRA, POR, HOL, CRO, GRE
Pot 2: ENG, ROM, SCO, TUR, BUL, RUS, POL, SWE,ISR
Pot 3: NOR, UKR, SCG, DEN, NIL, IRL, FIN, SWI, BEL
Pot 4: SVK, BOS, HUN, MOL, WAL, MAC, BLR, LIT, CYP
Pot 5: GRG, ALB, SLO, LAT, ICE, ARM, AUT, KAZ, AZE
Pot 6: LIE, EST, MAL, LUX, MNG (Montenegro), AND, FAR, SMR

Taking a look at the exact scores, I see that England lose out on Pot 1 by one single point - yet another consequence of their loss to Croatia.

Felix K wrote:The old system, yes, but with a twist that I think sucks: Runners-up are no longer guaranteed a chance to qualify for the World Cup. 13 qualifiers from 9 groups means there are only 4 places available for the 9 runners-up. Since there will only be one play-off round, one of the runners-up will fail, without even participating in the playoffs.

Felix, that's because 1 group will have less teams. I understand what you are saying though. It's closer to the old system but not exactly it.

For the longest time Oceania's 0.5 spot always played against CONMEBOL. I didn't realize they changed it to Asia.

England in Pot 2

they have been teetering between Pot & Pot 2 for a decade now.

In 1998 they were Pot 2 behind Italy but yet finished in first. In 2000, I forget who it was between them and Germany. For EC 04 they were in Pot 2 while Turkey was in Pot 1.

They were in Pot 1 for 2002 and won the group over Greece, who was in Pot 2. A late minute FK by Beckham got them in iirc.

Each time they have been in Pot 2 they usually qualify anyways.

Pabs wrote:

Felix K wrote:The old system, yes, but with a twist that I think sucks: Runners-up are no longer guaranteed a chance to qualify for the World Cup. 13 qualifiers from 9 groups means there are only 4 places available for the 9 runners-up. Since there will only be one play-off round, one of the runners-up will fail, without even participating in the playoffs.

Felix, that's because 1 group will have less teams. I understand what you are saying though. It's closer to the old system but not exactly it.

Has nothing to do with one team less. Don't think second place should mean less just because you have one less team to play - especially when that team to play is one of the likes of Liechtenstein, Luxembourg or Faroe Islands.

Also, I'm not guessing that the five-team group will necessarily be the group whose runner-up won't have a shot at the playoffs. I think they will rank the runners up based on records against the 1st, 3rd and 4th ranked teams of their own group, and the worst team in this ranking will be screwed.

Felix

does the "best 2nd placed team" get automatic entry like the old system ?

and what time is the draw ?

Pabs,

All 9 group winners qualify.

No group runners-up qualifies automatically.

8 of the 9 runners-up enter the playoffs. 4 play-off winners qualify.

The 9th runner-up is screwed and stays home without a shot at the playoffs.

I think it sucks. They should rather have sticked with 8 groups and let 2 runners-up qualify automatically with the other 6 entering the playoffs. Even if that would have meant groups of 6 and 7 instead of 5 and 6.


The draw starts Sunday 1600 CET:

FIFA.com: Draw format announced

Yeah, I prefer the system we've just had. Larger groups with two teams from each qualifying.

bah.

I get it now. (they've altered the amount of total groups)

Hold it. I just noticed that CAF gets 5 spots. Does that include South Africa, or will there be SIX African teams competing in 2010??

Europe should have 16 places IMO, as the continent contains at least 50% of the world's top 32 teams. Thirteen places is an absolute joke, and it's little wonder that many of us over here have little respect for FIFA.

To make up those 3 places, 1.5 should be taken away from Asia, 0.5 from CONCACAF and 1 from Africa.

Why don't you expand it to 24, that way you can ausre that England will get in.

Why don't you just make it 32 and let us know how it turns out.

Arcade Fire wrote:Yeah, I prefer the system we've just had. Larger groups with two teams from each qualifying.

Problem is, that can't possibly work with an odd number of qualifiers...

I guess they changed the format to reduce the number of matchdays. With 7 or 8 groups, qualifying would have required 16 matchdays. Under the current format, it requires only 12. Clearly a measure to prevent fixture congestion. I figure the G14 had their say in that, too...

Arcade Fire wrote:Hold it. I just noticed that CAF gets 5 spots. Does that include South Africa, or will there be SIX African teams competing in 2010??

There will indeed be six African teams. I guess that's why Europe is down to 13...

It isn't about England, Palo, as I doubt 16 or 13 teams would make a big difference either way. It's just about having the best teams in the World Cup. We are not getting that under the current structure.

Mark

Let's put things into perspective on just how much Europe is getting screwed.

In WC 1994, Europe had 13 spots out of 24 teams. 16 years later in 2010, with the tournament expanded to 32 teams, Europe still has 13 spots. This despite the amount of European countries increasing.

There is no way in hell Asia deserve 4.5 spots.

agentesecreto wrote:Why don't you expand it to 24, that way you can ausre that England will get in.

If England were competing in CONCACAF and Mexico in Europe, then England would qualify every single time, while Mexico would qualify only when selected as host.

I know, Pabs.

And I'm not being a dick here, but Saudi Arabia were an absolute disgrace in 2002 and not worthy of a World Cup place. The same can be said for El Salvador in 1982, China in 2002, etc.

Those are just three examples from the top of my head - I'm sure with more thought I could conjure up more disgraceful performances from teams from weaker continents.

I remember all the bleating that used to go on in Australia because they weren't guaranteed a World Cup spot for Oceania (this was before they switched to AFC)! They seriously expected to qualify just by beating teams like New Zealand, Fiji and the fuckin Solomon Islands!

I doubt England could win in Central America or Mexico. Obviously you have never been to a stadium in Latin America. The Brits would be scared shitless of playing in the arae. Face it, Euros are soft.

Now back to the what if, if I had a bigger dick, I'd be John Holmes.

I have no problem with South America's allotment. But again, have a different SA team reached the semi's ? At least in Europe, Croatia and Turkey have taken that next level. A different SA team has yet to do this (I'm speaking about the likes of Colombia, Chile, Paraguay)

I think South America's allocation is fair, and their 5th place team should play the Oceania team for a gimme. You're correct about Chile, Paraguay and Colombia, Pabs, but try telling some people that?

I remember Colombia being rated as one of the best teams in the world back in 94, but the USA and Romania handed their asses to them on a plate. I know Palo likes to talk about hooligans, but what kind of scum kills a player from their NT after their country's exit?

I stand by my comments on a reduction in places for CONCACAF, CAF, and the AFC.

Chile won 3rd place in '62 and Uruguay has won the cup 2 times.

I bet you that Mexico would have qualified out of the Engalnd Eurocup group under the current format. Keep in mind that Mexico has only lost ONCE in WC qualifiers at the Azteca.

Croatia ?
Russia ? England? Andorra?? Macedonai??? Estonia >????? Please. That group was a joke.

Pabs wrote:Mark

Let's put things into perspective on just how much Europe is getting screwed.

In WC 1994, Europe had 13 spots out of 24 teams. 16 years later in 2010, with the tournament expanded to 32 teams, Europe still has 13 spots. This despite the amount of European countries increasing.

There is no way in hell Asia deserve 4.5 spots.

Indeed. And it becomes worse if you consider that the playoff is against Oceania - five spots for Asia plus New Zealand.

In the latest FIFA rankings, not a single Asian team is in the top 32 - the best teams are Japan (33), Iran(40), Korea(42), Australia (48), Saudi Arabia(57). New Zealand is #95.

Thus, we are already guaranteed that a team ranked as low as #57 or worse will qualify, while it is at the same time inevitable that at least one team ranked 18th or better (the 14th best Euro team is ranket 18 in the word) will stay home.

If the FIFA rankings mean anything, that is a silly joke. AFC and OFC combined clearly do not deserve 5 spots. 3 at best.

Africa looks a little better - at least the top 5 are all in the top 40 of the world. So I guess 5+1 places for Africa is OK, although 4+1 would be OK, too.

CONCACAF - Mexico and USA in the top 20. No other team in the top 50. 3.5 is too many. It should be 2.5 or 3.

CONMEBOL - the top five are in the top 32 of the world. 4.5 spots is OK. A full five spots would be OK, too, although I have little doubt that whoever finishes fifth in South America will beat CONCACAF #4.

those rankings are meaningless. The World Cup includes the qualifiers. If a European team is good enough, it should come out on top. Stop crying and let go of your feudal ideas of heritage and manifest destiny. FIFA is run by Europeans and the system is designed by Europens. Stop crying already.

agentesecreto wrote:Chile won 3rd place in '62 and Uruguay has won the cup 2 times.

I bet you that Mexico would have qualified out of the Engalnd Eurocup group under the current format. Keep in mind that Mexico has only lost ONCE in WC qualifiers at the Azteca.

Croatia ?
Russia ? England? Andorra?? Macedonai??? Estonia >????? Please. That group was a joke.

As opposed to

Mexico? USA? Costa Rica? Trinidad/Tobago? Guatemala? Panama?

Please.

Felix owns Palo

Thus, we are already guaranteed that a team ranked as low as #57 or worse will qualify, while it is at the same time inevitable that at least one team ranked 18th or better (the 14th best Euro team is ranket 18 in the word) will stay home

Damn, Felix. When you spell it out like that it really is amazing that this is the reality of it.

The same T&T that sucks and had England against the ropes. The same USA team that was left out by the refs against Germany in 2002.

palo

at best CONCACAF deserve 3.5

Though ideally 3 is more correct. I mean if Costa Rica can't even make the 1/4's, what's CONCACAF's 4th best gonna do ?

I am happy with that. I am not the one demanding 24 spots.

It's bad enough teams like Germany have been caught cheating and gone unpunished.

The same T&T that sucks and had England against the ropes

Oh dear. England played like crap in the World Cup, but dominated that game in terms of possession and shots and were never "on the ropes". It's nothing less than I'd expect against such a weak team, but stop lying, please.

I don't even know why we're discussing England, but swap England for Mexico and I guarantee that England would never fail to qualify for the World Cup. Last time Mexico came over here, they were trounced 4-0, and Jamaica (who qualified in 1998) were beaten 6-0.

Chile in 62, OK. One minor point to you, as that had slipped my mind (but they hosted that WC).

Felix, cheers for the stats The reality is even worse than I'd imagined.

I'm asking for 16 spots btw, not 24. I do realise it's a "World" Cup, but 13 places is a joke, and everything that Felix, Pabs and I have said more than backs that up.

Germany haven't been caught cheating, btw. Which match are you talking about? Did they fix the 6-0 over Mexico in 78?

Good Grief

6 African teams ? Way too much.

LOL@Face it, Euros are soft.

BOLUDO !!!!

Germany-Austria. I knew you weere an idiot.

Good nite.

Pabs:
School your troops.

Hosting Continent gets Extra Spot ?

as we know, for 2010 they will indeed but how about 2014 ? What I'm asking is: does this mean South America get 5.5 in 2014 ?

seeing as how Brazil always qualifies anyways, I sure hope not. I hardly see how this is logical. Maybe palo is right. Euro's are pussy's because we are allowing this to happen to ourselves

lol@Tronche. I love that word "Boludo", it's Argentine from what I remember.

Palo, yes the Germany - Austria game in 1982 was not good for the sport. Forgive me for only being 5 years old in that World Cup, but I still don't believe Germany have ever been "caught cheating".

Still, when it comes to football, Germany are well and truly among the top three teams, and deservedly so.

Palo, yes the Germany - Austria game in 1982 was not good for the sport. Forgive me for only being 5 years old in that World Cup, but I still don't believe Germany have ever been "caught cheating".

Are you an idiot?


Tronche:

You know we owned you in Mexico the same way the Germans owned you in WW II. You should write the Americans a thak you note everyday for stepping up and handling your business.

Tarado!!