World Cup 2006 allocation

man_an · Dec 18, 2002

Well, small countries do not necessarily have to travel all the way... For example, the Asian Qualifiers are phased, and I've never known Nepal to play a WC qualifier here. There are always ways to make things work, and if FIFA really wanted to they could make it work, but the thing is that the WC has gotten too big and too lucrative. The game is secondary now.

paw · Dec 18, 2002

man_an said:
Well, small countries do not necessarily have to travel all the way... For example, the Asian Qualifiers are phased, and I've never known Nepal to play a WC qualifier here. There are always ways to make things work, and if FIFA really wanted to they could make it work, but the thing is that the WC has gotten too big and too lucrative. The game is secondary now.

Under AFC, there are two ways in which qualifying group games are played:
1) All teams play a two-legged round-robin system in two different countries/cities.
2) Team play the traditional two-legged round-robin system in each other's home ground.

Nepal, if I am not wrong, in consultation with other less well-off nations and the nations in their qualifying groups, have always opted the first option. Until now, Singapore has always adopted the first option, with my country hosting one of the legs for all the games. This cuts down the costs for other countries, not neccessary that of the hosts.

If it were a direct knockout or even a group system, it still does not make economic sense to have England and Tonga pair up to play in England for two weeks. Cost is the main issue here. It would have been better for Tonga to qualify against its neighbours like Australia and if they are good enough, they can play England in the WC.

Even Asia is considered too big and previously, the CL of Asia has to be divided into West Zone and East Zone to minimize cost and travelling time for teams. Can't imagine how this system of qualifying will change but until then it is only a idealistic solution.

paw

wilmot · Dec 18, 2002

paw said:
It still does not take away the fact that Australia needs to beat another qualifier from another qualifying zone to qualify, right? If they do not, then they go home, and not to the World Cup.

Is it? My understanding was that is was an automatic place (no play-off) so a team from Oceania would definitely play in WC2006.

dyertribe · Dec 18, 2002

paw said:
Cite 1998, when Australia has the best chance to go to the WC when they play Iran. They almost did, but blew it. If Australia do not even beat the 4th best team in Asia (at that time), what chance does it have against the stronger sides in the World Cup?

Paw in that qualification series we drew twice with Iran - 1-1 in Tehran and 2-2 in Melbourne.

Our final qualification record was:

6 wins 2 draws 0 losses GD +38

Iran on the other lost a handful of games and had no less than 3 chances to qualify. We got one - and went out on away goals to boot.

dyertribe · Dec 18, 2002

el Burrito said:
No offense but I would venture to say that these teams that are losing 5+ times are porbably facing harder teams and Fiji or New Zeland. It would be awfull if Australia never got a chance but the fact is they do get shots and they just dont make the cut, you can say that you arn't prepared enough however others are under the same situation. All you can ask for is the ability to contol you own destiny at the beging of every campaign and Australia does get that, anyways Im looking forward to see how they do in the next WC.

EB no offense but you're talking with a massive double-standard here.

Using CONCACAF as an example - Who were the teams the United States lost to in the last CONCACAF series? Jamaica? Costa Rica? St. Vincent & The Grenadines? Enlighten me.

Still on CONCACAF, for the record the last two times we've played Mexico - the traditional CONCACAF heavyweights - we've creamed them in tournament play 3-1 and 2-0.

So we get chances and don't make the cut? In 1993 we lost to Argentina in Buenos Aries and in 2001 we lost to Uruguay in Montevideo. The current world champions didn't even win their qualifier in Montevideo last time out, but you expect us to with a little over a week's preparation??

Want to cut us some slack or what? Or do we have to keep proving to those who simply don't know that we're good enough some other way? How about we give back the spot and FIFA send us to Brazil next time then

decbag · Dec 18, 2002

I understand your anger. In the old system Australia had to play a few sh1t teams and then play a team of much higher standard with little preparation.
On the other hand under the new system you now play a few sh1t teams and you're in the World Cup. The easiest qualifying route in the World.

It's not fair either way, so a compromise has to be reached. As was mentioned before this, I think Australia should play in the Asian qualifiers. They would then be playing at a higher standard and we would see if they're good enough.

AMOROSO! · Dec 18, 2002

dyertribe said:
6 wins 2 draws 0 losses GD +38

Only the goal difference of +38 is enough for me to disregard your whole qualifying campaign as a farce.

Listen, there is a HUGE difference between playing in Asian, European, South and North American group qualifiers and the Oceania one. With all the respect to the other Oceania teams (Australia and New Zealand excluded), they are not good enough to beat the Xtratime Allstars. You can claim that Bahrain, Honduras, Latvia and Bolivia are bad sides, and that can be true, but they are "bad" on a whole different level than the football illeterates Australia faces.

Now, on one hand you claim you couldn't beat Uruguay or Iran not because you are not good enough (sic), but because you can't prepare your team properly. Here begs the question, shouldn't all you Aussie people protest over FIFA's decision to allocate you a bye to the WC where you will face much stronger teams than those two without preparing any better? Shouldn't you be afraid of being embarassed in the WC?

But only thing that counts for you is that Australia is in the WC. Well, you got that now, because of AFC crying to FIFA and Blatter being such a greedy bastard.

****ing FIFA. :yuck:

dyertribe · Dec 18, 2002

Look lets also get something straight regarding your HUGE difference comment.

Since November 2000 we've beaten Scotland, France, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay at Full-A international level.

If we were put into CONCACAF or AFC we'd waltz through the competition - in fact we've tried to be admitted into the AFC before but they won't have us... wonder why

645 · Dec 18, 2002

dyertribe,

But taking the position of Conmebol is really ridiculous. We are the most victorious federation, and FIFA robs a place from us. They should have taken from Concacaf, Asia or Africa that have never even managed to reach a final of a WC. We won the whole thing 9 times!

dyertribe · Dec 18, 2002

Ze da Fiel said:
dyertribe,

But taking the position of Conmebol is really ridiculous. We are the most victorious federation, and FIFA robs a place from us. They should have taken from Concacaf, Asia or Africa that have never even managed to reach a final of a WC. We won the whole thing 9 times!

No quarrel there ZDF - the fact that Asia and Africa get so many spots is ridiculous. They've repeatedly flopped or been embarrassed at the world cup and have shown that in the main they are just not up to it and don't deserve the spots they get.

My problem is with people who talk like we don't deserve it - we have had to go all over the world because of greedy confederations and it's time that came to an end.

It's not our fault we're stuck in Oceania and it's also not our fault we couldn't qualify over Maradona's Argentina, Ali Daei's Iran and Recoba's Uruguay... we gave it our best and in the end got beaten/drew (Iran) 1 game.

wilmot · Dec 18, 2002

I have to agree with Ze da fiel. To take a place away from the WC champions federation doesn't make sense - it's like punishing them for doing well

Probably the best thing to do would be a shake up of the WC groups, letting Australia into the Asian groups. If the results of the Asian teams continue to progress in world competition, then increase the allocation. This just seems to be a knee-jerk reaction, and letting an Oceania team in is not due to football results, regardless of the results in qualification (I would be concerned if Australia didn't romp home in the Oceania group - teams like Western Samoa aren't that hot, putting it mildly). It's because FIFA want to try to improve the take up of football in that region - having an Oceania team in the WC would be great publicity, and might improve the take-up and influence of football in the same way WC '94 let to an upsurge in football in America. It's purely a political decision.

dyertribe · Dec 18, 2002

wilmot said:
It's purely a political decision.

Wilmot how much do you know about Australian football mate?

You make us sound like we're a conference side or something.

If a squad was picked tomorrow we'd have players playing in Serie A, English Premier League, Bundesliga, La Championnat, Eridivisie and La Liga who wouldn't make our first team.

90000 turned up to see the home leg against Uruguay in 2001...

Political decision maybe, a decision based on fairness to Oceania after all these years definitely.

wilmot · Dec 18, 2002

I'm sorry if I make you sound like a conference side - not my intent - but based on the results an Oceania team hasn't been good enough to make it to the WC for over 20 years, always falling at the final hurdle. Australia might be able to beat teams in friendlies, but when it comes to it they've been unable to get past Iran and Uruguay. Sorry if this offends you, but they are an average side. To prove otherwise to me they'd have to get beat a team when it matters i.e WC playoff. FIFA have wanted an Oceania team in the WC for a while....it just seems to me that they don't want to have to wait, and are rushing into this to get an Oceania team to WC 2006. Had Australia qualified for WC98 or WC2002 then I would be standing on the rooftops shouting for them (or any other team from that region) to get an automatic spot because they'd proved themselves. But they haven't...

dyertribe · Dec 18, 2002

wilmot said:
I'm sorry if I make you sound like a conference side - not my intent - but based on the results an Oceania team hasn't made the WC for over 20 years. Australia might be able to beat teams in friendlies, but when it comes to it they've been unable to get past Iran and Uruguay. Sorry if this offends you, but they are an average side. To prove otherwise to me they'd have to get beat a team when it matters i.e WC playoff. FIFA have wanted an Oceania team in the WC for a while....it just seems to me that they don't want to have to wait, and are rushing into this to get an Oceania team to WC 2006. Had Australia qualified for WC98 or WC2002 then I would be standing on the rooftops shouting for them (or any other team from that region) to get an automatic spot becaus they'd proved themselves. But they haven't...

We've played with distinction at Confederations Cups as well. At the end of the day if you want to dismiss us because of three bad games in a decade of qualifiers then so be it. I can't change your mind and you're not going to change mine

Nero · Dec 18, 2002

Australia essentially getting a bye into the World Cup is ridiculous, as mentioned before the best alternative is that they join the AFC qualifers. If they can't beat Iran and Uruguay (both good teams) then why should they be rewarded with an automatic place? No logic in that whatsoever.

Anywayz, apart from that i don't see any other problems with the allocations.

Rosicky · Dec 18, 2002

of course

it's a world cup, but remember this year,when teams like China and Saudi-Arabia played there instead of The Czechs or holland!

Grinch · Dec 18, 2002

The Greatest Absurd Of ALL

This new WC allocation is an outrage and a joke.

Everyone is focusing on Australia's permanent World Cup spot - let's not kid ourselves calling it something else, Australia was given a permanent WC spot. And I do think it's ridiculous, they haven't been able to qualify inside the pitch against ANYONE - they couldn't even defeat Iran, for cryin' out loud - so they made a political arrangement and WHAM! they are awarded a backdoor entrance into the tournament.

Shameful, yes, but it's not really the most absurd aspect of the new WC allocation. The most glaring slap in the face is something that already happened for this year's WC:

Africa and Asia have more WC spots than South America.

Stop for a moment and consider this. It's unbelievable. It's so shameless, I wonder how the father of this idea had the nerve to say it out loud.

Africa and Asia have more WC spots than South America.

Frankly, I don't think Australia - who do NOT deserve a permanent WC spot, sorry if this offends someone - is the biggest absurd. Africa and Asia have more WC spots than South America. This just boggles the mind. :eekani:
:yuck:

645 · Dec 18, 2002

South American countries should unite itself and boycott the world cup, and let the whole world watch boring, unmaginative football, while we play our own tournament.... after all we are tired of winning the world cup:tongue:

:fero: :fero: :fero: :fero:

Nero · Dec 18, 2002

Erm, didn't the South Americans have their own cup? Wasn't it called the Coppa America? And didn't the last one end up being a complete farce?

Scoreboard.

Usual Supporter · Dec 18, 2002

Why consider continents?

I agree that the costs of a worldwide qualification stage would be higher, but we would have the 32 best teams in the world in WC. And it would be a great experience for the now weaker teams.
It is very hard to say how many spots a continent deserves. It is more about money than quality.

World Cup 2006 allocation

man_an

paw

wilmot

dyertribe

dyertribe

decbag

AMOROSO!

dyertribe

645

dyertribe

wilmot

dyertribe

wilmot

dyertribe

Nero

Rosicky

Grinch

645

Nero

Usual Supporter

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities