Xtratime Community banner

Which is the weakest team at the WC???

  • Tunisia

    Votes: 16 28.6%
  • China

    Votes: 18 32.1%
  • South Korea

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Slovenia

    Votes: 6 10.7%
  • Costa Rica

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • South Africa

    Votes: 6 10.7%
  • Ecuador

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 5.4%

  • Total voters
    56
1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,119 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There have been inumerable posts about which is the bast team or the favorite or who will win it.

Now let's see what people think about which is the weakest team. First of all let me say that all the teams at the Wc deserve to be there. They played the qualification games and came through, if there is a question about the quality of opposition some of these teams might have faced that is absolutedly out of these teams control. They did what they needed to do so they deserve to be in.

Now of all the teams right now I am going to go with Tunisia, simply because the talent is limited and more importantly the team seems to be in disarray.

:cool:
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I went with Tunisia also and for the same reasons. I watched them in the African cup of nations and they did not impress me at all and they failed to score a single goal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
With the clear weakness of teams like China and Tunisia, I am stunned that Blatter can in one breath say that the WC must be the best collection of competitive national football teams and representative of the entire world.

True, China's participation does add about 1 billion people to the TV viewership, but the it is always appalling that this must come at the expense of nations like Holland and the Czech Republic.

It's an uneasy compromise to field the best teams while representing the entire world. But the competition must not be watered down if all we get are teams like the Chinese who don't score and have weak defenses. From having watched the Chinese play, this is NOT an impressive team on any level -- although the experience will prove valuable to their growth plans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,555 Posts
I have to go with Tunisia. Like Gabemar and manuel said, the team is in some trouble before the WC, with the coach Henri Michel resigning etc. There African Nations Cup was pretty poor as well, and alongside the hosts Japan, Belgium and Russia in Group H, it will be very hard for them to even get a draw.

Sorry Tunisians :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,441 Posts
There is nothing to be sorry about facts are facts. The national team is at best disarganized and while Tunisia's best players missed the 2002 ANC there is simply no excuse for our pathetic display in Mali. With local boy Ammar Souyah taking over the reins Tunisia may make a turn for the better but that may prove to be wishful thinking.

I still think that Tunisia will at least earn a few draws there for avoiding the lable of worst team. Also admitidly our group is not as hard as say group G so even if Tunisia earns more points that Ecuador or Mexico it would no doubt have more to do with the caliber of opponent rather than Ecuador or Mexico being worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,086 Posts
Rosso said:
True, China's participation does add about 1 billion people to the TV viewership, but the it is always appalling that this must come at the expense of nations like Holland and the Czech Republic.
I disagree. whats the point of calling it a world cup if other nations don't get a fair chance to qualify? how do you expect the Asian and African nations improved/to improve if they don't get a chance to qualify? :confused:

While i disapprove of the fabrication FIFA did to ensure China make it, and not Iran/KSA (two much better sides), fact is Holland and Czech got their chance on the field to qualify, and FAILED. No conspiracy, no cheating...they just were beating by better european sides. EOD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,074 Posts
I don't even know why Ecuador is up there. They finished second in qualification(second to only Argentina), so I think you should atleast give them a chance to prove themselves against some strong European teams in the competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,119 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Ecuador is up there because I wanted to put at least one team from each confederation, you know to be fair.:) and since they are the "new kids of the block " in South America, I put them there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,555 Posts
I have heard many people say that Ecuador will have a very bad World Cup due to the fact that they are not playing at altitude and many believe that the only reason Ecuador finishsed second in qualifying was because of the altitude.

What are your thoughts on this Gabemar and others?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Vampire Lestat said:


I disagree. whats the point of calling it a world cup if other nations don't get a fair chance to qualify? how do you expect the Asian and African nations improved/to improve if they don't get a chance to qualify? :confused:

While i disapprove of the fabrication FIFA did to ensure China make it, and not Iran/KSA (two much better sides), fact is Holland and Czech got their chance on the field to qualify, and FAILED. No conspiracy, no cheating...they just were beating by better european sides. EOD.
I don't think you read the whole post which I'd written earlier. I agree that the World Cup must involve countries from all areas of the world in order to be truly representative. It's not the World Series now is it?

But, I also said that FIFA has to make an uneasy compromise between holding a tournament with the best teams on offer and a representative pool of teams from around the world, including China.

True as well, Holland and the Czech Republic (even Australia) are better teams than China that got beaten on the pitch. So, in the end, the result is fair and square. China qualified and, for that reason, they belong in the Cup. But there are some major commercial interests at play as well!

Overall, from a general football fans point of view, it would have been enticing to see China or Tunisia replaced by any of the above mentioned teams. But again, as I said, national teams cannot get experience unless they play. So we as fans of the World Cup do have to endure the odd woeful team in the draw. It's after all not so many years ago that the US, Japan, and others were the laughable "0-4 team."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,086 Posts
Rosso,

What your talking about, the "commercial" reasons China are in, was the reason Iran weren't. Its very well known that Asian football is ruled by four national teams: KSA, Iran, Japan and South Korea. As two of those were the hosts, the whole world expected the AFC to place KSA and Iran as group heads, and that would have been the just decision. Both have won the Asian cup on more then one occasion, China has never won it (i think, if it did, then it was in the dark ages, and not more then once). Both Iran and KSA have made the WC before, and both had actually scored wins in the WC. China never has.

So, Iran instead of China would have added to the competition in terms of strength. but still keep it a global competition. Yes, Holland would have made it a tougher, but not really more interesting. One of the main reasons the competition is so intriguing is how it gathers fans, and teams, from all over the world.
 

·
International
Joined
·
8,545 Posts
I voted for China, by far the whipping boys of the World Cup.

Tunisia actually has more votes than China at this point:eekani:

Bora's a great coach, but even he can't do anything with them. They're lucky to be in the WC and even on their best day, I doubt they'd manage even so much as a scoring opportunity, maybe a shot on goal.

They were in a favourable position to qualify and as such, I hope to see them humiliated. Iran wouldn't have made for a better competitor, they'd have made for a much better competitor.

I remember they "had" to play their games in Korea rather than Japan and FIFA being the biatches that they are, actually granted this to them. If they want to participate in the tournament, it shoudn't be on their terms. They're lucky to be there and then they go and make it worse by pulling that crap.

So like I said, I hope to see them humiliated but I don't really need to hope because they're not even good enough to be considered mediocre and will probably go 0-3 with 0 goals for and at least 9 against.

What an insult to teams like Ecuador and Slovenija, actually to all the teams listed here to actually be put in the same category as China.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,357 Posts
About Ecuador:Altitude is a fact that we must not forget but not only this gave Ecuador the qualification.They had and the material to do this.They have some star players in every line like Agustin Delgado up front who helped them a lot.Also,they won and matches out of their home.Look at Bolivia,Peru and Venezuela...

As for the weakest team i go for Tunisia.No material,no talent,no nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,845 Posts
My votes goes to China. Tunisia will have experience and in past world cups have looked reasonabley competant.

On Rosso and Lestat's debate - The World Cup should involve countries from all confederations, of course but at the end of the day the competion is about the World's best footballing nations playing each other, its not an exercise in cultural exchange.

The fact that China got in is made all the more ridiculous when FIFA says that they need to include nations from all over the world when they make so hard for Australia, or any team for Oceana to qualify. Seems to me like they change their argument to fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
mutu1875 said:
My votes goes to China. Tunisia will have experience and in past world cups have looked reasonabley competant.

On Rosso and Lestat's debate - The World Cup should involve countries from all confederations, of course but at the end of the day the competion is about the World's best footballing nations playing each other, its not an exercise in cultural exchange.

The fact that China got in is made all the more ridiculous when FIFA says that they need to include nations from all over the world when they make so hard for Australia, or any team for Oceana to qualify. Seems to me like they change their argument to fit.
I completely agree. Blatter's term as head of FIFA has been marred by politics and maneouvres which are so marginal to the true spirit of football that it's a shame. China belongs, rightly, because they qualified. At the end of the day, though, their quality will be judged on the pitch as it should be.

The World Cup is the best sporting tournament in the world of sports, period, because it is truly international and for the most part, the best team wins.

Iran and KSA have had better accomplishments as footballing sides and it's unfortunate to see that their qualifying efforts were compromised. But teams like Australia and others within Oceania are given an impossible task to qualify as well.

The field of teams has been chosen and no doubt the teams that lack quality will have a bright light shown on their inadequacies in front of the multi-billion person audience FIFA wants so hard to maintain. It will still be the best showcase for sport in the world and can, if used wisely, be a force for change and understanding. But I wouldn't count on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,119 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
King Italy said:
I have heard many people say that Ecuador will have a very bad World Cup due to the fact that they are not playing at altitude and many believe that the only reason Ecuador finishsed second in qualifying was because of the altitude.

What are your thoughts on this Gabemar and others?
Ecuador had the 3rd or 4th best away record during WCQ. Obviously their home advantage was big but the team is solid enough to compete with anyone.

As far as weak teams in the Wc debate, I believe that there should be less teams qualifying directly to the WC. I would say the host (1), 9 from Europe, 4 from South America, 3 from Africa, 3 Asia/Oceania and 2 from North America. The other 10 teams should qualify in an inter-confederation playoffs. Of course this will never happened since it's just makes too much sense for FIFA.
 

·
International
Joined
·
8,545 Posts
It looks good on paper Gabemar, but I agree with the sentiment of others that it is a world cup and we need to ensure that other have a descent amount of representation at the tournament.

Teams like China are very weak but I think in the long run, we're better off because it helps to improve the game in different countries and continents by allowing for more representation.

Japan has come a long way and while they're not exactly contenders to actually win the world cup, they're not pushovers by any means. It'll take teams like China a long time to get there, but then it took Japan a long time to get where they are.

No doubt the quality of the competition itself suffers, but if FIFA were to adopt the changes you've proposed, the remaining teams would be comprised of Euro and S.American teams.

But then can you describe the format you have in mind? Are you thinking about randomly grouping countries together and the strongest will come out? If so, I think it'll hurt the development of the game in other areas of the world, namely Africa and Asia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Sounds good, mate. But can you imagine the difficulties of structuring games like that. For example, Sweden in an inter-confederation match with Australia or China. While logically, you're format should result in a more "competitive" WC, it would be a logistical nightmare.

The way qualification is structured now allows for both less stressful travel from one venue to another as well as a decent representation of teams from each confederation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,119 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I agree that it would be a logistical challenge but Ireland - Iran and Australia - Uruguay came out OK. So I don't see why it couldn't be more of these play-offs.

Now if we look at the WCQ for this year's WC the teams that would have qualified directly if there were only one host and the champion did not qualify directly:
Hosts (1): Japan

Europe (9): France, England, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Russia

South America (4): Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil and Paraguay

Africa (3): Cameroon, Nigeria and Senegal

Asia/Oceania (3): Korea, Saudi Arabia and China

North America (2): Costa Rica and Mexico

The teams involved in the inter conference play-offs would have been:

9 from Europe (Ireland, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Slovenia, Romania, Belgium, Czech Republic and Austria or Denmark)

3 from South America (Uruguay, Colombia and Peru)

3 from Africa (South Africa, Tunisia and Morocco or Egypt)

3 from North America (USA, Honduras and Jamaica)

2 from Asia/Oceania (Iran and Australia)

Then the only thing would be that teams from the same confederence couldn't face each other. FIFA rankings could be used for seeding purposes as well but that might be a bit too controversial.

:cool: :cool:

Now if we use the seeding (FIFA ranking system as of December 2001)
5 Colombia
12 Germany
14 Czech Republic
15 Romania
17 Denmark
17 Ireland
20 Belgium
22 Uruguay
23 Turkey
24 USA
25 Slovenia
25 Honduras
28 Tunisia
29 Iran
34 South Africa
36 Morocco
43 Peru
45 Ukraine
48 Australia
53 Jamaica

The pairings would have been:
Colombia - Jamaica
Germany - Australia
Czech Republic - Peru
Romania - Morocco
Denmark - South Africa
Ireland - Iran
Belgium - Tunisia
Uruguay - Ukraine
Turkey - Honduras
USA - Slovenia

I am not so certain that as you guys mention only European and South americans would win these play-offs. Most of the matches would be pretty competitive IMO.

This system would allow more competitive teams qualification and at the same time keeping a solid representation of all the continents. Even giving the FIFA World rankings some relevance.


:cool:
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top