2018 Russia qualifying competitions

Euro 2024, World Cup 2026, etc.
Lorric
Senior Member
Posts: 41544
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 16:45
Location: England

Post by Lorric »

bugylibicska wrote:
Duketown wrote:They should fuse CONMEBOL and CONCACAF.
This would give those best losers from the south a better position at the cost of some weaker northern countries. Would also be a great change to clean out those 2 corrupted Associations. And then keeping the same no. of berths would suffice. Then those berths would probably be filled in with 1 or 2 extra teams from the South.
CONCACAF will never agree. Why would they give up a 3+1 for an uncertain 2-3? Now Canada can dream to participate one day (once in every 50-100 years), but then even allowing them using their hockey sticks won`t help. :lol:
You are correct. If only WC spots were based on merit, an Americas confederation would greatly benefit both confederations. CONCACAF would benefit from the increased competition playing SA sides, and possibly a new Americas Cup, complete with qualifying groups for said tournament. CONMEBOL would benefit from getting more spots and the obliteration of the "there's only 10 teams!" Argument. In the short term, CONCACAF sides would lose out on World Cup places, but the Americas allocation would rise quickly under a merit based system. I could see them easily getting 14-16 spots in a 48 team World Cup. UEFA I think would get 20+ no problem.
User avatar
Overgame
Senior Member
Posts: 4573
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 23:58

Post by Overgame »

Duketown wrote:They should fuse CONMEBOL and CONCACAF.
This would give those best losers from the south a better position at the cost of some weaker northern countries. Would also be a great change to clean out those 2 corrupted Associations. And then keeping the same no. of berths would suffice. Then those berths would probably be filled in with 1 or 2 extra teams from the South.
"Eh Concacaf you should fuse with Conmebol and lose spots. I just don't like you. Best wishes, Duketown". Concacaf is made of 35 teams, Conmebol of 10. Conmebol like their "league" and won't join a system with several rounds. But if we are "forcing" the confederations to change their system, let's go. I based the allocation partly on the number of teams in the confederation and partly on the results of the last World Cups. The idea is "bad results -> fewer spots and more playoffs". The allocation could change every 2 World Cups, based on the results.

About the spot, it would be time to give less confederation spots and more intercontinental playoff spots. Even without thinking much :
-Host : 1 spot (not counted in the allocation)
-Europe : 10 spots + 15 playoffs. (55 teams)
-North America : 4 + 6 (35 teams)
-South America : 4 + 4 (10 teams)
-Asia : 4 + 6 (46 teams)
-Africa : 4 + 6 (54 teams)
-Oceania : 1 + 3 (11 teams)

28 qualified + 40 teams in the playoffs.

Europe : 10 groups of 5/6. Winner qualified, 2nd in the playoffs. Game between the 3rd.
Maximum : 12 games before the intercontinental playoffs.

Works for 50-60 teams.


North America : 1st round. 8 groups of 3/4 for the bottom 27 teams. Winners qualified for the second round.
2nd round : 4 groups of 4. Winner qualified, 2nd in the playoff. Game between the 3rd.
Maximum : 14 games before the intercontinental playoffs.

Works for 32 - 40 teams.


South America : 2 groups of 5. Top 2 qualified, 3nd and 4th in the playoffs.
8 games before the intercontinental playoffs.

Works for 10-12 teams.


Asia : 1st round. 10 groups of 4 for the bottom 40 teams. Winners qualified for the second round.
2nd round : 4 groups of 4. Winners qualified, 2nd in the playoffs. Game between the 3rd.
Maximum : 14 games before the intercontinental playoffs.

Works for 46 teams. For 47-49 teams :
11 groups of 3/4 for the bottom 42-44 teams (11 winners in the second round)


Africa : 1st round : 13 groups of 3/4 for the bottom 51 teams. Winners qualified for the second round.
2nd round : 4 groups of 4. Winner qualified, 2nd in the playoffs. Game between the 3rd for 2 spots in the playoffs.
Maximum : 14 games before the intercontinental playoffs.

Works for 54-55 teams.


Oceania : 2 groups of 5 and 6 teams. Game between the winners for the spot, the loser and the 2nd in the playoffs.
Maximum : 12 games.

Works for 11-12 teams.


Intercontinental playoffs : 4 pots of 10 teams based on FIFA ranking. With or without confederation protection.
Duketown
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 02:53
Location: Gaia

Post by Duketown »

Lorric wrote:
bugylibicska wrote:
Duketown wrote:They should fuse CONMEBOL and CONCACAF.
This would give those best losers from the south a better position at the cost of some weaker northern countries. Would also be a great change to clean out those 2 corrupted Associations. And then keeping the same no. of berths would suffice. Then those berths would probably be filled in with 1 or 2 extra teams from the South.
CONCACAF will never agree. Why would they give up a 3+1 for an uncertain 2-3? Now Canada can dream to participate one day (once in every 50-100 years), but then even allowing them using their hockey sticks won`t help. :lol:
You are correct. If only WC spots were based on merit, an Americas confederation would greatly benefit both confederations. CONCACAF would benefit from the increased competition playing SA sides, and possibly a new Americas Cup, complete with qualifying groups for said tournament. CONMEBOL would benefit from getting more spots and the obliteration of the "there's only 10 teams!" Argument. In the short term, CONCACAF sides would lose out on World Cup places, but the Americas allocation would rise quickly under a merit based system. I could see them easily getting 14-16 spots in a 48 team World Cup. UEFA I think would get 20+ no problem.
It's not about merits; it's preventing an ever expanding WC and fixing both problems.
South America is really tight, with 10 solid contenders and 5 spots. And CONMEBOL has really boring qualifications, with all those small islands. I can tell you now which 3 countries will qualify for 2030. That bet would be higher than todays Getafe - Madrid.

So I agree to Lorric, if those smaller countries can't qualify, they have nothing to do in WC, only to occupy last group-stage spot. I prefer a strong WC and qualification should accommodate for that. Why aren't some of those former colonies, Guyana and Suriname, not in CONCACAF, where they belong? It's mikado all over the world and they should fix that as well; it only brings in politics.
Overgame wrote:
Duketown wrote:They should fuse CONMEBOL and CONCACAF.
This would give those best losers from the south a better position at the cost of some weaker northern countries. Would also be a great change to clean out those 2 corrupted Associations. And then keeping the same no. of berths would suffice. Then those berths would probably be filled in with 1 or 2 extra teams from the South.
"Eh Concacaf you should fuse with Conmebol and lose spots. I just don't like you. Best wishes, Duketown". Concacaf is made of 35 teams, Conmebol of 10. Conmebol like their "league" and won't join a system with several rounds.
A few years ago, it magically appeared that football was rotten in it's core. The world was screaming for changes. Some leaders were banned and now maybe being punished, some others came and again some where corrupt. Now we have some other leaders, and what did change? Ceferin was proudly bragging but only changed some governance around allocation of tournaments, yet the core remains rotten. And now everybody seems to have forgotten.. people suffer from amnesia, just like in politics.

This comes because forces like those Qatari bought football and current leaders are still adhering to those forces; nothing changed otherwise Qatari WC would already be abandoned. And all those sport associations in Switserland with their banking? Everybody know this is a simple setup to hide money flows. Obviously, this is still needed otherwize those so-called good guys would already have changed that. At least make it accountable. Now it's only talks about transparency. As long as those associations don't move to a country without banking secrecy, football remains rotten.

Since those associations aren't continental anyway, i'd say fix that as well; it only brings in politics and bugylibicska doesn't like this.

But I like your system with those play-offs as well. Either way, for me it's about fixing countless problems and neither solution will be perfect but they can fix that along the way.
Interested in football economics, trends, TPO, FFP, annual reports, stadium development & transfers. Accurate sources are Football leaks, UEFA club reports 2016, UEFA benchmark reports, KPMG, Deloitte, Asser Institute, CIES, FifPro.
mspm89
Senior Member
Posts: 2755
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 01:56
Location: Nicaragua

Post by mspm89 »

bugylibicska wrote:Those who remember the Panama - USA 2:3 game from the last round of the hex 4 years ago have a perfect understanding of the schadenfreude that followed the US exit. The US scored twice in injury time and robbed Panama from qualifying helping Mexico in the process, while they were secure already. To add insult to injury the American fans were taunting the Panamanians on their own backyard during the whole game. And I don`t want to talk about politics.
Eeeeeeeeexactly! On behalf of Panama, that was a traumatic moment for most Central American fans, who share a general dislike of the Mexican NT and their media.
Thunder_PT
Senior Member
Posts: 10871
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 23:36
Location: Madrid, Spain

Post by Thunder_PT »

anty1975 wrote:I don't consider Chile better than Germany I would be mad to think so. But they indeed beat Portugal (European champions)
Only on penalties, it ended in a draw.
bugylibicska
Senior Member
Posts: 31059
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 17:21
Location: Canada

Post by bugylibicska »

Duketown wrote:
Lorric wrote:
bugylibicska wrote:
CONCACAF will never agree. Why would they give up a 3+1 for an uncertain 2-3? Now Canada can dream to participate one day (once in every 50-100 years), but then even allowing them using their hockey sticks won`t help. :lol:
You are correct. If only WC spots were based on merit, an Americas confederation would greatly benefit both confederations. CONCACAF would benefit from the increased competition playing SA sides, and possibly a new Americas Cup, complete with qualifying groups for said tournament. CONMEBOL would benefit from getting more spots and the obliteration of the "there's only 10 teams!" Argument. In the short term, CONCACAF sides would lose out on World Cup places, but the Americas allocation would rise quickly under a merit based system. I could see them easily getting 14-16 spots in a 48 team World Cup. UEFA I think would get 20+ no problem.
It's not about merits; it's preventing an ever expanding WC and fixing both problems.
South America is really tight, with 10 solid contenders and 5 spots. And CONMEBOL has really boring qualifications, with all those small islands. I can tell you now which 3 countries will qualify for 2030. That bet would be higher than todays Getafe - Madrid.

So I agree to Lorric, if those smaller countries can't qualify, they have nothing to do in WC, only to occupy last group-stage spot. I prefer a strong WC and qualification should accommodate for that. Why aren't some of those former colonies, Guyana and Suriname, not in CONCACAF, where they belong? It's mikado all over the world and they should fix that as well; it only brings in politics.
Overgame wrote:
Duketown wrote:They should fuse CONMEBOL and CONCACAF.
This would give those best losers from the south a better position at the cost of some weaker northern countries. Would also be a great change to clean out those 2 corrupted Associations. And then keeping the same no. of berths would suffice. Then those berths would probably be filled in with 1 or 2 extra teams from the South.
"Eh Concacaf you should fuse with Conmebol and lose spots. I just don't like you. Best wishes, Duketown". Concacaf is made of 35 teams, Conmebol of 10. Conmebol like their "league" and won't join a system with several rounds.
A few years ago, it magically appeared that football was rotten in it's core. The world was screaming for changes. Some leaders were banned and now maybe being punished, some others came and again some where corrupt. Now we have some other leaders, and what did change? Ceferin was proudly bragging but only changed some governance around allocation of tournaments, yet the core remains rotten. And now everybody seems to have forgotten.. people suffer from amnesia, just like in politics.

This comes because forces like those Qatari bought football and current leaders are still adhering to those forces; nothing changed otherwise Qatari WC would already be abandoned. And all those sport associations in Switserland with their banking? Everybody know this is a simple setup to hide money flows. Obviously, this is still needed otherwize those so-called good guys would already have changed that. At least make it accountable. Now it's only talks about transparency. As long as those associations don't move to a country without banking secrecy, football remains rotten.

Since those associations aren't continental anyway, i'd say fix that as well; it only brings in politics and bugylibicska doesn't like this.

But I like your system with those play-offs as well. Either way, for me it's about fixing countless problems and neither solution will be perfect but they can fix that along the way.
Bugylibicska is not CONCACAF and nobody will ask his opinion. I wouldn`t mind a fair merger between CONMEBOL and CONCACAF. I`m for the best teams to represent the continents, but people should realize if it`s called a WC all continents must be represented, regardless their relative strength. And I`m very much in favour for intercontinental play offs, many more than we`ve now. One way to measure the relative strength of a continent to add up the points they`ve accumulated at the WC and divide by the number of teams they`ve sent. The best continent gets an extra spot taken away from the bottom finished continent. So, let`s say take away a spot from Asia and give it to South America.
User avatar
subway14
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:50
Location: Finland

Post by subway14 »

Duketown wrote:Why aren't some of those former colonies, Guyana and Suriname, not in CONCACAF, where they belong?
lolwut :lol:
Duketown
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 02:53
Location: Gaia

Post by Duketown »

bugylibicska wrote: Bugylibicska is not CONCACAF and nobody will ask his opinion.
That counts for most stuff but then it would be awful quite, here and in life.
bugylibicska wrote: I wouldn`t mind a fair merger between CONMEBOL and CONCACAF. I`m for the best teams to represent the continents, but people should realize if it`s called a WC all continents must be represented, regardless their relative strength.
I don't see why this should be a law; I want the strongest countries, the best compete the best. The rest may qualify an become better and go to the Olympics. And no, players don't need WC platform to grow; that's done the rest of the year in leagues all over the world and in qualifications.

But like I said, those associations aren't continents, as they suggest. I had a look and I think around 30-40 countries don't even qualify in their continent and some aren't even real countries, etc.. The continental stuff may be from the past but modern football mixed this all up.
bugylibicska wrote: And I`m very much in favour for intercontinental play offs, many more than we`ve now. One way to measure the relative strength of a continent to add up the points they`ve accumulated at the WC and divide by the number of teams they`ve sent. The best continent gets an extra spot taken away from the bottom finished continent. So, let`s say take away a spot from Asia and give it to South America.
lol, with both those rules, in no time Oceania, Asia, Afrika, and North America will lose all their spots. Maybe add 1 minimum spot per continent?

But whatever they come up with, let it stop that everlasting "how to divide"-discussion. And not by expanding to 42 and then 64 countries. Than groupstage just is an extra qualification round, which isn't the concept of a World Cup.
Interested in football economics, trends, TPO, FFP, annual reports, stadium development & transfers. Accurate sources are Football leaks, UEFA club reports 2016, UEFA benchmark reports, KPMG, Deloitte, Asser Institute, CIES, FifPro.
Duketown
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 02:53
Location: Gaia

Post by Duketown »

subway14 wrote:USA is out :lol:
lolwut :lol:
Interested in football economics, trends, TPO, FFP, annual reports, stadium development & transfers. Accurate sources are Football leaks, UEFA club reports 2016, UEFA benchmark reports, KPMG, Deloitte, Asser Institute, CIES, FifPro.
Kroezero
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 17:41

Post by Kroezero »

kaerin wrote:
Kroezero wrote:South America has 2 world class teams (Brazil and Argentina(giving them the benefit of the doubt)), one strong team (Uruguay) and the rest I would call mediocre or less. Like I once wrote at the WC the mediocre teams from SA benefitted that they couldn't draw the SA top teams. Mediocre European teams could however.
I would give UEFA 16 spots, conmebol 4, concacaf 3, afc 3, caf 4, ofc 1 and the organising country.
Hmm. Do you think, say, Poland would beat Chile if they meet? A UEFA Q group winner vs. SA's 6th.
Oh yes, definately they would. Especially if they play at home, or somewhere in Europe. I doubt about Iceland and maybe Serbia, but I think all other European groupwinners would have qualified in the CONMEBOL group. And Italy would have also. And probably also Mexico would make it into the top 5, if they where in CONMEBOL.
I have seen some of the matches last week and it is enthousiastic, but definately not class football there.
And yes, lots of European teams are better then the likes of Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador and Venezuela. Maybe not every single day, but sure in an 18 game league.
bugylibicska
Senior Member
Posts: 31059
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 17:21
Location: Canada

Post by bugylibicska »

``with both those rules, in no time Oceania, Asia, Afrika, and North America will lose all their spots. Maybe add 1 minimum spot per continent?``

Obviously. A WC means every continent should be represented, so yes, there`s a minimum spot like 2 for Africa and 1 for Asia and CONCACAF.
User avatar
subway14
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:50
Location: Finland

Post by subway14 »

Duketown wrote:
subway14 wrote:USA is out :lol:
lolwut :lol:
wtf are you going on about, first you talk shit then when someone points it out to you you tryna switch onto another topic or what?
User avatar
seso
Senior Member
Posts: 8074
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 23:09
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by seso »

Lorric wrote:
kaerin wrote:
seso wrote:Who gives a flying f@*% ??
What is going on? I just wrote what a friend of mine said to me and overall what is written on Chilean media these days, isn't this a forum, to discuss? Maybe they are right Chile would top that group or not really. Do you really need to be vulgar using f- word here? I always took you as a kind/quality poster, hopefuly you will stay the same.
I believe the anger is directed at Chile, not you.
Good morning forum! Of course my comment was directed at Chileans, not at kaerin!
User avatar
Dragonite
Senior Member
Posts: 12269
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 19:42
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Contact:

Post by Dragonite »

Lyonnais wrote:The elimination of the USA is one of the biggest shocks of the qualifiers (with Chile and Netherlands) and you can make fun of it (I do it myself!), it's part of the game.

However, some comments look like to me very patronizing for the US soccer team.

Should we remember that the USA passed the WC group stage 3 times out of the 4 last WCs?

Do you know how many teams have achieved the same level of results in the same time? :dragonite mode: :wink:

Brazil, Germany and ... Mexico (!) passed 4 times out of the 4 WCs
Argentina, England, Netherlands, Spain and the USA did it 3 times and ... that's it.
This means that teams like Belgium, Chile, France, Italy, Portugal or Uruguay (just to name the most famous ones) were not able to do it, not to speak about those who simply have not been able to do it once in the last 12 years.

In these 3 WCs (2002-2010-2014), they furthermore eliminated teams like Portugal (twice!), Algeria, Ghana, Poland and Slovenia, i.e. 4 European teams and 2 (good) Africans.

So making fun of the US because of their embarrassing elimination, fair enough and I join you for this, but stating that the US have never understood anything in football (soccer should I say) looks like to me very cliché and very condescending (patronizing?) to me.

You can’t compare USA’s elimination with Chile or Holland.


Holland was in a group with France and Sweden, where only the group winner advances, and the second placed team must face another second placed team in a playoff (or not even that if they end up being the worst second placed team).

Was Holland “supposed to” finish above France? No.
Was Holland “supposed to” finish above Sweden? No.

The only real surprise was that they were still “alive” in the last day, although needing an impossible result to stay alive.


Chile is in a 10 teams league with the other CONMEBOL members, where only the top 4 advance, and the 5th plays an intercontinental playoff with New Zealand.

Was Chile “supposed to” finish top 4 or at least 5th?
That depends. With teams like Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia and Argentina, getting a top 4 spot would always be very difficult.
And even teams like Peru, Paraguay and Ecuador are also good (although not as good as the top 4).
So Chile’s elimination isn’t that surprising either.


Now USA’s not even finishing top 4 because they lost to Trinidad and Tobago (!!), finishing behind teams like Costa Rica, Honduras, and Panama, that’s unthinkable!!

When people think about CONCACAF having 3+1 spots, in inevitable comes attached to the idea that “but two of these spots are certainly for USA and Mexico”. Nobody even considers the possibility of USA or Mexico not making it. Not when there’s a 3rd spot safety net. And even an extra safety net of the 4th spot also being good enough as long as they then win the intercontinental playoff.


There are even people that like to see football based on attendances, population, wealth, etc.
For these people, based on all these things, USA finishing 5th in the “Hexagonal” is impossible.

With this in mind (and other recurring discussions in this forum as well), I think I’ll even change my signature to “The truth is always stranger than fiction”. :mrgreen:
Records and Statistics:
:arrow: Champions League (all 141 participants - 1992/1993 to 2019/2020)
:arrow: Europa League (all 215 participants - 2009/2010 to 2019/2020)
:arrow: UEFA Youth League (all 162 participants - 2013/2014 to 2019/2020)
THEPOSH
Senior Member
Posts: 2749
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 22:42
Location: Copenhagen and Cambridgeshire

Post by THEPOSH »

subway14 wrote: you tryna switch
I suppose you mean "Are you trying to switch" :lol:
I admit that I have never seen this one before though.
Usually it's the British and their "would of" instead of "would have" that gets me. :clapping:
Post Reply