2018 Russia qualifying competitions

Euro 2024, World Cup 2026, etc.
User avatar
seso
Senior Member
Posts: 8074
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 23:09
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by seso »

"gonna", "wanna", "tryna" etc are derived from the Greek "na" which means "to"!! :lol: :lol: :umnik:
Lorric
Senior Member
Posts: 41544
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 16:45
Location: England

Post by Lorric »

bugylibicska wrote:``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.
Only the best teams should be represented. If a continent can't get even one team off the bottom of a group, then none of that continent's teams are worthy of being there.

I will put Asia down to 0.25 places if they all come bottom again like in 2014 and Australia lose to Honduras. If your teams can't even surpass 1/26 teams over two World Cups and playoffs, what's the point of you being there? You're just taking someone more deserving's spot away from them and devaluing the competition.
Lorric
Senior Member
Posts: 41544
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 16:45
Location: England

Post by Lorric »

To be fair though, if my system was real I probably wouldn't make such drastic changes so quickly, but it would be possible for any continent to go down to 0.25. At 0.25, if that nation were to win both playoffs and not come bottom at the World Cup, I'd bump them up to at least 1.5.
User avatar
nogomet
Senior Member
Posts: 7317
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:28
Location: Zagreb

Post by nogomet »

It's interesting to look at those intercontinental play-offs.

I think teams playing the first leg at home are at a significant advantage. The first legs will be played on 10/11 November, return legs on 14 November. Home teams in the first leg can peacefully prepare in their own backyard, while the other team needs to fly 12 hours (Peru) and 15 hours (Australia) and then cope with the time difference of 6 hours (Peru) and 7 hours (Australia) in a very short period of time.

And then all teams need to travel to the return leg venues, so another 12 and 15 hour flights and another 6 and 7 hour change in the time zone. That's exhausting by itself, even without the need to prepare for the next game which is in only 4 days.

Essentially, teams playing the first leg away need to go through this hardship twice, while New Zealand and Honduras need to do it only once. This could prove an advantage in the end.
User avatar
Club-Mate
Senior Member
Posts: 5064
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:20
Location: Virunum - Noricum

Post by Club-Mate »

Kroezero wrote:
kaerin wrote:
Lorric wrote: It shouldn't be though. The level of difficulty to qualify for the World Cup should be about the same from all confederations. This is how I'd have it:

UEFA - 13.5
CONMEBOL - 7
CONCACAF - 4
Africa - 4
Asia - 2.25
OFC - 0.25
Host - 1
This is how I would like it, too.
I don't agree. 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.
I can't agree at all. I've seen two matches of Columbia in Conmebol qualifiers live on Tv when I was in Latinamerica and I would say they are even a top team on Eurpean level (for me the question was better of eg. Italy or just even and I would take the first) so Chile. All top 6-7 Conmebol teams have pot 1 quality for European level. I also remember friendlies of Austria vs Uruguay and Chile, I only can say tough! I would put even Venezuela, Paraguay in pot 2 Nation League there is nothing below that.
Geh-Heim-Favorit statt Geheimfavorit 🇦🇹
bugylibicska
Senior Member
Posts: 31059
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 17:21
Location: Canada

Post by bugylibicska »

And most defiant

Panama: 63-year-old fan Élida de Mitchell, feeling “no regrets” after she invaded the pitch to help waste time in their World Cup qualifying win over Costa Rica. “I had to stop Costa Rica scoring a goal, I wasn’t going to let that happen. So I pretended to faint on the grass, and when the police came I pretended to faint again. The policeman said to me: ‘Grandma, what’s up with you?’ I told him: ‘We’re going to the bloody World Cup and you can’t stop me.’” Her motivation: “When we failed to qualify in 2013 I cried. I wasn’t going to cry again.”
User avatar
Lyonnais
Senior Member
Posts: 22069
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 04:32
Location: Paris

Post by Lyonnais »

Club-Mate wrote:
Kroezero wrote:
kaerin wrote: This is how I would like it, too.
I don't agree. 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.
I can't agree at all. I've seen two matches of Columbia in Conmebol qualifiers live on Tv when I was in Latinamerica and I would say they are even a top team on Eurpean level (for me the question was better of eg. Italy or just even and I would take the first) so Chile. All top 6-7 Conmebol teams have pot 1 quality for European level. I also remember friendlies of Austria vs Uruguay and Chile, I only can say tough! I would put even Venezuela, Paraguay in pot 2 Nation League there is nothing below that.
absolutely agree with you. To me the CONMEBOL qualifiers are very difficult. Not only there are a couple of very decent teams (and Colombia is obviously among them) but the home advantage is something meaningful in South America ... I suspect that many good European teams would have hard time to qualify in this mini league.
Don't forget to post your predictions for the new season
viewtopic.php?p=563580#p563580
bugylibicska
Senior Member
Posts: 31059
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 17:21
Location: Canada

Post by bugylibicska »

The SA qualifier is a meat grinder. If a European team could be inserted as 11th, I`ve no doubt about Germany and Spain to progress, but even France, Portugal and Belgium would suffer, though they`re not underdogs. All the rest would be struggling, even Italy and England. To advance you need about 50% of the points, so 30 points. Maybe 20 at home and 10 away. This means 6 wins, 2 draws and 2 losses at home and 3 wins and a draw or 2 wins and 4 draws away. Even if I want to believe some countries have a chance to get the 20 points on home soil, how they get the 10 point in SA? Where to win? Forget about Bolivia, maybe Venezuela? And where else? I bet even William Hill would give longer odds to England for away games than to any other home teams there.
User avatar
Overgame
Senior Member
Posts: 4573
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 23:58

Post by Overgame »

bugylibicska wrote:The SA qualifier is a meat grinder. If a European team could be inserted as 11th, I`ve no doubt about Germany and Spain to progress, but even France, Portugal and Belgium would suffer, though they`re not underdogs. All the rest would be struggling, even Italy and England. To advance you need about 50% of the points, so 30 points. Maybe 20 at home and 10 away. This means 6 wins, 2 draws and 2 losses at home and 3 wins and a draw or 2 wins and 4 draws away. Even if I want to believe some countries have a chance to get the 20 points on home soil, how they get the 10 point in SA? Where to win? Forget about Bolivia, maybe Venezuela? And where else? I bet even William Hill would give longer odds to England for away games than to any other home teams there.
Just pointing that 30 points out of 60 is the highest bar met.

Out of 54 :

2018 - Peru 26
2014 - Uruguay 25
2010 - Uruguay 24
2006 : Uruguay 25
2002 : Uruguay 27
1998 (no barrage for the fifth) : Peru 25 (Chili 4th with 25 points)

Let's also look at the points won home/away
In 2018 (points home - points away)

Brazil : 25 - 16
Uruguay : 22 - 9
Argentina : 15 - 13
Colombia : 15 - 12
Peru : 15 - 11 (8 without the ineligible fielding from Bolivia)
Chile : 19 (17 without the ineligible fielding from Bolivia) - 7
Paraguay : 11 - 13
Ecuador : 13 - 7
Bolivia : 14 (17 without the ineligible fielding) - 0 (1 without the ineligible fielding)
Venezuela : 7 - 5

Brazil and Uruguay are strong at home, but even Chile and Bolivia have only taken 17 points (only counting the points won on the pitch) out of 27 at home. Far from impossible. I don't say that it would be easy, just not impossible.
bugylibicska
Senior Member
Posts: 31059
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 17:21
Location: Canada

Post by bugylibicska »

I think Brazil and Argentina are the equivalent for Germany and Spain. I expect the champions to come from this group of 4. Uruguay and Colombia (also Chile, though not qualified) similar in strength to France, Portugal and Belgium. They`re strong enough to sprang a surprise - not by winning the title, but knocking out 1 of the ``real`` favourites. Peru are an unknown quantity - back from the wilderness after decades - no big stars bar Guerrero, but very well organized and having a great coach, Gareca from Argentina. Paraguay are in decline and Ecuador never really had a very good team, despite qualifying regularly. Bolivia only dangerous at home, while Venezuela improving slowly.
User avatar
nogomet
Senior Member
Posts: 7317
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:28
Location: Zagreb

Post by nogomet »

I knew it. Sh#t!
User avatar
Firnen
Senior Member
Posts: 12414
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 21:32

Post by Firnen »

Oh, we got Croatia, 2nd best, nice !

Prepare for 2 very dull, tough matches, with fighting and bickering in a war atmosphere :D
Diouf
Senior Member
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 15:55

Post by Diouf »

Now we will finally see whether Croatia is stronger than Cyprus :D :D :D

Okay draw for Denmark. Happy to avoid Sweden again, probably the best team and we have faced them so many times recently. Would have preferred Northern Ireland, but Ireland is an okay draw. Will likely be two cagey matches, just like the two last qualification matches against Montenegro and Romania. We have had horrendous defeats against Ireland in two friendlies in 2007 (0-4) and 2002(0-3). In 1993, Ireland along with Fernando Hierros goal (which should never have been allowed!) made sure that our 1992 European Champions didn't make it to the World Cup. Our best results against Ireland was in the 1986 qualification where we ran circles around them home and away (3-0 and 4-1).
elkjiaer is back
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 09:08

Post by elkjiaer is back »

bugylibicska wrote:I think Brazil and Argentina are the equivalent for Germany and Spain. I expect the champions to come from this group of 4. Uruguay and Colombia (also Chile, though not qualified) similar in strength to France, Portugal and Belgium. They`re strong enough to sprang a surprise - not by winning the title, but knocking out 1 of the ``real`` favourites. Peru are an unknown quantity - back from the wilderness after decades - no big stars bar Guerrero, but very well organized and having a great coach, Gareca from Argentina. Paraguay are in decline and Ecuador never really had a very good team, despite qualifying regularly. Bolivia only dangerous at home, while Venezuela improving slowly.
I would like to share my thoughts with you starting from the post from bugylibicska where he says that Brazil and Argentina are the equivalent for Germany and Spain. I have used Elo ratings (http://www.eloratings.net/europe.html) to create a virtual European group of 10 nations, where each team is the equivalent of one from CONMBOL. So:

Brazil Germany
Argentina France/Portugal
Colombia England/Belgium
Peru Italy
Uruguay Switzerland/Croatia
Chile Poland
Paraguay Wales
Ecuador Slovakia
Venezuela Ukraine
Bolivia Austria

Those are the pairings. So if the one on the right was an European group of 10 countries to qualify to WC applying the same rules as CONMBOL.Here 40/50% of the countries would qualify to WC. Do you think the probability of Italy to qualify would be higher or lower compared to the real scenario where Italy was in the same group as Spain and only 1 team qualified directly?
elkjiaer is back
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 09:08

Post by elkjiaer is back »

Club-Mate wrote:
Kroezero wrote:
kaerin wrote: This is how I would like it, too.
I don't agree. 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.
I can't agree at all. I've seen two matches of Columbia in Conmebol qualifiers live on Tv when I was in Latinamerica and I would say they are even a top team on Eurpean level (for me the question was better of eg. Italy or just even and I would take the first) so Chile. All top 6-7 Conmebol teams have pot 1 quality for European level. I also remember friendlies of Austria vs Uruguay and Chile, I only can say tough! I would put even Venezuela, Paraguay in pot 2 Nation League there is nothing below that.
Assuming that the ELo rating is a much better predictor of team strength compared to the FIFA one , if you look at the current world ranking (http://www.eloratings.net/america.htm) you will see that the 32 best teams in the world as distributed as follows:

17 UEFA
9 CONMBOL
3 CONCAF
2 AFC
1 CAF
0 OFC

This is how "theoretically " the best teams are distributed. Please note that Bolivia, the only team from CONMBOL not included in the top 32 is ranked 43..so not too far. Now compare those number with the "real" FIFA distribution. UEFA and CONMBOL are heavily penalized in favour of especially CAF and AFC. But of course the choice is mainly politic with FIFA making sure to please (or disappoint, you choose) all confederations equally.

I wonder why they do not change the whole qualification mechanism. For example: 32 teams (or 48), 24 qualified trought their confederation qualification (as of today), with number of places allocated by means of coefficients based on performances in the last 3 world cups (or 5). the remaining 8 spots to be assigned after inter-confederation qualifications. A sort of a "mini"- world cup to be played by 24 or so teams.

Beside the numbers, i think that playing a mini qualification tournament instead of those stupid two-legged play-off would be way more exciting and fair. Imagine a pre-qualification tournament including Peru-Italy-Australia-Honduras for example, with only 1 or 2 of those going to the WC.
Post Reply