Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: FIFA World Cup Brazil 2014 (Draw results)
Well, looking at the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking the best teams are drawn as first and second so they are the favorites.
Group A: Croatia, Serbia
Group B: Italy, Denmark
Group C: Germany, Sweden
Group D: Netherlands, Turkey
Group E: Norway, Slovenia
Group F: Portugal, Russia
Group G: Greece, Slovakia
Group H: England, Montenegro
Group I: Spain, France
But if you look at the previous ranking (Jun 2011), these countries went up a lot of places: Montenegro+8, Sweden+9, Denmark+7, Turkey+7, Bosnia-Herzegovina+6, Belarus+13 and Hungary+6. I think these countries can be the surprise of their group if they are not first or second draw in their group.
So looking at this, group D won't be that easy at all :P
Group A: Croatia, Serbia
Group B: Italy, Denmark
Group C: Germany, Sweden
Group D: Netherlands, Turkey
Group E: Norway, Slovenia
Group F: Portugal, Russia
Group G: Greece, Slovakia
Group H: England, Montenegro
Group I: Spain, France
But if you look at the previous ranking (Jun 2011), these countries went up a lot of places: Montenegro+8, Sweden+9, Denmark+7, Turkey+7, Bosnia-Herzegovina+6, Belarus+13 and Hungary+6. I think these countries can be the surprise of their group if they are not first or second draw in their group.
So looking at this, group D won't be that easy at all :P
From a position of top seeded country, I think Croatia got almost the toughest group possible.
Analysis by pots:
2. Serbia - not only a strong team but we also have strong rivalry. Only France would be as difficult.
3. Belgium - only B&H and Ukraine would be as difficult choices from 3rd pot.
4. Scotland - team with greatest tradition and most appearances in WC & EC from 4th pot. Only Romania would be maybe as difficult.
5. Macedonia - only Finland is stronger in the 5th pot but all ex-Yu countries have aditional rivalry so maybe even as difficult for us.
6. Wales - convincingly the strongest in last pot. What are they doing in this pot while the Faroe Islands are in 5th!? We didn't even get one easy team in this group.
Looking at it from the bright side, this will be a very interesting group with many surprises so let's hope all favorites will lose many points. ;)
Analysis by pots:
2. Serbia - not only a strong team but we also have strong rivalry. Only France would be as difficult.
3. Belgium - only B&H and Ukraine would be as difficult choices from 3rd pot.
4. Scotland - team with greatest tradition and most appearances in WC & EC from 4th pot. Only Romania would be maybe as difficult.
5. Macedonia - only Finland is stronger in the 5th pot but all ex-Yu countries have aditional rivalry so maybe even as difficult for us.
6. Wales - convincingly the strongest in last pot. What are they doing in this pot while the Faroe Islands are in 5th!? We didn't even get one easy team in this group.
Looking at it from the bright side, this will be a very interesting group with many surprises so let's hope all favorites will lose many points. ;)
Scotland - team with greatest tradition and most appearances in WC & EC from 4th pot.
Results from the past aren't a guaranty for successes in the future ;)
Results from the past aren't a guaranty for successes in the future ;)
The 'sad' thing is that because Group A is a close group, probably second team will not have a lot of points (compared to the other groups) and might not play the play-off (between the best 8 of 9 second placed teams).
Results from the past aren't a guaranty for successes in the future ;)
Indeed, see Belgium ;-)
Indeed, see Belgium ;-)
Yes, that's really unfair. I really don't understand why they don't make 7 qualifying groups already. That would make 4 groups of 8 and 3 groups of 7 teams. 1st and 2nd team qualify except that only the last 2 runners-up have to play-off for the last 13th place. If South America can play 16 qualifying matches, I don't see why Europe can't have 14 in 2 years time.
They didn't make it only because rich club's interests are slowly eating national teams. And national teams are practically the only place left for football as it should be played. I don't see much thrill in watching someone playing for a club which he chose based on number of millions of euros he got from it.
They didn't make it only because rich club's interests are slowly eating national teams. And national teams are practically the only place left for football as it should be played. I don't see much thrill in watching someone playing for a club which he chose based on number of millions of euros he got from it.
And yes, I think Belgium in fact belongs to 2nd pot by strength really and that group A is actually the most difficult one.
Yes, that's really unfair.
No it's not :)
FORMAT
The qualification format will be the same as 2010. The teams will be split into eight groups of six teams and one group of five. The nine group winners will qualify directly to the 2014 FIFA World Cup, and the eight best runners-up (determined by records against the first-, third-, fourth- and fifth-placed teams only for balance between different groups) will be drawn in two-legged play-offs to determine the other four qualifying nations.
wiki
(edited)
No it's not :)
FORMAT
The qualification format will be the same as 2010. The teams will be split into eight groups of six teams and one group of five. The nine group winners will qualify directly to the 2014 FIFA World Cup, and the eight best runners-up (determined by records against the first-, third-, fourth- and fifth-placed teams only for balance between different groups) will be drawn in two-legged play-offs to determine the other four qualifying nations.
wiki
(edited)
For Croatia, this was probably one of the worst case scenario's.
I know that the results against the 6th teams are deleted. That's not even an issue. Rubinho and me were saying that runner-up in the strongest group is the most probable weakest runner-up that will not get to play-off. It is much easier to collect points against Israel and N. Ireland or Belarus and Georgia than it is against Belgium and Scotland.
Don't you think that the system with 7 groups would be much more fair, i.e. that luck with th draw would be much less a success factor?
(edited)
Don't you think that the system with 7 groups would be much more fair, i.e. that luck with th draw would be much less a success factor?
(edited)
Luck is just a small part of the draw.
The pot each country is in, before the draw, is calculated by the match-results of these countries from the last 4 years (wiki - FIFA ranking calculation). If a country performs good for a few years they will be sure to draw weaker opponents, that's the influence each country has on the draw. And yes ofcourse some countries in the same pot will be weaker as the others, but that will always be.
And if you take 7 groups the problem will be the same, 7x7 is 49 but there are 53 countries, so still 4 groups of 8 and 3 of 7. And also the problem will be the same that some countries are stronger then others, you can never change that. With the current system pot 5 and 6 are the weakest countries at the moment, Armenia (70), Finland (75), Estonia (79), Cyprus (80), Latvia (83), Moldova (85), Macedonia (96), Azerbaijan (111), Faroe Islands (112), Wales (112), Liechtenstein (118), Iceland (121), Kazakhstan (126), Luxembourg (128), Malta (173), Andorra (203), San Marino (203), but between ranking 70 and 203 there is still a lot of difference and one group will play the ranking 70 and another group ranking 203. Can you call this unfair or just the reality of football?
(edited)
The pot each country is in, before the draw, is calculated by the match-results of these countries from the last 4 years (wiki - FIFA ranking calculation). If a country performs good for a few years they will be sure to draw weaker opponents, that's the influence each country has on the draw. And yes ofcourse some countries in the same pot will be weaker as the others, but that will always be.
And if you take 7 groups the problem will be the same, 7x7 is 49 but there are 53 countries, so still 4 groups of 8 and 3 of 7. And also the problem will be the same that some countries are stronger then others, you can never change that. With the current system pot 5 and 6 are the weakest countries at the moment, Armenia (70), Finland (75), Estonia (79), Cyprus (80), Latvia (83), Moldova (85), Macedonia (96), Azerbaijan (111), Faroe Islands (112), Wales (112), Liechtenstein (118), Iceland (121), Kazakhstan (126), Luxembourg (128), Malta (173), Andorra (203), San Marino (203), but between ranking 70 and 203 there is still a lot of difference and one group will play the ranking 70 and another group ranking 203. Can you call this unfair or just the reality of football?
(edited)
You're totally missing the point here. It is simply not enough to have only 8 important qualifying matches in 2 years. Teams should be allowed room for mistakes or bad luck of getting a strong group. If you're aiming for 2nd place in your group, you should have enough matches to fight for it and it shouldn't be possible that you win 2nd place and then either fall out directly or hope you don't get a strong team in the play-offs.
Europe has 13 places for WC and 14-15 for EC. So, Europe should definately make groups where at least 2 top teams proceed directly to WC and EC.
South America has 9 teams (last year 10!) in one group and so plays 16 or 18 matches in 2 years time. That's great! They get more of national team's football which is more popular than club football and their national teams can lose or draw a lot of their matches and stil qualify.
Europe has 13 places for WC and 14-15 for EC. So, Europe should definately make groups where at least 2 top teams proceed directly to WC and EC.
South America has 9 teams (last year 10!) in one group and so plays 16 or 18 matches in 2 years time. That's great! They get more of national team's football which is more popular than club football and their national teams can lose or draw a lot of their matches and stil qualify.
Group I: Spain, France, Belarus, Georgia, Finland
Piece of cake.. :p Seriously, atm I think even top 3 is out of question.. :(
Piece of cake.. :p Seriously, atm I think even top 3 is out of question.. :(
But when is it possible to schedule more matches during a season? They already play competition, national cup, sometimes even a second nation cup, European/Champions leagues, official and friendly national team matches and every 2 years European Cup (or another continent) or World Cup.
It's to much if players need to play even more qualification matches for national teams. Besides, teams and supporters don't want their players to play that much more matches with the high risk of more injuries, they pay a lot of transfermoney and high salaries to get the best players.
And in South America it's the best solution as they don't have that much countries.
(edited)
It's to much if players need to play even more qualification matches for national teams. Besides, teams and supporters don't want their players to play that much more matches with the high risk of more injuries, they pay a lot of transfermoney and high salaries to get the best players.
And in South America it's the best solution as they don't have that much countries.
(edited)
Norway being in the top pot is just ridiculous. There is something wrong with the system they use to determine the ranking. The system Sasha proposes is more fair.