Football
|
By:
NEW ZEALAND ARE CHANGING THE SHAPE OF THE BALLB BE WARE
|
|
By:
What "doesn't seem right" is your poor geography...
Mexico is in North America ffs |
|
By:
You know what I mean soft lad.
|
|
By:
would you prefer it if Europe got only 4 places and 1 play off "bye"?
|
|
By:
Who plays who in the WC play offs rotates anyway. This year it is Asia v South America and North America v Oceania. Last time it was South America v North America (Uruguay beat Costa Rica). Before that Uruguay lost to Australia (back in the days when they were still Oceania).
|
|
By:
Uruguay should've had to play Denmark instead of Jordan
|
|
By:
Almost 50% from the S.American W,C qualifying league actually go through to the world cup.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
anton66 • November 13, 2013 5:39 PM GMT
Almost 50% from the S.American W,C qualifying league actually go through to the world cup. 60% of its members. Not quite the global game methinks. Even if they are the better teams. |
|
By:
and rightly so when 5 of the top 12 in the world rankings are from South america
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
The top 7 ranked teams who won't make it are all European. Denmark, having finished second should have at least faced a play off.
|
|
By:
That's correct Biscuit. I forgot about those world beaters Uruguay, Chile, Colombia and Ecuador. Fifa rankings dont you just love them.
|
|
By:
if you're taking the rankings as gospel then 20 out of 32 at the world cup should be european instead of the risible 13
ludicrous that there are a similar number from africa, asia and concacaf as europe then again the likes of denmark and sweden don't keep old sepp in a job |
|
By:
|
|
By:
there will be a few decent European sides out come fir, mex and Uruguay have had it easy,and don't deserve their place,specially Uruguay who only finished 5th in group with hardly any more than that and without brazil
|
|
By:
mexico are the luckiest side. won 2 out of 10 scoring only 7 goals in that joke region and only scraped into a play off cos panama bottled it
it's virtually impossible for mexico not to qualify under current rules |
|
By:
It really was crazy how Mexico actually managed to come within a hairs breadth of failing to qualify. Jamaica, USA, Panama, Honduras and Costa Rica, and they were a minute away from managing to finish below four of those five. Incredible.
Considering the size of the nation/its population and popularity of football, its realistic to say they'll never fail to qualify for a World Cup under the current rules and certainly are the nation with the easiest route to qualification. |
|
By:
CONCACAF used to get 1 place when there were 16 teams in the World Cup
Now they get 3 guaranteed + a 4th if they win a play off vs a mug team |
|
By:
anton66 13 Nov 13 19:20
That's correct Biscuit. I forgot about those world beaters Uruguay, Chile, Colombia and Ecuador. Fifa rankings dont you just love them. Uruguay are the current South american champions. Chile are decent and play great football, which we should see on friday. Colombia have Falcao and a number of other good players. So i for one am glad they're going to the world cup over some mugs from the far east. Ecuador i'll give you though, they only qualify because they play home games on mount everest and the away sides can't breathe. But on todays evidence i'm quite glad we won't be having Jordan or NZ at the world cup. |
|
By:
Why not have 31 groups of 6/7 teams and the winner of each group qualifies along with the host.
Seed the top 31 in the world rankings so they are kept apart. |
|
By:
That's correct Biscuit. I forgot about those world beaters Uruguay, Chile, Colombia and Ecuador. Fifa rankings dont you just love them.
What the hell are you suggesting? That only world beaters should get entry into the worldcup? lol wat? |
|
By:
Ecuador are good. They beat Portugal 3-2 in Portugal and they battered Germany when they played them recently even though they lost 4-1. they should have scored at least 4 themselves, just kept getting done on the break.
|
|
By:
arent they talking about increasing it to 40 teams - platinis suggestion i think ,as blatter wants more non-european teams , and platini doesnt want to cut the european allocation to accomodate
|
|
By:
Give me Ecuador over some mugs like Greece or Romania anyday
|
|
By:
Ecuador have some decent players but the fact is they would NEVER qualify if they didn't play home games on the moon.
Their home record in qualifying, W7 D1 Away record W0 D3 L5 |
|
By:
That's true, but a number of European teams who have qualified would have similar away records against Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Fair point
|
|
By:
the more the merrier i say -i think it would increase the time taken to play the tournament by a week
|
|
By:
It wants shortening by a week, not lengthening, theres far too many garbage teams going now, without, adding any more rubbish to the tournament.
|
|
By:
40 teams would be a farce
You would have 8 X 5 team groups , with only the bottom team being eliminated in a group stage that would last about 18 days Then 32 team knockout  |
|
By:
Platini has already fkd up the Euros with a 24 team format so it will probably happen
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
well yes that would make more sense tbf
 though , still you have the scenario of one team finishing their group games and the other teams knowing what result they need to get above them |
|
By:
i think it was as ocustinky suggests , top 2 from 5 , that was being proposed
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
If it was fair each continent would get the equivalent to the number of countries in that continent..
Europe 7 North America 6 South America 2 Asia 7 Africa 7 Oceania 3 |
|
By:
In this case i think being fair would totally devalue the tournament. It's fine as it is.
|