Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: RedRover45 on October 17, 2013, 11:57:32 pm
-
Absolutely barmy. I realise that Brazil haven't had any meaningful World Cup qualifying matches but ranked only 12th ? And Columbia 4th and Switzerland 7th. Are the organisers on drugs ??
-
Old Sepp has been supping the Irn Bru again
-
Switzerland (banking) and Colombia (drugs) are cash rich countries - surely no one at FIFA could possibly be taking bribes? Course not, that would never happen..... Would it?? I mean, Russia & quatar were worthy winners to host the next two World Cups and nothing to do with them being rich nations??
:chair:
-
Switzerland won their group, was that done by bribery?
-
Swiss National team.
Unbeaten in 14 games. In last 2 years, they've beaten Germany and Brazil and drawn against Holland. Only country in last 7 years to beat Spain in a competitive (Euro/WC qualifying/finals) match.
But never mind. The Daily Mail has got itself into a lather today about how these nobodies could possibly be seeded ahead of our darlings.
-
Columbia finished 2nd in their World Cup Qualifying group, finishing only 2 points behind Argentina and racked up an impressive 30 points from 16 games, only conceding 13 along the way, the best in the group.
And Belgium, despite not qualifying for a major tournament since 1992 have remained unbeaten in competitive matches for the last 2 years.
-
I could have called Belgium, they've got a pretty damn good team. It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if they reached the semis. On the other hand, I would have seeded Brazil above Colombia, especially given the destruction of Spain in the Confeds Cup. The Swiss will reach the second round.
-
But the rankings are based on recent results so with Brazil not competing as they had already qualified their ranking was always going to drop with playing less games against lesser opponents.
You can rest assured however that they will be back up there after the world cup...
-
It's stupid. So no matter how good a host nation is, they won't be top seeds for that world cup as they haven't played competitive football in the timeframe leading up to the World Cup? Ludicrous.
-
Brazil will be in pot 1 anyway with the seeded teams as they are hosting it.
-
TLO springs to mind !!
-
Does it matter who you're up against as to how many points you gain in the ranking system or is it done as if it were a league? I've never properly understood it...
-
Who cares about rankings. Sooner or later we'll come up against a fancied team. There won't be many seeded teams looking forward to playing us!!
-
Does it matter who you're up against as to how many points you gain in the ranking system or is it done as if it were a league? I've never properly understood it...
Yeah beating Spain gets you more points than beating San Marino.
-
From Fifa website:
The basic logic of these calculations is simple: any team that does well in world football wins points which enable it to climb the world ranking.
A team’s total number of points over a four-year period is determined by adding:
· the average number of points gained from matches during the past 12 months;
and
· the average number of points gained from matches older than 12 months (depreciates yearly).
Calculation of points for a single match
The number of points that can be won in a match depends on the following factors:
• Was the match won or drawn? (M)
• How important was the match (ranging from a friendly match to a FIFA World Cup™ match)? (I)
• How strong was the opposing team in terms of ranking position and the confederation to which they belong? (T and C)
These factors are brought together in the following formula to ascertain the total number of points (P).
P = M x I x T x C
The following criteria apply to the calculation of points:
M: Points for match result
Teams gain 3 points for a victory, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a defeat. In a penalty shoot-out, the winning team gains 2 points and the losing team gains 1 point.
I: Importance of match
Friendly match (including small competitions): I = 1.0
FIFA World Cup™ qualifier or confederation-level qualifier: I = 2.5
Confederation-level final competition or FIFA Confederations Cup: I = 3.0
FIFA World Cup™ final competition: I = 4.0
T: Strength of opposing team
The strength of the opponents is based on the formula: 200 – the ranking position of the opponents
As an exception to this formula, the team at the top of the ranking is always assigned the value 200 and the teams ranked 150th and below are assigned a minimum value of 50. The ranking position is taken from the opponents’ ranking in the most recently published FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking.
C: Strength of confederation
When calculating matches between teams from different confederations, the mean value of the confederations to which the two competing teams belong is used. The strength of a confederation is calculated on the basis of the number of victories by that confederation at the last three FIFA World Cup™ competitions (see following page). Their values are as follows:
UEFA/CONMEBOL 1.00 CONCACAF 0.88
AFC/CAF 0.86 OFC 0.8
-
Who cares about rankings. Sooner or later we'll come up against a fancied team. There won't be many seeded teams looking forward to playing us!!
Aye. Cos we've got a stellar record against decent sides in major finals, eh what?
-
We beat Spain 0-0 in 96 dint we?
-
init funny how some folk confuse historic results with current potential.. when often the past and current teams have not a single individual in common .
-
It's stupid. So no matter how good a host nation is, they won't be top seeds for that world cup as they haven't played competitive football in the timeframe leading up to the World Cup? Ludicrous.
You haven't understood this at all have you spadge.
-
Brian
It's called the triumph of experience over hope. When we've underachieved consistently for 40+ years, and in the absence of any new evidence to suggest that anything fundamental has changed, it kind if makes sense to expect us to underachieve again.
I'd love to be wrong, but I'll give you 10/1 odds that I won't.
-
It's stupid. So no matter how good a host nation is, they won't be top seeds for that world cup as they haven't played competitive football in the timeframe leading up to the World Cup? Ludicrous.
You haven't understood this at all have you spadge.
I think I do, so Brazil are top seeds, despite their drop in the rankings? Is that right?
-
Host nations are always in the top seeds pot. No matter their world ranking. For example, Japan and South Korea both got seeded first in 2002.
-
South Africa were too in 2010.
-
It'll be fascinating to see if Qatar are top-seeded.
If they ARE, it'll be a farcical imbalance of the relative strengths of the groups.
If they AREN'T, it'll show up FIFA still further, demonstrating that on football terms, the country is a non-starter, so why hold the WC there?
-
It'll be fascinating to see if Qatar are top-seeded.
If they ARE, it'll be a farcical imbalance of the relative strengths of the groups.
If they AREN'T, it'll show up FIFA still further, demonstrating that on football terms, the country is a non-starter, so why hold the WC there?
Are you saying that the World Cup should only be hosted by one of the top 8 nations in the world?
-
The host nation of any major competition is always top seeded as the organisers want them to do well to keep the interest going in that country. It happens in the Olympics where the host country is given special dispensation to choose athletes for particular events, even if they have not met the qualification level. That's why we had a handball team in the last games - even though no-one here had ever played it before!
-
It'll be fascinating to see if Qatar are top-seeded.
If they ARE, it'll be a farcical imbalance of the relative strengths of the groups.
If they AREN'T, it'll show up FIFA still further, demonstrating that on football terms, the country is a non-starter, so why hold the WC there?
Are you saying that the World Cup should only be hosted by one of the top 8 nations in the world?
No. Of course I am not. That would be silly.
However, I DO think that the WC should only ever be hosted in countries which have a history of football being an important part of the culture, and a national team that has a decent record, if only at regional level.
So, I was and remain disgusted that the WC went to America in 94. And I am disgusted that it has gone to Qatar (a country ranked 105 in the most recent FIFA ranking, which has never come close to qualifying for a WC by its own ability and which has win just two of its last 17 matches in the final stages of the Asian Cup over the past 25 years).
-
Wilts.
The population of Qatar is barely bigger than that of South Yorkshire. The country had no heritage of football being ingrained in the culture. In the 2014 WC qualifiers, there were never more than 12,500 in attendance for any of Qatar's home games.
So. There is no huge home market to play to. There is no heritage to play to. And seeding Qatar will grossly skew the quality of groups, to a far greater extent than has ever occurred before. No country has EVER been awarded a WC without having demonstrated its ability to qualify for the finals under its own steam. This should be an absolute standard.
-
I agree about Qatar. It was a scandalous decision and I'm pretty sure money changed hands. It has given FIFA a huge problem and I'm pretty sure they'll have to reopen the whole bidding process as a winter World Cup just won't fly.
I think the improvements in the standing of the USA team means that they'd merit hosting a World Cup now, though clearly they didn't at the time.
-
I was more annoyed at Qatar being chosen over the Aussies than the Russians getting 2018. At least the Russians are good at football.
-
So. There is no huge home market to play to. There is no heritage to play to. And seeding Qatar will grossly skew the quality of groups, to a far greater extent than has ever occurred before. No country has EVER been awarded a WC without having demonstrated its ability to qualify for the finals under its own steam. This should be an absolute standard.
Not quite true Billy. Italy in 34 and Japan in 02 both got it without having previously qualified. But I take your point, Qatar is an effing shambles.
-
I doubt that anyone who knows anything about football (and many who don't) would disagree with you Billy that Qatar should never have been awarded the World Cup. But unfortunately they have and they should be given the opportunity to do it as well as possible. As the qualifying criteria for Qatari citizenship is how good you are at sport, don't be surprised if they actually turn out a Brazil B team.
-
And that would complete the farce.
-
Col
Fair point about Japan, although of course, they WERE on a rapidly improving curve. They'd won the Asian Cup in 1992, missed out in the final qualifying match for the 94 WC when they conceded an equaliser in injury time in their final qualifying game. And they went in to qualify for WC98. Add into the pot the fact that South Korea had regularly qualified and that there was booming interest in football in that part of the world and I have no problem at all with WC02 going there.
As for Italy in WC34...ate alreight. If we're being daft about it, Uruguay had never qualified before they hosted WC1930. I'd meant to say "post-war" in my post. I'm currently beating my genitalia with brambles to atone for my error.
-
Post war World Cups have been held in those powerhouses of international football, Switzerland and Mexico whose record is so good they have had it twice. All very nice holiday destinations I'm sure but hardly great footballing pedigrees.
-
Mexico only held it in 1986 because Colombia who initially won the bid could not guarantee they would be ready to host in time.
Also England held it in 1966 having only won three matches in the four tournaments they'd played in previously, meaning they were as much a 'powerhouse of international football' in terms of World Cup finals performances in 1966 as Switzerland had been in 1954.
-
The point is that Mexico, Switzerland, England all had respectable international sides who had proved themselves capable of qualifying for World Cups under their own steam, and all had strong footballing heritage and domestic interest.
By neither of those measures does Qatar shape up. It does have a f**k load of money though.
-
Agree completely BST
A bid process for a June/July football event has been won by a country in which it is too hot to play football in June/July. It is as blatant an example of money over sense/logic as there is... and FIFA have plenty of examples to pick from.
-
There's another issue on the placing of WC54 with Switzerland. With the then policy of alternating WCs between South America and Europe, it was the latter's turn in 54. But when the decision was made (late 40s?) most countries in Europe were physically or economically devastated by WWII or recent civil wars/revolution or not part of FIFA. Switzerland was pretty much the only country available to host the finals.