Football Fanats 2013

[Chulk]

Asia should be separated AT LEAST in two. Something like middle east minus israel and east.

What for? To have a higher number of crappy teams qualified to WC? Add them to SA qualifying and get rid of them before the World Cup actually begins

[alanrotoi]

Well the world cup is "europe and friends" cup. Europe only have few good national teams. If there are a lot of places for europe is only because it's where the football business is.

[CTG]

Cruyff says Barcelona should sell Messi to avoid conflicts with Neymar.

I say Cruyff should be closed in an asylum.

[BonzaiJoe]

If you take a look at which teams made it to the Last 16 in the last World Cups, you'll see Europe should have more slots in the World Cup than they do today. So should South America, by the way. Crappy teams from Asia, Oceania and North America are being included for political reasons.

[Akoss Poo a.k.a. Zorromeister]

If you take a look at which teams made it to the Last 16 in the last World Cups, you'll see Europe should have more slots in the World Cup than they do today. So should South America, by the way. Crappy teams from Asia, Oceania and North America are being included for political reasons.

I agree. In my opinion, the correct distribution of the 32 slots should be like the following: 18 for Europe, 6 for South America, 3 for Africa (there are some good teams like Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Egypt), 3 for North and Central America (USA, Mexico plus maybe one), 2 for Asia+Oceania (Japan, Australia).

[Chulk]

In my opinion, the correct distribution of the 32 slots should be like the following: 18 for Europe, 6 for South America, 3 for Africa (there are some good teams like Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Egypt), 3 for North and Central America (USA, Mexico plus maybe one), 2 for Asia+Oceania (Japan, Australia).

I would rather make a World Cup with less teams.
Europe has 7 good teams: England, France, The Neds, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal + 4 that change from one WC to another which usually are 4 of the following: Switzerland, Ukraine, Czech Rep, Sweden, Serbia, Greece, Russia, Poland, Ireland. So let's say Europe gets 11 places

SA has 3 really good teams: Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay + 2 that are Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay or Chile. SA gets 5 places

NA should have only 2 place for Mexico & USA.

Africa should have 4 places to be usually awarded to: Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Egypt or Cameroon

Asia + Oceania should have 2 spots. Usually Japan or Australia would usually take this spots.

That's it, 24 places as it was before. And a WC where you don't get Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Saudi Arabia, Honduras and such

[CTG]

That's it, 24 places as it was before.

Imagine the EC with 24 countries. Even Hungary will have a chance to qualify! (However, we won't be there even if they extend it to 32.)

[alanrotoi]

I guess South Korea is far better team than Japan. About 32 slots I agree with it because if you only have 24 teams they will be always the same.

[Akoss Poo a.k.a. Zorromeister]

I think if we consider the 'strong team' term as strictly as Rotoi, England and Uruguay has no place in the mentioned group. The others are okay. In Rotoi's suggestion, I think Europe has too few, South America and Africa has a bit too many world cup spots. I agree with BJ, see how much European teams are in the last 16 teams tournament by tournament.

I think in the best 16 teams in the whole world, there are only European teams and Brazil and Argentina.

Uruguay and Mexico are only in the top24. There is probably still no Asian, Oceanian and North American team in the world top24. That's why a multi-continent top24 world cup would be not suitable: weak teams would steal spots to a bigger extent.

Spots for a 24 team world cup in my opinion: 14 Europe, 4 South America, 2.5 Africa, 2 North and Central America, 1.5 Asia&Oceania.

I don't want to see South Korea in the World Cup in the following 50 years. After 2002, they should have been banned for a very long time. Btw I think they are weaker than Japan and Australia, they don't really match the 32-team World Cup level (with the system suggested by me earlier).

[alanrotoi]

I think in the best 16 teams in the whole world, there are only European teams and Brazil and Argentina.

Ok, but take in mind that South America has a lot of less places so the chances to be top in South America are fewer.

For example, even with a fragmented country like Yugoslavia, they have two 1st places and a third place in group round (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia). Then a super weak team like Belgium is in 1st place too, Switzerland too and in second places we have Austria, Hungary and Greece. I can't accept that is a "strong" association.

[Usrin]

For example, even with a fragmented country like Yugoslavia, they have two 1st places and a third place in group round (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia). Then a super weak team like Belgium is in 1st place too, Switzerland too and in second places we have Austria, Hungary and Greece. I can't accept that is a "strong" association.

When such "super weak" teams qualify for a World Cup, they are able to play tight games against the big ones, and have a good chance for making it to the top 16. From 2010, compare the performance of Slovakia or Slovenia with North Korea, and decide which continent has too many spots... I'm not talking against South America: probably Ecuador or Colombia might have been much stronger than Honduras, Algeria or North Korea.

[Usrin]

Optimal numbers, in my opinion:

America (N+S together, as the South American teams might be bored with facing always the same rivals...): 9
Asia+Oceania: 3.5
Africa: 3.5
Europe: 16

Btw, tournaments with 24 teams are shitty. It is pure luck which decides between the 3rd teams of different groups... Let it be either 16 or 32, but not 24.

[Chulk]

Spots for a 24 team world cup in my opinion: 14 Europe, 4 South America, 2.5 Africa, 2 North and Central America, 1.5 Asia&Oceania.

No way! 5º place in SA is much harder to get than 14º place in Europe. 5º SA can most of the times easily beat 14º Europe.
Main problem with European qualifiers is the system is really bad. Having the best teams in 9 groups does not mean you get the best teams qualified. Sometimes a very crappy team can win its group while a better one can't qualify because the get grouped with 2 "strong"countries.
Another thing I think should be done is automatically qualify last champion (as it was before) and not the local team

[Usrin]

Main problem with European qualifiers is the system is really bad. Having the best teams in 9 groups does not mean you get the best teams qualified. Sometimes a very crappy team can win its group while a better one can't qualify because the get grouped with 2 "strong"countries.

If that was true, you would have seen Hungary in some World Cups during the last 25 years. Actually, the groups are filled from "pots" based on the FIFA world rankings. So all groups include one of the strongest teams (top 9 Europeans), one of those between place 10-18, etc... Then for the second round, the runners-up are also seeded from two pots (based on the actual world ranking). So if a lucky "weak" team manages to be second in the group, they surely get a strong opponent. If they can beat them, they really deserve to be at the World Cup.

A similar system could work nicely in America (together, from the north to the south). The best would be to see the US suffering in front of 100.000 Argentinian/Brazilian/Venezuelan/etc. fans. And Honduras/Jamaica/etc. would get the chance to prove if they think that they belong to the top 32 of the world.

[Akoss Poo a.k.a. Zorromeister]

I agree, the title holder should not play qualification matches, I would also give them a spot on the next World Cup. But it should be a spot from the local (continental) quota. I would also keep the spot for the organizing country, it would also be a spot from the local quota.

Some years ago, the seeding of European team was based on the points collected on the previous two qualification series (one European Championship qualification, one World Cup qualification). That was much more realistic than the FIFA rankings, which can easily be manipulated with friendly matches.

I think in Europe, after the top 5-6 or 7 teams, there is a group of around 15 teams which are almost of equal strength. They can beat everybody in South America expect for Brazilia and Argentina.