Come on you Septics

[Slim]

And for the record the US very well could have qualified in the group you mentioned and might have won the group. We'll never know tho, will we?

cheers

Yes we will, you would've stood NO chance against Germany or Russia as we will find out in World Cup....... that is if Russia makes it because they will have to go to fookin play off because Europe has so few places compared to quality in continent.

germany and russia weren't in that group.

They were the group Finland was in.

great news for Finland. We were talking about the group England was in.

How much more bullshit do you guys want to throw into this argument? Ok. You are pissed that you think the US had a cakewalk. Do you want me to apologize? i won't.

We were, doesn't mean Antii was.

Who's pissed? I was having a discussion on the discrepancies between the quality of groups and qualification spots. You yanks took is as an attack and decided that everyone was just having a pop at you. Not the case and IF they reduced the spots to what I believe it should be, you still would have qualified...so well done for that. But like I said, under the current situation, you would literally have to start shooting at your own net to fail.

[Ted Hughes]

funny how this turned from a "congrats for qualifying" thread into two trolls going on and on with some nonsense how the US or Mexico wouldn't qualify if they were in a different confed.

if England were in CONMEBOL they wouldn't qualify either ... shit, the last couple of qualifying campaigns england were so gash, they would have struggled against costa rica and honduras. Infact, wasn't it Trindad & Tobago that played england really close in the WC not too long ago? so what's the point of saying that?

The fact is that the US team has come on leaps and bounds, and will continue to do so. beating Spain, Egypt and giving Brazil a very entertaining game are indicators that the team can put in class performances and those are things to build on. There are alot of people who don't want to see the US succeed, and that's fine. The opinions of slim and others aren't going to affect the US's progress.

Jesus wept.

Twice.

Firstly, what the hell is CONMEBOL?

Secondly, it doesn't matter if Russia qualify, or anybody else in the play offs. If they cant win their group they can't be expect win the world cup.

And it doesn't matter who the smaller teams are. Sometimes they produce the most exciting matches. They have nothing to lose and all to gain against the "big teams" and play out of their skins in one off matches.

Don't forget. 32 teams will be at the finals. 31 of them will be going home with fuck all. The winner will come from within the previous winners with Spain possibly being the exception.

I have nothing against the US in fact I like Americans but it's right that they have got an easy route to the finals & they would struggle to finish above teams like Finland & Wales if they had to face them in qualifying. I'm sure they could cause an upset in the competition, England lost to them many years ago but imo these kind of competitions should be about the world's best players playing the world's best football. When teams like France, Russia & yes, England miss out on qualifying, it doesn't make a better competition, it makes a worse one. It's as much about getting the votes of the lesser football nations in FIFA power struggles than money imo though. That corrupt tosser who was mouthing off about England's bid being a prime example.

[DoomMerchant]

funny how this turned from a "congrats for qualifying" thread into two trolls going on and on with some nonsense how the US or Mexico wouldn't qualify if they were in a different confed.

if England were in CONMEBOL they wouldn't qualify either ... shit, the last couple of qualifying campaigns england were so gash, they would have struggled against costa rica and honduras. Infact, wasn't it Trindad & Tobago that played england really close in the WC not too long ago? so what's the point of saying that?

The fact is that the US team has come on leaps and bounds, and will continue to do so. beating Spain, Egypt and giving Brazil a very entertaining game are indicators that the team can put in class performances and those are things to build on. There are alot of people who don't want to see the US succeed, and that's fine. The opinions of slim and others aren't going to affect the US's progress.

Jesus wept.

Twice.

Firstly, what the hell is CONMEBOL?

Secondly, it doesn't matter if Russia qualify, or anybody else in the play offs. If they cant win their group they can't be expect win the world cup.

And it doesn't matter who the smaller teams are. Sometimes they produce the most exciting matches. They have nothing to lose and all to gain against the "big teams" and play out of their skins in one off matches.

Don't forget. 32 teams will be at the finals. 31 of them will be going home with fuck all. The winner will come from within the previous winners with Spain possibly being the exception.

I have nothing against the US in fact I like Americans but it's right that they have got an easy route to the finals & they would struggle to finish above teams like Finland & Wales if they had to face them in qualifying. I'm sure they could cause an upset in the competition, England lost to them many years ago but imo these kind of competitions should be about the world's best players playing the world's best football. When teams like France, Russia & yes, England miss out on qualifying, it doesn't make a better competition, it makes a worse one. It's as much about getting the votes of the lesser football nations in FIFA power struggles than money imo though. That corrupt tosser who was mouthing off about England's bid being a prime example.

if you think the US would struggle vs. Finland and Wales then you clearly haven't watched them play this year.

[DoomMerchant]

We were, doesn't mean Antii was.

Who's pissed? I was having a discussion on the discrepancies between the quality of groups and qualification spots. You yanks took is as an attack and decided that everyone was just having a pop at you. Not the case and IF they reduced the spots to what I believe it should be, you still would have qualified...so well done for that. But like I said, under the current situation, you would literally have to start shooting at your own net to fail.

ok. Great. i'm not pissed...i think this is actually an interesting conversation. I wouldn't care if CONCACAF had 2.5 spots instead of 3.5, as long as Finland get the bid CONCACAF is giving up then i'm cool with that.

[Ted Hughes]

if you think the US would struggle vs. Finland and Wales then you clearly haven't watched them play this year.

Yes I have, just wasn't that impressed watching them losing 3 games out of 6 in Africa to teams who's players have just finished fighting for leagues & Champions league & didn't really want to be there. They're a physical side who will upset the occasional team on a good day. They're also quite capable of being turned over on another day.

[ronk]

Give me tough and exciting, edge of the seat qualifying campaign any day of the week over automatic qualifying.

Let me have a wild stab in the dark here - your team didn't fail to qualify, by any chance?

Of course we didn't. We never do. I don't even expect us to. But I'd much rather play Germany, Russia and Wales than Honduras, Saint-Maarten and Saint Lucia. Tell me you knew that country called Saint Lucia existed.

I did. I mightn't expect someone from a different continent to know too much about San Marino or the Faroe Islands. Some people here have only heard of these places through football.

The current format of the World Cup requires seeding and group stages. Is there really anything wrong with a few improving countries having a chance at the tournament every so often with a cup run but otherwise just being the someone who has to finish bottom of the group.

[razor400]

I think this dissmissing of CONCAF is somewhat sour grapes by the Europeans and to say Honduras and Costa Rica would not qualify from any European groyp seems an unfair thing to say to me.
And there is a ranking system called ELO that rates international teams and as some of the Europeans on here are dismissive of FIFA maybe ELO rankings are ok for them
ELO have Honduras at 33
Costa Rica 42,

Scotland 46
Poland 48,
Bosnia 47
Finland 48,
Montenegro 58
Austria 60
Belgium 61,
Hungary 63
N.Ireland
Now I think that if those are the kind of teams that are used to make up the Euro groups Costa Rica and Honduras might stand a good chance of qualifying.

You really are a complete fucking cretin aren't you?

What's the need for that?

Alright I apologise to himfor calling him a fucking cretin on this occasion but I read through the thread so I had the misfortune of reading several of his posts in one go so it mounts up. Stating those stats as if it means something is actually a load of hairy bollocks though & he was previously spouting utter shite about England.

Ted, your right he is a fucking cretin.

[Ted Hughes]

Give me tough and exciting, edge of the seat qualifying campaign any day of the week over automatic qualifying.

Let me have a wild stab in the dark here - your team didn't fail to qualify, by any chance?

Of course we didn't. We never do. I don't even expect us to. But I'd much rather play Germany, Russia and Wales than Honduras, Saint-Maarten and Saint Lucia. Tell me you knew that country called Saint Lucia existed.

I did. I mightn't expect someone from a different continent to know too much about San Marino or the Faroe Islands. Some people here have only heard of these places through football.

The current format of the World Cup requires seeding and group stages. Is there really anything wrong with a few improving countries having a chance at the tournament every so often with a cup run but otherwise just being the someone who has to finish bottom of the group.

I wonder if starting the tournament earlier with the lowest qualifiers of that group+ South America, Asia, Africa plus the losers from the euro groups &/or playoffs playing each other in a short knockout competiton wouldn't be a better way of doing it. Would be done in a few games & an exciting prelude to the main competition with teams such as Scotland, Norway, Sweden maybe even France or Argentina & still gives the lesser CONFwhthefuckever teams the opportunity to get hammered at the World Cup like they would in the full competition.

[ronk]

I wonder if starting the tournament earlier with the lowest qualifiers of that group+ South America, Asia, Africa plus the losers from the euro groups &/or playoffs playing each other in a short knockout competiton wouldn't be a better way of doing it. Would be done in a few games & an exciting prelude to the main competition with teams such as Scotland, Norway, Sweden maybe even France or Argentina & still gives the lesser CONFwhthefuckever teams the opportunity to get hammered at the World Cup like they would in the full competition.

Interesting. Could work actually. I don't think we'd ever see anything like it.

FIFA wanting even more games in the tournament but without any juicy fixtures to sell overpriced seats, TV ratings audiences, sponsors etc. They'd be more likely to just expand the group stage.

It would also mean more teams getting to the world cup (in a manner of speaking) and going home earlier.

[DoomMerchant]

I wonder if starting the tournament earlier with the lowest qualifiers of that group+ South America, Asia, Africa plus the losers from the euro groups &/or playoffs playing each other in a short knockout competiton wouldn't be a better way of doing it. Would be done in a few games & an exciting prelude to the main competition with teams such as Scotland, Norway, Sweden maybe even France or Argentina & still gives the lesser CONFwhthefuckever teams the opportunity to get hammered at the World Cup like they would in the full competition.

Interesting. Could work actually. I don't think we'd ever see anything like it.

FIFA wanting even more games in the tournament but without any juicy fixtures to sell overpriced seats, TV ratings audiences, sponsors etc. They'd be more likely to just expand the group stage.

It would also mean more teams getting to the world cup (in a manner of speaking) and going home earlier.

We added something like this to our college basketball tounrnament a few years back with a "play-in" game to determine the last entrant, and it is a total joke. The purity of the tourney is part of its beauty. Similarly for the WC. Why ensure that alleged lesser teams have a harder path? Seems to ruin the spirit of it all, but then again as someone pointed out...when was the last time a country outside of the major footballing nations won the WC? 7 nations have ever won it, and in the last 30 years no one other than them has even been a runner-up. If you remove Uruguay from that list (since their titles were in the 1930s) it's really 6 footballing powers who have a great chance. Could Spain or the Dutch side nick it? Maybe, but history says probably not.

What would be interesting for Costa Rica or Scotland or, cough, Finland? Playing 3 matches in a short knockout group over 10 days with the winner getting the last spot -- given up by CONCACAF of course. dunno..

[dazby]

I actually think the numbers fifa have at the moment is bang on. Maybe Africa get jibbed a bit. But I like it. It should stay for the forseeable future.

[Tokyo Blue]

Personally I would get rid of the continental qualifying altogether and throw every name in a pot, no seeding, and draw out groups of eight, played on a home and away basis. Winners and runners-up qualify for the next stage.

Good luck to all your countries except if/when they play mine.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

We were, doesn't mean Antii was.

Who's pissed? I was having a discussion on the discrepancies between the quality of groups and qualification spots. You yanks took is as an attack and decided that everyone was just having a pop at you. Not the case and IF they reduced the spots to what I believe it should be, you still would have qualified...so well done for that. But like I said, under the current situation, you would literally have to start shooting at your own net to fail.

ok. Great. i'm not pissed...i think this is actually an interesting conversation. I wouldn't care if CONCACAF had 2.5 spots instead of 3.5, as long as Finland get the bid CONCACAF is giving up then i'm cool with that.

It's not about Finland though now is it? I never said we should've qualified, we shouldn't. Point was that in CONCACAF we would have had good chance of qualifying whereas in Europe we had no chance to begin with. I was only using Finland for measuring.

You deserve your place, that has never been under question here. My problem is with FIFA and their way of mixing politics and especially financial issues to world's finest sporting contest. So rather than best teams in the world, there will be teams that suit their agendas.

The competition itself will be the usual. One of the big boys will win it, my money is on Spain to finally do it. There will be couple of suprise packages in round of 16 and one will make it all the way to semis. And all the dicks in office will be football 'fans' for a month and ask silly questions like 'isn't it nice that those boys from guatemala are getting all that attention' and I have to reply with fake smile and a nod. Being the miserable bugger that I am, I'd prefer competition where truly the world's best meet. That's why I like Tokyo's suggestion.

[Michigan Blue]

Personally I would get rid of the continental qualifying altogether and throw every name in a pot, no seeding, and draw out groups of eight, played on a home and away basis. Winners and runners-up qualify for the next stage.

I'd like this just for the opportunity to read the story about the Myanmar national team hitchhiking to Oslo for a qualifying game.

[DoomMerchant]

We were, doesn't mean Antii was.

Who's pissed? I was having a discussion on the discrepancies between the quality of groups and qualification spots. You yanks took is as an attack and decided that everyone was just having a pop at you. Not the case and IF they reduced the spots to what I believe it should be, you still would have qualified...so well done for that. But like I said, under the current situation, you would literally have to start shooting at your own net to fail.

ok. Great. i'm not pissed...i think this is actually an interesting conversation. I wouldn't care if CONCACAF had 2.5 spots instead of 3.5, as long as Finland get the bid CONCACAF is giving up then i'm cool with that.

It's not about Finland though now is it? I never said we should've qualified, we shouldn't. Point was that in CONCACAF we would have had good chance of qualifying whereas in Europe we had no chance to begin with. I was only using Finland for measuring.

You deserve your place, that has never been under question here. My problem is with FIFA and their way of mixing politics and especially financial issues to world's finest sporting contest. So rather than best teams in the world, there will be teams that suit their agendas.

The competition itself will be the usual. One of the big boys will win it, my money is on Spain to finally do it. There will be couple of suprise packages in round of 16 and one will make it all the way to semis. And all the dicks in office will be football 'fans' for a month and ask silly questions like 'isn't it nice that those boys from guatemala are getting all that attention' and I have to reply with fake smile and a nod. Being the miserable bugger that I am, I'd prefer competition where truly the world's best meet. That's why I like Tokyo's suggestion.

if i could lift Finland out of the Arctic Circle and drop it in the Caribbean for you...i would.i would do the same for Noolie and Sweden. i would NOT move Australia for Dazby. But i would move it if Slim asked. But, again, they wouldn't need it moved since they are getting the same preferential treatment the US is getting.

What we're really debating regarding CONCACAF is kind of a moot point. We both agree maybe they have one too many places, AND that the US should STILL make it if they even only had 2 to dole out. So really, what's the point? You want 1.5 qualifications from CONCACAF to ensure that Mexico or the US has to playoff with South America to make this less probably that the US makes it?

Look, Mexico and the US had fucking better qualify out of CONCACAF for every WC. Both nations have the resources and talent that if they miss out they will look very foolish. CONCACAF has been around for 50 years...it's not like the US suddenly got grouped with a lesser set of countries to ensure qualification.

[Alex Sapphire]

horrible news about Charlie Davies this morning. Hope he makes a full recovery and can rejoin the campaign.
For the record I think there's some British/English one-eyedness going on here. USA doid a great jjob in the Confederations Cup and haven't looked out of place in serious games for a while

LINK: Davies Crash

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Look, Mexico and the US had fucking better qualify out of CONCACAF for every WC. Both nations have the resources and talent that if they miss out they will look very foolish. CONCACAF has been around for 50 years...it's not like the US suddenly got grouped with a lesser set of countries to ensure qualification.

There's the problem. Someone like Portugal have ten times the talent USA and Mexico and are n danger of missing out.

And Concacaf has been around for while but up until 2002 CONCACAF had two spots and there were good competitions. Then they started pushing for more spots for CONCACAF teams. Look at 2006 finals. CONCACAF had four teams in competition, Trinidad & Tobaco, USA, Mexico and Costa Rica. Out of those four teams no less than THREE finished bottom of their qualifying group. Only Mexico finished second on their group of Angola, Iran and Portugal by winning one, drawing one and losing one and some people might remember the shocking ref work in their 0-0 draw against Angola. Those four teams played 13 games put together, winning one, drawing three and losing nine; scoring 10 goals and conceding 24 goals. So what exactly was the added value to this competition by those two extra teams from CONCACAF?

To put things in perspective ten out of 14 European teams made it to the round of 16 (among them Ukraine, who some of you think isn't much of a match to USA) and ALL the four teams in semi finals were from Europe.

Looking at the World Cup history, only ONE team (South Korea 2002) outside Europe and South America has ever made it to semifinals of World Cup.

[Tokyo Blue]

Looking at the World Cup history, only ONE team (South Korea 2002) outside Europe and South America has ever made it to semifinals of World Cup.

And that was utterly bent.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Looking at the World Cup history, only ONE team (South Korea 2002) outside Europe and South America has ever made it to semifinals of World Cup.

And that was utterly bent.

Very much so.

[Beefymcfc]

FIFA are just like any organisation, they want the teams that bring them the best audiences/best coverage and therefore the bigger revenues and publicity. You cannot disrespect any team that makes it through to the finals as they can only beat those who are put in front of them, and teams like the USA and Australia can only be commended for doing so well.

Afterall, if you look at Englands group, was there any real serious competition for the top spot?