Come on you Septics

[Alex Sapphire]

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.

So let's make it open to Europeans only shall we (no wait we've got one of those).
This shows where the teams finished in 2006 (1st to 32nd). If you use it as a basis, you wouldn't have African or Asian sides in either (at the expense of the European sides that miss out). Truth is we are going to get "one hell of a" shock one day, when a "non estanblishment football country" does extra well, and I'm frankly looking forward to it. Is it me or does this smack of Premiership "top four" monopoly under threat? And wasn't our very own Claudio Reyna chosen as one of the 2002 competitions 5 best midfielders. Shouldn't be allowed

EDIT: sorry Doomy! fixed my quotes now

[Slim]

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?

In the 2006 qualifications, Croatia and Ukraine both topped their respective groups. I don't think either of them are pushovers and Croatia are the reason England sat home in the 2008 Euro's.

[Beeks]

Why are you all arguing the toss about something so insignificant

Who gives a fuck?

[Slim]

Why are you all arguing the toss about something so insignificant

Who gives a fuck?

As opposed to 5 pages of watch jokes or 12 pages of whatever crappy tunes people are listening to at the time?

[Beeks]

Why are you all arguing the toss about something so insignificant

Who gives a fuck?

As opposed to 5 pages of watch jokes or 12 pages of whatever crappy tunes people are listening to at the time?

Point taken haha

[ant london]

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.

Funny you say that Dazzler. I thought that when I heard that only the first placed teams from each group go through. Specifically (and clearly Egypt's unlikely qualification was what spurred me to look at this) there is only Groups B and C in the African qualifying structure where a "decent" team might miss out to be honest. Algeria, Egypt, Zambia and Rwanda....it looks like Algeria will qualify and Egypt (who as the confederations cup showed are a decent team and the reigning (last two) African Cup of Nations champions) will miss out. Nigeria may also miss the cut if Tunisia win their final match (but if the Super Eagles tonk Kenya by several goals they should go through even if Tunisia draw).

But in terms of the other teams who are not gonna qualify....well I cant say I'll lose any sleep about a World Cup without...

Gabon, Togo, Morocco, Mozambique, Zambia, Rwanda, Kenya, Mali, Benin, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Guinea.......

Maybe they deserve one extra runners up place (which would give Egypt and Nigeria a chance to play off should Algeria and Tunisia qualify) but that's about it. You'll be seeing Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast and two of Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and Tunisia there. Those are the decent African sides

[Rag_hater]

I dont think there is anything wrong with the way FIFA has the qualifacation for the WC set up.
And I think that if Costa Rica and Honduras qualify for the WC it is because they deserve it.
If the US have and Mexico have an easy ride to the competition I cant see how thats there fault.
And the competition for places in Europe makes the qualifying competition of some intrest.If teams only in the top 32 or teams like Russia and Portugal were given a golden ticket as it were what would be the point of any competition in Europe,its because there is a danger of them not qualifying that there is so much intrest generated in the competition.
If it was an exclusive club for the top teams then it wouldn't be the world cup.
And the argument that you want to see the top players performing to their best is what happens in most of the games anyway.
Surely the point of the WC in a similar way as the Olympics is to compete.

[ENIAM NAM]

This sounds like an horrendous accident for one of the US team members!!

United States striker Charlie Davies is in a serious but stable condition after a car accident which left a female passenger dead in Virginia.

Davies, 23, underwent several hours of emergency surgery to repair a shattered right leg and ruptured bladder.

The injuries are not considered life-threatening, but means he may miss out on the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

Davies, a forward for Sochaux in French Ligue 1, has scored four goals in 17 appearances for the US.

The accident occurred at around 0315 (0815 BST) on Tuesday on the Virginia side of the George Washington Parkway. There were three people in the vehicle with Davies one of the passengers.

He suffered multiple facial fractures, a badly broken right leg, a broken left elbow and a lacerated bladder.

Police identified the dead passenger as 22-year-old Ashley Roberta.

Davies is being treated at the Washington Hospital Center in Washington DC.

US Soccer physician Dan Kalbac said his injuries would "usually require a recovery period of six to 12 months and extensive rehabilitation".


We are are relying on each other in a moment that has for sure hit us all hard

US coach Bob Bradley
"Due to Charlie's fitness level, his prognosis recovery and his ability to resume high-level competition is substantially improved," Kalbac added.

Kalbac hoped Davies could eventually recover and play for the national team again but his participation in the World Cup tournament in South Africa, which begins next June, is in jeopardy.

The US, who have already clinched a place at the 2010 finals, face Costa Rica on Wednesday at RFK Stadium in Washington in their last qualifier.

Coach Bob Bradley said: "As a team we were saddened to learn this news. We are are relying on each other in a moment that has for sure hit us all hard.

"Our thoughts and prayers go out to Charlie and Charlie's family as well as the people in the car and the families of the others involved."

Davies played 78 minutes in last Saturday's 3-2 win over Honduras in San Pedro Sula that secured their progression to the World Cup.

[Chad]

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.

USA got to the Semis in 1930.

[DoomMerchant]

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.

So let's make it open to Europeans only shall we (no wait we've got one of those).
This shows where the teams finished in 2006 (1st to 32nd). If you use it as a basis, you wouldn't have African or Asian sides in either (at the expense of the European sides that miss out). Truth is we are going to get "one hell of a" shock one day, when a "non estanblishment football country" does extra well, and I'm frankly looking forward to it. Is it me or does this smack of Premiership "top four" monopoly under threat? And wasn't our very own Claudio Reyna chosen as one of the 2002 competitions 5 best midfielders. Shouldn't be allowed

it would be my guess that an African nation will, in the next 3-4 competitions, shock the world and win it. That's certainly a fairly moderate opinion...so i'm not going out on a limb there.

WRT Antti's idea that somehow CONCACAF should be reduced to 2 teams so that maybe the Portugeezers or Russia can play in the cup...i'd say that the WC would be better if Russia and Portugal were in it...but your Eurocentricity on this topic is as myopic a thing as i could imagine. it is the World Cup. UEFA and South America have disproportionate representation because of their footballing heritage.

Regarding Portugal having 10x the talent that Mexico or the US has -- strangely, you have to play the matches. Do you really think Portugal deserve jack shit after pooing up their qualifying group like they have? Please.

And you can't have it both ways about CONCACAF -- either it's NOT fair that there are 3.5 spots which makes it a certainty the US will qualify OR the US should always qualify even if there are only 2 spots. I'll give you the second point, which nullifies the first and should end that argument. The US and Mexico should ALWAYS qualify from their region. They have 10x the footballing talent other nations have in the region they play in. Shouldn't the same be said for Portugal? And honestly, Russia i believe will qualify. Sad for them that they got drawn with Germany, but they'll get their playoff to go prove they belong, probably vs. Slovenia or someone they can walk over since some bent Russian will probably pay someone off at UEFA to make sure that happens.

And if CONCACAF had only two spots i don't think you would give that extra 1.5 spots to UEFA. I'd rather see one more South American team in the tournament than one more Euro team. Look at the South American standings and tell me that three of the four of Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador or Venezuela wouldn't be better to watch than a deflated Portugal? I know who i'd rather watch after seeing how tightly this South American group has played each other. Uruguay-Argies today will be a massive match. Can't wait.

Laslty, I'm sorry that CONCACAF won 4 spots and did a crap job last time out. I'll speak to some FIFA people and see if i can get that corrected next summer.

cheers

EDIT: fixed Alex's quoting issue which made it seem like Antti's quote was mine. Doh!

[Ted Hughes]

At this moment in time Portugal are a far far better team to watch than those but by the time the World Cup comes along, Argentina may be back to their best & a genuine top world team. Unfortunately they may be watching it from a distance because they're in a mess at the moment & could lose to anybody. Never mind though, so long as we get to watch Costa Rica, everyone's happy apparently. Much better to give them the chance rather than watch Messi, Ronaldo or Henry.

[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?

In the 2006 qualifications, Croatia and Ukraine both topped their respective groups. I don't think either of them are pushovers and Croatia are the reason England sat home in the 2008 Euro's.

But that's what I'm saying mate, you can only take on who is put in front of you and your team has to play to it's ability. If it doesn't, then you end up 'doing an England'. We were very much favourites to top our group for the Euro's, however a certain Brolly weilding fool was at the helm; of a sinking ship!

The likes of the USA, Australia, Brazil, England et al played to form and won their groups, what more can you ask?

[Slim]

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?

In the 2006 qualifications, Croatia and Ukraine both topped their respective groups. I don't think either of them are pushovers and Croatia are the reason England sat home in the 2008 Euro's.

But that's what I'm saying mate, you can only take on who is put in front of you and your team has to play to it's ability. If it doesn't, then you end up 'doing an England'. We were very much favourites to top our group for the Euro's, however a certain Brolly weilding fool was at the helm; of a sinking ship!

The likes of the USA, Australia, Brazil, England et al played to form and won their groups, what more can you ask?

You said England didn't have a shot at missing out, I disagreed and provided evidence to back it up. "What you are saying...." was wrong. YOU were wrong. Dancing sideways on the issue and making out like you were making a different point is the reason forums like these end up containing the word fucktard so often.

Do better.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

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.

So let's make it open to Europeans only shall we (no wait we've got one of those).
This shows where the teams finished in 2006 (1st to 32nd). If you use it as a basis, you wouldn't have African or Asian sides in either (at the expense of the European sides that miss out). Truth is we are going to get "one hell of a" shock one day, when a "non estanblishment football country" does extra well, and I'm frankly looking forward to it. Is it me or does this smack of Premiership "top four" monopoly under threat? And wasn't our very own Claudio Reyna chosen as one of the 2002 competitions 5 best midfielders. Shouldn't be allowed

it would be my guess that an African nation will, in the next 3-4 competitions, shock the world and win it. That's certainly a fairly moderate opinion...so i'm not going out on a limb there.

WRT Antti's idea that somehow CONCACAF should be reduced to 2 teams so that maybe the Portugeezers or Russia can play in the cup...i'd say that the WC would be better if Russia and Portugal were in it...but your Eurocentricity on this topic is as myopic a thing as i could imagine. it is the World Cup. UEFA and South America have disproportionate representation because of their footballing heritage.

Regarding Portugal having 10x the talent that Mexico or the US has -- strangely, you have to play the matches. Do you really think Portugal deserve jack shit after pooing up their qualifying group like they have? Please.

And you can't have it both ways about CONCACAF -- either it's NOT fair that there are 3.5 spots which makes it a certainty the US will qualify OR the US should always qualify even if there are only 2 spots. I'll give you the second point, which nullifies the first and should end that argument. The US and Mexico should ALWAYS qualify from their region. They have 10x the footballing talent other nations have in the region they play in. Shouldn't the same be said for Portugal? And honestly, Russia i believe will qualify. Sad for them that they got drawn with Germany, but they'll get their playoff to go prove they belong, probably vs. Slovenia or someone they can walk over since some bent Russian will probably pay someone off at UEFA to make sure that happens.

And if CONCACAF had only two spots i don't think you would give that extra 1.5 spots to UEFA. I'd rather see one more South American team in the tournament than one more Euro team. Look at the South American standings and tell me that three of the four of Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador or Venezuela wouldn't be better to watch than a deflated Portugal? I know who i'd rather watch after seeing how tightly this South American group has played each other. Uruguay-Argies today will be a massive match. Can't wait.

Laslty, I'm sorry that CONCACAF won 4 spots and did a crap job last time out. I'll speak to some FIFA people and see if i can get that corrected next summer.

cheers

EDIT: fixed Alex's quoting issue which made it seem like Antti's quote was mine. Doh!

That's bad post mate. I don't even know where to start.

Let's just say that USA SHOULDN'T QUALIFY AUTOMATICALLY. Which mong said that? You should have to FIGHT for you place just like the rest of the teams have to. And like I proved above, ALL teams from CONCACAF ae there just to make numbers. Wouldn't two be enough?

[Rag_hater]

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.

So let's make it open to Europeans only shall we (no wait we've got one of those).
This shows where the teams finished in 2006 (1st to 32nd). If you use it as a basis, you wouldn't have African or Asian sides in either (at the expense of the European sides that miss out). Truth is we are going to get "one hell of a" shock one day, when a "non estanblishment football country" does extra well, and I'm frankly looking forward to it. Is it me or does this smack of Premiership "top four" monopoly under threat? And wasn't our very own Claudio Reyna chosen as one of the 2002 competitions 5 best midfielders. Shouldn't be allowed

it would be my guess that an African nation will, in the next 3-4 competitions, shock the world and win it. That's certainly a fairly moderate opinion...so i'm not going out on a limb there.

WRT Antti's idea that somehow CONCACAF should be reduced to 2 teams so that maybe the Portugeezers or Russia can play in the cup...i'd say that the WC would be better if Russia and Portugal were in it...but your Eurocentricity on this topic is as myopic a thing as i could imagine. it is the World Cup. UEFA and South America have disproportionate representation because of their footballing heritage.

Regarding Portugal having 10x the talent that Mexico or the US has -- strangely, you have to play the matches. Do you really think Portugal deserve jack shit after pooing up their qualifying group like they have? Please.

And you can't have it both ways about CONCACAF -- either it's NOT fair that there are 3.5 spots which makes it a certainty the US will qualify OR the US should always qualify even if there are only 2 spots. I'll give you the second point, which nullifies the first and should end that argument. The US and Mexico should ALWAYS qualify from their region. They have 10x the footballing talent other nations have in the region they play in. Shouldn't the same be said for Portugal? And honestly, Russia i believe will qualify. Sad for them that they got drawn with Germany, but they'll get their playoff to go prove they belong, probably vs. Slovenia or someone they can walk over since some bent Russian will probably pay someone off at UEFA to make sure that happens.

And if CONCACAF had only two spots i don't think you would give that extra 1.5 spots to UEFA. I'd rather see one more South American team in the tournament than one more Euro team. Look at the South American standings and tell me that three of the four of Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador or Venezuela wouldn't be better to watch than a deflated Portugal? I know who i'd rather watch after seeing how tightly this South American group has played each other. Uruguay-Argies today will be a massive match. Can't wait.

Laslty, I'm sorry that CONCACAF won 4 spots and did a crap job last time out. I'll speak to some FIFA people and see if i can get that corrected next summer.

cheers

EDIT: fixed Alex's quoting issue which made it seem like Antti's quote was mine. Doh!

That's bad post mate. I don't even know where to start.

Let's just say that USA SHOULDN'T QUALIFY AUTOMATICALLY. Which mong said that? You should have to FIGHT for you place just like the rest of the teams have to. And like I proved above, ALL teams from CONCACAF ae there just to make numbers. Wouldn't two be enough?

I think the US consider themselves to be there for more than just to making up the numbers as their recent victory over the Euro champs in a major competition recently showed.
And if they are there to make up the numbers I would rather them making up the numbers instead of another European team, so the spirit of it being a global competition being upheld.

[DoomMerchant]

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.

So let's make it open to Europeans only shall we (no wait we've got one of those).
This shows where the teams finished in 2006 (1st to 32nd). If you use it as a basis, you wouldn't have African or Asian sides in either (at the expense of the European sides that miss out). Truth is we are going to get "one hell of a" shock one day, when a "non estanblishment football country" does extra well, and I'm frankly looking forward to it. Is it me or does this smack of Premiership "top four" monopoly under threat? And wasn't our very own Claudio Reyna chosen as one of the 2002 competitions 5 best midfielders. Shouldn't be allowed

it would be my guess that an African nation will, in the next 3-4 competitions, shock the world and win it. That's certainly a fairly moderate opinion...so i'm not going out on a limb there.

WRT Antti's idea that somehow CONCACAF should be reduced to 2 teams so that maybe the Portugeezers or Russia can play in the cup...i'd say that the WC would be better if Russia and Portugal were in it...but your Eurocentricity on this topic is as myopic a thing as i could imagine. it is the World Cup. UEFA and South America have disproportionate representation because of their footballing heritage.

Regarding Portugal having 10x the talent that Mexico or the US has -- strangely, you have to play the matches. Do you really think Portugal deserve jack shit after pooing up their qualifying group like they have? Please.

And you can't have it both ways about CONCACAF -- either it's NOT fair that there are 3.5 spots which makes it a certainty the US will qualify OR the US should always qualify even if there are only 2 spots. I'll give you the second point, which nullifies the first and should end that argument. The US and Mexico should ALWAYS qualify from their region. They have 10x the footballing talent other nations have in the region they play in. Shouldn't the same be said for Portugal? And honestly, Russia i believe will qualify. Sad for them that they got drawn with Germany, but they'll get their playoff to go prove they belong, probably vs. Slovenia or someone they can walk over since some bent Russian will probably pay someone off at UEFA to make sure that happens.

And if CONCACAF had only two spots i don't think you would give that extra 1.5 spots to UEFA. I'd rather see one more South American team in the tournament than one more Euro team. Look at the South American standings and tell me that three of the four of Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador or Venezuela wouldn't be better to watch than a deflated Portugal? I know who i'd rather watch after seeing how tightly this South American group has played each other. Uruguay-Argies today will be a massive match. Can't wait.

Laslty, I'm sorry that CONCACAF won 4 spots and did a crap job last time out. I'll speak to some FIFA people and see if i can get that corrected next summer.

cheers

EDIT: fixed Alex's quoting issue which made it seem like Antti's quote was mine. Doh!

That's bad post mate. I don't even know where to start.

Let's just say that USA SHOULDN'T QUALIFY AUTOMATICALLY. Which mong said that? You should have to FIGHT for you place just like the rest of the teams have to. And like I proved above, ALL teams from CONCACAF ae there just to make numbers. Wouldn't two be enough?

Jesus. Now ALL the teams from CONCACAF are just there to make up the numbers? So now NO teams from CONCACAF are worth being in the WORLD cup? ridiculous attitude i think Antti. Just silly really.

regarding my post start wherever you like...i'd love to hear some arguments against my points. the whole premise of your argument has been that the US are in some lopsided position which pretty much guarantees qualification and that the CONCACAF spots offered create disparity at the expense of European footballing powers. Is that not the case? Modify that as you like so that i understand what yr saying more clearly. That's how the entire thread has read for me when i remove some of the emotional stuff.

And like i said -- even if TWO were enough in CONCACAF some have suggested that the US SHOULD always qualify because the region is so poor. You can't have it both ways...you slam the US for CONCACAF having too many spots and you slam the US for being in such a weak region that they should make it easily. Then you say "they should have to compete." Well, guess what...the point is that the US played their matches and qualified...they played the teams, got the points and made it. That's what they did.

Making up the numbers in the *world* cup is bound to happen...it is in fact NOT the European Cup.

[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?

In the 2006 qualifications, Croatia and Ukraine both topped their respective groups. I don't think either of them are pushovers and Croatia are the reason England sat home in the 2008 Euro's.

But that's what I'm saying mate, you can only take on who is put in front of you and your team has to play to it's ability. If it doesn't, then you end up 'doing an England'. We were very much favourites to top our group for the Euro's, however a certain Brolly weilding fool was at the helm; of a sinking ship!

The likes of the USA, Australia, Brazil, England et al played to form and won their groups, what more can you ask?

You said England didn't have a shot at missing out, I disagreed and provided evidence to back it up. "What you are saying...." was wrong. YOU were wrong. Dancing sideways on the issue and making out like you were making a different point is the reason forums like these end up containing the word fucktard so often.

Do better.

What the fuck are you on about, Fucktard! I haven't sidestepped anything and cannot actually see what the fuck you are on about! I'll say no more as I may say something I'll regret!!!

[Slim]

What the fuck are you on about, Fucktard! I haven't sidestepped anything and cannot actually see what the fuck you are on about! I'll say no more as I may say something I'll regret!!!

You see I didn't call you a fucktard, mainly because I am trying to remain civil here. If we cannot remain civil to one another let me know, I am quite good at that too.

You said England were in no danger of finishing anywhere but top.

I said that Ukraine and Croatia are very real threats and had a good track record and even managed to beat England to a spot for the 2008 Euro's.

You then said, that was your point that you can only beat what's in front of you.

While that point is correct albeit an awful cliche, that was not the point you made initially.

The point you made initially was in fact, wrong.

[Kyle]

I still think its funny that this debate is contining and they bash and bash on CONACAF and have yet to mention the easier qualifying of Austrailia and Asia.

It is impossible to make it so all the teams that "deserve" to go, go. Imo the states deserve to go because they played the qualifying games and qualified. The fact of the matter is that it is not impossible to qualify for the smaller teams because many teams don't give a shit about the qualifying games and just go out not giving 100%, therefore teams that don't qualify don't qualify because they didn't get results. Its plain and simple, everyone knows the route to qualifying before it starts and they know what results they have to get when. I am sick of people saying well teams like Russia, Portugal, and even Argentina need to make it because the world cup wouldn't be the same. If they are truly good enough to deserve to make it, they would get the results. I am not sad one bit when the so called "big teams" dont make it just because they didn't get the results. Its the exact same way I wont shed a tear whatsoever when one of Chelsea, scum, Liverpool, and Arsenal loose thier spot in the champs league to city, if you don't get results its your own fault. There are many more nations in the CONACAF reagion that have football as a way of life, probably moreso then Asia.

[Somerset Blue]

Slight thread drift - and no axe to grind! Got to thinking about American City players, the only ones I came up with are Beasley and Reyna, think they both played for the US national team (in fact wasn't Reyna the captain for a while?). Anyone come up with any more? And is playing for a premiership team seen as being quite a big deal over there?