Is it time for World groups?

[Isaac_Refvik]

Just been on the FIFA web page where it states that the top 32 teams in the world are gearing up for the World Cup draw on 4th December. This got me thinking that it isn't really the top 32 teams in the world because of the zone system. In this day of travelling to Japan/US/Singapore etc for glamour friendlies is it time for FIFA to introduce World groups to get the real top 32 teams?

[steakbake]

I was talking to a Korean guy yesterday who was bemoaning the fact that in the Asia qualification zone, there is very little competition. It is very unlikely that anyone apart from maybe 3-4 teams would get through to a major championships.

I don't really fancy an away leg to Ulan Baator, followed up with a double header against the Bahamas.

[MacBean]

Its very unlikely to be perfectly honest. I can't see it happening/working.

These "smaller" nations bring the "magic" of the competition to the world cup.

Look at Trinidad & Tobago a couple of years ago. Everyone North of the border adopted them as their country and the fact they had a striker called Scotland playing against England made it all the better :wink:

Hibees have looked out for nations like Ecuador in the past for our players. This year We'll be keeping an eye on Ivory Coast looking out for how well Bamba does.

If we had the top 32 teams then it would be filled with a Larger amount of european teams than already in the world cup. We would also have teams like France/Italy/Germany/Spain/England in it.

Last campaign we (Scotland) almost stopped Italy/France making the Euro's and this year Ireland almost (perhaps should have) stopped France making the world Cup. That is the beauty of it.

Look at Slovenia and Slovakia this year! both have done fantastic in what have been very tough groups.

Look at how well Greece did in the Euros a few years ago


and the fact that we would never get there too :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Practical issue.

Some of the smaller nations, eg those who don't have players playing in Europe, just couldn't afford the travel.

[Speedy]

Practical issue.

Some of the smaller nations, eg those who don't have players playing in Europe, just couldn't afford the travel.

:agree:

This is the main reason for regional qualifiers. I don't really agree with the idea that there should be world groups anyway, it would be boring if the world cup turned into the European championship plus a couple of South American teams.

[Sylar]

It's probably the reason that we (USA) qualify every year without fail - we face sides like Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras during qualification, who aren't exactly "stiff competition" to be fair.

Having said that, these countries would probably give 4th, maybe 3rd seeded nations in the other zones a good run for their money.

I think the way forward is perhaps pre-qualification, whereby all the small nations (Faroes, Andorra, San Marino et al) all play in a group, and the winner of the group progresses into the main qualification. This could also help address the uneven numbers in the UEFA zone, whilst weeding out the pointless fixtures against these nations.

[MacBean]

Oi!

Mexico are a great team! they pumped 4/5-0 in a cup final not long ago (albeit a second string USA team)

They would easily mix it up in Europe!

[The Green Goblin]

It's probably the reason that we (USA) qualify every year without fail - we face sides like Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras during qualification, who aren't exactly "stiff competition" to be fair.

Having said that, these countries would probably give 4th, maybe 3rd seeded nations in the other zones a good run for their money.

I think the way forward is perhaps pre-qualification, whereby all the small nations (Faroes, Andorra, San Marino et al) all play in a group, and the winner of the group progresses into the main qualification. This could also help address the uneven numbers in the UEFA zone, whilst weeding out the pointless fixtures against these nations.


That would seem to make sense, but I disagree with the pointless fixtures idea. Remember a few years back when the Faroes beat Austria 1-0 in a qualification game? They also ran Italy very very close in their home game recently. And let us not forget Costa Rica 1 - Scotland 0!!

No, I think the potential for `shock` results only adds to the competition. You`re right in the sense that these teams would never challenge for a world cup itself, but anything can happen in qualification matches and besides, why should these nations be deprived of glamour ties against the best in the world simply because they are smaller?

GG

[Craig_in_Prague]

It's probably the reason that we (USA) qualify every year without fail - we face sides like Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras during qualification, who aren't exactly "stiff competition" to be fair.

Having said that, these countries would probably give 4th, maybe 3rd seeded nations in the other zones a good run for their money.

I think the way forward is perhaps pre-qualification, whereby all the small nations (Faroes, Andorra, San Marino et al) all play in a group, and the winner of the group progresses into the main qualification. This could also help address the uneven numbers in the UEFA zone, whilst weeding out the pointless fixtures against these nations.


:top marks

This MUST happen ASAP.

[Sylar]

That would seem to make sense, but I disagree with the pointless fixtures idea. Remember a few years back when the Faroes beat Austria 1-0 in a qualification game? They also ran Italy very very close in their home game recently. And let us not forget Costa Rica 1 - Scotland 0!!

No, I think the potential for `shock` results only adds to the competition. You`re right in the sense that these teams would never challenge for a world cup itself, but anything can happen in qualification matches and besides, why should these nations be deprived of glamour ties against the best in the world simply because they are smaller?

GG

Good point. Perhaps the concept of pre-qualification can be an incentive or prize for these smaller nations to fight for?

Ach, I like the format as it is just now to be honest. Every competition (even at the finals) will have the minnows and the "big" sides.

[Rory89]

We should probably let 8 English teams in the Champions League whilst we're at it.

[Isaac_Refvik]

We should probably let 8 English teams in the Champions League whilst we're at it.

What has that got to do with the original question? The Champions League is designed, in my opinion, to get the best teams fighting out for the trophy in the group stages. Occasionally you'll get a team in the last 16 that is a bit of a surprise but normally it's the cream of Europe. The World Cup differs from this because smaller teams, rightly or wrongly, are given the chance to qualify from so-called weaker zones. The original question asked if having World grouping would ensure that the top teams in the world fought out the top tournament in the world. I'm still trying to fathom out your comment about 8 English teams...blah blah blah but decided I can't be ersed.

[CropleyWasGod]

What has that got to do with the original question? The Champions League is designed, in my opinion, to get the best teams fighting out for the trophy in the group stages. Occasionally you'll get a team in the last 16 that is a bit of a surprise but normally it's the cream of Europe. The World Cup differs from this because smaller teams, rightly or wrongly, are given the chance to qualify from so-called weaker zones. The original question asked if having World grouping would ensure that the top teams in the world fought out the top tournament in the world. I'm still trying to fathom out your comment about 8 English teams...blah blah blah but decided I can't be ersed.

I can see the point. I think he's trying to say that the top 8 English clubs could be said to be better than some of the teams that get to the Champions League. eg. Everton and Villa over Celtc and Rangers.

It IS the same point that you're trying to make.

[Rory89]

Thank you CropleyWasGod.

Your point is that the World Cup isn't the 32 best teams in the world, and that there should be a system in place to ensure that there is. Thankfully it isn't, as it's the World Cup, not the Mainly European Cup with one or 2 Africans, 3 South Americans, Mexico and sometimes Japan.

My point doesn't require a brain surgeon to work out, if you applied your logic to other tournaments there would be about 8 English teams in the CL, god knows 4 is enough. I'm sure if Hibs somehow got to the CL you wouldn't be gutted that Aston Villa deserve it more. Well done on an absolutely pish suggestion though. :wink: