World Cup qualifiers - Qatar 2022

[craigkillie]

Pretty much every World Cup has a European surprise package (or sometimes multiple) reaching the quarter-finals or further.

Ireland in the quarters, 1990, Sweden and Bulgaria in the semis in 1994, Croatia in the semis in 1998, Turkey in the semis in 2002, Ukraine in the quarters in 2006, Croatia in the final and Sweden and Russia in the quarters in 2018. Several of these only scraped through via the play-offs, which is indicative of the strength in depth in Europe.

I don't see the World Cup would be improved by removing these strong and competitive sides and replacing them with obviously worse teams from other parts of the world.

[Bully Wee Villa]

6 hours ago, Lex said:

Personally I’m pro more non European sides.
No point in teams like Bosnia and Wales stinking it out, when we could have more African or Carribean nations creating a bit of unexpected interest.
Surely an equal split based on population is the most fair long term. If that means more Asian teams than European that’s fine.

Wouldn't go that far, but feel like a "World Cup" should have a healthy mix of continental involvement. Some on here would happily have 3/4 of the teams being from Europe/South America. That's bland as f**k to me. The Euros will expand to 32 teams so people will have more than enough chance to watch Slovenia v Norway, or whatever floats their boat, at a major tournament. I like watching the diddy teams from far away lands with players I've never heard of before.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Bully Wee Villa

[invergowrie arab]

On 22/06/2022 at 18:00, BigDoddyKane said:

are there examples of that? Im trying to think of one but cant though I may be wrong, theres plenty islamic examples

Germany and the entirety of Europe under German control within living memory 

[DiegoDiego]

I like watching the diddy teams from far away lands with players I've never heard of before.

So do I, but a championship to determine the best side in the world should consist of the best sides in the world. If folk really want to watch diddy nations it's easy enough these days without devaluing the World Cup.

[Bully Wee Villa]

All the "best teams in the world" have qualified. The World Cup isn't, in any way, devalued, by having one fewer European team in it than twenty years ago.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Bully Wee Villa

[DiegoDiego]

If you genuinely think those are the thirty-two best national teams then fair enough.

[Bully Wee Villa]

That wasn't what was said. The best teams are in it, though. 

[Satoshi]

4 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

That wasn't what was said. The best teams are in it, though. 

Some good teams can have a few bad shock results, Italy aren't there because they missed a last min penalty against Switzerland, then dominated Macedonia and went down to a sucker punch last minute worldie.

Do they have an argument to be a top 5 nation in the world? As winners of the euros absolutely, although Spain ran rings round them in the semis they comfortably outplayed England despite losing an early goal and being away from home. 

What sides do you think are better than absent Italy?

And for additional context, Italy have a long history of not giving a shit about qualification or friendlies and only showing up for actual tournaments. This has usually worked fine for them but qualfiying has got a lot more competitive and they surely won't be making they mistake again after missing out on the last two world cups.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Satoshi

[craigkillie]

5 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

That wasn't what was said. The best teams are in it, though. 

The European champions, who would have been among the top 5 or 6 favourites for the tournament, won't be at Qatar, and weren't at the previous World Cup either. They didn't lose a single game in their qualifying group and got caught out by a fluke outcome in a play-off game.

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by craigkillie

[Bully Wee Villa]

They lost at home to a bit of Macedonia having failed to see off a bit of Ireland in the group stages. They didn't deserve to qualify just because they did well at a continental competition a year ago.

[Satoshi]

Just now, Bully Wee Villa said:

They lost at home to a bit of Macedonia having failed to see off a bit of Ireland in the group stages. They didn't deserve to qualify just because they did well at a continental competition a year ago.

Not saying they deserved to qualify, just that they are one of the best sides and are not there.

[Bully Wee Villa]

I think their results suggest they aren't one of the best teams. They had two tough games in qualifying and failed to win either of them, they then got literally the easiest qualifying draw they could have got, and still managed to f**k it up.

North Macedonia just lost three-nil at home to Georgia. Italy don't deserve to be at the World Cup in any way.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Bully Wee Villa

[DiegoDiego]

I think their results suggest they aren't one of the best teams.

But Costa Rica are?

[Bully Wee Villa]

No. I never said the best 32 teams are at the World Cup. But the best teams are there. Italy aren't one of them or they would have taken one of the four chances they had to qualify (beat Switzerland away - failed, beat Switzerland at home- failed, comfortably Northern Ireland away - didn't even win, qualify through the playoffs - lost to the worst team in the playoffs, didn't even get to the final).

Edited June 24, 2022 by Bully Wee Villa

[DiegoDiego]

No. I never said the best 32 teams are at the World Cup. But the best teams are there.

That's entirely dependent on your cut off line for best. In a 32 team tournament saying the best teams are there surely means you think the 32 best teams are there.

[craigkillie]

Just now, Bully Wee Villa said:

They lost at home to a bit of Macedonia having failed to see off a bit of Ireland in the group stages. They didn't deserve to qualify just because they did well at a continental competition a year ago.

They did "see off a bit of Ireland" by finishing miles ahead of them in the group. You said that the best teams in the world would be there, but that's not really true given that a potential winner will be sitting at home.

A decent representation from each continent is essential at the tournament, and the current one isn't terrible, though I'd definitely say there is one too many from each of Asia and North America given the utter failures that show up from those continents on a regular basis once you go beyond Japan/South Korea/USA/Mexico/Costa Rica. Africa can feel a bit aggrieved too, given they only get 5 places when they have pretty strong depth of mid-ranking potential last 16, maybe quarter-final teams.

However, the next World Cup has taken that miles in the wrong direction. They've had a good idea in introducing a sort of "repechage" round in qualifying, but have bottled actually including any decent sort of number of teams in it. They could have even stuck with exactly the same 32 spots as now (give or take one or two) and then had intercontinental qualifiers for the rest, but instead they've just tweaked around the edges and there will be some very obviously substandard sides making it to the tournament as a result.

[Bully Wee Villa]

No, it doesn't. It means the best teams are in there. The best teams in Scotland will be in the last thirty-two of the Scottish Cup. All the Premiership teams will be there. That doesn't means the last 32 will be literally the best 32 teams in Scotland as you're bound to get the odd shock. As there should be.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Out of curiosity, how many of those arguing for more European teams in a World Cup would be happy if UEFA slashed the number of Scottish teams in Europe to just two so that more teams from England, Spain, Italy and Germany can take part?

Edited June 24, 2022 by Bully Wee Villa

[DiegoDiego]

Out of curiosity, how many of those arguing for more European teams in a World Cup would be happy if UEFA slashed the number of Scottish teams in Europe to just two so that more teams from England, Spain, Italy and Germany can take part?

Reduce it to zero and I'm with you.

[craigkillie]

23 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Out of curiosity, how many of those arguing for more European teams in a World Cup would be happy if UEFA slashed the number of Scottish teams in Europe to just two so that more teams from England, Spain, Italy and Germany can take part?

This is actually a really good comparison to make because it ties in nicely to what I'm suggesting. There are 32 spots in the Champions League, and some of those are earned via direct qualification, while the rest are obtained via a series of qualifying matches between clubs from different nations to ensure that everyone does have a chance of access, but the best ones tend to make it through. Now it's probably gone a bit too far in the other direction with the Champions League, but the idea is a sound one.

The equivalent in international football would be to have more intercontinental play-offs, which is exactly what I have been suggesting throughout this. There should be some representation from each continent (though as I've said before I think Asia/Oceania and North/South America could be combined as part of this), but there should also be more play-off paths into the tournament to ensure there's also a balance with having the actual best teams.

It also brings forward the idea of a more transparent coefficient type system, where the performance of each continent at previous World Cups could be used to determine how many automatic places it gets.

The main difference with club football is that there must be close to 1000 top flight teams from 55 countries being narrowed down to 32 for the Champions League (though they do have secondary competitions too), while the World Cup is about to have 200 teams from 6 continents being narrowed down to 48. The scales involved are totally different, and in the latter case it's much more practical to have wider representation without impacting the overall competitive balance.

Edited June 24, 2022 by craigkillie