Soccer really sucks, doesn't it?

[Kitschum]

What is Portugal doing among the great teams

I think Slovakia belongs with the acceptables, maybe Ukraine, but maybe not Poland.

[duke o' york]

As of the 26th May, here are the FIFA rankings, and here is how they did:

1 Brazil - Last 8
2 Spain - WC winners
3 Portugal - Last 16
4 Netherlands - Losing finalists
5 Italy - Eliminated in last 32
6 Germany - 3rd place
7 Argentina - Last 8
8 England - Last 16
9 France - Eliminated in last 32
10 Croatia - Didn't make the last 32
11 Russia - Didn't make the last 32
12 Egypt - Didn't make the last 32
13 Greece - Didn't make the last 16
14 USA - Last 16
15 Serbia - Didn't make the last 16
16 Uruguay - 4th place

FIFA's ranking are rubbish. According to the number of goals scored/let in to separate tied sides, here's how it should look, from the World Cup only:

1 - Spain
2 - Netherlands
3 - Germany
4 - Uruguay
5 - Argentina: GF 12, GA 5
6 - Brazil: GF 9, GA 4
7 - Paraguay: GF 3, GA 1
8 - Ghana: GF 5, GA 4
9 - Portugal: GF 7, GA 1
10 - Japan: GF4, GA 2
11 - USA: GF 5, GA 5
12 - Mexico: GF 4, GA 5
13 - South Korea: GF 6, GA 8
14 - Slovakia: GF 5, GA 7
15 - Chile: GF 3, GA 5
- England: GF 3, GA 5

What a crock of ****.

[Drake Tungsten]

no it's the fact that if you selected the best 32 footballing nations to compete in the world cup, at least 13 of those teams would be european, probably more.

The actual results from this World Cup don't support your point of view. Europe didn't have enough good teams to fill 13 spots.

and now you're trying to say that europe deserves less because...there are only a "handful of quality teams".

No, my argument was that it's unseemly and bad for international soccer for Europe to be so overrepresented at the World Cup. Your argument is that Europe deserves a disproportionate number of World Cup spots based on the great number of quality teams in the region, which I countered by pointing out that many of the European teams at this World Cup performed very poorly, which leads me to believe that Europe can't fill 13 spots with quality sides.

you mean the two teams that contested the last world cup final?

Who cares if they were good four years ago? That's a long time ago and both teams sucked this year...

[Kitschum]

no it's the fact that if you selected the best 32 footballing nations to compete in the world cup, at least 13 of those teams would be european, probably more.

The actual results from this World Cup don't support your point of view. Europe didn't have enough good teams to fill 13 spots.

How did you come to that conclusion? Because there were 13 Europeans and only 8 groups some Europeans ended up in the same group as others and knocked them out, i.e. Italy by Slovakia, Slovenia by England, Switzerland by Spain (even though they beat them).

[duke o' york]

The actual results from this World Cup don't support your point of view. Europe didn't have enough good teams to fill 13 spots.

Last 16:

Uruguay v Korea
USA v Ghana (woo!)
Germany v England
Argentina v Mehico (sic)
Netherlands v Slovakia
Brazil v Chile
Spain v Portugal

So 6 out of 16, which would be 12 out of 32, including both finalists. What's your point?

[Drake Tungsten]

Slovenia could have advanced if they were good enough to beat the U.S. I don't know about the others, as I didn't care enough about the World Cup to watch the games of the crappier European filler countries.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

there are 24 teams as good as if not better than Honduras (which is a decent team)

1. Spain
2. Netherlands
3. Germany
4. England
5. Portugal
6. Italy
7. France
8. Sweden
9. Norway
10. Croatia
11. Serbia
12. Slovenia
13. Ireland
14. Russia
15. Denmark
16. Slovakia
17. Czech Republic
18. Switzerland
19. Romaina
20. Bulgaria
21. Ukraine
22. Poland
23. Turkey
24. Greece
25 Wales (for Mobius )


there is still Belgium, Scotland, Israel, Austria, Hungary, Finland and I would not necessarily bet against Belarus vs Honduras either... so there are even more than 24 "decent" teams as what comes through in other regions ... so even if we had 24... some would still be missing out, as it is, if you go through Euro qualifiers the chances that you are going through the group are generally high unless you end up in the group with Argentina or Brazil. This world cup European teams in general did worse than usual... despite of the top 4 being three Euro teams...

the other regions have it easier, and the only one where a decent team does not go through is CONMEBOL where 50% of all the teams go through... but you have 8 out of 10 teams who all play well ... still 50% of the total go through anyhow and they get to play each other so they have it easier on average too if they are good to come out on top... Euro qualifiers are trickier in that aspect that you can play one or two poor games at a bad point and you are out for the cycle. You could add one for Africa - Egypt, but as it is African teams did poorly again, except Ghana, despite of playing on "home" ground...

[duke o' york]

So 7/16 and 14/32 then....

[duke o' york]

Ghana were ranked 32, and Nigeria ranked 21, Ivory Coast 27 and Algeria 30. But that will change, thanks to the noble efforts of the mighty Black Stars!

[Barnabas]

there are 24 teams as good as if not better than Honduras (which is a decent team)

1. Spain
2. Netherlands
3. Germany
4. England
5. Portugal
6. Italy
7. France
8. Sweden
9. Norway
10. Croatia
11. Serbia
12. Slovenia
13. Ireland
14. Russia
15. Denmark
16. Slovakia
17. Czech Republic
18. Switzerland
19. Romaina
20. Bulgaria
21. Ukraine
22. Poland
23. Turkey
24. Greece
25 Wales (for Mobius )


there is still Belgium, Scotland, Israel, Austria, Hungary, Finland and I would not necessarily bet against Belarus vs Honduras either... so there are even more than 24 "decent" teams as what comes through in other regions ... so even if we had 24... some would still be missing out, as it is, if you go through Euro qualifiers the chances that you are going through the group are generally high unless you end up in the group with Argentina or Brazil. This world cup European teams in general did worse than usual... despite of the top 4 being three Euro teams...

the other regions have it easier, and the only one where a decent team does not go through is CONMEBOL where 50% of all the teams go through... but you have 8 out of 10 teams who all play good ... still 50% of the total go through anyhow and they get to play each other so they have it easier on average too if they are good to come out on top... Euro qualifiers are trickier in that aspect that you can play one or two poor games at a bad point and you are out for the cycle. You could add one for Africa - Egypt, but as it is African teams did poorly again, except Ghana, despite of playing on "home" ground...

How many of those teams are better than Colombia? Greece, Serbia and Slovenia are worse than Colombia and they made it to the world cup.

[Drake Tungsten]

South America deserves more World Cup spots.

[duke o' york]

Yes, we should have a play-off with all those teams against Colombia. On one pitch!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

if you had Colombia, Greece, Serbia and Slovenia ina group 50:50 that Colombia would be in top two, 1/5 on top spot.

Serbs are better, Greece about the same and Slovenia worse.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Slovenia however beat the Russians which are probably better than Columbia though... but that is the peculiarity of Euro qualifiers, a bad game and you are out, while Columbia had the whole tournament to get into top 50% on the table

[duke o' york]

Which is why the NA qualifiers are rubbish. The US always gets through. I could probably beat Canada on my own for goodness sake, especially if Ben was in net, and I let slip enough anti-pope comments to annoy him and get him sent off.