 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Entertainment & Sports. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Entertainment & Sports - The Football Thread: The World Cup Draw's done! |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6299 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Colin Whatever. We escaped, New Zealand can go fuck themselves! c(: The flipside of the argumentthat we're screwing the OFC, is that OFC is opened up considerably by Australia leaving, that we've stunted the development of sides like New Zealand, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tahiti, Vanuatu, by essentially never letting them progress at all. The OFC draw has been opened up considerably by the absense of the (relative) colossus. It did no-one any good for us to be racking up 30 goal margins against sides like American Samoa and the Cook Islands, and they all knew it. Essentially, New Zealand were the only ones who opposed our move... all the Island Nations supported us in the vote to let us leave. A fair deal for OFC would be, if not automatic qualification for the champion, which never seems to happen because of the OFC's poor bargaining position relative to giants like UEFA and COMNEBOL... at the very least, an easier playoff match. Like, CONCACAF or AFC rather than bloody South American sides. Geographically, having the Americas play and OFC and AFC play makes more sense. Or alternatively, another idea would be having the top couple of sides from the OFC comp gain access to the pools of the Asian qualifiers or something. I'm of the opinion that the pools system is better than one-off playoffs... it can make it harder to qualify, but it means more competitive matches which can help sides that don't get that, to reach their potential, as opposed to a quadrennial roll of the dice. Plus, the difficulty can be mitigated by giving the OFC teams a good seeding so they don't end up in "groups of death". |
|||
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep  Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
| Come on, now, Arwon. OFC could never have gotten a free entry into the World Cup, it wouldn't be fair, seeing as how it'd pretty much make sure Australia was in the World Cup every freaking time. I guess it would be fairer to let them play AFC in stead of CONMEBOL, and I guess FIFA should have made that change, but free entry? No way.
Those who really have it hard going into the World Cup are the UEFA teams. You're put into a group where only one is ensured a ticket to the World Cup, but you can be certain at least 3 of the teams are more than good enough to get there. Look at what teams didn't make it from Europe. Turkey (current bronze holder), Greece (European Champion), Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Slovenia, Austria, Russia, Ireland, Scotland, Bulgaria. These teams would easily beat the likes of Angola, Togo, and Saudi Arabia. The 14 spots UEFA are given is a joke. There are 16 teams in the European Championships and the quality of play is much higher there, because you're ensured to get 16 top-class teams, unlike the World Cup where nearly half the teams are of a ridiculously low standard. Now, this being a World Cup I'm all for representation from all over the place, but 5 teams from CAF? What have they ever done since Roger Milla to deserve 5 teams in the World Cup? And CONMEBOL? 4.5 spots out of 10 teams?!? Aside from Brazil and Argentina, the average South American team is below the average European team. Sure, CONMEBOL has won the Cup lots of times, but only through Brazil, Argentina, or Uruguay (and Uruguay hasn't won it since 1950). There are a few powerhouses there, not a wide array of good teams, nothing to support the 4.5 spots they've been given. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6299 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| Well Africa just plays "top team from each pool goes through, end of story". So that's harder.
And it wouldn't have meant just us going through. Well, up until NZ football went to shit, it wouldn't have, and they still occasionally manage to beat us. We *have* had automatic qualification a couple of times in the past, that's how New Zealand got there back in the 70s or 80s. And, I've also gotta say, rankings aren't everything. They're heavily dependent on who you play and how often, and there's a definite bias in there towards the teams at the core who're playing regular fixtures against each other. I bet that, for example, quite a few African and North American teams are better than a lot of the lower ranked European sides like Austria or Russia they're ranked below. Just looking at us, for example, since we're one of those teams that suffers in the rankings due to lack of regular competitive matches... the teams ranked above Australia that we've beaten, in the last 5 years, are Paraguay, Colombia, Mexico, France, Brazil, Uruguay, England, Jamaica, South Africa. And the teams we've lost to: Ireland, Japan, Korea, Uruguay, Turkey, Tunisia, Argentina, Germany. And draws with Norway and Venezuela. So we're competitive, but having only played a few games a year against decent sides, our rankings languish in the 50s and 60s among sides we pretty easily beat these days. We're an extreme example, being more on the periphery than most, but it's still clear that volume of competitive matches is a significant bias in the rankings. It probably has to be this way, but we must recognise that its not an absolute guide. I guess the point I'm making is that it's seemingly a lot easier for improving European sides to jump in the rankings quickly, than for other sides, and it's probably easier for mediocre ones to maintain a decent position through the sheer volume of matches they play. Elsewhere, rankings are seemingly a more inexact guide because they're based on less matches. Just look at Africa, where none of the big powerhouses (Nigeria, Cameroon, Senegal, Egypt, South Africa, Morocco) qualified becuase 4 or 5 recently improved upstarts, with lower rankings, knocked them off. (edited by Arwon on 11-26-05 07:49 PM) |
|||
|
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
| Are you kidding me? First of all, I never said nothing about no stinking rankings, because the FIFA rankings are rubbish. Second of all, the reason FIFA rankings are rubbish are because the non-European teams are ranked too high. Look at the North American teams. Their qualification matches are against pretty easy oponents, so they get easy wins. The European teams, their qualification matches are against harder oponents, thus they don't get as many wins. What's the results, then? The FIFA rankings rate the North American teams higher, because they win a lot. The FIFA rankings get skewed because of this, and good European teams get shafted in the FIFA rankings, simply because their qual matches were against Italy, Scotland, Slovenia, Belarus, and Moldovia, while certain other teams have qual matches against Panama, Jamaica, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Trinidad & Tobago, Guatemala, and Mexico. Considerably easier oponents. And yes, the Africans may have only one qualifying from each group, but their oposition is much easier.
And Australia's results in friendly matches don't really mean jack. The average European squad is filled with relative stars who couldn't care less about playing for their national team (sadly), so doing anything in a friendly match ain't worth nothing to them. |
|||
Cynthia Uh-huh. Since: 11-17-05 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| SomerZ: I wouldn't exactly say SCOTLAND would be locks right now to beat Angola, Togo or Saudi Arabia. *cringes*
I hate the FIFA Rankings. They're a horrible way to seed teams/state that X is better than Y. For example, thanks to the rankings it seems Mexico will be a seed in the World Cup. No way in hell that should be happening. |
|||
|
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
| Now, I was sitting here, pondering the group stage in the UEFA Cup, when this interesting scenario sprung to mind. In it, four teams, called A, B, C, D, and E for simplicity's sake, are playing each other in a round-robin tournament, equal to that of the UEFA Cup. Just like the UEFA Cup, the best 3 are qualified for the next round. Now, with these results you have here:
A 0-0 B C 0-2 D E rests B 3-2 C D 0-1 E A rests B 0-0 D E 3-4 A C rests D 0-0 A C 0-0 E B rests A - C E - B D rests A 5pts-3matches 1W 2D 0L GD: 4-3 +1 B 5pts-3matches 1W 2D 0L GD: 3-2 +1 D 5pts-4matches 1W 2D 1L GD: 2-1 +1 E 4pts-3matches 1W 1D 1lL GD: 4-4 0 C 1pts-3matches 0W 1D 2lL GD: 2-5 -3 You'll have, as far as I can tell (and if my layout is correct), a situation where Team A, despite leading the group, not is sure of qualification, as a loss to team C with two goals would send them at five points with a -1 GD, and a draw between E and B would then have B win the group at 6 points, and D and E qualify at 5 points with better goal differences than team A. Team B would not be sure of qualification either, seeing as how a loss to team E would send them below team E on points, and below team D on goal difference. This along with a team A win against team C would knock team B out of the competition. Team D, however, would be assured qualification. They only need to have to teams behind them to qualify, and they've already beaten Team C regardless if they win or not. Since team B and team E play each other, a team B win would mean team E fell behind on fewer points, a draw would mean team D beat team E on goal difference, while a team E win would mean team D beat team B on goal difference. So what's my point here of this little scenario? Well, just that I find it fascinating, the whole thing. With a system such as this one, it is, the way I see it, technically possible for a team in third place to be ensured qualification for the next round, even though the teams in first and second are not. It may be highly unlikely that it will ever happen, but it sure would be funny to see it happen some time. |
|||
|
Cynthia Uh-huh. Since: 11-17-05 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| Could be worse in the UEFA Cup. You could be up 3-1 at the half looking like you're going to sail into the next round, and then watch the other team come back to win the game 4-3 and knock you out with one round left and no matches left for you to play.
...Oh wait.    |
|||
|
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
| Yeah, but that scenario you're putting up there seems so hair-brained that the only way I could see that happening was if you had a ref who would do things like, oh I don't know, let me find my list...
A: Not give you a penalty when your striker, who is alone against the goalkeeper, is tackled from behind by a player who is nowhere near tackling the ball. B: Blow an offside against you when your striker is alone against the goalkeeper, when the replays clearly show the striker was onside. C: Allow the 3-3 goal that was scored against you, even though the player who set up the goal with the cross pass took down the ball with his freaking hands. D: Call a foul against the goalkeeper on a corner, when what really happened was that the goalkeeper managed to drop the ball he tried to pick up, without any players near him, and then one of the defenders managed to kick it into his own net while trying to clear the ball. E: By virtue of calling that foul, instead of giving the goal that should have been, the ref would then also partake in making the 4-3 goal, since it came in the attack that followed the disallowed 3-4 goal. I mean, only by having a ref showing such extreme and true incompetence in refing a football match could the scenario you just put forth ever happen. |
|||
|
Cynthia Uh-huh. Since: 11-17-05 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| If A through E all happened, then I'd suggest that the team who was affected by those five things should complain to UEFA about the quality of officiating in the match, since if that many mistakes were made it's cause for concern.
I would also consider it extremely bad luck for the team as well.  |
|||
Toxic 250 TOX4ADMIN  Since: 11-17-05 From: I'm keeping a list. Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| You wanna talk about bad luck...in FIFA 06, the best football game ever, I was Tottenham for manager mode, and even though I was in the top half of the standings, around 11th I think, the assholes fired me after I lost 0-1 to Chelsea. CHELSEA.
Incredible. |
|||
|
Cynthia Uh-huh. Since: 11-17-05 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| 11th is middle of the table, so odds are they fired you not because of the Chelsea loss, but because they expected more out of you. You probably should have been in the top 8 range or something like that. | |||
|
Toxic 250 TOX4ADMIN Since: 11-17-05 From: I'm keeping a list. Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| It's sort of hard when your best player is injured within the first half of the first game >( | |||
|
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
United is out of the CL! Mohahahahaha! 
Any thoughts now? It's up to Bayern, Barca, Lyon, or Chelsea to take it, I'd say. |
|||
|
Cynthia Uh-huh. Since: 11-17-05 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| Lyon are an interesting dark horse but I know you only like them because Carew has been TEARING it up all season long. He'd likely be on a "Nations not in the World Cup" team for sure.
Rangers still in the CL. Despite that, however... what are the odds McLeish is sacked by Saturday again? I mean, they have to be quite good.
|
|||
|
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6303 days |
| ||
| Well, yes, Lyon (and especially Carew) has gotten a lot of coverage in the Norwegian media this season, but their form still speaks for itself. In the Ligue 1, 13 wins, 4 ties, 0 losses. Add that to their 5 wins and 1 tie from the Champions League (did you see Carew's goal against Real Madrid away, by the way? Beautiful), and you have some strong statistics.
As for McLeish, well, he's kind of like Rafa last year. Good in Europe, not so good domestically. |
|||
|
Cynthia Uh-huh. Since: 11-17-05 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| And they're going to KEEP McLeish in charge of Rangers for the rest of the year apparently.
Title's pretty much Celtic's to lose now I suppose. I'd love it if Hearts could challenge but if Rangers continue to struggle and Hearts slip up some more... not even close. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6299 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| A: Germany, Ecuador, Poland, Costa Rica
B: England, Paraguay, Sweden, T&T C: Argentina, Ivory Coast, Netherlands, Serbia & Montenegro D: Mexico, Angola, Portugal, Iran E: Italy, Ghana, Czech Republic, USA F: Brazil, Australia, Croatia, Japan G: France, Togo, Switzerland, South Korea H: Spain, Tunisia, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia First thought: Germany gets an easy group doesn't it. Second thought: Oh good, we get Brazil and Japan. |
|||
|
Cynthia Uh-huh. Since: 11-17-05 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| And Croatia which I'm sure a LOT of people in Australia will be happy about. Your draw's tricky but not the worst that you could have gotten... Japan will be a good test since you're joining the AFC. Australia has a chance.
A: Germany and Poland. Ecuador and Costa Rica are both pretty much outmatched and I can't see Costa Rica pulling a Senegal in the first match. B: England and Sweden in some order since they'll both go 2-1-0. Good draw for both teams... poor Trinidad. C: Hehehe... I don't know. Ask me again before the WC starts.  But if you had to pin me down to a prediction... Holland and Ivory Coast. I just can't see both Argentina and Holland advancing since that's too predictable.
D: Oh geez, way to give Mexico the easiest draw imaginable. They go through along with Portugal, most likely. E: Czech Republic and the US. Italy is going to choke and Ghana will play well but not good enough. I do like watching the US and hope that they reach the last 16, but anything past that will be tough. F: Brazil for sure... can't decide between Australia or Japan for second spot. G: France and South Korea. South Korea are NOT the team they were four years ago but this is possibly the best draw they could have gotten. H: Ukraine and Spain. Notice how I'm stating that Spain will not finish top of their group, but with Saudi Arabia and Tunisia in it... they can't fail to qualify. At least I hope. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6299 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| Well, practically half the Aussie team is of Croatian stock and there's a few former Aussies running around for the Croatian side, so that should make things interesting.
Brazil... ehh, we play them first, I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that we could cause a stunning upset. We *did* beat them in a Confederations Cup match a couple of years ago! Obviously we'll probably lose, but, totally written off, first match, you never ever know, maybe they're ripe for an upset. If they're going to drop a match early on it may well be against us. Japan... Japan we play strangely often, and they always beat us for some reason, be it in friendlies or tournaments. Either we struggle with their game (they seem a hell of a lot more team-oriented and precise than some of the, uh, flashier European and South American sides) or they're just a lot better than us. I'd have been happier with *any* other side from that Asia/America section of the draw except possibly Korea. Disappointed at the lack of a USA-Iran matchup or a Serbia-Croatia one. Australia is 125/1 to win the WC. I'm very tempted to throw down ten bucks at those odds. (edited by Arwon on 12-09-05 10:58 PM) |
|||
|
Cynthia Uh-huh. Since: 11-17-05 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
| USA/Iran couldn't have happened since they were both in Pot 4. Serbia/Croatia did come close to happening though.
If you can beat Croatia and draw Japan (or the other way around) you might be able to get through. If you could take a point away from Brazil you'd have a huge confidence boost, but the odds of that... yeah. Do the best you can there and then save your strength for the final two games because they'll be the ones that decide your fate. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Entertainment & Sports - The Football Thread: The World Cup Draw's done! |
| |
All you have to do is beat Basel in your final match and that SHOULD be enough. Staying alive.