There might be a few who think that the draw is made randomly, hah, remember the fiasco the last time Scotland qualified, and their number was drawn out, and put back in as it was a ‘mistake’, and it was incredibly prescient for the commentator to mention Nigeria(quote - “Oh, that’ll be Nigeria then”) just as the ball was drawn out as the next number to complete the England group.
Seems surprising to me that the selection procedure puts England lower than Germany seeing as how Germany could only qualify through playoffs, and the team that put them down into those playoffs was England.
What the heck is the point of winning the group if you are not going to be one of the seeded teams, Nigeria has a right to be aggrieved too for that very reason.
Spain rated as a seeded nation, not on your life, they always choke in the big tournaments, many other teams have far better records, they just have a collection of good individuals, but cannot get it together as a team
As I understand it the seeding takes into account international competition going back through the last three World Cups (so back through 1990). Which I admit is silly, but that FIFA for you. I mean, how many players are still playing for their national side who also played in the 1990 Cup? England missing one of the Finals in that period certainly hurt them. If the World Cup were played every year this would be alleviated, but then it wouldn’t be so special, not to mention the logistical nightmare. One big problem is the lack of head to head competition across regions in the interim. So this past European qualification has a much lower impact. And if it did, England would still find itself toward the bottom of the pecking order (perhaps you’d be happier with Sweden or Poland seeded higher?) I don’t believe there is any way to make everyone happy in this.
Note that Holland reached the finals in both those tournaments.
[sub]And fuckin’ lost them twice, yes. GAAAH!!![/sub]
You lot should be alright, then!
Milo, no offense, but trust me: there’s no way in hell the US will beat Portugal. They’re a pretty good team, and they’re showing great progress. But they’re not gonna beat Portugal.
Andy - for heaven’s sake, man. One must take ones crumbs of cumfort where one can. Whatever happened to a stiff upper lip? We fear no other nations - we are mighty England! Admittedly, a mighty England with no tournament wins for 36 years as at next year’s WC, but never let simple facts lessen your resolve.
I also think it stupid that winning your group doesn’t entitle you to a top seeding. But strength in adversity, hey? Tally ho chaps!
There are 8 groups at the World Cup. There are nine group winners out of Europe alone. If you count France, which earned the returning Champion’s bye as a seed, then that’s 10 for Europe. Just Europe. So how would you propose to do this?
Well, I concede that you make a very good point. But I would start in my attempt by NOT giving seedings to anyone who came SECOND in their group. Or to Japan or South Korea - I mean, what they bloody hell is THAT all about?
I think everyone realises that the way FIFA runs things, for example making it very difficult for teams to qualify from Europe relative to the number of good teams, versus other areas of the world, is dictated by their political desire to see football played more widely. Hence the draws and the way the qualifying is organised are designed to favour the up and coming countries. Fair? Not for me to say.
Is it possible to quantify the perceived increased difficulty in qualifying from Europe against, say, Asia? The FIFA rankings wouldn’t be much use…
