|
Post by frankiegth on Dec 4, 2009 16:53:43 GMT
Does anyone else feel this way about them?
World cup "draws" are a farce, by the time they've seeded the teams then come up with the various excuses why this nation has to be in a different pot to that nation and another country must be kept apart from someone else; they'd may aswell do away with any pretence of a free draw and let Septic Blatter and co just place the teams where they want them.
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Dec 4, 2009 19:00:36 GMT
I think it's a good thing that they keep certain sides apart; who would really want a group with North Korea, New Zealand, Honduras and Ghana all together, while in another there's Brazil, Spain, Argentina and Italy? Without the regional restrictions you might end up with most of the African teams all in one group as well.
On the other hand, the counter argument that that would just be the luck of the draw and they should live with it is always going to be there.
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 5, 2009 0:44:38 GMT
I think it's a good thing that they keep certain sides apart; who would really want a group with North Korea, New Zealand, Honduras and Ghana all together, while in another there's Brazil, Spain, Argentina and Italy? Without the regional restrictions you might end up with most of the African teams all in one group as well. On the other hand, the counter argument that that would just be the luck of the draw and they should live with it is always going to be there. I agree. The anomaly of 2010 is that its the first world cup to have an excess of weak teams competing and nobody is going to pay to watch New Zealand vs North Korea. Given the North Koreans ostensibly have great difficult getting out their country I suspect even Blyth Spartans paltry support could bring better numbers to KwaZulu-Natal. I thought the draw was well conducted and pots were well thought out and committed to providing equity for some of the smaller nations to have a crack at the whip. As it happens England have been placed in an enormously fortunate position of being virtually handed qualifying first in the group without doubt. I'm one of the few of tiering in the world cup and having the best of teams there and the poorer teams in a smaller event. I haven't enjoyed a world cup since '98, and '94, '02 and '06 have all been dry affairs in appreciation to the standard of football played. I don't think North Korea, New Zealand, Algeria, and a couple of others have any right to be there as they don't have any world class players and football is not the most prominent sport in either country, NZ in particularly have virtually been handed a spot in an unfair qualifying competition purely as a commercial expansion exercise by FIFA. For what it's worth I think it'll be an England - Spain final, and as always I think the competition will have its usually controversy, the idea of some of the Guateng hard nuts of gauteng meeting a load of European football Hooligans could cause some fracas.
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Dec 6, 2009 13:43:48 GMT
NZ still had to qualify via a playoff though despite winning their continent, so they weren't exactly 'handed' the place. I think since Australia moved to the Asian confederation it has become much easier to justify making it harder for OFC teams to get through, though.
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 6, 2009 22:21:58 GMT
NZ still had to qualify via a playoff though despite winning their continent, so they weren't exactly 'handed' the place. I think since Australia moved to the Asian confederation it has become much easier to justify making it harder for OFC teams to get through, though. They played Bahrain. If you think that isn't being handed a place then you seriously need a word with yourself. CONCACAF Should be widened to encompass the entire specific, then make the Australians and the Kiwis take on the U.S and Canada for a place. Far more befitting fixtures than glorified fluffers like Bahrain.
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Dec 7, 2009 12:35:17 GMT
Now come on Loy, you shouldn't be so afraid to say what you think ;D
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Dec 7, 2009 16:46:20 GMT
They played Bahrain. If you think that isn't being handed a place then you seriously need a word with yourself. Bahrain had to get past Saudi Arabia to get there, as well as only narrowly losing to Japan (2-3 and 0-1) and Australia (0-1) in the group stage. Just because they're not a traditional footballing nation doesn't mean that they would have been a pushover for New Zealand, even if one of the European nations might put 4 or 5 past them.
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 7, 2009 18:55:22 GMT
They played Bahrain. If you think that isn't being handed a place then you seriously need a word with yourself. Bahrain had to get past Saudi Arabia to get there, as well as only narrowly losing to Japan (2-3 and 0-1) and Australia (0-1) in the group stage. Just because they're not a traditional footballing nation doesn't mean that they would have been a pushover for New Zealand, even if one of the European nations might put 4 or 5 past them. They were pushovers, and New Zealand still made had work of beating them. If anything your point gives further credence that these teams should not even be considered for the World Cup. For example, New Zealand lost to Fiji in their qualifying group, how can you claim a place on the World's Showcase of Football knowing you can't beat a tiny Island nation where football is the third (third!) biggest sport. It's slightly embarrassing. Bahrain are worse. Their players mostly play domestic football and you're incorrect about them defeating Saudi - they needed the away goals rule to see them through. Don't get me wrong, I love my underdogs - being a Gateshead fan should prove that however we aren't talking about grassroots passion for the lower leagues we're talking the elite of world football. I spent quite a bit of time in NZ over the summer and people don't give two hoots about footy, Netball is a bigger sport. I managed to get to see Melbourne Victory play an indoor match with Wellington Pheonix (NZs only pro club and the one most the players play for) and it was absolutely dire. I would back Southport to give them a going over. I also got talking to a kiwi who explained how a young kid was released from a league 2 club and instead of doing the rounds in the local non-league (potentially ending up in the 7th tier in the North East) he went to play for the Pheonix and was hailed as an all conquering prodigy. It should go towards trying to show the dearth of talent over there. FIFA have long since kept a keen eye on bringing football to the New World and the far reaches of the commonwealth and the only way to do that is to park their tanks on the fields of Oceania and fire fifty pound notes at them, which in this case has seen a concerted effort to hand them a World Cup place. They've got it now and I have to say I feel sorry for these Kiwis who will line in South Africa, for as proud and patriotic as I'm sure they are, they are not international class footballers. Cricket has the right idea and Rugby have the right idea. Seed the very best teams and allow limited additional space for emerging nations, and have a precursor tournament for teams like NZ who just can't make the grade yet. Otherwise it's not fair on the teams who really should be involved.
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Dec 7, 2009 21:06:05 GMT
They were pushovers, and New Zealand still made had work of beating them. If anything your point gives further credence that these teams should not even be considered for the World Cup. For example, New Zealand lost to Fiji in their qualifying group, how can you claim a place on the World's Showcase of Football knowing you can't beat a tiny Island nation where football is the third (third!) biggest sport. It's slightly embarrassing. The World Cup isn't just about showcasing the same old 'big' European and South American nations though with a few others deemed 'worthy'. It's meant to be a chance for any nation to perform on the world stage. New Zealand earned their right to play at the tournament and part of the fun is in watching how smaller teams get on when the likes of NZ, North Korea, Togo, Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica manage to qualify. Bahrain are worse. Their players mostly play domestic football and you're incorrect about them defeating Saudi - they needed the away goals rule to see them through. If you read my post again you'll see that I didn't say that they beat them. And most English players play domestic football, so I don't see what difference that ought to make. Cricket has the right idea and Rugby have the right idea. Seed the very best teams and allow limited additional space for emerging nations, and have a precursor tournament for teams like NZ who just can't make the grade yet. Otherwise it's not fair on the teams who really should be involved. I can see where you're coming from but I think one of the things that's good about football is its universality - the fact that weaker nations can come through and play at a World Cup. Would you begrudge them the honour of playing in the world's biggest football tournament, even if they do go on to finish bottom of their group on -15 goal difference having not scored a goal? That won't matter to them, the fact that they've played will be an honour that they'll always cherish.
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Dec 7, 2009 21:31:23 GMT
The World Cup isn't just about showcasing the same old 'big' European and South American nations though with a few others deemed 'worthy'. It's meant to be a chance for any nation to perform on the world stage. New Zealand earned their right to play at the tournament and part of the fun is in watching how smaller teams get on when the likes of NZ, North Korea, Togo, Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica manage to qualify.. Of course it is! There's never been a world cup final without a South American or European team. It's not part of the fun as nobody gives the slightest chuff about the minnow nations and it can become embarrassing for the tournament and the nations involved. See Germany vs Saudi, Japan/Korea '02. You can't compare footballing nations like trini and the reggae boyz with slapdash outfits like North Korea or NZ. [If you read my post again you'll see that I didn't say that they beat them. And most English players play domestic football, so I don't see what difference that ought to make.. Are you comparing the quality of the English premier league to that of it's Bahraini counterpart? If so, that's absolutely mental mate. Mad as a bottle of crisps getting cartwheeled over by singing frogs. [I can see where you're coming from but I think one of the things that's good about football is its universality - the fact that weaker nations can come through and play at a World Cup. Would you begrudge them the honour of playing in the world's biggest football tournament, even if they do go on to finish bottom of their group on -15 goal difference having not scored a goal? That won't matter to them, the fact that they've played will be an honour that they'll always cherish. Yeah I would begrudge them in a heartbeat. If you're not good enough you shouldn't playing otherwise I would've happily signed up as a footballer at the careers office. Football, like any pro sport, is a branch of the entertainment industry and non-footballing nations who aren't going to play good football and have no quality in their team aren't going to attract any attention. The best world cup in my opinion was '98 as it didn't have any minnows in the conventional sense - every nation felt the weight of public expectation on their shoulders and thus you saw some of the best international football produced in a major tournament culmulating in the start of France's golden age. It was absolutely fantastic and I savoured absolutely every minute of it. 2002, 2006 and I expect 2010 were entirely a different kettle of fish. The tournament has lost its lustre and it's characters, real underdogs like Scotland and Ireland. Magical performances expected from the Brazilians, but also less lauded teams like Paraguay and Costa Rica don't happen anymore as they're put into groups with utiliterian teams that've been conscripted in banal qualifying rounds to be virtual cannon fodder for the big teams whilst breaking new commercial ground in the far east and oceania.
|
|
|
Post by peekay on Dec 7, 2009 22:08:32 GMT
Is it wrong that I chuckled at Loy's earlier post due to only recently discovering what a fluffer is?
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Dec 8, 2009 0:43:27 GMT
Of course it is! There's never been a world cup final without a South American or European team. It's not part of the fun as nobody gives the slightest chuff about the minnow nations and it can become embarrassing for the tournament and the nations involved. See Germany vs Saudi, Japan/Korea '02. You can't compare footballing nations like trini and the reggae boyz with slapdash outfits like North Korea or NZ. You've made your point about NZ, but I think North Korea have just as much right to be there as T&T or Jamaica. North Korea had to come through just as difficult a qualifying campaign as any CONCACAF team. Are you comparing the quality of the English premier league to that of it's Bahraini counterpart? If so, that's absolutely mental mate. Mad as a bottle of crisps getting cartwheeled over by singing frogs. No, of course not. What I'm saying is that just because they play in their own domestic league doesn't make them any less able as players. The Bahraini league obviously isn't as good as most European leagues, but that doesn't mean that Bahrain couldn't find 11 half-decent players within that league. Yeah I would begrudge them in a heartbeat. If you're not good enough you shouldn't playing otherwise I would've happily signed up as a footballer at the careers office. Football, like any pro sport, is a branch of the entertainment industry and non-footballing nations who aren't going to play good football and have no quality in their team aren't going to attract any attention. The best world cup in my opinion was '98 as it didn't have any minnows in the conventional sense - every nation felt the weight of public expectation on their shoulders and thus you saw some of the best international football produced in a major tournament culmulating in the start of France's golden age. It was absolutely fantastic and I savoured absolutely every minute of it. 2002, 2006 and I expect 2010 were entirely a different kettle of fish. The tournament has lost its lustre and it's characters, real underdogs like Scotland and Ireland. Magical performances expected from the Brazilians, but also less lauded teams like Paraguay and Costa Rica don't happen anymore as they're put into groups with utiliterian teams that've been conscripted in banal qualifying rounds to be virtual cannon fodder for the big teams whilst breaking new commercial ground in the far east and oceania. If there wasn't a fair chance for teams from the far east or Oceania to qualify then it wouldn't be a World Cup, would it? Just because they're not as good as top nations shouldn't make a difference. It is just as entertaining to see a plucky underdog go down fighting against a 'big' team as any other match at the tournament. OK, if they lose by 5 goals or more then it would get one-sided and boring, but that doesn't tend to happen at world cups and I'm fairly sure that, apart from maybe in the case of Italy vs. NZ, it won't be the case this time either. Also, have you perhaps thought that you remember '98 being so good because of the nostalgia factor of it or because it overlapped with a certain time in your life? I don't think that you could argue that the likes of Tunisia, Jamaica, USA, South Korea and Japan weren't seen as traditional minnows at the time. Jamaica only finished with points because they had Japan in their group to beat. Throughout World Cup history there have always been small teams qualifying, and it is always good fun to follow their progress. Who could really say that the antics of Zaire and Haiti et al haven't been entertaining?
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Dec 8, 2009 13:08:02 GMT
I guess all this depends on what you see as the "point" of the World Cup. Is it about having an opportunity for teams from all nations to play one another? Is it strictly to entertain the masses - and what do we consider more entertaining? Watching the best football in the world, watching matches between unlikely duos involving serious underdogs (like the FA Cup) or a bit of both?
|
|
|
Post by LeedsWCFC on Dec 10, 2009 2:30:50 GMT
It's not part of the fun as nobody gives the slightest chuff about the minnow nations... I'm a nobody then! Watching the progress (or lack of it) of the 'minor' footballing nations is often at least as equally appealing as seeing how the big guns get on. It's surprising that someone on a forum for tinpotters thinks that the little 'uns don't deserve their share of the spotlight. Tell you what: scrap the qualifying rounds of the F.A. Cup as none of our clubs has an earthly chance of winning it.
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Dec 10, 2009 13:07:33 GMT
100% with you Leeds - I'm nobody too!
|
|