Guest Sima Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Oceania had a World Cup place for all of a month IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43842 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Have they taken that back off them now? Blaydon will be seething. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Have they taken that back off them now? Blaydon will be seething. 28524[/snapback] from http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/1/862 World Cup draw in FrankfurtDec 3, 2003 Oceania, meanwhile, has been seething since June when FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, announced that it had been stripped of an automatic place in the 2006 World Cup and instead would have to achieve entry via a play-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Two best placed 2nd teams automatically qualify, the other 6 have to play each other. In groups where there are more teams only the results against the other top 5 teams in the group count. Seems perfectly fair to me. 28520[/snapback] Well, in recent years Rep. of Ireland, Holland and Portugal were all drawn in the same group. Now that group was clearly stronger than lots of other groups. So, is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43842 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Have they taken that back off them now? Blaydon will be seething. 28524[/snapback] from http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/1/862 World Cup draw in FrankfurtDec 3, 2003 Oceania, meanwhile, has been seething since June when FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, announced that it had been stripped of an automatic place in the 2006 World Cup and instead would have to achieve entry via a play-off. 28527[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Have they taken that back off them now? Blaydon will be seething. 28524[/snapback] from http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/1/862 World Cup draw in FrankfurtDec 3, 2003 Oceania, meanwhile, has been seething since June when FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, announced that it had been stripped of an automatic place in the 2006 World Cup and instead would have to achieve entry via a play-off. 28527[/snapback] Really? That's news to me. It's funny as fuck like, especially as they've just given the mighty Solomon Islands a 7-0 drubbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Remind me, were Ireland at WC 98? were Holland at WC2002? Same boring old argument about seedings (OMG HOW ARE MEXICO THAT HIGH!!!1111ONE) is where this is going. FIFA sort it out as the best they can and it is the fairest. Remind me of Holland and Ireland's record in recent major championships (12 years) to suggest they should be seperated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Remind me, were Ireland at WC 98? were Holland at WC2002? Same boring old argument about seedings (OMG HOW ARE MEXICO THAT HIGH!!!1111ONE) is where this is going. FIFA sort it out as the best they can and it is the fairest. Remind me of Holland and Ireland's record in recent major championships (12 years) to suggest they should be seperated. 28535[/snapback] OK, first though remind me where I've said they should be separated then I'll get back to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Maybe where you suggested it wasn't fair? How would you make it fair? I'd advise you to take a look at the other groups before you make a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Maybe where you suggested it wasn't fair? How would you make it fair? I'd advise you to take a look at the other groups before you make a decision. 28541[/snapback] It is slightly unfair on teams who are drawn in the toughest groups though, wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Maybe where you suggested it wasn't fair? How would you make it fair? I'd advise you to take a look at the other groups before you make a decision. 28541[/snapback] It is slightly unfair on teams who are drawn in the toughest groups though, wouldn't you agree? 28549[/snapback] How are you defining toughest groups? Teams are seeded according to their rankings and recent records in said competition not on their name. This gives nations of the likes of Ukraine the opportunity to qualify for their first tournament and teams with a significantly lower ranking than their fellow group members the chance to upset the applecart (ala Switzerland) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 The ones with the best teams in, funnily enough. Would you like a definition of best teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9652 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 (edited) Separating the South American countries would only be needed if they played more international games than European teams. They don't. There isn't a huge difference if you play 18 games spread between September 2003 and October 2005 (South America) or 10-12 games between August 2004 and October 2005 (Europe)... If you scrapped some South American qualifying matches they would play friendlies instead... Edited September 5, 2005 by Isegrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43842 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 The ones with the best teams in, funnily enough. Would you like a definition of best teams? 28559[/snapback] Sarcastic-tastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Separating the South American countries would only be needed if they played more international games than European teams. They don't. There isn't a huge difference if you play 18 games spread between September 2003 and October 2005 (South America) or 10-12 games between August 2004 and October 2005 (Europe)... If you scrapped some South American qualifying matches they would play friendlies instead... 28561[/snapback] Yes but the players tend to play in Europe, so you have to consider the extra travelling too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 The ones with the best teams in, funnily enough. Would you like a definition of best teams? 28559[/snapback] If you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9652 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Separating the South American countries would only be needed if they played more international games than European teams. They don't. There isn't a huge difference if you play 18 games spread between September 2003 and October 2005 (South America) or 10-12 games between August 2004 and October 2005 (Europe)... If you scrapped some South American qualifying matches they would play friendlies instead... 28561[/snapback] Yes but the players tend to play in Europe, so you have to consider the extra travelling too. 28564[/snapback] The last friendlies played by Peru: Chile (home), UAE (in Japan), Japan (away), Argentine (in USA), Spain (away, Feb 2004), Guatemala (home), Mexico (in USA), Uruguay (home) ... the next friendly played by Peru in Europe was played against Holland in 1998... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Separating the South American countries would only be needed if they played more international games than European teams. They don't. There isn't a huge difference if you play 18 games spread between September 2003 and October 2005 (South America) or 10-12 games between August 2004 and October 2005 (Europe)... If you scrapped some South American qualifying matches they would play friendlies instead... 28561[/snapback] Yes but the players tend to play in Europe, so you have to consider the extra travelling too. 28564[/snapback] The last friendlies played by Peru: Chile (home), UAE (in Japan), Japan (away), Argentine (in USA), Spain (away, Feb 2004), Guatemala (home), Mexico (in USA), Uruguay (home) ... the next friendly played by Peru in Europe was played against Holland in 1998... 28577[/snapback] I'm not sure what point your making but I meant the competitive games which (excluding World Cup Finals) would all be played in South America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Separating the South American countries would only be needed if they played more international games than European teams. They don't. There isn't a huge difference if you play 18 games spread between September 2003 and October 2005 (South America) or 10-12 games between August 2004 and October 2005 (Europe)... If you scrapped some South American qualifying matches they would play friendlies instead... 28561[/snapback] Yes but the players tend to play in Europe, so you have to consider the extra travelling too. 28564[/snapback] The last friendlies played by Peru: Chile (home), UAE (in Japan), Japan (away), Argentine (in USA), Spain (away, Feb 2004), Guatemala (home), Mexico (in USA), Uruguay (home) ... the next friendly played by Peru in Europe was played against Holland in 1998... 28577[/snapback] Michael J. Fox? And I apologise for the cheap jibe at the German who in fact writes better English than I do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9652 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Separating the South American countries would only be needed if they played more international games than European teams. They don't. There isn't a huge difference if you play 18 games spread between September 2003 and October 2005 (South America) or 10-12 games between August 2004 and October 2005 (Europe)... If you scrapped some South American qualifying matches they would play friendlies instead... 28561[/snapback] Yes but the players tend to play in Europe, so you have to consider the extra travelling too. 28564[/snapback] The last friendlies played by Peru: Chile (home), UAE (in Japan), Japan (away), Argentine (in USA), Spain (away, Feb 2004), Guatemala (home), Mexico (in USA), Uruguay (home) ... the next friendly played by Peru in Europe was played against Holland in 1998... 28577[/snapback] I'm not sure what point your making but I meant the competitive games which (excluding World Cup Finals) would all be played in South America. 28580[/snapback] And I said that scrapping competitive matches would lead to the fact that they will play friendlies instead (to what they are entitled to). But countries like Peru tend to play South American opponents in friendlies... So the achievement would be what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieshandy 0 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Wasn't one of the reasons that SBR was annoyed was not just the distance to travel to play for his country but that the games were var nigh pointless due to Peru being unable to qualify at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Separating the South American countries would only be needed if they played more international games than European teams. They don't. There isn't a huge difference if you play 18 games spread between September 2003 and October 2005 (South America) or 10-12 games between August 2004 and October 2005 (Europe)... If you scrapped some South American qualifying matches they would play friendlies instead... 28561[/snapback] Yes but the players tend to play in Europe, so you have to consider the extra travelling too. 28564[/snapback] The last friendlies played by Peru: Chile (home), UAE (in Japan), Japan (away), Argentine (in USA), Spain (away, Feb 2004), Guatemala (home), Mexico (in USA), Uruguay (home) ... the next friendly played by Peru in Europe was played against Holland in 1998... 28577[/snapback] I'm not sure what point your making but I meant the competitive games which (excluding World Cup Finals) would all be played in South America. 28580[/snapback] And I said that scrapping competitive matches would lead to the fact that they will play friendlies instead (to what they are entitled to). But countries like Peru tend to play South American opponents in friendlies... So the achievement would be what? 28586[/snapback] I take your point but I still think the South American World Cup qualifying route is ridiculously convoluted. Also, if Peru played more friendlies they may have to play more of them in Europe. I'm guessing they have a fair few players based in Europe (in Spain?) although I'm not sure this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 The ones with the best teams in, funnily enough. Would you like a definition of best teams? 28559[/snapback] If you like. 28569[/snapback] ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9652 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Separating the South American countries would only be needed if they played more international games than European teams. They don't. There isn't a huge difference if you play 18 games spread between September 2003 and October 2005 (South America) or 10-12 games between August 2004 and October 2005 (Europe)... If you scrapped some South American qualifying matches they would play friendlies instead... 28561[/snapback] Yes but the players tend to play in Europe, so you have to consider the extra travelling too. 28564[/snapback] The last friendlies played by Peru: Chile (home), UAE (in Japan), Japan (away), Argentine (in USA), Spain (away, Feb 2004), Guatemala (home), Mexico (in USA), Uruguay (home) ... the next friendly played by Peru in Europe was played against Holland in 1998... 28577[/snapback] I'm not sure what point your making but I meant the competitive games which (excluding World Cup Finals) would all be played in South America. 28580[/snapback] And I said that scrapping competitive matches would lead to the fact that they will play friendlies instead (to what they are entitled to). But countries like Peru tend to play South American opponents in friendlies... So the achievement would be what? 28586[/snapback] I take your point but I still think the South American World Cup qualifying route is ridiculously convoluted. Also, if Peru played more friendlies they may have to play more of them in Europe. I'm guessing they have a fair few players based in Europe (in Spain?) although I'm not sure this. 28600[/snapback] I just know Pizarro and Guerrero who play for Bayern. Funnily enough their commitment has never been a big issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 The ones with the best teams in, funnily enough. Would you like a definition of best teams? 28559[/snapback] If you like. 28569[/snapback] ? 28604[/snapback] Sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic TBH. You really don't know what the phrase 'best teams' means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now