Argentina not making the knockouts in 2002 was the most ridiculous thing ever
NZ qualifies for World Cup
- Thread starter gabi
- Start date
Fool, no-one has suggested that it shouldn't have representation from all over the world. Spare us your blustering pomposity.
I think most sensible people would agree that the present qualifying system is in need of reform. Personally I don't see why a qualifying system is necessary at all.
Personally I think it's hysterical that after years of Australia failing to get through play offs and eventually toddling off to Asia to find an easier route to the WC, the very next qualification tournament sees their neighbours across the Tasman Sea waltzing through to the finals.
Well done New Zealand
Well done New Zealand
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I though T&T played England off the park first half, and ?Terry cleared off the line at one point. Chris Birchall (Port Vale) took Lampard to bits in midfield. They were unlucky/not as fit, although bringing on Lennon and Rooney started turning it, especially since it meant getting the dreadful (on the day) Owen off.
Aaanyway. NZ. I saw the game, and yes they are going to get battered in SA I guess. Bahrain had some lovely play, probably better really but just never really made the chances.
Re: the qualifying debate, France have been pretty dreadful in the last 2 years and I still think the Irish might turn them over in Paris.
Augie March
blahem
All credit to them, but their qualification process was a bit of an easy ride with Australia out of their group.
Speaking of which, how exactly did the Aussies manage to pull that off that little continent switcheroo?
Speaking of which, how exactly did the Aussies manage to pull that off that little continent switcheroo?
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
I think you are wrong on that. I believe that the vast majority of sensible people would want to know there is a better option before reforming the current system. I've never seen a proposal that's less flawed than the current system. I'm not even all that sure that the flaws in the current system are much of a problem.
So long as the best four or five teams make it to the World Cup finals the eventual winners will in some sense deserve it. So long as plenty of the games are entertaining and there's plenty of good quality football played, then the tournament is a good one. Those are the main things.
If you want a tournament that is always predictable then I suspect that you are in a minority. Most people enjoy watching an unexpectedly good performance from a surprise qualifier. On the whole I'd rather watch Ghana play Mexico, or the Ivory Coast play Japan, than watch Italy against France yet again, or another interminable episode of Argentina versus Uruguay.
I agree with that. But it is a shame that so many great players are excluded from the finals. The current system also leads to lots of meaningless games with nothing at stake in the last fixture of the group stage.
I'd go for a knock-out system with no seeding and no qualifying rounds. The FA Cup on a global scale.
Giggs didn't play in any finals cos of the idiocy of having four teams for one sovereign state...
[/windup]
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
err... that´s daft though, think if San Marino drew Fiji.
That´s basically the equivalent of 40,000 miles travelling for the King´s Arms to play the The Golden Lion.
not-bono-ever
meh
I can see where you are coming from ....
but
The FIFA treasury dept would have no truck with that
they NEED the big names to go through to make the exercise profitable. a few tiddlers may add a bit of interest for those countries & people who want to see a game, but would bankrupt the WC tournament if it went all the way
mastercard would not pay xxx,xxx millions to be prime sponsor , if the finals games themselves were not watched in much of Europe as their teams didnt make the finals
That's the problem, yes. It's been quite obvious in recent tournaments that some of the results were pre-determined by corporate interests--South Korea reaching the semi-finals is perhaps the most blatant but by no means the only example.
But that's a bad thing, right?
not-bono-ever
meh
of course coroprate interests can devalue the game, but its realpolitik, whether is good or bad
sadly ( and cynically in my case ) , when the WC comes around, the wankers who really dont have a clue, jump on the bandwagon and begin to declare undying allegience to someone like Italy - which as we all know goes against what football is about ( cynical me again). I just cant see wholesome soccer moms & their teeth braced offspring rooting for egypt, in a final against Uzbekistan, regardless of the merit involved in actually getting there
Its no longer about football as such , its an entertainment - and ( cynically ) is geared towards producing a spectacle above all else.
on a personal level, I found Euro2008 to be gripping viewing - maybe cos there were no UK teams involved - you watched because you like the game & not just for the result of your home nation
sadly ( and cynically in my case ) , when the WC comes around, the wankers who really dont have a clue, jump on the bandwagon and begin to declare undying allegience to someone like Italy - which as we all know goes against what football is about ( cynical me again). I just cant see wholesome soccer moms & their teeth braced offspring rooting for egypt, in a final against Uzbekistan, regardless of the merit involved in actually getting there
Its no longer about football as such , its an entertainment - and ( cynically ) is geared towards producing a spectacle above all else.
on a personal level, I found Euro2008 to be gripping viewing - maybe cos there were no UK teams involved - you watched because you like the game & not just for the result of your home nation
Gingerman
Is a great bunch of lads.....
I thought Euro2008 was one of the best tournies in a long while,the fact that the best team won was an added bonus,Euro 1984 prob remains my favourite tournie ever, again one with no home nation involvement.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
How is Dwyer trolling? Its plainly obvious that it is a joke that NZ have qualified when there are probably 20 teams in Europe who would be at them who haven'y qualified. Either the World Cup is about the best teams in the world or its not.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
I dont think anyone is arguin against NZ being allowed to enter but a system that guarantees Oceania or whatever the group is called a place in the finals at the expense of far better teams is a joke. If Aus, NZ, Fiji etc had to play in the african or european groups they'd never qualify, which would be more than just.
It doesn't guarantee them a place, that's why they've always had to play off against various European, South American and Asian runners up. The entire reason Australia buggered off to the Asian confederation was because they always had to play Argentina or Iran or whoever and lost.
This time New Zealand had to play a decent Bahrain side who got past Saudi Arabia (who have been at the last few World Cups). There are plenty of European sides at the World Cup anyway, why should the rest of the world have to give up places at the World Cup to accommodate more?
This time New Zealand had to play a decent Bahrain side who got past Saudi Arabia (who have been at the last few World Cups). There are plenty of European sides at the World Cup anyway, why should the rest of the world have to give up places at the World Cup to accommodate more?
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
the welsh are just bitter because they haven't qualified. again.
Actually the main beneficiary of a more merit-based qualifying system would probably be Africa.
Those like Aylee and Belboid who think it is "trolling" to question the present system clearly have no idea about the history or politics of football. The system was necessary 30 years ago, when only Europe and South America had decent teams, but it is surely obsolete today--and kept in place for commercial considerations alone.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
It's never been about the best teams though. It's daft to suggest it is or ever was. Part of the function of that comp is to increase the profile of the sport, to demonstrate it is global and to throw a little money at the smaller countries.
It becomes a cup comp for the best teams in the world after the group stages/at the q-f stage. Why would people think otherwise?
It becomes a cup comp for the best teams in the world after the group stages/at the q-f stage. Why would people think otherwise?
What you say is true, but it's still a shame. Once one allows commercial considerations to enter into sport, there is no limit to the potential for corruption.
I've already mentioned South Korea's blatantly fixed "victories" over Spain and Italy in 2002. Yes, they made very good sense if the aim is to "increase the profile of the sport" globally, to help spread its popularity etc. The problem is, they make a travesty of the whole principle behind sport.
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
It's not. Never has been and never will be.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
because that is all he ever does.
And NZ qualified because (as others have said) they beat the requisite number of teams. They could have got there even if there had been a different system, if they'd have got lucky. It's how systems work.
And the best teams in the world will be at the world cup. whether NZ are actually one of the best teams, we'll see.
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
It's not just commercial considerations. Teams from different parts of the world have different styles of play, and different attitudes to the game. Part of the point of the World Cup is to cross fertilise that diversity. The game would be much poorer if African nations had been frozen out of the World Cup whilst the game was developing there. I'm sure that looking back in a decade or two it will be possible to say the same about Asian nations. The Japanese and Koreans, and the Arab nations, are developing quite distinctive styles of play. It's good for the game as a whole for them to get a chance to develop those approaches against top level opposition from elsewhere.
If it was just about money then a tournament that guaranteed the largest nations were there would be more effective.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
sorry, I think people are being a bit defensive here. I accept that the system is flawed but generally fair, that NZ deserve their shot. But they basically qualified by battering pub teams. Fiji are the second highest rated team in their group for fuck sake and actually managed to beat them. AT HOME. The top scorer in the group was Shane Smeltz, once of non-league AFC Wimbledon but never able to play for a league club.
NZ are absolutely pony, and I´d be shocked if they actually scored at the W/C let alone got a point.
There´s something instinctively unjust about NZ qualifying from playing 6 games against teams ranked lower by FIFA than Antigua, then winning a 2-game play-off against a team still ranked lower than Bolivia!
I think if you can´t see that you´re being daft.
NZ are absolutely pony, and I´d be shocked if they actually scored at the W/C let alone got a point.
There´s something instinctively unjust about NZ qualifying from playing 6 games against teams ranked lower by FIFA than Antigua, then winning a 2-game play-off against a team still ranked lower than Bolivia!
I think if you can´t see that you´re being daft.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
ffs what are New Zealand, League 1 standard?
