|
|
Post by SpiderBee on Dec 2, 2009 13:51:54 GMT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pot 1 (seeded teams) Brazil, Spain, Holland, Italy, Germany, Argentina, England and South Africa
• Pot 2 will be composed of teams from Asia (Australia, Japan, Korea DPR, Korea Republic), North, Central America and the Caribbean (Honduras, Mexico, USA) and Oceania (New Zealand)
• Pot 3 will include teams from Africa (Algeria, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria) and South America (Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay)
• Pot 4 will have the remaining European teams (Denmark, France, Greece, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland)
• hosts South Africa will be automatically positioned as A1;
• geographical criteria will also be respected, meaning that no two teams from the same confederation will be drawn in the same group (except European teams, where a maximum of two will be in a group). For example, South Africa cannot play the African teams from Pot 3 and Argentina and Brazil cannot be drawn against the three remaining South American teams.
Prediction
England
New Zealand
Ivory Coast
Greece
|
|
billy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by billy on Dec 2, 2009 15:39:52 GMT
Cheatfest 2010
|
|
|
|
Post by Burtie on Dec 2, 2009 16:11:14 GMT
Seems pretty convoluted to me. Has the draw always been like that?
|
|
taz
Top Performer
Posts: 3,760
|
Post by taz on Dec 2, 2009 16:56:47 GMT
Can't remember how long they've been doing it that way, but FIFA will do absolutely all they can to prevent the 'big' names going out early.
Sadly, 'shocks' like Sengal - France & Cameroon - Argentina shouldn't happen on planet Blatter. It's bad for sponsors and advertising, which is of course what the world cup is all about.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Chalmers on Dec 2, 2009 18:06:32 GMT
Surely France are nailed on with a warm ball to play South Africa, can't have them going out!!
|
|
|
|
Post by vern on Dec 2, 2009 22:01:59 GMT
I want North Korea to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Dec 2, 2009 22:31:00 GMT
I'll be following the Euro 2004 champions of course  |
|
Rax
1st team Player
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Rax on Dec 3, 2009 9:12:48 GMT
I still maintain that the qualifying rounds should be an open draw. It's just tough if all the 'big guns' get put together. I also want it to be de-zoned. Nothing wrong with Brazil being away to Kiribati is there?  I appreciate this will never happen and de-zoning wouldn't be financialy doable for the smaller countries but one can dream. |
|
|
|
Post by Burtie on Dec 3, 2009 9:27:51 GMT
I suppose it's a question about whether the "World Cup" should be:
a) a cup for the best football nations in the world, or
b) a cup to represent football nations from all over the world
The current system leans toward (b), which seems right to me. With a completely open draw, no "minnow" would ever qualify for the finals, and the World Cup would simply become the Euro Championships, + Argentina, Brazil, and maybe a couple of the African nations.
Unlikely that the New Zealands of this world would ever make an appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by fluffy rascal on Dec 3, 2009 9:42:01 GMT
I'll be following the Euro 2004 champions of course Think i'll join ya |
|
Rax
1st team Player
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Rax on Dec 3, 2009 10:04:53 GMT
I suppose it's a question about whether the "World Cup" should be: a) a cup for the best football nations in the world, or b) a cup to represent football nations from all over the world The current system leans toward (b), which seems right to me. With a completely open draw, no "minnow" would ever qualify for the finals, and the World Cup would simply become the Euro Championships, + Argentina, Brazil, and maybe a couple of the African nations. Unlikely that the New Zealands of this world would ever make an appearance. A completely open draw could have a 'minnow' get through if the draw fell right. Luxembourg, San Marino, Faroe Islands, Lichtenstein etc all getting put together for example. Highly unlikely I agree but hey ho. |
|
|
|
Post by Burtie on Dec 3, 2009 12:52:39 GMT
I like the idea of crap teams qualifying. Perhaps they could re-arrange the qualifying and seeding rankings so that teams compete against teams of similar ability for a place in the finals?
So you'd put all the top seeds in groups together - and say top 40 teams and 20 would qualify. All the 2nd seeds together - 8 would qualify. All the 3rd seeds together, 2 qualify. 1 each from the 4th and 5th seeds, so you'd be guaranteed a couple of really poor teams at the finals.
It's a crap idea and I haven't thought it through properly, but maybe it'll spark a better idea in someone more sensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by SpiderBee on Dec 3, 2009 13:30:21 GMT
|
|
taz
Top Performer
Posts: 3,760
|
Post by taz on Dec 3, 2009 14:48:38 GMT
Rings a bell. Didn't know it was for a documentary. Will have to pick up a copy of that at some point! How times have changed though. Bhutan are a lofty 196th in the world now!
There really should be a 'crap World Cup'. Get the 32 worst ranked sides in the world together and let 'em play it out amongst themselves. Far more interesting than the bloated corporate nonsense the main tournament has become. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Burtie on Dec 3, 2009 16:11:21 GMT
Rings a bell. Didn't know it was for a documentary. Will have to pick up a copy of that at some point! How times have changed though. Bhutan are a lofty 196th in the world now! There really should be a 'crap World Cup'. Get the 32 worst ranked sides in the world together and let 'em play it out amongst themselves. Far more interesting than the bloated corporate nonsense the main tournament has become. ;D My old Sunday team, Surrey Saints, are surely one of the 32 worst teams in the world.  |
|
I appreciate this will never happen and de-zoning wouldn't be financialy doable for the smaller countries but one can dream.
