How would you allocate the 32 WC spots?

[Brazil]

What? When? fwiw Australia might be a second round of WC tier too. Last WC the only SA team to not make the second round was Ecuador, and they almost did it. They are even better now. And Paraguay and Peru are on that level too.

yeah and when WC will be played in Europe, only 2 will make the second round and you will crap euro teams making it

[spursistan]

the bigger problem is the hosting rights..I'm still wondering how that blatantly corrupt, and unfathomable Qatar 2022 bid is still standing as we speak..As I"m typing this couple of south east Asian laborers may have just keeled over and died from scalding heat on their construction sites..

Weren't not for that tiny statelet being a US ally/client, i am' almost sure FBI would have gone the whole hog in their Fifa investigation and wrested that WC back to America or Australia...

there are like 10 countries in the world who can actually organize this thing successfully, and maybe 5 others on co-bids.. the disgrace that's Qatar 2022 should never happen..

[Canyonero]

Almost every winning bid is suspected of corruption.

[DAF86]

yeah and when WC will be played in Europe, only 2 will make the second round and you will crap euro teams making it

In Africa SA qualified all its teams to the second round. Why can't Euros perform outside their home son?

[spursistan]

Almost every winning bid is suspected of corruption.

there are different levels of corruption.....hosting WC in a place the size of Connecticut, deep in the desert where human rights are an afterthought (to put it mildly) is most disgraceful "money-talk" act in history of organized sports..

How is this is still going ahead after seeing all its architects in Fifa, one after the other, getting outed as grubby criminals/thiefs is still beyond me..i'm sure it's a political decision at the highest of levels..the Emir of Qatar must have gotten on his knees in the white house or in the Edgar Hoover building ..

[Canyonero]

there are different levels of corruption.....hosting WC in a place the size of Connecticut, deep in the desert where human rights are an afterthought (to put it mildly) is most disgraceful "money-talk" act in history of organized sports..

How is this is still going ahead after seeing all its architects in Fifa, one after the other, getting outed as grubby criminals/thiefs is still beyond me..i'm sure it's a political decision at the highest of levels..the Emir of Qatar must have gotten on his knees in the white house or in the Edgar Hoover building ..

USA is more interested in Russia's bid

[Brazil]

In Africa SA qualified all its teams to the second round. Why can't Euros perform outside their home son?

Son, considering last two winners in Africa and Brazil are Europeans I'd say Euros are doing fine outside their home even tho losing a bit deadmeat in first stage

In US Euros did ok for the second round and globally euros are also doing fine in Europe and next WC is in Europe.... in 2006, Euros qualified 70% of the teams, % much better than latin america tbh

[DAF86]

Son, considering last two winners in Africa and Brazil are Europeans I'd say Euros are doing fine outside their home even tho losing a bit deadmeat in first stage

In US Euros did ok for the second round and globally euros are also doing fine in Europe and next WC is in Europe.... in 2006, Euros qualified 70% of the teams, % much better than latin america tbh

The powerhouses will always do well anywhere, and seeing that Europe has like 66% or 70% of the powerhouses (meaning everyone except Brazil and Argentina), it's natural for Europe to win most of the WC's, tbh.

The second tier teams, those that some say "make the Euros harder than the WC" () tend to have problems when playing outside of Europe.

[spursistan]

Son, considering last two winners in Africa and Brazil are Europeans I'd say Euros are doing fine outside their home even tho losing a bit deadmeat in first stage

In US Euros did ok for the second round and globally euros are also doing fine in Europe and next WC is in Europe.... in 2006, Euros qualified 70% of the teams, % much better than latin america tbh

..

We were a penalty a shootout from having the last 3 WCs Final spots being occupied by 6 European teams ..SA kinda has no room right now.. And theirs will only get tighter when a WC is played in Siberia in 2018 where powerhouses Italy/Spain will most likely regain back their spots in R16 and on from South Americans (not to mention a bunch of East European NTs will do well there too).....

[Brazil]

The powerhouses will always do well anywhere, and seeing that Europe has like 66% or 70% of the powerhouses (meaning everyone except Brazil and Argentina), it's natural for Europe to win most of the WC's, tbh.

The second tier teams, those that some say "make the Euros harder than the WC" () tend to have problems when playing outside of Europe.

I just found funny to say euros cannot perform outside their home when they just won two in a row, powerhouses are part of the equation son, untill recently SA powerhouses had as much as WC than Europe tbh

Point is second tier euro teams are playing just fine at home and next WC is at home

[lefty]

there are different levels of corruption.....hosting WC in a place the size of Connecticut, deep in the desert where human rights are an afterthought (to put it mildly) is most disgraceful "money-talk" act in history of organized sports..

How is this is still going ahead after seeing all its architects in Fifa, one after the other, getting outed as grubby criminals/thiefs is still beyond me..i'm sure it's a political decision at the highest of levels..the Emir of Qatar must have gotten on his knees in the white house or in the Edgar Hoover building ..

There is corruption in every bid tbh, 94 wasn't different

[DAF86]

I just found funny to say euros cannot perform outside their home when they just won two in a row, powerhouses are part of the equation son, untill recently SA powerhouses had as much as WC than Europe tbh

Point is second tier euro teams are playing just fine at home and next WC is at home

And what does any of that has to do with what I said aboout 8 of the 10 conmebol teams being second round of the WC tier? Or are you just being a for the sake of being a ?

[dfens]

And what does any of that has to do with what I said aboout 8 of the 10 conmebol teams being second round of the WC tier? Or are you just being a for the sake of being a ?

son if you count second round teams for the last ten years you get a europe 16 - south america 7, in south africa in brazil it was closer to 55%-45% while in europe and asia it was close to 75%-25%. and this contains the huge implosions of france (2002), france(2010), italy(2010) and spain( 2014). I don't have time right now but I bet if you count points per team the stats ratio will be close to 65%-70% europe and 35%-30% to south america. Other reasonable metrics like europe-on-europe eliminations will probably back this up. The elo rankings (if this is even admissible, such a list with ecuador top 15, ukraine top 20 and uruguay in 6th ) is 11-5 for europe after a great SA world cup, during copa america and before the euro (max position for SA)

Right now if you'd do a world cup the real odds (not oddsmaker) would be something like this:
germany 3.5/1
france 4.5/1
argentina 5/1
spain 5.5/1
belgium 12/1
italy 15/1
england 15/1
mexico 20/1
portugal 20/1
chile 25/1
netherlands 25/1
croatia 30/1
poland 35/1
colombia 40/1
switzerland 40/1
brazil 40/1
... doesn't matter ...
And this isn't team renown related, you just need to look at the rosters, coaches, team discipline/organization and form. Yes ing poland and ing switzerland are playing better football than brazil, the second best name from south america. And we all know nobody worse than 10/1 is every winning , so besides argentina nobody can play at the big boys table and compete for something meaningful.

Real talk son.

[DAF86]

First of all, SA has put 10 teams in the second round on the last 10 years, not 7. But let's suppose 16-7 was correct.

Europe 16 - South America 7 is pretty bad for Europe considering UEFA puts three times as many teams as any other continent. The best way to analyze the thing is to get the % of teams that make it to the second round considering the % of teams they get in the compe ion. On that basis CONMEBOL is head and shoulders above any other confederation.

Either way, none of this (what I'm saying, nor what you said in the post above) has anything to do with the fact that, right now, SA has 8 of 10 NT that could pretty well make it to the second round of a WC (this doesn't mean they would make it, just that they are compe ive enough to have a chance).

How do I know this you ask? 'cause in the last two WCs (meaning, more or less the same generation of players as nowadays) SA got 10 of 11 teams in the second round, and the only one that didn't make it, almost made it.

Those teams that made it (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia) still mantain that second round level. The one that almost made it, and that made it in 2006, (Ecuador) is significantly better than 4 years ago. And Perú, even though hasn't even made it to the WC in the last editions, and won't make it to Russia either because of the insane compe ion, is on the level of any of the teams I mentioned. So, there you have it: 8 of 10 NTs that are second round level. Not that hard to understand, unless you want to downplay CONMEBOL for some reason.

[dfens]

First of all, SA has put 10 teams in the second round on the last 10 years, not 7. But let's suppose 16-7 was correct.

Europe 16 - South America 7 is pretty bad for Europe considering UEFA puts three times as many teams as any other continent. The best way to analyze the thing is to get the % of teams that make it to the second round considering the % of teams they get in the compe ion. On that basis CONMEBOL is head and shoulders above any other confederation.

Either way, none of this (what I'm saying, nor what you said in the post above) has anything to do with the fact that, right now, SA has 8 of 10 NT that could pretty well make it to the second round of a WC (this doesn't mean they would make it, just that they are compe ive enough to have a chance).

How do I know this you ask? 'cause in the last two WCs (meaning, more or less the same generation of players as nowadays) SA got 10 of 11 teams in the second round, and the only one that didn't make it, almost made it.

Those teams that made it (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia) still mantain that second round level. The one that almost made it, and that made it in 2006, (Ecuador) is significantly better than 4 years ago. And Perú, even though hasn't even made it to the WC in the last editions, and won't make it to Russia either because of the insane compe ion, is on the level of any of the teams I mentioned. So, there you have it: 8 of 10 NTs that are second round level. Not that hard to understand, unless you want to downplay CONMEBOL for some reason.

Son I see your point and I was already aware of it. I also agree with it.

Imo the number of teams necessary for the americas should be taken from the underperforming asians and africans, not from euros who constantly dominate the compe ion. The real solution is to unite the conmebol and concacaf federations into a single "americas" federation. This federation should get 10 places and have qualification groups, thus the current 4 CONCACAF slots won't chronically bring trash to the WC. Euros should get 15 places. The rest should be distributed to the africans and asians and oceanians (). You'd get normal qualification groups in the americas and the level of suspect/strategic matches would be significantly lower. I'd be more like the saner system in europe.

But these assholes at fifa will probably increase the world cup to 40 teams just to maximize the asian and nig market

[Brazil]

And what does any of that has to do with what I said aboout 8 of the 10 conmebol teams being second round of the WC tier? Or are you just being a for the sake of being a ?

did you have a cup of angriness yesterday or something ?

IIRC you were defending idea that conmebol deserved more spots because they all passed secound round, I'm just saying it was also because last wc was in SA and historically conmebol do well in latin america. The fact they all passed second round is not that indicative that they deserve more spots or that Paraguay or Chile are better than other euros especially since next WC is in Europe.

I don't see where I'm being a for saying that

[DAF86]

did you have a cup of angriness yesterday or something ?

IIRC you were defending idea that conmebol deserved more spots because they all passed secound round, I'm just saying it was also because last wc was in SA and historically conmebol do well in latin america. The fact they all passed second round is not that indicative that they deserve more spots or that Paraguay or Chile are better than other euros especially since next WC is in Europe.

I don't see where I'm being a for saying that

Where?

CONMEBOL has 10 teams and we get 4.5 spots. I'm cool with that (although 5.5 may be more appropriate), I was just stating the fact that 8 of the 10 CONMEBOL NTs are second round tier, tbh. Nothing more, that's why I didn't understand your weird rant.

[Brazil]

Argies wanting 6 spots so their chances of qualifying increases

farmers from Bolivia, Equador, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela don't deserve to go to the World Cup. 5 spots is perfect, not 6.

Ecuador is going to the WC now with 5 spots and wouldn't get in with 6?

Paraguay might get in too.

The fact is, right now, 8 of the 10 CONMEBOL teams are "second round of the WC" tier. Only Bolivia and Venezuela are below that. And yet they can still beat any team on any given night. Specially Bolivia with the biggest home court advantage in the World.

What? When? fwiw Australia might be a second round of WC tier too. Last WC the only SA team to not make the second round was Ecuador, and they almost did it. They are even better now. And Paraguay and Peru are on that level too.

A poster suggested 5 instead of 6 then you replied arguments about latin american passing second round... and there is no weird rant in my replies

[DAF86]

A poster suggested 5 instead of 6 then you replied arguments about latin american passing second round... and there is no weird rant in my replies

I answered to the comment that suggested Ecuador doesn't deserve to be in the WC when they are qualifying now.

[Brazil]

I answered to the comment that suggested Ecuador doesn't deserve to be in the WC when they are qualifying now.

well the fact you mentionned that 8 out of 10 of conmebol teams are second round teams suggested your take was a bit wider than just Ecuador, that's the main line I was responding to.

I don't think that in the context of a WC hosted in Europe 8 conmebal teams are second round teams tbh

[ElNono]

son the same bosnia that gave argentina a run for their money on their FIRST world cup game in nation history?
bosnia would be favorites against all SA teams except argentina/brazil/chile. as would many other euro B-teams like switzerland/denmark/croatia/turkey/russia/belgium or poland.
SA teams need to learn how to play organized ball if they hope to win anything. SA got its last ring with a mother ing stacked 2002 brazil team, since then SA teams haven't done lately. If you count semifinalists since 2002 you get 9-3 for europe, one those 3 being bra7il (crooked bracket tbh), with a single podium finish because of maradona 0.2

y'all s need to show something for all this talk tbh or else you'll start looking like my lakers

I missed this post earlier... what run for their money did Bosnia hand out? A big fat L? Those s couldn't even compete with Nigeria...

Look, I'm not saying that Paraguay or Venezuela are better, but if you're going to send in teams like that (Bosnia, San Marino, Iran, Mozambique, Switzerland, etc), might as well make some room for our 2nd tier too.

But I hate that idea, that's why those ty teams should really be left out in the qualification stage and the world cup should really only be a 24 team tournament where the best of the best play.

And if any of those countries happen to have a generational talent or team, they'll make it through qualification. It's once every blue moon, but when and if it happens, then they'll rightly earned their spot, instead of just being there to take photos with the world class stars, tbh...

[DAF86]

on the same bosnia that gave argentina a run for their money on their FIRST world cup game in nation history?
bosnia would be favorites against all SA teams except argentina/brazil/chile. as would many other euro B-teams like switzerland/denmark/croatia/turkey/russia/belgium or poland.
SA teams need to learn how to play organized ball if they hope to win anything. SA got its last ring with a mother ing stacked 2002 brazil team, since then SA teams haven't done lately. If you count semifinalists since 2002 you get 9-3 for europe, one those 3 being bra7il (crooked bracket tbh), with a single podium finish because of maradona 0.2

y'all s need to show something for all this talk tbh or else you'll start looking like my lakers

The son?

Nigeria and ing Iran were more difficult than Bosnia, tbh. Bosnia would be a bottom 3 team in CONMEBOL right now, easily.