2015 world cup

Discussion in 'Women's World Cup' started by ranul, Jan 16, 2012.

  1. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Country:
    Germany
    AFC had 2 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss

    The other "confederations" only consisted of 1 or 0 teams at this stage.

    Brazil: 1 draw
    USA: 1 win, 2 draws

    Edit: Whoops, didn't saw the 3rd page.

    First it's not CONMEBOL, it's Brazil.
    Second it's still 0%, because you and we talked about "winning percentage".

    Quite a silly and picky question. Why only using some few KO-matches, when you could look at the whole tournament?

    Quite the faulty and patchy measurement, considering it neglects that the only losses of Japan and USA were caused by UEFA teams.

    Again you neglect the group stage and the losses of Japan and USA.
    Also it doesn't show in the slightest that the other confederations are stronger, unless Japan and the USA alone ARE a whole confederation.

    UEFA were better than every other confederation, you're just cherry picking and distorting the stats by equating the USA with CONCACAF and Japan with the AFC.

    UEFA vs. AFC 3-0-3 (equal, but UEFA wins with overal stats)
    UEFA vs. CONCACAF 3-1-1


  2. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    .

    No, it's COMNEBOL. we are talking confederations. Don't hide.
    And I was using the same win percentage method JanBalk was using.
    I'll use FIFA's 51% figure if you wish, but that's silly also.

    Win percentage in the round robins isn't silly?
    In case you didn't notice, it's the knockout rounds that eliminated you.

    Edit: on second though, you just keep counting Round Robin percentages in the next cup, also.

    The USA and Japan had no problem with UEFA teams in the eliminations. It was with each other and Brasil that the real contests happened in the cup.
    Both were perfect against UEFA.

    You Should have thought of where that would lead when you cherry picked earlier. Again, don't hide.
    And win percentage in round robins are just as stupid. See how you look now?

    .

    We are better than anybody we don't want to count?
    Show us the bronze medal that was the highest finish for UEFA.
  3. JanBalk

    JanBalk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Sorry, but by counting losses in extra time as losses I assumed the same must go for losses in extra time. But I guess conutning regulation time results only wouldn't give you the statictis you wanted.

    No, it fo show their top is stonger. But unlikey the UEFA they have nothing to back them up. AFC was the only other confed to get any but their best team to play-off.
  4. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Country:
    Germany
    I see it's pointless to argue with you, you're still playing the neglecting game.

    Yeah, CONCACAF and AFC are the best confederations ever. Please give them all the 8 new spots, so we can have Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Trinidad & Tobago, Haiti, Guatemala and Guyana, because they're obvously much better than the UEFA teams which would be next in the line.

    I guess if we had a league with 10 CONCACAF and 10 UEFA teams and the USA would finish 1st, the 10 UEFA teams 2nd-11th and the other CONCACAF teams 12th-20th you would still argue that CONCACAF as a whole is better than UEFA. That must be the first time I ever see a guy equating a confederation with a single member of it. :confused:


  5. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Country:
    Germany
    No, he is correct. Losing in extra time is just normal losing. "Losing" in penalty shoot-outs doesn't count as losing, because the pks are just a way to settle the draw (many years in the past they used replays and/or coin tosses).

    So the pks don't decide which team win or lose the match but rather which of the tied teams will progress.
  6. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Now that that is all settled, how about we just keep track of who wins, comes in second, and who comes in third. That's what FIFA does.

    Everyone else just gave it a nice try.
  7. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Country:
    Germany
    Hahaha, no they don't. I guess that proves you don't know how they actually calculate the confederation factor (for the men's rankings).
    Hint: It involves all the participating teams from each confederation not just the best one. :rolleyes:

    Anyway, we're done here. But feel free to enlighten us anytime. We're looking forward to see how you want to explain us, that Mexico are actually better than all the UEFA teams, because of the USA.
  8. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    next time UEFA should send its best team, then.
  9. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    I'll give it a shot.....

    Mexico beat us in a knockout round in Qualifiers. A UEFA team didn't beat us in a knockout round in the cup.

    I'm not sure what that means, but I dont see how that makes you look good;)

    The men's ranking aren't really relevant. The women's method has changed every cup they have increased the number of teams. FIFA does what it does and you can't tell what they will do this time OR time .

    It FIFA.



    And let's not start on how the men's rankings work. If Germany should by some miracle beat Spain, they get credit for a win. When the USA beat them in the confederation's cup, they got credit for .94 wins, because, you know, UEFA is so good
    But yeah,new are done.
  10. And G

    And G Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Club:
    Okayama Yunogo Belle
    Can someone explain to me what all the debating how confederations fare against each other is about? I don't really get it.
  11. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Country:
    Germany
    It had to do with the new distribution of berths for the final tournament.
    At least that was the origin of the discussion. :rolleyes:
  12. puertorricane

    puertorricane Red Card

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Location:
    Carolina PR
    Club:
    Santos FC
    Country:
    Brazil
    UEFA always think they are the best in soccer when clearly they are not but just benefit from confederation bias since fifa loves them and knows they bring a lot of money in which is the only thing fifa cares about.
  13. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Country:
    Germany
    Seriously, I grow tired of this...
    Please show us, how it is clear, that they're not the best confederation.
    The stats tell otherwise and don't you dare to neglect the fact, that a confederation consists of more than one single team!

    How do you think would CONCACAF, CONMEBOL or AFC perform if they were to participate with 5 or more teams in the WWC?

    The second best CONMEBOL team scored 0 goals and scored one single point. Do you think the other CONMEBOL teams would do better?

    The two next best CONCACAF teams behind the USA only got 2 points in 6 matches? And even if we say that Canada just had a very bad tournament and are usually much better, do you really think teams like Costa Rica or Trinidad & Tobago would manage to do well?

    The AFC indeed have some potent teams. But after Japan, Australia, North Korea, China and South Korea is a big drop-off in quality. Also North Korea are banned from the WWC 2015 and it's hard to rate China and South Korea yet.

    It's about adding new teams. It's not actually about the quality of the USA, Japan or Brazil. It's about the quality of the teams next in line.

    Obviously FIFA will give every confederation (besides OFC) at least +1 berth. I am pretty sure the final distribution won't be unfair in the slightest.
  14. chinadaiyi

    chinadaiyi Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Location:
    China
    Club:
    SS Lazio Roma
    Country:
    China PR
    8 teams,Europ +1, AFC+1.CONCACAF+1,CONMEBOL+1,CAF+1.

    3 teams left.how to do ?

    Europ +2? AFC+1? CONCACAF is the host .no more.

    so:
    Europ:7.5
    AFC :5
    CONCACAF:3.5+1 host ( too many?)
    OFC:1
    CONMEBOL:3
    CAF:3
  15. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    This looks fair.
  16. amvrosio

    amvrosio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    México D. F.
    Host: 1
    uefa: 8
    asia: 4
    concacaf: 4
    africa: 3
    conmebol: 3
    ofc: 1
  17. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    I am a fan of the play in (I know too expensive for many countries)

    Canada 1

    Europe 7.5
    Africa 3.5

    Conmebol 3.5
    Concacaf 3.5

    AFC 4.5
    OFC 0.5
  18. JanBalk

    JanBalk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden
    No way, FIFA will take away ½ spot from New Zeeland (sorry, OFC) when expanding the field (and after their best WWC). And CAF (Africa) have a quailfication format that aren't really made for handling ½ spot (IOW get a no 4 team) and fixing that would cause a lot of extra game over a big continent whith limited funds. The CAF countries (and there are 50 of them, the ones with no WNT would figtht so it dosen't affect the MNTs) would figth to get 4 spots instead and probably accepted 3 almost as readily as 3½.
  19. usa3por2ft

    usa3por2ft Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Location:
    in exile
    Club:
    Millwall FC
    Country:
    United States
    Taking away the ½ spot seems politically feasible, since the OFC has so few votes. And it seems wise in a sporting sense, since qualification really should require competition with at least one other decent side. Nevertheless, I agree it will never happen, because most federations don't care enough to fight over it.

    I don't see this at all. Perhaps you are confusing the current process for Olympic Games qualification with the established process for World Cup qualification. Women's World Cup qualification has long been determined by the results of preceding year's African Women's Championship. Since this is a tournament with a third place match in addition to the championship match, the process already produces a number 4 team. So no extra matches would be required to come up with an African team for an intercontinental playoff.
  20. JanBalk

    JanBalk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden
    It should be but since they haven't removed the ½ spot when they had only a total of 16 spot for 2007 and 2011 there are abosoultly no chance they will do it for 2015 when they have 24 spots (and NZ no longer is an embarassment in the WWC, which they used to be).

    Yes, I seem to have mixed up the CAF qualifications procedures.
  21. WPS_Movement

    WPS_Movement Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    I've already heard the breakdown for 2015.

    OFC: 1.0 (they got to keep their one spot, it did not shrink or increase)
    AFC: 4.5 (Asia gets 4.5 now, so a chance to get 5 teams in)
    UEFA: 7.5 (UEFA can get up to three additional, most years in past they got around 5.0)
    CAF: 3.0 (Africa gets one additional. This makes sense, they haven't really earned more)
    CONCACAF: 3.5 (CONCACAF gets one additional, they used to get 2.5)
    CONMEBOL: 3.5 (they get 1.5 additional, they used to get 2.0)
    HOST: 1.0 (Canada in 2015)

    Notice how the four most competitive confederations get the extra 0.5 (UEFA AFC, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL), and the lesser confederations don't get the extra 0.5 (OFC and CAF included).

    I haven't heard who would play whom in the wildcard yet.
    I would assume CONCACAF #4 team vs. UEFA #8 team.
    And CONMEBOL #4 team vs. AFC #5 team.
    And with Canada being a host this year, the CONCACAF #4 team wouldn't even be Costa Rica most likely. It could be Panana, Cuba, Jamaica, or someone like that. UEFA #8 team should easily prevail over any of those teams, you would think.

    I would say there are now at least six "shoe-in" teams to get to the 24-team World Cup from now on (forever and ever).

    New Zealand (how can they lose to any other OFC teams?)
    USA (how can they ever finish worse than #3 in CONCACAF? Even if they lose in Semifinal, they're beating Costa Rica in 3rd place match each time)
    Germany (how could Germany possibly finish worse than #7 in UEFA?)
    Nigeria (worse than #3 in CAF? No way)
    Japan (worse than #4 in AFC ever? Nope)
    Brazil (worse than #3 in CONMEBOL? That's a laugh)


    And with the expansion to 24 teams, here are the nations that most benefit from this expansion (taking their chances from less than 50% to get to a WWC, to either above a 50% chance going forward, or increasing their life and hope by a ton)

    Nations that benefit most by the expansion

    Mexico (they have made less than half the WWC's in the past... not anymore)
    Costa Rica (they now have much chance, especially in a CONCACAF host year)
    Argentina (they were slipping below #2 or even below #3 in CONMEBOL. Still have life)
    Colombia (read what it says for Mexico above. same applies here)
    Uruguay (growing immensely at the youth level. now have much realistic life)
    Norway (it was possible that they could slip outside UEFA Top 5 soon, if not already)
    Denmark (were slipping to permanently outside the Top 5 or Top 6 in UEFA. still have life)
    Italy (made less than half of WWC's in the past. now they should make most)
    Spain
    Switzerland
    Finland
    Netherlands (the rest of these UEFA teams here have much more life and hope now)
    South Africa
    Ghana
    Congo
    Cameroon (with CAF getting an extra spot, this gives these 4 African nations great hope)
    South Korea (made less than half WWC's in the past. that could easily change now)
    China (believe it or not, they could have slipped outside the Top 3 or Top 4 soon in AFC)
    Vietnam (now have much better hope)
  22. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Country:
    Germany
    Source? I guess they made that decision during the Executive Conference meeting.
  23. Batfink

    Batfink Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Attilan
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    So which region will f*ck this WWC size increase up the most? I'm looking at you CONCACAF :p.
  24. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Country:
    United States
    Well I doubt the .5 from Concacaf will make the WC, so there will be 4 Concacaf teams.

    USA
    Canada
    Mexico
    most likely Costa Rica

    USA and Canada should make it (even win) their group.

    Mexico may challenge for 2nd (most likely 3rd)

    CR will probably finish last or 3rd in the group.
  25. Batfink

    Batfink Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Attilan
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    The next cycle of WC qualification should be hilarious for the U.S. :D. Four qualification slots, but no Canada, no pressure, and no competition? If there was ever an argument for greater inter-confederation based WC qualification, wouldn't this be it?

    UEFA's fine, the AFC's bearable, but between a random CAF, and a underdeveloped CONMEBOL, I'm sure both the OFC and CONCACAF should be made to work a little harder for a WWC place in 2015. This time around would it have been crazy to suggest more playoffs between the less developed regions?

Share This Page