new CONCACAF qualifying format like or dislike?

Discussion in 'CONCACAF' started by JYDA, Sep 1, 2010.

?

Do you like the new format?

  1. Yes, this is good for CONCACAF as a whole

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No, the status quo was fine

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. No, but expanding the final phase to 8 teams would have been better

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. No, 2 groups of 6 in the final phase would have been better

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Other

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. leeka

    leeka Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Location:
    Bayamón PR
    Club:
    Puerto Rico Islanders
    Country:
    Puerto Rico
    Hey, my friend, don't waste your time, they always have any kind of excuses for those games, even if they win...


  2. slaminsams

    slaminsams Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Mexico sends their A team to meaningful qualifiers. You may not agree with the players called up and some players may miss a game due to injury or suspension but its still the A team. You can only really call it a B or C team if they don't call in the best players the coach feels are available to him, like they do for off year gold cups. Mexican players in Europe are pretty good at making sure they are available for the national team.
  3. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Everyone who champions the "more games = higher rankings" argument should be thrilled with what we've seen in the latest FIFA World Rankings. Of note: just about every team that survived the first round of Caribbean qualifying for the Caribbean Cup (Puerto Rico, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. VIncent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Guyana and Dominica) jumped up around 20 spots in the World rankings, more than 40 in Puerto Rico and Dominica's case. :eek: Hell, even the British Virgin Islands, who got shelled 27-0 in their two games, moved up 15 spots; and the Dominican Republic and the Cayman Islands, both already eliminated from contention for the Caribbean Cup/Gold Cup, shot up about 20 spots as well.

    The early evidence suggests that yes, getting the minnows more games means that the big teams will get more credit for beating them, which is essential if the US and Mexico hope to get seeded for the World Cup finals anytime soon.
  4. TBR

    TBR Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Location:
    DMV
    Club:
    CD Aguila
    Country:
    El Salvador
    Wow.
    [​IMG]


  5. ECUNCHATER

    ECUNCHATER Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 1999
    I liked the old format just fine. I don't think the final round needed to be expanded because 18 games for the top 3 and 20 games for the 4th place team is enough. If they did it just to get the smaller nations more games then they should have made them play in a group phase and given some of the top teams in CONCACAF a pass to the semi-finals.

    This format hurts the USA and Mexico. Only having the group winner advance means a loss at Costa Rica for the USA could hurt pretty bad and cause the USA to finish second and go to a playoff vs Honduras or Mexico. With the old system, Mexico and the USA could take a loss and still end up finishing on top where they belong. What about if you get a final group of USA, Honduras, Costa Rica? That means USA first with Costa Rica 2nd sends Honduras home in 3rd. Mean while the other group could be weaker like Mexico, El Salvador, Panama, Jamaica.
  6. Pønch

    Pønch Saprissista

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Location:
    Donde siempre
    I tend to agree that a single table format is the fairest, most straightforward way of letting the cream rise to the top.

    It rewards long term performance, consistancy and ability to deal with setbacks like injuries, suspensions, etc. A good team can have an off day and still make it through.

    Whereas with the new format, a small slip can kick you out and let another, less solid team that just had 2 or 3 good games go through.
  7. bradjmoore48

    bradjmoore48 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    United States
    I'm not the biggest fan of the new WC qualifying system, but I have to take issue with these arguments above. Any tournament, whether it's the Gold Cup, the Confederations Cup, the World Cup, is based on form at that moment in time. If you have 2 or 3 bad matches, don't count on getting far in the tournament. The best teams overcome that pressure to win out these tournaments. So when I see arguments saying "If we lose 1 or 2 matches, we might not make it to the World Cup," I would counter "but then did we (the U.S.) really deserve to go?" Yes, we may get placed in a group with Costa Rica and Honduras, but if we can't beat Costa Rica and Honduras, at any point in time, then we really shouldn't be in the World Cup. It's pressure, it's what competitive soccer is all about. In that final group, we will need to win the group to assure our spot in the World Cup; 2nd place and a playoff won't cut it. In this respect, the new system should be used by the US as an opportunity to say "Nothing short of first place in every group stage, especially the final group."

    The loss of the US-Mexico qualifiers and the increased amount of minnow matches the US and Mexico would have to play, and many other structural issues with CONCACAF can be argued as to why this new system is a bad idea, but it just sounds wimpy when someone uses the argument "The losses mean more, if we have 2 or 3 bad matches, we might not make the World Cup!" to justify why this new system is bad. It just means the U.S. has to stay on it's A game at all times, how is that a bad thing?
  8. EPJr

    EPJr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Location:
    Richmond VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States

    ....so are the groups gonna be random or seeded?
  9. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Thanks for the post, and the proof.

    But it wasn't a matter of being a "champion" of having an "opinion." Many of us know how the rankings are made and getting more games (particularly more qualifiers, which are weighted more heavily) WILL give a team more points, and all other things being equal, a higher ranking.

    It is a fact, not an opinion. It will hopefully mean less CONCACAF teams below 150, more in the top 100, and more in the top 50.
  10. Pønch

    Pønch Saprissista

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Location:
    Donde siempre
    It's not a bad thing, at all, if it was possible.

    But in the real world, there are plenty of chances for good, solid teams to be off their A game at one time or another, for a miriad of reasons. And in a format like this, that means trouble, and it opens up a chance for lesser teams that happened to have a good couple of games to make it to the WC.

    Granted, once you are in the WC you're subject to the same thing, a bad game is likely to kick you out of the next round. I just think concacaf should strive to at least make sure to send its more solid teams to the cup, not maybe the luckiest ones.
  11. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Not disputing your point at all, but UEFA is much, much worse at this.
  12. bradjmoore48

    bradjmoore48 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    United States
    Luck is also a part of soccer. Sometimes it just doesn't go your way. I'm sure English fans thought they 'deserved' to be in the 2008 Euros, but they simply weren't good enough to finish 2nd in their group, and they missed out. It's life, it happens. And they had 12 matches to get to the top. Look at the US Women's team, they're one of the best in the world, but they couldn't beat Mexico in qualifying/Gold Cup, so their road is just that much harder to get to the World Cup. But that's how it is.

    As Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven "Deserves got nothin' to do with it!" If a "lesser" team can get some points off a more deserving team and qualify for the World Cup, they move on. If the US doesn't measure up and Costa Rica and Honduras do, then we don't deserve to be there. At that, you do get 6 matches in the final round, so I think you can drop points in maybe 1 or 2 matches and still be in solid shape to qualify. It obviously becomes easier if CONCACAF gets 4 spots in 2014 instead of 3.5.

    On the flip side, a win also becomes MORE valuable just a loss hurts more. A win gets you 1/6th of the way to maximum points, rather than 1/10th.
  13. ECUNCHATER

    ECUNCHATER Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 1999
    My guess is they will have a seeding system like in the old format where the top teams are in different groups. In the end this will make it tougher for better CONCACAF teams to get to the World Cup.
  14. dinamo_zagreb

    dinamo_zagreb Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Location:
    San Jose, CA / Zagreb, Croatia
    Club:
    --other--
    Of course there will be seeded draw. Just imagine what could happen - group with Mexico, USA, Honduras and Costa Rica. So, yes, there will be seedings.


    I am happy to see those changes, as finally almost every nation will get 6 matches played over 3-4 months, weaker teams against strong teams, and their qualifying campaign will last much longer than lasted in previous qualifiers (4-5 days for 2 matches). And, if European teams, much stronger than USA, Mexico, Honduras and Costa Rica are, can play versus trash teams like Andorra and Liechtenstein and San Marino, then USA can play to Montserrat and Mexico can play to Dominica. :)

    And after this format makes success, CONCACAF need to start refurbishing continental cup. First of all, it should change it's name. :)
  15. BigDreams

    BigDreams Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Location:
    Windsor, ON, Canada
    Club:
    FC Internazionale Milano
    Country:
    El Salvador
    Is concacaf pushing for 4 spots? Why? Look what happened to honduras this world cup and what happens to Mexico every world cup. I think 3.5 is more than enough until we start performin better on the world stage and become a stronger compettitor against high quality teams. I want Mexico or the U.S. to reach quarters, semi's. This next world cup I'm expecting big things from the U.S. and Mexico especially.
  16. scaryice

    scaryice Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2001
    See here for seeding details for the draw next year:

    http://www.football-rankings.info/2010/11/2014-fifa-world-cup-seeding-for.html

    Guatemala could get screwed due to missing out on the last Gold Cup. But they might be able to avoid the third pot with a good performance in UNCAF.

    I still don't know how they'll group teams for the second and third rounds. I imagine they'll just draw the teams again, using the initial (May 2011) ranking.
  17. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    If the link you put up is correct, then the FIFA rankings used to make the first-round groups would not allow anyone to move up based on their performance in the Gold Cup (which, of course, takes place after May 2011).

    So then, yes, Guatemala's going to have to get some good results in the Copa Centroamericana, or there are going to be problems for a bunch of teams - for Guatemala, because they'd be in Pot 3, and then for others because whichever group gets Guatemala as the third team would be pretty difficult. Just imagine:

    Canada
    El Salvador
    Guatemala
    Nicaragua

    (because Canada always gets crappy draws :D)

    My guess is that they would use the latest ranking available. Isn't that how it worked with Asian qualifying last time around? :confused:
  18. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    What a typical big-country attitude. Do you remember when Bermuda was better than the US? How did US get better? By playing against teams that were better than them and gradually learning how to beat them? Or by joining forces with Canada, Greenland and St.Pierre & Miquelon to form a North America national team to take on Mexico et al?.

    "Using historical links", I was able to pare down the United States and Canada into Cherokee, Inuit, Cree and Iroquois nations. All these erstwhile European immigrants (READ: Americans) that want to limit the chances for these smaller teams to get better - remember you are the invaders.

    So, let me get this straight - The Europeans displaced millions of Africans owing to the slave trade, and dotted them around the Caribbean - then they swan into North America and take over all the land to make their big ole American Dream, then they take away the rights of all those Africans in the Caribbean that they displaced with their idiocy to have their own nations playing FOOTBALL, which for them is a more natural and popular sport than it has ever been in the US.

    You're basically advocating bringing back colonialism to some of these places that are glad to be shot of it. Just because 2 places were once ruled by the same colonial 'power', doesn't mean they have anything in common (I'm thinking the difference between Guyana and Antigua is likely to be much more than that between the US and Canada). So, by that token - they are actually more deserving of having a separate team than the US is.

    Hell, they've had national teams forging separate identities in the Caribbean since the 1920s! Come on, man, get real (or at least think before you have ideas).
  19. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    And just to go to the topic -

    I think CONCACAF has made a mistake with this format, and it won't be repeated.

    Here's what I'd like to see:
    35 teams

    1st Round
    23 teams who did not qualify for Semi-Final Round (Final 12) of last World Cup qualification.

    5 groups of 4 teams, 1 group of 3 teams. Top 2 from each group advances to 2nd Round. (6 games or 4 games each - or possibly, groups could be single venue, with 3 matches or 2 matches for each team)

    2nd Round
    6 groups of 4 teams. Top 2 advance. (6 games each)

    Semi-Finals
    3 groups of 4 teams. Top 2 advance. (6 games each)

    Final Round
    Hexagonal (10 games each)
  20. scaryice

    scaryice Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2001
    No, last time AFC just used the initial ranks for each round. But they used the World Cup finishes from 2006, not the FIFA rankings.
  21. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location:
    Nassau County, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Country:
    United States
    CONCACAF didn't use the most recent FIFA rankings for the draw for World Cup 2010 qualifying.

    That's too many games.
  22. Celtigo

    Celtigo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Location:
    Great Lakes Region (The Other One)
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    Hilarious Euro snobbery. Thanks for the capitalization. We stupid colonials need to constantly reminded we can't even get the name of the sport right. This is basically indicative of the rest of your post, while containing some valid points, swerves into revisionist history and self righteous indignation that makes it fairly hard to stomach (and hald my ancestry descended from slaves).

    The thing is most of the CFU members will never be any good on the world or even continental stage. Theres only so much you can do for the 20 CONCACAF members with populations under 400,000 and there is certainly some validity and questioning why we're gearing continental policy to help countries that have a fairly low natural ceiling.

    And come on now, combining (Anglo at least) Caribbean countries into a single team does have some precedent in Cricket. Its not totally insane, although Jamaica and Trinidad probably have no interest and/or need.
  23. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    It's not Euro snobbery - it's a direct response to a ridiculous idea. The fact you found it hard to stomach is because you thought it was Euro snobbery. I am blaming Europeans for the slave trade, and saying that they were wrong to just take over America. How is that Euro snobbery? Is snobbery when you criticise your own kind? That must be a new definition that I haven't heard of yet.

    There is no self-righteous indignation - there is incredulity that someone could think that these islands don't at least deserve a chance to compete individually. Countries are different sizes due to accidents of history. Get over it. The fact that you cannot see that is perhaps related to the poor health of your stomach.

    And one last point - "revisionist history" is exactly what the original poster used to clump together the teams. And the fact that "hald" your ancestry descended from slaves has no relevance to the points I made. Do you want a big shiny star or something? Jeez.

    You're welcome for the capitalisation, I only wish I'd capitalised the whole bloody thing.

    And another thing - just because a country has less than 400,000 people, doesn't mean it can't ever become good. Look at Guadeloupe (just over 400,000) reaching the semi-finals and quarter-finals of the Gold Cup.

    At the end of the day - you don't need thousands of players to make a good national team, you need 11. Theoretically, any country can produce 11 great players given equal opportunity.

    I won't argue further with you on this thread.
  24. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    Yes, you're right. *Back to the drawing board.
  25. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Actually, now that I think about it, I hope CONCACAF uses the teams' finish in the last World Cup qualifying cycle to set up the groups, because then Haiti would be guaranteed to be in Pot 2. So would Canada, though, and I doubt they'd be happy about that...

Share This Page