World Cup 2010

[Uppercut]

Haha, says the Tranmere fan!

I think the same when it comes to the Champions League draw tbh, so you can't really put it down to that. If anything it's even worse in the Champions League because there's twice as many matches. They're just deliberately setting the whole thing up to try to have as few surprises as possible.

 

[GIMH]

What do you mean, "says the Tranmere fan"? I didn't say it as though it was a bad thing. if I was from one of the lesser countries I'd be chuffed to see seeding binned. Just like I love that there's no seeding in the FA Cup.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Don't exactly disagree with Uppercut's claim that the seeding is draw fixing, though I have no problems with it myself, as it just acts as a safeguard for all the good teams being drawn in one side of the tournament and all of the rubbish ones in the other. An outcome which I don't imagine appeals to a great many people.

In principle, I agree.

(but when the system is as ridiculous and adjusted as FIFA's, it becomes meaningless - we could get Brazil, France, Ivory Coast, Australia this year, for example - so in that sense Uppercut has a point that it just is draw-fixing. I think, though, that it's "fair" draw-fixing as long as the criteria are known beforehand and based purely on athletic performance...which, of course, they aren't in the World Cup.)

 

[sledger]

Haha, says the Tranmere fan!

I think the same when it comes to the Champions League draw tbh, so you can't really put it down to that. If anything it's even worse in the Champions League because there's twice as many matches. They're just deliberately setting the whole thing up to try to have as few surprises as possible.

Again though I don't disagree, I don't think that's entirely fair, putting all the crap teams together wouldn't exactly provide any more surprises than the current method. I meant would it really be surprising if South Africa and North Korea made it to the knock out stages and then one knocked the other out? Imo the current method actually allows for more surprises, as with the seeding system teams get a shot at teams of every different ability level, look at Turkey in 2002 for example. Having all the crap sides in one side of the tournament would serve no purpose if all they did was play off against one another until it was time for one of the bigger sides to come along and polish them off.

 

[sledger]

In principle, I agree.

(but when the system is as ridiculous and adjusted as FIFA's, it becomes meaningless - we could get Brazil, France, Ivory Coast, Australia this year, for example - so in that sense Uppercut has a point that it just is draw-fixing. I think, though, that it's "fair" draw-fixing as long as the criteria are known beforehand and based purely on athletic performance...which, of course, they aren't in the World Cup.)

This is again true, but are there really any valid alternatives?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Again though I don't disagree, I don't think that's entirely fair, putting all the crap teams together wouldn't exactly provide any more surprises than the current method. I meant would it really be surprising if South Africa and North Korea made it to the knock out stages and then one knocked the other out? Imo the current method actually allows for more surprises, as with the seeding system teams get a shot at teams of every different ability level, look at Turkey in 2002 for example. Having all the crap sides in one side of the tournament would serve no purpose if all they did was play off against one another until it was time for one of the bigger sides to come along and polish them off.

tbf, Turkey in 02 is a good example of a team beating crap sides until a decent one knocked them off. They played Costa Rica, China, Japan and Senegal.

 

[Uppercut]

What do you mean, "says the Tranmere fan"? I didn't say it as though it was a bad thing. if I was from one of the lesser countries I'd be chuffed to see seeding binned. Just like I love that there's no seeding in the FA Cup.

Ahh.

Well when we won the European Cup in '99, we were in a group with Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Brondby. Back then only the group winners and two best runners up out of six groups qualified so it was a serious group of death. If you think your team's good enough to win the tournament they should be able to get through a group like that.

If we were drawn with AC Milan, Bayern Munich and Real Madrid I'd be licking my lips tbh. The current system has an early-season routine where the big clubs zombie through the group stages without breaking a sweat with very few exceptions. It's horrid. **** seeding.

 

[GIMH]

I do agree with you on the most part - if you're good enough then you'll have to beat these teams at some point.

However, from a money-making perspective, it would make no sense to have 4 or 5 of the top teams knocked out of the World Cup in the first week

 

[Magrat Garlick]

This is again true, but are there really any valid alternatives?

1) get a proper ranking (ELO would do, though it suffers from not weighting "future" performances) instead of one that messes about with intra-continental coefficients, penalises teams who play friendlies, etc.
2) tell everyone that that ranking, most recent before the draw, will be used from now on. Alternatively, add in a bonus for teams that managed to qualify to the next round last time (as past WC performance should count for a bit).
3) seed all four pots (so that, for example, a group with Slovakia, Honduras and Algeria is impossible)
4) if you want to avoid three UEFA teams in one group, that's also possible (see the UEFA draws where it's fairly easy to avoid 4 English teams) without compromising the level of each group too much (as the weaker European teams will be guaranteed stronger African/South American teams)
5) no seeding of hosts

 

[sledger]

1) get a proper ranking (ELO would do, though it suffers from not weighting "future" performances) instead of one that messes about with intra-continental coefficients, penalises teams who play friendlies, etc.
2) tell everyone that that ranking, most recent before the draw, will be used from now on. Alternatively, add in a bonus for teams that managed to qualify to the next round last time (as past WC performance should count for a bit).
3) seed all four pots (so that, for example, a group with Slovakia, Honduras and Algeria is impossible)
4) if you want to avoid three UEFA teams in one group, that's also possible (see the UEFA draws where it's fairly easy to avoid 4 English teams) without compromising the level of each group too much (as the weaker European teams will be guaranteed stronger African/South American teams)
5) no seeding of hosts

Hmmm, all good points tbf, the seeding of hosts is one that I definitely agree with entirely and would hardly be difficult to implement a reform of this.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah this entirely.

Don't exactly disagree with Uppercut's claim that the seeding is draw fixing, though I have no problems with it myself, as it just acts as a safeguard for all the good teams being drawn in one side of the tournament and all of the rubbish ones in the other. An outcome which I don't imagine appeals to a great many people.

Why is it so much better to have the good teams play each other late in the tournament rather than early? I don't understand this. The thought of a group of Brazil, Portugal, Mexico and Argentina is almost unspeakably appealing to me (it's also very unlikely in any case). Imagine Brazil playing Argentina in the last match of the group stage with the loser going out in the first round, with Mexico capable of sneaking through in place of both if they manage to win and the Brazil match finishes a draw. It would be ****ing glorious!

The best groups are invariably the ones where seeding fails to do its job. Think Spain, Nigeria, Bulgaria, Paraguay in 1998 or France, Denmark, Uruguay Senegal in 2002. Tournaments where the draw turns out to be fairly equal because they ****ed up the seeding are invariably the best ones. Why does the system encourage groups involving Brazil bulldozing Costa Rica and China with any kind of competitiveness in the group stage hugely discouraged? It's bollocks.

 

[sledger]

tbf, Turkey in 02 is a good example of a team beating crap sides until a decent one knocked them off. They played Costa Rica, China, Japan and Senegal.

Suppose this is in fact true tbf, but the fact that it still came about under the current seeding system does poke some holes in the draw fixing argument.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

If we were drawn with AC Milan, Bayern Munich and Real Madrid I'd be licking my lips tbh. The current system has an early-season routine where the big clubs zombie through the group stages without breaking a sweat with very few exceptions. It's horrid. **** seeding.

Tbh, that's also partly to do with UEFA showering Milan/Real/Man Utd with prize money despite the fact that they have the best revenue streams already...

 

[GIMH]

Why is it so much better to have the good teams play each other late in the tournament rather than early? I don't understand this. The thought of a group of Brazil, Portugal, Mexico and Argentina is almost unspeakably appealing to me (it's also very unlikely in any case). Imagine Brazil playing Argentina in the last match of the group stage with the loser going out in the first round, with Mexico capable of sneaking through in place of both if they manage to win and the Brazil match finishes a draw. It would be ****ing glorious!

The best groups are invariably the ones where seeding fails to do its job. Think Spain, Nigeria, Bulgaria, Paraguay in 1998 or France, Denmark, Uruguay Senegal in 2002. Tournaments where the draw turns out to be fairly equal because they ****ed up the seeding are invariably the best ones. Why does the system encourage groups involving Brazil bulldozing Costa Rica and China with any kind of competitiveness in the group stage hugely discouraged? It's bollocks.

Because the WC Final is supposed to be the biggest spectacle in sport maybe? What attraction is it to anyone if they've squared up three weeks earlier in the group stage, or if we wind up with a one-sided game because all of the teams that could have challenged the favourites have been binned early?

 

[Matteh]

Because the WC Final is supposed to be the biggest spectacle in sport maybe? What attraction is it to anyone if they've squared up three weeks earlier in the group stage, or if we wind up with a one-sided game because all of the teams that could have challenged the favourites have been binned early?

Would be like a Millwall vs Man Utd FA Cup Final....

 

[GIMH]

Should have been us

 

[Uppercut]

Can't happen. You don't get to the World Cup final without being a damn good team, whether you were one of those FIFA decided were supposed to be good beforehand or not.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Imagine Brazil playing Argentina in the last match of the group stage with the loser going out in the first round, with Mexico capable of sneaking through in place of both if they manage to win and the Brazil match finishes a draw. It would be ****ing glorious!
.

Yeah...and because lots of good teams are involved in that group, Brazil play South Korea in the second round and beat them 6-0. Any better?

With a free draw, you just spread the "good" matches more out over the whole tournament, you don't create more of them. You also create the chance of a team fluking its way to the final because of a lucky draw and then making the final a squib - see Millwall 05.

 

[GIMH]

Can't happen. You don't get to the World Cup final without being a damn good team, whether you were one of those FIFA decided were supposed to be good beforehand or not.

Of course it can happen. You could get a top-heavy draw which means a decent team charges all the way to the final, but they are never going to be decent enough to challenge for the trophy.

The Millwall-Man U example is actually a really good one, even though it's obviously a different situation. Do you know how many Premier League teams Millwall beat en route to Cardiff that year?

I'll give you a clue: it was less than one.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah...and because lots of good teams are involved in that group, Brazil play South Korea in the second round and beat them 6-0. Any better?

With a free draw, you just spread the "good" matches more out over the whole tournament, you don't create more of them. You also create the chance of a team fluking its way to the final because of a lucky draw and then making the final a squib - see Millwall 05.

04 - it wasn't a completely lucky draw though - they had to beat the cup kings on the way