World Ranking

[geysir]

We are ranked higher in the UEFA rankings than in the FIFA rankings for the UEFA zone.
ATM we are comfortably in last place of the 2nd seeds for the Euro 2016 draw.
http://www.football-rankings.info/2013/03/euro-2016-qualifying-draw-seeding-based.html


In the FIFA rankings for April we have stayed in 22nd place of the UEFA teams.
Apparently 2 draws, score more coefficients than one win and one loss.
Trap could have used that reasoning as part of his defence.

[Charlie Darwin]

Greece are looking good bets for the first pot too. Interesting.

[DannyInvincible]

The Euro 2016 qualifying draw isn't until March 2014. I do see that Gibraltar may be admitted pending a meeting of the 37th UEFA Congress in London this May (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2016_qualifying#Notes).

[ArdeeBhoy]

Hmm, shame Lopez doesn't visit anymore.
He and the other Spanish would have something to say about yet another pathetic, pointless colonial outpost...

[SkStu]

It's ridiculous. UEFA should be looking at ways to rid itself of minnow teams instead of admitting Gibraltar. All 5th and 6th seeds (and lower if applicable) should have to prequalify IMO. Seeded draws, 2 legs, home and away, winners progress to 5 team groups. It would make the groups far more interesting too.

[osarusan]

All 5th and 6th seeds (and lower if applicable) should have to prequalify IMO. Seeded draws, 2 legs, home and away, winners progress to 5 team groups. It would make the groups far more interesting too.

I'd hate to see this happen. Would be bad for the development of football in those countries, in my opinion.

[SkStu]

I see it as a penance for not having already developed football in these "countries". They've only had, what, a couple of hundred years... ;) ;)

They do it in other confederations by the way.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Totally agree, Stu. And they would get a chance to win the odd game or two...

[DannyInvincible]

It's ridiculous. UEFA should be looking at ways to rid itself of minnow teams instead of admitting Gibraltar. All 5th and 6th seeds (and lower if applicable) should have to prequalify IMO. Seeded draws, 2 legs, home and away, winners progress to 5 team groups. It would make the groups far more interesting too.

My understanding is that UEFA/FIFA have indeed been struggling hard against Gibraltar's admission, even if opposing membership is indicative of double standards.

[pineapple stu]

I'd hate to see this happen. Would be bad for the development of football in those countries, in my opinion.
Yeah, I agree with this.

The only problem is if UEFA keeps getting bigger. Gibraltar may get in (though Spain are blocking it and are obviously quite a force). You've Kosovo, Greenland, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, maybe even Turkish Cyprus looking to join.

At what stage do the qualifying groups just get too big?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Good point Stu.

They should have tighter geographical criteria too, anywhere east of Turkey, nothing personal, but no thanks.

[SkStu]

Well I suppose then, that I don't really get what is meant by "development of football" in these countries. What are they trying to develop exactly? What is the scope of their ambition? A clean sheet? A win? Qualification? I'm not sure how losing every match and rarely scoring a goal aides in the development of the game. In fact, I'd argue that a more competitive series of games like I suggested but especially in a group format would be far more beneficial to this football development argument that gets rolled out every time this is raised. In any event the reality is that these teams will never be any more than also rans.

And all of this is without going into the "why would we care anyway" argument.

Pineapple, I think the groups are already too big. 5 teams would be ideal. 8 quality, competitive games each.

[IsMiseSean]

Pineapple, I think the groups are already too big. 5 teams would be ideal. 8 quality, competitive games each.

I think I'd prefer bigger groups and less crappy friendly games against Greece, Georgia etc, but in saying that I doubt the game against the Faroes in June will be a crowd puller.

[Gather round]

In the tv highlights, NI were okay against Israel, but undone by a typical Israel performance.
I had a wry black smile at the sight of Dudu, our old nemesis, rolling around the floor in agony

Our old failing writ large, ie no-one who can create chances let alone take them. Two saves for their keeper, the second on 87'.

To be fair to Dudu, he caught everything cleanly then only had to worry about McAuley half-heartedly trying to shove him into the goal.

[geysir]

Israel just manage to comfortably contain and convert the few chances they create. First they lull you into thinking they are just not interested in scoring or playing football which contains a degree of risk, then out of the blue they hit the bulls eye with the accuracy of the Crossmaglen sniper.

[Gather round]

It's ridiculous. UEFA should be looking at ways to rid itself of minnow teams instead of admitting Gibraltar. All 5th and 6th seeds (and lower if applicable) should have to prequalify IMO. Seeded draws, 2 legs, home and away, winners progress to 5 team groups. It would make the groups far more interesting too

It might make any given group more interesting with only one relative minnow rather than two, it might not. There are plenty of sterile matches involving one or even two big countries. It would also be regressive to give the play-off losers only two competitive games (usually their main source of income etc.) in the two-year cycle.

Yes, they do it in other Confederations. Why is that a good thing?


My understanding is that UEFA/FIFA have indeed been struggling hard against Gibraltar's admission, even if opposing membership is indicative of double standards

Indeed. Do you have a link for that Danny?. Anyway- following SkStu's point, what's the harm in letting Gib join in, even if to pre-qualify they have to beat Norn Iron, or an omelette? They're not part of Spain nor England, let the War of 1707 go, why not?


The only problem is if UEFA keeps getting bigger. Gibraltar may get in (though Spain are blocking it and are obviously quite a force). You've Kosovo, Greenland, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, maybe even Turkish Cyprus looking to join. At what stage do the qualifying groups just get too big?

UEFA adding new members isn't necessarily an overreaching problem. There are currently 13 European World Cup places qualifying available; you could have 65 countries in groups of five with only the winner progressing. The play-offs are basically a safety net for out of form big countries. They aren't an intrinsic requirement of an exciting elite tournament: if you can't win one of those groups you aren't good enough.


They should have tighter geographical criteria too, anywhere east of Turkey, nothing personal, but no thanks

Surprised an experienced traveller like you saying that AB. OK, I know the journeys are expensive and Kazakhstan are taking the p*ss, but Armenia and Georgia have been widely considered part of Europe/ Christendom for centuries.

[DannyInvincible]

Well I suppose then, that I don't really get what is meant by "development of football" in these countries. What are they trying to develop exactly? What is the scope of their ambition? A clean sheet? A win? Qualification? I'm not sure how losing every match and rarely scoring a goal aides in the development of the game. In fact, I'd argue that a more competitive series of games like I suggested but especially in a group format would be far more beneficial to this football development argument that gets rolled out every time this is raised. In any event the reality is that these teams will never be any more than also rans.

Not sure if I can necessarily agree with the sentiment there, Stu. I think that's a fairly haughty attitude to take, and not one that's best suited to us fans of mid-tier nations that qualify for finals only intermittently. (If we're lucky!)

What gives us some inherent or greater right to compete as an international football entity over certain other nations? Just because we might aspire to greater heights? Like making the World Cup or the Euros every once a decade or two?... Or because we perceive certain others as inferior? What is the scope of our ambition? All expectations and aspirations are relative to one's level.

So, what about those nations such as Germany or Italy who qualify for the finals like clockwork, who might perceive us as inferior or who might aspire to even dizzier heights than those to which we aspire? Would it be right for them to dismiss teams at our level as small fry - as dispensable burdens with whom they have to waste precious time in bothering about the menial humdrum of qualification when they could and should be really challenging themselves against the other global heavyweights instead - just because our ambitions don't match up to their lofty standards/we can never hope to actually win the World Cup?

In fact, maybe we should be asking what is meant by "development of football" in Ireland? One wouldn't need to be a seasoned supporter of Spanish football to shudder at the FAI's apparent interpretation of that phrase.


Indeed. Do you have a link for that Danny?

More on the legal wrangling here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_national_football_team#Application_for_m embership_of_FIFA_and_UEFA) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_Football_Association#FIFA_application):


On 25 August 2006, it was proposed that Gibraltar will become a provisional member of UEFA. However, a decision on granting this was postponed in October 2006.

The decision was made on 8 December 2006 that Gibraltar will be made provisional members of UEFA: FIFA had announced two days earlier that their executive committee had "ruled that Gibraltar does not meet the statutory requirements to become a FIFA member", despite the fact that the Court of Arbitration in Sport had already ruled to the contrary.

On 26 January 2007 Gibraltar membership had been rejected by the UEFA board with only 3 out of 52 votes supporting Gibraltar's claim (The FA, the SFA and the FAW). Spain was the strongest opponent to Gibraltar joining UEFA, even threatening to boycott any competition in which the Gibraltar national team would compete. The issue has again been referred back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for a ruling.

On 21 March 2012 the request for membership by Gibraltar was discussed, and a road map which includes financial and educational support from UEFA was agreed. This road map will run until the Ordinary UEFA Congress in 2013, when member associations will vote on the request for admission.

UEFA's Executive Committee admitted the GFA as a provisional member as of the 1 October 2012, pending a vote at its Congress in May 2013 to make it a full member.


The GFA affiliated with The Football Association in 1909, but is currently trying to become a full member of FIFA so that its national team is allowed to compete in more international competitions. This attempt was met with fierce opposition from the Royal Spanish Football Federation and has been unsuccessful to date.

The GFA's application for becoming a member of FIFA was filed in 1997. Two years later, FIFA confirmed the opening of the procedure and forwarded the GFA application to the appropriate continental confederation, UEFA, since according to FIFA statutes it is the responsibility of confederations to grant membership status to applicants. In 2000, a joint delegation of UEFA and FIFA conducted an inspection on the GFA's facilities and infrastructure. The Spanish Football Association strongly opposed to the GFA's application. However, in 2001, the UEFA changed its statutes so that only associations in a country "recognised by the United Nations as an independent State" could become members. On such grounds, UEFA denied the GFA's application.

Current FIFA and UEFA members include several federations which cannot be said to represent independent nations, such as the UK Home Nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Chinese Taipei, Tahiti and New Caledonia. French Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe and Saint Martin each have national teams which, despite not being FIFA members, are allowed to compete at the CONCACAF confederation level.

The GFA appealed to the world's highest sporting court, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which in 2003 ruled that the GFA application should be handled according to the old statute.

However, the UEFA continued to refuse accepting the GFA as member. In August 2006, the CAS ruled again that Gibraltar had to be allowed as a full UEFA and FIFA member, and on 8 December 2006, it was announced that Gibraltar had become a provisional member of UEFA.

However, full membership required a vote of the UEFA membership. Leading up to this vote, the Spanish Football Federation lobbied against Gibraltar's membership. The Federation's president Ángel María Villar attributed Spain's opposition to the Spanish claim over Gibraltar. He also claimed it was a political issue and referred to the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. On 26 January 2007 in the UEFA Congress held in Düsseldorf (Germany), Gibraltar's application to become a full member of UEFA was rejected, with 45 votes against, 3 in favour (namely, England, Scotland and Wales), and 4 undecided.

In 2012, UEFA's Executive Committee admitted the GFA as a provisional member as of the 1 October, pending a vote at its Congress in May 2013 to make it a full member. This is the first step towards FIFA membership.

There was a thread on "FIFA and Non Sovereign States" a while back that contained some interesting discussion: http://foot.ie/threads/157892-FIFA-and-Non-Sovereign-States

Actually, just seeing you contributed yourself there.

Steve Menary's book, Outcasts!, is mentioned; this is a later article by him on the Gibraltar situation: http://www.worldsoccer.com/columnists/spains-opposition-to-gibraltar-could-be-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-for-uefa

And another by an Ed Stubbs: http://www.worldsoccer.com/blogs/gibraltar-may-rock-the-boat-if-they-gan-international-recognition

[Stuttgart88]

I thought it all had nothing to do with the GFA? Oh, sorry, that's another thread.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Not bad...

[geysir]

It's shocking to discover that Gibraltar's application to become a full member of UEFA in Jan 2007 was not supported by the IFA, breaking ranks from the other 3 UK associations.
For what did the IFA sell their soul? Spain letting them win at Windsor Pk in a qualifier?

[Charlie Darwin]

The IFA correctly identified that if we let in one unreformed colonial outpost, we'll have to let them all in :)

[Gather round]

It's shocking to discover that Gibraltar's application to become a full member of UEFA in Jan 2007 was not supported by the IFA, breaking ranks from the other 3 UK associations.
For what did the IFA sell their soul? Spain letting them win at Windsor Pk in a qualifier?

How did the famously incorruptible FAI vote? Do you have a full list?

Edit: the vote went 45-3 against Gib's admission, with four abstentions.

[DeLorean]

Not sure if I can necessarily agree with the sentiment there, Stu. I think that's a fairly haughty attitude to take, and not one that's best suited to us fans of mid-tier nations that qualify for finals only intermittently. (If we're lucky!)

What gives us some inherent or greater right to compete as an international football entity over certain other nations? Just because we might aspire to greater heights? Like making the World Cup or the Euros every once a decade or two?... Or because we perceive certain others as inferior? What is the scope of our ambition? All expectations and aspirations are relative to one's level.

So, what about those nations such as Germany or Italy who qualify for the finals like clockwork, who might perceive us as inferior or who might aspire to even dizzier heights than those to which we aspire? Would it be right for them to dismiss teams at our level as small fry - as dispensable burdens with whom they have to waste precious time in bothering about the menial humdrum of qualification when they could and should be really challenging themselves against the other global heavyweights instead - just because our ambitions don't match up to their lofty standards/we can never hope to actually win the World Cup?


I'm sure SkStu means that each country would have to reach a minimum standard to participate in qualification proper. It wouldn't be eliminating their potential to compete. Ireland, too, could fall to that standard in the future and, if so, would also have to pre-qualify. The minimum standard would, ideally, be capable of maybe getting a draw or two off the team ranked one place above you. San Marino don't really fit this criteria as they usually end their qualifying campaigns without even managing a goal, unless they draw us of course!

Doncaster Rovers don't get to play Man Utd just because they're also a football club, they have to earn the right. I know there are different types of ethics involved in international football but a bit of quality control would be welcome I feel. I also think competitive games for the countries involved could only help their development, if they are serious about it.

I wouldn't agree with the two legged playoff bit though, it would be group based, possibly run in conjunction with the regular qualification groups in a promotion/relegation type scenario. The top two get to join the proper qualifying next time, replacing the two weakest nations from the existing top tier. Something like that anyway!

[SkStu]

Not sure if I can necessarily agree with the sentiment there, Stu. I think that's a fairly haughty attitude to take, and not one that's best suited to us fans of mid-tier nations that qualify for finals only intermittently. (If we're lucky!)

What gives us some inherent or greater right to compete as an international football entity over certain other nations? Just because we might aspire to greater heights? Like making the World Cup or the Euros every once a decade or two?... Or because we perceive certain others as inferior? What is the scope of our ambition? All expectations and aspirations are relative to one's level.

So, what about those nations such as Germany or Italy who qualify for the finals like clockwork, who might perceive us as inferior or who might aspire to even dizzier heights than those to which we aspire? Would it be right for them to dismiss teams at our level as small fry - as dispensable burdens with whom they have to waste precious time in bothering about the menial humdrum of qualification when they could and should be really challenging themselves against the other global heavyweights instead - just because our ambitions don't match up to their lofty standards/we can never hope to actually win the World Cup?

In fact, maybe we should be asking what is meant by "development of football" in Ireland? One wouldn't need to be a seasoned supporter of Spanish football to shudder at the FAI's apparent interpretation of that phrase.

It's not intentionally haughty. I just think that something akin to what I've proposed would better meet the two conflicting arguments mentioned here namely reducing the number of "meaningless" (to bigger nations) games played while at the same time allowing for development of the game in smaller nations by providing more competitive games and something concrete to aim for.

I dunno, it's just an idea/opinion. I see it being beneficial across the board.

[Gather round]

As long as Donny get to/ stay in the top 44 teams in English football (ie promotion to the Championship) they have the same chance of drawing ManU in the Cup as Chelsea do.

The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.

PS to Stu- what do you think of my idea trailed above, ie qualifying groups of five teams with only winners progressing? Less qualifiers for the big boys without excluding anyone...

[DeLorean]

The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.

They probably would prefer it. I'd love to get a few of the lads and play against Spain as well. I don't see how it benefits anybody really though.

[SkStu]

As long as Donny get to/ stay in the top 44 teams in English football (ie promotion to the Championship) they have the same chance of drawing ManU in the Cup as Chelsea do.

The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.

PS to Stu- what do you think of my idea trailed above, ie qualifying groups of five teams with only winners progressing? Less qualifiers for the big boys without excluding anyone...

Sorry GR! Totally missed that.

I think it would be interesting and wouldn't necessarily damage our chances of qualification compared to how often we currently qualify. Additional countries at each seed level almost guarantees us a second place seeding, dilutes (a little bit) the seedings at level one and three. It would still be tough but not necessarily tougher. We'd still need a good draw and good performances to qualify as we do now...

How would you see it as a NI fan?

[SkStu]

The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.

Do you think so? If they win their pre qualifying group they can still achieve their dream of losing 10-0 to Germany! :D

[DannyInvincible]

I'm sure SkStu means that each country would have to reach a minimum standard to participate in qualification proper. It wouldn't be eliminating their potential to compete. Ireland, too, could fall to that standard in the future and, if so, would also have to pre-qualify. The minimum standard would, ideally, be capable of maybe getting a draw or two off the team ranked one place above you. San Marino don't really fit this criteria as they usually end their qualifying campaigns without even managing a goal, unless they draw us of course!

Doncaster Rovers don't get to play Man Utd just because they're also a football club, they have to earn the right. I know there are different types of ethics involved in international football but a bit of quality control would be welcome I feel. I also think competitive games for the countries involved could only help their development, if they are serious about it.

Fair points. Can't really disagree with that. I may have misinterpreted and argued against a notion that wasn't actually advanced, so I retract my accusation of haughtiness, Stu. :o

[ArdeeBhoy]

It might make any given group more interesting with only one relative minnow rather than two, it might not. There are plenty of sterile matches involving one or even two big countries. It would also be regressive to give the play-off losers only two competitive games (usually their main source of income etc.) in the two-year cycle.
Except the 'big' teams, obviously not Ireland, would want 'a second bite at the cherry', especially with World Cups, as now...
And if the minnows want more competitive games, it would encourage them to improve their standards.


Yes, they do it in other Confederations. Why is that a good thing?
Because they can see the idiocy of too many games. There is far too much football already!
Plus there's that thing about imminent synchronization of all the international football fixtures all into fixed slots in the calendar.
As in playing a more 'concentrated' version of the current practice.


They're not part of Spain nor England, let the War of 1707 go, why not?
Because they're just another pointless colonial outpost...part of Britain and their 'overseas territories'.
:rolleyes:




See my first point. plus what happens to the hosts? Plus it's a disgrace that the previous winners of any tournament don't get a bye to the next Finals IMO. Or some sort of advantage in kind.

[QUOTE]I know the journeys are expensive and Kazakhstan are taking the p*ss, but Armenia and Georgia have been widely considered part of Europe/ Christendom for centuries.
Except there are now too many countries in Europe. If UEFA and all its members want to keep it that level then they have to have to have pre-qualify.
Not especially picking on the Brits, but them having 4 teams is now a joke. FIFA should restrict new entrants to independent sovereign states.
And UEFA should enforce stricter geographical criteria. They could start by kicking out Israel, Turkey and the the Kazakhs. Europe doesn't need them.
And the first two would find it easier to qualify through Asia anyway.


As long as Donny get to/ stay in the top 44 teams in English football (ie promotion to the Championship) they have the same chance of drawing ManU in the Cup as Chelsea do.
Bad analogy. ManU have played Chelsea far more than they'll ever play Donny or other teams from the lower reaches of the top two divisions.


The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.
That's as maybe. But apart from not losing so many games so heavily, they'd have to earn the right, rather than the current turkey shoot.

[Gather round]

I think it would be interesting and wouldn't necessarily damage our chances of qualification compared to how often we currently qualify. Additional countries at each seed level almost guarantees us a second place seeding, dilutes (a little bit) the seedings at level one and three. It would still be tough but not necessarily tougher. We'd still need a good draw and good performances to qualify as we do now...

If anything it could be a bit easier (ie you'd still need to be one of the 12 or 13 top teams in Europe, just playing a couple of less games to do it.


How would you see it as a NI fan?

I like groups of six because we get 10 games per two year cycle. A reduction to six or eight would be disappointing. As above I agree with you, a larger number of smaller groups wouldn't make that much difference to chances of qualifying.


If [San Marino] win their pre qualifying group they can still achieve their dream of losing 10-0 to Germany!

At the moment they're guaranteed a double-header against one of Europe's top nine in every competition. Past record suggests they're unlikely to get out if any pre-qualifying tournament.

[Gather round]

Except the 'big' teams, obviously not Ireland, would want 'a second bite at the cherry', especially with World Cups, as now...

Yes, the play-offs exist mainly as a back-up guarantee for England, France & co., not to whittle down an unwieldy number of minnows. As I explained above, UEFA could comfortably have 60-65 teams in its qualifiers without either a) overloading the fixture list, b) excluding anyone, or c) significantly changing most teams' chances of progress.


And if the minnows want more competitive games, it would encourage them to improve their standards

Survival of the fittest eh? Except maybe not. One of the best encouragements to improved standards is better investment in facilities, coaches etc. If San Marino never progress through pre-qualifying, they're unlikely to find the money for those improvements.


Because they can see the idiocy of too many games. There is far too much football already!

There isn't for teams (like Guinea-Bissau, say) who only played two games in African qualifying for 2010, losing 1-0 on aggregate to Sierra Leone. After G-B and a couple of other minnows departed, there were two further group stages to reduce 48 to 20 and thus to five. In other words, far too many unnecessary games. Many of them could have been avoided if everyone had a full group's fixtures, and then they used play-offs at the end instead. But as above, of course Africa's (relatively) big boys like Europe's have to be protected.


Plus there's that thing about imminent synchronization of all the international football fixtures all into fixed slots in the calendar

Is that really going to happen? The African Cup in June would be crazy, not to mention a Qatar finals...


Because they're just another pointless colonial outpost...part of Britain and their 'overseas territories'.
:rolleyes:

Not especially picking on the Brits, but them having 4 teams is now a joke

Whatever you think of Gibraltar, it obviously isn't part of either England or Spain. How is England having their own team any more of a joke than it ever was, given that other non-sovereign countries (Faeroes) and tax havens effectively run from nearby bigger states (Liechtenstein, Andorra) have joined recently?


what happens to the hosts? Plus it's a disgrace that the previous winners of any tournament don't get a bye to the next Finals IMO. Or some sort of advantage in kind

The hosts, not a problem. They get one of Europe's 13 places. I don't agree with holders getting a bye- each tournament is self-contained. Although having won one you'll almost certainly be top-seeded for the next. What's disgraceful about it?


Except there are now too many countries in Europe

I've explained above that- for the purpose of a qualifying tournament if nothing else- they could easily manage 12 more countries, nearly an extra 25%!


They could start by kicking out Israel, Turkey and the the Kazakhs. Europe doesn't need them. And the first two would find it easier to qualify through Asia anyway

Israel wouldn't, the AFC won't have them. Turkey straddles both Europe and Asia, what's the problem? You could have an equally arbitrary criterion than only peninsular European countries get in ;)


Bad analogy. ManU have played Chelsea far more than they'll ever play Donny or other teams from the lower reaches of the top two divisions

No, I think the analogy's fair, although I could have explained more fully. The FA Cup third round is roughly analagous to UEFA national qualifying in that San Marino have an equal chance of drawing any one of 45 teams, just like Spain, or almost like Donny who are as likely to get ManU at that stage as Chelsea are.

Whereas if San Marino are relegated to pre-qualifying, they'll almost certainly never get out of it regardless of whether UEFA has 53 or 65 members.

[ArdeeBhoy]

They don't need or want 65 teams. It's around 15 too many.

San Marino & co are unlikely to ever significantly improve. Even assuming they wanted to...

There is far too much football period ;most African teams can barely afford the travel and hotels, let alone a dozen long distance games a season.
Including in many cases, flying in their own players!

The synchronization thing will happen, just when it's introduced, so qualifiers will be stuck in 4 fixed slots per tournament I believe.

Gibraltar, like the North and numerous other obscure outposts comes under London's rule. Enough said.
They need to rationalise/reduce the numbers, otherwise far more legitimate territories like Bavaria or Catalonia could claim a team.
Part of this is a geographical restriction, including Turkey, Israel and anyone on the fringes.
Unless there's pre-qualifying, keeping likely play-offs, the numbers are just too high.

Though I accept the play-off winners in pre-Qualifying could play against other sides to determine whether they get a place or the 'main pot' in the future and to rotate the minnows, potentially.

Lastly, that analogy is awful. Better teams tend to play better teams more often. End of story.

[geysir]

Money is the major issue for many associations in Africa, it's for obvious reasons why they have their qual format.

As it stands now, San Marino and Andorra are the two dead cert cannon fodder teams. Possibly have a play off with the next 2 higher ranked teams for the WC qual draw, but I can't see it happening unless there's more than 54 teams in the draw.
The rest of the minnows deserve to have their day. So what if a top class team like Ireland has to travel once in 2 years to these 'hovels'.

[osarusan]

The rest of the minnows deserve to have their day. So what if a top class team like Ireland has to travel once in 2 years to these 'hovels'.


I'd second this, except I'd include both San Marino and Andorra in the list of minnows deserving to have their day. They have as much right to enter the competitions as anybody else, and we have no right to be putting extra conditions on their entrance to qualifying proper.

I don't agree whatsoever with the idea that getting them involved in a playoff or a group against some other low ranking countries, resulting the elimination of most of them, would somehow help develop them as a football team.

The whole thing reads to me as 'it's a waste of our time playing the likes of these.'

[DeLorean]

The whole thing reads to me as 'it's a waste of our time playing the likes of these.'

It is a waste of time though, especially as the six points everybody picks up against them end up being discarded anyway.

That said, I can totally see the 'defending the underdog' point of view, and it would be a bit of a blow for the people of San Marino, Andorra, etc. not to have the possibility of Spain and co. coming to town every so often. I'm not overly passionate about my point of view on this really. It annoys me far more the ease in which some countries from other confederations qualify for the World Cup.

[Stuttgart88]

I'm not overly passionate about my point of view on this really. It annoys me far more the ease in which some countries from other confederations qualify for the World Cup.
hear hear. An Aussie colleague at work thinks they're some sort of force because they qualify regularly now. I'd love to see how they'd fare in a European qualification round.

[IsMiseSean]

Didn't Australia move to Asia to increase their chances of qualifying? But now there's a place for Oceania anyway...

[DeLorean]

They used have to play off with the 5th placed South Americans every eight years I think. They played Uruguay a couple of times, winning once and losing one. In between that I remember them losing to Iran on away goals I think, which would have been a huge opportunity blown at the time. Playing off with the 5th best in South American was probably a bit too tough to be fair, I'm not sure we'd qualify too often in those circumstances either.

[geysir]

Australia did better than quite a few European teams managed to do at the WC and finished ahead of teams that knocked us out of the last 2 World Cups.
They certainly have had a better team than us, over these last 2 world cup periods.

[Crosby87]

Not hard to imagine really they have a pop of 22,620,600 people.

One thing that i think is weird though, on "Undercover Boss Australia" they did one with the CEO of Dominoes Pizza Australia, and i noticed that when you order a pizza there, when you open the door, they shake your hand and tell you what their name is (The delivery person.) That would annoy me.

[Stuttgart88]

Australia did better than quite a few European teams managed to do at the WC and finished ahead of teams that knocked us out of the last 2 World Cups.
They certainly have had a better team than us, over these last 2 world cup periods.Marginally I reckon, if it all, but that's neither here nor there. They'd struggle to qualify from a European Group, just like we do. We only got into WC02 because we drew Iran.

[IsMiseSean]

We only got into WC02 because we drew Iran.

That's a bit harsh. When you look at it, we finished level on points with Portugal, finished above Holland and had the best record of all the 2nd place teams.

[Yard of Pace]

Not hard to imagine really they have a pop of 22,620,600 people.

One thing that i think is weird though, on "Undercover Boss Australia" they did one with the CEO of Dominoes Pizza Australia, and i noticed that when you order a pizza there, when you open the door, they shake your hand and tell you what their name is (The delivery person.) That would annoy me.

That's utterly bizarre.

Also, the only time I (or, I would hope, most people) would order a Dominos Pizza is when I am absolutely hungover to hell. In which case, it would be tantamount to employee abuse for the poor delivery person to have to touch any part of my anatomy, and, in particular, my right hand.

[Charlie Darwin]

That's utterly bizarre.

Also, the only time I (or, I would hope, most people) would order a Dominos Pizza is when I am absolutely hungover to hell. In which case, it would be tantamount to employee abuse for the poor delivery person to have to touch any part of my anatomy, and, in particular, my right hand.
Luckily, they shake with their left hands down there. Everything is opposite. I'm sure one of our Australia-based members can confirm.

[Crosby87]

Do you chaps have Dominos in Ireland? The Cheese steak pie isn't bad Pacer but yes absolutely must be hungover.

[geysir]

That's a bit harsh. When you look at it, we finished level on points with Portugal, finished above Holland and had the best record of all the 2nd place teams.
Yes we did very well in the group, but we still finished 2nd. Maybe Stutts' point was that for play-off opponents we were fortunate to get Iran and might have struggled against stronger European opponents. Iran just had no belief in the 2nd leg, when a goal for them would have turned us to jelly.
Australia just have to deal with the likes of Iran in order to qualify. A definite easier path to the Finals than what we have in the UEFA zone.

Still, Australia topped the Asian qualifiers and I think they have justified their presence on merit in the last 2 World Cups, whilst we have no argument (yet) of equality, because of our results at Euro 2012.

[Crosby87]

I know this has been here a million times but.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNwXFnqBzHg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNwXFnqBzHg)

[Stuttgart88]

That's a bit harsh. When you look at it, we finished level on points with Portugal, finished above Holland and had the best record of all the 2nd place teams.Yes, that's totally fair but I still feel we'd have struggled against another European side despite having such a good campaign. We had a very good campaign when the last second equaliser in Macedonia cost us outright qualification, but still went out to Turkey.

[DannyInvincible]

Not hard to imagine really they have a pop of 22,620,600 people.

Population doesn't have that significant a bearing on success. India are ranked 143rd with a population of over a billion people. Meanwhile, Uruguay, with a population of under four million, are ranked 16th at present and were ranked as high as second within the last year.