FIFA is notoriously biased toward England. That's why England is hosting the World Cup in 2018.
Printable View
FIFA is notoriously biased toward England. That's why England is hosting the World Cup in 2018.
Ronaldo?Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Not renown for their honest those South American's are they?
A seriously dodgy looking bloke.
tricky_colour; I'm not sure if your above post was totally serious, but here goes...
There are clear variances in strength within even the pots, as well as between them. For example, Spain were undoubtedly the strongest and highest ranked team in pot one, whilst Norway or Greece would rightly be considered at the weaker end of that pot. The same applies to all pots.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Because we're usually in a lower pot so chances are against us on avoiding a powerhouse. It makes perfect sense really. If you view "seeded" as synonymous with "rigged", then fair enough, but at least the teams are categorised openly and based on objective rankings, plus I can't say I really object to the principle of seeding the groups myself anyway. On the other hand, I think seeding the qualification process twice (for example, when it comes to the play-off stage), especially without prior announcement, is unfair.Quote:
I am sure it is rigged, how come we always get a tough draw?
Inevitable, I would have said.Quote:
The chances of us getting a tough draw and England getting a weak one are pretty staggering.
Sure this time around we've been drawn against a pot five team who just about managed to scrape into that pot in the place of Wales after a Faroese student based in Denmark pointed out a slight error in FIFA's calculations.Quote:
Add to that the fact we had Montenegro in our group when as the 5th team when clearly they were a 3rd tier team.
Not sure if you're being serious or lapsing into parody here. Ronaldo might have done magic with his feet, but with his hands? Why would Ronaldo be specifically looking for Portugal's ball to draw them in a group with Russia, Israel, NI, Azerbaijan and Luxembourg? There were easier groups on offer. He doesn't even look at the balls beyond drawing out Portugal's ball for that group.Quote:
Anyway I did not see the draw untill now, here is part of it, it is obviously so rigged it is a joke, there is a seriously
dodgy looking bloke picking the balls out and you can see he looking at them and looking for a marked ball to pick out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K-wHl-XXR8
Also look at his long selves, even an amateur magician could slide a ball down his sleeve, and he
does not even have to do that, he can have the piece of paper already in his hand and
switch it.
Ask any amateur magician and they will tell you it is a doddle to rig a draw like that.
He didn't, but you'll notice, he simply put his hand in and took them out. You're supposed to shuffle them up, then take them out. He did it more for the top seeds, but in our case, he simply pulled us out without shuffling the balls, and Group 3 is what we got.
I'm not saying it was a fix, because it wasn't. But the optics of the draw were a disgrace. The writing on the papers was miniscule, the players didn't read what they took out, they may not have even known what team they took out. And the tv director only showed the teams in the groups from the 3rd seeds on, it was very hard to follow before then.
It's cumbersome, and careless of FIFA not to publicise in advance, but why unfair? Of course they want the countries with big TV markets or 'star' players (France, Russia and Portugal last time) to progress, but Slovenia, Bosnia and you lot still had a fair chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
When were the last play-offs that weren't seeded? It was suggested back in 2009 that they were simply following their own precedent, if clumsily.
There's no inherent need for play-offs anyway. To reduce nine groups to 13 teams, just let the four best runners-up progress on countback. Play-offs, like shoot-outs, are only really there for TV drama. You'd expect that normally France etc., even if only managing second in their group, could do enough to get through that way.
You are aware our current qualifying group is about the easiest we could possibly have gotten? Go back and look at the seedinds - Russia were the weakest top seeds, Slovakia were the weakest second seed, Macedonia were one of the lowest fourth seeds and even Andorra were one of the lowest bottom seeds. Only Armenia were top half of their seeding pot (and even then, just barely)Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
When the draw was made, based on form in 2010 qualifying (22 points) they were better than many of the first seeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Are you saying that made the draw less random or something? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
That's cosmetic stuff though. The optics of the draw are a completely different issue to the accusation that the thing was rigged. Why would Ronaldo even need to know what team he pulled out?Quote:
I'm not saying it was a fix, because it wasn't. But the optics of the draw were a disgrace. The writing on the papers was miniscule, the players didn't read what they took out, they may not have even known what team they took out. And the tv director only showed the teams in the groups from the 3rd seeds on, it was very hard to follow before then.
Well, UEFA had them seeded second weakest of the second seeds - see here. Only two teams won their 2010 group with fewer points; they seem to have benefitted from a weak enough group, including a Czech Republic side in transition as top seed and Poland - the second seeds - in freefall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Nice list:
Kazachstan (a)
Faroes (h)
Austria (a)
Germany (a)
Kazachstan (h)
Austria (h)
Faroes (a)
Sweden (a)
Germany (h)
Sweden (h)
when u are a **** country like ireland nearly every single draw is hard
england because they are good make their group look easy but if we were in that group it would be a 'group of death'
Do go on...Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
But we could have had a fairer chance. I thought it was unfair as the groups had already been seeded. Distinction had already been made as to the relative strength of the teams for the purpose of qualification. As such, each team who qualified for the play-offs had finished second on what you might call that original equal footing. To re-seed the teams who finished in the same position as one another, rather than have an open draw, seemed unfair to me as everyone was there on equal merit. Seeding the play-offs simply introduced further unnecessary distinction to blatantly favour the bigger powers after they'd all finished second in their groups. Sure, they want the bigger powers in, but that doesn't necessarily determine the morality of such decisions. Obviously, later seeding the actual final competition itself is a different kettle of fish as you'll have teams competing who qualified via a variety of paths; some might have finished top of their groups (naturally they should be favoured in the seeding), whilst other might have come through play-offs or campaigns from confederations adjudged to be weaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I think it might have been for the 2002 World Cup or else Euro 2000, but would need that confirmed. At least, I remember where they had an open, random draw one year around then after discussing the possibility of introducing seeding, but they eventually went against it as it was proving controversial. Anyway, as it happened, the higher ranked teams were drawn against the lower ranked teams regardless. This obviously raised subsequent suspicion and ideas such as certain balls having being placed on radiators before the draw were discussed amongst the chattering classes.Quote:
When were the last play-offs that weren't seeded? It was suggested back in 2009 that they were simply following their own precedent, if clumsily.
Or why not just let the four highest-ranked second-place finishers qualify? ;)Quote:
There's no inherent need for play-offs anyway. To reduce nine groups to 13 teams, just let the four best runners-up progress on countback.
Over all I am happy with the draw and am looking forward to some of the away trips. Really gonna try and get to the faroes this time.
But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves at them moment because we have no idea who our manager will be AND even who will be available to be picked for a squad at that stage.
Any dates?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I'd expect a return sooner rather than later, if his recent managing to drag himself back to OWC is anything to go by.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Has the draw been made unusually early? Have we usually been aware of the line-up for our next group before our current one has even concluded? I didn't think so, but could be mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
UEFA's ranking clearly ranges over qualification for 2008 as well as 2010. In the former, the Slovaks were weak; in the latter they got the sixth-best points total in qualifying. So on up to date form (in January 2010), they were clearly better than 17th in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Why not give Slovakia and Slovenia credit for upping their game? You're right that the Poles particularly were poor, only winning one game apart from the double over San Marino. But the Czechs weren't in transition when they cruised through Euro 2008 qualifying, deserving to be seeded first. If they couldn't beat the Slovaks and NI in four attempts and ended comfortably behind Slovenia, that reflects the other sides' improvement as much as their decline.Quote:
they seem to have benefitted from a weak enough group, including a Czech Republic side in transition as top seed and Poland - the second seeds - in freefall
They weren't really that lucky - it was 3-3 in the last minute and Sweden had a penalty when the game was abandoned. Even if they'd missed the penalty, they'd still have gone through.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
Come on, it's nothing to do with morality. FIFA would have preferred France and Russia to qualify, so they had a draw which if not perfectly administered was quite open, based on how we all know they work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Invincible
Heh. I'd have no problem with that, provided only that ranking was determined just by current form, ie games in that qualifying series. If a third-place finisher was the 13th best team on that basis, let them go the finals.Quote:
Or why not just let the four highest-ranked second-place finishers qualify?
Draws for European qualifying are usually made between December and February just after the previous qualifying series has finished. So that, inter alia, rankings should be at least a little more closely related to form.Quote:
Has the draw been made unusually early? Have we usually been aware of the line-up for our next group before our current one has even concluded? I didn't think so, but could be mistaken
I call them "Jim Corr" people.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I've been watching UEFA and FIFA draws for almost 25 years, and I've never thought certain teams were pre-destined to play certain others. Every draw has been conducted at random, according to the seedings at the time. All the balls are at the same room temperature in every draw. Sometimes you have a nice draw, and sometimes you don't. You get what you're given, good or bad, and you get on with it.
I've never seen the problem with the seedings in the last play-offs. Every WC and EC draw is seeded throughout the competition. We didn't do enough in previous campaigns to earn a seeding in the last play-offs, but that's something we have to correct in time. Of course FIFA want the bigger teams on the pitch, but so do neutrals. Places still have to be decided on the pitch, and they are. If we're unsuccessful, then we have another chance to improve next time.
Yes, as GR said and myself and I think others pointed this out pages ago. Usually held in the December after the play-offs for the preceding qualifying campaign. Still no one has explained why it was held now.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Another thing I noted about the draw last night, was it not odd that there was no one drawing "group balls" I seem to remember this happening at some stage in the past. Maybe someone can confirm?
I was just speaking from my own perspective in order to explain why I think it was unfair. Not worth anything to FIFA, but we’re all allowed a moan or two now and again. I know why and how it works, but they have to provide some semblance of fairness to make it look like they’ve taken into account ethical considerations when formulating regulations and such. Otherwise, they just wouldn’t get away with it. People wouldn’t bother with it. (Or maybe they would; it's not as if the yearly corruption scandals make a huge deal of difference to FIFA's monopoly over the global game...) What would be the point in having rules or referees though if not to ensure at least some element of fairness or justice remained a fundamental aspect of the sport?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
That's the thing though. Beyond the questionable need to double-seed matters, a decision with retroactive effect was taken. If we'd known the full rules in place prior to the qualification campaign starting, maybe we could have approached some games differently. Our home game against Montenegro mightn't have proved such a drab affair then, for example. Who knows? It was moving the goal posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Note to self: must try harder. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Possibly so they could do the draws for all confederations at once and make as bombastic, flamboyant and ridiculous an affair out of it as possible?Quote:
Usually held in the December after the play-offs for the preceding qualifying campaign. Still no one has explained why it was held now.
Do they do something unnecessarily complicated like this for the Champions League?Quote:
Another thing I noted about the draw last night, was it not odd that there was no one drawing "group balls" I seem to remember this happening at some stage in the past. Maybe someone can confirm?
It was already known by then that seedings would be enforced. If we were in the top 4 seeds, nobody would have argued. But our results in previous qualifications counted then, as they do now, so we had to take the bottom 4 at the time. I hate the idea of play-offs in any competition, but I would rather be in our position instead of Norway's, who didn't even have a playoff to complain about.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I was indeed. A McDunphy individual (wearing a cape) informed the wireless audience of the jolly match. Germany had a huge hooligan problem at the time and an away match against Poland eventually saw them banned for five years.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
You must try harder. Your input here is usually so facile and lacking in any sort of coherence or depth that I really don't know why you bother. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I seem to remember that the WC2010 draw was as bombastic as that and managed to be in December.
Very interesting to note during that how the players were able to harry the keeper when he was in possession and he had to bounce it in order to move around the box a la basketball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
Sorry, you're correct. The decision to seed the play-off draw was taken in late September of 2009: http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soc...255543996.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Our final group game against Montenegro was in the middle of October of 2009. Still, surely it's only right and to be expected that you know where you stand from the outset. In fact, according to that Irish Times piece, it had initially been indicated that the draw wouldn't be seeded.
I'm also just noticing that Sweden were ranked behind us for a point towards the end of 2009 when they fell to 42nd, although they've radically improved on that since and moved up to 19th.Quote:
World soccer’s governing body had previously indicated that an open draw would be used to determine who faced who. Instead, it will be based on the Fifa rankings as of October 16th.
This last sentence makes, er, no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
The draw for this was based on rankings taken a week or so ago...
And probably months before the WC fixtures are known, based on the ongoing qualification for 2014!
It was, but even so, it still wouldn't have stopped us from playing France, just makes it that bit more unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I had no problem playing France, and the away leg second worked out better for travelling, what I can't take is how the deciding incident in the tie was allowed. I know there have been similiar injustices before, but that doesn't make what happened to us any easier to take, or more correct.
Everyone else seems to have understood it well enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
If the draw for 2014 qualifying had been delayed until the end of 2012 qualifying (ie, to December this year), then the rankings would have been based on the whole of the most recent qualifying series. Rather than only half of it. And thus more closely related to current form.
tough draw i think, i would say it's the 4th trickiest group so it could have been worse.
envious glances are being cast towards group E (top two: norway and slovenia) and G (greece, slovakia) but pleased to avoid spain and france in group I.
straight qualification looks out, but if we can keep up our recent good form and qualify for the euros, we might get through. i'd agree with those who say it's odds against though.
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Yeah sure, but Ronaldo?
"Now Ronaldo, put the cold one back and select the warm one"
Ronaldo was selected for FIFA transparency purposes because there was no way the draw could be rigged with somebody so dull-witted at the end of the chain.
Oh but wouldn't that be the whole genius of the plan?
Bit of an understatement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
Just listening to an interview with Craig Levein there and he expects the fixtures meeting for Scotlands group to be in the last week of August (in or around anyway).
For what its worth.....
I'm not sure sure about Auto being out of the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by zero
Usually what goes against us, we get our draws etc against the top seeds(last WC ones) but then we go and mess up against the smaller/equal countries whereas the top seeds will usually walk through them.
I think in this group, we should be able to account for the three seeds below us much easier then we have in the past few qualifiers in general and if we get our draws with Germany we could sneak it over the Sweden games.
I think we already have. The two games we'd have slipped up on in previous years would be Armenia away and Macedonia away.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilberto_eire
i like your positivity, but i expect the germans to win every game in the group with the possible exceptions of sweden away and us away. they have an 100% record in the euro qualifiers and have lots of good young players who will only improve.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilberto_eire