They're out. It's South Africa; Brazil and Argentina; Spain, Italy, Germany, England, Netherlands.
Printable View
They're out. It's South Africa; Brazil and Argentina; Spain, Italy, Germany, England, Netherlands.
Does this mean that Ireland would have missed out on top seeds if we qualified?? What a disgrace!!!! :mad:
Is the host always seeded? South Africa's results have been very poor of late.
Alas, this thread will go to World football forum.
Yes, so to get SA as first seeds in your group would be a dream. Whats the betting France draw them?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
How Italy and Argentina are seeds is beyond me.
Both hardly set the world alight during qualifying.
Where did Argentina finish in South American qualifying again. Was it 4th?
Did FIFA just want to rubber stamp how corrupt they are by seeding South Africa???
Hosts are always top seedsQuote:
Originally Posted by rambler14
Didn't South Korea get very benign refereeing decisions in WC 2002.
Should we expect the same for South Africa?
Yes. Maximises local TV and commercial interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
7/1 assuming no further fixes :)Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy
Er, apart from being the World champions, Italy's record in this series of qualifying is better than all the eight unseeded European countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmet7
Argentina's seeding may be more convoluted, based on past achievement rather than current record. No-one seriously expected Paraguay, USA or the best Asian or other African side to be seeded.
It is another disgrace and FIFA changing the rules.
The November FIFA rankings were delayed until after the playoffs so they could be used.
FIFA then strangely announced they would use the October rankings. Under the rules for 2006 & 2002 this would have made no difference to the seeds. However their motive is now obvious.
Sure it is nice to see Henry and Domenech get shafted but it is another case of FIFA changing the rules to suit the result they want.
We should not celebrate or gloat as it is another black day for world football.
Henry might be a cheat but he isn't even close to the real gangster.
England gain again.
Watch em go and draw New Zealand, Algeria and Slovenia.
South Africa will get New Zealand,Uruguay and some midranked European side, Greece or Slovenia probably. The Confed Cup draw was practically transparent it was so see through.
England & Brazil are being seeded for a purpose, they want to be able to stick them somewhere that isn't going to mess up the local infrastructure because they traditionally bring a lot of support. So I expect them both to be in groups centred around JHB.
The thing is, the five current best European teams (based purely on current qualifying) are seeded. That's reasonable, even if FIFA's convoluted rankings- and their willingness to avoid them when it suits- aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
England deserve to be seeded. They didn't look that brilliant against Slovenia in a recent friendly.Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
I'm a bit vague about the scale/ distances/ transport and other infrastructure etc., but aren't all bar two of the venue cities (Cape Town and Port Elizabeth) in the NE of the country and accessible from JHB?Quote:
Originally Posted by endabob1
PS on a cricketing tangent, I was listening to the South Africa- England game the other day and the commentators were moaning that Port Elizabeth (widely agreed to be the nicest venue) wasn't getting a five-day test match; the concrete bowls around JHB take precedence.
England deserve to be seeded and would be on the original criteria. Holland for France is the only change based on the 2002 & 2006 criteria.
Cape Town and Port Elizabeth are a long way from Johannesburg. Both are at sea level as is Durban whereas the others are at altitude. Nobody has an advantage at this stage as the seeds are drawn into groups.
I cannot see any possible group that South Africa would progress from without refereeing help. Even then Blatter will have to referee himself. Slovenia, New Zealand and Uruguay would still see Uruguay and Slovenia walk the group.
Well if the November rankings were used (which was expected) then France would have displaced England as one of the seeded teams according to the BBC website.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
It doesn't matter who England get anyway because they'll scrape their way to the quarter finals before going out to Germany/Portugal/Brazil/Spain.
http://geology.com/world/south-afric...te-image.shtmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Bloem is about an 11/12 hour drive (just under athousand kms) from Cape Town, PE is about 9 hours.
Durban is 1700kms from Cape Town
Everything else is basically North of JHB
One of the LOC was quoted locally about getting Brazil & England based in Gauteng (Jhb & Pretoria), I fully expect it ot happen because of all the cities Bloem & PE are perhaps the most troublesome in terms of accomodation. They're far from other cities and and are not blessed with lots of hotels, PE has the Garden Route 2+ hours away but it's hardly convienient.Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
SA squeezed out of a group with Spain, Iraq & NZ in the confed cup, I think they'll at least be competitive in a group like the one above, beat NZ scrape a draw from Uruguay or Slovenia and hope results fall their way.......
If they end up with
France
USA/Australia
and one of the South American countries.
there in BIG trouble
Fair point. I was merely suggesting that seeding (and indeed World ranking) should be based on the current qualifiers, not what happened in the 2008 or 2006 finals.Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
Can't disagree with that :)Quote:
It doesn't matter who England get anyway because they'll scrape their way to the quarter finals before getting going out to Germany/Portugal/Brazil/Spain
They're always seeded. It means that they can be guaranteed the group in their main stadium.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
no matter how many dodgy refereeing decisions they get i cant see south africa progressing from the group, even as top seeds
Previous seedings were based on a mixture of past performance and FIFA rankings. FIFA changed the rules this time to suit themselves.
I can confidentlky predict now that the October 2013 rankings will not be used for the 2014 draw.
By changing the rules not to seed France FIFA can pretend to be not corrupt but in reality it stinks.
FIFA have said B1-H1 will be drawn on Friday. This is the fairest way as it impacts who meets who in the later rounds. B1 is virtually guaranteed a quarter final spot unless France/Portugal end up in Group A or B. D1 & C1 play in Port Elizabeth, F1, C1 & E1 all play in CT. D1, H1, E1 & G1 all play in Durban. So C,D & E all get 2 games at sealevel.
I don't think they'll bother fixing South Africa's draw as there is nothing they can do to get them through.
South Africa might scrape second place if they were paired with New Zealand, Algeria and Greece. Beat New Zealand and then draw the other 2 games.
If there is a God he'll give England: USA, Ivory Coast and Portugal. France will be teamed up with Brazil, Mexico and Ghana.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
South Africa can't get another African country.
Greece would be way too strong. Ivory Coast and Ghana will make a big impression but South Africa are now one of the weaker African nations.
SA are pretty crap alright but they're better than New Zealand and probably better than or as good as the other Asian sides excepting Australia so I'd expect them to get one beatable team from that pot, a decentish South American side (they're guaranteed Chile, Paraguay or Uruguay) and then one of the non seeded europeans.
It's entirely plausible that with a fortuitous draw they could get out of their group although even then they would need a bit of luck......
Ivory Coast are on the other hand a very good side and should get out of their group unless they are really unlucky and end up with something like Brazil, France & the USA
A bit of luck and they will be Quarter Final candidates, maybe even Semi's with a bit of momentum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
Every host goes through a period of inertia before the World Cup. They've no qualifying to do and always look ring rusty. I know they messed up the African Nations qualifying royally, but with Parreiera back in charge they'll start to make some progress.
They're certs to get to the second round. By that point the tickets will have been sold, and FIFA will be happy.
I think they'll either get Portugal or France, just so that they do have a big team competing with them, and the other two teams will be poorer, Uruguay maybe, so that they have a massive game and two easy ones.
A reverse of the group they had in 98 (SA, France, Saudi Arabia and Denmark) would be a handy one for them, except the Saudis are Australia and the Danes and French can't be drawn together.
my mistake. Chile instead of Algeria and I'd still give them an outside shot of progressing to the 2nd round. McCarthy is back in the squad with Parreira in charge which should help.Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
2 out of 3 ain't bad. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
Bafana will need some divine intervention between now and June, can't see them getting past both Mexico and Uruguay, terrible draw for them, probably as tough as they could have got it. Parreira is good but he's no miracle worker, Mokoena, Pienaar, Parker, McCarthy are good players with European experience but Pienaar aside certainly nothing special McCarthy has attitude problems and is on the downhill of his career.
There are a couple of good domestic players, Modise is a tricky skilful player but goes missing too often for me, Tshabalala is a powerhouse central midfielder in the Frank Lampard mould, surprised he hasn't moved to Europe actually & Matt Booth, the 6ft 4 centre half who played in the Russian league (for the side Pats beat this year actually) before coming back to SA a year ago.
Comparing them to Ireland, Pienaar & possibly McCarthy & Tshabalala would be the only ones close to our side although the young full back Gaxa is very highly rated here, he's too much of a headless chicken for my liking.