FIFA is notoriously biased toward England. That's why England is hosting the World Cup in 2018.
Ronaldo?Originally Posted by tricky_colour
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.
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.I am sure it is rigged, how come we always get a tough draw?
Inevitable, I would have said.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.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.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.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 31/07/2011 at 6:18 PM.
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.
NL 1st Division Champions 2006
NL Premier Division Champions 2010
NL Premier Division Champions 2011
Keep Tallaght Tidy, Throw your rubbish in the Jodi
Ten Years Not Out
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.
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.
Last edited by Gather round; 31/07/2011 at 6:59 PM.
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)
When the draw was made, based on form in 2010 qualifying (22 points) they were better than many of the first seeds.
Are you saying that made the draw less random or something? :/
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?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.
Nice list:
Kazachstan (a)
Faroes (h)
Austria (a)
Germany (a)
Kazachstan (h)
Austria (h)
Faroes (a)
Sweden (a)
Germany (h)
Sweden (h)
NL 1st Division Champions 2006
NL Premier Division Champions 2010
NL Premier Division Champions 2011
Keep Tallaght Tidy, Throw your rubbish in the Jodi
Ten Years Not Out
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...
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
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.
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.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?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.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Any dates?
I'd expect a return sooner rather than later, if his recent managing to drag himself back to OWC is anything to go by.
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.
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.
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.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.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks