Beecher Networks - Web Development, Hosting & Domains
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Is it fair???

  1. #1
    Reserves jorge's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Posts
    613
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Is it fair???

    Is it fair that South America only get four,five probably places when asia get the same amount.

  2. #2
    Viva El Presidente! sligoman's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Town
    Posts
    19,975
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    595
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    383
    Thanked in
    224 Posts
    YES!
    Life without Rovers, it makes no sense...it's a heartache...nothing but a fools game. S.R.F.C.


  3. #3
    Reserves jorge's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Posts
    613
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Why when SA teams are superior.

  4. #4
    Coach eirebhoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    8,638
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Well Asia has 44 members while South America has just 10.

    Definitely seems fair to me.

  5. #5
    First Team Gerrit's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Béal Feirste / Belfast
    Posts
    1,325
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Indeed. You cannot send more South American teams, they already send 50% of the members... They could have 11 members BTW if Argentina wouldn't mix politics and sports and block Falklands from signing up
    Visit my favourite teams :

    www.kvo.be - www.shelbournefc.ie - www.rosenborg.info

  6. #6
    First Team
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Springfield
    Posts
    2,382
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerrit
    They could have 11 members BTW if Argentina wouldn't mix politics and sports and block Falklands from signing up
    Or if the Brits just gave them back Anyway, whats the point in having more Asian teams if they are only going to be cr@p. The Asian/middle eastern teams are usually the whipping boys, we dont need any more.
    As I say, we're just young & a bit nieve.

  7. #7
    First Team Gerrit's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Béal Feirste / Belfast
    Posts
    1,325
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Why would the Brits give it back now if they first made all the effords to keep them ?

    This is a part of history where I am behind in knowledge... What was the whole fascinating with the Falklands anyway ? Why would Britain want to have the responsability of having to govern a group of rocky islands on the other end of the world, a group of rocks with 2000 people and no natural richnesses so as oil... It must cost them many pounds and headaches having to keep an eye on that place so far away, while they probably only get very few tax incomes in return... Why did they even bother to keep it ?!

    Dito with the Pitcairn Islands... 65 people on a group of rocks in the middle of the Pacific, and the Union Jack waves above the only settlement... Now that the islands have their first sex scandal and no courts or lawyers to handle it themselves, Britain has to come in between... Before this court case, would Tony Blair have ever known the UK owned some rocky islands there ?!
    Visit my favourite teams :

    www.kvo.be - www.shelbournefc.ie - www.rosenborg.info

  8. #8
    Reserves jorge's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Posts
    613
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Why do you think theres so many European teams in the WC-there better,imagine a WC with continents having an equal ammount of countries in it.Great players miss out because of the likes of Soudi Arabia,Iran etc ITS NOT FAIR.

  9. #9
    First Team stojkovic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerrit
    Why would the Brits give it back now if they first made all the effords to keep them ?

    This is a part of history where I am behind in knowledge... What was the whole fascinating with the Falklands anyway ? Why would Britain want to have the responsability of having to govern a group of rocky islands on the other end of the world, a group of rocks with 2000 people and no natural richnesses so as oil... It must cost them many pounds and headaches having to keep an eye on that place so far away, while they probably only get very few tax incomes in return... Why did they even bother to keep it ?!

    Dito with the Pitcairn Islands... 65 people on a group of rocks in the middle of the Pacific, and the Union Jack waves above the only settlement... Now that the islands have their first sex scandal and no courts or lawyers to handle it themselves, Britain has to come in between... Before this court case, would Tony Blair have ever known the UK owned some rocky islands there ?!
    I'm not 100% but I think historically Britain kept the Falklands because of access to Antartica. Antartica is divided into regions 'owned' by the likes of Britain, America, New Zealand, even Norway. One day they will be allowed to discover oil down there.

  10. #10
    Reserves
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Euskadi/BÀC
    Posts
    546
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    In the last World Cup, South America had one team in the last 4, and so did Asia. Obviously hosting the tournament helped South Korea in more ways than one, but fact is that in the last 4, there were as many Asian teams as South American ones.

  11. #11
    Reserves
    Joined
    May 2005
    Posts
    470
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Am I right in saying that the Concacaf region (Mexico, USA etc.) gets 3 automatic spots and a play off spot. Now that is a joke! No country from this confederation has ever made a significant impact on a World Cup finals. Maybe Ireland should apply for entry to this region?!

  12. #12
    Seasoned Pro brendy_éire's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Up the town, Derry
    Posts
    4,062
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    35
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    325
    Thanked in
    246 Posts
    "The hosts are guaranteed a place, and they will join 13 other teams from Europe [Europe gets 14 spots, Germany have taken one already]. The African zone will send 5 representatives to Germany, while Asia and South America have been awarded 4.5 spots and the North and Central Americans and Caribbean Zone has 3.5 and Oceania 0.5."

    IMO, South America gets too many places. Outside of Brazil and Argentina, there's not much else to justify 4 automatic places. Brazil and Argentina are more or less guaranteed a place in every World Cup.
    Neither, for that matter, should North and Central America get 3 automatic places. Mexico and the USA get in every time.

    So, we have, almost certainly -

    South America: Brazil, Argentina (qualified), and take your pick of two Ecuador, Paraguay, Colombia, Chile, Uraguay, Peru, Venezuala, Bolvia.

    North and Central America: USA, Mexico, and one from Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Panama and Guatemala.

    Asia: Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Iran. (all have qualified)

    So that's Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, USA and Mexico all guaranteed World Cup entry every four years. Only two of which consistantly put in decent performances in the World Cup.

    Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and Pacific islands) are now calling for an automatic spot, btw.

    If things are to be changed, give Europe more places (I count 20-odd that should be in). And how about throwing the American countries together?
    Africa gets 5 places, outside Nigeria and Cameroon, there's no-one else (Morocco, Tunisia, or South Africa?). Looking at the groups, Togo, Ivory Coast and Angola are all doing well. But these teams will be nothing but whooping boys come next year. What's the point in having 8-0 games in the World Cup? It demeans the tournament. Granted, FIFA wouldn't particularly want a World Cup of European teams plus a few others, but this is meant to be the greatest footballing teams in the world competing together. If they happen to be European, so be it.

  13. #13
    Capped Player Schumi's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    A difficult place to get three points
    Posts
    10,741
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    203
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    351
    Thanked in
    174 Posts
    If anywhere deserves more places, it's Europe. The quality of teams who don't qualify is higher in Europe than in any other continent.
    We're not arrogant, we're just better.

  14. #14
    First Team Metrostars's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,534
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    33
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    79
    Thanked in
    52 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Armando
    Am I right in saying that the Concacaf region (Mexico, USA etc.) gets 3 automatic spots and a play off spot. Now that is a joke! No country from this confederation has ever made a significant impact on a World Cup finals. Maybe Ireland should apply for entry to this region?!
    2 of the 3 Concacaf teams made it past the first round in the last World Cup. USA got to the quarter finals and Mexico might have too had they not met USA in the second round. Even with that, it still was surprising that Concacaf was award an extra 1/2 spot for 2006. I think CONMEBOL should have been given the 1/2 spot and have 5 spots instead of 4.5. BTW even though a lot of the Caribbean teams are a joke, there are 34 teams in concacaf.

    I don't think we will ever see UEFA get more than 15-16 team. If most of the teams come from Europe, why bother calling it the World Cup at all.

    FYI - Number of Teams/Amount of games played in qualifying:
    AFRICA: 51/10 (12 if team was in the preliminary round)
    ASIA: 39/12 (14 if team was in the preliminary round)
    CONCACAF: 34/18
    CONMEBOL: 10/18
    OCEANIA: 12/7 (11 if team was in the preliminary round)
    UEFA: 51/12 (10 in a 6 team group+2 if qualify through 2nd place)


    2002 World Cup Finals
    Total # Teams/# Teams in 2nd round:/# Teams in 1/4 final
    AFRICA: 5/1/1
    ASIA: 4/2/2
    CONCANAF: 3/2/1
    CONMEBOL: 5/2/1
    UEFA: 15/9/4
    "Jacques Santini...will be greeted in every dugout of the country by "one-nil, one-nil" - Clive Tyldsley, 89th minute of France-England June 13, 2004.
    "Ooooohhhh Nooooooo" Bobby Robson 91st minute.

  15. #15
    Reserves jorge's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Posts
    613
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Schumi
    If anywhere deserves more places, it's Europe. The quality of teams who don't qualify is higher in Europe than in any other continent.
    Thats why theres the European Campionships.

  16. #16
    Reserves
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    895
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerrit
    Indeed. You cannot send more South American teams, they already send 50% of the members... They could have 11 members BTW if Argentina wouldn't mix politics and sports and block Falklands from signing up
    Viva las Malvinas Argentina!

Similar Threads

  1. It's not fair
    By bray boy in forum Bray Wanderers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 23/08/2007, 8:15 PM
  2. Fair Play
    By Stevo Da Gull in forum Waterford FC
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18/10/2005, 11:37 AM
  3. Fair play to ye !!
    By A face in forum Derry City
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20/03/2005, 4:54 PM
  4. Fair???
    By shedite in forum Cork City
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19/02/2005, 7:04 PM
  5. Fair city
    By Ringo in forum Premier & First Divisions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01/12/2003, 12:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •