Options
UEFA World Cup qualification too bloated
Article in the Guardian either today or yesterday about how qualification to World Cup for UEFA countries is too big. Every country, over 50, get the chance to qualify whereas elsewhere that number is whittled down before qualification proper starts.
Combine this with an issue that is being discussed elsewhere about there not being that many games in international football that people care about.
So why not do it like this:
Brazil 2014
In Autumn 2012:
Top 16 European nations go into a 'Tier 1'
England, Italy, Spain, Germany etc. They're drawn against each other in 8 individual matches. The winners of these matches (8 teams if you're doing the math) go forward to play each other in the spring.
The four winning teams from those matches (say Spain, Italy, Germany and England) - qualify automatically off the back of just two games.
Running concurrently is 'Tier 2'
The other European nations (36, I think) who are divided into 9 pots of four. The top two from each group goes through where they're joined by the 12 'losers' from Tier 1
....
Phase 2
Losers from Tier 1 and qualifiers from Tier 2 meet in the final phase, Tier 3 e.g 30 teams - 5 groups of 6 with the top from each group going through plus the top 4 runners up.
Making (I hope) 13, UEFAs quota for the next World Cup
Combine this with an issue that is being discussed elsewhere about there not being that many games in international football that people care about.
So why not do it like this:
Brazil 2014
In Autumn 2012:
Top 16 European nations go into a 'Tier 1'
England, Italy, Spain, Germany etc. They're drawn against each other in 8 individual matches. The winners of these matches (8 teams if you're doing the math) go forward to play each other in the spring.
The four winning teams from those matches (say Spain, Italy, Germany and England) - qualify automatically off the back of just two games.
Running concurrently is 'Tier 2'
The other European nations (36, I think) who are divided into 9 pots of four. The top two from each group goes through where they're joined by the 12 'losers' from Tier 1
....
Phase 2
Losers from Tier 1 and qualifiers from Tier 2 meet in the final phase, Tier 3 e.g 30 teams - 5 groups of 6 with the top from each group going through plus the top 4 runners up.
Making (I hope) 13, UEFAs quota for the next World Cup
0
Comments
Two years of tedium.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the South American qualifying was done by having all the teams play each other in a league structure with the top teams going through,therefore there is no 'whittling down'.
Yeah but they only have about 10 teams. One less this time because Brazil qualify automatically.
As things stand there is 53 teams in qualification, split into 6 pots (9 in Pot 1-5, 8 in Pot 6). What I would do is have the 36 teams from pots 1-4 automatically go into the qualifying draw, and split the 17 remaining teams from pots 5 and 6 into four groups. From those, the four group winners then progress to the main qualifying draw where they are split into 10 groups of 4.
By doing this you would get rid of the whipping boys from the main draw, and most of the teams in the main draw would have a genuine chance of making the finals (even from pot 4 there are teams like Bulgaria, Romania and Poland who can qualify). Also, by splitting the groups into 4 instead of 5 each team would only have to play six games which means that there is less room for error and less chance to come back if you make a bad start, making the process more exciting. Means less chance of one team scampering away and qualifying with two games to spare.
From the 10 groups the group winners and the three best runners up would qualify for the finals. No play-offs, which means that the second place teams would have to give it their all until the final game instead of easing off because they know they're guaranteed a play-off place.
EDIT - Forgot this in the original post. Another advantage of pre-qualifying is it gives the weaker nations more experience of competitive football against teams of a similar level. For teams like San Marino and Luxembourg being put into the main draw so they can be thumped 5 or 6 nil every game must be counter productive to them. By being them more gametime against teams closer to their level it gives them more chance of developing and improving into better sides in the future.
52 teams in qualifiers, France qualify as hosts.
Pre qualifying round - 2 groups with 4 teams in each. Top 2 in each qroup qualify for the main draw.
Main qualifiers - 12 groups with 4 teams in each. Winners and 10 best runners up qualify. 2 runners up with the worst record play off for the remaining spot.
You'll just end up killing international football in smaller countries just because it would suit the bigger nations.
Teams such as San Marino, Faroe Islands, Andorra and Liechenstein will never improve and it makes more sense for the weakest teams to play each other so they can actually play a competitive game that they stand a chance of winning.
No, I'm saying that if the lower ranked teams get more competitive game time against teams of a similar ability it can only be a good thing for them. How on earth is it helping the development and confidence of players from these countries if they're going to be thrown in with everyone else and get tanked in every match. Surely it's much better that they play games that they actually have a chance of winning?
Plus in the system I've proposed if you were to do well enough in pre-qualifying you'd qualify for the main draw anyway, so by having them go through a group beforehand against similarly ranked teams who they have to beat they'll be better prepared when they do come up against the bigger teams.
The bigger nations play less games, the mickey mouse no hopers will still get hammered but those who are winning the pre-qualifying have to play twice as many matches !!!!!
There is no perfect solution for everyone but at least with the current system everyone has the same opportunity
A more succint version of what I was getting at.
Totally agree. Another point is that doing consistently well in pre-qualifying will allow the countries to be promoted to the main draw - and coming bottom of the group will see relegation back to the pre-qualifying stage.
Pre-qualifying is used for other World Cup qualifiers, it's used for UEFA club competitions and it's used for the FA cup - so it's not the most revolutionary idea ever.
These aren't mutually exclusive concepts though - the teams who do well in pre qualifying are the same ones who will be bottom of the main groups
Maybe. Maybe not. But at least there is a path to improvement. Most non-league sides don't make it past the 3rd round of the FA Cup but that doesn't stop them entering the competition.
The weakest teams will never better themselves no matter how many games they play.
There's already a path to improvement ( for those willing or able to follow - see below ) but making teams play even more matches is blocking off that path not making it easier to travel
Exactly, but those are only a very small group. It is the teams above them who would be punished by these types of changes.
Let's take just a couple of tonight's games , Serbia, Wales, Scotland, Macedonia, all four teams who would be around the pre qualifying spots, two of whom have been on something of a downward spiral for a while , two of whom are generally advancing up the ladder - why should any of those teams be disadvantaged to save the top nations playing another couple of matches ?
Look at Turkey - England put 8 past them in the 1980s (twice).Came 3rd in 2002 World Cup.
There is nothing wrong with the current system
Wales may aswell pull out of 2014 qualification now and spend their money on development
Turkey has a population of 74 million, so there was obviously potential for improvement. Andorra has a population of 78,115 (2011 census) so there's not exactly a huge talent pool to choose from.
Ah, that'll be why the WC final was China v India.
It's not just down to population
Given time and investment in the game, it's possible that China and India could have a decent team in the future. The same is not true of the small nations, nor will it ever be.
They'd soon change their minds when one of them slipped out of the top seeds.
Err that would mean less revenue for the associations.
Someone's gotta pay for the extravagance (personally I feel there was no need for Wembley)