2014 FIFA World Cup Brasil™ - Europe vs. America

[Neil]

Here is something mad.

 

If Switzerland beat Slovenia, and Uruguay fails to beat Argentina .... then Switzerland will move to the top 8 replacing Uruguay.

 

Irrelevant of the score between Turkey and Netherlands, Switzerland will have 2 points ahead of Holland for the upcoming ranking providing both teams win their last game. Switzerland for TOP SEED !

 

The Swiss team is extremely organized and strong. Been seriously impressed whenever I've seen them. Hitzfeld has done a really good job there.

 

Switzerland are definitely one of the most improved teams in Europe in the past 18 months. Need a good tournament performance to back it up though, because they've had impressive qualifying campaigns in the recent past and done nowt at tournaments. Off the top of my head, anyway.

 

They've been relatively "solid" for a little while now, but they look like they've got some quality to go with it now. Hitzfeld is the key factor behind it all coming together.

[Trumpet]

Yes. Switzerland is a very strange team though.

 

in 2006, they were the only side not to concede a single goal at the World Cup, but were eliminated in penalties vs. Ukraine.

They were disappointing in 2008 when they hosted Euros

in 2010, they BEAT Spain, and then went on to get 2 disappointing results

They were wank in 2012 qualifying campaign

and now they are really doing well. The only team to beat Brazil in recent months !

 

Their younger players and maturing and it's showing on the pitch. Unbelievable that 2 teams who were absolutely hopeless 2 years ago for Euro 2012 qualifying (Belgium and Switzerland) could well be among Top Seed of the World Cup draw next month.

 

Switzerland now will take their last game seriously as well, which is great news for Iceland. Here is a nice article about the rise of Icelandic football.

http://www.footandball.net/can-iceland-make-world-cup/

 

p.s. even the US could potentially make top seed if all Switzerland, Netherlands and Uruguay fuck up . Guess that's determine whether they'll give the game to Panama (to eliminate Mexico if possible) or try to go win it. They'll know their chances before the game since European clashes finish earlier.

 

 

[Flip]

They've been fairly successful in under 21s and 17s in the last decade if I'm not completely out of my mind.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

They've been fairly successful in under 21s and 17s in the last decade if I'm not completely out of my mind.

They won the u17 when it was held in Nigeria, I'm sure. I remember them ousting our team of " 'young' superstars that mysteriously never made it in Europe or progressed to the national team" anyway.

[ponsaelius]

They've been fairly successful in under 21s and 17s in the last decade if I'm not completely out of my mind.

They won the u17 when it was held in Nigeria, I'm sure. I remember them ousting our team of " 'young' superstars that mysteriously never made it in Europe or progressed to the national team" anyway.

 

Just checked and you had Onazi and Omeruo in that squad who have since progressed to be fair. 2 players from a successful U17 squad is about par.

[Guest palnese]

Nigerian "U-17s"

[The College Dropout]

I still can't get over the Belgium/Colombia being seeded situation. Not in a World Cup since 2002 and 1998 respectively.

 

England are a regular knockout phase team and Holland - runners up in 2010 - qualify for every tournament with insane ease.

 

It's madder than Norway's seeding this time round.

 

Unfair on the African teams especially. No matter what they do on the continent they'll be low seeds and end up in very difficult groups.

[Dr Colossus]

See, the enjoyable thing about this is that the World Cup is also held in Brazil in the 2002 comedy film Mike Basset: England Manager.

[Trumpet]

I still can't get over the Belgium/Colombia being seeded situation. Not in a World Cup since 2002 and 1998 respectively.

 

England are a regular knockout phase team and Holland - runners up in 2010 - qualify for every tournament with insane ease.

 

It's madder than Norway's seeding this time round.

 

Unfair on the African teams especially. No matter what they do on the continent they'll be low seeds and end up in very difficult groups.

 

Why? Ghana can set up loads of friendlies and beat them and they'll climb up the table ...but it's unrealistic.

 

African teams (bar Ghana) were have been wank in the last 2 world cups...so I don't think they deserve more sports (or top seed).

 

Thing is, other than top 8, the rest is all regional. So it won't matter if you're 9th in FIFA ranking or 100th, doesn't make any difference at all.

[SEMTEX]

Winning lots of friendlies doesn't really help that much, otherwise brasil wouldn't have fallen so low pre-confeds.

[Mole_Toonfan]

Personally i have no problem with Colombia and Belgium being seeded.

 

Since the last World Cup they have both been easily top 8, who cares about past WCs? and who cares about the past in general? as of right now they are two of the best and most consistent teams.

 

That's like giving Federer a no 1 seeding because he won multiple Wimbledon's...... just doesn't make sense in my view, i'd rather seed teams based on their results since the last WC and like it or not Colombia and Belgium have been right up there with the very best and fully deserve their seeding.

 

Although i will say i expect Belgium to flop but still.

[Yorkie]

Personally i have no problem with Colombia and Belgium being seeded.

 

Since the last World Cup they have both been easily top 8, who cares about past WCs? and who cares about the past in general? as of right now they are two of the best and most consistent teams.

 

That's like giving Federer a no 1 seeding because he won multiple Wimbledon's...... just doesn't make sense in my view, i'd rather seed teams based on their results since the last WC and like it or not Colombia and Belgium have been right up there with the very best and fully deserve their seeding.

 

Although i will say i expect Belgium to flop but still.

 

I don't know how the rankings are decided, but I don't have a problem with the seeds, in principal, either. Seeds should be based on merit, imo. Belgium have been one of (if not the?) best teams in qualifiers on the globe so their place as seeds is deserved.

[Yorkie]

Just looking at the tables there, France really need to win tonight just to avoid being the 'worst 2nd placed team'. Yikes. Come on, France.

[Trumpet]

Just looking at the tables there, France really need to win tonight just to avoid being the 'worst 2nd placed team'. Yikes. Come on, France.

 

No. France are guaranteed in play-offs because their group were 5 teams.

 

The battle for the worst runner up would have been a lot more interesting tonight had Aquilani not scored that equalizer at the death in Copenhagen. Now it's almost certain to be group B. (Unless Denmark and Bulgaria don't win and Armenia beat Italy in Italy)

[ponsaelius]

France are fine, they were in a smaller group. Results against the last placed teams for all the other groups are discounted to compensate for that.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_%28UEFA%29#Ranking_of_second-placed_teams

[Yorkie]

Just looking at the tables there, France really need to win tonight just to avoid being the 'worst 2nd placed team'. Yikes. Come on, France.

 

No. France are guaranteed in play-offs because their group were 5 teams.

 

The battle for the worst runner up would have been a lot more interesting tonight had Aquilani not scored that equalizer at the death in Copenhagen. Now it's almost certain to be group B. (Unless Denmark and Bulgaria don't win and Armenia beat Italy in Italy)

 

Ah, okay.

[Disco]

40 minutes for Bosnia to stop Bosnia-ing it up and stop the Greeks from boring their way through.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Colombia? They didn't do particularly well in the last Copa America and haven't been overly dominant in qualifying or anything. The problem with comparing int'l football to tennis is that there isn't enough competitive football between WCs to make a correct judgement. Especially given that teams are VASTLY limited in who they may play. The last World Cup is the best reference you have to compare sides across federations. In South America you are allowed to play every single team in a region with higher ranked sides. This is incredibly conducive to high rankings for the qualifiers. America have a nearly 100 percent record on their continent since the last World Cup and it means nothing because they have been denied the chance to play top sides competitively. Ghana and Ivory Coast have stormed through qualifiers, and done well in the continental tournaments, with Ghana going far in the WC, but it means nothing because African sides are ranked lowly as a whole. Also, we have ~54 teams on our continent. You cannot place everyone in one group and Ghana/Nigeria/CIV/Egypt aren't generally going to be playing each other. There is the same issue in Europe. The rankings are extremely biased.

[ponsaelius]

40 minutes for Bosnia to stop Bosnia-ing it up and stop the Greeks from boring their way through.

 

If Greece get through at the expense of Bosnia

[Ryan]

Howay the Greeks

[Trumpet]

If Bosnia fuck this one up, then they are truly the Spurs of International football. half hour to go

[Yorkie]

40 minutes for Bosnia to stop Bosnia-ing it up and stop the Greeks from boring their way through.

 

If Greece get through at the expense of Bosnia

 

Are Greece still painfully boring then, a la Euro 2004?

 

EDIT: Five 1-0s in qualifying suggests 'yes'.

[Mole_Toonfan]

Colombia? They didn't do particularly well in the last Copa America and haven't been overly dominant in qualifying or anything. The problem with comparing int'l football to tennis is that there isn't enough competitive football between WCs to make a correct judgement. Especially given that teams are VASTLY limited in who they may play. The last World Cup is the best reference you have to compare sides across federations. In South America you are allowed to play every single team in a region with higher ranked sides. This is incredibly conducive to high rankings for the qualifiers. America have a nearly 100 percent record on their continent since the last World Cup and it means nothing because they have been denied the chance to play top sides competitively. Ghana and Ivory Coast have stormed through qualifiers, and done well in the continental tournaments, with Ghana going far in the WC, but it means nothing because African sides are ranked lowly as a whole. Also, we have ~54 teams on our continent. You cannot place everyone in one group and Ghana/Nigeria/CIV/Egypt aren't generally going to be playing each other. There is the same issue in Europe.

 

Colombia have been fantastic in qualifying and they play a lot stronger opposition than most teams do tbh, the last Copa America was two years ago and 3 years ago come the World Cup.

 

If you go through their results since the last WC i believe they would be in the top 8 if not very close to it, i personally have no problem with them being seeded.

 

Even if they are outside the top 8 teams results wise since the last WC it wouldn't be much in it for it to be an outrageous joke or anything.

 

I can understand if you wanted to move a couple of teams give or take.... i.e. Holland for Colombia but there really isn't much in it if we are looking at 2010 to now and definitely isn't a disgrace.

[Disco]

40 minutes for Bosnia to stop Bosnia-ing it up and stop the Greeks from boring their way through.

 

If Greece get through at the expense of Bosnia

 

Are Greece still painfully boring then, a la Euro 2004?

 

EDIT: Five 1-0s in qualifying suggests 'yes'.

 

Scored 11 in 9.5 games and 1.5 of those games were against Liechtenstein.

 

Still, fair play to them they're good at what they do and for them to qualify IMO is massively overachieving.

[ponsaelius]

Bosnia goal.