2010 World Cup Qualifiers

[dippin]

So, anyone else following that?

In Europe, the surprise seems to be how badly Portugal is underperforming, probably even missing out on the 2nd seed playoffs. It seems Scolari was more important to that string of good results they had than previously thought.

Other than that, England and Spain seem to be the top teams in the region, but both have a history of severely underperforming when it counts.

In Africa, there is the mild surprise of Cameroon and Nigeria doing poorly, but this time around there doesnt seem to be a team likely of advancing deeply into the world cup, like Nigeria, Cameroon or Senegal.

In Asia, the surprise seems to be North Korea, and the fact that Australia moved confederations and is in. None of these teams seem to be good enough to move past the first round.

In North America, despite the performance in the confederations cup, the US team doesn't look very good to me, with the "put 8 men in the box, hope for an amazing performance by Howard and hope to score on a counter attack" style of play being very hit and miss. Mexico seems underwhelming.

In South America, the surprise seems to be how far Argentina has fallen, even though they are loaded with talent. Brazil, on the other hand, seems unstoppable. Unfortunately, Dunga has Brazil playing a very unattractive, defensive minded game. They are clearly the favorites, but that defensiveness puts me off.

I still haven't decided who Ill be rooting for next year, but Im leaning towards the Netherlands right now. A more creative style of play, combined with a history of having amazing teams and losing to ugly defensive machines makes them a very attractive underdog.

[highthief]

It kinda makes me laugh to see Argentina struggle under Maradonna. He's simply not a football manager, but he was always going to be given a turn in charge. But it just goes to show the stupid decisions football associations make sometimes.

Hopefully, England can lock up a berth in SA on Wednesday. 3 points versus Croatia puts us through.

I like Holland like many do, but have seen them crash and burn so many after initially looking like world beaters that I have no faith in them doing much.

[Glory's Sun]

England will do well if Capello makes better starting selections..

they did enough to win the other day, but looked far from impressive.

[dlish]

i think australia is better than most give it credit for.

they have an array of stars and made it to the quarters last world cup falling to italy at the death.

[biznatch]

I know I'll be rooting for France, and hoping for what happened 12 years before. Either way, I can't wait.

[dippin]

Maradona has the same problem so many other soccer greats had when trying to move to coaching, which is a sort of naivete when it comes to setting up the style of play. This also applies to Platini, Klinsmann, etc.

Argentina, when on, plays a beautiful game. Lots of ball movement and possession. Problem is, it is not that hard to neutralize it. Argentinian defense is awful, and they are highly vulnerable to the counter attack.

Meanwhile, the best managers around are the ones who were former unremarkable defenders or defensive midfielders known for their tactical application to make up for their lack of skill. Dunga, Scolari, Lippi, for example

[dougalputt]

Come on Scotland!!!

We have a massively difficult task against a strong dutch team but hopefully we can pull it off - another magical night in Hampden coming up!

---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 PM ----------

I personally hope both Argentina and Portugal get there - the best players in the world need to be at the World Cup - which is why it was a shame for Giggs that he played in poor Welsh teams.

---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 PM ----------

P.S.

I also hope Northern Ireland and England get there - would be good to have as many of the UK nations there next year.

---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

P.P.S.
Is anyone planning on going to South Africa? I have a stag to organise around that time and if Scotland get there would seriously consider going!

[healer]

The way SA are playing now, I don't think they would have qualified for the World Cup were it not being played in our backyard. Though they showed promise in the Confed Cup, the recent losses in international friendlies are starting to ring some alarm bells. It'll be embarassing as all hell if SA don't at least make it past the group stages.

I just hope they don't go and do something stupid like replacing the coach. It really pisses me off when football teams to that.

[highthief]

England and Spain are through today.

What has been encouraging about England's performances has been their best two games have come against the biggest rivals in the group - Croatia. Add to that Gerrard, Lampard, and Rooney all playing well in those matches (in addition to Lennon and Walcott) - and it is perhaps a good omen.

[spindles]

Originally Posted by dippin

In Asia, the surprise seems to be North Korea, and the fact that Australia moved confederations and is in. None of these teams seem to be good enough to move past the first round.

Oz world ranking is now 14. I'd be surprised (as would be many others) if they don't get passed the group phase.

[dippin]

those rankings are virtually meaningless, as no one has a clue how they are done. A lot of what goes into them is political, trying to raise interest in the sport in non traditional regions.

[spindles]

that's true, but I think we are a better team now than we were 4 years ago.

[biznatch]

Damn, France v. Serbia was a frustrating match. tied 1 - 1.

The players in the team are good, I'm very excited about Gourcuff, and Ribery is very good as well. But as a team, it doesn't seem to be working so well. I guess I'll have to wait till the next couple of matches to see.

[Vaultboy]

Originally Posted by dippin

In Africa, there is the mild surprise of Cameroon and Nigeria doing poorly, but this time around there doesnt seem to be a team likely of advancing deeply into the world cup, like Nigeria, Cameroon or Senegal.

Qualifying in Africa is tough and unpredictable. 52 unions with only 5 berths available. You are up against not only the quality of the opposing team, but also all sorts of off-field obstacles and tactics, including geography: no other federation has such a wide variety of climatic conditions, with as much travel involved. You can literally draw Ghana, Ethiopia, Egypt and South Africa, which makes for arduous travelling.

Cameroon and Nigeria, in the past built their qualification on winning at home and mitigating damage away. When you're in a tough group though, it makes for a risky tactic. Nigeria's best team was in 2002, and even then they went out in the first round, and also didn't qualify for the 2006 world cup. So your suprise at them doing poorly is based on reputation more than results, i wager.

In any case, I've rated Ivory Coast and Ghana as the most consistent African teams for the last couple of years. They play well anywhere on the continent.

[dippin]

Originally Posted by Vaultboy

Qualifying in Africa is tough and unpredictable. 52 unions with only 5 berths available. You are up against not only the quality of the opposing team, but also all sorts of off-field obstacles and tactics, including geography: no other federation has such a wide variety of climatic conditions, with as much travel involved. You can literally draw Ghana, Ethiopia, Egypt and South Africa, which makes for arduous travelling.

Cameroon and Nigeria, in the past built their qualification on winning at home and mitigating damage away. When you're in a tough group though, it makes for a risky tactic. Nigeria's best team was in 2002, and even then they went out in the first round, and also didn't qualify for the 2006 world cup. So your suprise at them doing poorly is based on reputation more than results, i wager.

In any case, I've rated Ivory Coast and Ghana as the most consistent African teams for the last couple of years. They play well anywhere on the continent.

Not just reputation, but individual talent and actual opponents.
Nigeria has a team filled with players playing for the top leagues in the world. Unlike Tunisia, its direct opponent, who, despite playing in 2006, still has the majority of players based at home. Looking at individual talent, Nigeria is clearly superior on paper.

Cameroon has since taken the lead in their group, but they are still hanging by a thread and I don't think anyone really foresaw that. We are talking about the runners up in the African nations cup potentially losing a spot to a Gabon team that has never qualified for a world cup and hasnt even qualified for an African Nations cup in almost 10 years.


By the way, I don't know how you can say that no other federation has that variability in climatic conditions. Asia and South America have just as wide a variation, with a greater variation in altitude as well.

[Vaultboy]

Originally Posted by dippin

Asia and South America have just as wide a variation, with a greater variation in altitude as well.

South America is a far smaller continent, in size and in time-zone span to Africa. Its cities are almost all in the Southern Hemisphere. Climatically it is also a lot less diverse than Africa.

Competition in CONMEBOL is tight rather because of the relative quality of the teams. Yes, there are a handful of teams where altitute is a factor, but it negated by the round-robin structure to qualifying. In Africa, you could be a coastal country playing all your away games at > 1000m.

You are correct in all respects w.r.t. Asia though.

Originally Posted by dippin

Nigeria has a team filled with players playing for the top leagues in the world. Unlike Tunisia, its direct opponent, who, despite playing in 2006, still has the majority of players based at home.

Not all of them playing in the top league of the world are starting regulars for their teams. Not all of those european teams are neccesarily that good either. So you cannot use the amount of players in Europe as any kind of measuring stick for playing in Africa.

Egypt, who have won the AFCON 6 times (vs the 2 of nigeria), have only twice qualified for the world cup. Gabon are like portugal: Ranked highly (30's) but never perform. They are in a tough group, and could once again not qualify. Senegal's WC qualification was quite the anomaly, and most of their players only made it into Europe after the world cup - and they're still there. Which shows another bias: European club scouts simply dont know enough about Africa, apart from perceptions about Nigeria, etc.

Also if you look at the CAF Champions League, the best African clubs come from supposed "weaker" national teams: Egypt, Tunisia, Maroc, Ghana and Sudan dominate the top 10 clubs - and only 1 club from cameroon and Nigeria respectively . Cameroon, who have all of their team playing in Europe have also become weaker over the last decade.




I'm hoping that the World Cup will give African teams a home advantage, and the teams I'd like to see are (in order) Ghana,

[dippin]

Originally Posted by Vaultboy

South America is a far smaller continent, in size and in time-zone span to Africa. Its cities are almost all in the Southern Hemisphere. Climatically it is also a lot less diverse than Africa.

Competition in CONMEBOL is tight rather because of the relative quality of the teams. Yes, there are a handful of teams where altitute is a factor, but it negated by the round-robin structure to qualifying. In Africa, you could be a coastal country playing all your away games at > 1000m.

You are correct in all respects w.r.t. Asia though.

Well, size doesnt have a lot to do with climate variation. You have deserts and rain forests, valley and huge mountains. Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are further south than S. Africa, and then you can go play literally in the middle of the Amazon. And then there are the Andes: when FIFA banned games in high altitudes, it did so thinking of Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Brazil had no problem beating Ecuado 5-0 and Peru 3-0 at home, but could only tie them away.

High Altitude Soccer Teams Have Significant Advantage Over Lowland Teams

Not all of them playing in the top league of the world are starting regulars for their teams. Not all of those european teams are neccesarily that good either. So you cannot use the amount of players in Europe as any kind of measuring stick for playing in Africa.

Egypt, who have won the AFCON 6 times (vs the 2 of nigeria), have only twice qualified for the world cup. Gabon are like portugal: Ranked highly (30's) but never perform. They are in a tough group, and could once again not qualify. Senegal's WC qualification was quite the anomaly, and most of their players only made it into Europe after the world cup - and they're still there. Which shows another bias: European club scouts simply dont know enough about Africa, apart from perceptions about Nigeria, etc.

Also if you look at the CAF Champions League, the best African clubs come from supposed "weaker" national teams: Egypt, Tunisia, Maroc, Ghana and Sudan dominate the top 10 clubs - and only 1 club from cameroon and Nigeria respectively . Cameroon, who have all of their team playing in Europe have also become weaker over the last decade.




I'm hoping that the World Cup will give African teams a home advantage, and the teams I'd like to see are (in order) Ghana,

Of course, all caveats apply to players playing internationally and etc. But that doesn't change the fact that most people will be surprised if Nigeria doesn't go through and Tunisia does. Even in the two African Nations cup Nigeria has done better.

It is not disrespect against Tunisia. But this generation of Nigerians has done pretty well in the youth tournaments leading up to this (2nd in u-20 WC in 2005, 2nd in the olympics in 2008, 2nd in the u-17 in 2001), and so to fail to qualify is unexpected.