ELORATING tells us what would be a WC with the 32 strongest teams
Quincy
even though the 36th place of Czechia is quite disappointing. But
their time seems to be over post-Nedved.
This would be the distribution:
18 from Europe
6 from South America
3 from Africa
2 from North/Middle America
2 from Asia
1 from Australia
18 for Europe is less than I am expected.
Strongest teams that are actually missing:
#10. Croatia
#13. Russia
#23. Turkey
#25. Ukraine
#26. Sweden
#27. Romania
#30. Colombia
#31. Ireland
So it caught 7 European and 1 South American team.
Discuss!
jvaz...@semavenca.com
> 18 from Europe
> 6 from South America
> 3 from Africa
> 2 from North/Middle America
> 2 from Asia
> 1 from Australia
>
> 18 for Europe is less than I am expected.
> Strongest teams that are actually missing:
>
> #10. Croatia
> #13. Russia
> #23. Turkey
> #25. Ukraine
> #26. Sweden
> #27. Romania
> #30. Colombia
> #31. Ireland
>
> So it caught 7 European and 1 South American team.
Intruders:
South Africa (83)
North Korea (79)
New Zealand (74)
Algeria (56)
Slovakia (48)
Slovenia (47)
Ghana (43)
Honduras (33)
Juan Vazquez
Declan Murphy
I think it is a bit much to consider the host nation of a world cup to
be an "intruder".
In any case, while the ELORATING and other rating systems are somewhat
interesting, at least as talking points, any ranking system will have
a bias towards the perceived strength of the confederation. Scotland
against North Korea in Pyongyang? Iceland against China in hot humid
Guangzhou or high altitude Kunming? Faroe Island versus Fiji in Suva?
Outside of friendlies, Oman (AFC) for example is unlikely to have the
opportunity to play teams ranked higher than Japan or Australia, but
having watched Oman recently, I'm not confident that the four non-
seeded UEFA teams in the recent playoffs (Ukraine, Ireland, Bosnia,
Herzegovina, Slovenia) would have managed to beat them in Muscat (home
matches in Europe not such a problem IMO).
Mark V.
> I consider the elorating onhttp://www.eloratings.net/quite accurte,
Discuss? Then shame on all of them for not beating/coming ahead of
lower-ranked teams. Croatia is ranked 10th, you/they say? Then tell
them to take care of rank 25 Ukraine where it counts! The only team I
see REALLY getting screwed here (and, coincidences aside, I am NOT
talking about handballs or penalties) is Ireland, who given ranking
did what they had to but had the misfortune of playing behind Italy
and then getting paired with France.
Andre
>
> - Show quoted text -
speaking of misfortunes: Belgium was in a group with Spain, Turkey,
and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Belgium and Italy should have switched groups.
Matthias Mühlich
> In any case, while the ELORATING and other rating systems are somewhat
> interesting, at least as talking points, any ranking system will have
> a bias towards the perceived strength of the confederation. Scotland
> against North Korea in Pyongyang? Iceland against China in hot humid
> Guangzhou or high altitude Kunming? Faroe Island versus Fiji in Suva?
I guess that UEFA teams (and also CONMEBOL teams) would not oppose the
idea of more inter-confederation play-offs.
ken.o...@gmail.com
> I consider the elorating onhttp://www.eloratings.net/quite accurte,
Oh so *you're* the one. Always wondered who it was.
> Discuss!
If you think there are truly 42 teams better than Ghana then I'd like
some of whatever you're smoking.
Quincy
wrote:
Any ELO System is a generic and very objective system. Obviously Ghana
wasn't able to defeat some opponents with higher ELO rating in the
last years.
They don't seem to be strong enough, so #42 is quite accurate.
ken.o...@gmail.com
>
> Any ELO System is a generic and very objective system.
It's an ok system for individual sports when the matches you played 10
years ago are still involving ..... yourself, but international
football matches are so far apart that there's too little continuity
of players. So your rating becomes an extremely coarse average of a
decade of different players that only weakly correlates to the
*current* team and its form.
Abubakr
And then you had the travesty of Swisso-Grecko group. I think that was
the weakest thing I have ever seen. The poor Swedes didn't have it
easy either.
Enzo
>
> - Show quoted text -
None from much-maligned Asia, I see.
Google Beta User
> > If you think there are truly 42 teams better than Ghana then I'd like
> > some of whatever you're smoking.
>
> Any ELO System is a generic and very objective system. Obviously Ghana
> wasn't able to defeat some opponents with higher ELO rating in the
> last years.
> They don't seem to be strong enough, so #42 is quite accurate.
If one of the lesser European teams (Greece, Slovenia) get a Cote
D'Voire or Ghana I can see a royal hiding. The African teams will be
well up for it (granted it's a world cup all teams will be fired up).
Declan Murphy
wrote:
CONMEBOL teams (Argentina, Uruguay) hated playoffs against OFC, even
though Argentina (1994) and Uruguay (2002) qualified, and probably
wouldn't want to add a further 3-4 time zones to the 2nd leg. I
suspect that if the AFC offered to tradeoff its 4.5, reduce the number
of guaranteed spots from 4 to 3 in the process, but by playoff
possibly gain up to 6 spots, then UEFA would not oppose the idea. FIFA
on the other hand would probably jump up and down. Can't really see
this happening.
Lord of War
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree. The qualification setup is all wrong. The groups should not
be bu confederation. It should be world wide. For example, Itlay could
be in a group that has teams form Asia and South America. Right now,
as bad as I feel for Ireland, France is a beeter team. But, at the
same token Ireland is alot better than teams like Australia or New
Zealand. I know FIFA want all regions represented but it should not be
at the expense of teams who belong there. These minnows come in with
nothing to lose and reak havoc for the established teams. The world
cup should only have 16 teams and they should be the best 16 even if
means on confederation makes up all 16.