South America v. Africa

Oct 18, 2002
9,759
52
Sydney, Australia
#1
In 2010, for the first time in World Cup history, there are more African nations than South American nations present. After 2 rounds of group matches here are the stats:

Africa:
Played 12
Win: 1
Draw: 4
Loss: 7
Goals scored: 6
Goals conceded: 15

South America:
Played: 10
Win: 8
Draw: 2
Loss: 0
Goals scored: 18
Goals conceded: 4

Draw your own conclusions!
 

Foo

Elite Member
Feb 12, 2006
11,907
5
35
Den Haag, Holland
#3
Asia:
Played: 8
Win: 2
Draw: 1
Loss: 5
Goals scored: 6
Goals conceded: 17

Not too good but just as many points as African teams while having played 2 matches less. Just as many goals scored, more goals conceded but we have N.Korea to thank for that ;)


I already found it ridiculous that SAm has less places than Africa. IMO it should be something like:
Africa: 5 places + 1 playoff with Asia
Asia: 4 places + 1 playoff with Africa
Oceania: 1 playoff with NAm
North America: 2 places + 1 playoff with Oceania
South America: 6 places
Europe: 13 places
 
Oct 18, 2002
9,759
52
Sydney, Australia
#4
Foo jaan, there's only 10 countries in South America. To have 6 qualify, in my opinion is too many. Besides, they're not always as good as their showing this time around. Have a look at the previous 2 or 3 world cups. Other than Brazil and Argentina the rest of the South American contingent have been less than inspiring.

I think there's more of a case for reducing the number of teams back down to 24.

I would have:
Europe: 11
South America: 4
Asia: 3
Africa: 3
CONCACAF: 2

For the last place I'd have a tournament in the host country a year prior to the World Cup, with 2 groups of 4 from the following regions:

Oceania: 1
Asia: 4th & 5th Placed team (remember the first 3 qualified direct)
Africa: 4th & 5th Place team (first 3 have qualified directly)
CONCACAF: 3rd placed team (top 2 have already qualified)
South America: 5th Place team (top 4 have already qualified)
Europe: 12th placed team

You would separate the Europeans from the South Americans, have an Asian and an African in each group and one group gets the CONCACAF and the other the Oceania. Winner of this group plays Winner of that group for the last place in the final 24! 2nd through to fourth go home. Its important that only group winners advance, that way teams will go out and try to win from game one, rather than the cautious, defensive approach of trying not to lose. If you take second place out of the equation, then each game matters and everyone will try to win!

As you can see I've given this a lot of thought! Now if I can only get Sepp to agree!
 
Feb 4, 2005
25,253
5,470
#5
If you take second place out of the equation, then each game matters and everyone will try to win!
Well that's what I think is best for WC Finals as well with 32 teams. Only allow top teams from each group to advance and then you'll have 8 teams. Divide into two groups 4 teams and the winners will play for the title.

Qualifiers:

Europe:13
SA: 5
Asia: 4
Africa: 5
CONCACAF: 3

Playoff:

Oceania v. Asia (5th)
SA (6th) v. CONCACAF(4th)
 
Oct 18, 2002
9,759
52
Sydney, Australia
#6
Well that's what I think is best for WC Finals as well with 32 teams. Only allow top teams from each group to advance and then you'll have 8 teams. Divide into two groups 4 teams and the winners will play for the title.

Qualifiers:

Europe:13
SA: 5
Asia: 4
Africa: 5
CONCACAF: 3

Playoff:

Oceania v. Asia (5th)
SA (6th) v. CONCACAF(4th)
The problem I have is that with 32 teams, there are still too many weak teams! And we've witnessed so far that weak teams translate into defensive teams. I think 5 from Africa is still too many! What you've done is simply take a spot off Africa and give it South America. In my opinion that's just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.
 

ehsan

Legionnaire
Oct 18, 2002
6,393
0
#7
this worldcup marks the downfall of european coaches, just look at these african teams. european coaches....

panic federations, waisted money