Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Max_F Date: 20-06-2006, 00:28 Edited by: Max_F at: 20-06-2006, 00:33	I apply same method as UEFA use in eurocups (points devided by number of participants), but to continental zones. After 2nd matches: - zone --- teams -- pts --- coeff S. America -- 4 --- 12 --- 3.000 Europe ----- 14 --- 36 --- 2.571 Oceania ----- 1 ---- 2 --- 2.000 Asia ----------- 4 ---- 5 --- 1.250 N. America -- 4 ---- 5 --- 1.250 Africa ---------- 5 ---- 4 --- 0.800

Author: panda
Date: 20-06-2006, 12:45

When the GS is finished it will also be interesting to compare the number of qualifiers to the last 16 with the number of entrants from each zone. At the same time, there are good reasons for not having an exact equivalence between strength and places, since part of the point of the WC is to see football between teams of different continents and to develop football outside the historically strong areas.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: eldaec Date: 21-06-2006, 11:33	I think you can already add a few bonus points in for those guaranteed to qualify (even after 2nd matches)

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Max_F Date: 21-06-2006, 13:53	Well, i'll add all bonuses in next calculation after GS.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Edgar Date: 21-06-2006, 13:57	You should also add the play-off matches between confederations as qualifying rounds matches.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: executor Date: 21-06-2006, 14:05 Edited by: executor at: 21-06-2006, 14:12	With 1 point for win and 0.5 for draw, of course. That would make: {pre> CONCACAF 1.5 OFC 1.0 CONMEBOL 1.0 AFC 0.5 {/pre> These will be added to the number of points obtained in WC and divided by the total number of teams. OFC and CONMEBOL will have an extra team.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Edgar Date: 21-06-2006, 14:40	Not OFC, but AFC will have an extra team.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: bora Date: 21-06-2006, 15:17	while calculating continental coeffs where should we put australia?

Author: iwan
Date: 21-06-2006, 21:32

I don't know how they did it the last time
but becouse the United States reached the quarterfinals
in 2002 and Korea reached the Semiefinals CONCACAF
and Asia reseived more spots this time than last time!??

In 2002 Asia had 4,5 spots include 2 hosts and now
4,5 exclude 1 ore 2 hosts, and the CONCACAF 3,5 instead 3.

But ore the rankingpoints Australia receives are for Asia ore
Oceania I don't know, maybe it can be possible to merge
Asia and oceania in 2010 like they did before 1982 to
play for 5 ore 6 spots?!?

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: iwan Date: 21-06-2006, 21:43 Edited by: iwan at: 21-06-2006, 22:55	How ever..Australia has been qualified for the WCT as an OCEANIAN COUNTRY and that's why the points Australia receivest must go to the OFC and not the AFC!!! When the qualificasion-pools ware made Australia was an Oceanian country, later they changed from FA, but that dousn't matter any-more!!

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: ignjat63 Date: 21-06-2006, 22:44 Edited by: ignjat63 at: 21-06-2006, 23:12	What's "Surtently"? EDIT: OK, I see, thanks

Author: panda
Date: 23-06-2006, 23:43

OK, 16 qualifiers.

Africa = 1 (Ghana) = 1/5
Oceania = 1 (Aus)= 1/0.5 pretty good %
N and cent Am = 1/4 (Mex)
S Am = 3/4.5 (all except Parag)
Asia = 0
Europe = 10/14 (all except Cro, SCG, Pol, Cz)

I guess, as we know that Europe and S am are storng, these are the most interesting percentages - 67 for S Am, and 71 for Europe. (Though europe have home advantage, so to speak- if you removed the hosts and calc it at 9/13 that's still 69%)

Author: Aegis
Date: 24-06-2006, 03:39

Here is a table of the inter-confederations games. Obviously, the games between teams of the same confeds (Germany - Poland) don't count.
It's not from me, I have seen it on rec.sport.soccer. But I found it interesting, so I felt like sharing.

| GROUP STAGE ONLY |
| Average Points Per Game (APPG) - FINAL - |
=========================================================
| | AFC CAF CCC CMB OFC UEF | TOTAL |
---------------------------------------------------------
|AFC| xxxx 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 | 0.58 |
| | xxxx ( 3) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 6) | (12) |
---------------------------------------------------------
|CAF| 0.67 xxxx 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 | 0.80 |
| | ( 3) xxxx ( 2) ( 1) ( 0) ( 9) | (15) |
---------------------------------------------------------
|CCC| 3.00 0.50 xxxx 0.00 0.00 0.29 | 0.50 |
| | ( 1) ( 2) xxxx ( 2) ( 0) ( 7) | (12) |
---------------------------------------------------------
|CMB| 3.00 3.00 3.00 xxxx 3.00 1.43 | 2.08 |
| | ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) xxxx ( 1) ( 7) | (12) |
---------------------------------------------------------
|OFC| 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 xxxx 1.00 | 1.33 |
| | ( 1) ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) xxxx ( 1) | ( 3) |
---------------------------------------------------------
|UEF| 2.33 2.33 2.43 1.43 1.00 xxxx | 2.10 |
| | ( 6) ( 9) ( 7) ( 7) ( 1) xxxx | (30) |
---------------------------------------------------------

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: kurt Date: 24-06-2006, 11:46	world cup ? better would be europe and the little rest 10 countries in europe of the 14 goes in the next round, in my eyes africa with five teams should be 4 and europe should have one extra

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: thomas Date: 24-06-2006, 12:38	This result should lead to more intercontinental play-offs in the qualifications for WCT 2010. A fair distribution for the 31 places could be: Europe: 9 + 9 Africa: 3 + 3 Asia: 3 + 3 South America: 3 + 3 CONCACAF: 2 + 3 Oceania: 0 + 1 That's 20 qualified by continental group matches and 22 in the world-wide play-offs for the remaining 11 places.

Author: panda
Date: 24-06-2006, 14:08

In a footballing quality sense, yes for sure - people call the European Championship "the WC minus Brazil and Argentina.'

However:

a) football politics, including trying to make football more popular in the world, is heavily involved.
b) cultural or non-football politics e.g. the frequent financial problems of African sides also works in favour of the more organised sides
c) for Europeans, watching sides from other continents is a big pleasure.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 24-06-2006, 14:38

I would say if you were talking about pure football quality (which as already stated we are not) then Asia and CONCACAF are probably over-represented.

I think Africa is a more difficult case. In Asia and CONCACAF the same "strong" teams tend to qualify time after time and do not (except on home soil) set the world on fire. There's no strength in depth and no reasonable case for additional places and some argument for removing the half place each they got this time.

But although the very best teams in African football are not quite on a par with that of Europe or South America there is a lot more relative strength in depth. Imagine if Europe had only five places - how often would their "best" teams qualify? Even if only the qualifying group winners had been at this World Cup then there would have been no Spain (one of the main contenders for the tournament) and no Switzerland or Sweden (both of whom have qualified for R2). Stick Nigeria, Cameroon and maybe Senegal in place of those three teams and there's a fair chance Africa would be well represented in the knockout rounds. Interchange Cote D'Ivoire with just about any European team in the draw (England included) and the European team would probably be on the way home now too.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: panda Date: 24-06-2006, 14:41	I guess it is a cliche, but in the WC defensive and organisational errors cost a lot, and African sides are vulnerable to that still. So maybe they underperform. Fascinating to see how they will dop in 2010, when they are 'at home.'

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: ignjat63 Date: 24-06-2006, 14:51	I do not know exactly why, but I believe that Africa's countries have great potential but not Asian and CONCACAF countries. To improve, Afracans need to make organizational changes, copy European approach really. Then they would be much better then they are now. Once, again, I do not feel that in afore mentioned continents no matter what they do.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: MalcolmW Date: 24-06-2006, 22:58	For "World Cup" and "European countries" read "Champions' League" and "G14". There is football outside Europe, with a right to contest the World Cup.

Author: Max_F
Date: 25-06-2006, 02:21
Edited by: Max_F
at: 25-06-2006, 02:31

Now my coefficients after GS with bonuses (1 bonus point for reaching last 16 stage).

- zone --- teams -- pts+bon --- coeff

S. America -- 4 --- 17+3 ----- 5.000
Europe ----- 14 --- 56+10 --- 4.714
Oceania ----- 1 ---- 3+1 ------ 4.000
Africa --------- 5 ---- 9+1 ------ 2.000
N. America -- 4 ---- 5+1 ------ 1.500
Asia ----------- 4 ---- 6 ---------- 1.500

I didn't include qualifing play-off matches here, here i count only WC final stage performance.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: ignjat63 Date: 25-06-2006, 12:42	Sepp Blatter announced changes in forming FIFAs countries ranking list. It seems Germany protested the most for being 19th as opposed to Mexico and USA that are much higher placed. Blatter said new criteria will be published on 6th of July. Source - Yesterday's newspapers POLITIKA.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: badgerboy Date: 25-06-2006, 12:59	Ignjat63 I read on the FIFA website before the World Cup that the method of calculating the rankings is changing. I think it said they will take results from the last four years (as opposed to the last eight) and "simplify" the method - but no more details than that. Simplification would be a good thing I think - having looked for the first time at the "old" method!

Author: panda
Date: 25-06-2006, 13:05

On the one hand it's ridiculous if Germany is so low and the US so high. What happened in the seeding for the EC 2008 qualifiers? Did Germany suffer from a low ranking there?

On the other hand, what does it matter in practice OUTSIDE one's own continent? Mex is ranked above US - correct; but presumably they ARE the two best sides in their Fed. So are we syaing that it matters when they draw the WC groups, seeding the 'top' teams - I can't remember now, but does that mean Mex and US were in the top seeds' pot? If so, no wonder the US group was tough, but the Mex group was not. If Mex or US weren't seeded (and again, I dimly remember the seeding was about performance in past WCs), then, since the groups distribute teams from different continents, there's no real practical consequences to the ranking anomalies.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: ignjat63 Date: 25-06-2006, 13:06	badger, that was basicly what the article said. No details. But I suppose it is very hard to make a satisfactory ranking system that would cover all the continents and FIFA members. Whatever changes they make, it will be very easy to find faults with it.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: badgerboy Date: 25-06-2006, 13:09	Panda What you say may have some validity as regards the practical use of rankings but I would say that if you are going to have some kind of "World" Ranking is should reflect reality as accurately as possible. Otherwise why have a ranking at all?

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: ignjat63 Date: 25-06-2006, 13:15	Germany was so low because they did not play qualification games as they were hosts. So, they played plenty of friendlies.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 25-06-2006, 14:24

Panda

The Euro 2008 seedings were also NOT based on FIFA rankings. They were based on results in qualifying competitions for Euro 2004 and World Cup 2006.

Interesting to do a comparison of how the seedings would have differed if they HAD used FIFA rankings (taking the November FIFA rankings because these were the ones in force when the seeding pots were first announced).

The only cases where the top two ranked countries would have differed are Groups F and G. Based on FIFA rankings Sweden and Denmark would both have been in Pot B so couldn't have met. One of those teams would've been in Group G while one of Romania and Bulgaria (both Group C teams according to FIFA) would've been in Group F.

In two groups (the aforementioned Group F and Group C) the two top-seeded countries would be reversed according to FIFA. Greece were top seeds above Turkey according to UEFA (obviously as they won Euro 2004) and Sweden top seeds above Spain.

Interesting to note that - although the World Cup groups weren't based on FIFA rankings all had World Cup groups contained one team that would have been bottom-ranked if they had been. No less than four of these teams - Ecuador, Australia, Ukraine and Ghana -qualified for the Last 16!

Author: Meatball
Date: 25-06-2006, 14:43
Edited by: Meatball
at: 25-06-2006, 14:52

It is NOT true, that the FIFA world ranking was not used for seeding the first pot for the World Cup groups. In fact 50% of the calculation for who was seeded is based on the rankings of the last three years. You can find the exact method and the final calculation {a href=http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/paul20051127.html>here{/a>.
So Mexico was seeded as a group head partly based on its former World Cup performances and partly based on its FIFA World rankings.

Author: panda
Date: 25-06-2006, 15:16

OK, so as I now remember Holland was unseeded, and that made whatever group Holland was in more 'deathly.' Seeding Mexico did not produce a hard group, however, and it could be argud they played well enough against Arg to deserve their seeding.

When we say Mex 4th, USA 5th, Arg 9th etc, are we talking the ranking for one year, or are the rankings for one year themselves the product of going lots of year back?

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Forza-AZ Date: 25-06-2006, 19:45	@panda The FIFA rankings run over the last 8 years, in which the last year counts for 8, the year before for 7, ..., the earliest year for 1.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Edgar Date: 26-06-2006, 12:54	@Meatball, that formula has been changed. FIFA no longer uses the last 3 WC, but the last 2. Here is the official seeding document -> pdf file

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Max_F Date: 28-06-2006, 01:21	Now we have: - zone --- teams -- pts+bon --- coeff S. America -- 4 --- 20.5+5 ----- 6.375 Europe ----- 14 --- 68.0+16 --- 6.000 Oceania ----- 1 ---- 3.0+1 ------ 4.000 Africa --------- 5 ---- 9.0+1 ------ 2.000 N. America -- 4 ---- 5.5+1 ------ 1.625 Asia ----------- 4 ---- 6.0 ---------- 1.500 For winning/lose at extra time I give 1.5/0.5 points.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Meatball Date: 28-06-2006, 10:06	@Edgar. Thanks for posting the official document, lost that link somewhere.. Although when I was referring to the last three years, I was talking about the FIFA ranking, not the past 3 worldcups. The change of the formula had no effect on the seeding btw, which is explained in a later column on the site which I linked to.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Edgar Date: 28-06-2006, 10:35	Yes, I know that. But the formula described in that article uses the last 3 WC. Indeed, the new formula didn't change the seeded teams. But I doubt FIFA would have changed the formula had Denmark qualified instead of Switzerland. Denmark would have taken the place of Argentina in the seeded pot.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Meatball Date: 28-06-2006, 11:05	I also remember the fear that the US might get a place in the pot of the seeds. Which would have been really ridiculous, although I generally dislike FIFAs behaviour to not disclose the regularities BEFORE the qualification starts, instead of leaving the opportunity to change the formula to produce a favorable outcome.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Max_F Date: 02-07-2006, 17:37	Final standings: - zone --- teams -- pts+bon --- coeff Europe ----- 14 --- 83.0+23 --- 7.571 S. America -- 4 --- 21.5+5 ----- 6.625 Oceania ----- 1 ---- 3.0+1 ------ 4.000 Africa --------- 5 ---- 9.0+1 ------ 2.000 N. America -- 4 ---- 5.5+1 ------ 1.625 Asia ----------- 4 ---- 6.0 ---------- 1.500 Europe won!

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: panda Date: 02-07-2006, 18:15	I think this was an interesting exercise - notice how close Africa / N Am / Asia are in coeff - bonus points slightly increase the difference, likewise S Am and Europe are quite close (same thing with the BP) - Aus hard to judge statistically since Oceania only has 1 team. Of course, with Europe providing all 4 SFs, they OUGHT to win!!

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Forza-AZ Date: 02-07-2006, 19:56	@Max_F When you do it the same as for CL/UEFA-cup, then Europe should only have 22 bonuspoints, as the champion should not get an extra bonuspoint for winning the final.

Author: exile
Date: 02-07-2006, 22:40

Matches between confederations

Europe v S America W 5 D 2 L 3
Europe v CONCACAF W 5 D 2 L 0
Europe v Oceania W 1 D 1 L 0
Europe v Asia W 3 D 2 L 0
Europe v Africa W 8 D 0 L 1
S America v CONCACAF W 3 D 0 L 0
S America v Africa W 2 D 0 L 0
S America v Oceania W 1 D 0 L 0
S America v Asia W 1 D 0 L 0
CONCACAF v Africa W 0 D 1 L 1
Asia v Africa W 1 D 1 L 0
CONCACAF v Asia W 1 D 0 L 0

Pretty conclusive = Europe is No 1. Any chance of more places in WC 2010?

Probably not.

Unfortunately the worst team was European (Serbia/Montenegro) followed by Costa Rica, Togo, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Iran, USA,
and Trinidad/Tobago.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: Giuseppe Date: 02-07-2006, 22:59	yes, but it was the worst team in the thoughest group. Can we honestly believe that pitted against Costa Rica or Saudi Arabia, Serbia-Montenegro would have lost? I really have my doubts about that.

Author: Max_F
Date: 02-07-2006, 23:12
Edited by: Max_F
at: 02-07-2006, 23:21

@Forza-AZ
Y, but my calculations slightly different from UEFA's and here i think no reason to not give bonus point to final winner (maybe it even should give him 2 bonus points

).

As I have heard Oceania and Asia now 1 zone? As so, we can combine 2 zones:

- zone --- teams -- pts+bon --- coeff

Europe ----- 14 --- 83.0+23 --- 7.571
S. America -- 4 --- 21.5+5 ----- 6.625
Africa --------- 5 ---- 9.0+1 ------ 2.000
Asia/Oc ------ 5 ---- 9.0+1 ------ 2.000
N. America -- 4 ---- 5.5+1 ------ 1.625

Author: Max_F
Date: 03-07-2006, 00:00
Edited by: Max_F
at: 03-07-2006, 00:11

Same calculations on prevous WC (2002):

- zone --- teams -- pts+bon --- coeff

S. America -- 5 --- 24.0+6 ----- 6.000
Europe ----- 15 --- 64.5+16 --- 5.366
N. America -- 3 --- 13.0+3 ----- 5.333
Asia ----------- 4 --- 12.5+4 ----- 4.125
Africa ---------- 5 --- 14.0+2 ----- 3.200

And sum of last 2 WCs:
Europe ------- 5.366 -- 7.571 --- 12.937
S.America --- 6.000 -- 6.625 --- 12.625
N.America --- 5.333 -- 1.625 ---- 6.958
Asia/Oc ------- 4.125 -- 2.000 ---- 6.125
Africa ---------- 3.200 -- 2.000 ---- 5.200

Author: Magicalden
Date: 03-07-2006, 12:22

I think OC & Asia are still officially seperate. I know down here in Australia it is a marriage of convenience. It is funny how we are now welcomed as part of Asia for different calculations and co-efficients because of how rubbish the Asian sides have performed in this world cup and we made the second round above an Asian side (Japan). We represented Oceania so really it should be seperate I guess. Bring on Bahrain etc. One thing is for sure other zones will be begging to play a two legged play off with NZ etc. which will be intersting instead ogf wanting to stick us with SA.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-07-2006, 12:26

I do think this is an interesting exercise but at the same time I am glad such figures aren't used to decide the allocation of places in the World Cup.

Why? Well to some extent the figures lie. As Giuseppe already said Serbia only came out as the worst team because of their group.

The main thing though is that the level of the strongest teams in a federation doesn't necessarily mirror the strength of the whole federation. CONCACAF would be extremely weak without Mexico and the USA, Asia doesn't seem to have much strength in depth.

The figures suggest there should be more European teams. This is a "eurocentric" forum so it would be understandable for most people to support this view. But when I look back at this World Cup so far if I discount the fans (all of whom have been great as far as I can tell) I can think of a number of European teams who didn't add that much (in footballing terms) to the "party".

Put another way. Yes the best teams are from Europe and the place allocations should acknowledge this but if you actually took away the weakest two or three European teams I don't think it would weaken the spectacle significantly - indeed it might even enhance it?

Author: panda
Date: 03-07-2006, 14:51

@badgerboy

Well, equally you could argue -say- Paraguay and Costa rica didn't add much. I would say - the point about the number of places is not that all Euro teams are great, but that more places mean less chance of groups of death in Euro qualifying for WC which might exclude an interesting team from being at the finals at all.

But I am not dogmatic on this - I see the point of having many non-Euro places in terms of developing football across the world.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 03-07-2006, 15:40

I see it too as a worldchampionship.
If you want to have some great matches, you should invite Argentina, Brasil and the best 6 European teams. let them play eachother in a league format and you have 56 great matches, I expect. You can also have 2 pouls of 4 and semi-finals and finals (Iwan probably knows 10 other ways).
Fantastic about current WC is that there are teams from all over the world. European teams are generally strong, but do lose sometimes from African teams...

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-07-2006, 16:14

Panda

I was going to add that to my original post but decided against it in the end.

I think I did post somewhere else that if only say qualifying group winners had qualified from Europe then Spain would have been missing - and missed.

I also agree with your comments about Paraguay and Costa Rica but then would say most of the confederations outside Europe have near minimal representation to make a true "World" Cup anyway. Europe is the one with nearly half the places.

I'd add though that I can't see any case for more teams from Asia, CONCACAF, Oceania or even South America taking European places. The strong teams in these federations remain the same and seem to qualify automatically and there seems just enough opportunity for slightly weaker teams to have their chance. The only debatable one to me is Africa. Yes of course the best European teams are better than the best African teams. But as four new qualifiers this time shows there is much more "strength in depth" in Africa than in the other "lesser" federations. Would the World Cup be worse off for having say the 6th and 7th "best" African team as opposed to the 13th and 14th "best" European?

Author: ignjat63
Date: 03-07-2006, 16:56

I think of WC not only a competition to determine the best football country in the world, but also as a kind of "World football fair" where you can see the football standard accross the world. So every game is interesting even if lousy because it shows something relevant.

One of the conclusions is that only Africa has potential for growth. All the others are more less stagnating. CONCACAF is Mexico and USA really, Asians run a lot but nothing more than that. Oceania is australia only...

So perhaps this distribution of teams across the continents is pretty much it. I would not change anything for the next WC.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: maranton Date: 09-07-2006, 01:19	Well if we see the teams that reached the last 16 we will see: Europe 10 /14 = 71% South America 3/4 = 75% Africa 1/5 = 20% North America & Carribean 1/4 = 25% Asia 0/4 = 0 Oceania 1/1 but if include Australia in Asia then 1/5 = 20%

Author: maranton
Date: 09-07-2006, 01:28

Therefore I will like to repeat again that the representation is NOT fair.

1. Asia does not deserve 4 direct places.
2. North America & Carribean DEFINATELY does not deserve 3 places + 1 play-oyt spot. This is because ONLY Mexico and USA are of world cup standard UNLIKE Europe which has many equivalent teams.

My suggestion:

If Australia plays in Asia then:

Europe 15 places
South America 5 places
Africa 5 places
Asia 4 places + 1 play-off
North America & Carribean 2 places + 1 play-off

If Australia remains in Oceania then:
Europe 15 places
South America 5 places
Africa 5 places
Asia 4 places
North America & Carriben 2 places + 1 play-off
Oceania 1 play-off

I finally believe that play-off should be stopped because is not fair to judge a place with just 2 games.

What my prediction above does is giving 1 extra spot to Europe (well deserved), removing the play-off place and making it certain for South America (again deserved) and removing 1 place for North America & Carribean because after Mexico and USA there is chaos.

Author: Magicalden
Date: 09-07-2006, 13:53
Edited by: Magicalden
at: 09-07-2006, 13:59

Maranton, even with Australia joining Asia, there would be an Oceania section of teams. You have not taken into account how would you allocate their position (1/2 or 1/4 spot).

Agree that the 2 legged playoffs are very unfair. Being an aussie we have had to qualify through playoffs against Scotland, Argentina, Iran, Uruguay (twice). In itself it dosen't sound unfair, however we have not really had any meaningful group games in Oceania to build up to the biggest 2 games of every 4 years. This time around we got lucky through the penalty shootout and proved worthy of our spot. I think the 1/2 spots should play in a pool of games to decide which 2 teams advance. I think you would find that Australia & Uruguay would get through this way, eliminating Bahrain and Trinidad & Tobago. Probably confirming your argument about South America getting one more. Next time i fear that Africa will get at least an extra spot being the host continent and maybe it should be at the expense of Concacaf. Mexico really inflates that regions results above Africa & Asia. Even the U.S have been poor this time around.

Re: Continental zones coefficients in WC
Author: maranton Date: 09-07-2006, 14:08	You are right about Oceania. So i would suggest that in case Australia joins Asia then Oceania should get a 1/4 spot that is playing 2 play-offs before enetering world cup. The two play-offs could be played against Concacaf and Asia at any order.