World Cup qualifying is finally over. We now know all 32 teams that will be competing in Brazil next summer. The next big event is the World Cup draw, which will be held on December 6.
Just like in previous World Cups, the draw will see the teams divided into four pots. One will contain the eight seeded teams, while the other three will be divided geographically (one will be the rest of the European teams, the other continents will be combined in the other two). Unlike in years past, they've changed the process by which teams were placed in the seeded pot. Brazil, as host, is automatically seeded. The other seven seeded teams, though, were determined strictly on the FIFA World Rankings. This is where the process is flawed.
The top seven teams in the world rankings at the end of October and, thus, the teams that will be seeded in the World Cup (which doesn't begin until June) are Spain, Germany, Argentina and Uruguay, as well as Colombia, Belgium and Switzerland. No Italy. No Netherlands. (They're ranked eighth and ninth.) And that also means Brazil, which is currently ranked 11th (mostly because they didn't have to qualify), wouldn't have been seeded if they weren't hosting.
I have no issues with those first four. They all should be seeded. But you're telling me that Belgium and Switzerland deserve to be seeded over Italy and the Netherlands? Please! Part of the reason they changed the formula is because they thought it was unfair teams were getting credit for past success instead of how they're doing now. Well, because of this new formula, you now have the teams that were finalists in two of the last three major FIFA international tournaments (the 2010 World Cup and 2012 Euro) aren't seeded at the World Cup. That's absolutely absurd.
The way they figure out the FIFA World Rankings is an incredibly complex formula that, even though it's explained on Wikipedia, I don't really understand. Basically, they give you credit for beating better teams in significant matches. Except, there are plenty of problems with this system. Other than the Confederations Cup (which they won), Brazil hasn't really played any significant matches since the last World Cup. This isn't their fault. As the hosts, they didn't have to go through World Cup qualifying, which is a way to chalk up a bunch of ranking points. As a result, Brazil has dropped to 11th in the world rankings. There's not a single person who believes Brazil has the 11th-best men's senior national soccer team in the world.
Likewise, I bet you'd have a hard time finding anybody who knew Belgium or Switzerland was in the Top 10, let alone the Top Seven. (And, for the record, Switzerland has two more ranking points than the Netherlands.) And even Belgian or Swiss people would probably agree that the Dutch and Italian national teams are far superior, regardless of what the rankings might say.
One final comment on the FIFA World Rankings before I move on. These are the same World Rankings that once had the U.S. ranked fourth, but, at the same time are inherently unfair to teams like the U.S. It's easier for European and South American nations to improve their ranking because of the strength of their regions. The U.S. (as well as teams like Japan and Ivory Coast), meanwhile, is the best team in its region and can only beat better teams in friendly matches, which count less than World Cup or Continental Cup qualifiers. That's one of the main reasons Australia left Oceania and now competes in Asia.
Every World Cup has its "Group of Death." With Belgium and Switzerland, as well as Colombia to a lesser extent, seeded, the chances of having more than one "Group of Death" are very real. It's entirely possible that there could end up being a World Cup group that looks like this: Germany (#2), Italy (#9), United States (#13), Ivory Coast (#17). Likewise, you could end up with an incredibly weak group. An example of that potential group: Switzerland (#7), Russia (#19), Ecuador (#22), Cameroon (#59). Talk about luck of the draw in that case!
I get the whole concept of wanting to have the most competitive groups possible, and I can understand why they think the World Rankings are the fairest way of determining which nations are the strongest and, therefore, deserve to be seeded. But there should be some discretion, as well. Because by not seeding two of the top teams in the field, you're not making the tournament stronger. In fact, instead of making sure the best teams will be playing in the later rounds, this sets it up for a better team to get knocked out early while a weaker team advances far into the knockout round.
If it were up to me, FIFA would seed the Netherlands and Italy instead of Belgium and Switzerland. I'd even say that I would seed England over Colombia, as well, but I have less of an issue with Colombia than I do with the two European teams (and the two European teams that aren't seeded). My pots for the World Cup draw would then be:
Pot 1 (Seeds): Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, England
Pot 2 (Europe): Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal, France, Croatia, Russia, Bosnia & Herzegovina
Pot 3 (CONCACAF/Asia): United States, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Iran
Pot 4 (South America/Africa): Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon
Regardless, the Netherlands and Italy not being seeded is simply ridiculous. Hopefully they end up in the same groups as Belgium and Switzerland so they can prove it. Otherwise, I feel sorry for the other two teams in whatever group they end up in (which, unfortunately, could include the United States).
No comments:
Post a Comment