BS: World Cup 2010

Subject: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Arnie
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:33 AM

For a while there it looked like England might not have been seeded for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. However, after a bit of suspense, FIFA decided on some exotic seeding ruling and we got our seeding in the end at the expense of France. It was thought that France would be seeded ahead of England, but by some FIFA sleight of hand, they ended up unseeded - just reward for 'Handball Henri' and his mates as they could now face Brazil, Italy or Spain at the Group stage and I don't think Henri's cheating will be of much help there. I know that the other home nations support whoever is playing England, but I for one am genuinely sad that no other home nation will be joining us next year - Ireland were robbed anyway and I'm sure would have won a replay against a French side who are a shadow of past French sides who never had to cheat to win a game. Nice to see that the good old US of A will be there also - there seems to be a growing number of American players in the UK league, including Mike Grella, a New Yorker who plays up front for my team.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:48 AM

FIFA should change the rule such that managers can only manage their OWN nation - if managers are not important to the COMPETITION, why are foreign managers employed?! And, as I've said in verse, club football should be regulated back to how it was - mostly locals in MEANINGFUL competition.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: GUEST,MeadowMuskrat
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:56 PM

As an American soccer fan who has followed the national team for a long time, I fully expect through some FIFA magic that the USA will get a bad draw. We ususally get a superpower and/ or a host country.Friday will tell.From a non-neutral point of view I also feel we get more than our fair share of bad referee calls. I think there may be a subtle undercurrent that does not want to see the USA succeed in International soccer. Having said that I further think the glamour national sides get the benefit of questionable calls much more than they should. The competition is not a level playing field.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:31 PM

Can someone please explai what "seeding" means? I don't understand the labyrinthine workings of FIFA at all.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:42 PM

It's the same as in tennis - stop the top players/teams meeting at early stages of the competition in order to (theoretically) ensure that the final will between the two best ones. To keept to the tennis analogy, no one would want Federer to play Nadal in the first round of the US Open - save that for the final.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:44 AM

... so that, to explain the term, the top teams are planted, like 'seeds', among the various groups [or, in tennis, at certain pre-determined points in the draw] to prevent their playing one another [assuming they win their earlier matches which of course doesn't always happen - 'Seed Loses' a frequent headline early in competition] too early on in the tournament.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: michaelr
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:18 AM

Ah thanks, I get it now.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:53 AM

I'd like to seed the ass of every South African with an exploding vuvuzela.........THe fact that the FIFA is going to allow that damned noise shows the true arrogance of the organization. I'd love to see the TV folks refuse to televise if they persist. Like a lot of others, I'll be watching with the sound off.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 02:18 AM

Once again we agree, Spaw - must be something in the water! I have long thought they should clamp down also on these full brass bands with trumpets & trombones & drums [oh no, not that!] who are suffered to play on the terraces thruout the game. Must be hellish distracting for players & officials, apart from all else...

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Stu
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:23 AM

I like the bands; they add a sense of fun to the proceedings. If some bloke paid £75k a week can't concentrate because some muso's are playing The Great Escape he shouldn't be on the pitch. I'd much rather see FIFA spend their time getting video feedback for a fifth official and sorting out the bloody offside law so it's utterly unambiguous.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:57 AM

2nd thoughts, Sugarfoot — I take it back re the bands: part of the folkie ambience indeed, like the songs. Still agree with Spaw, tho, about the distracting strident vuvu-wotsits...

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:11 AM

Yeah.....Bands are one thing but those vuvus need to gogo. Music and noise are not the same thing........LOL....well, at least in most cases!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:31 AM

If the seedings are related to past performances in the World Cup surely France having won it in 1998 an were finalists in 2006 would have earned a seeding this record far exceeds England who last won their one and only competition in 1966.
                           
I know the seedings are earned on meaningless friendlies, and in relation to seeding surely the most underhand form of this was the quarter final seedings two weeks before the games were played, this to ensure the so-called stronger nations avoided each other in the draw.
Blatter and Platini along with the rest of their con-men committee should be voted out next time round.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Stu
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:20 AM

Er, wot's vuvu's then?

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:20 AM

France had to qualify via the play-offs whereas England had one of the best records in the qualifying matches. That's why France are not seeded.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:59 AM

Sugarfoot - google VUVUZELA. You will find it is a sort of long plastic trumpet which makes a sort of amplified strident raspberry noise; much beloved, for some reason, of S African footie crowds.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:25 PM

The French view on the seedings,
Former France coach Michel Hidalgo, who was in charge of the Michel Platini-inspired side which won the 1984 European title, wa

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:28 PM

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:29 PM

Former France coach Michel Hidalgo, who was in charge of the Michel Platini-inspired side which won the 1984 European title, was

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:33 PM

That didn`t work, the jist of the article was on the same lines as my previous post, Michael Hidalgo suggested that Fifa changed the rules this time around, and had the previous system remained France with their recent World Cup record would have been seeded.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:38 PM

But 'their previous World Cup record' was four years ago - surely the seedings should be based on current form and England had a better qualifying record than France (who only got through because of Henry's dexterity).

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 02:24 PM

"What is noise?" That's maybe a thread that could run and run...

So being seeded means you are less likely to have tough opponents in the earlier stages. And your opponents are more likely to have tough opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Arnie
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 09:39 AM

I've just heard one of those vuvuzela's whilst listening to a report from S Africa before this evening's World Cup draw. I certainly would not want to be sitting near one of those during a match! A S African football official said that the vuvuzela is an integral part of S African celebrations and no match would be complete without a few of them. Fair comment - if we award the World Cup to S Africa then they're quite entitled to celebrate in the S African way. We'll know whose in our group in a few hours time - so far they've had 3 practice draws and we've ended up in the same group as Australia each time.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:12 PM

England v USA!

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Rasener
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 01:29 PM

We will beat the USA 2 -1 :-)

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: MikeL2
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 02:56 PM

hi This is in answer to Guest Meadow Muskrat,s
< As an American soccer fan who has followed the national team for a long time, I fully expect through some FIFA magic that the USA will get a bad draw. We ususally get a superpower and/ or a host country.Friday will tell.From a non-neutral point of view I also feel we get more than our fair share of bad referee calls. I think there may be a subtle undercurrent that does not want to see the USA succeed in International soccer. Having said that I further think the glamour national sides get the benefit of questionable calls much more than they should. The competition is not a level playing field. >

Well the "FIFA magic " has worked again. You drew England !!!! lol

By the way USA can't usually draw a "super power and a Host country....this is what the seeding prevents !!

And you certainly can't get all the bad referee decisions because WE always get them....lol

You are making the very same complaints that every football ( soccer ) fan makes in every country when they are not winning. We are all alike.

Seriously though I do look forward to watching next June and of course I will be anxiously watching England as they play USA. I made a remark when the draw was made " easy peasy" but my Dad reminded me that USA beat England in the 1950 competition !!

May the best team win - AS LONG AS IT IS ENGLAND   lol

regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Rasener
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:02 PM

he he

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: CLETUS HARDDINGER
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:06 PM

Iz thiz tha kinda futball yall pplay in short pantz?
CLETUS

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: GUEST,MeadowMuskrat
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 04:56 PM

In response to MikeL2, I was pleasantly surprised at the draw. I hope both the UK and USA go through, but I would prefer if you draw Germany in the round of 16. In the USA's brief recent WC history we drew host Italy and the Czechs in 1990. We were hosts in 1994, but still drew Colombia-one of the pre -tournament favorites. In 1998 we got Germany and Yugoslavia.In 2002 we drew host S.Koreans as well as another favorite Portugal.In 2006 we once again drew Italy and the Czechs.Perhaps you can see why I was a bit dubious about the selection process.
As far as the bad referee decisions , while it is a common and admiitedly slanted view , if you had seen some of the WC qualifiers in Central America you might understand my point of view.
I figure if you like soccer and presumably folk music you are an OK person. Best of luck.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: MikeL2
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 06:31 AM

Hi Meadow-muskrat

I agree that USA have had some difficult draws in the past. It will have been all a part of a difficult learning curve because by World standards the USA are still "junior" brothers.

Here in England we do have a number of US players these days. Indeed my own club Manchester United won our FA Cup with Tim Howard in goal. At that time Tim was the first American player to win a major trophy here in England.

Remember too that David Beckham (ex Manchester United ) went to Galaxy with a view to try to strengthen the standing of Soccer in the US so that they will be able to feature among the real World leading nations. But I guess you have far more competition over there with Football, Basketball and Baseball.

Thanks for the final compliment which I reurn to you because you are also a fellow soccer and folk lover.

Oh by the way.....we are ENGLAND not UK ....!!!!!!! UK would be a combined team of England, Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales.

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Arnie
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:29 AM

A great draw from England's point of view. According to John Motson, who knows everything about football, England have never played Algeria, even in a friendly. They've got a few players in the English divisions but should not pose a problem for the national team. Ditto Slovenia, although they have beaten Gus Hiddink's Russia in the qualifiers. That only leaves the USA and on paper we are the stronger team - but you never know!! However, I think the outcome at the group stage will be England and USA going through in 1st and 2nd places respectively. What happens after that will be the interesting part....

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: GUEST,AllanC
Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:44 PM

"We are England not the UK"

I'm glad you pointed that one out Mike. There would have been a few Scottish PC screens getting spluttered on after Muskrat's post. The one worse thing than Scotland being crap is Scotland, England and the others not existing :-)

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: alanabit
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:04 PM

Am I right in believing that in recent World Cups, the USA's record is at least as good as England's? On form over the past year, the USA did better against both Spain and Brazil than England did - and that is the yardstick. As I pointed out in the other thread, the USA will go into the game with more time to acclimatise to the altitude and with players who have not been playing up to the last minute in all competitions. They will almost certainly have a better goalkeeper. England should still have enough talent to beat them - but we had better not get complacent. I hope that both teams go through to the second round. If it means England get Germany, so be it. You can not win the World Cup - or even make a credible challenge - unless you can stand up to that sort of opposition. Germany will probably be very difficult to beat, but England should have enough talent on display to give them a game - and so should the USA come to that.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: GUEST,MeadowMuskrat
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:22 PM

Sorry about the UK-England mistake -which begs the question- Are you going to field a UK side for the London Olympics? I heard it was a hot topic.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 04:48 PM

It's a very hot topic - thin end of the wedge and all that. If it could happen for the Olympics, why not for the World Cup? The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are well aware of this.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: GUEST,AllanC
Date: 07 Dec 09 - 06:23 PM

"UK team at the Olympics"

There is supposedly going to be a UK team competing but it does not have the backing of the four Football Associations. The SFA have stated categorically that they will not be taking part. I'm not 100% sure but I thing the Irish and Welsh are veering towards not being involved too.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Arnie
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 05:29 AM

The Everton v Spurs match provided a bit of an ominous portent this weekend. Tim Howard, the Everton goalkeeper saved a penalty from Defoe. There's every possibility that Defoe will be facing Howard again in S Africa next year when England play the USA in their opening game, so I hope he gets some penalty shooting practice in before then! Shame Tim Howard can't become a naturalised Brit 'cos we could do with a goalie of his standard - he's streets ahead of the bunch of second-rate England keepers that Capello has to choose from.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: MikeL2
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 09:17 AM

hi meadows=muskrat

Are we going to field a Uk soccer team in the 2112 Olympics ???

As I understand it, this is most unlikely to happen.

There is a move to try to make it happen and if you believe the media, they have already approach Sir Alec Ferguson to act as Manager of the team. From the same dubious sources it is suggested that he said " NO".

England have always entered teams in the past Olympics but they have stayed true to the original amateur ideals of the Olympics. Of course they don't have a snowball in Hell's chance against the top professional sides.

Another suggested reason why the other UK countries don't support a combined team in the World Cup is that it would probably only contain England players if it was selected purely on ability.

There is some truth in this and I believe that trying to include others in the England side would certainly not strengthen it.

I agree with some of the comments here about the possible way in which the games might go, but again I believe that it shouldn't matter who you get; if you are a great side then you should be able to beat anyone who comes up against you.

Having said that it is nice to get any easy start.

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: GUEST,MeadowMuskrat
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 10:50 AM

I don't understand why the 4 football associations don't jump at the chance to field a one time only team for the Olympics. Are they afraid of losing future autonomy? It is very puzzling on this side of the pond. I can't imagine a host country not fielding a side in a sport they invented.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 11:09 AM

'Are they afraid of losing future autonomy?' Yes, most definitely. Remember, all the other footballing nations are sovereign states. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are parts of a sovereign state, the UK. Simple, really!

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Les from Hull
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 11:59 AM

Without wishing to stir things up (honestly), which Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish player could expect to play in a UK team? Why would the other Associations want to join in a UK team dominated by England players?

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 12:47 PM

Without wishing to stir things up (honestly), which Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish player could expect to play in a UK team? Why would the other Associations want to join in a UK team dominated by England players?===

Ryan Giggs?

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 01:26 PM

Would you trust a 'guarantee' from FIFA?

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: ard mhacha
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 02:12 PM

Dear Guest please don`t make that statement to a Scot, or for that matter a Welshman or an Irishman. We may be down on our luck at the minute but all the Celts need are four or five class players and we will battle the best.
The most absurd situation is two Irish teams, neither association will
bend, it is money and politics, and you cannot get a worse combination than those two obstacles.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: GUEST,MeadowMuskrat
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 03:38 PM

ard mhaca-that was me that made the statement prior to your entry. I forgot to enter my code name. I'm not sure what statement I made you would object to, or what the current state of the national sides has to do with it. I'm just suggesting it seems very strange if the host country doesn't field a team in their national sport. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that exposure of younger players to this type of competition could only help in the future when they may rejoin their respective national sides? I'm curious what the reaction to the London Olympics in general is in Scotland .Wales and Northern Ireland ? If I lived that close to the competition. I could hardly wait for it to begin.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: allanc
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 03:43 PM

"I don't understand why the 4 footballing nations don't jump at the chance"

Basically what one has to remember is that England and Scotland are the oldest teams in international football. The Welsh and Irish joined the fray within a few years. There is not much problem as far as Europe goes but many in the rest of the world wish to see the end of the special status accorded to the various UK teams. There is a long held view that under these circumstances competing as a single entity would set a precedent. The SFA have been given mixed messages from FIFA. One time being told there is no problem the next time being told it would endanger Scotland's existence. Why would they after almost 140 years risk all for an event which doesn't even involve full strength international squads and which has had no previous massive interest from the public? The Scots originally suggested that the 4 teams could run a competition and the winners would go on to represent the UK but the English FA did not go for that. As it stands at the moment I don't think the SFA could stop any individual from accepting a place in the Olympic squad but the individual would probably be banned from competing for Scotland again. The public here in Scotland seem to be firmly against a UK team.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: allanc
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 03:47 PM

"reaction in Scotland to Olympics"

To tell you the truth I don't think there is much excitement here about it at all at the moment. I imagine that will change once the games get closer though.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Dec 09 - 11:40 PM

It's a matter of tradition. The four [or five if you count Republic of Ireland] home nation teams have always had separate footballing identities, preceding the very existence of any such entity as FIFA, Euro, or any such: & this separateness has always been recognised by such international bodies. It could be compromised if a UK team were to be entered for Olympics, tho that will be the badge under which other sports will be entered [if Andy Murray enters the tennis, e.g., it will surely be as a UK, not a Scotland, representative].

And, as I say, tradition is all part of it. A sort of analogy might be drawn with a popular TV quiz over here called University Challenge, in which the various colleges of the ancient universities of Oxford & Cambridge, whose colleges are recognised as part of a federal university but as having their own traditions & identities, enter separate teams; as do the colleges of London University which, unlike the Ox&Cam ones, which are small, are monolithic foundations big enough to form their own universities if they wanted; while all other teams just represent the whole of their parent university. Pragmatically, it seems to work.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: allanc
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 05:45 AM

"matter of tradition"

You're absolutely correct. I don't think there is much opposition within UEFA(ie the European Confederation) to the 4 British team's individual status - but there is from other parts of the world and in particular Africa. The idea that the oldest competing teams should be disbanded, and in Scotland and England's cases we are talking about the founders of the game as we know it, is a complete lack of respect for both footballing tradition and for British tradition. It may be just a matter of time before our other special status is done away with though. When FIFA was desperate to get the Home nations to join they made various special concessions. One is that of the 8 vice-presidents only one member is not voted in by the confederations of the various continents. The 4 Home nations vote for one of their members as vice-president. So the UK has permanent membership of the ruling council. It may be harder to defend that one in the modern game. Of course we also have 4 votes within UEFA rather than 1 but like I say the Europeans seem happy with that.

Subject: RE: BS: World Cup seedings
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 09 Dec 09 - 06:10 AM

There's also the point that there is no UK wide football league. All four nations have their own leagues and although there are a couple of anomalies (three Welsh teams in the English leagues, one English team in the Scottish leagues) these are tolerated for historic reasons. It all serves to maintain the 'difference' between the UK and the rest of the football world.