Paul Marcuccitti is a passionate
soccer fan from Australia who will share his views about the World Cup in this column.
Mail Paul
Read earlier columns
|
|
|
Who will be seeded at Germany 2006: An update
Can it really be
nearly three years since I wrote Who will be seeded at Germany 2006, a look at
the way FIFA determines the eight seeded teams for the World Cup finals and how
it might apply in Germany? How time flies.
With qualifiers in full swing and the draw for the finals to
be held in early December, now is a good time to revisit the issue - especially as
much has happened since July '02.
Rather than explain the system again (and my own modus
operandi), I suggest you look at Who will be seeded at Germany 2006 before you
read on. Even if you have already seen it, a quick refresher would be useful as
what follows is, effectively, a continuation.
Right, now that you're up to speed, you might be aware that
the clutch of 32 teams that I selected for the seeding exercise has to change. Since
then, FIFA did its allocation of World Cup finals places (among confederations) and
the qualifiers commenced.
I originally had 15 UEFA teams but only 14 countries from
the host confederation will qualify this time. So one European team has to be
replaced by a team from either Asia or CONCACAF (as one of those confederations
must win an extra place). The worst of the 15 (on the basis of the previous World
Cup performance ranking used By FIFA) was Bulgaria. So out it goes. (We'll return
to the question of who replaces Bulgaria a little later.)
The draw for qualifying groups presented me with another
problem in Europe. Of the 14 remaining teams, three were drawn in the same
qualifying group (UEFA Group 7). And none of the 14 teams were drawn in Group 3.
UEFA Group 7 includes Spain, Belgium and Serbia &
Montenegro (listed as Yugoslavia in my original column). Only a maximum of
two can qualify, so I've dropped Serbia & Montenegro - the worst of the three
in terms of previous World Cups. Yes, I know the Belgians are looking shaky. But
they're not out and I want to try to be consistent about the way in which
the 32 teams are selected. (Besides, a few others are also struggling.)
As at least one team from Group 3 must qualify, I've
replaced Serbia & Montenegro with Russia. Again, Portugal might be a better bet
from that group but Russia has the better previous World Cups score.
China is the biggest qualifying casualty so far (apologies
to my friends across the Tasman Sea ... and to St Vincent & The Grenadines) so it
also needs to be replaced. The only Asian candidate (to join South Korea, Japan
and Saudi Arabia) is Iran which qualified for France '98 in circumstances that I
can't quite remember.
Now we return to the question of who replaces Bulgaria.
Should it be a team from Asia or a team from CONCACAF?
Promoting Iran at the expense of the eliminated Chinese
means that Asia has only four more candidates (Bahrain, Kuwait, North Korea and
Uzbekistan). CONCACAF has three possibilities (Guatemala, Panama and Trinidad &
Tobago). Only Kuwait (1982) and North Korea (1966) have ever qualified for the
finals so, rather than make a prediction, I decided to find which of the seven
teams had the highest FIFA ranking and selected ... no, why not leave that as a
trivia question? Who do you think it is? The answer will be in the tables that
follow.
The end-of-year FIFA rankings for 2003 and 2004 are part of
the system used to calculate which teams will be seeded so, unless FIFA alters that
system (always a possibility), we now have a lot of useful data. In fact, there are
only two missing pieces - the 32 teams that actually do qualify for the
finals and the rankings of November of this year. Remember, the second table from
the July 2002 column used rankings from that time to give us an idea of how things
might look. Even though what follows is still a "might", we now have much
more definite information.
A quick reminder of the formula: it's 50% previous World
Cups and 50% FIFA rankings. The previous World Cups component has a 3:2:1 weighting
for the last three editions (with 2002 having the highest weighting and 1994 having
the lowest). The FIFA rankings are taken from December 2003, December 2004 and
November 2005 (and each has the same weighting). Let's start with a table that
has the updated clutch of 32 teams and their points from FIFA rankings (which can
only be two-thirds complete at this time).
2003 2004
WR ER RP WR ER RP TOT/3
Brazil 1 1 32 1 1 32 21.33
France 2 2 31 2 2 31 20.67
Spain 3 3 30 5 4 29 19.67
Argentina 5 5 28 3 3 30 19.33
Netherlands 4 4 29 6 5 28 19.00
Mexico 7 6 27 7 6 27 18.00
England =8 =7 25.5 8 7 26 17.17
Italy 10 9 24 10 8 25 16.33
USA 11 10 23 11 9 24 15.67
Turkey =8 =7 25.5 =14 =12 20.5 15.33
Ireland =14 =13 19.5 12 10 23 14.17
Denmark 13 12 21 =14 =12 20.5 13.83
Germany 12 11 22 19 15 18 13.33
Sweden 19 17 16 13 11 22 12.67
Cameroon =14 =13 19.5 =23 =19 13.5 11.00
Costa Rica 17 16 17 27 21 12 9.67
Croatia 20 18 15 =23 =19 13.5 9.50
South Korea =22 =19 13.5 22 18 15 9.50
Japan 29 25 8 17 14 19 9.00
Iran 28 24 9 20 16 17 8.67
Paraguay =22 =19 13.5 30 24 9 7.50
Nigeria 35 27 6 21 17 16 7.33
Saudi Arabia 26 22 11 28 22 11 7.33
Belgium 16 15 18 45 30 3 7.00
Romania 27 23 10 29 23 10 6.67
Russia 24 21 12 32 26 7 6.33
Senegal 33 26 7 31 25 8 5.00
South Africa 36 28 5 38 28 5 3.33
Tunisia 45 30 3 35 27 6 3.00
Ecuador 37 29 4 39 29 4 2.67
Bahrain 64 31 2 49 31 2 1.33
Chile 80 32 1 74 32 1 0.67
NB: WR = World Ranking, ER = Effective Ranking and RP = Ranking Points. TOT / 3 is
the 2003 and 2004 RPs added together and then divided by 3 (the "missing one-third"
is the November 2005 rankings).
The next table brings in the previous World Cup points (the calculation of which is
in the first table of the original article) and adds them to the ranking points
listed above.
What follows is an update of the second table from the original article and
I have added a column showing each team's movement up or down the table.
PWC RP TOT MOVE
1 Brazil 31.67 21.33 53.00 -
2 Germany 28.83 13.33 42.17 -
3 Spain 21.17 19.67 40.83 -
4 Italy 23.50 16.33 39.83 -
5 Mexico 21.00 18.00 39.00 -
6 England 21.50 17.17 38.67 Up 1
7 Argentina 17.33 19.33 36.67 Down 1
8 France 14.67 20.67 35.33 -
9 USA 18.17 15.67 33.83 -
10 Denmark 19.83 13.83 33.67 -
11 Netherlands 14.33 19.00 33.33 Up 2
12 Turkey 15.00 15.33 30.33 Down 1
13 South Korea 18.67 9.50 28.17 Up 1
14 Sweden 15.00 12.67 27.67 Up 3
15 Ireland 13.33 14.17 27.50 Down 3
16 Croatia 14.50 9.50 24.00 Up 5
17 Japan 14.67 9.00 23.67 Up 1
18 Belgium 16.17 7.00 23.17 Down 3
=19 Nigeria 15.00 7.33 22.33 Up 3
=19 Paraguay 14.83 7.50 22.33 Down 3
21 Cameroon 8.50 11.00 19.50 Down 1
22 Romania 11.83 6.67 18.50 Up 1
23 Senegal 13.00 5.00 18.00 Up 1
24 Saudi Arabia 10.17 7.33 17.50 Up 2
25 Costa Rica 4.50 9.67 14.17 -
26 Russia 6.00 6.33 12.33 New
27 Iran 3.00 8.67 11.67 New
28 South Africa 7.50 3.33 10.83 Down 1
29 Tunisia 6.67 3.00 9.67 Down 1
30 Ecuador 4.50 2.67 7.17 Down 1
31 Chile 5.67 0.67 6.33 Down 1
32 Bahrain 0.00 1.33 1.33 New
NB: PWC = Points from Previous World Cups, RP = Ranking Points (from the first
table), TOT is now the total score for the purpose of deciding seeds and MOVE shows
movement from the July '02 table.
[Remember, this table is too heavily weighted to previous World Cups because of
the missing ranking points from November 2005. We'll have a look at a possible
outcome for that later.]
There has been no change to the teams that make up the top
eight and, with only ranking points from this year to come, those teams are almost
certain to be seeded if they qualify. England and Argentina have swapped places
within the top eight but that isn't a big surprise because my table from July '02
assumed the Argentineans holding their (then) world ranking of 2. That was never
going to be easy so even finishing as high as No. 5 in 2003 and No. 3 last year
has dropped their score.
France remains in 8th spot with a useful gap over United
States (the best team outside the "seeds") but the French held the No. 2 world
ranking spot at the end of both 2003 and 2004. Had they not done so, they might
have slipped.
The most significant mover is the Netherlands. The Dutch
have moved from 13th to 11th and their score is only fractionally lower than 9th
placed USA's. In July '02, the Netherlands' world ranking was 15 but the Dutch
finished at No. 6 last year and at No. 4 in 2003. Another high ranking in November
should make them the main contenders outside the leading octet.
After that it's all fairly academic. No team outside the top 11 or 12 from this
table has a chance of being seeded at the head of a group in Germany 2006 unless
a few of the teams above them fail to reach the finals. [This is why it doesn't
matter too much whether we have Russia or Portugal - often it'll just be a case of
lowly-ranked teams (in terms of this table) replacing each other and affecting
nothing at the top end.]
We'll look at one more table to help round off the exercise
(until later this year). Into the last table, I'll add in November 2005 ranking
points with the assumption that the current FIFA rankings (i.e. April 2005) will
hold until then. This will also give you more of an idea of how many points are up
for grabs through this year's rankings. Again, I'll have a column showing movement
but it will be movement from the above table, not the July '02 table.
TOT WR ER RP RP/3 NEW MOVE
1 Brazil 53.00 1 1 32.00 10.67 63.67 -
2 Spain 40.83 7 6 27.00 9.00 49.83 Up 1
=3 England 38.67 6 5 28.00 9.33 48.00 Up 3
=3 Italy 39.83 =10 =8 24.50 8.17 48.00 Up 1
5 Germany 42.17 20 16 17.00 5.67 47.83 Down 3
6 Mexico 39.00 8 7 26.00 8.67 47.67 Down 1
7 Argentina 36.67 3 2 31.00 10.33 47.00 -
8 France 35.33 4 3 30.00 10.00 45.33 -
9 Netherla. 33.33 5 4 29.00 9.67 43.00 Up 2
10 USA 33.83 =10 =8 24.50 8.17 42.00 Down 1
11 Denmark 33.67 18 14 19.00 6.33 40.00 Down 1
12 Turkey 30.33 14 11 22.00 7.33 37.67 -
13 Sweden 27.67 13 10 23.00 7.67 35.33 Up 1
14 Ireland 27.50 15 12 21.00 7.00 34.50 Up 1
15 Sth Korea 28.17 =22 =18 14.50 4.83 33.00 Down 2
16 Japan 23.67 17 13 19.00 6.33 30.00 Up 1
17 Croatia 24.00 21 17 16.00 5.33 29.33 Down 1
18 Nigeria 22.33 24 20 13.00 4.33 26.67 Up 1
19 Paraguay 22.33 28 22 11.00 3.67 26.00 -
20 Belgium 23.17 41 30 3.00 1.00 24.17 Down 2
21 Cameroon 19.50 26 21 12.00 4.00 23.50 -
22 Romania 18.50 30 23 10.00 3.33 21.83 -
=23S.Arabia 17.50 =31 =24 8.50 2.83 20.33 Up 1
=23Senegal 18.00 33 26 7.00 2.33 20.33 -
25 Costa Rica 14.17 =22 =18 14.50 4.83 19.00 -
26 Iran 11.67 19 15 18.00 6.00 17.67 Up 1
27 Russia 12.33 =31 =24 8.50 2.83 15.17 Down 1
28 S.Africa 10.83 37 28 5.00 1.67 12.50 -
29 Tunisia 9.67 39 29 4.00 1.33 11.00 -
30 Ecuador 7.17 34 27 6.00 2.00 9.17 -
31 Chile 6.33 76 32 1.00 0.33 6.67 -
32 Bahrain 1.33 50 31 2.00 0.67 2.00 -
NB: TOT = total carried over from the previous table, WR = World Ranking, ER =
Effective Ranking and RP = Ranking Points. RP / 3 is the Ranking Points divided
by 3 (as that gives us the value that this year's rankings will have). NEW is the
new total. MOVE shows movement from the last table.
The most important statistic here is France's margin over
9th place - now the surging Netherlands. It will be very difficult for the Dutch to
bridge the gap. (In fact, if, over the next few months, the French have the kind of
results that would force their ranking to plummet so far that it would drop them to
9th on this table, they probably wouldn't be qualifying for the finals anyway.)
The continuity is amazing. Despite all the
number-crunching, the same eight teams that topped the table in July 2002 continue
to lead. And providing they all make it to next year's finals, they are almost
certain to be the eight seeds. As I mentioned in my previous article on this
subject, six of the top eight were seeded in Korea/Japan and the two that missed
out (Mexico and England) would have been seeded had it not been for the fact that
South Korea and Japan were seeded as hosts. Also, if the Dutch had qualified for
2002, they would have been seeded at Spain's expense. Despite that failure, the
Netherlands will still probably be next in line if one of the current top eight
misses qualification.
I've concentrated on this topic for a couple of reasons,
apart from the fact that being seeded at the World Cup finals should provide an
advantage. Firstly, I don't like the system FIFA has been using to determine seeds;
it's a system which creates the continuity I mention in the previous paragraph and
makes it difficult for other nations to break in even when they might deserve to
(and, yes, I'm sure that's why it's been designed in the way it has). Secondly, I'm
certain that, if this method did not produce eight seeds that FIFA was happy with,
at the last minute, they'd come up with something else that did. And that would
spare everyone from a volley of bleating from one of the offended football
associations which would regard being seeding as a right.
But don't expect any drama if Brazil, Spain, England,
Italy, Germany, Mexico, Argentina and France all qualify. That's a group of seeds
that FIFA is likely to be happy with. If one of them fails to qualify and the Dutch
get in, that will probably also suit Sepp and co.
The real drama would come if both Mexico and the US
got in. Could you imagine the outrage from UEFA/CONMEBOL? [How dare you seed two CONCACAF teams, particularly those Yanks! Come on, Korea/Japan was just a bad dream, they can't really play!]
It doesn't look like happening but I would love to see it -
if for no other reason than to find out if my assumptions are correct. Anyway, who
doesn't like a bit of drama?
|
[HOME]
BACKGROUND
Info on how
the World Cup was founded and about the trophy as well. |
THE
WORLD CUPS
Detailed info
on every match in every tournament. |
COLUMNISTS
Interesting columns about the past, present and future of the World Cup. |
THE
NATIONS
Every nation
with appearances in the World Cup. Detailed info on every country. |
LEGENDS
Player profiles
of many of the most influential players in history. |
A-Z STORIES
An A-Z collection
of strange and different stories in World Cup history. |
STATISTICS
A big collection
of various statistics and records. |
MASCOTS
Every mascot
since it was introduced in 1966. |
QUIZ
Test your
knowledge about the WC. Three different levels. No prizes, just for fun. |
TOP
10 RANKINGS
Rankings of
lots of stuff. For instance Best Goals, Best Players and Best Matches. |
LINKS
Our collection
of links to other soccer sites with World Cup connection. |
LINK
TO
Some banners
and buttons for you to link to us if you want. |
ABOUT
US
A little information
on who keeps this site available. |
|
