• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Road to Russia 2018

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I agree about Oceania but I'm also of the opinion that each confederation should have at least 1 team representing it at a World Cup. It might virtually guarantee New Zealand always qualify, but it would give a chance for the islander teams as well, which would be epic.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
You give one back to Oceania and it makes you wonder why you'd aspire to affiliate with a larger and better league like Asia.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
13 out of 32 from one Federation. I know Europe has a 54 nations, but Asia has 50 including Australia and gets, what, five spots? Likewise Africa has 54 countries and gets 5 spots. South America gets, iirc 5.5 spots from 12 countries and Oceania 0.5 from 11 with CONCACAF getting 3 from 40 plus nations. Is that right or have I miscalculated somewhere?
 

the big bambino

International Captain
That's about right. Asia gets 4.5 spots. 5th qualifier faces off against North or South American team. I know Europe is a strong hold and its expected they'll look after themselves but 13 seems high. They probably deserve enough spaces to accommodate Germany, Italy, France and Spain. England and Holland too. Then another 4 I guess. To have enough places for the big guns to qualify and make competition keen for the rest. So anything over 10 spots would make me think hmmm ...

I think Sth America is 4.5 spots too.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
European qualifying is tough. There's always a few serious teams that only make it through in the play-offs. France, Portugal, Croatia. Teams with an outside shot of winning it. Swapping them out for Iran or North Korea weakens the tournament too much.

I think they've basically got the balance right. Would be good to have an explicit way for federations to get more teams in, the way UEFA do with CL/Europa qualification.
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
I think they've basically got the balance right. Would be good to have an explicit way for federations to get more teams in, the way UEFA do with CL/Europa qualification.
Yeah that's my main gripe with it. It just feels like a political outcome rather than something that's determined based on on-field performance.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
That's about right. Asia gets 4.5 spots. 5th qualifier faces off against North or South American team. I know Europe is a strong hold and its expected they'll look after themselves but 13 seems high. They probably deserve enough spaces to accommodate Germany, Italy, France and Spain. England and Holland too. Then another 4 I guess. To have enough places for the big guns to qualify and make competition keen for the rest. So anything over 10 spots would make me think hmmm ...

I think Sth America is 4.5 spots too.
10 spots for Europe would be farcical.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
European qualifying is tough.
Is it really? England seem to canter through it (with the mood generally being angry that they 'only' beat Liechtenstein 3-0, or picking up a draw in Macedonia, or something) before being cod ordinary in each tournament.*

At 2014 we had Uruguay and Costa Rica knocking out England and Italy, Mexico knocking out Croatia, Chile knocking out Spain and the USA knocking out Portugal. The traditional European sides seem to be dining out on history a bit.

*2002 probably the only exception I've seen, winning a group that had Germany in it and then beating Argentina at the finals.
 
Last edited:

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's tougher compared to some. In the end the Press ion this country haven't really liked many managers recently particularly the forn ones so they've pretty much ignored easy qualifying and played it down, for us that remember not qualifying, and qualifying with results from other teams, or getting goals in the last 10 minutes it's nice to easily do it, even if we just stink up the place when we're there.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Is it really? England seem to canter through it (with the mood generally being angry that they 'only' beat Liechtenstein 3-0, or picking up a draw in Macedonia, or something) before being cod ordinary in each tournament.*

At 2014 we had Uruguay and Costa Rica knocking out England and Italy, Mexico knocking out Croatia, Chile knocking out Spain and the USA knocking out Portugal. The traditional European sides seem to be dining out on history a bit.

*2002 probably the only exception I've seen, winning a group that had Germany in it and then beating Argentina at the finals.
Fair, but:

1. Almost all of their decline has been at the expense of South America, and nobody thinks they should have less teams
2. They have still won the last three WCs, and last time it was in Europe in 2006 all four semi finalists were European
3. Sledger's point is basically what I'm getting at. Europe has a strong second tier. North America drops off hard after Mexico and USA- Costa Rica's 2014 performance is a major outlier- and Africa rarely has more than one or two good teams. Asia rarely has any. There are always a handful of European teams better than Iran, Honduras, or Cameroon who miss out. Which I'm fine with, but I wouldn't want to go too far the other way.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Iran looked relatively handy from what I remember at the last WC. A looooong way from the worst team in the tournament anyway.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Iran's pretty good, got a decent young generation (especially that kid Azmoun) but I get what Uppercut means. And as much as I am into meritocracy, I think the fact that they share up the spots a bit more for global exposure is actually a good thing on the whole.
 
Last edited:

Top