World Cup 2010 Draw

[Craig_H]

If everyone played everyone to qualify, then you might have a point. But you dont sound as though you've grasped an actual point for a very long time.

England's success or failure means very little to me, it doesnt have any impact on my feelings, i honestly couldnt care much less. I wanted them to qualify for euro 2008, but still found it funny when they lost to croatia.

Greece PERFORMED better in their qualification group than England did, sure. But they're not 'better' than england, not remotely. Nor are they better than the 9 teams i listed above.

Greece have a fairly simple group in Euro 2008, but there's still every chance that they'll be dumped out in the first round and i look forward to reading how they're 'one of the top sides in europe' as they fly back home after the 1st week...

[johnp]

So should seedings should be based on opinion rather than results or form or anything else?

[Craig_H]

So should seedings should be based on opinion rather than results or form or anything else?

Some common sense should come into it too.

It's like when everton finished 4th ahead of us - were you going round saying 'everton are the best team on merseyside' ?

They performed moderately better than we had done, for one reason or another - but they were performing well above their weight and we were below par. Overall, they arent, werent and wont be better than us - even though the 'results' for that season said differently. Common sense knew otherwise.

[johnp]

Some common sense should come into it too.

It's like when everton finished 4th ahead of us - were you going round saying 'everton are the best team on merseyside' ?

They performed moderately better than we had done, for one reason or another - but they were performing well above their weight and we were below par. Overall, they arent, werent and wont be better than us - even though the 'results' for that season said differently. Common sense knew otherwise.

But then you'd give out that someone elses opinion is wrong and how can they say Team A is better than Team B.
Or how about, Team A didn't qualify, but they're better than Team B, so lets do a swapsy.

I get the feeling that no matter how the seedings are done you'll never be happy

Everton got more points than us and deserved to be in the CL.

[Rich]

DJS it's bloody difficult to "quantify" common sense though - there has to be some way of weighting teams to their relative ability, surely this is where their standings in the FIFA world rankings come in.

In my opinion it shouldn't become subjective, I can think of only one other place where rankings/seedings are subjective and that's Wimbledon!

[Craig_H]

For all the arguments (and many you lot are making are of course valid, i dont deny that), the upshot is that Greece ARENT one of the best sides in Europe. I'm sorry, but they really really arent.

They'll probably get further in euro 2008 than one of Italy, France or Holland - which will naturally help their co-efficient points for future seeding systems - and that in itself, is a joke.

[Craig_H]

But then you'd give out that someone elses opinion is wrong and how can they say Team A is better than Team B.
Or how about, Team A didn't qualify, but they're better than Team B, so lets do a swapsy.

I get the feeling that no matter how the seedings are done you'll never be happy

Everton got more points than us and deserved to be in the CL.

Were you going round saying (or even acknowledging to yourself in private) that everton were better than us?

I highly doubt it.

[johnp]

Were you going round saying (or even acknowledging to yourself in private) that everton were better than us?

I highly doubt it.

No, but they got more points than us and deserved to be there.

[Craig_H]

But they werent better, were they?

Same as greece arent one of the best sides in europe - as i've been saying all along.

[Rich]

To be totally honest, I haven't watched too much national team action so I find it impossible to comment on Greece; so I judge them on:

a) Their results in big tournaments
b) Their FIFA ranking (which maybe flawed, but what else have we/you to go on?)
c) Their players making names for themselves in domestic leagues.

So what opinion do I form of Greece?

Well they won Euro 2004, and weren't home nation - that has to be a big plus. They have a high position in the current world standings, and yet they do not have a squad of "stars".

To me it means they're a team built around coaching, defensive strength, squad harmony, and yes, some luck.

So which teams are directly below Greece in the Standings - England, Romania, and Scotland. Are they "better" than Greece? And how do you define "better"?

Well you could argue that England and Romania perhaps have better records at major championships, although they haven't won anything (for a long time.) Obviously, as I've mentioned them here, they are below Greece in the rankings, which tells us something. Star players, well England have more, Romania probably have a similar number to Greece....

What this tells me is that Greece probably are in roughly the correct position in relation to other nations, the problem is heightened when you look at the relatively poor position of England in comparison - where a strong squad of players have vastly under performed (for whatever reason)

(Makes me sound like I wanted England to succeed when I couldn't give a ****!)

[johnp]

But they werent better, were they?

Same as greece arent one of the best sides in europe - as i've been saying all along.

Much as we might not like, in the league they were better. They finished ahead of us.

btw, what would Greece need to do to become one of the top teams?

[Craig_H]

Regarding the seedings for euro 2008, as with any tournement that uses seedings, the top 4 seeds should be the best 4 competitors.

Of course, with uefa in charge, a shambles was guaranteed either way.

But to have Greece, Austria and Switzerland seeded and therefore separated, while simultaneously having italy, france and holland in the same group, just defies belief.

[Craig_H]

Much as we might not like, in the league they were better. They finished ahead of us.

btw, what would Greece need to do to become one of the top teams?

But you said a minute ago, you didnt think they were better than us? Which is it?

Greece might need to be qualifying virtually every time there's a major tournement and consistently (over 3 tournements) reach the last 8 - then you could maybe say they're one of the top 8 sides.

How did they get on at the last world cup, for example...?

[Rich]

1 Argentina
2 Brazil
3 Italy
4 Spain
5 Germany
6 Czech Republic
7 France
8 Portugal
9 Netherlands
10 Croatia
11 Greece
12 England
13 Romania
14 Scotland
15 Mexico
16 Turkey
17 Colombia
18 Bulgaria
19 USA
20 Nigeria
21 Paraguay
22 Russia
23 Poland
24 Sweden
24 Cameroon
26 Israel
27 Uruguay
28 Norway
29 Ukraine
30 Serbia

Or put it another way out of the top 30 countries in the world - which European Teams below Greece are "better"?

[Rich]

Regarding the seedings for euro 2008, as with any tournement that uses seedings, the top 4 seeds should be the best 4 competitors.

Of course, with uefa in charge, a shambles was guaranteed either way.

But to have Greece, Austria and Switzerland seeded and therefore separated, while simultaneously having italy, france and holland in the same group, just defies belief.

I agree that the seedings for the 2008 finals were a farce, but that's what you're likely to get when you have 2 poor home nations