Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Full Coverage Of New York's Victory Celebration

Possible Points Won by Region - Updated

So I eat a bit of crow. Europe looks likely to win the Cup at this point, but did the region win often enough to justify the representation it has at the World Cup?

Here are the numbers at the end of the Group Stage

Region Wins Draws Played % Pts Won
CONMEBOL 8 4 15 0.622
UEFA 15 9 39 0.462
AFC+NZ 4 5 15 0.378
CONCACAF 2 4 9 0.370
CAF 3 4 18 0.241

Going into the knockout rounds in order to keep things even I'm going to count all extra time games as a draw. This still gives teams that advance the opportunity to win more points, but I feel it most fairly represents the quality. Clearly South America deserves another outright slot, which they will get just by nature of hosting the next tournament.

I included New Zealand in with Asia as I feel that the future of Oceania is as a sub-region of Asia with 5 automatic qualifiers and no vote in FIFA matters.

Here it is headed into the Semi Finals

Star-divide

Region Wins Draws Played % Pts Won
CONMEBOL 11 6 24 0.542
UEFA 21 9 48 0.500
AFC+NZ 4 6 17 0.353
CONCACAF 2 5 11 0.333
CAF 3 6 20 0.250

Africa is clearly weaker than FIFA believes. The great teams of Europe are clearly great. A decent enough argument could be made that CONCACAF should get as many automatic teams as Africa and Asia. Let's recall that just like every other region CONCACAF did not send its "best" ranked teams (by any measure). Honduras didn't do well, but Costa Rica, and maybe Canada are better in most rankings.

This is true for all regions.

Maybe, just maybe at this point, an argument could be made that each of the inter-regional playoffs should be with Euro teams outside of their top 10 finishers. If Asia+Oceania gets 5 automatics their 6th would come v a UEFA nation. If CONCACAF gets a 4th automatic and 5th playoff it would be against a UEFA nation. As Africa gets cut by one to 4 automatics its 5th also faces UEFA.

I'm suggesting the following shift

Region Current Next
UEFA 13 10+3
CAF 6 4+1
CONMEBOL 5 6
CONCACAF 3 4+1
AFC 5 5+1

Really the area getting hurt the most is Africa, but right now they are clearly overrepresented. Europe isn't getting hurt, they would have the possibility at the same number of qualifiers with their teams that are on the fringes going against the likes of Costa Rica, Egypt and Bahrain in order to qualify.

The fact is that regions that do well should be rewarded. Regions that don't should be harmed. Maybe I've overrated CONCACAF a bit, I am an American. Perhaps the number 5 here shouldn't be in a playoff, but the fact is that the region is stronger than FIFA gives credit. It did as well as Asia, and better than Africa and gets less spots in the World Cup, and that doesn't make sense.

UPDATE: I went back to 2002 with the numbers

Region Wins Draws Played % Pts Won
CONMEBOL 30 13 61 0.563
UEFA 77 46 173 0.534
AFC+NZ 10 15 50 0.300
CONCACAF 8 12 36 0.333
CAF 8 17 48 0.285

Europe and South America do better when capturing data from two additional Cups. Asia and Africa do worse. CONCACAF stays the same.

Comment 19 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Nice article

I’ve been waiting for someone to do something like this.

Couple points:

1. UEFA was a clear second place and you’re taking away three auto-spots and turning them into half spots? At least give them a chance to increase their production. I think 11 auto spots and 3 halves would be an improvement over what they have now, and it would be well deserved. Not sure who you’d take that spot from though, since you’ve already taken one from Africa. Actually, you might could take it from Asia, who you just gave an addition half spot to what they have now.

2. IIRC, CAF has never gotten more than one team into the knockout stage. CONCACAF has matched that for seven cups in a row and has exceeded that in two of the last three. Why does no one mention this? I think Canada, Jamaica, or El Salvador could take South Africa or Algeria.

by Incipient_Senescence on Jul 3, 2010 3:47 PM PDT reply actions  

UEFA's 3rd Tier Teams were just as bad as anyone elses

And that’s why they lose those, well, kinda.

Europe underperformed, they sent a lower percent to the knockouts than anyone. There should be an impact to that.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 3, 2010 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Correction

Anyone but Africa

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 3, 2010 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ah, okay

So the record was just a function of their top teams cleaning house? I can go along with that.

by Incipient_Senescence on Jul 4, 2010 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

CONCACAF with 4+1 spots?

That seems a bit much. There’s a gigantic production dropoff behind Mexico and the US. In fact, I really wouldn’t want to see any of the other nations at a World Cup. 3+1 would be a lot more logical in my opinion.
Europe can certainly stand to lose a spot or two, but I’d definitely disagree that their 3rd tier teams are worse than other 3rd tier teams. You’re saying Slovakia and Slovenia(or if you’re going by this World Cup progression France and Italy) are as bad as North Korea, New Zealand or Algeria? I’m not buying that, certainly not as a structural power balance. I’d like to see a few more knock-out qualification matches between Europe and the other continents, though, and I wouldn’t mind giving South America another spot.

But besides that, you’re basing all this on one World Cup with very few games played. Clearly Ivory Coast is getting shafted in this scenario because they were in such a power group and Argentina is given too much credit for winning a very weak group. The schedule is so uneven and moreover the sample is so small, that it’s somewhat odd to use it as a basis for the restructuring. I’d want the qualification ties to be based on long-term results, over a period of between 12 and 20 years. That would mitigate the influence that schedule and temporary fluctuations (not structural changes) have.

Lastly, the existence of stand-out nations that drag the rest up isn’t unique to Europe: it goes for every continent. The point is that Europe has more stand-out nations with a long history of doing well at the World Cup than any other continent. The fact that Italy and France got rubbed out in this specific World Cup doesn’t mean they’ve lost their place as a long-term powerhouse. There’s a total of 4 structural European powerhouses: Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands.
That’s up against a total of 2 structural non-European powerhouses: Brazil and Argentina.
I’m not even including England and Spain for the Europeans as I feel England has shown over the past 20 years that it has some sort of structural problem in performing at the major tournaments, and Spain had shown the same problem until 2 years ago so their success seems more short-term than structural right now. There’s also a case to be made to include Portugal in that list, who have performed well at major tournaments over the past 10 years. There’s a similar, but weaker, case to be made for Mexico.

by Sander on Jul 4, 2010 7:10 AM PDT reply actions  

I think I generally agree with this, but correct me if I'm wrong...

Doesn’t FIFA restructure it’s WC allocation numbers pretty regularly? Maybe my memory is faulty, but it seems like this is a discussion we have after every WC, and it’s always at least significantly based on the confederations’ performances in the most recent tournament. It’s obviously not a statistically valid sample set, but that shouldn’t keep us from tweaking the formula.

That said, taking potentially three spots from Europe does seem harsh. I’m with you in the sense that I didn’t see many teams from the non-UEFA regions get left out that really “needed” to be here. Costa Rica? There’s a decent case. Egypt? Yeah, I could see that. But the list probably ends there and both those teams got beat up out by MUCH weaker competition than the likes of Sweden, Turkey and Czech Republic. Personally, I think the only glaring issue that should be fixed is treating Oceania as its own region.

I get that FIFA wants to have it set up so that each continental region has representation, but there are like five soccer-playing nations there and none of them have very significant population numbers. New Zealand, by all rights, should dominate for now and the foreseeable future. It seems much more fair to have them rolled into Asia and make them fight it out for one of their slots four slots, not one of their 4.5. In all likelihood, Australia will continue to perform well enough that that region of the world will continue to have representation.

I would like to see that spot be used to turn the half spot North and South America split to be turned into two full spots.

Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together

by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 4, 2010 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

Its funny that someone responds that I'm basing it on one World Cup

When I include data from the last three World Cups

BTW – CONCACAF already gets 3+1 and has outperformed Asia and Africa who both get 5 outright.

But I guess I would be happy with Africa losing a spot to South America as an automatic.

And Europe Losing just two autos with each of those going to playoffs with CONCACAF and Asia.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 4, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

You only added that information later

And didn’t base your conclusion on the information going back to 2002, at least you never showed you did in your arguments. Hence the criticism. Including the data is meaningless if you don’t use it as the basis for your argument.

Let me look at the data from another angle. Looking at those numbers you provide, the average number of points gained per match is 0.455. Now, ideally you would want every continent to average that amount of wins, too, to create a more even tournament. This would lead me to think that if you’re going to award spots on a continental basis, you would want the most spots to go to the continent doing best, and the fewest to the continent doing worst. If you follow that reasoning, you would have to take away spots from the AFC, CONCACAF and CAF, and award extra spots to CONMEBOL and UEFA. In fact, I don’t see any reason to punish UEFA for this result: over the data since 2002 they’ve significantly outperformed the average, while three of the four other groups have significantly underperformed. Why should Europe be punished for that? Moreover, why do you say that regions that do well should be rewarded and those that do not should be punished, but then go on to say that .333 CONCACAF should be rewarded while .534 UEFA should be punished?

Now of course, there are a few problems with this line of thought. Most importantly, you’re giving other continents very little room to grow, and awarding extra spots only works if there’s enough quality present. But perhaps it would also be more useful to look at intercontinental games only, instead of all games – though I don’t know if it would have much effect on the result.

by Sander on Jul 4, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

Perhaps looking at the median or the mode instead of the average would be more useful too?

It would prevent the outliers (powerhouse nations) from influencing the data, since the presence of powerhouses doesn’t mean the bad nations are any good.

by Sander on Jul 4, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'll try to get to that

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 4, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

New SPI is out

And it is more apparent that a major problem with Europe is its qualifying structure as they had more good teams miss than any other region.

UEFA’s best non-qualifiers: Russia, Croatia, Ukraine, Czech, Turkey, Bosnia and Sweden are all in the top 25 in the World and didn’t qualify. Biggest bad qualifier was Greece at 59.
CONMEBOL best 2 non-qualifers: Colombia and Ecuador are both top 30 in World.
CONCACAF’s best 2 non-qualifers: Costa Rico is 34th and Jamaica at 61. Honduras was at 39.
Asia’s best non-qualifiers: Iran at 45, Saudi at 50. North Korea was bad. Oceiana worse.
Africa’s best two non-qualifiers: Egypt at 13, Tunisia at 49. South Africa and Algeria were out of the top 40.

The more I look the more clear it is that CONCACAF should get 4 outright, CONMEBOL should get 6+1. Africa should lose one, to 4. Asia should expand to include the South Pacific getting just 4 slots. Europe would only lose one automatic, and that would become a playoff.

And yes, I think that South America has done enough that 6+1 ignores Brazil as host.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 4, 2010 11:32 AM PDT reply actions  

UEFA has more good teams miss than any other region

I don’t think you can possibly fault the qualifying structure. While they had a lot of top 32 teams miss, only 3 teams outside the top 32 made it in. Greece at 59 being the most glaring one, then Slovakia at 48 and Denmark at 36. Denmark at 36 qualifying is hardly a problem, Slovakia made it in by significantly outperforming Poland and the Czech Republic in their group over a 10-game span. Over ten games, that’s fair enough. Greece qualified by beating out the Ukraine in a playoff tie.

In fact, let’s look at it differently: Europe has 18 nations in the top 32. 18. So does that point to there being a problematic qualifying structure, or there just not being enough spots to fit all of those nations into the World Cup? Or does it perhaps point to a problem with the SPI?

by Sander on Jul 4, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

In fact, if you want to go by the SPI

Europe should get 18, CONCACAF 2, AFC 2, CAF 3 and CONMEBOL 7. Because that’s the distribution of the top 32 nations in the SPI right now.

by Sander on Jul 4, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Having a third of the teams in the Cup

and yet having so many not qualify in the 16 is an issue in my mind

I think not sending the best hurts Europe’s performance.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 4, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is Europe not sending its best nations?

Is Ukraine really better than Greece if it can’t beat Greece in 2 playoff matches? Is Russia that much better if it can’t beat Slovenia? Any talk that these teams aren’t the best teams at the World Cup is largely ad-hoc analysis, in my opinion. There’s not a lot to separate the 2nd-3rd tier teams in Europe, and to send Denmark instead of Sweden or Slovenia instead of Ukraine isn’t a large quality difference.

Yes, those results are in part due to luck, but the top teams already get a large advantage in never playing playoffs against eachother due to seeding. Because there are so many teams in the top 32, some good teams are going to be left out. It is what it is, and it will continue to be what it is as long as Europe has so many teams in the top of whatever ranking system you use.

It’s hard to argue this hurts Europe when the teams at the World Cup simply outperformed the teams not at the World Cup. It’s not any more problematic than the use of knockout matches in Asia or anywhere else.

by Sander on Jul 4, 2010 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

You didn't mention my pull back

I went with simply 1/3 of teams come from the non-power regions
1/3 from Europe
not quite a third from South America
host and champ

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 4, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

And what do you base that on?

Is that just your feeling? Because if you point to the stats to ‘show’ that UEFA should lose a place (which you still haven’t done, at least not convincingly), then you should use those stats as a basis for redistribution. But you’re not doing that, You’re saying CONCACAF should get 4 spots because…well, I’m still not sure. Yes, they outperformed Asia and Africa, and those two should certainly get their spots reduced, but the more I look at those stats the more I become convinced that the extra spots should benefit UEFA and CONMEBOL, if you’re going to let yourself be lead by those stats.

by Sander on Jul 4, 2010 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Europe has been outperformed for three straight cups by CONMEBOL

and yet gets more than twice as many nations.

It doesn’t do twice as well as the minor regions, and yet gets basically three times the nations.

It has 1/3 of slots, and doesn’t get 1/3 to the knockout stages, unless the tourney is in Europe.

How is that not overrepresentation?

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 4, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yet they're stilling winning more than their share of the matches

As I said, they’re getting .545 while the average is .4

They haven’t been outperformed by CONMEBOL in absolute terms (they still get more nations in the knockout stage than them), they’ve been outperformed in relative terms. CONMEBOL should get more nations in, but those should come at the expense of Africa, Asia and North America first, because those are doing a lot worse with their spots than Europe is with theirs.

If you take away one spot each from Asia, Africa and North-America, you can give three more to South America. There’s no need to punish Europe because they aren’t doing anywhere near as bad as Africa, North America and Asia are.

by Sander on Jul 4, 2010 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Sounder at Heart is a blog about the Seattle Sounders FC, with occasional forays into Democracy in Sports, Roster Management, Soccer Statistics and Life in Puget Sound. We are not the actual Sounders blog.

FanPosts

Sounder at Heart exists on Facebook - Like Us

Follow SounderAtHeart on Twitter

Sounder At Heart on Twitter

follow me on Twitter

Follow the rest of us on Twitter

Sounder At Heart (Site Feed)

Sidereal (MLS stats)

Jeremiah Oshan (top 10 soccer journalist on Twitter, Baby!)

Aaron Campeau (Villa, Mariners)

Dave Clark (beer, specfic, mideast)

Brian Floyd (all Seattle sports)

Nos Audietis (podcast stuff, snark)

Chris Coulter (photos, academy)


Managers

Tiny_dave_with_scarf_small Dave Clark

Oshan_small Jeremiah Oshan

Seattlesoccerscene_small sidereal

Nos Audietis Crew

Avatar_small Aaron Campeau

220070_1878927565922_1023267281_32093127_6825812_o_small dano_seattle

Authors

Img_0349_small malcontentjake

Small dennyoffside

Ravelry_logo_small Abbott Smith

Special1tv_o_small Timm Higgins