I just hope we get an interesting group - if that's possible. No doubt we'll end up playing Sweden as per.
If Fifa use the same system as last time, that can't happen - we'll be in the same pot as France. However, whereas last time there were 8 non-seeded European teams fitting snugly into a pot, this time (assuming Uruguay get through) there will be 9. So one European team will have to be shoehorned into a group with another European non-seed and a non-European seed (in order to ensure there isn't a three-European-sided group)... so there is a very small chance that France and England could be grouped together in a group headed by Brazil, Argentina, Colombia or Uruguay.
Just a thought, seeing as rankings take more weight from recent years, surely FIFA should make all confederation competitions at the same time as competitive games also gain more points. Don't us European teams have an advantage over South American with regards to the rabkings for World Cup seedings due to the euros being a yearafter the Copa Conmebol making a higher percentage of our increased competitive points count towards the FIFA world rankings at seed choosing time?
I might be remembering this incorrectly, but I'm sure we were top seeds in '90 despite only qualifying as best runner up in a qualifying group that contained Sweden, Poland and Albania.
So you think England should be ranked ahead of the finalists of the last international tournament who knocked them out en route?
Nope. I've just looked through all World Cup qualifying by us and never ever have we been in the playoffs. (Which is what BCC said)
It wasn't in the play offs. I remember us finishing second to Sweden and we qualified as the best ranked second place side. Like I say, I could be remembering it wrong.
He said playoffs. Also, the FIFA Rankings didn't exist until 1992, so it is hard to tell how they worked out seedings...
Yep, that's why I had Argentina heading instead of Germany who I'd prefer to head the group if we're going to have a tough one. Though isn't it the lowest ranked team from the 4 play offs that drops into the other pot, and Français are the highest ranked team in the playoffs I think? So I'm nt sure it could happen anyway.
Fair enough. Just checked and it says on wiki : "The two best second-placed teams in the three groups containing only four teams also qualified (Groups 1, 2 and 4). One second-placed team was therefore eliminated." So I was at least half wrong anyway. I rememeber it just being us qualifying as the best second place team - which it wasn't
What has squads got to do with it? Nobody mentioned squads. How can you not take into account the last performance in a tournament?
Yes that's it, it wasn't play offs, we qualified 2nd but still got top seeds ahead of the team that out qualified us. So although i was technically wrong it's still a valid point. Nobody ****ing complained then.
Okay then... take into account Switzerland's performance at the Euros. Oh wait! What about Belgium...?
I'm lost now, I really am. When did I say they should be top ranked? I continue to say there's a system which everybody ****ing knows before qualifying starts. I'm not the one criticising the current system.
Remember, before then, we'd done ****e in West Germany in '88 (losing every game) and still were seeded above that Holland side. '86 we won two games. There is an arrogance that assumes we're better just because we're England.
The seedings for 1990 sound very dodgy indeed, judging by this... The six seeded teams for the 1990 tournament were announced on 7 December 1989.[14] The seeds were then allocated to the six groups in order of their seeding rank (1st seed to Group A, 2nd seed to Group B, etc.). The seeds were decided by FIFA based on the nations' performance in, primarily, the 1986 World Cup with the 1982 World Cup also considered as a secondary influence. Six of the final eight in 1986 had qualified for the 1990 tournament. Italy – who were seeded first as hosts – had not reached the final eight in 1986, and this left FIFA needing to exclude one of the three (qualified) nations who were eliminated in the 1986 quarter finals: Brazil, England or Spain. Owing to their performance in 1982 but also to their overall World Cup record, Brazil were seeded third and not considered to drop out of the seedings. FIFA opted to seed England ahead of Spain. Spain had only been eliminated in 1986 on penalties, while England had been defeated in 90 minutes; both countries had also reached the second stage in the 1982 event, but Spain had also appeared in the 1978 event, while England had failed to qualify. FIFA President João Havelange had reportedly earlier stated that Spain would be seeded. Spain believed the seeding was contrived to ensure England would be placed in Group F, the group to be held off the Italian mainland, in a bid to contain England's hooliganism problems. Spanish coach Luis Suárez said, "We feel we've been cheated...they wanted to seed England and to send it to Cagliari at all costs. So they invented this formula". FIFA countered that "the formula was based on the teams' respective showings during the previous two World Cups. England merited the sixth position. This is in no way a concession to English hooliganism".
And I go back to the point I made earlier - if all these top seeds are so inferior to England then you should be delighted that we're in the same pool as 'better teams' such as Holland and Italy who we now cannot face.
